Dialogic teaching and iPads in the EAP classroom

Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Dialogic teaching and iPads in the EAP classroom Marion Engin*, Senem Donanci Department of English and Writing Studies, Zayed University, Dubai, 19282, United Arab Emirates

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 March 2015 Received in revised form 18 June 2015 Accepted 22 June 2015 Available online 24 June 2015

Mobile learning technology in the form of iPads has gained considerable attention recently in the literature on pedagogy and learning. This has led to a change in the roles of teachers and students, and the nature of the classroom interaction. What is not clear so far however, is how iPads have changed the nature of classroom talk and dialogic teaching. The present study aimed to examine the impact of iPad use on the opportunities for dialogic teaching in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classes in an English medium university in the United Arab Emirates. The study reveals that although opportunities for dialogic teaching are both created and inhibited in classes utilizing the iPads, the most influential contributor to opportunities and restrictions lies depends on whether the teachers and students have adopted a dialogic stance. The study also revealed the need to examine dialogic teaching within the specific sociocultural and educational context of learning. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dialogic teaching iPads Teacher roles Classroom interaction Teacher talk

1. Introduction In September 2012, the three federal universities in the United Arab Emirates started incorporating the use of iPads into teaching and learning (Cavanaugh, Hargis, Munns, & Kamali, 2012; Gitsaki, Robby, Priest, Hamdan, & Ben-Chabane, 2013) with a view to promoting mobile learning. In order to facilitate mobile learning, all students and instructors were issued with an iPad and materials were available in digital form. As a result of the iPad drive, the nature of the classroom and the learning activities changed considerably (Gitsaki et al., 2013). This huge change in pedagogy prompted the authors to start asking questions about the nature of teaching and learning activities in an iPad classroom, and specifically to examine the classroom interaction around the use of this device. In terms of the affordances of using iPads for language learning, studies have cited advantages such as enabling repetition and aiding reading and listening skills, developing vocabulary through audio files and online dictionaries and thesauri, and providing structured tests and practice materials for personalized study which the students can access in their own time and at their own pace (Oberg & Daniels, 2013). Another outcome of research into the benefits of iPads in the classroom is that the teacher's role changes and becomes more of a facilitator (Stillar, 2012). One possible impact of the changing roles of the teacher is on the classroom talk and interaction that takes place in learning. It has long been recognised that classroom talk is central to learning and development (Alexander, 2005; Barnes, 2010). “Of all the tools for cultural and pedagogical intervention in human development and learning, talk is the most pervasive in its use and powerful in its possibilities” (Alexander, 2008, p. 92). The centrality of talk is the core on

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Engin), [email protected] (S. Donanci). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.06.005 0360-1315/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

269

which dialogic teaching is based (Barnes, 2010; Mercer, 1995, 2000). Dialogic teaching is an approach which “harnesses the power of talk to stimulate and extend pupils' thinking and advance their learning and understanding” (Alexander, 2010, p. 10). However, although dialogic teaching is seen as a fundamental part of learning and development, it has been mostly studied in primary classrooms in the UK. Higham, Brindley and Van de Pol (2013) lament the fact that dialogic teaching is little studied outside the primary context and that “no studies have yet focused on the distinct challenges and affordances of promoting dialogue in a secondary context” (p. 3). We argue that if talk is central to learning and development, we should also be researching and promoting in higher education contexts, including those in which the learners' first language is not English. In these contexts, classroom talk is a significant tool in the learner's cognitive and linguistic development. The role of technology in promoting or inhibiting dialogic teaching has been little studied (Masters & Yelland, 2002; Yelland & Masters, 2007). This study therefore adds to the paucity of research into dialogic teaching in a higher education context with learners who are operating in a second language. The study specifically examines to what extent the use of iPads in the classroom creates opportunities for purposeful and pedagogic classroom talk in dialogic teaching.

2. Background 2.1. iPads and learning The use and distribution of iPads in the UAE in 2012 was the largest distribution in the world where three government universities distributed over 14,000 iPads to first year students in 2012 as a result of a mobile learning initiative (Gitsaki et al., 2013). The aim of the Gitsaki et al. (2013) study was to examine the implementation of the iPads and the corresponding research agendas in the three federal institutions. Each institution developed different research questions for their programmes with regard to the impact of using iPads. In one of the institutions, at the end of the first academic year of trial, over 80% of over 1000 students responded that they ‘agreed/strongly agreed’ that their reading, grammar, vocabulary, listening and writing skills had improved, and the faculty also responded positively to the initiative (Gitsaki et al., 2013). Further research in the Gulf context lists some benefits of iPads use in the classroom as portability of the device, ability to compile information, accessibility, increased student engagement, enabling of collaborative learning, increased student productivity and efficiency and technological literacy (MacLeod, 2015). Despite the challenge of coining a single definition due to its rapidly changing nature, mobile learning can be defined as “learning with handheld devices” (Hockly, 2013, 80). Such devices may be tablets, such as iPods and iPads. Oberg and Daniels (2013) analyzed the effect of a self-paced student-centred mobile learning instructional method on language learning based on the use of iPod Touch to deliver content in an English as a Second Language (ESL) context. They found that students were more motivated and engaged (Oberg & Daniels, 2013, p. 181), and able to revisit material outside of class allowing more flexibility. However, they also concluded that teacher input was still necessary. In a review of the changing technological nature of classrooms, Stillar (2012) points out that technological devices have the potential to contribute to student learning by aiding memory of the newly learned material longer, and engaging students to become more active participants in their own learning. He also notes that the use of technological devices in the classroom means that teachers will be more of a facilitator who sets up projects, guides and provides the necessary materials, while moving from one group to another monitoring. Herein lies the crucial question, and possible tensions. If the use of iPads in the classroom results in a redefinition of teacher and student roles, how does this affect the extent to which there is dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008), academicallyproductive talk (Michaels, O'Connor, & Resnick, 2007), and dialogic-driven pedagogy (Chappell, 2014).

