Japanese EFL Teachers’ Challenges with the Use of Technology in Classroom Teaching at Public High Schools

Full text

Running head: EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
Japanese EFL Teachers’ Challenges with the Use of Technology in Classroom
Teaching at Public High Schools
Sayo Tanaka
Bachelor of Liberal Arts (Hiroshima University);
Master of Education (Monash University)
Monash University
June 2019
Word Count: 1,1662

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
DECLARATION
This research project contains no material that has been accepted for the award
of any other degree or diploma in any educational institution and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another
person, except where due reference is made in the text of the project.
Signed:
Sayo Tanaka
Date: 28/06/2019
ETHICS APPROVAL
The research for this project did not require approval of the Monash University
Standing Committee for Ethical Research on Humans.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Associate Professor Graham Parr, Dr Scott Bulfin, Dr
Marc Pruyn and Dr Edwin Creely for their support and encouragement throughout this
project. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Eisuke Saito, Dr Judith
Williams, Dr Lynette Pretorius and Ceridwen Owen for giving me insightful advice for
this study.
I would also like to thank my family and my husband. Without their continuous
support and encouragement, I would not have made the decision to begin this research
journey.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
ABSTRACT
Although Japan has been a leading country in the world’s technological
industry, digital devices are used much less at schools in comparison to other countries
(National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2017). Although extensive research
has demonstrated that teachers’ intrinsic factors could be significant barriers in
technology integration in teaching (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, &
Sendurur, 2012), the validity has not been widely researched in Japanese school context.
The present study investigates the issues English teachers at public high
schools in Japan experience in utilising technology in classroom teaching. By
employing a self-study methodology, I qualitatively explore the teachers’ (non-)use of
technology and its underlying context-specific barriers. The Technological Pedagogical
and Content Knowledge (TPACK) is employed as a theoretical framework and the data
are generated and examined by mixed methods, reflective journals, lesson plan
evaluation and personal history along with memory-work method.
Based on the classification of barriers developed by Ertmer (1999) and Hew
and Brush (2006), the analyses of the data identified both external (first-order barriers)
and internal barriers (second-order barriers) to teachers. The first-order barriers
identified in the Japanese school context involve (a) resources: the lack of IT
infrastructure and technical support, (b) institution: school policy, inadequate classroom
size and limited time, (c) subject culture and (d) assessment: high-stakes examinations.
The second-order barriers include (e) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs: fixed mindset and

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
(f) knowledge and skills: the lack of professional development. The complicated
relationship among teachers was also identified as context-specific issues.
The limitation identified in this study is the applicability of the TPACK
framework in Japanese ELT context. Further development of a contextually-suitable
framework that enhances teachers’ pedagogical use of technology is required. This
research will contribute toward knowledge about how to develop teachers’ technology
integrated pedagogies, specifically in language education sectors.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Problem Background ................................................................... 2
1.1.1 The Gap between Educational Policies and Teachers’ Pedagogy ....... 2
1.1.2 Japanese Teachers’ Non-Use of Technology ....................................... 3
1.1.3 The Lack of Professional Development for Teachers ......................... 4
1.2 Research Question ...................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Educational and Social Significance of the Research Problem ........... 6
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review .......................................................................... 9
2.1 First- and Second-Order Barriers ................................................................ 9
2.2 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and the Use of Technology in Teaching . 11
2.3 TPACK: A Theoretical Framework .......................................................... 12
2.4 EFL Teachers’ TPACK ............................................................................ 16
2.5 Research Gaps ........................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3: Methodology ................................................................................ 19
3.1 Research Design: Self-Study .................................................................... 19
3.2 Research Context ...................................................................................... 20
3.3 Methods for Self-Study ............................................................................. 20
3.3.1 Memory Work and Personal History Self-Study Method ................. 20
3.3.2 Lesson Plan Evaluation and Reflective Journals ............................... 21

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
3.3.4 Critical Friend: Trustworthiness ........................................................ 23
3.4 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 24
3.5 Ethical Considerations .............................................................................. 25
3.5.1 Invasion of Privacy ............................................................................ 25
3.5.2 Validity and Reliability ...................................................................... 25
3.5.3 Respect ............................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 4: Findings ....................................................................................... 27
4.1 My Start Point: What Made Me Start Using Technology in Teaching? ... 27
4.2 My Transition from Use to Non-Use of Technology in Teaching ............ 28
4.3 Lesson Plan Evaluations and the TPACK Assessment ............................ 29
4.4 First-Order Barriers ................................................................................... 30
4.4.1 Lack of IT Infrastructure and Classroom Size ................................... 31
4.4.2 School Policy ..................................................................................... 32
4.5 Second-Order Barriers .............................................................................. 32
4.5.1 Pressure and Lack of Support during the PD Programme ................. 32
4.5.2 My Colleagues’ Non-Use of Technology and Their Beliefs ............. 34
4.6 Summary of the Findings .................................................................... 35
CHAPTER 5: Discussion .................................................................................... 37
5.1 First-Order Barriers in Relation to the Existing Literature ....................... 37
5.2 Second-Order Barriers in Relation to the Existing Literature .................. 38

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
5.2.1 Japanese EFL Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs .................................. 39
5.2.2 The relationships among the Barriers ................................................ 40
5.3 Contextually Specific Barriers: Relationships Amongst Teachers ........... 42
5.3.1 Tate-Shakai: Vertically‐Structured Society ....................................... 42
5.3.2 Wa (harmony): Being the Same is Beautiful? ................................... 43
5.4 The Issues Found in the PD Programme: Is TPACK Applicable? ........... 44
5.4.1 Discussion with an In-Service Teacher ............................................. 46
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion ................................................................................... 48
6.1 Limitations and Future Research .............................................................. 50
Appendix A ......................................................................................................... 61

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
Tables
Table 1. First- and Second-order Barriers and Strategies ................................... 10
Table 2. Definition and Examples of TPACK Dimensions ................................ 14
Table 3. The Resources Utilised in the Five Kenkyu-Jugyou (Lesson Study) .... 29
Figures
Figure 1. An Example of Questionnaires..............................................................7
Figure 2. Students’ Confidence in Speaking English in an all-English Class.......7
Figure 3. The TPACK Framework ..................................................................... 13
Figure 4. A Common Japanese Classroom with a Blackboard...........................33
Figure 5. Model Showing the Relationships Among the Various Barriers. ....... 41
Appendices
Appendix A. TPACK-EFL survey......................................................................61

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
Abbreviations
BYOD Bring Your Own Device
EdTech Educational Technology
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ELT English Language Teaching
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IT Information Technology
MEXT Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology
NCUEE The National Center for University Entrance
Examinations
PCK Pedagogical Content Knowledge
PD Professional Development
PISA The Programme for International Student
Assessment
SNS Social Networking Services
TPACK Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
Definition of Terms
Educational Technology: the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and
improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources (Richey, Silber, & Ely, 2008).

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
1
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the current issues English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) teachers experience with the use of technology in teaching at public
high schools in Japan. Although Japan has been a leading country in the world’s
technological industry, technology does not have as much of a presence in schools as it
does on average in other countries (National Institute for Educational Policy Research,
2017; OECD, 2012). A survey conducted by the Japanese Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) revealed that the government was
unsuccessful in achieving the national goals of developing information technology (IT)
infrastructure at public schools by 2018 (e-Stat, 2018). The goals of installing wi-fi and
electronic whiteboards in all classrooms at public high schools by 2018 are yet to be
achieved; to date, only 22.5% of schools have wi-fi and 20.1% have electronic
whiteboards (e-Stat, 2018). In 2018, MEXT issued a new plan, A five-year plan towards
educational ICT, increasing the education budget with the goal of developing school IT
infrastructure by 2022 (MEXT, 2018a). However, reflections on my teaching
experience in Japan as a high school English teacher lead me to doubt whether teachers
will use or will be able to use technology in the classroom teaching.
In Japanese schools, there seems to be complicated and unique issues, which
delay the technology integration in learning and teaching. Even if cutting-edge
technologies are set up in schools, teachers may not be successful in utilising them
unless these issues are addressed. In Japan, there is a very limited number of studies
examining teachers’ use of educational technology (EdTech), especially within English
language teaching (ELT) at public high schools. Furthermore, much of the research in

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
2
this area focuses on the teachers’ use of technology without critically examining their
non-use of technology and the context-specific issues that affect their teaching practice.
The present study will have a great social significance in order to develop teachers’
technology integrated pedagogies, specifically for teachers and teacher educators in
language education sectors.
1.1 Research Problem Background
1.1.1 The Gap between Educational Policies and Teachers’ Pedagogy
If I were to describe English education in Japan today, I would say that “the
doctor has been prescribing new medicine without knowing the patients’ condition of
sickness”. The Japanese government has been proposing various new educational
policies regarding English education, and these are putting significant pressure on
students and teachers.
In 2014, MEXT issued the English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to
Globalization, stating that “timed with the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, MEXT will
incrementally promote educational reform” (MEXT, 2014). One of the most significant
and controversial policies announced by MEXT was the All-English Class, which
guides high school EFL teachers to conduct a class in English with high-level linguistic
activities (MEXT, 2014). This policy came as a shock for teachers, as the grammar-
translation method using the chalk-talk lecture style had been the principal pedagogy for
a long time. Teachers have also claimed that focusing on communication activities
during a class is not feasible until the National Center for University Entrance
Examinations (NCUEE) exams, which only assess students’ reading and listening skills
are fundamentally reformed. In response to these objections, MEXT announced that

