








































Emerging Perspectives 
ep.journalhosting.ucalgary.ca 

Corresponding author: cameron.smith2@ucalgary.ca 

 
 

Essayons: French as a Second Language Teacher Experiences of  
Technology-Enhanced Practice 

Cameron Smith 

University of Calgary 

While past research has identified the importance of teacher beliefs in informing 
practice, this work is underexplored in the context of Canadian French as a Second 
Language (FSL) teachers. Numerous studies have emphasized the benefits of 
technology-enhanced teaching practices, yet the daily challenges faced by FSL 
teachers limit their capabilities to fully integrate these tools and pedagogies into their 
practices. By considering how practicing FSL teachers experience the integration of 
technology in second language learning, this research contributes a current 
understanding of these realities. Through an interpretive lens, this article presents an 
account of the experiences of four FSL teachers in an urban school board in southern 
Alberta. The participants’ responses reveal that while current trends in technology 
integration aligned well with their beliefs, numerous barriers have presented ongoing 
challenges in enacting their visions for their professional practices. 

Smith, C. (2020). Essayons: French as a Second Language teacher experiences of technology-
enhanced practice. Emerging Perspectives, 4(2), 1-15. 

 
 
Despite the recognized benefits and promotion of digital technologies in teacher practice, 

French as a Second Language (FSL) teachers across Canada face numerous difficulties in 
enacting technology-enhanced practices in their classrooms. While studies have demonstrated 
the potential for digital technology to engage students and extend learning environments beyond 
traditional constraints (e.g. Koua, 2013), the unique context of the FSL classroom presents 
additional challenges that often go unnoticed and unaddressed in schools (Karabulut, LeVelle, 
Li, & Suvorov, 2014). This article begins by presenting an overview of the context of FSL 
learning in Canada, as well as literature relevant to understanding the experiences of four FSL 
teachers in a school board in Alberta. The stories of these teachers highlight the reality faced by 
FSL teachers integrating digital technology into their teaching. The article concludes with a call 
to further study and consider the FSL teacher experience in schools.    

 With two official languages, French and English, the Canadian government promotes the 
learning of both languages in K-12 schools across the country. Outside of Francophone schools, 
FSL programs are usually divided into Core and Immersion levels. Immersion programs use 
French as the language of instruction, promoting fluency and a deeper connection with 
Francophone culture. Conversely, Core programs provide a less intensive, single-class offering 
for those wishing to pursue French language learning.  

FSL programs vary considerably in different provinces, particularly at the elementary level 
(Turnbull, 2000). The amount of instructional time, the grade at which students begin to learn 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  2 

 
 

French, as well as whether or not the program is compulsory vary both within and across 
provinces. In Alberta, most students begin learning FSL in grade four as part of the Nine-Year 
Sequential Program (Alberta Education, 2007). Importantly, however, students in Alberta are not 
required to take FSL in their program of study, as there is no mandate to offer additional 
language education. Thus, the actual amount of French instruction time students receive may 
vary even if these programs are available to students. As of 2016-17, over 1.709 million students 
(nearly half of all students in Canada) were enrolled in FSL programs across Canada (Canadian 
Parents for French, 2017). With 191,000 students in Alberta pursuing optional FSL programs, 
the percentage of participation is lower, at only 30% (Canadian Parents for French, 2017).     

Challenges associated with FSL programs are commonly cited in the research literature. In 
a report from the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Chong (2014) noted that “learning 
French as a second language remains a challenge in Canada” (p. 10), describing ongoing 
concerns of accessibility as well as declining enrolment. Despite the promotion of bilingualism 
and its benefits, FSL programs are frequently marginalized, as seen in the lack of control, 
integration, and autonomy given to FSL teachers (Lapkin et al., 2009). Kissau (2005) challenged 
the idea that, despite the rhetoric, “the study of French is not a national priority” (p. 9). FSL 
programs are also seen as an “add-on” and non-essential subject, which leaves the value and 
potential of FSL programs up to the discretion of school and board administrators (Faez, 2011; 
LeBlanc, 1990).  

Traditionally, FSL programs are also associated with particularly low retention after the 
end of the compulsory period. Roughly 95% of students in secondary FSL programs are 
estimated to leave the program after completing their mandatory studies (Chong, 2014). These 
issues have been identified repeatedly in the literature yet they continue to plague FSL education. 
The FSL teacher is generally undervalued and marginalized within the school and teaching 
community; indeed, “the working conditions of FSL teachers [are] worse than those for teachers 
of other subjects” (Kissau, 2005, p. 14). Given that FSL is only offered for short periods each 
day, the FSL teacher may be seen as an outsider in the school community (Lapkin et al., 2009). 
This issue is often exacerbated by the lack of a designated classroom. Most often, at the 
elementary level, FSL teachers are not assigned a designated classroom (Lapkin et al., 2006). 
This forces teachers to move their resources from room to room, creating an impression of 
inferiority (Kissau, 2005). Similarly, a lack of administrative support can be combined with a 
lack of parental and student support for the study of French (Kyungsuk & Rixon, 2015; 
Robinson, 2005). These negative factors may influence the beliefs and practices of FSL teachers, 
compounding other cognition-related challenges related to technology integration (Lawrence, 
2014). 