2.2. Classroom talk and dialogic teaching The notion of a dialogic approach to teaching and using it as tool of ‘questioning’ to promote classroom discussion is far from being a new concept, dating as far back as to ‘Socratic Dialogue’ (Doukmak, 2014) with a focus on getting students to bring together prior and new information to formulate arguments. Alexander (2005) describes dialogic teaching as creating dialogue which is purposeful and builds up understanding through joint questions and answers, feedback and feedforward. Teaching which is dialogic needs to fulfil the following criteria. It is: C collective: teachers and children address learning tasks, whether as a group or as a class; C reciprocal: teachers and children listen to each other, share ideas and consider alternative viewpoints; C supportive: children articulate their ideas freely, without fear of embarrassment over ‘wrong’ answers; and they help each other to reach common understandings; C cumulative: teachers and children build on their own and each others' ideas and chain them into coherent lines of thinking and enquiry; C purposeful: teachers plan and steer classroom talk with specific educational goals in view (Alexander, 2005, p. 14).

270

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

The quality of classroom talk can contribute to the development of communicative and thinking skills (Mercer, 2000). When talk is not only about “right answerism” but more used as a tool to “hypothesize, explore, debate and synthesize”, then talk has more of a power to shape knowledge and facilitate learning and prepares children for “a complex world with many uncertainties and many occasions when rational choice is required” (Barnes, 2010, p. 7). Talk does happen in every classroom regardless of the subject matter or context. However, engaging learners effectively and scaffolding their understanding does not seem to commonly occur, which in turn leads to “undemanding classroom talk” (Alexander, 2008) during which learners may not be developing the skills of questioning and the ability to explain and justify. Most of such classroom talk seems to heavily rely on the ‘IRF Exchange’ (Initiation-Response-Feedback) model (Chappell, 2014). Dialogic teaching means that teachers respond to student answers in such a way that a higher level, whole class communication is encouraged and classroom context shifts from being “product/knowledge oriented” to “process/understanding oriented” (Myhill & Warren, 2005, p. 67). In these types of dialogue, students are also encouraged to ask questions, put forward examples, hypotheses, offer explanations, evidence and suggestions which may support and/or contradict while the teacher guides and facilitates the discussion by intervening where necessary. Mercer (2000) refers to lessons where such interaction takes place as ‘Thinking together’ lessons where students work towards solving a problem and teacher models ‘exploratory talk’. In practical terms, dialogic teaching is realized when a variety of organizational settings (i.e. whole class, individual, group, etc.) are deployed, teachers are adaptable to changing classroom layout as necessary, distractions and interruptions are minimized, transitions between different phases of lesson are effectively managed and timing is well-managed (Alexander, 2014). In her curriculum macro-genre analysis, Jones (2010) identified a variety of participation structures depending on the stages and phases in lessons. Each stage and participation structure requires certain types of talk in accordance with teachers' pedagogic goals. Walsh (2003) refers to the different functions of teacher talk as modes, and that “the pedagogy and interaction come together through talk” (p. 125). Learning takes place when the teacher talk and the pedagogic goals are aligned (Walsh, 2003). In a context in which the learners are operating in a second language, the role of classroom talk, dialogue, and interaction are central. Haneda and Wells (2008) argue that classroom discourse, particularly dialogic interaction provides comprehensible input and opportunities to engage in academic discourse events, thus developing academic language functions such as explaining, narrating and justifying. They also point out that dialogic interaction will also provide students with alternative perspectives and opinions on a topic. In a second language learning context, students will only encounter academic discourse in a classroom setting, so the opportunity to engage in dialogue with teacher and peers is crucial for developing communicative, linguistic, and sociolinguistic competence. 2.3. Dialogic teaching and dialogic stance Dialogic teaching which employs all the strategies described above is not enough to generate effective classroom talk where learning takes place. Teachers must also have a way of talking and listening, known as dialogic stance. This is “where patterns of talk may open up discourse space for exploration and varied opinions” (Boyd & Markarian, 2011, p. 515). For a dialogic stance, teachers need to be skilled at setting the aims and purpose of the lesson, as well as modelling inquiry acts and “wondering” with the students (Chappell, 2014). Learners also must be trained to be ready and willing to engage in talk, and respond to it in an interested and appropriate manner. Learners need to feel that their opinions matter (Haneda & Wells, 2008). It is the responsibility of teachers then to create this atmosphere where learners have been acculturated to participate in such dialogues. It is important to note, however, that expectations will heavily influence the extent to which a teacher or learner has a dialogic stance. In his meta-analysis of why dialogic teaching research tends to be carried out in primary rather than secondary contexts, Higham et al. (2013) found that one reason was because primary school teachers and students have more of a dialogic stance than secondary school teachers. Participants in this research made the point that secondary school teachers are often too busy with curriculum and exams to focus on dialogic methods. In their study, one participant commented that “a teacher acting alone might take a year to develop a productive dialogic culture in their classroom” (p. 9). It was also pointed out that secondary school students have a less positive attitude to dialogic approaches and “respond with caution or even hostility to approaches that ask them to consider a wider context and bring in a range of ideas” (p. 7). In the educational culture of this study, students also come from a primary and secondary school system which does not challenge, ask questions, raise issues, or involve learners in dialogue (Norton & Syed, 2003). Thus, students hold certain expectations about their role and the role of the teacher, which can inhibit a dialogic stance. 2.4. Dialogic teaching and sociocultural factors A study of dialogic teaching needs to consider the particular culture, social and educational, of the learning context (Lefstein, 2010). Educational institutions organise lessons and curriculum according to the values of that establishment. Thus, the way lessons are organised, models of teaching, and the different stages of a lesson, will impact on what type of talk takes place, and how much of this is dialogic (Jones, 2010). It is important to recognise that some teaching models will value certain types of teaching over others, resulting in less opportunity for dialogic teaching.

