Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Development of a teacher questionnaire on the

use of ICT tools to teach first language writing

Orit Avidov-Ungar & Aliza Amir

To cite this article: Orit Avidov-Ungar & Aliza Amir (2018): Development of a teacher
questionnaire on the use of ICT tools to teach first language writing, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2018.1433216

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1433216

Published online: 08 Feb 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1433216

Development of a teacher questionnaire on the use of ICT

tools to teach first language writing
a
Orit Avidov-Ungar and Aliza Amirb
a
Education, Achva Academic College, P.M. Sikmim, 7952500, Israel; bAchva Academic College, Ministry
of Education, Israel

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The need for the education system to teach twenty-first First language; ICT, teaching,
century skills produces an emphasis on the teaching of first writing; mother tongue
language (L1) writing on the assimilation into the teaching
process of information and communications technology (ICT)
tools that promote writing. The purposes of this study are to
examine general aspects of the integration of ICT tools into
teaching-learning-evaluation processes and the unique
aspects of ICT tools relevant to teaching L1 writing. A
research questionnaire was developed to examine the
disciplinary aspect of teaching L1 writing alongside general
aspects of integrating ICT into teaching. The research tool
tested on 391 L1 secondary school teachers. The findings
show that e teachers perceive themselves as having achieved
some mastery of the ICT tools examined and that they agree
with positive statements about the value of using ICT tools in
L1 teaching. Although they sometimes-to-often use ICT tools
to assess their students’ writing, they make limited use of
them to teach L1 writing. We suggest that there may be a
disciplinary barrier to ICT tool use in teaching in the form of a
lack of teacher appreciation that ICT tools can greatly
promote the teaching of L1 writing.

Introduction
Technology is significantly changing the face of society and of the world of
employment. This economic-social-political reality demands that we reexamine
and revise some of the teaching paradigms that worked well in the pre-digital
era (Bonk, 2010; Sun, 2007). Given the accelerated pace of technological devel-
opment in recent years, the education system is facing new and complex chal-
lenges (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Adapting the education system to the twenty-
first century involves several key components that impact the quality of the
teaching-learning-evaluation processes, including teaching and learning in a
digital environment, cultivating computer and information literacy, as well as

CONTACT Orit Avidov-Ungar avidovo@achva.ac.il

* Full correspondence details: Prof Orit Avidov-Ungar, Achva Academic College, Israel
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

cultivating reading and writing literacy in the digital space (Fraillon, Ainley,
Schulz, Friedman, & Gebhardt, 2014; Lorenz, Eickelmann, & Gerick, 2015;
Northcote & Lim, 2009).
To equip graduates of the education system with twenty-first century skills
and enable them to cope successfully with the challenges of the future, Israel’s
Ministry of Education launched a national computerization program called
‘Adapting the Education System to the 21st Century’ (Ministry of Education,
2014). The program promotes the integration of information and communica-
tion technology (ICT) into schools with the aim that they become computerized
organizations, with an emphasis on the implementation of innovative pedago-
gies and the development of digital literacy. One of the main objectives of this
national program is to integrate ICT into the teaching-learning-evaluation pro-
cesses. To this end, the Ministry of Education has adopted the approach taken
by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achieve-
ment’s International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS, see
later) in its efforts to examine outcomes with respect to student computer and
information literacy (CIL) across countries.
CIL refers to an individual’s ability to use ICT to investigate, create, and com-
municate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace,
and in the community (Fraillon, Schulz, & Ainley, 2013; Jung & Carstens, 2013).
Consequently, students must be taught CIL (Fraillon et al., 2013). Despite prog-
ress in the integration of ICT into education, there remains a significant gap
between the potential of the technological revolution and the reality in schools
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & Tonduer, 2015; Hicks &
Turner, 2013; Means, 2010). One aspect of this gap is the degree of implementa-
tion of ICT tools in discipline-specific teaching-learning-evaluation processes
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008). Integration is
important because such tools can serve the objectives of the discipline and be
extremely valuable for promoting pedagogical change.
Indeed, as noted by Schmidt et al. (2009, p. 128), ‘the belief that effective tech-
nology integration depends on content and pedagogy suggests that teachers’
experiences with technology must be specific to different content areas’. Simi-
larly, Baser, Kopcha, and Ozden (2016, p. 751) state that there is indeed ‘current
interest in developing surveys that are content specific’. Nevertheless, surveys of
teachers’ technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) ‘for spe-
cific subject matter, especially for language teaching, has been rare’ (Chai, Chin,
Koh, & Tan, 2013, p. 657). Indeed, a systematic literature review covering publi-
cations between 2005 and 2011 (Voogt, Fisser, Pareja Roblin, Tondeur, & van
Braak, 2013) found this study of Singaporeans teaching in the Chinese language
to be the only self-assessment survey of a specific pedagogy in which teachers
reported their perceptions on or confidence in TPACK. Even then, the Chinese
survey was not created for specific subject domains and its references to
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