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
3
English speaking tests will be a mandatory assessment in the entrance exam in 2020
(MEXT, 2018b). Aligned with the university admission reforms, teachers will be
required to make their pedagogies more appropriate to enhancing students’
communicative ability in English.
English education in Japan is now at a transition point and the new government-
led policies have been putting significant pressure on teachers. The potential huge gap
between the government-led educational policies and teachers’ teaching methods should
be re-examined in order to identify the issues surrounding teachers and enhance their
pedagogy.
1.1.2 Japanese Teachers’ Non-Use of Technology
Under the English Education Reform Plan (MEXT, 2014), the government also
aimed to develop IT infrastructure at schools; however, it has not been successful (e-
Stat, 2018). In 2018, MEXT issued a new plan (MEXT, 2018a) to develop information
and communication technology (ICT) tools at public schools by 2022. The budget to be
allocated to each local government from 2018 until 2022 is JP¥180 billion (AUD $2.3
billion) per annum, compared to the previous JP¥167 billion (MEXT, 2018a). Again,
there seems to be a huge gap between the government-led new policies and teachers’
pedagogy. For many years, the predominant form of teaching in Japanese schools has
been teacher-centred chalk-talk, where students read textbooks, take notes, complete
worksheets and take tests regularly. When I was a high school teacher in Japan between
2012 and 2016, methods such as chalk-talk pedagogy were mainstream among my
colleagues. Recently, one of my former colleagues told me that the situation is virtually
unchanged since I left school in 2016. “Two electronic whiteboards, which were

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
4
provided by the local government, were not utilised and they were left in the storage
room,” she said.
This implies not only that is there a lack of IT infrastructure in schools, but also
that teachers’ persistence with traditional pedagogy is contributing to the lag in
educational ICT development in Japan. Hammond (2014) argues that “ICT policy has
tended to focus on the provision of new hardware and an attempt to keep up with
changing technological capabilities, rather than pedagogic understanding” (p. 194).
Technology can be both useful and destructive, depending on how we utilise it. Not
only teachers but also students, parents, school administration officers and policy
makers need to carefully consider why we need EdTech for school education, what kind
of tools to employ and how we can enhance students’ learning by utilising technology.
In other words, if we are not knowledgeable enough to utilise EdTech efficiently,
technology could be an obstacle in teaching and learning.
1.1.3 The Lack of Professional Development for Teachers
Although it will be controversial to suggest that all teachers should integrate
technology into teaching, there should be opportunities for teachers to learn and develop
the pedagogical use of technology regardless of their age, experience and pedagogical
beliefs. In Japan, each prefecture provides mandatory Professional Development (PD)
programmes for teachers working at public schools, depending on their year of teaching
experience. During my first year of teaching, “the effective use of ICT equipment in
teaching” was a focus of the PD programme, and novice teachers were highly
encouraged to utilise digital devices in classroom teaching. However, I recall no
practical support, advice or materials being provided, apart from encouragement.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
5
Wong (2013) emphasises the significance of providing teachers with
comprehensive PD, arguing that “technology in itself cannot transform classrooms” (p.
260). The development of the comprehensive PD programmes including the
pedagogical use of technology will be imperative for teachers to become more flexible
in selecting their pedagogies.
1.2 Research Question
This study explores the following research question: what challenges do EFL
teachers at public high schools in Japan experience in utilising technology in classroom
teaching?
As the first phase to address the research concerns, the present study
investigates the issues within my familiar school context; the Japanese public high
school in which I worked between 2012 and 2016. In addition, “The use of
technology in teaching” can be observed both inside and outside schools and is too
broad an issue to investigate fully, thus this study focuses more narrowly on EFL
teachers’ use of technology in classroom teaching. In order to answer the research
question, I also investigate the following sub-questions:
1. Are there any internal barriers to EFL teachers utilising technology in teaching
in the Japanese context?
2. Are there any external barriers to EFL teachers utilising technology in teaching
in the Japanese context?

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
6
1.2.1 Educational and Social Significance of the Research Problem
This section discusses the significance of addressing the research problems and
how this study will contribute to ELT in the Japanese context. Firstly, enhancing
pedagogical use of technology will have a positive impact on students (Tanaka, 2014).
When I was teaching in Japan, my colleagues were generally of the belief that “students
would not understand instructions in English” and “students would not be able to speak
English in front of a class” (personal communication with my former colleagues). Even
after the All-English Class policy was issued (MEXT, 2014), many teachers did not
change their pedagogy. This circumstance made me start wondering if technology
would be a silver-lining to improve this situation.
In order to investigate how technology can impact students’ learning of English
in an all-English class, I undertook a survey in two classes under the supervision of
expert teachers in 2014. Using questionnaires (see Figure 1), I examined how ICT
equipment such as audio-visual aids could influence students’ confidence in speaking
English. It was found that students became more confident in speaking English as they
experienced more commutative activities with the assistance of ICT tools (see Figure 2).
At first, the students, who were aged 15–16, were reluctant to speak even a single word
of English as most of them had never spoken English at all, let alone in front of the
class. The number of students who selected “3: I CAN answer the simple questions
without being paraphrased or explained” and “4: I CAN answer the questions even if
they are difficult or complicated” increased in both class A and class B throughout the
year. This survey indicates that EdTech could have a positive impact on students’
English learning.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
7
Figure 1. An Example of Questionnaires (Tanaka, 2014)
Figure 2. Students’ Confidence in Speaking English in an all-English Class (Tanaka,
2014)
The present study will also contribute to develop EFL teachers’ pedagogies that
will match for the new educational policies, specifically the All-English Class directive.
In Japan, more than 98% of the population originate from Japan (World Population
Review, 2019) and only 0.2% of 15-year-old students in Japan have an immigrant
background, compared with 5% of students across OECD countries (OECD, 2016).
This makes it difficult for teachers to create an authentic English-speaking atmosphere
in a classroom (Liu, Liu, Yu, Li, & Wen, 2014). Kashiba, Otuka Sakamoto and Yanase
(2014) also argue that English language teachers in Japan are reluctant to speak or write
English in front of other English teachers as they are afraid of being criticised for their
English abilities.
Q. Can you answer the teacher’s questions in English?
1. I CANNOT answer the questions even if the teacher paraphrases or explains in plain English.
2. I CAN partly answer the questions when the teacher paraphrases or explains in plain English.
3. I CAN answer the simple questions without being paraphrased or explained.
4. I CAN answer the questions even if they are difficult or complicated.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
8
In this context, where English is seen as a foreign language, technology is
expected to be of great assistance to students and teachers (Liu et al., 2014). Digital
devices provide students a variety of learning opportunities within a classroom such as
online meeting with students in other countries. Liu et al. (2014) suggest that effective
communication in EFL can be created with the aid of technological tools and resources.
By addressing the issues involved in integrating technology into schools, this study will
contribute to the development of pedagogy in ELT sectors.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
9
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
This chapter is divided into five sections. The first section illustrates the
classifications of barriers to utilising technology in classroom teaching. The second
section discusses how teachers’ internal barriers such as attitudes, pedagogical beliefs
and knowledge are interrelated to the use of technology in teaching. The third section
overviews the conceptual framework –Technological Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge (TPACK) – and the fourth section examines EFL teachers’ TPACK
enactments. Finally, the fifth section identifies the research gaps.
2.1 First- and Second-Order Barriers
In order to investigate the barriers that EFL teachers encounter in classroom
teaching, empirical studies across the last two decades were examined. I am using the
understandings of Ertmer (1999) and Hew and Brush (2006), which distinguished
between two types of barriers that impact teachers’ use of technology in the classroom:
first-order barriers and second-order barriers. First-order barriers are those that are
external for teachers, while second-order barriers are those that are internal for teachers
(Ertmer, 1999). Based on this classification, Hew and Brush (2006) provided an
analysis of these two types of barriers and classified them into six more detailed
categories (see Table 1). First-order barriers include (a) resources, (b) institution, (c)
subject culture and (d) assessment. Second-order barriers involve (a) teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs and (b) their knowledge and skills (Hew & Brush, 2006).

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
10
Table 1. First- and Second-order Barriers and Strategies
Note: Adapted from “Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research,” by Hew, K. F., and Brush,
T., (2006), Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 240. Copyright
2006 by “Association for Educational Communications and Technology.” Adapted with
permission.
Based on the classification developed by Ertmer (1999) and Hew and Brush
(2006), extensive research has demonstrated that the strongest barriers preventing
teachers from using technology were second-order barriers, namely, their existing
attitudes and beliefs toward technology, as well as their current levels of knowledge and
skills (Dexter, Anderson, & Ronnkvist, 2002; Shin, Han, & Kim, 2014). On the other
hand, first-order barriers such as ICT policy does not have a significant effect on
teachers’ use of technology (Shin et al., 2014). Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik,
Sendurur and Sendurur (2012) suggests the significance of examining teachers’ intrinsic
factors, stating that “although first-order barriers had been documented as posing
significant obstacles to achieving technology integration, underlying second-order
barriers were thought to pose the greater challenge” (p. 423).
This understanding may be applicable in the Japanese school context as the
effective use of technology can only be achieved when we are successful in getting rid

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
11
of second-order barriers. However, the investigations of these studies exclude other
school-level factors, such as school policy and school culture that may affect changes in
teachers’ practice (Phillips, 2016). Simplifying the complex relationship between
teachers’ intrinsic factors and their use of technology reduce the importance of the
contextuality of the results (Tondeur, Van, Ertmer, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2017). As
the use of technology will be influenced by the contextually specific issues (Phillips,
2016), there is a possibility of identifying completely different types of barriers in the
Japanese school contexts. In addition, many of these existing studies relating to
educational technology (Dexter et al., 2002; Shin et al., 2014) are focused on teachers’
use of technology and the advantages of using technology. Examining teachers’ non-use
of technology and addressing its context-specific problems are imperative to developing
new insights for this research area and to developing technology integrated pedagogy.
2.2 Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and the Use of Technology in Teaching
This section further discusses how second-order barriers, namely, teachers’
attitudes and pedagogical beliefs are interrelated with teachers’ use of technology in
teaching. Although the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their use of
technology has been examined extensively in the last decade, this remains unclear.
Teachers’ beliefs are commonly classified into two categories: teacher-centred beliefs
(behaviourism) and student-centred beliefs (socio-constructivism) (Tondeur et al.,
2017). Teachers who adopt student-centred pedagogy show more positive attitudes
toward technology integration (Liu, Lin, & Zhang, 2017; Scherer, Tondeur, Siddiq, &
Baran, 2018).