Numerous studies have suggested the possibilities for technology-enhanced instruction to 
improve, and even revolutionize FSL and general second language learning (Koua, 2013; Wang 
& Vásquez, 2012). Technology-enhanced teaching and learning extend practices beyond 
traditional means to support or deepen environments and experiences for students (Brown, 2013; 
Havard, 2013). Digital devices and their various uses in the FSL classroom allow “interesting 
and dynamic mediums through which students can exercise and perfect their skills in the target 
language” (Turnbull & Lawrence, 2003, p. 253). Students who struggle or who are disengaged 
by traditional FSL teaching methods can benefit greatly from technology’s applications. This 
potential has evolved considerably from grammar and form-based drilling exercises to focus 
instead on language use and collaborative approaches. Numerous tools are able to support the 
creation of “engaging learning environments to facilitate communicative competence” 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  3 

 
 

(Lawrence, 2014, p. 60). Indeed, technology has potential for use in all second language (L2) 
curriculum areas (grammar, listening, reading, writing, speaking, culture, etc.) and in developing 
various specific language skills (Levy, 2009). Arrays of tools exist to assist with specific content, 
such as spelling, or with overall language training in online platforms (Koua, 2013). 
Unfortunately, these benefits may not be reflected in the current practice of classrooms, and 
technology alone will not transform learning (Motteram & Thomas, 2010). 

This study examined the way in which FSL teachers in a southern Alberta school division 
perceive and experience teaching FSL with technology. By discussing the teachers’ practices and 
approaches to teaching, I was able to explore insights into the beliefs and technology usage of 
current FSL teachers in Alberta. Thus, the lived experiences of these four FSL teachers provide 
insights into the core question of this study: how do practicing FSL teachers in Alberta perceive 
and experience the integration of technology in second language learning?  

Literature Review 

 There is a rich array of literature investigating French as a Second Language (FSL), the 
impacts of educational technology, and teacher beliefs. However, limited research exists at the 
nexus of these three areas (Lawrence, 2014). Further, much of the literature examining 
educational technology and teacher beliefs relate more generally to L2 classrooms, as opposed to 
FSL, and the Canadian context is largely unexplored.  

In Canada, FSL teachers are trained by means of a pre-service teacher education program. 
Chong (2014) noted that numerous FSL teachers were enrolled in FSL programs themselves, and 
French is therefore their second or an additional language. There are also longstanding 
difficulties in recruiting and retaining FSL teachers. Recruitment concerns have resulted in an 
ongoing shortage of qualified FSL teachers in Canada since the early 2000s (Chong, 2014; Faez, 
2011; Lapkin et al., 2009). According to a study from Lapkin and Barkaoui (2008), more than 
one in five FSL teachers surveyed did not intend to stay in FSL in the next three years (as cited 
in Lapkin et al., 2009). This may be attributed to the devalued position and lack of attention paid 
to this side of the profession (Chong, 2014). As previously discussed, a lack of student 
engagement and motivation, funding concerns, and inequitable treatment in schools are 
considered factors in this devaluation (Kissau, 2005).  

Educational Technology  

The prevalence of digital technologies has increased substantially in the 21st century. With 
the normalization of technology use has come the belief that schools should be integrating 
technology. Parents, students, and various educational stakeholders, including teachers, expect 
technology to be used in all classrooms (Gruba, 2006; MacDonald, 2003). This results in an 
increase in pressure on teachers in all fields to integrate technology, and to be both aware of and 
knowledgeable about using various digital tools and resources. Stockwell (2009) noted that such 
technological literacy and uses are also an asset in hiring and promotion practices, which 
increases the perceived value of these skills. The growing technological competency of students 
compounds this issue, particularly in the digital divide between student and teacher knowledge 
(Kessler, 2006). 

There has been a considerable investment in educational technology, with the drive to 
equip schools having begun in the late 20th century (Deyrich & Dyson, 2006). Part of the initial 
mania can be attributed to the perception that technology would serve as a panacea to the 
problems of education. However, in light of the wide-ranging benefits of educational technology, 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  4 

 
 

it may be more prudent to ask what aspects of educational technologies, and how effective 
integration will benefit the teaching and learning process (Robinson, 2005). 

In integrating technology, the context of each school, and the knowledge of its teachers are 
significant. Understanding technology generally, being familiar with specific tools, and knowing 
how technology may be used in the classroom are crucial to this knowledge-building process 
(Levy, 2009). This is particularly important, as effective technology use distinguishes it from 
simply being an add-on or a novelty to traditional instruction. It is worth noting that technology 
is a tool and it cannot produce learning inherently (Brown, 2007; Deyrich & Dyson, 2006). 
Indeed, simply using a technology does not mean that it is being used in a manner that supports 
improved teaching and learning (Robb, 2006).  

Benefits and challenges of educational technology 

 While the current landscape of educational technology undoubtedly includes some 
challenges, the effective integration of technology also affords a number of benefits and 
opportunities (Koua, 2013). The multiple uses and functions of many digital tools and resources 
means technologies are able to be integrated in many different ways and for many different 
purposes (Levy, 2009). Internet-based and other digital tools in particular allow for a wide range 
of “communicative, socially constructive and dynamic, student-centered learning environments” 
that can facilitate deeper learning (MacDonald, 2003, p. 455). Effective uses of technology 
necessitate altering traditional roles and teacher-directed instruction (Kessler, 2006; Kim, 2008). 
As technology mediates more and more communication outside of the classroom, using these 
technologies inside the classroom reflects the relevance and real-world connection of these 
programs (Motteram & Thomas, 2010). 