content-knowledge related items were generally stated as relating to the

respondent’s first and second teaching subjects (neither of which was necessarily
Chinese). Ultimately, Chai et al. (2013, p. 658–9) stated that, ideally, ‘TPACK
surveys should focus on a specific content area so that ambiguities related to the
interpretation of results are reduced’. However, a literature search conducted for
the current study found no surveys that draw on TPACK to examine first lan-
guage (L1) teaching apart from a survey by Cheng (2017) of native language
teachers’ TPACK in Taiwan. This study found that, although the native language
teachers were satisfied with their TPACK on average, they had relatively low
confidence in Content Knowledge, Technological and Technological Pedagogi-
cal Knowledge. While the older male teachers tended to be more confident in
their Content Knowledge, the older female teachers were inclined to have less
confidence in their technological knowledge. Teaching experience was positively
related to the teachers’ perceived Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge,
and Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
It is in the context of this knowledge gap that the current study seeks to exam-
ine the mastery of, use of, and attitudes toward ICT tools by teachers teaching L1
Hebrew. The investigation was conducted using a research tool we developed for
this purpose.

Twenty-first century skills in change processes among teachers

The knowledge base that teachers need to effectively teach with technology has
been conceptualized into the TPACK framework (Thompson & Mishra, 2008).
This general framework is itself an extension of the paradigm of pedagogical
content knowledge developed by Shulman (1986). TPACK, as described by
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006), identifies three knowledge areas – namely, content,
pedagogy, and technology knowledge – that constitute the nature of the knowl-
edge required by teachers to integrate technology into their teaching. It then
describes how these knowledge areas intersect to define four interrelated areas
that together capture teacher knowledge in its full complexity. The interrelated
knowledge areas are: pedagogical content knowledge, technological content
knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge, and a fourth area in which all
three primary areas intersect: technological pedagogical content knowledge. In
this manner, TPACK provides a framework for understanding ICT integration
in an educational curriculum (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The underlying
assumption is that good technology-integrated teaching includes three compo-
nents: content, pedagogy, and technology, and that the effectiveness of the inte-
gration depends on the inter-relationships between them (Harris, Mishra, &
Koehler, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). As a general framework, TPACK lacks
aspects of importance to specific teaching disciplines (Avidov-Ungar & Eshet-
Alkalai, 2014).
4 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