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
12
Teacher beliefs also affect how teachers utilise technology in teaching (Chai,
Koh, & Tsai, 2013). According to Chai et al. (2013), teachers with constructivist beliefs
tend to use technology to support student-centred curricula, while teachers with
traditional beliefs use computers to support more teacher-directed curricula. This
validity of this understanding has not been widely examined among in Japanese school
context. The lack of research makes it incomprehensive to make assumption that
teachers in Japan would readily translate their beliefs into their teaching practices. In
addition, the participants of the previous study are pre-service teachers and they are still
enrolled in teacher education (Scherer et al., 2018). As the intervening factors could be
complicated and contextually specific (Ertmer et al., 2012), further qualitative research,
specifically context-specific research, needs to be undertaken to address the barriers
teachers in Japan experience with the use of technology.
In the Japanese school context, not only the teachers’ attitudes and beliefs but
also teachers’ lack of knowledge and skills to utilise technology seem to contribute to a
lag in technology integration into schools. Even if the school has rich IT infrastructure,
the successful utilisation will depend largely on teachers’ competence (Wong, 2013).
We need to further consider the contextually-suitable use of technology in view of
teachers’ second-order barriers including their pedagogical belief, knowledge and skills
and other interventions such as school cultures and the societal characteristics of
educational systems.
2.3 TPACK: A Theoretical Framework
This section overviews the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) as a framework to develop EFL teachers’ technology integrated pedagogy.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
13
The TPACK framework (see Figure 3) is a theoretical framework designed to account
for teachers’ ability to integrate technology into the curriculum.
Figure 3. The TPACK Framework. Adapted from “TPACK image,” In
tpack.org. Retrieved from http://matt-koehler.com/tpack2/using-the-
tpack-image/. Copyright 2012 by “tpack.org”. Adapted with
permission.
TPACK builds on Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
which covers knowledge of the variety of ways in which subject matter might be
transformed into representations that promote understanding among learners, and an
awareness of the teachability and learnability of different areas of the subject matter
(Shulman, 1986). Mishra and Koehler (2006) expanded PCK and proposed the TPACK
framework, arguing that effective teaching with technology involves the seven
components (see Table 2): content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),
technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological
content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
14
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Mishra & Koehler,
2006). Chai et al. (2013) provided the succinct definition of each construct accompanied
by examples (see Table 2).
Table 2. Definition and Examples of TPACK Dimensions
Note: Adapted from “A Review of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge,” by
Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C, 2013, Educational Technology & Society, 16
(2), 33. Copyright 2013 by “International Forum of Educational Technology & Society
(IFETS)”. Adapted with permission.
The biggest contribution of TPACK has been in the area of teacher education
and PD (Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014) and it has been embraced
as the theoretical basis for structuring ICT curricula in teacher education programmes
(Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2013). Mishra and Koehler (2006)
suggest that the TPACK framework can be used to support an argument against teacher
education and PD programs that simplistically view teacher technology knowledge in
isolation from content and pedagogy.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
15
The conceptual framework that includes technological content knowledge
(TCK) and technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) will give Japanese EFL
teachers new insights to enhance more effective use of technology. In 2007, MEXT
issued a self-assessment instrument, Kyoin no ICT katsuyo shidouryoku no kijun
(checklist), which enabled high school teachers to measure their technological
knowledge and skills of using ICT in teaching and learning (MEXT, 2007). A survey
employing this checklist found that more than 86% of high school teachers are
confident that they can create teaching resources with the help of ICT tools such as
presentation software; however, they become less confident (76.2%) in utilising ICT
resources in a classroom teaching situation (e-Stat, 2018). This indicates that individuals
seem to have basic IT literacy but lack experience in putting their knowledge and skills
into practice.
In 2018, MEXT revised the checklist for the first time in 10 years (MEXT,
2018d). The new items have focused more on the instructional skills to encourage
students to use ICT tools appropriately and only 4 items out of 16 measure teachers’
skills in utilising ICT during a class (MEXT, 2018d). Other items are designed to assess
teachers’ general skills to use digital devices including administrative work, which
implies that the instrument lacks content and pedagogical perspectives.
In comparison, the TPACK assessment tools measure teachers’ more
comprehensive skills to utilise technology in teaching (Schmidt et al., 2009). TPACK
assessment also rely on teachers’ self-reports, focusing on the extent to which they feel
competent in the knowledge domain (Scherer et al., 2018). A survey developed by
Schmidt et al. (2009) to assess pre-service teachers’ TPACK is often employed. In this
survey, participants are asked to numerically rate statements on a 5- or 7-point Likert

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
16
scale (Schmidt et al., 2009). Questions are of a general nature and focus on the
knowledge teachers estimate that they possess, regardless of context. TPACK, which is
a relatively new theoretical framework in the Japanese ELT context, is expected to offer
a new perspective for the further development of teachers’ technological and
pedagogical knowledge to efficiently utilise technology.
2.4 EFL Teachers’ TPACK
This section illustrates the existing studies relating to EFL teachers’ TPACK
enactment. Until the present day, empirical research has mostly focused on investigating
teachers’ domain-general TPACK enactment (e.g. Koh, Chai, & Tsai, 2014) and EFL
teachers’ TPACK has not widely investigated (Cheng, 2017). It is reported that among
the domain-specific studies, language subject domains (4.2%) are the least examined
ones compared to science (20.8%) and mathematics (12.5%) (Wu, 2013).
Baser, Kopcha and Ozden (2015) developed the first TPACK-EFL survey to
provide foreign language teachers with a way to assess their TPACK. Although subject
specific strategies were used to measure TPACK, they suggest that the validity need to
be further examined in other contexts (Baser et al.,2015). Furthermore, the focus was
pre-service teachers and the situation among in-service teachers has not been widely
explored. Enhancing in-service teachers’ TPACK enactment should also be examined as
it might be more difficult to change their fixed teaching styles as they become more
experienced in teaching.
In Japan, the use of the TPACK framework in education is relatively under-
researched, specifically in the ELT context (Oyanagi, 2016). Oyanagi (2016) suggests
the potential use of TPACK in educational development in Japan, arguing that the

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
17
framework has been mainly employed in mathematics and science and there are very
few studies in other subject areas. Thus, further research needs to be undertaken to
determine whether TPACK is applicable in teacher education and PD to enhance
Japanese EFL teachers’ technology integrated pedagogy. As Tondeur et al. (2012)
argue, it is essential to provide teachers training not only in how to use specific
technologies generally, but also in how to select and adapt technologies for use in
specific educational contexts to teach specific subject content. Further subject-specific
studies are needed as technology use in classrooms is “context bound” and variable,
dependent on its subject area.
2.5 Research Gaps
This section provides the rationales of limitations and implications which were
revealed in this literature reviews. This study aims to investigate the research question
considering these research gaps as below:
1. Focus on “non-use” of technology in teaching
Many existing studies related to the educational technology are focused on
teachers’ use of technology and the advantages of utilising technology
Examining teachers’ non-use of technology and addressing its context-specific
issues will give this study new insights for the development of technology
integrated pedagogy.
2. Qualitative research in the Japanese context
There are few qualitative studies examining the use of educational technology in
context. Quantitative research methods, particularly surveys, have been the most
predominant means of researching TPACK during the past decade.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
18
3. TPACK framework in the Japanese ELT context
Studies on the TPACK framework are under-researched in high schools in
Japan, especially within English education sectors. In addition, although it is
increasingly acknowledged that subject-dependent instruments might better
capture teachers’ TPACK, the instruments to assess EFL teachers’ TPACK have
not yet been well developed.
4. In-service teachers’ TPACK development
Much of the existing research on TPACK focuses on the TPACK development
of pre-service teachers rather than in-service teachers. Examining in-service
teachers’ technology integrated pedagogy will contribute to accessing how their
pedagogies can be transformed and developed.
This literature review provided the present study with insights on how to
address my research question: what challenges do EFL teachers at public high schools
in Japan experience in utilising technology in classroom teaching? As the first phase,
the validity of the classification of barriers; first-order and second-order barriers needs
to be examined in the Japanese school context. Further qualitative study, particularly
context-specific research, needs to be undertaken to address the barriers teachers
experience with the use of technology; knowledge about technology cannot be treated
as context-free. TPACK is also needs to be examined in the Japanese context to
determine whether it is applicable in teacher education and PD for EFL teachers.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
19
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1 Research Design: Self-Study
This study employed a qualitative approach, self-study methodology to
develop a deeper understanding of phenomena occurring in the social world by
collecting qualitative data. As Van Manen (1990) argues, methodology is informed
by philosophical positions on ontology and epistemology. My ontological stance is
that there is no single reality, but that reality is constantly being constructed by
individuals or groups. Furthermore, my epistemological stance is that reality needs
to be interpreted to understand the underlying meaning of events. As such, this
research is situated within the constructivist paradigm. This view is similar to
interpretivism, however, as Hammersley (2013) discusses, constructionists often
question whether understanding other people, and perhaps even oneself, is ever
possible. Constructionists also suggest that multiple interpretations are frequently
generated within the same contexts.
Self-study was influenced by earlier paradigms such as practitioner inquiry,
reflective practice and action research. According to Samaras (2011), one of the
differences between self-study and other research methodologies is the centrality of
the personal lens of inquiry. In Japan, self-study is a novel approach for teacher,
especially for in-service teachers (Kashiba et al., 2014). Particularly, the use of
reflective practice for teacher development is under-researched approach in
Japanese ELT context (Kashiba et al., 2014; Watanabe, 2016). Watanabe (2016)
argues that there is no agreed Japanese translation for reflective practice, which
suggests its novelty in the Japanese context. By employing the novel research

