Teaching Speaking Skills Using Technology

Effective communication necessitates the ability to do both monologues and dialogues (^{Burns & Joyce, 1997}). Therefore, speaking is an essential part of language development (^{Naibaho, 2019}) because it is both a necessity and a means of communicating ideas. Additionally, having good oral communication proficiency is viewed as an achievement in language learning (^{Piechurska-Kuciel, 2015}) since people tend to judge the learners who are new to a foreign language on their ability to communicate using that language (^{McDonough et al., 2013}). Thus, mastering English speaking skills is always one of the focuses of language learners (^{Kusuma, 2020}).

Recent technological advancements have had a profound impact on teaching speaking skills. For instance, the personal computer, internet-accessible devices, and computer programs have provided foreign language learners with opportunities to obtain more authentic materials and learning experiences (^{Bowles et al., 2015}; ^{Golonka et al., 2014}; ^{Kern, 2006}). With all features and benefits, technology supports English language learning (^{Bowles et al., 2015}; ^{Chun et al., 2016}; ^{Golonka et al., 2014}).

A growing number of studies have also revealed that technology disruptions-a current term representing technological innovations in education using technology tools that are not initially designed for teaching and learning purposes-are being implemented to facilitate speaking activities (^{Amiryousefi, 2019}; ^{Cepik & Yastibas, 2013}; H.-C. ^{Hsu, 2016}; ^{Huang & Hung, 2010}; ^{Hung & Huang, 2015a}, 2015b; ^{Sun & Yang, 2015}). For example, ^{Watkins and Wilkins (2011}) utilized YouTube to improve students’ learning exposure to languages, linguistic knowledge, and cultures. Several studies have also adapted YouTube for teaching and classroom management purposes. For instance, YouTube has been adapted as a means of submitting speaking videos where the students upload their videos on YouTube instead of sending them via email to the teacher (^{Cepik & Yastibas, 2013}; ^{Sun & Yang, 2015}). Additionally, ^{Lin and Hwang (2018}) implemented the commenting feature on Facebook for students’ discussions. Furthermore, ^{Amiryousefi (2019)} and ^{Ferdiansyah et al. (2020}) adapted social network services-such as Telegram and WhatsApp-and used them to support students’ learning by posting instructions, text, audio, and videos. The above studies have shown that the implementation of technology tools has facilitated technology disruptions in English language teaching and could exert better speaking activities and performances. Thus, technology disruptions improve the technology-enhanced language learning paradigm.

EFL Preservice Teachers’ Practice Teaching Using Technology

Increasing the quality of teachers could improve the quality of schools and boost the students’ education (^{Opfer & Pedder, 2011}). Teacher education programs (TEPs) are therefore necessary to generate well-trained teachers. TEPs are responsible for providing teachers with knowledge and teaching experiences. To date, many TEPs around the globe have provided their preservice teachers with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK; ^{Yüksel & Kavanoz, 2011}), a framework that helps teachers to understand how to teach a subject matter using technology (^{Koehler & Mishra, 2005}, 2009; ^{Mishra & Koehler, 2006}). According to Koehler and ^{Mishra (2005}, 2009), TPACK consists of seven domains: technology knowledge, content knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and TPACK. This framework is often inserted into the curriculum through technology courses, content-specific courses, pedagogy courses, and teaching experiences (^{Hofer & Grandgenett, 2012}). Related to technology courses, ^{Kusuma (2021)} reported that Indonesian English language TEPs provided technology and educational technology courses to their EFL preservice teachers. Moreover, the instructors also implemented various technology tools to give examples and meaningful learning experiences to their EFL preservice teachers. Technology courses, content-specific courses, and pedagogy courses are expected to provide the preservice teachers with technology knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogy knowledge. These three knowledge domains are necessary to create balanced interplays (^{Zyad, 2016}) to yield other knowledge, such as technological pedagogical knowledge, technological content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and TPACK. Thus, preservice teachers will have the knowledge and skills to manage and teach English using technology. Recent studies have demonstrated that TPACK has affected how much someone prefers using technology and their willingness to integrate new technology into their teaching (^{Habibi et al., 2020}; L. ^{Hsu, 2016}; ^{Incik & Akay, 2017}; ^{Joo et al., 2018}; ^{Yildiz-Durak, 2019}). Thus, the knowledge of using technology gained by preservice teachers from TEPs that introduce the TPACK framework is expected to influence their technology integration in their teaching.

While having a solid understanding is necessary for becoming a skilled teacher, EFL preservice teachers also require field experience through teaching practicum or practice teaching. The teaching practicum is a means for learning how to teach, and it offers preservice teachers the chance to strengthen their identities, both as individuals and as teachers, by using what they have learned from TEPs (^{Altalhab et al., 2021}; ^{Safari, 2020}). Furthermore, it makes the preservice teachers feel more prepared before their induction phase, which is the phase of their first year as teachers (^{Haim et al., 2020}).