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

271

Michaels et al. (2007) point out that not all students share an academic discourse due to home environments and previous experience. As a result, they may not know the ‘rules of the game’. Students learning a second language, such as English, will only encounter such academic discourse in the classroom (Haneda & Wells, 2008). The teacher's prior experience and training are also relevant here as well as the student attitude, especially as they may find it difficult to go beyond the traditional Interaction e Response e Feedback (IRF) model that they are used to (Alexander, 2014). In summary, we have described the ubiquitous presence of mobile technology in the form of iPads in the second language classroom. We have also made the case for dialogic teaching for cognitive and linguistic development. We have set the scene for how dialogic teaching requires teaching skills as well as a dialogic stance from both the teacher and students. What is not so clear, however, is where this device fits in with the aims of dialogic teaching. 3. The study In order to shed light on the relationship between iPad use in the classroom and opportunities for dialogic teaching, the following questions were formulated: 1. How does the use of iPads in the classroom create opportunities for dialogic teaching? 2. How does the use of iPads in the classroom inhibit opportunities for dialogic teaching? 3. Are iPads and dialogic teaching compatible? 3.1. Context and participants The study was carried out in an English e medium university in the United Arab Emirates. The classes were randomly chosen, based on a request for volunteer teachers. The classes were drawn from both the Undergraduage Foundation programme, where student study 20 h per week of EAP, and the Undergraduate in-sessional programme where students study Composition and Rhetoric for 3 h per week. A total of 13 classes were involved in the study. A total of 234 students, aged 18e22, were involved in the study. The students were mostly Emirati female students (12 classes) and one class of Emirati male students. A total of 13 teachers participated in the study. Five were male teachers and eight were female teachers aged 35e58. Teachers were from Turkey, Britain, USA, UK, Canada, and New Zealand. These were the class teachers of the lessons observed, with a total of seven teachers agreeing to be interviewed as a follow up. 3.2. Ethical considerations Ethical guidelines as required by the university were followed. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the university, and students and teachers were asked to sign a consent form. It was made clear to all participants that they were free to withdraw at any time. It was also made clear to students that they did not have to agree for their lesson to be audio recorded. For follow up interviews, teachers of the classes which had been audio recorded were approached and asked if they would agree to a follow up interview. 3.3. Data collection 3.3.1. Procedures The 13 classes were shared out by the researchers, who visited the lesson only once at the agreed time with the class teacher. The researchers requested that the lesson be on in which the iPad would be used in class. The first 30 min of each lesson was audio recorded and an observation running commentary was filled in for each lesson. Notes were specifically taken on what technology, if any, was being used, what activities the students and teacher were engaged in, and any other visual clues that would enable a deeper understanding of the audio recordings. The researchers iPad was placed at the front of the class and the lessons were audio-recorded using the iPad application Recording Lite. The lesson was then converted into an audio file and stored. 3.3.2. Instruments During the lesson observation, researchers took notes according to the stages of the lesson and activities of teacher and students. The timings for each different stage of the lesson were also noted. Following an identification of major themes from the analysis of the audio recordings and lesson observation notes, seven teachers were interviewed for 15e30 min on their opinion of the importance and value of teacher talk, and the relationship, if any, between teacher talk and the use of iPads in the classroom. An interview template was not used as the interview was open-ended, with the emerging themes driving the questions. 3.3.3. Data collection The researchers individually listened to each audio recording and took notes on any themes of dialogic teaching. Each researcher then transcribed of 5e10 min of lock-step interaction from the classes that they had observed. Lock-step interaction refers to the parts of the lesson in which the teacher and students are interacting as a class, rather than the parts of the lesson where students are working in groups or individually. This was to capture the classroom talk of both teacher and