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
20
approach and investigating under-researcher context, this research will make a
contribution toward a knowledge to develop teacher education and PD in Japanese
education sectors, particularly for EFL teachers.
3.2 Research Context
The context in this research is among the Japanese public high school where
I worked between 2013 and 2016 as a full-time English teacher. The school has
approximately 1,000 students as a whole and there are eight general courses and
one English course for each year-level. Each class has 40 students on average and I
was a homeroom teacher of the Year-10 English course.
Most of the students at the school go on to university so they are highly
motivated to study. EFL teachers strongly encourages the students to take Eiken,
one of the most widely used English-language testing programs in Japan. The
students in general course aim to pass Pre 2nd or 2nd grade, which is considered to
be equivalent to CEFR B1-A2 (Eiken Foundation of Japan, 2018). The present
study focuses on public high schools as private schools in Japan generally have
their own school policies, curriculums and educational budgets, which makes it
difficult to generalise the research findings.
3.3 Methods for Self-Study
3.3.1 Memory Work and Personal History Self-Study Method
As Samaras (2011) discusses, the uniqueness of self-study is that there is no
one way of conducting self-study research and self-study researchers use and invent
multiple methods to arrive at new understandings. In this research, I combined three

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
21
qualitative methods to develop a deeper understanding of the current research field;
1) memory work and personal history self-study method, 2) lesson plan evaluation
and 3) reflective journals.
Firstly, the memory work along with the personal history self-study method was
employed to explore the issues with the use of technology in language teaching. As
Samaras (2011) suggests, the memory work self-study method is employed to represent
autobiographical inquiry with critical and reflective revising. The personal history self-
study method (Samaras, 2011) is also used to reflect my previous experience relating to
English education in Japan.
In this method, I am expected to be a unique participant for this study
considering my educational, cultural and occupational backgrounds. I was once a
student of the English course and six years later, I became an EFL teacher and started
teaching at the same public high school, which enabled me to reflect my personal
history in the same context from two different perspectives. In addition, I immigrated to
Australia in February 2017 and I taught at a local public high school, where technology
was much more frequently utilised in teaching and learning. Teaching in a completely
different context gave me a new perspective I did not have when I was teaching in
Japan. This self-reflection was an essential and valuable starting point for my self-study.
3.3.2 Lesson Plan Evaluation and Reflective Journals
In order to examine the issues with the use of technology in classroom teaching,
I reflectively evaluated my lesson plans of the technology-integrated classes. TPACK-
EFL survey (Baser et al., 2015) was employed as an instrument to analyse the quality of
my design for technology integrated lesson. After the lesson plan evaluation aligning

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
22
with TPACK self-assessing, I re-examined my teaching practice using my existing
reflective journals. The journals can be divided into the following two categories
depending on the phases:
1) Pre-service teacher (Two entries)
1. Before a placement (2010)
Title: “Why do I want to become an English language teacher?”
2. Before the Teacher Employment Examination (2011)
Title: “My ideal visions of a high school English teacher”
2) In-service teacher (173 entries)
1. First-year teachers’ Professional Development Programme (2014)
78 entries for the inside-of-school general trainings
79 entries for the inside-of-school subject-specific trainings
15 entries for outside-of-school training
2. Third-year teachers’ Professional Development Programme (2016)
There are 176 existing journal entries in total. The two journals were written
when I was a pre-service teacher and 174 reflective journals were recorded during
the 193-hour compulsory PD programme provided by the prefectural board of
education. For this self-study, I read all the existing journals and carefully selected
ones that are relevant to the research concern. As these journals were originally
written in Japanese language, I translated the data into English. These journals are
considered to be reliable and worth being examined as they were regularly read by

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
23
other senior teachers with feedback and advice to improve my teaching skills. This
reflective process enables me to re-experience my classroom teaching with a
different perspective I did not have when I was teaching in Japan.
Loughran and Northfield (1998) define reflection as “a personal process of
thinking, refining, reframing and developing actions” (p.15). This reflection
involves not only myself but also other various factors such as the relationships
with my former colleagues and my students, the school culture, the school policies
and IT infrastructure at the school.
3.3.4 Critical Friend: Trustworthiness
In order to develop an understanding of the current research field and
maintain the trustworthiness for this study, I asked two in-service EFL teachers to
share their critical perspective toward the research problem. Loughran and
Brubaker (2015) suggest that “in self-study, working with a critical friend offers
ways of seeking to better understand alternative perspectives on situations so that
there is a more explicit alignment of purpose, practice and learning outcomes” (p.
256). Their critical perspectives gave this self-study reliability and trustworthiness
and also helped me develop my understandings of the research problems.
One is a very experienced EFL teacher and he is also leading the Japanese
ELT sector as a teacher educator. The other teacher is employed in a different
prefecture and we undertook the same teacher education programme at the same
university in Japan. After analysing the data, I shared my interpretations with these
teachers and received their perspectives via email.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
24
3.4 Data Analysis
The data sources were analysed by the thematic analysis and data reduction technique:
transcribing, generating categories through coding and interpreting data. According to
Miles and Huberman (1994), codes are “tags or labels for signing units of meaning to
the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study” (p. 56). During the
process, I used pattern codes (e.g., 1-B = first-order barriers, 2-B= second-order
barriers). Below is the brief process of data viewing, coding, interpreting and analysing:
1. Read my existing reflective journals, lesson plans with TPACK assessment and
memos generated in personal-history method.
2. Select the relevant data and organise my interpretations in concept maps.
3. Begin coding/colouring the data according to the types of barriers and elaborate
them into themes.
4. Organise the types of data using tables and charts and make notations of emic
coding.
5. Formulate and reformulate categorises as I continue to read through my data
and memos.
6. Examine possible links and connections between the findings and consider my
findings in relations to the literature review.
7. Share my interpretations in the analysis with two in-service teachers as critical
friends.
8. Receive their feedback via email and record my reflections in the discussion
part.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
25
3.5 Ethical Considerations
Although the data sources in this study were not generated by other human participants,
various ethical issues could arise in all phases of the research process (Bryman, 2016).
The below is the three main areas of ethical concerns to consider for this study: 1)
invasion of privacy, 2) validity and reliability and 3) respect.
3.5.1 Invasion of Privacy
The data sources in this study include existing reflective journals and some
of the data have my former colleagues’ names. In order to maintain confidentiality,
pseudonyms were used in transcriptions when I referred to the particular teachers. I
also changed some other identifying details such as their age and gender. Although
the journals do not include any students’ personal information, they could be
identified depending on the way how I describe them in my transcription. In order
to strictly protect their privacy, I did not refer to any particular student in this study.
I also tried to be cautious with how I refer to my school, otherwise the teachers and
the students may be identifiable.
3.5.2 Validity and Reliability
As most of the existing data were written in Japanese language, I translated
the data into English for this study. Bryman (2016) warns that “Deception occurs
when researchers represent their work as something other than what it is” (p. 133).
In translating the data sources, I tried to present the data correctly with extra care.
When I was not confident with selecting the appropriate words or expressions in
English, I consulted a Japanese-English translator who is bilingual and familiar
with both Japanese and Australian context. In this self-study, I examined my

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
26
personal documents by myself, thus, it is considerably important for the
authenticity of the data to be guaranteed to maintain reliability and validity.
3.5.3 Respect
Additional ethical issues need to be considered to acknowledge the cultural
values in the research context. Although my background is Japanese and I am
familiar with the context well, ethical issues could arise any time during the
research process. I tried to be selective with the languages with respects when I
describe the students, my former colleagues and all the people who could be
involved in this research even if it is indirectly.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
27
CHAPTER 4: Findings
This chapter presents the analyses and findings of the data, using the thematic
analysis and data reduction technique. I organised the data sources by coding and
colouring and I classified the identified barriers into two categories: first-order barriers
(1-B) and second-order barriers (2-B). I added more detailed information by using
memory work along with a personal history method.
4.1 My Start Point: What Made Me Start Using Technology in Teaching?
As a starting point, I re-opened my existing journals recorded when I was
undergoing teacher education at university in 2010 and 2011. The data indicates that my
interests in EdTech existed when I was a pre-service teacher.
Title: Why do I want to become an English school teacher?
I would like to make a contribution to the society, especially for the English
education sector, by making use of my own English learning experience […] I
was really into English study when I was a high school student and my English
teacher’s professionalism and her cutting-edge pedagogy [emphasis added] had
a great impact on my career decision…(Tanaka, 17 December 2010)
Title: My ideal visions of a high school English teacher.
Teachers need to keep developing their pedagogies according to the
students’ academic levels, needs and interests. For my graduation thesis, I
studied “the integration of digital media and English education” with the
belief that technology would be a great assistance to enhance the quality of
English education in Japan. (Tanaka, 5 May 2011)

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
28
When I was studying English at high school between 2004 and 2007, I used
school computers and other digital devices almost every day for researching information
for debate class, making presentation resources, writing essays and taking exams online.
This technology integrated learning experience seems to have influenced my style of
teaching. As technology was an integral part of English learning, it was natural for me
to utilise it once I became a teacher. Regarding the TPACK constructs, my TPK was
significantly influenced by my English teacher’s pedagogy and my previous English
learning experience.
4.2 My Transition from Use to Non-Use of Technology in Teaching
Although technology was an integral part of my first year of English teaching in
2013, I unconsciously used fewer ICT tools for my classroom teaching. I examined my
existing five lesson plans and other ICT resources which were created for the Kenkyu-
Jugyou (lesson study) during the 193-hour PD programme between 2013 and 2014.
Each Kenkyu-Jugyou was observed and assessed by all twelve English teachers,
including the principal at my school. In the prefecture where I was employed in 2013,
the PD programmes were provided in the first, third, fifth and tenth years after a teacher
officially commenced employment with the local board of education. The programmes
included lectures, workshops and occasional Kenkyu-Jugyou between teachers at
counterpart schools. Each time I took the programme, I recorded a journal for my
professional development.
The lesson plans and reflective journals include the information about what kind
of ICT tools were utilised for each class. My examination of the data (see Table 3)
illustrates that, over time, I used fewer ICT tools for my classroom teaching, and in the