Information literacy and writing

Computer literacy mainly involves the technical-pedagogical ability to use com-
puter procedures (Wilkinson, 2006), while information literacy is the ability to
manage and evaluate information and use it effectively (Fraillon et al., 2013).
Computer and information literacy (CIL) therefore involves both. Fraillon et al.
(2013, p. 17) state that CIL ‘refers to an individual’s ability to use computers to
investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at home,
at school, in the workplace, and in society’. Thus CIL achieves a communicative
purpose through the combination of technical competence and intellectual
capacity (Australian Council for Educational Research, 2017).
One implication of TPACK is that technology should not be regarded as its
own discipline, but rather integrated into the pedagogy and content of teaching.
Consistently with this, CIL is taught in Israel within the context of other knowl-
edge content areas and in order to serve their aims. Thus, on the one hand, CIL
constitutes an integral part of various disciplines in Israel and the responsibility
for strengthening these skills lies with all teachers. On the other hand, this may
lead to certain areas of CIL being partially or entirely overlooked.
In this respect, it is helpful to distinguish between generic skills that every
teacher and student must master and skills that are particularly prominent in a
given discipline, which they serve explicitly. Whereas students require skills in
reading comprehension, locating and integrating information, and writing to
learn a very wide range of subjects, these skills lie at the core of L1 teaching and
are explicitly taught by L1 teachers. Thus, skills that could be considered generic
or underlying in other content areas define L1 teaching as a discipline, with CIL
skills, particularly competence with word processing software, being essential to
it. Another key component in L1 teaching is writing. Consequently, the ability
to produce digital text is also a discipline-specific skill that must also be taught
explicitly in L1 lessons.
There are different approaches to teaching writing (Freedman, Pringle, & Yal-
den, 2014; Squire, James, 2014; Ushioda, 2011), but in the most common ones,
writing is perceived as a recursive process (Flower & Hayes, 1981) of revision
and rewriting with ongoing corrections alongside an interactive social process
seen as the negotiation of meaning between writer and reader (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1987). Writing thus requires the activation of complex cognitive pro-
cesses that include broad-scope planning at all stages of the writing (Hicks &
Turner, 2013). The writer must develop the ability to edit and the skills to locate,
diagnose, and correct problems. The writer must also learn to change their regis-
ter for different genres, for example, to appropriately use colloquial language in
oral narratives while using high-level language in essays. For native Hebrew
speakers, this learning continues beyond adolescence (Ravid & Berman, 2009).
A question arises about the place of technology in these processes.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

The new writing environment

Brandt (2015) presents mass writing as a new phenomenon, with writing serving
as a central communication tool in formal and informal situations and as a
major communication channel. Computer-mediation creates a writing environ-
ment in which the computer is assigned a significant place, in that it not only
serves the writing discipline but also mediates the act of communication (Mon-
teith, 2005).
Revision and rewriting processes increasingly involve technology. At the most
basic level, the use of word processing software, with functions such as cut and
paste, spell-check, formatting, track changes, and reader comments, has become
ubiquitous. Learners are increasingly expected to present written material using
presentation software, such as PowerPointTM and on-line videos are freely avail-
able to teach the writing process. Other suggested applications of technology to
writing include the use of digital portfolios, modes for online reflection (e.g. e-
mail, discussion boards, and blogs) and collaboration (e.g. GoogleDocs), blog-
versing, and using social media and networking (specifically, Twitter) in the
classroom to explicitly explore language (Young & Kajder, 2014). Online tem-
plates have the potential to scaffold complex writing processes and to provide
information and language prompts for writers. Sun (2007) found that students
held a positive attitude toward the use of scholarly writing templates and that
the templates had varying effects on students’ scholarly writing processes and
on students’ use of strategy. Given the above, the mastery and use of technologi-
cal tools by language teachers to serve writing goals is not an option, but rather
a necessity for this discipline.

Teaching the mother tongue (L1)

As previously mentioned, there is scant research examining the knowledge and
pedagogical beliefs of L1 teachers. Liu, Lin, and Zhang (2017) found that teach-
ers’ pedagogical beliefs were more constructivist-oriented than transmissive-ori-
ented, and constructivist-oriented beliefs had a significant positive influence on
three Technology Acceptance Model constructs (perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, and attitude toward use). Teachers’ transmissive pedagogical beliefs,
on the other hand, did not significantly influence their attitudes toward ICT or
their perceptions of its usefulness, though such beliefs did significantly affect
their perceptions of how easy ICT was to use. Chai et al. (2013)) developed a
tool to assess Technological Pedagogical Chinese Language Knowledge, and sug-
gested that their instrument could easily be adapted to other languages. How-
ever, the tool they developed is not specific to L1 teaching (in this case, to
teaching Chinese).
Unlike Chinese, but similarly to Arabic, Turkish, English, and continental
European languages, Hebrew is an alphabetic language—albeit an alphabetic
language containing no vowels and in which correctly constructed present-tense
6 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