272

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

students and their group interaction. Similarly, the iPad recording was only able to record clearly whole-class interaction due to the placement of the device at the front of the class. 3.4. Data analysis 3.4.1. Audio-recording analysis In order to analyse the audio recordings, the researchers adapted the Dialogic Inquiry Tool (Reznitskaya, 2012). The Dialogic Inquiry Tool (DIT) is a framework which rates the teacher talk from monologic to dialogic according to indicators of authority, questions, feedback, meta-level reflection, explanation and collaboration. Since the focus of the study was the relationship between dialogic teaching and iPads, the researchers included an indicator entitled ‘use of technology’ (see Appendix A). Features of the lesson which were analysed under this indicator included whether students worked individually or in groups with the device, whether the device encouraged discussion or quiet individual work, whether the discussion around the device was content-related or technical-related. In order to standardize use of the DIT, the framework was modified to include specific questions and prompts. The framework follows the distinctions made by Alexander (2005) in separating teacher talk and learner talk. The first four features relate to teacher talk, the fifth and sixth features refer to learner talk, and the final feature refers to both teacher and learner talk with reference to the technology. It was felt that the framework summarised the main features of dialogic teaching, as well as provided a range to evaluate the extent to which each feature was present. Using this framework highlighted the fact that not all stages of a lesson can be dialogic and indeed some will necessarily be monologic (Jones, 2010). Both researchers rated and coded the lessons from the audio recordings separately using the modified DIT and then compared results, negotiating and discussing any differences. It could be argued that adapting and modifying an existing and established framework may undermine the rigour and reliability of the current research (Adcroft, 2011). The rationale for these modifications are therefore important. Firstly, the original DIT left considerable room for subjectivity in the indicator itself. It was felt that guiding questions with each indicator would prompt the researchers to interpret the indicators in the same ways, thus supporting reliability. Secondly, the DIT was devised for research into teacher and student language use during literature discussions. The context of this research was different in terms of lesson focus and use of technology. Thirdly, the DIT was used in a school environment in the United States. This research context differed considerably in terms of sociocultural factors such as country, age, and educational culture. We therefore needed to account for these differences in the DIT. 3.4.2. Lesson notes, lesson transcription, and interview analysis The process of coding the transcripts of lessons and interviews was an iterative spiral (Richards, 2003). In particular with the lesson transcripts, we adopted a sociocultural perspective (Mercer, 2004) since the impact of the iPad could be explained by the “quality of the educational dialogue” (Mercer, 2004, p. 139). In the analysis of the transcripts we focused specifically on lexical items and the structure of the talk. We followed the process of progressive focussing (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995), which meant we read the transcripts several times separately, then again together to agree on codes. In our initial focussing, we considered the themes that had emerged from our lesson observations and analysis using the adapted DIT. The codes were then linked to these themes to create an overall sense of significant features of dialogic teaching in this context. Common themes which emerged fro the lesson transcriptions were teacher talk, complexity of language and instructions, and use of learning time. From the interviews, common themes were isolation, and interaction patterns. Although the coding was ‘datadriven’, the researchers were aware that they were bringing their own perspectives and beliefs about dialogic teaching into the analysis (Higham et al., 2013). The perspective of the researcher can be considered a resource (Holliday, 2002), and we were able to check the validity of our own codes and themes through follow-up interviews with teachers in which we brought up some of these concerns and queries. During the observations we also noted any issues, or questions that arose from an examination of dialogic teaching in this particular educational and cultural context, and these queries formed the basis of the framework we present in the discussion section of this paper. The audio-recordings, transcripts of lessons, completed DIT tables, and interview notes were all interrogated for themes, and a qualitative data software programme (NVivo, 2014) was used to organise, store, and visually represent the data. To triangulate the data, we used a quantitative method to analyse frequencies of occurrences of particular words and patterns of language use (Mercer, 2010). This provided statistical data on the language particular to certain types of lessons and provided further supportive evidence for the themes that were emerging, and the codes we had identified (Neuman, 2006). 4. Findings 4.1. How does the use of iPads create opportunities for dialogic teaching? 4.1.1. A variety of grouping and interaction patterns From the observations it was clear that the students were involved in a variety of groupings and interaction patterns. With the iPad, there was opportunity for group work, collaborative work, and individual work. Because students were required to carry out a lot of activities which were on the iPad, either as an application, or part of the material, the iPad encouraged more opportunities for individual work with the teacher monitoring the class. A typical activity that was part of the digital materials was pair work such as interviews or questionnaires. Another popular activity was Kahoot, an application which requires

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

273

students to answer questions individually on their tablet which are then projected by the teacher for feedback and discussion purposes. Using iPads also gives teachers and students to opportunity to work online using Learning Management Systems such as Blackboard. One teacher commented that the iPad, due to its versatility and portability, opened up opportunities for virtual groups. “With technology you can organise different groupings and seating virtually, putting students in a different virtual room, and students can start interacting with each other in these rooms. Getting away from the physical constraints of the classrooms” (Interview.) In all classes which used iPads, students worked on their own individually for parts of the lesson. The iPad encourages individual work due to the nature of the activities, as it is less likely that students can “share” an iPad in the way they might share a worksheet. One result of this is that there is a lot of opportunity for studenteteacher interaction on a one-on-one basis, in which the teacher supports, monitors, and intervenes where necessary. This was noted in an observation: “A lot of silence in the class as students' heads down and teacher walks around helping / monitoring” (Observation). Using an iPad in class also allowed students to work individually and at their own pace. In many lessons, students could watch and listen to the input material with their headphones. This supported their understanding of the topic and allowed them to watch and listen as many times as they felt they needed. The iPad creates an individual space in the classroom which may not be possible when using technology controlled by the teacher. In this individual space, the teacher can have private exchanges with students, and can isolate and work on specific problems of that student. The classroom talk is one-on-one and according to principles of dialogic teaching, this space allows for explanation, feedback, and gives students the opportunity to ask questions (Alexander, 2005) which they may not ask in a whole-class listening or video activity. 4.1.2. iPad as a catalyst for discussion Discussion in which students exchange and justify opinions are a central part of dialogic teaching. The iPad, with its various applications and visual material, was often the catalyst for discussion. In some lessons, the visuals, or a video, which could be watched in their own time, sparked lively discussions on topics such as extreme sports, methods of farming, and grammar. Through the iPad, students and teacher had access to a variety of applications which lent themselves to games and other competitive activities. For example, through the use of an application called Kahoot, students were able to play a grammar game as a class, on their individual iPads, which then sparked a lively discussion on a particular grammar point. During the discussion, the teacher asked questions about the use of particular grammar points, and students were expected to explain why they thought the grammar was correct or incorrect. The application provided the students with visual stimulus, as well as sound and words, which were manipulated on each individual iPad but played as a class. The interactive material in the form of e-Books also acted as a catalyst for discussion. Some of the material includes short videos which students watch on their own, and then discuss afterwards. Other interactive activities included questionnaires on the iPad material which student respond to by swiping or tapping a button. Students then compare answers with partners, and then as a class, justifying their choice on the questionnaire. In interviews, one teacher noted the following: “ iPads are good for things like grammar, you want to do grammar quizzes, you can use Socrative, or Kahoot, stuff like that, these are very interactive the students love them, because they are competitive too” (Interview). The teacher highlights the competition which can result from using different applications on the iPad, and suggests that this supports interaction and discussion in the class. 4.2. How does the use of iPads inhibit dialogic teaching? 4.2.1. Class time vs allocated time vs learning time Opportunities for dialogue and dialogic teaching were restricted by challenges and certain discourses as a result of using iPads. For example, in many lessons there were times when teacher and student were engaged in troubleshooting. These events were often caused by issues related specifically to technology. Common issues were iPads not working, difficulties downloading applications, time allocated to downloading applications, iPads being out of charge, and problems with internet connection. Such issues are inevitable when using technology, but it was clear that these troubleshooting sessions took from the learning time of the students. On these occasions, the teacher had to spend time dealing with each problem, giving technical assistance rather than pedagogical assistance (Yelland & Masters, 2007). In an interview, one of the teachers commented: “Lots of technical problems. It takes up so much time” (Interview.) While technical support and troubleshooting does not necessarily mean that dialogic teaching cannot happen, it was evident from observations that these occasions detract from the lesson purpose, and use up valuable teaching and learning time. This means that using the iPad as a lesson tool can impact on opportunities for dialogue and learning. In the excerpt below from a lesson transcription, the teacher has to spend time at the beginning of the activity checking and sorting out technical problems, or difficulties directly related to the use of the iPad. “T: Does anyone have problems with Educreations. Does everyone have Educreations? Do you M? Do you have Educreations? You have it, you have it, the Educreations?