From a pedagogical perspective, technology often serves to motivate students to engage 
with classroom activities and tasks. The use of dynamic digital resources, multimedia tools, and 
technologies can serve as a “purposeful motivational strategy,” both inherent from the use of 
technology and the design of the learning opportunity (Kissau & Salas, 2013, p. 99). This is 
particularly relevant in the language classroom, where motivation is a key element of successful 
learning (Hess, 2012). While motivation alone is not grounds for effective use, this factor gives 
technology the additional bonus of both cognitive and motivational assistance (Kim, 2008).  

Digital tools provide access to a large array of language resources, student and teacher 
supports, as well as different means of capturing students’ language use (Koua, 2013; Lawrence, 
2014). Providing meaningful but enjoyable applications, as well as opportunities for practice and 
remedial support outside of classroom time, is also beneficial (Koua, 2013; MacDonald, 2003). 
Interactive websites, apps, digital games, programs, (social) media and other resources are 
increasingly uploaded and shared online. This is particularly valuable given the current 
challenges surrounding accessing quality resources in second language classrooms (Chong, 
2014). 

Changing pedagogies and teaching styles through technology have also afforded a focus on 
language use and higher-order skills, which promote engagement, motivation, interest and deeper 
language learning (Koua, 2013). Indeed, student-centered pedagogies are often associated with 
technology use, which allows for greater student independence and agency than is traditionally 
seen in the second language classroom (Lawrence, 2014).  

However, there are also challenges, limitations, and barriers to technology use for both 
general and language classrooms. Robinson (2005) and Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, 
Sendurur, and Sendurur (2012) recognized two broader categories of barriers to technology use: 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  5 

 
 

primary barriers—such as access, time, and insufficient support, as well as secondary barriers—
such as beliefs, established routines, and resistance to change. 

At the very core, technology use is most restricted by the limitations of the technology, as 
well as the teacher and learners’ technological competency (Chapelle, 2001). Indeed, “as with 
any tool, their ultimate value and power are largely a function of the capacities of the user” 
(Murphy, 2002, p. 216). This knowledge is not always easily accessed, and the opportunity to see 
and experience proficient technology use in practice would likely be more beneficial (Stockwell, 
2009). A lack of adequate training makes the integration of technology a more challenging task. 
Robb (2006) noted that there is a pervasive “tendency for schools to invest in hardware with little 
regard for the training of personnel in its effective use” (p. 340). Being unfamiliar with 
appropriate technology-enhanced pedagogies, as well as a lack of knowledge and understanding 
about the role and possibilities of technology, are substantial barriers to technology use 
(Lawrence, 2014). Teachers require ongoing and scaffolded learning, building from their current 
knowledge outward, in order for their technology integration to be normalized and seamlessly 
connected with their practice (Levy, 2009). When in-school and administrative support is 
lacking, or worse, restrictive of technology use, teachers are often left to explore and 
troubleshoot technology integration alone (Kyungsuk & Rixon, 2015; Robb, 2006). 

Unfortunately, a number of these concerns are outside of the individual teachers’ control 
(Lawrence, 2014). The school or district’s technology infrastructure, professional development 
and training, policies, and lack of time in balancing curricular demands all constrain technology-
enhanced teaching (Lawrence, 2014; Stockwell, 2009). Even when schools have the necessary 
tools, access to the devices may still pose a challenge. The availability of the devices when 
shared among staff, the number of devices in relation to the number of students, and technical 
difficulties can also inhibit integration (Murphy, 2002). Therefore, access alone does not bring 
about technology use (Motteram & Thomas, 2010). 

The unique context of the FSL classroom adds additional considerations to technology 
integration. Indeed, Hubbard & Levy (2006) warn against taking “too much generic educational 
criteria” (p. 15) about technology use into the language classroom. Language teachers face 
difficult challenges when attempting to integrate technology, more so than their colleagues 
(Levy, 2009). For example, educational technology tools and training are often designed for 
other courses or for general classrooms (Lawrence, 2014). Language instructors often come 
away from professional development without the understanding required to integrate it into their 
own context (Robb, 2006). Language departments and teachers are rarely consulted over 
technology decisions, and the differences between the language and general classroom are 
frequently overlooked (Levy, 2009). As Deyrich and Dyson (2006) noted, technology must be 
linked to the subject, as well as with pedagogies and practices that support its use. While the 
newest tools may not necessarily indicate effective practice, many teachers are using a limited 
number of traditional technology tasks in established ways, and new tools that promote higher 
order thinking and language use are rarely integrated (Peters, Weinberg, & Sarma, 2009). 

Teacher Beliefs Literature 

Given that the teacher is one of the most important factors in implementing educational 
change, understanding how teachers think and feel about technology is essential (Lawrence, 
2014). As such, the successful integration of technology depends on the teacher’s attitudes. 
Positive beliefs will likely encourage innovation and change, while negative opinions will 
impede or inhibit its use altogether (Lawrence, Haque, & King, 2013). Indeed, the more positive 
view of the benefits of computer technology, the more the teacher will be willing to use such 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  6 

 
 

technology in their teaching (Lam, 2000). Robinson (2005) recommended working to uncover 
and speak to individual teacher’s beliefs once technology becomes available in a school.  