sentences need not contain a verb. Indeed, ‘[m]odern Hebrew differs from the
European type in most features defined independently of literature on Hebrew’
and ‘key structural similarities with European languages are remarkably few’
(Zeldes, 2013, p. 439). While these languages differ considerably from each
other, many of the skills required to write well in them – such as planning, gen-
erating, formulating/organizing, reviewing, and revising – are not language-spe-
cific (Weijen, 2008). This suggests that a tool to examine the mastery, use of,
and attitudes toward ICT tools among teachers teaching Hebrew as a first lan-
guage is likely to be of relevance to teaching L1 writing in general.

Objectives and research questions

In light of the above, this preliminary study had three of key objectives. (1) To
develop a two-part questionnaire examining (a) teacher mastery and use of ICT
tools to teach and evaluate L1 writing in secondary schools and (b) the attitudes of
teachers toward the use of ICT tools in teaching. (2) To examine the validity and reli-
ability of the questionnaire. (3) To extract the principal factors of the questionnaire.
Validity refers to the degree to which a questionnaire measures the construct
(s) it purports to measure and reliability relates to the degree to which the mea-
surement is free from measurement error (Mokkink et al., 2010). With respect
to objective 2, the current study focuses on establishing the face validity and
inter-rater reliability of the questionnaire, which are aspects of its content valid-
ity and reliability, respectively. With respect to objective 3, the current study
seeks to extract the questionnaire’s principal factors to establish the question-
naire’s internal consistency (which is an aspect of reliability that examines the
degree of the interrelatedness among the items) and also its construct validity.
Thus the study examines two aspects of validity (content and construct) and
two aspects of reliability (inter-rater and internal consistency). The study does
not examine criterion validity because no ‘gold standard’ exists for comparative
purposes and it does not examine measurement error because doing so was
beyond the scope of the current small-scale study.
Within L1 teaching, this study focuses on the field of writing, as this is one of
the cornerstones of learning processes in all areas of knowledge, and is expressed
in the scholastic discourse both as a means to learning different disciplines (writ-
ing to learn) and as an end in itself (learning to write) (e.g. Bartlett, 1981; Man-
chon, 2011; Rijlaarsdam et al., 2008).
The study first examined the internal consistency of the tool and then asked
the following specific research questions:

RQ(1) To what extent do L1 teachers regard themselves as having mastered

ICT tools relevant to writing?
RQ(2) To what extent do L1 teachers report using ICT tools in the teaching-
learning of L1 writing?
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

RQ(3) To what extent do L1 teachers report using ICT tools to evaluate stu-
dent’s writing?
RQ(4) What are teachers’ attitudes towards the use of ICT tools in teaching?

For teachers to use ICT to teach L1 writing, they must have mastered the ped-
agogical and content areas associated with L1 writing as well as the ICT content
area as it relates to L1 writing pedagogy and assessment. Thus, they must have
pedagogical content knowledge in both L1 writing and ICT, technological con-
tent knowledge in ICT, technological pedagogical knowledge regarding how
ICT can be used in the teaching-learning and evaluation of L1 writing, and the
technological pedagogical content knowledge needed to apply this knowledge in
the classroom.

Method
Research participants
This study involved a sample of 391 in-service first language teachers who com-
pleted the questionnaire in 2014 while attending an in-service course for L1
Hebrew teachers in secondary schools in two (of Israel’s eight) educational dis-
tricts. Both districts are located in the center of the country. The respondents
constituted 70% of all the teachers attending the course in these districts that
year.
About half the participants (52%) taught only in middle school (Grades 7–9),
about one third (28%) taught only in high school (Grades 10–12), and the rest
taught in both middle and high school. Almost all the participants had an aca-
demic education: B.Ed., (48.7%); M.Ed., (44.6%); PhD (2.3%), whereas the
remainder (4.4%) had not completed any academic degree. Experience among
teachers ranged from veterans with up to 43 years’ experience to novice teachers
in service for one year (mean, 17.95 years’ experience; median, 18 years’ experi-
ence; SD, 10.64 years). Segmentation of participant seniority by decades shows
that 30.8% were relatively new teachers with up to 10 years of experience, 27.9%
were teachers with 11–20 years of experience, and the rest (41.3%) had over
20 years of experience.