274

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

S: My iPad is off and L don't (sic) want to give me her charger. T: You don't have a charge? OK, then you can please work together. OK? (Transcript.) The fact that iPads can cause technical difficulties was acknowledged by the teachers. One teacher explained how he sorts out all the technical problems at the beginning of the course. This could be time well spent, in terms of laying down the ground rules with regard to iPad use, downloading, charging and other potential issues. “I troubleshoot at the beginning of the course. I spend time at the beginning making sure all the tech problems are sorted out” (Interview.) It is important to note here that this teacher was very experienced in using technology in his teaching, and had prepared many materials specifically for iPad. Thus, he was more able than others to predict what problems may occur on a regular basis, and carry out preventative strategies. One area on which iPad use had a considerable and noticeable impact was on the language use in the classroom. Here we refer to language use in terms of specific language items, as well as types of language or language functions. Two consequences arise from these points. Firstly, using a device such as an iPad necessitates the use of certain terminology. It could be argued that a focus on specific terminology detracts from the opportunity then to use dialogic language. For this examination, we have isolated words such as “think” and “what” as dialogic language since they are part of questions. The results are below: “think”: (3) “what”: (5) These are low frequencies considering that the two words are commonly associated with dialogic teaching in terms of promoting questions and discussion. Similarly, a frequency count of five minutes from one iPad lesson transcript found the following words to be most frequent: download / downloading (16) click (5) mobile (4) The language of instructions, as well as the length and complexity of instructions was impacted by the use of iPads. Across all the lessons, it emerged that instructions took up considerable time. Instructions accounted for long stretches of monologic teacher talk, which detracts from dialogic talk. Although instructions are part of dialogic teaching and part of a teacher's repertoire (Alexander, 2005; Mercer, 1995, 2000), it was felt that instructions dominated some of the iPad lessons. A common theme across all observation notes from lessons, and from the lesson analysis using the DIT framework, was that instructions took up a large amount of lesson time. In one particular lesson, students were expected to prepare a short movie using the application Educreations. The teacher explains for 15 min at the beginning of the lesson. The instructions are complicated and dense, and students are required to do several activities with their application. In fact, in this particular lesson, the teacher talk dominated in terms of instructions, technical questions from students and teacher, and talk “around” the iPad. This left very little time for pedagogic and academic discourse around the topic. An inevitable result of long instructions to explain complicated activities is a higher ratio of teacher talk to student talk. The teacher has to explain a certain activity and its corresponding applications, with little time then to involve the students. In terms of interaction with students, questioning was to check instructions, rather than develop a theme and promote thinking. A lot of the language is around the language of technology, applications, templates, and other terms. It could be argued that the teacher needs to get across this explanation in order for the students to carry out the activity. However, the activity itself is an individual activity, so it is questionable how much of the lesson will involve dialogic teaching. The iPad lesson aims revolve around applications which have to be accessed on the iPad. Thus the device becomes the central focus point for the lesson. 4.2.2. Isolation In the earlier section, it was noted that one result of iPad use is that there seems to be many opportunities for students to work individually with input and feedback from the teacher on a one-on-one interaction. However, one major theme which emerged from observations and interviews is that individual work can also dominate the lesson, leaving little opportunity for class dialogue, or studentestudent interaction. An important part of dialogic teaching is the group building of knowledge through cumulative reasoning and discussion. A strong sense of students being isolated was noted in the observations, in that students were ‘drawn into’ the screens of their iPads, and almost become oblivious to their classmates or teacher. The following point was noted by a teacher in an interview: “Their books are on the iPad now, the students are all swiping and then they're working individually. It is very quiet, isolated”. (Interview) Use of time then meant that more time was spent on quiet individual work, and less on class dialogue. In one lesson the following was noted:

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

275

In this lesson of 30 minutes, 15 minutes were spent on explanation. 15 minutes spent working alone on iPad (Observation). The implications from dialogic teaching is that time is valuable and needs to be used in a judicious and purposeful way (Alexander, 2014). Although individual work has its merits in a dialogic classroom, this is more for preparation for the whole class or pair dialogic work. The overwhelming theme from individual work with the iPad is that it draws in students to such an extent that an individual student becomes isolated. This is not conducive to a dialogic classroom with its principles of group, collaborative, purposeful, and cumulative thinking and working.