 Many teachers currently perceive technology from a limited viewpoint, regarding it 
mostly as an add-on to their own didactic instruction, rather than as a student-centered or 
student-directed tool (Lawrence, 2014). One particularly notable issue concerning teacher beliefs 
is technology resistance. Teachers often resist experimentation with new technology, as they 
have likely already developed routines and practices that appear to function in a certain lesson 
(Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006). A vast number of reasons are 
thought to develop resistance (Turnbull & Lawrence, 2003), including “discomfort with . . . new 
roles and the dynamic, increasingly non-hierarchical nature of knowledge building, methodology 
and interaction which seems to conflict with school structures and previous educational 
experiences” (Lawrence, 2014, p. 62). 

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many teachers do not transfer a considerable 
amount of what is taught in formal courses and teacher education into their practice, unless they 
were motivated to use technology before entering the program (Kessler, 2006). This is not 
surprising, given that teachers who are “able to fit [technology] into an existing framework of 
beliefs and practices” are more likely to experience success in integrating it into their practice 
(Wong & Benson, 2006, p. 261). This implies that teacher education programs are not 
consistently addressing the negative perceptions of technology during their degree courses. This 
leaves teachers to supplement their learning later on with informal information gathered from 
their colleagues and other sources after they graduate (Walker & White, 2013). 

Methodology 

This study employed a qualitative, instrumental case study (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 2006). 
The interest in providing several cases is grounded in the idea that these cases allowed for a 
greater quantity and variation in the responses of the participants, supporting the precision of the 
interpretation and the bounding of the results (Merriam, 2009). While having multiple cases is 
not intended to promote generalizations or to focus on making comparisons across the cases, 
some will inevitably be made in order to better understand the quintain (Stake, 2006). Having 
several instances of phenomena across the cases can provide more compelling evidence (Heck, 
2006), while contradictions of themes will also provide insight (Stake, 2006).  

In seeking to understand the social realities of teachers, as they perceive it, the study of 
teacher beliefs is rooted in the interpretivist tradition (Given, 2008). Further, as teachers’ beliefs, 
perceptions, and experiences are not directly observable phenomena, the teachers must be 
engaged in data collection methods which elicit these insights (Borg, 2006). In this study, a self-
report instrument (an online questionnaire) and verbal commentaries (semi-structured interviews 
and stimulated recall) were used. The questionnaire served as both a recruitment and data 
collection tool. The questionnaire was distributed to teachers in elementary schools in a southern 
Alberta school division by email. The survey prompted the teachers to indicate interest in the 
study, supply their demographic information, as well as provided initial insights into their beliefs 
and knowledge of technology-enhanced practices through Likert scales and open-ended, short-
answer questions (Mertens, 2015). The questions were based on the beliefs of the teachers, 
relating to their affective (preferences), cognitive (knowledge), and action-based (practices) 
cognitions (Borg, 2006). From the ten responses to their survey, four teachers were selected for 
interviews based on their responses seemingly “having strategic importance” to the research 
questions (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 307). 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  7 

 
 

 The semi-structured individual interviews and stimulated recall exercise expanded the 
depth of the data, posing questions and eliciting further responses from the participants. These 
interviews were intended to highlight the teacher’s beliefs, practices, experiences, and factors 
that influenced these individuals in greater depth and detail. The interview questions were 
selected from a pool, to allow for a certain amount of shaping to occur within each interview, 
unique to the conversation with the participant (Wilkinson & Birmingham, 2003). The interview 
questions explored the benefits and challenges of technology use in the FSL classroom, as well 
as discussing the factors that influence technology use in their schools generally. The responses 
provided insights into the how the teachers view FSL programs, the use of technology, and the 
value of technology in teaching and learning FSL.  

Each of the four participants voluntarily displayed examples of lesson plans, completed 
student work, and other teaching materials related to technology use during the interviews. These 
materials prompted the teachers to reflect further, and to provide specific examples in addition to 
those discussed during the interview (Borg, 2006). These documents also provided new insights 
into the daily practices of these teachers, which may have supported or contradicted their verbal 
statements. These instances uncovered when the teachers’ beliefs and their practices were 
aligned, and when they diverged. While the majority of the data are drawn from the interviews, 
critical moments in the analysis of the documents and teacher recall associated with artifacts 
provided depth to the analysis. 

The study’s participants (pseudonyms: Alexandria, Anna, Laura, and Mackenzie) included 
four, female-identifying FSL teachers at various stages of their career. Mackenzie, a recent 
Bachelor of Education graduate, described herself as confident with technology, having grown 
up using it. Anna, an Assistant Principal, has promoted technology integration in her school 
through professional learning and leading by example. Laura, an experienced teacher, has taught 
FSL to adolescent students, using technology to connect them with French language and culture 
globally. Alexandria, a current FSL supply teacher, was more hesitant in using technology, 
though she takes an active interest in learning and trying new strategies. 

Results 

The participants commonly referenced the optional status of FSL programs in Alberta as a 
challenge in their professional life. Each teacher noted various issues that were either brought on 
by, attributed to, or exacerbated by the non-compulsory nature of the programs. These issues 
include varying program availability, inconsistent prior linguistic knowledge among students, the 
challenge of motivating students enrolled in varying optional programs, program consistency and 
instruction time within the program, as well as the perception of the program and support given 
to FSL teachers as a non-compulsory subject. 