Interestingly, regarding technology integration during practice teaching, some recent studies have found that preservice teachers in their practice teaching tend not to utilize technology in their induction teaching phase-even if they were well acquainted with it-mainly because of unfamiliarity with the tools used in schools and the lack of supporting infrastructures. For instance, ^{Merç (2015)} recruited 86 EFL preservice teachers in Turkey to explore their use of technology in their practice teaching and found that schools lacked the necessary technology tools to enable these preservice teachers to use technology in their practice. Merç also found that these preservice teachers did not implement technology because they were unfamiliar with the tools implemented by the schools. Similarly, ^{Baz et al. (2019)} conducted a study with 22 Turkish EFL preservice teachers, following their training on the Voicethread program. The authors found that the participants had no intention of implementing this platform due to the lack of facilities available in most schools.

Conversely, other studies have found the opposite, that is, a great interest on the part of EFL preservice teachers in using technology during their induction phase. For instance, ^{Baz et al. (2018)} reported that 36 Turkish EFL preservice teachers incorporated numerous technology tools-such as Instagram, Skype, Twitter, and PowerPoint-to enhance their teaching further. In addition, ^{Park and Son’s (2020)} longitudinal study with six EFL preservice teachers in Hong Kong showed that they implemented several types of software and web resources-such as digital audio editors, recording programs, online quiz applications, learning management systems, and video sharing websites. Furthermore, ^{Akayoglu et al. (2020)} conducted a study and found that 113 Turkish preservice teachers implemented technology tools, such as social media tools, learning management tools, quiz maker platforms, material design applications, presentation tools, and online storage applications. Finally, ^{Fathi and Ebadi (2020)} researched how six Iranian EFL preservice teachers used numerous technology tools to teach English after training. Unfortunately, the above studies did not report on how those tools were implemented when managing and teaching speaking skills, especially in fully online learning modes.

Emergency Remote Teaching During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Several recent studies have documented how rapid ERT was undertaken during this pandemic period. For instance, in a study by ^{Evans et al. (2020)}, Google Meet and Google Classroom were extensively used. Evans et al., in implementing Google Meet, would start the class using poems, vocabulary, or images. Then, they asked the students to talk about the language used in the text. The researchers also instructed the students to create tasks and submitted them to Google Classroom. This study showed that Google Meet and Google Classroom could be used as technology tools for conducting ERT.

Another example is ^{Moorhouse and Beaumont (2020)}, who developed an online English course for an English language teacher in Hong Kong. This development was initiated by the disappointment toward the synchronous mode provided by a school where this teacher taught during ERT. Moorhouse and Beaumont designed live lessons via Zoom for this teacher. Additionally, the teacher also implemented various innovative technology tools throughout the live classes, including Mentimeter and Kahoot for quizzes and games. Thus, combining Zoom and other platforms seemed to help this English language teacher to conduct online teaching even though it remains unclear whether this combination is effective or not. Apparently, using Zoom as a means to perform synchronous modes is very popular in Hong Kong. ^{Chang (2021)} also described his teaching experience during this pandemic time using Zoom and Moodle to teach English literature to his students, where he would explain the materials using Zoom and often ended the course with a discussion on Moodle.

In addition, using online literature circles and WhatsApp to give instruction, ^{Ferdiansyah et al. (2020)} had their pupils follow their lead. During ERT, the pupils were instructed to read several chapters of books and discuss via the voice message feature in WhatsApp. Then, the students wrote summaries of what they had read and could use digital writing assistants, online dictionaries, or other platforms to support writing their summaries. Thus, Ferdiansyah et al. have shown the possible implementation of WhatsApp for education, conversation, and group work.

The above studies have shed some light on the preservice teachers’ technology integration in teaching English and how ERT was conducted. However, the studies reviewed above have shown several important gaps, especially during the sudden online teaching due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The above studies did not investigate how preservice teachers used ERT to manage and teach speaking skills during this pandemic. The information of which technology tools and how they are implemented for ERT will add to the literature of teaching English using technology.

Design, Setting, and Context of Research

To have a complete understanding of the participants’ varied experiences, I employed a case study approach through detailed data collection (^{Creswell & Poth, 2018}; ^{Merriam & Tisdell, 2016}; ^{Stake, 1995}). Particularly, I employed a single case study approach to explore a unique case (^{Stake, 1995}). Therefore, even though the participants were from different universities, the single case study allows them to come from various groups (see ^{Schoch, 2019}; ^{Yin, 2018}) as long as one case is investigated. Furthermore, the case investigated in this study was the Indonesian EFL preservice teachers’ technology integration, and it was bounded in teaching speaking skills online during ERT due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moreover, a single case study allows the implementation of mixed methods (^{Yin, 2018}). Therefore, to get profound data to explain the case, this study employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design that started by collecting quantitative data and used them to plan the qualitative phase (^{Creswell & Creswell, 2018}). In this study, I collected the quantitative data through a survey, and I also used semi-structured interviews based on the data gathered from the survey.