4.3. Are dialogic teaching and use of iPads compatible? 4.3.1. Dialogic stance: teacher It is clear from the data that iPads can both create and inhibit opportunities for dialogic teaching. It is difficult to say whether one outweighs the other. The aim of this paper is not to evaluate whether we should use iPads in teaching, or whether iPads are effective devices or not. Our aim was to examine the impact of iPads on a dialogic classroom. However, it is important to remember that the iPad is merely a device, a technological tool. In the same way that a book, or an interactive whiteboard, or even a projector are tools, the iPad can be used in a variety of ways with different teachers, some more effective than others in a dialogic classroom. From the observations and interviews with teachers, and from casual conversations with colleagues, what seems to be more of a determining factor in the extent to which iPads can create or inhibit dialogic teaching is the dialogic stance of teacher and students. In other words, the iPad alone cannot create or inhibit dialogic teaching. It is how the device is used in the hands of the teacher and students which ultimately creates learning opportunities (Coyle, Yanez, & Verdu, 2010). The following comments were noted in observations of iPad classes. The DIT framework highlighted authority as a feature, and this seemed to be an indicator of the teacher's dialogic stance: The teacher does not seem to have sole authority, students are very comfortable with asking questions. Students take turns without being nominated (Observation). Teacher asks the students to use the phrase ‘I think (Observation). In these lessons, the authority was less monologic and more dialogic in the sense that the authority was shared, and students felt comfortable interacting with each other and initiating talk with the teacher. In an interview with one teacher, she expressed some frustration at some of the practical restrictions of using an iPad as she felt she had to stay near her desk due to wiring and other technical problems. However, she specifically commented on the importance of students working together. She was frustrated that the iPad sometimes distracted from this: “I think the importance of it, you need to have good classroom dynamics, students working together, students actively involved in whatever you are doing. Basically instead of being passive listeners” (Interview). The teacher's dialogic stance is evident in the way she describes student activities and the fact she highlights classroom dynamics. Since this teacher values active students and the involvement of the class, we can assume that dialogic teaching will take place to a certain extent regardless of the device the teacher is using. The flip side of this is that there will be little dialogic teaching when the teacher does not have a dialogic stance. Lack of dialogic stance can be interpreted from how teachers describe classroom interaction, and the importance they place on verbal communication and involvement. Dialogic teaching requires that students verbally articulate their ideas and opinions, listen to each other, and build up understanding. In the following excerpt, the teacher gives his ideas on what successful classroom interaction means: “There has to be some kind of communication between teacher and students, but it does not have to be talk, it can be written instructions” (Interview). The teacher's lack of dialogic stance is clear in his attitude to oral interaction. He suggests that written instructions can be a part of the communication. This is true, however communication does not mean the same as dialogic teaching. The teacher in this excerpt does not seem to have a sense of the fundamental principles of dialogic teaching as cumulative, reciprocal, and collective talk. It could be concluded that the teacher would be less likely to have a dialogic classroom regardless of the device or tool being used. 4.3.2. Dialogic stance: students The dialogic stance of the students is also a crucial element in creating opportunities for dialogic teaching. It most lessons students were reluctant to ask questions to the teacher or their peers, agree or disagree with each other, challenge each others' ideas. In fact, across all observation notes and analyses of the lesson, learner talk on the DIT framework was almost exclusively monologic. Even when teachers were encouraging students to share ideas, they tended to just give very short responses. Students did not seem to listen to each other. Active listening is an important part of dialogic stance (Lefstein, 2010), but students mostly faced the teacher and interacted with the teacher. In group activities and pair work, students

276

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

completed the activities as quickly as possible, and often in Arabic. In a second language learning context such as this, students are required to use English in their discussions to develop their linguistic skills. One teacher noted in an interview that students were not comfortable giving opinions due to fear of loss of face. As a result, they give short answers to avoid any embarrassment. “They don't want to say anything that might be frowned upon by other people in the class or anything that could intimidate them. Any opinion-oriented things, any viewpoints, they're afraid to say what the first thing that comes to mind. In this case, they're all simple right or wrong, yes/no questions” (Interview). The same teacher goes on to account for this fear and embarrassment from their previous primary and secondary educational experience. They were not encouraged to ask and answer higher-order thinking skills, what the DIT refers to as meta-level reflection. As the teacher points out, students need training, similar to Mercer's Thinking Together project (Maybin, Mercer, & Stierer, 1992; Mercer, 1995, 2000) in order to understand how to “think” and how to engage in dialogue. “Because they are not used to them. Their old education hasn't been geared toward higher order thinking. They never encountered this. Even when you ask them open-ended questions where there is no right or wrong answer, they think there is. Am I gonna say the right thing? The first rule is getting them used to the idea that there is no right answer, and this whole concept is new to them” (Interview). However, there were some classes in which it was observed students were comfortable asking the teacher questions. This may be the case, where the classroom atmosphere is such that students can intervene and interact with the teacher at their initiation, but there were no observations of students asking and answering each other across the class in English. Any discussion that was held in class time in small groups took place in Arabic. The discussions in Arabic were felt to be irrelevant to this study as the aim was to examine dialogic teaching in English in an EAP classroom. 5. Discussion The emphasis on dialogic teaching in primary and secondary school contexts stems from the belief that dialogic teaching supports learning through purposeful dialogue, interaction, and academic discourse (Alexander, 2008, 2014; Mercer, 1995, 2000; Michaels et al., 2007). We argue that these principles are also applicable to a second language learning context in higher education. 5.1. Monologic vs dialogic The data in the present study suggests that the use of the iPad in an English for Academic Purposes context can both create and restrict opportunities for dialogic teaching. An examination of dialogic teaching and iPads in this particular setting has revealed that it is not straightforward to differentiate between a dialogic class and a monologic class. As Reznitskaya (2012) makes clear in her DIT framework for analysing classroom talk, there is a range between monologic and dialogic classrooms. In our analysis of lessons, it was clear that some features of the class, such as questions, could range from monologic to more dialogic across the space of the lesson since “discourse is always emergent in the moment as it progresses from one move to the next” (Haneda & Wells, 2008, p. 118). It was clear in the observed lessons that instructions and explanations are necessarily monologic, and this is to be expected (Jones, 2010). As Mercer (1995) points out, instructions and explanations are an essential part of classroom talk and interaction, and often the choice of discourse will depend on the aims of the activity (Haneda & Wells, 2008). However, what was particularly evident was that the iPad necessitated long and sometimes complicated and linguistically dense instructions and explanations. Instructions took up considerable stretches of classroom talk and included specific terminology related to technology. There was little opportunity for students to check these instructions or ask questions. Similarly, as can be seen in the data, there was a tendency for the teacher to talk more than the students when using iPads for several reasons. One is as explained above, there were more complicated instructions, and the other reason is that iPad activities tended to encourage more individual work. This work often did not culminate in a group discussion, but pulled the student into the screen, with little interaction or dialogue taking place outside of the activity. Wegerif (1996) points out into his early research into computers and classroom talk that the activity on the computer is central to the opportunity to talk, as is training with students on how to engage in exploratory and dialogic talk. In an iPad context therefore, it is crucial that the application as well as the task is designed to create greater interaction (Mercer, Fernandez, Dawes, Wegerif, & Sams, 2003). As the data showed, with certain applications and iPad facilities, students could be involved in collaborative and interactive activities, which stimulated discussion following the work. However, in the majority of classes, it seemed that students were working on individual projects which did not necessitate any interaction, and they were also not trained in how to “do” exploratory talk. 5.2. Teacher roles The data revealed that many lessons incorporating iPad involved an interaction pattern which was student - teacher, where student was working alone and the teacher was monitoring. While teachers would agree that a variety of interaction patterns and discourse are necessary depending on the pedagogic goals (Jones, 2010; Walsh, 2002, 2003), we would argue that there was a predominance of this type of interaction pattern. Stillar (2012) argues that the role of the teacher will become