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
29
last few months of the PD I virtually stopped using digital devices. I shifted from
technology integrated pedagogy to the traditional chalk-talk teaching style in my first
year of teaching.
Table 3. The Resources Utilised in the Five Kenkyu-Jugyou (Lesson Study)
4.3 Lesson Plan Evaluations and the TPACK Assessment
TPACK assessment was conducted to measure the quality of my design of a
technology integrated class and to investigate how my TPACK was developed
during the PD programme. Using a TPACK-EFL survey items (Baser et al., 2015),
the technology integrated lesson plans and other ICT resources were re-examined to
measure my TPACK enactment. The following findings were revealed by the
assessment:
• My pedagogy of utilising ICT tools was almost unchanged in every class and
little progress of TPACK was found during the PD programme.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
30
• The lack of IT infrastructure at schools makes it difficult to assess technological
knowledge, specifically TK and TPK.
• The measurement of TK and TPK seems to depend more on individuals’
previous experience than on their current technological skills and knowledge.
• The TPACK assessment seems to be influenced by teachers’ subjective self-
confidence in each domain and their lack of objectivity.
My examination of analysis also identified the limitations of the TPACK
framework. This framework was employed with the assumption that it would be a
theoretical standard that enhance teachers’ pedagogical use of technology. However, it
revealed that the boundaries between some of the TPACK constructs were difficult to
distinguish. For instance, during the assessment, PK and TCK were difficult to identify
as separate constructs from PCK. Further development of assessment tool to enhance
teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills will be also required.
4.4 First-Order Barriers
This section analyses what obstacles stopped me utilising technology in
classroom teaching. Figure 4 shows a typical classroom in a Japanese public high
school, which accommodates an average of 40 students. The picture was taken the night
before of my second Kenkyu-Jugyou, when I was checking whether there was enough
space to set up ICT equipment. This single picture provides much information about the
issues that can affect teachers’ pedagogies.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
31
Figure 4. A Common Japanese Classroom with a Blackboard (Tanaka, 2014)
4.4.1 Lack of IT Infrastructure and Classroom Size
As there was no built-in projector, screen or accessible internet in the
classroom, I had to bring my own projector and set up the equipment before the
class. The students had to move their desks backward to make room for a projector
in front of the classroom. It was not an ideal learning environment for the students,
being too crowded for them to concentrate on their study. Lack of internet access in
classrooms is certainly another obstacle to technology integration in teaching. I
used to bring my own portable wi-fi device in order to access the internet. Many of
my colleagues were unwilling to cover the cost by themselves, which restricts their
use of ICT devices in a classroom. The lack of IT infrastructure and inadequate
classroom sizes will be classified as first-order barriers, which make it more
difficult for teachers to utilise technology in a classroom.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
32
4.4.2 School Policy
Figure 4 shows that I pinned a large piece of paper (circled, top) on the right
side of the blackboard instead of using a projector screen. Due to time limitations
and logistical difficulty, I could not take all these tools from class to class: a large
projector screen, a projector, tablet, bluetooth speaker, textbooks and other teaching
materials. Most Japanese schools foster a discipline called Gofun-mae-koudou,
which literally means to get ready for each class at least five minutes beforehand.
Although there is only a ten-minute break between classes, students take a seat and
start reading a textbook before the teacher enters the classroom. Under this
regulation, teachers also need to be in the classroom five minute before the lesson
begins. When the school bell rings, the students and the teacher stand up and bow
to show their respect to each other, so teachers must never be even slightly late.
Furthermore, school regulations do not allow students to use their mobile
phones at school, which makes a bring your own device (BYOD) system infeasible.
On one occasion during my classroom teaching, a student’s phone rang during
class. As a penalty, he had to clean the school for the next two weeks. The lack of
IT infrastructure, inadequate classroom sizes and school policy make it more
difficult for teachers to utilise technology in classroom teaching.
4.5 Second-Order Barriers
4.5.1 Pressure and Lack of Support during the PD Programme
This section analyses second-order barriers that made me utilise less EdTech in
the classroom. I examined my existing reflective journals, recorded each after the
Kenkyu-Jugyou, in order to identify the obstacles in technology integration. It was

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
33
found that every journal entry was written in a neutral tone and not a single word of
criticism could be found in the entire collection of 173 journal entries.
Title: Reflection on my 2nd Kenkyu Jyugyo
I had a meeting with twelve other English teachers and I was given very helpful
feedback for my 2nd kenkyu-jugyo, which was my first technology integrated
class. One senior teacher told me that some of my instructions during the class
were not very clear so the students were not sure whether they should have
discussed in English or Japanese [...] For my next class, I will revise the plans
and make the instructions clearer. I am very grateful to my colleagues for
sparing time for my class and giving me informative feedback. (Tanaka, 9 July
2013)
In my first year of teaching, novice teachers were strongly encouraged to utilise
digital devices in teaching during the PD programme provided by the Board of
Education, so I expected to receive feedback during this meeting about my ICT usage
from more experienced teachers. However, I recall neither discussion nor critique being
provided. I was disappointed to realise that I would not be given any practical support to
improve my technology integrated pedagogy. I felt under pressure to say something
positive and did not feel free to speak my mind during the PD programme, even when I
required assistance from other teachers. Consequently, I started feeling isolated as I
perceived myself as doing something unmeaningful or unnecessary – that is, utilising
technology in a classroom. At last, I shifted to a traditional chalk-talk teaching style.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
34
4.5.2 My Colleagues’ Non-Use of Technology and Their Beliefs
In order to expand my understanding of the non-use of technology in teaching, I
critically reflected on my teaching practice, employing memory work along with the
personal history self-study method. That revealed that my transition from use of
technology to non-use of technology arose from the relationship with my colleagues and
their absolute beliefs. When I was a novice teacher, most of my colleagues’ pedagogy
was teacher-centred lecture style. Once a very experienced teacher witnessed me using a
tablet and PowerPoint in a classroom and she said to me, “Tanaka-sensei
1
, the goal for
most of the students at this school is to be successful in the university entrance exams
and to go to a good university. Our responsibility is to teach them in a way that achieves
their goals” (personal communication with my former colleague). Another experienced
teacher told me that he would retire if he was forced to use digital devices in teaching
(personal communication with my former colleague). These attitudes were not
uncommon among the teachers; hence, I felt some guilt towards trying something
different from what other teachers were doing.
“Because you are young.” This remark also made me feel uncomfortable about
doing something that was unusual among teachers. When I was making resources for
my class using apps, an experienced teacher told me “you can do this as you are
young.” When the students in my class displayed high levels of academic performance
1
sensei literally means teacher in Japanese and it is used after a person’s name. It shows respect to someone who is
knowledgeable or high in profession.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
35
in the exam, I was told that “because you are young, the students in your class become
more motivated to study English” (personal communication with my former colleague).
I could read their intention as an unspoken rule: “Just do what others are doing”.
As a teacher, trying something unusual came at the risk of criticism from other teachers
if you failed to achieve the goals. I had few colleagues with whom to share my
challenges or discuss issues regarding everyday teaching practice, and there were few
opportunities to improve my technology integrated pedagogy; the result for me was a
shift from use to non-use of technology.
This atmosphere, namely, the unique relationship among teachers should be re-
examined as one of the barriers that affect teachers’ use of technology in teaching. In
relation to existing knowledge that categorised the barriers into six categories (Hew &
Brush, 2006), the complicated relationships with other teachers seem to be difficult to
classify into the categories, which implies that it is a contextually specific barrier in
Japanese schools.
4.6 Summary of the Findings
This chapter analysed the barriers that EFL teachers experience in the use of
technology at Japanese high schools. It revealed the following key findings: firstly, my
utilisation of technology in teaching seems to have been influenced by my own English
learning experience and my English teachers’ technology integrated pedagogy. As
technology was an integral part of my English learning, it was natural for me to utilise it
once I became a teacher. However, I shifted from the technology integrated pedagogy to
the traditional chalk-talk teaching style during the PD programme. My examination of