The teachers expressed that the optional status of the program affects how FSL was 
perceived and valued within their schools and the board. This includes the perception of students, 
parents, other teachers, and administrators. Mackenzie and Laura consistently reported 
frustrations with the treatment of the program. Laura commented generally that in the board, “not 
all schools promote it as they should. Some do and some don’t. It’s hit or miss, even in schools 
with FSL.” When discussing her work in the school, Mackenzie described being an FSL teacher 
as though “you’re an island off by yourself.” She elaborated that she felt isolated from her fellow 
teachers, unsupported by administrators, and generally undervalued in the school. Laura noted 
that in the upper grades her program cannot contend with core subjects:  



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  8 

 
 

Over the years, I’ve changed my attitude. I’ve learned I can’t compete with core courses. 
I can’t send a kid home with a lot of French homework when they’ve got homework from 
the other subjects. They’ll be out of your class so quickly. 

Mackenzie noted that this diminished status influenced her approach to integrating 
technology. She said, “I’m just an option. I’ll give the technology up if an English teacher needs 
the [tablet] cart, because, you know, I think I can just get away without it and they need it more.” 

The teachers repeatedly emphasized that an understanding of using technology, and 
comfort in using it, were essential elements of technology integration. The participants often 
spoke of technology integration as a professional obligation, as seen in Anna’s statement: 

You have to do it. You have to know, as a teacher, especially with technology. It doesn’t 
take very long to figure something out, but you still need to learn it, and take the time to 
do it. You don’t want to be that teacher who’s sitting in their classroom and having no 
idea what’s happening out there. 

This perceived obligation poses added challenges for these teachers, as they must keep 
pace with technology integration without receiving the same level of support as their colleagues. 

FSL and Technology  

Participants’ discussions of FSL and technology often included comments on pedagogy, 
and the changes in instructional style and method used by the teachers. Both technology and the 
influence of the technology-enhanced pedagogy were commonly referenced as significant factors 
in this change. 

The participants frequently contrasted their current practice with the traditional styles of 
their own schooling, and even their own prior teaching. Laura shared her experiences, explaining 
that “when I went to school, it was textbooks, it was rote, and it was not useable. We memorized 
a lot of vocabulary that was absolutely useless. We did worksheets upon worksheets.” She 
contrasted this with her changing approach to FSL:  

The main thing that I’ve seen change is going from that traditional, rote learning, to 
trying to develop kids who are comfortable speaking the language. I know that sounds 
really simple, but it should never have been any other way. I mean, I was guilty of that 25 
years ago. That was how we’d always done it. But the technology is really helping 
change that. 

Similarly, Alexandria added that, as her teaching changed, she has realized new 
possibilities for student engagement. “Students can be very creative and surprise you with their 
ideas, and they can show their love from French in many ways that are not the traditional 
methods” she stated, “they can't do that when reading from the textbook or doing a worksheet.” 
She continued,  

Kids who were not very outspoken, but who listen to French music or shows, showed me 
that they were trying and understanding. I would ask them questions and it shows they 
were developing on the topic. I think the spark is there, but you just have to get them to 
be more confident to use their French and connect with it. 

The use of some technology was inevitable, according to the participants, as Anna noted:  
It's nicer for the kids because technology is all around them; you can't really go the 
traditional route anymore, it's just part of the changing times. There is a time for the 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  9 

 
 

traditional, when it’s pen and pencil, but technology makes teaching a lot easier and it 
helps get the kids more engaged, and wanting them to learn. 

Like Anna, appealing to her students’ interests was a significant factor in Alexandria’s 
technology integration. “Students have different expectations today,” Alexandria commented, 
“they want French to be more up-to-date, more modern, more related to their everyday life.” In 
her teaching, technology served an important role incorporating more oral communication and 
interactive lessons. In her current practice, having her students “experience it. Getting them to 
speak more French” was a key tenet. She added, “maybe their pronunciation or grammar isn't 
perfect, but they need to give it a try and be persistent.” 

Importantly, each teacher noted that her teaching is far from entirely digital. A result of 
both necessity (e.g., a lack of devices) and their own beliefs about language learning, they still 
regularly include non-digital tasks and activities. As previously mentioned, the participants 
commented that technology does not inherently improve student work, or the quality of teaching. 
The teachers unanimously maintained that their teaching would preserve these technology-free 
lessons, at least for the foreseeable future. The teachers reasoned that balancing digital with non-
digital tasks was the reality of schools today, and that students do not need devices all the time, 
simply for the sake of using them. Laura commented, “it’s a language - it’s about the artifacts, 
what you’ve read and taking part. You can do that without technology, but there has to be a 
balance.” 

Though their practices were varied, the teachers reported two predominant changes to their 
pedagogy–access to visual aids, and the use of games. The teachers noted that, with technology, 
it is easier to enhance lessons with graphics and multimedia. The ability for students to create 
and consume media and multimodal options for combining the strands (reading, speaking, 
writing, listening) is important. Electronic access to videos, movies, and audio clips are thought 
to enhance presentations. As well, books and other non-digital media were more easily retrieved 
and either distributed or displayed to the class. Anna commented:  

For kids, they’re more engaged because of it. They’ll see the information, they’ll see the 
picture, they’ll see a video. For them, it’s more useful than just the teacher going in front 
of the class and just talking or writing on the board. 

The participants also frequently discussed the use of games, both digital and non-digital, as 
a new addition, though now a staple of their teaching. For Mackenzie, these games were intended 
to engage students in using vocabulary and ideas from the unit. She commented:  

I’ve found some success with bringing in games after we’ve introduced a topic, to have 
[students] reflect on what it is. Mostly something I’ve found online. Before having that 
final formative assessment, I’ll use them to see if they’ve understood. 