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

277

more of a facilitator in classrooms employing mobile technology, and this was very much the case in our observations. The quality of the ensuing talk though needs close examination. Rossing, Miller, Cecil, and Stamper (2012) note in their research into iPads perceived learning, and motivation that “When the balance of attention shifted heavily toward the iPad and away from classmates and professors, students reported diminished learning” (p.17). On the whole, in the research data, there were short exchanges between teacher and student, mostly related to technology and trouble-shooting, rather than discussion on the task or content. We would argue that this is not what Alexander (2008) would define as learning talk. Learning talk requires that the student speculates, explains, discusses, argues, and uses higher-order thinking skills. 5.3. Learning time Finally, we observed that the iPad restricts opportunities for dialogic teaching due to its impact on time. A major premise of dialogic teaching is that time is used in a purposeful and organised way, as time should be viewed as a “precious resource” (Alexander, 2014). Use of iPads took away from class time in terms of long teacher talk in giving explanations and instructions, predominance of individual work on iPad activities, and troubleshooting. Rossing et al. (2012) also note in their research into iPads and motivation that some students said that learning an application and other technical challenges in class took away from class time. 5.4. Dialogic stance However, a theme which emerged in each and every lesson, as well as interviews with teachers, is that technology is merely a device in the teacher and students' hands, a part of the teaching and learning repertoire (Li & Walsh, 2011). The extent to which dialogic teaching is supported or restricted depends on teacher and students' use of the device (Coyle et al., 2010). Teacher and student use is dependent on dialogic stance (Boyd & Markarian, 2011), which we believe is directly attributed to learning experiences, expectations, perceived roles, and beliefs about teaching and learning. These experiences are dependent on the educational and cultural context of the learning environment. The diagram below highlights how the various layers of culture, from the culture of the educational context, to the classroom culture are interdependent. The iPad is a mere tool in the teacher's repertoire (Fig. 1). This diagram highlights the importance of examining pedagogy with reference to the wider educational and cultural context. Alexander (2008) notes that three areas which need support for dialogic teaching are at the cultural/societal level, the system level, and the classroom level. We would argue that at the cultural and societal level we should consider the extent to which the institution and culture supports dialogic teaching. Lefstein (2010) and Michaels et al. (2007) remind us that many students do not have access to academic discourse outside the school context, and may have had no experience with it before school. At the system level we need to consider what expectations students have about their learning and classroom experiences. Higham et al. (2013) highlight the complicated issues of peer pressure, curriculum constraints, and other contextual restrictions in adopting a more dialogic pedagogy. Included in this system level is the dialogic stance of the teacher (Boyd & Markarian, 2011), the teacher uptake for dialogic teaching (Haneda & Wells, 2008), the dialogic stance of the student, and the skills of the teacher

Fig. 1. Overlapping layers of influence on iPads and dialogic teaching.

278

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

(Chappell, 2014). All these factors ultimately influence the extent to which there is dialogic teaching, classroom talk which is cumulative, purposeful, reciprocal, collective, and supportive (Alexander, 2008), regardless of the device.

6. Conclusion Although the present study describes a small-scale research project, it can contribute to the currently limited collection of research into dialogic teaching and the use of iPads in a second language learning context, in particular, in an English for Academic Purposes context. Several implications can be drawn from the results, which will resonate with educators in many different teaching areas who are using technology in the classroom. Most significantly, it can be concluded that the impact of using iPads on dialogic teaching rests primarily on the extent of the teacher and the students' dialogic stance. The iPad is merely a device or tool, like any other in the classroom, such as an interactive whiteboard, computer, or even a book. Opportunities for dialogic teaching ultimately depend on the teacher's use of the iPad according to his/her attitude to dialogic teaching. Similarly, students' expectations and previous learning experience impact on the extent to which there is take-up of opportunities for dialogic teaching. It is not the iPad per se which impacts on the opportunities and restrictions for dialogic teaching, but rather the teacher and the students' response to the iPad. Many view technology as a methodology in itself, but in fact it is merely another pedagogic device. As one teacher commented in the interviews, “I haven't got a methodology for using the iPad yet”. This further confirms the view of it being the organising feature of the lesson. For the iPad to create dialogic opportunities, there needs to be more awareness raising of the meaning of dialogic teaching, and more training on basic actions to make the classroom more dialogic with the iPad. Alexander (2008) suggests that teachers should ensure different interactional patterns and layouts, focus the lesson introductions and conclusions more on content than procedure, and use time efficiently and purposefully by managing lesson stages and ensuring few distractions. Most importantly, he suggests that teachers encourage an attitude of talking about topics rather than just writing about it. Since this research highlights the essential feature of dialogic stance in creating dialogic pedagogy, this topic would benefit from further examination of what makes dialogic stance, and how to develop such an attitude and skills amongst teachers and students.