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
36
analyses found both first-order barriers and second-order barriers that could influence
my pedagogical transition.
Significant first-order barriers in the Japanese context involve the lack of IT
infrastructure such as inaccessible internet, inadequate classroom size and the unique
and strict school regulations. Second-order barriers in the current research context
include the lack of support and PD, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs and pressure to be
successful in exams. The complicated relationships with other teachers seem to be
difficult to classify into the six categories. Thus, it is considered to be a contextually
specific barrier in Japanese schools.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
37
CHAPTER 5: Discussion
This chapter discusses the findings of this study in relation to existing
knowledge of barriers to technology integration for EFL teachers. I shared my
interpretations with two in-service high school teachers in Japan, which deepened my
understandings in the current research context and enhanced the reliability of this study.
5.1 First-Order Barriers in Relation to the Existing Literature
The data analysis found that, in Japanese schools, significant first-order
barriers involve the lack of IT infrastructure, Internet connectivity, inadequate
classroom size and school policy. Although some schools have introduced the
BYOD system without increasing school expenditure, it will not be feasible
nationwide as most public schools in Japan prohibit the use of digital devices at
school under strict school regulations. These regulations are based on a policy
published by MEXT in 2009, which found that using mobile phones during class
interrupts students’ concentration on study (MEXT, 2009). As Shah (2015)
illustrates, inaccessible internet is certainly one of the difficulties that hampers the
possibility of using ICT in classroom teaching.
In relation to the existing knowledge that classified the barriers into six
categories (Hew & Brush, 2006), the identified first-order barriers in this study will be
categorised into (a) resources: the lack of IT infrastructure and technical support; (b)
institution: school policy, inadequate classroom size and limited preparation time; (c)
subject culture and (e) assessment: high-stakes examinations such as entrance exams.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
38
Two in-service teachers shared their thoughts regarding the first-order barriers
that can be found in Japanese high schools. One EFL teacher told me that although the
IT infrastructure has been improving at his school, the brand-new digital devices such
as electronic whiteboards are not efficiently utilised in class. He told me that the school
administration returned their educational budgets, which were allocated for ICT
recourses, to the local government as there was little possibility of teachers utilising the
digital devices. Another EFL teacher, who was employed in a different prefecture, told
me that built-in projectors, screens and speakers are installed in most public high
schools throughout the prefecture; however, many teachers have not changed their
chalk-talk pedagogy as they don’t find the need to use these ICT resources.
These situations support the existing knowledge, discussed in the literature
review: that is, the strongest barriers preventing teachers from using technology are
their existing attitudes towards technology, as well as their current levels of knowledge
and skills (Ertmer et al., 2012). In Japanese schools, teachers’ fixed mindsets and their
persistence with traditional teacher-centred pedagogy seem to contribute to the lag of
technology integration in teaching. The instalment of ICT equipment does not always
lead to the effective use of technology; educational and meaningful technology
integration in teaching depend on second-order barriers.
5.2 Second-Order Barriers in Relation to the Existing Literature
This section discusses the identified second-order barriers in relation to the
existing literature. Based on the understanding of Hew and Brush (2006), the
barriers that are internal to EFL teachers can be classified as follows: (e) teachers’
attitudes and beliefs: teachers’ conservative attitudes and pedagogical beliefs and

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
39
(f) teachers’ knowledge and skills: the lack of support and PD. The “complicated
relationships with other teachers” seem to be difficult to classify into the six
categories, which implies that it is a contextually specific barrier in Japanese
schools.
5.2.1 Japanese EFL Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs
According to Simpson, Koballa, Oliver and Crawley (1994), attitudes can be
defined as specific feelings that indicate whether a person likes or dislikes something.
Hew and Brush (2006) state that beliefs are the premises or suppositions about
something that are felt to be true and teachers’ beliefs include their pedagogical beliefs
and their beliefs about technology. Teachers in the Japanese ELT context will be
classified into two categories in this study, depending on their attitudes and beliefs. The
first classification is those who have such a degree of confidence in their pedagogies
that they would not change their teaching style. Their confidence is interconnected with
success in assessment; specifically, their students’ success in the entrance exams.
Hennessy, Ruthven and Brindley (2005) argue that there is a perceived tension between
using technology and the need to conform to the external requirements of traditional
examinations. We cannot deny the fact that it is more efficient to teach English in the
teacher-centred chalk-talk style if a teachers’ only aim is to make students successful in
the current knowledge-based entrance exams. Many teachers will persist with the
current pedagogies unless the entrance exams are fundamentally reformed.
The second classification of teachers is those who are afraid of taking risks by
trying something new and unusual. According to Dweck (2006), “learners with a fixed
mindset are vulnerable to failure and therefore less willing to undertake more

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
40
challenging tasks as making a mistake would reflect badly on their intelligence” (p. 49).
This theory is applicable not only to learners but also to teachers. One of the differences
between learners and teachers is that teachers are not allowed to fail, while learners,
even if they fail once, can try again. In this research context, teachers are responsible for
the students’ academic performance and they can never fail.
At most public high schools, teachers regularly meet to examine students’
academic performance in exams. At my school, the results of each exam were examined
and compared among nine classes, with particular teachers being criticised or praised in
front of other teachers. Due to the pressure and high expectations of improving
students’ academic levels, teachers stop trying new methods and end up persisting with
the common pedagogies. With both types of teachers, their fixed attitudes and
pedagogical beliefs seem to be strongly connected to assessment and the fear of being
criticised by colleagues.
5.2.2 The relationships among the Barriers
In the current research context, second-order barriers such as teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs and assessment seem to be interrelated with each other (see Figure 5). Hew
and Brush (2006) state that “assessment indirectly affects technology integration
because the form of assessment typically dictates both how a subject should be taught
and assessed and thus how technology should be used” (p. 232).
One example found in Japanese schools is the entrance exams. Teachers are not
willing to change their pedagogy as long as they are being successful in achieving their
goals. To borrow the term of Hammond (2014), “When teachers talk about their work,

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
41
they offer their own interpretations of their goals and the ways in which they evaluate
learners and learning” (p. 194).
Figure 5. Model Showing the Relationships Among the Various Barriers.
Adapted from “Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research,” by Hew, K. F. and Brush,
T, 2006, Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 231. Copyright
2006 by “Association for Educational Communications and Technology”. Adapted with
permission.
Another example showing that assessment impacts on teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Although digital
devices are used much less at Japanese schools compared to other OECD countries
(National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2017; OECD, 2012), Japan has
been ranked in the top 10 in all three assessment since 2009: science, mathematics and

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
42
reading (OECD, 2016). This achievement may be providing a good excuse for the
government, school policy makers, administration and teachers for not promoting
technology in teaching.
However, the latest assessment, conducted in 2015 showed that the lack of
experience in utilising EdTech in learning could degrade students’ academic
performance in PISA (National Institute for Educational Policy Research, 2017). The
former minister of MEXT issued an official comment on the result of PISA in 2015 and
he stated that students were bewildered by the internet-based reading assessment, which
led to a drop-in performance from previous years (National Institute for Educational
Policy Research, 2017). This indicates an acknowledgement by the government that
Japan has been left behind in the EdTech revolution and this needs to be addressed
urgently, given that IT literacy is considered to be one of the fundamental skills in the
twenty first century.
5.3 Contextually Specific Barriers: Relationships Amongst Teachers
5.3.1 Tate-Shakai: Vertically‐Structured Society
One context-specific barrier that affects technology integration in Japanese
schools is the unique and complicated relationships amongst teachers. Relationships in
Japan are viewed through a unique spectrum; tate-shakai, literally means “vertically
structured society.” In Japan, people use a special form of language called Keigo to
show their respect if the person is older than him/her, even by just one year. According
to a survey conducted by MEXT in 2018, the average age (46) of teachers at public high
schools was at its highest level since recording started in 1977 (MEXT, 2018c). Tate-
shakai can be observed among teachers, specifically in the way young teachers follow

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
43
what senior teachers do, including emulating their teaching styles. This in-grained social
hierarchy makes it more difficult for teachers, particularly young teachers, to challenge
old ways with a new approach.
Previous studies found that ICT use decreases with teachers’ age and experience
in the classroom; younger teachers are more willing to incorporate ICT tools into their
teaching than their older counterparts (Inan & Lowther, 2010). I recall my first one-on-
one meeting with my school principle, when he asked me, “What do you think about
electronic dictionaries?” He suggested that teachers and students should use a paper
dictionary, without realising that most of the students were already using electronic
dictionaries in the classroom daily. These senior teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are likely
to have a strong impact on other teachers, which contributes to the lag of educational
ICT development in Japan.
5.3.2 Wa (harmony): Being the Same is Beautiful?
Another cultural aspect that creates unique relationships among teachers is wa
(harmony). According to Bauman (1994), wa is “a peaceful unity and conformity within
a social group, in which members prefer the continuation of a harmonious community
over their personal interests” (p. 12). This mindset, which exists in the wider Japanese
culture, also influences teachers’ pedagogical beliefs.
I was born in Japan and lived there for 29 years before moving to Australia in
2017, so my identity is deeply rooted in Japanese culture. Living and teaching in
Australia gave me a different perspective from which to observe the Japanese context.
When I was teaching at a public high school in Australia, I saw my colleague saying to
the students, “We have to respect others as we are all different.” This perspective was

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
44
completely opposite to what I was taught and what I taught my students. The common
idea shared among Japanese people is that “we have to respect others as we are all the
same (human).” This indicates that, in the Japanese context, being the same as others is
considered to be important for maintaining harmony, unity and peace in a community.
This phenomenon can be observed among Japanese teachers as well.
Teachers in Japanese schools believe that maintaining wa is more important than
an individual’s development, so teachers carefully observe what other teachers are
doing and try not to disturb wa. They do this by teaching in the same style and using the
same teaching materials.
5.4 The Issues Found in the PD Programme: Is TPACK Applicable?
This section investigates the issues in developing the PD programme that
enhances EFL teachers’ technology integrated pedagogy. The data revealed that the lack
of PD and support for teachers have been barriers to technology integration. In my
reflective journals that were recorded during the PD programme, there were not any
single critiques/negative words. Watanabe (2016) discusses that when we examine the
Japanese school context, status differences need to be considered, especially where
strong distinction is made between private truth (honne) and public expression
(tatemae). Nae (2003) also argues that “by conforming to the larger cultural
expectation, the individual must subsume the private self to the social unit and one
disguises ones’ real intent (honne)” (p, 41). In the excerpt above, the issue that I was
facing at that time is being demonstrated. As each journal entry was read by other senior
teachers and the school principal, it was hard for me to write my honne and to share my