This study was conducted in Indonesia since I am an Indonesian lecturer and a faculty member at a state education university in Indonesia, enabling easy access to contact the research sites. I then contacted potential education universities with English language TEPs and preservice teachers who had finished conducting online practice teaching. In the end, out of six universities contacted, only three education universities (two state and one private) gave access to conduct this study with their preservice teachers. These three universities have long histories in Indonesian education and are very well known for their quality of English language TEPs. Furthermore, these three universities offered four-year programs with the TPACK framework in which the curriculum provided the EFL preservice teachers with content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge through relevant courses.

Participants

Prior to contacting the participants, I sought IRB approval. Once the proposal was approved, I invited approximately 400 Indonesian EFL preservice teachers from three education universities in Indonesia through an email that described the present study, including the risks, benefits of joining this study, and the link to the survey. A month later, 301 Indonesian EFL preservice teachers (203 women and 98 men) completed the questionnaires with a 75.25% return rate. To support the data gathered from the survey, I also recruited 18 male (n = 9) and female (n = 9) preservice teachers who had completed the questionnaires for the interviews using the purposive sampling technique (A^{ry et al., 2019}; ^{Mertens, 2015}). These Indonesian EFL preservice teachers had conducted online practice teaching for 3-4 months in 2020. For confidentiality purposes, the participants in this study are labelled with numbers from 1 to 18. On average, the 18 participants who were interviewed were 21 years old and were assigned to teach in junior (n = 10) and senior high schools (n = 8).

Methods of Data Collection and Instrument

In this study, I employed data/source triangulation (^{Farmer et al., 2006}; ^{Farquhar et al., 2020}) to ensure the validity of the research results (Farmer et al., 2006; ^{Stake, 1995}) through collecting data from various sources, such as questionnaires, online interviews with EFL preservice teachers, researchers’ notes, and lesson plans from the 18 participants. Furthermore, I developed a questionnaire that used Likert scales ranging from 1-5 (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and very often), which measured offline and online technology tools in teaching speaking skills (see Appendix). In developing the questionnaire, I sent the questionnaires to second language acquisition experts for evaluation and a small group try-out. Then, I conducted content and face validity through employing an inter-rater agreement model proposed by ^{Gregory (2015)}. Finally, I employed empirical validity using the Pearson product moment analysis technique where all items were above 0.01 and 0.05, and all items were therefore valid. However, only the data about online technology tools are presented in this study. To complete the data gathered from the survey, I also developed an interview protocol that contained four questions (see Appendix). The interviews were conducted in the Indonesian language to reduce the anxiety of the participants. Then, the interviews were transcribed into the Indonesian language and were sent back to the participants to ensure the trustworthiness of the data before proceeding to the coding analysis.

Data Analysis Methods

Regarding data analysis methods, I employed descriptive statistics to identify the usage of online technology tools implemented by 301 Indonesian EFL preservice teachers in teaching speaking skills during the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, it was continued by analyzing the interview results of 18 participants. The transcriptions were carefully analyzed to generate potential codes. The data were coded using the in-vivo technique. Then, all codes were analyzed using the thematic analysis technique to identify themes based on theoretical or analytic interest in the area (^{Braun & Clarke, 2006}). I also implemented the bracketing method by writing memos during interviews and analysis to support the interview analysis (^{Tufford & Newman, 2012}). The memos were used to examine and reflect upon the researcher’s engagement with the data. The analysis generated two themes, six sub-themes, and 13 codes, and 109 excerpts were found. The codes created were about how the participants implemented WhatsApp, YouTube, and Google Forms to manage and teach speaking skills. Therefore, the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the analysis centered around managing and teaching speaking skills using those platforms.

Kinds of Online Technology Tools Implemented in Teaching Speaking Skills During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The first analysis conducted was on the data gathered from the questionnaires completed by 301 participants. The descriptive statistic results in Table 1 show that the most frequent online technology employed by most participants in teaching speaking skills during ERT was WhatsApp (M = 4.32, Mdn = 5, mode = 5, SD = 1.01), followed by YouTube (M = 3.16, Mdn = 3, mode = 3, SD = 1.15), and by Google Forms (M = 3.03, Mdn = 3, mode = 2, SD = 1.36). Moreover, the analysis on the lesson plans submitted by the 18 participants also showed extensive usage of WhatsApp, YouTube, and Google Forms to support online teaching, including teaching speaking skills during their online practice teaching.

Table 1 Kinds of Online Technology Used in Teaching Speaking Skills During Emergency Remote Teaching (N = 301) 

Purposes of Implementing Online Technology Tools in Managing and Teaching Speaking Skills

The statistical results showed that the participants frequently implemented WhatsApp, YouTube, and Google Forms, and, during the interviews, they talked about how they implemented those tools to teach speaking skills. The profound analysis from interview results about the purposes of implementing online technology tools in teaching speaking skills yielded two themes, six sub-themes, 13 codes, and 109 excerpts (see Table 2).

Table 2 The Purposes of Implementing Online Technology Tools in Managing and Teaching Speaking Skills