Appendix

Table 1 Dialogic Inquiry Tool (adapted from Reznitskaya, 2012). Monologic 1,2 Authority Who has control? Who nominates? Who asks the questions? Who shapes the discussion? Who decides on the turns? Questions What types of questions are asked? Recall? Factual? Open-ended? How challenging are the questions? Do the questions target higher order thinking? Do students critically evaluate and analyse? Feedback Does the feedback invite students to further develop their answers? Does the teacher inspire further thinking? Does teacher ask “how” questions as feedback/follow-up? Meta-level reflection Does teacher relate student answers to each other? Does teacher attribute students' ideas and questions to specific students? Explanation Do students explain what they think and why? Do students have long responses? Do students use personal positions e.g. I feel, I think? Collaboration Do students just report, or do they collaborate with each other's ideas? Do they react to each other's ideas? Do they respond to others' ideas in the class? Use of technology Do students work on their own with the device, or does the device support group work? Does the device encourage quiet work or discussion? Does the teacher ask/answer questions related to the topic, or related to technical problems? Do students ask content-related questions or technical questions?

3,4

Dialogic 5,6

M. Engin, S. Donanci / Computers & Education 88 (2015) 268e279

279

References Adcroft, A. (2011). The motivations to study and expectations of studying of undergraduate students in business and management. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 35(4), 521e543. Alexander, R. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. Keynote address at International Association for Cognitive Education and Psychology, University of Durham. Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. Oxon: Routledge. Alexander, R. (2010). Dialogic teaching essentials. Retrieved from http://www.robinalexander.org.uk. Alexander, R. (2014). Dialogic pedagogy at scale: oblique perspectives. In L. C. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Socialising intelligence through academic talk and dialogue. Washington DC: AERA. Barnes, D. (2010). Why talk is important. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 7e10. Boyd, M. P., & Markarian, W. C. (2011). Dialogic teaching: talk in service of a dialogic stance. Language and Education, 25(6), 515e534. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Munns, S., & Kamali, T. (2012). iCelebrate teaching and learning: sharing the iPad experience. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(2), 1e12. Chappell, P. (2014). Engaging learners: conversation- or dialogic-driven pedagogy? English Language Teaching Journal, 68(1), 1e11. Coyle, Y., Yanez, L., & Verdu, M. (2010). The impact of the interactive whiteboard on the teacher and children's language use in an ESL immersion class. System, 38, 614e625. Doukmak, R. (2014). Are you sure you don't have any questions? Dialogic teaching as a way to promote students' questions. ELTED, 16, 27e33. Gitsaki, C., Robby, M. A., Priest, T., Hamdan, K., & Ben-Chabane, T. (2013). A research agenda for the UAE iPad initiative. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2), 1e15. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Routledge. Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2008). Learning an additional language through dialogic inquiry. Language and Education, 22(2), 114e136. Higham, R. J. E., Brindley, S., & Van de Pol, J. (2013). Shifting the primary focus: assessing the case for dialogic education in secondary classrooms. Language and Education, 28(1), 86e99. Hockly. (2013). Mobile learning. English Language Teaching Journal, 67(1), 80e84. Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications. Jones, P. (2010). Teaching, learning and talking: mapping “the trail of fire”. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), 61e80. Lefstein, A. (2010). More helpful as problem than solution: some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In K. Littleton, & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational Dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 170e191). Oxon: Routledge. Li, & Walsh, S. (2011). ‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL teachers' classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 2(1), 39e57. MacLeod, C. (2015). iPads in the classroom: trials in a technical college in Qatar. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 12(1). Retrieved from http://lthe.zu.ac.ae. Masters, J., & Yelland, N. (2002). Teacher scaffolding: an exploration of exemplary practice. Education and Information Technologies, 7(4), 313e321. Maybin, J., Mercer, N., & Stierer, B. (1992). ‘Scaffolding’ learning in the classroom. In K. Norman (Ed.), Thinking voices: The work of the National Oracy Project (pp. 186e195). London: Hodder & Stoughton. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How we use language to think together. London: Routledge. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137e168. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1e14. Mercer, N., Fernandez, M., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2003). Talk about texts at the computer: using ICT to develop children's oral and literate abilities. Reading Literacy and Language, 81e89. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2007). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 27(4), 283e297. Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (2005). Scaffolds or straitjackets? Critical moments in classroom discourse. Educational Review, 57(1), 55e69. Neuman, W.,L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Pearson. Norton, B., & Syed, Z. (2003). TESOL in the Gulf: the sociocultural context of English language teaching in the Gulf. TESOL quarterly, 37(2), 337e341. NVivo (2014). Accessed 1 February, 2015, from http://www.qsrinternational.com/. Oberg, A., & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 177e196. Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446e456. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: the future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1e26. Stillar, B. (2012). 21st century learning: how college classroom interaction will change in the decades ahead. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society, 8(1), 143e151. Walsh, S. (2002). Construction of obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3e23. Walsh. (2003). Developing interactional awareness in the second language classroom through teacher self-evaluation. Language Awareness, 12(2), 124e142. Wegerif, R. (1996). Using computers to help coach exploratory talk across the curriculum. Computers and Education, 26(1), 51e60. Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers and Education, 48, 362e382.