These changes are promising, as they suggest that even teachers who face obstacles with 
technology integration may still be open to opportunities that they have the skills, resources, and 
support to access. 

Discussion 

Understanding the beliefs and experiences of teachers is a critical component of analyzing 
their current practices (Kim, 2008). This is particularly true of second language teachers, whose 
study in the field of teacher beliefs is relatively recent and still emerging (Turnbull & Lawrence, 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  10 

 
 

2003). Teacher beliefs and prior experiences play a critical role in shaping the use of technology 
in a teacher’s practice, and research indicates that FSL teachers’ beliefs and practices may not be 
keeping pace with those of their colleagues (Deyrich & Dyson, 2006). 

In discussing the transition to their current technology-enhanced teaching practice, the 
teachers compared their new approach with their own experiences as students. The notable 
differences between their past and present mindsets and pedagogies highlight the potential for 
beliefs to change over time, while the ongoing similarities speak to the enduring legacy of certain 
beliefs (Ertmer, 2005).  

For Mackenzie and Laura, and to some extent for Alexandria, being introduced to a new 
pedagogy style in their professional development caused a shift in their teaching, away from the 
experiences they had in FSL classrooms as students. These participants discussed making a 
conscious effort to move away from traditional approaches to FSL, which was supported by 
digital technology tools and resources (Lawrence, 2014). As a result, their beliefs now reflect the 
influence of later experiences, more so than their own schooling. This progression was 
particularly explicit for Laura, who admitted using more traditional pedagogies at the beginning 
of her teaching career. Laura noted that as new information and professional development 
opportunities became available her teaching practices began to shift. The rationale underlying the 
new pedagogy was essential to shifting each of these teachers’ beliefs, providing a necessary 
impetus for change (Ertmer, 2005). Laura, Mackenzie, and Alexandra described growing 
recognitions that longstanding approaches to FSL instruction seemed too focused on grammar, 
vocabulary, and drilling exercises (Peters, Weinberg & Sarma, 2009). As accessing technology 
in the classroom became more common, their practices shifted mediums, allowing them to better 
integrate their new beliefs into their daily work. 

Participants’ use of digital technologies also suggests a limited influence of prior school 
experience. Most of the participants had little to no experience with digital tools and devices in 
their classrooms as students or as beginning teachers. Indeed, only Mackenzie, the youngest 
participant, spoke about how she “grew up” with technology. Thus, participants’ experiences and 
beliefs about teaching contrast with their non-digital past. In speaking to their gradual 
incorporation of more and more technology, the teachers reveal how the influence of their prior 
experience was replaced by experiences of success with newer pedagogies. This perspective was 
reinforced over time, and as Richards, Gallo, and Renandya (2001) suggested, became the 
participants’ dominant approach. As Mackenzie’s current teaching content is more compatible 
with her schooling experience, she offers an interesting contrast to the limited influence of 
school on other participants’ teaching. Mackenzie’s experience with technology from an early 
age may have promoted her own technological competence, and predisposed her to use it in her 
teaching.  

Professional Development  

Professional development builds essential knowledge for teachers, at both the pre- and in-
service levels (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). These experiences present opportunities for teachers to 
reflect on their current knowledge, and to build upon it with new strategies and resources 
(Richards et al., 2001). 

Similar to the general lack of technology use in their schooling experiences, none of the 
teachers reported seeing technology used widely or effectively in their own teacher education 
programs. Even Mackenzie, a recent graduate, expressed misgivings about her experiences with 
technology during her teacher education program. This is significant, as a lack of practical 
technology integration in pre-service education may influence a teacher’s later beliefs (Deyrich 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  11 

 
 

& Dyson, 2006; Kagan, 1992). The participating teachers have, however, developed more robust 
beliefs about the use of technology, though it is unclear whether they were already motivated to 
learn about and use technology, or if they developed this interest as their careers progressed (see 
Kessler, 2006). 

The teachers repeatedly emphasized the importance of in-service professional development 
opportunities. Most of the participants contended that targeted and engaging sessions supported 
their success with technology integration, presented them with opportunities to connect with 
other teachers, and helped to expand their knowledge. However, the teachers noted numerous 
challenges associated with in-service professional development, particularly related to 
technology and the second language classroom. 

The participants also commented on the difficulties they experienced in finding and 
accessing these sessions, especially given their recognized benefits. This is consistent with 
Murphy’s (2002) observations that while teachers may wish to engage in professional 
development (PD) on technology use, access concerns may hinder their ability to take part. 
Mackenzie reported a general lack of technology-related PD, while Alexandria and Laura shared 
experiences of struggling to find sessions that would connect to FSL. Compounding this issue, as 
Laura notes, is that while French-related PD is available in the board, much of it focuses on 
French Immersion, not FSL. Thus, these teachers may leave PD sessions without knowing how 
to integrate ideas into their own context (Robb, 2006). The teachers also spoke to challenges 
associated with the uniqueness of the FSL classroom, particularly when available PD is unlikely 
to cover the expectations of their language classroom, their stream of French learning, or the age 
group of their students. This lack of direction was a common source of frustration for these 
teachers. 