Research tool development process

Although Chai et al., published their tool in 2013, it came to our attention only
after the tool development and testing described here. Thus, it did not inform
the development process of the current tool. The research tool was developed in
a two-stage process. The first stage, which was theoretical in nature, focused on
examining previously validated research tools that were in academic use for
measuring and assessing the use of technology in an educational setting. The
outcomes of this preliminary phase indicated that most of these tools utilized
8 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

TPACK, as well as aspects of teachers’ skills with technology, and their attitudes
and beliefs regarding ICT tools in general (Doering, Scharber, Miller, & Veletsia-
nos, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
One of the significant recurring motifs in these studies was that their starting
point was the estimation of the potential use of the ICT tools by teachers or their
‘theoretical’ skill in using them. It seems that these research tools lack appropri-
ate reference to and information about the extent to which teachers actually use
ICT tools in practice – that is, the extent to which ICT tools are an integral part
of teachers’ practice repertoires in their teaching of a discipline. This is the start-
ing point for the current study, which sought to formulate a research tool that
could also be used to estimate the scope of teachers’ use of ICT tools in their
teaching, as well as to determine teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of
these tools into classroom teaching practices.
The second stage of the study focused on obtaining face validation of the
research questionnaire. To this end, the questionnaire was given to three recog-
nized experts in ICT tool integration, education, and TPACK and to ten teachers
of L1 Hebrew in secondary schools. The statements were then amended follow-
ing the recommendations of the experts and the first language teachers. In the
third and final stage of tool development, aspects of the tool’s reliability and
validity were more thoroughly tested and final amendments made to produce a
tool with strong psychometric properties.

The final version of the questionnaire

The final version of the questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part of the
questionnaire emphasizes the disciplinary aspect; it focuses on direct aspects of
the use of ICT tools in teaching L1 writing. The second part relates to the atti-
tudes of teachers toward the use of ICT tools in teaching. This division was
required in order to examine the place of ICT in the teaching of the discipline
(L1 teaching, and specifically L1 writing), alongside the attitudes of the teachers
regarding the integration of ICT in teaching, regardless of the discipline. In addi-
tion to these two sections, the questionnaire contained a section that collected
demographic data from the participants.

Research procedure
The final version of the questionnaire was disseminated via GoogleDocs to all
first language teachers attending an in-service course on the implementation of
ICT in two educational districts in the center of the country. Teachers were
asked to score their level of agreement with each of the 31 statements on a 1–4
Likert scale. The optimal number of response categories in rating scales has
been extensively debated in the literature (e.g. Boote, 1981; Preston & Colman,
2000). In the current context, we wished to force respondents to indicate some
level of clear agreement or disagreement, and for this reason we desired a scale
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

lacking a middle option, that is, a scale with an even number of response catego-
ries. We adopted a 4-point scale as these have been found to be more reliable
than 6-point scales (Chang, 1994) and are the most widely employed format
when the intermediate category is suspected to be inadequate (As un, Rdz-Nav-
arro, & Alvarado, 2016). On a scale of this type, values greater than 3.5 are con-
sidered ‘very high’, values of 3.0–3.5 are considered ‘high’, values of 2.5–2.99 are
considered ‘adequate’, values of 1.5–2.4 are considered ‘limited’, and values less
than 1.5 are considered ‘very low’ (or the equivalent descriptor, depending on
the exact wording used for the response categories).