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
45
critical view toward the PD programme. PD will not have any positive impact if
teachers cannot speak their minds and share their difficulties with other teachers.
When I was given an opportunity to teach a demonstration class using ICT tools
in front of all the English teachers, the feedback I received relating to ICT was all
surprisingly positive. Hammond (2014) argues that “when educators and school leaders
have provided support and sustained critical feedback, teachers would be able to
develop their use of technology in ways that appeal to learners and to their wider
professional development goals” (p. 198). Honest and more critical discussions among
teachers (honne) are imperative to developing their professionalism.
In order to develop the quality of the PD programmes that enhance teachers’
efficient use of technology, there need to be a theoretical standard that can be shared
among teachers. This study employed the TPACK framework with an expectation that it
would become a useful framework for the PD programmes in Japanese EFL context.
However, my examination of analysis identified the limitations of the TPACK
framework. Firstly, the boundaries between some of the TPACK constructs were
unclear and difficult to distinguish (Tondeur et al., 2012). In particular, PK and TCK
were difficult to identify as separate constructs from PCK.
In addition, some items in TPACK-EFL survey (Baser et al., 2015) do not seem
to applicable in the Japanese ELT context. For instance, most of the items of CK assess
teachers’ English ability rather than their comprehensive subject knowledge (e.g. I can
express my ideas and feelings by speaking in English (see Appendix A). Given that the
use of EdTech is contextually specific, further development of assessment tool to
enhanve teachers’ technology integration knowledge and skills will be also required.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
46
The TPACK-EFL survey (see Appendix A) also includes the items to assess
teachers’ collaborative skills in utilising ICT tools. (e.g. PK: I can collaborate with
school stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, etc.) to support students’ learning). In
Japanese context, where the complicated relationship could be an obstacle in technology
integration, there needs to be a strong intervention to make a change in the unique
context.
5.4.1 Discussion with an In-Service Teacher
In order to expand my understanding and maintain trustworthiness of this study,
I shared my interpretation with an in-service teacher in Japan. Loughran and Brubaker
(2015) acknowledge additional benefits of critical views in self-study, stating that “By
providing an alternative lens on one’s work and advocating for it with fresh eyes,
critical friends can be helpful for overcoming prejudice” (p. 256).
The teacher, who shared his valuable insight for this study, is a very experienced
EFL teacher who is also employed in the same prefecture, where I was used to be
employed. Thus, I could update my understanding toward the current situation among
the Japanese schools. Firstly, it was found that we have a common understanding
towards the barriers that can be observed in Japanese schools. “In technology
integration, teacher readiness or unwillingness is a matter. Young teachers show
positive attitudes toward EdTech, while experienced senior teachers do not believe that
they can utilise technology. For the latter, I tell them the advantages of utilising
technology and teach them how to use the devices step by step” (personal
communication with the teacher).

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
47
He also believes that building small-scale ICT teams in schools will be an
effective approach to overcoming the barriers. At his school, he has been taking a
leading figure in boosting EdTech and he shares ICT resources with other EFL teachers.
(personal communication with the teacher). Promoting collaborative PD in daily
teaching practice will be an effective approach to addressing the second-order barriers,
particularly where complicated relationships exist among teachers.
We also discussed the significance of enhancing students’ appropriate use of
technology, including IT literacy, netiquette and ethics. When I was teaching at a public
high school in Australia, I encountered not only advantages but also negative impacts of
EdTech upon students, such as cheating and inappropriate use of social networking
services (SNS) during class. Unless teachers and students share the disciplines that
promote the proper use of technology at schools, technology could be destructive for
teaching and learning. Teachers’ ability to manage their students’ appropriate use of
devices is essential to technology integrated classroom teaching. In addition, teachers
always need to critically examine the purpose for which EdTech is used, and how
students’ learning can be enhanced by utilising technology.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
48
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion
The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers EFL teachers
experience with technology integration in classroom teaching. By employing a self-
study methodology, I qualitatively explored the Japanese EFL teachers’ (non-)use
of technology and its underlying context-specific barriers. The data were generated
and examined by mixed methods, reflective journals, lesson plan evaluation and
personal history along with memory-work method.
This qualitative self-study investigated the research question: what issues do
EFL teachers at public high schools in Japan experience in utilising technology in
classroom teaching? In order to answer the research question, this study also
investigated the following sub-questions:
1. Are there any internal barriers to EFL teachers utilising technology in
teaching in the Japanese context?
2. Are there any external barriers to EFL teachers utilising technology in
teaching in the Japanese context?
In order to examine these problems, I employed the existing knowledge
developed by Ertmer (1999) and Hew and Brush (2006), which distinguished
between two types of barriers that impact teachers’ use of technology in the
classroom: (1) first-order barriers, which are external barriers to teachers; and (2)
second-order barriers, which are internal barriers to teachers. Based on the
classification of barriers developed by Ertmer (1999) and Hew and Brush (2006),
the analyses of the data identified both external (first-order barriers) and internal
barriers (second-order barriers) to teachers. The first-order barriers identified in the

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
49
current research context include (a) resources: the lack of IT infrastructure and
technical support, (b) institution: school policy, inadequate classroom size and
limited time, (c) subject culture and (d) assessment: high-stakes examinations. The
second-order barriers, which have a crucial influence on teachers’ use of EdTech in
teaching, involve (e) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs: fixed mindset and (f)
knowledge and skills: the lack of professional development. The complicated
relationship among teachers was also identified as context-specific issues.
Therefore, my examination of the analyses reinforced my assumption that there are
complicated and unique issues found in Japanese schools which delay the
integration of technology in learning and teaching.
This study revealed that in the Japanese school context, first-order barriers,
particularly assessment, and second-order barriers, such as teachers’ attitudes and
pedagogical beliefs, are strongly interrelated with each other. This finding strengthened
the existing knowledge that first-order and second-order barriers are inextricably linked
together, which making it difficult to address the barriers separately (Hew & Brush,
2006). The result of the analyses also found that there was little progress of my TPACK
during the PD programme. Further development of well-designed PD programmes will
be required to enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills in technology integrated
pedagogy. The present study will serve to encourage EFL teachers, teacher educators
and school administrators in Japanese schools to re-examine their current teaching
practices.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
50
6.1 Limitations and Future Research
The examination of my analysis found that further development of
contextually suitable PD programmes will be required to develop teachers’
knowledge and skills in technology integrated pedagogy. As Tondeur et al. (2012)
argue, it is essential to provide teachers with training, not only in the use of specific
technologies, but also in how to select and adapt technologies for use in specific
educational contexts to teach specific subject content. Considering that the Japanese
ELT context is characterised by a lack of specific knowledge to enhance teachers’
pedagogical use of technology, this study employed the TPACK framework as a
theoretical framework. The following are the limitations and implications of the
framework and the relevant issues identified in this study.
Firstly, the boundaries between some of the TPACK constructs were
difficult to distinguish. The previous study also argues that even experts can fail to
find all seven of the knowledge domains hypothesised to underpin TPACK
(Tondeur et al, 2012). The complexity might be caused by the intrinsic link
between PK and CK in the ELT context. Secondly, the TPACK assessment seems
to be largely influenced by teachers’ subjective self-confidence in each domain and
their lack of objectivity. Furthermore, some TPACK survey items do not seem to fit
the Japanese ELT context. Given that the use of EdTech is contextually specific,
further development of assessment tool to improve teachers’ technology integration
knowledge and skills will be also required.
As the first phase, this study focused on myself and explored the issues within
my familiar school context. Although this study strengthened the existing knowledge

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
51
that first-order and second-order barriers are inextricably linked together (Hew and
Brush, 2006), the strategies to overcome each type of barriers remain unclear. Further
research including other interventions will be needed. For future research, I would like
to collect the voices of other participants such as in-service teachers, teacher educators
and policymakers, including those in different research contexts. Exploring students’
attitudes, beliefs and skills relating to EdTech will be also imperative to develop an
understanding of current research concerns.
The instalment of ICT equipment does not always lead to the effective use of
technology; educational technology integration in teaching depends on teachers’
intrinsic factors. As Wong (2013) suggests, technology in itself cannot change
classrooms; it is the teachers and their pedagogical use of technology that will enhance
teaching and learning. This research will contribute toward knowledge about how to
develop teachers’ technology integrated pedagogies, specifically in language education
sectors.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
52
References
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,
52(1), 154–168. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Baser, D., Kopcha, T., & Ozden, M. (2015). Developing a technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK) assessment for preservice teachers learning to
teach English as a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
29(4), 1–16. doi:10.1080/09588221.2015.1047456
Bauman, S. C. (1994). In search of the Japanese spirit in talent education. Secaucus,
NJ: Alfred Music Publishing.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). London: Oxford University
Press.
Chai, C.-S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16 (2), 31–51.
Cheng, K.-H. (2017). A survey of native language teachers’ technological pedagogical
and content knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 30(7), 692–708. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1349805
Cox, S., & Graham, C. R. (2009). Diagramming TPACK in practice: Using an
elaborated model of the TPACK framework to analyse and depict teacher
knowledge. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,
53(5), 60–69. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0327-1

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
53
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. M. (2002). Quality technology support:
What is it? Who has it? And what difference does it make? Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 265–285.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
Eiken Foundation of Japan. (2018). Comparison table]. Retrieved from
https://www.eiken.or.jp/eiken/en/research/comparison-table.html
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies
for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(4), 47–61. doi:10.1007/BF02299597
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P.
(2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical
relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
e-Stat. (2018). Gakko ni okeru kyoiku no johoka no jittai tou ni kansuru chosa [A
survey on the current status of educational informatisation within schools].
Retrieved from https://www.e-stat.go.jp/stat-
search/files?page=1&toukei=00400306&tstat=000001045486
Hammersley, M. (2013). What is Qualitative Research? London, England: Bloomsbury.
Hammond, M. (2014). Introducing ICT in schools in England: Rationale and
consequences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 191–201.
doi:10.1111/bjet.12033