Contextual Factors  

The context in which each teacher conducts their practice plays an important role in 
influencing their approach (Levy, 2009). Physical, social, and systemic settings, whether 
temporary or permanent, shape a teacher’s cognitions and practices; thus, understanding these 
contextual factors is essential to studying the beliefs and behaviours of teachers (Borg, 2006). 
One of the most common subjective norms that participants discussed was an expectation to use 
technology in their teaching. Indeed, the common use of technology in Alberta classrooms was 
part of each teacher’s motivation to use technology, connected to the Learning and Technology 
Policy Framework (Alberta Education, 2013). Alexandria, for example, noted that her students 
asked for technology to be used, while Anna observed that district administrators regularly 
include technology as part of board initiatives. Mackenzie, meanwhile, believed that teachers’ 
technology skills were an asset during hiring, further influencing her own views of technology 
use (see MacDonald, 2003; Stockwell, 2009). In this way, participants’ subjective norms framed 
technology use in a positive light, contributing to their desire to integrate technology in their 
teaching. Mackenzie also noted that using technology encouraged further use. That is, teachers 
who already work to integrate technology into their practice may be motivated to continue doing 
so, particularly if their beliefs align with Bring Your Own Device policies or digital citizenship 
(Ertmer, 2005). 

Participants contrasted the expectation to use technology with a lack of parental and 
administrative support for FSL. Mackenzie, for example, believed that her school board did not 
provide sufficient support for the FSL program. Laura specifically contended that the program’s 
optional status reduced her enrollment numbers, while Alexandria suggested that French 
language learning in general should be better supported since it also serves as one of Canada’s 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  12 

 
 

official languages. Yet, the participants’ recognition of the treatment of the subject in schools 
and in school districts, often as a low priority as Anna suggests, are also consistent with Lapkin 
and colleagues’ (2006) report. The teachers in this study discussed a lack of meaningful 
consultation and guidance, as well as a lack of available funding and in-school support.  

Conclusion 

Fundamentally, in order to support technology integration, teacher development 
programming must recognize the importance of beliefs in order to better prepare teachers to use 
technology. Developing positive attitudes towards technology is essential (Lawrence, 2014). 
This positive attitude must extend beyond using technology themselves as teachers, but also in 
designing lessons for their students to use technology effectively (Peters, 2006). Assisting 
teachers in receiving repeated exposure to technological practices, and implementing technology 
themselves, is reported to improve the attitude and confidence of teachers (Turnbull & 
Lawrence, 2003). 

In terms of the participants’ beliefs, these teachers seem to agree with new technological 
developments, and the growing influence of technology seems largely compatible with their 
beliefs. This is essential to changing practice in the classroom (Johnson, 2006; Kennedy & 
Kennedy, 1996; Lawrence, 2014). These teachers, with varied prior experiences with technology 
in their own schooling, have found the benefits of technology integration to be impetus enough 
to adapt their beliefs. These teachers state that they are willing to learn and to try to integrate 
new technologies, even in recognizing the associated challenges.  

The experiences of these teachers seem to support statements which claim that technology 
integration in second language classrooms is behind that of other subjects (Lawrence, 2014; 
Robinson, 2005). The participants identified numerous challenges when attempting to integrate 
technology into their practice, including both primary (e.g. scheduling, access, number of 
devices) and secondary (e.g. knowledge, resistance) barriers. The most concerning primary 
barriers for these teachers seem to centre on issues of access and availability of the technology, 
specific PD,  and the challenges associated with adapting these resources to the context of the 
FSL classroom. The teachers’ reports suggest that, in their view, efforts to support technology 
integration in FSL seem disconnected and haphazard and lack a unified and effective response 
(Deyrich & Dyson, 2006). This is likely a contributing factor to frustrations and ongoing 
challenges in their practice. 

There is still a need for research in the area of FSL teacher beliefs (Bayliss & Vignola, 
2007; Lawrence, 2014). Generally, while the influence of belief systems on teachers’ practice is 
well-researched, much less has been conducted with teachers in the FSL classroom (Turnbull & 
Lawrence, 2003). The same applies to the use of educational technology, where the FSL context 
has been overlooked by research studies (Lapkin et al., 2009). This article serves a call to action 
for the continued study of FSL teachers’ experiences, and the ways in which they can be 
supported in integrating educational technology into their practice.   

References 

Alberta Education. (2007). French as a second language: Nine-year program of studies guide to  
 implementation – grade 4 to grade 6. Retrieved from: https://education.alberta.ca/frenchas-

a-second-language-7-9/program-of-studies/everyone/programs-of-study/ 
 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  13 

 
 

Alberta Education. (2013). Learning and Technology Policy Framework. Retrieved from: 
 https://education.alberta.ca/media/1046/learning-and-technology-policy-framework 

web.pdf 
Bayliss, D., & Vignola, M.-J. (2007). Training non-native second language teachers: The case of 
 anglophone FSL teacher candidates. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(3), 371-398. 
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. New York: Continuum. 
Brown, B. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning environment. In R. C. Richey (Ed.), 
 Encyclopedia of Terminology for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 304-

305), New York, NY: Springer. 
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 
 (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman. 
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for 
 teaching, testing and research. Retrieved from: 

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/2001269254.pdf 
Chong, M. D. (2014). The State of French Second-Language Education Programs in Canada: 
 Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Ottawa, ON: Canada. 

Parliament. House of Commons. 
Deyrich, M., & Dyson, L. E. (2006). Integrating cultural and language development with 
 technology in curricular design. International Journal of Learning, 13(2), 103-112. 
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). French  
 as a Second Language. Computers & Education, 59, 423-435. 
Faez, F. (2011). Points of departure: Developing the knowledge base of ESL and FSL teachers  
 for K-12 programs in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 29-49. 
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of 
 Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 301-316). Washington, DC: Sage Publications. 
Gruba, P. 2006. Computer assisted language learning (CALL) methodology. In A. Davies & 
 C. Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 623-648). Melbourne, Australia: 

Blackwell Publishing. 
Heck, R. H. (2006). Conceptualizing and conducting meaningful research studies in education. 
 In C. F. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook for Research in Education: 

Engaging Ideas and Enriching Inquiry (pp. 373-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 
Publication. 

Hess, C. (2012). Using technology in the languages classroom from the 20th to the 21st century: 
 A literature review of classroom practices and fundamental second language learning 

theories. Babel, 46(2-3), 4-11. 
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy  
 (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 3-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist,  
 27(1), 65-90. 
Karabulut, A., LeVelle, K., Li, J., & Suvorov, R. (2012). Technology for French learning: A  
 mismatch between expectations and reality. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 341-366. 
Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J. (1996). Teacher attitudes and change. System, 24(3), 351–360.  
 doi:10.1016/0346-251X(96)00027-9  
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher  
 Education in CALL (pp. 23-42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  14 

 
 

Kim, H. K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers.  
 CALICO Journal, 25(2), 241-259.  
Kissau, S. (2005). The depreciated status of FSL instruction in Canada. Canadian Journal of  
 Educational Administration and Policy, 44, 1-21.  
Kissau, S., & Salas, S. (2013). Motivating male language learners: The need for “More Than  
 Just Good Teaching”. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 88-111. 
Koua, V. (2013). The internet in French language teaching and learning: Positive and negative  
 impacts. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 564-571. 

doi:10.4304/tpls.3.4.564-571  
Kyungsuk, C, & Rixon, S. (2015). Bringing information and reflection together: A distance  
 mentoring and teacher development experience in South Korea. In T. Wright, & M. 

Beaumont (Eds.), Experiences of Second Language Teacher Education (pp. 226-247). New 
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.  

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language  
 teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language 

Review, 56(3), 389-420.  
Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., & Vandergrift, L. (2006). Teaching French as a second language in  
 Canada: Teachers’ perspectives. Retrieved from: https://www.caslt.org/pdf/FSL-Report-

En.pdf  
Lapkin, S., Mady, C., & Arnott, S. (2009). Research perspectives on Core French: A literature  
 review. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 6-30. 
Lawrence, G. (2014). The role of teachers and their beliefs in implementing technology-  
 mediated language learning: Implications for teacher development and research. 

International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning & Teaching, 4(4), 59-75. 
doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2014100105 

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language  
 Journal, 93, 769-782. 
MacDonald, K. (2003). Internet technology and second/foreign language education: Activities  
 for the classroom teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(3), 455-462. 
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3rd  
 ed.). Somerset, NJ: Wiley.  
Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating  
 diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications.  
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C., & You, J. (2006). Expert-novice 
 teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), 

Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 283-291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 
Motteram, G., & Thomas, M. (2010). Afterword: Future directions for technology-mediated 
 tasks. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (Eds.), Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching 
 with Technology (pp. 218-238). London, GBR: Continuum International Publishing. 
 Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com  
Murphy, E. (2002). New tools in an old trade: Teachers talk about use of the internet in the 

teaching of French as a second or foreign language. Canadian Modern Language Review, 
59(2), 215-235. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.2.215 



Smith - Emerging Perspectives (2020)  15 

 
 

Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers. In P.  
Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 153-165). Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins.  

Peters, M., Weinberg A., & Sarma, N. (2009). To like or not to like! Student perceptions of  
 technological activities for learning French as a second language at five Canadian 

universities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(1), 869-896. 
Richards, J., Gallo, P., & Renandya, W. (2001). Exploring teachers’ beliefs and the processes  
 of change. The PAC Journal, 1(1), 41–62. 
Robb, T. N. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), 
 Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  
Robinson, L. (2005). “Examining perceptual barriers to technology: A study on the diffusion  
 of educational technology and education reform”. International Journal of Information and 

Communication Technology Education, 1(3), 47-59. 
Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 
 Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: teaching teachers to educate 

themselves. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99-112. 
Turnbull, M. (2000). Second language education in Canada: A focus on core French in  
 elementary schools. In M. Nikolav & H. Curtain (Eds.), An early start: Young learners and 

modern languages in Europe and beyond (pp. 173 – 190). Graz, Austria: European Center 
for Modern Languages.  

Turnbull, M., & Lawrence, G. (2003). Core French teachers and technology: Classroom  
 application and belief systems. Journal of Educational Thought, 37(3), 253-258. 
Walker, A., & White, G. (2013). Technology enhanced language learning: Connecting theory  
 and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  
Wang, S., & Vásquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research  
 tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412-430. 
Wilkinson, D., & Birmingham, P. (2003). Using research instruments: A guide for  
 researchers. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. 
Wong, L., & Benson, P. (2006). In-service CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.),  
 Teacher Education in CALL (pp. 251-264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 


	Literature Review
	Educational Technology
	Benefits and challenges of educational technology

	Teacher Beliefs Literature

	Methodology
	Results
	FSL and Technology

	Discussion
	Professional Development
	Contextual Factors

	Conclusion
	References