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
54
Hennessy, S. Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating
ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.
doi:10.1080/0022027032000276961
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2006). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and
learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Hofer, M., & Grandgenett, N. (2012). TPACK development in teacher education: A
longitudinal study of preservice teachers in a secondary M.A.Ed. program.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 83–106.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2012.10782598
Inan, F. A. & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development,
58(2), 137–154. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/67525/
Jamieson-Proctor, R., Albion, P., Finger, G., Cavanagh, R., Fitzgerald, R., Bond, T., &
Grimbeek, P. (2013). Development of the TTF TPACK survey instrument.
Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 26–35. Retrieved June 26, 2019 from
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/133312/.
Kashiba, M., Otuka, K., Sakamoto, M., & Yanase, Y. (2014). Eigo kyoshi ga
mizukarano jissen wo kaku to iukoto [The undertaking of English teachers
writing their own practice]. The Chugoku Academic Society of English
Language Education, 44, 97-106. doi:10.18983/casele.44.0

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
55
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Graham, C. R. (2014). The
technological pedagogical content knowledge framework. In Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (pp. 101-111). New
York, NY: Springer.
Koh, J., Chai, C., & Tsai, C. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs, and
teachers’ perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Educational
Technology & Society, 17(1), 185–196. Retrieved from
https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/17_1/16.pdf
Liu, S., Liu, H., Yu, Y., Li, Y., & Wen, T. (2014). TPACK: A new dimension to EFL
teachers’ PCK. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2), 681–693.
Liu, H., Lin, C.-H., & Zhang, D. (2017). Pedagogical beliefs and attitudes toward
information and communication technology: A survey of teachers of English as
a foreign language in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8),
745–765. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1347572
Loughran, J., & Brubaker, N. (2015). Working with a Critical Friend: A Self-study of
Executive Coaching. Studying Teacher Education, 11(3), 255-271.
doi:10.1080/17425964.2015.1078786
Loughran, J., & Northfield, J. (1998). A framework for the development of self-study
practice. In Reconceptualizing Teaching Practice: self-study in teacher
education (pp. 7–18). London, England: Falmer Press.
MEXT. (2007). Kyoin no ICT katsuyo shidouryoku no kijun [The checklist for teachers’
instructional skills to utilise ICT]. Retrieved from

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
56
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/education/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile
/2010/09/07/1296870_2.pdf
MEXT. (2009). Gakko ni okeru keitaidenwa no toriatsukai tou ni tsuite [The use of
mobile phones at school]. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/1234695.htm
MEXT. (2014). English Education Reform Plan Corresponding to Globalization.
Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2014/01/23/13
43 591_1.pdf
MEXT. (2018a). Kyoiku no ICT ka ni muketa kankyoseibi gokanen keikaku (2018-2022)
[A five-year plan towards educational ICT (2018-2022)]. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/zyouhou/detail/1402835.htm
MEXT. (2018b). Daigaku nyushi kaikaku [The University Entrance Examination
Reforms]. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/koutou/koudai/detail/1408090.htm
MEXT. (2018c). Heisei niju hachinen do Gakko kyoin tokei chosa [2016 Final Report -
School Teachers Statistical Survey]. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/component/b_menu/other/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2018/03/2
8/1395303_01.pdf
MEXT. (2018d). Kyoin no ICT katsuyo shidoryoku checklist no kaitei [The revision of a
checklist for teachers’ instructional skills to utilise ICT]. Retrieved from
http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/zyouhou/detail/1416800.htm

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
57
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Huberman, M. A., & Huberman, M. (1994).
Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Nae, N. (2003). What they want: The transformation of self and its reflection in
Japanese women’s magazines. NUCB journal of language, culture and
communication, 5(2), 39–46.
National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (2017). OECD Seito no gakushu
totatsudo chosa [OECD Survey on the educational achievement of students].
Retrieved from
http://www.nier.go.jp/kokusai/pisa/pdf/pisa2015cps_20171121_report.pdf
OECD. (2012). PISA, students, computers and learning: Making the connection.
(Country note Japan). Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-students-computers-japan.pdf
OECD. (2016). Results from PISA 2015. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-Japan.pdf
Oyanagi, W. (2016). A preliminary study on developing “TPACK” program for
preservice and in-service teachers in Japan. Japan Association for Educational
Media Study, 23(1), 15-31. doi:10.24458/jaems.23.1_15

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
58
Phillips, M. (2016). Re-contextualising TPACK: exploring teachers’ (non-)use of digital
technologies. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(5), 555-571.
doi:10.1080/1475939X.2015.1124803
Richey, R. C., Silber, K. H., & Ely, D. P. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT
definitions of the field. TechTrends, 52(1), 24–25. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-
0108-2
Samaras, A. P. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through
collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:
10.4135/9781452230481
Scherer, R., Tondeur, J., Siddiq, F., & Baran, E. (2018). The importance of attitudes
toward technology for pre-service teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge: Comparing structural equation modeling approaches.
Computers in human behavior, 80, 67-80. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.003
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S.
(2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of
research on technology in education, 42(2), 123–149.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782544
Shah, P. M. (2015). ESL Teacher’s Attitudes towards Using ICT in Literature Lessons.
International Journal of English Language Education, 3(1), 201-218.
doi:10.5296/ijele.v3i1.7158
Shin, W. S., Han, I., & Kim, I. (2014). Teachers’ technology use and the change of their
pedagogical beliefs in Korean educational context. International Education
Studies, 7(8). doi:10.5539/ies.v7n8p11

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
59
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R. Jr., & Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research
on the affective dimensions of science learning. In D. White (Eds.), Handbook
of research on science teaching and learning. (pp. 211–235). New York:
Macmillan.
Tanaka, S. (2014). Seitono dekirukan wo takameru all-English no jyugyo sekkei
[Classroom design to enhance students’ self-confidence in all-English classes].
[Image]. Unpublished manuscript.
Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017).
Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Educational technology research and development, 65(3), 555–575.
doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9481-2
Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.
(2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A
synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134–144.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.009
TPACK.ORG. (2019). TPACK image [Image]. Retrieved from http://matt-
koehler.com/tpack2/using-the-tpack-image/
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action
sensitive pedagogy. London, England: The Althouse Press.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
60
Watanabe, A. (2016). Reflective practice as professional development: Experiences of
teachers of English in Japan. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Wong, L. C. L. (2013). Technological innovation and teacher change: IT in teacher
professional development. In K. Hyland. & L. C. L. Wong. (Eds.), Innovation
and change in English language education (pp. 248–262). New York, NY:
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203362716
World Population Review. (2019). Japan Population 2019. Japan Demographics.
Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/japan-population/
Wu, Y.T. (2013). Research trends in technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK) research: A review of empirical studies published in selected journals
from 2002 to 2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), E73–E76.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01349.x

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
61
Appendices
Appendix A. TPACK-EFL Survey Items
Technological knowledge (TK)
(1) I can use basic technological terms (e.g. operating system, wireless connection,
virtual memory, etc.) appropriately.
(2) I can adjust computer settings such as installing software and establishing an
Internet connection.
(3) I can use computer peripherals such as a printer, a headphone, and a scanner.
(4) I can troubleshoot common computer problems (e.g. printer problems, Internet
connection problems, etc.) independently.
(5) I can use digital classroom equipment such as projectors and smart boards.
(6) I can use Office programs (i.e. Word, PowerPoint, etc.) with a high level of
proficiency.
(7) I can create multimedia (e.g. video, web pages, etc.) using text, pictures, sound,
video, and animation.
(8) I can use collaboration tools (wiki, edmodo, 3D virtual environments, etc.) in
accordance with my objectives.
Content knowledge (CK)
(9) I can learn software that helps me complete a variety of tasks more efficiently.
(10) I can express my ideas and feelings by speaking in English.
(11) I can express my ideas and feelings by writing in English.
(12) I can read texts written in English with the correct pronunciation.
(13) I can understand texts written in English.
(14) I can understand the speech of a native English speaker easily.
Pedagogical knowledge (PK)
(15) I can use teaching methods and techniques that are appropriate for a learning
environment.
(16) I can design a learning experience that is appropriate for the level of students.
(17) I can support students’ learning in accordance with their physical, mental,
emotional, social, and cultural differences.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
62
(18) I can collaborate with school stakeholders (students, parents, teachers, etc.) to
support students’ learning.
(19) I can reflect the experiences that I gain from professional development programs to
my teaching process.
(20) I can support students’ out-of-class work to facilitate their self- regulated learning.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
(21) I can manage a classroom learning environment.
(22) I can evaluate students’ learning processes.
(23) I can use appropriate teaching methods and techniques to support students in
developing their language skills.
(24) I can prepare curricular activities that develop students’ language skills.
(25) I can adapt a lesson plan in accordance with students’ language skill levels.
Technological content knowledge (TCK)
(26) I can take advantage of multimedia (e.g. video, slideshow, etc.) to express my ideas
about various topics in English.
(27) I can benefit from using technology (e.g. web conferencing and discussion forums)
to contribute at a distance to multilingual communities.
(28) I can use collaboration tools to work collaboratively with foreign persons (e.g.
Second Life, wiki, etc.).
Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
(29) I can meet students’ individualized needs by using information technologies.
(30) I can lead students to use information technologies legally, ethically, safely, and
with respect to copyrights.
(31) I can support students as they use technology such as virtual discussion platforms
to develop their higher order thinking abilities.
(32) I can manage the classroom learning environment while using technology in the
class.
(33) I can decide when technology would benefit my teaching of specific English
curricular standards.
(34) I can design learning materials by using technology that supports students’
language learning.

EFL CHALLENGES: TECHNOLOGY IN CLASSROOMS
63
(35) I can use multimedia such as videos and websites to support students’ language
learning.
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
(36) I can use collaboration tools (e.g. wiki, 3D virtual environments, etc.) to support
students’ language learning.
(37) I can support students as they use technology to support their development of
language skills in an independent manner.
(38) I can use Web 2.0 tools (animation tools, digital story tools, etc.) to develop
students’ language skills.
(39) I can support my professional development by using technological tools and
resources to continuously improve the language teaching process.