Data analysis
The first version of the tool, which had two parts and contained 31 statements,
was presented to three experts and ten L1 Hebrew teachers. We used Cohen’s
(1960) Kappa to assess the extent to which the different raters agreed that the
items were clearly phrased and suitable for assessing the integration of ICT tools
into the teaching of L1 Hebrew. The tool was then amended to improve the clar-
ity and suitability of its items and inter-rater reliability was reanalyzed.
The second version of the tool was administered to the larger sample of 391
teachers. The instrument’s validity was established using exploratory factor anal-
ysis followed by the Cronbach’s alpha reliability technique to assess the internal
consistency of the instruments’ factors. The process of construct validation using
exploratory factor analysis involves a series of analyses to develop a rigorous
instrument. The analysis process began with principal components factor analy-
sis followed by varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization. Following Schmidt
et al. (2009)), we repeatedly used the Kaiser–Guttman rule (which states that
factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1 should be accepted) to identify factors
and their constitution. Next, we identified items that loaded on more than one
factor. We then applied Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis to determine to
which factor each such item should be assigned. This process was repeated to
obtain the final version of the tool (having two parts and comprising 31 state-
ments), whose properties we report below.

Results
Face validity of the research tool
Analysis of the draft version of the tool yielded an inter-rater reliability of .683.
Although Cohen’s Kappa values of .61–.80 are considered ‘substantial’
(McHugh, 2012), we sought greater inter-rater reliability and therefore revised
the tool in light of the experts’ and LI teachers’ comments. The Cohen’s Kappa
of the revised tool was calculated as .89, which is considered to indicate ‘almost
perfect’ inter-rater agreement (McHugh, 2012) with respect to the face validity
of the tool.
10 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

Exploratory principal components factor analysis (RQ1–RQ4)

Four factors emerged from the factor analysis: Factor 1 (’teacher mastery of ICT
tools used to teach L1 writing’, 10 statements); Factor 2 (’teacher use of ICT tools
to teach L1 writing, 8 statements); Factor 3 (’L1 teachers’ use of ICT tools to eval-
uate L1 writing’, 5 statements); and Factor 4 (’L1 teachers’ attitudes toward using
ICT tools to teach L1 writing’, 8 statements). Factors 1–3 pertain to part 1 of the
current study, that is, to L1 teacher’ mastery and use of ICT tools to teach L1
writing, whereas Factor 4 pertains to part 2 of the study, that is, to L1 teachers’
attitudes toward the use of ICT tools in teaching. All 31 items loaded onto one of
these four factors. The high factor loadings indicate that it is reasonable to build
variables from the four factors and, further, that the four variables produced in
this manner correspond to the variables implied by RQ1–RQ4, namely: mastery,
use (teaching of writing), use (evaluation of writing), and attitude.

Internal consistency reliability. The Cronbach’s a values for the four factors
were high (Factor 1 a = .87; Factor 2 a = .85; Factor 3 a = .71; Factor 4 a = .84)).
Thus, all four Cronbach’s a values were >.7 and three were >.8), which indi-
cates that the tool’s internal consistency is ‘acceptable’ to ‘excellent’ (George &
Mallery, 2003).

Mastery of ICT tools used to teach L1 writing (RQ1). This factor comprises ten
statements, as shown in Table 1. The statements ask teachers to self-assess their
mastery of ICT tools that are relevant to teaching writing on a 4-point scale: (1)
no mastery; (2) little mastery; (3) some mastery; and (4) full mastery.
This factor was found to explain 30.8% of the variance of the questionnaire.
Cronbach’s a for the internal consistency of this factor was .87. The average Lik-
ert value obtained for the entire sample was 3.2 (SD .6), indicating that partici-
pants considered themselves to have ‘some’ mastery of the tools.

Use of ICT tools to teach L1 writing (RQ2). The second factor comprises eight
statements, as shown in Table 1. The statements ask participants to rank their
use of ICT tools to teach writing on a 4-point Likert scale: (1) not at all; (2)
sometimes; (3) often; (4) almost always.
This factor was found to explain 14.76% of the variance of the questionnaire.
Cronbach’s a for the internal consistency of this factor was .85. The average Lik-
ert value obtained for the entire sample was 1.6 (SD .5), indicating limited
teacher usage of ICT tools to teach writing.

Use of ICT tools to evaluate students’ writing (RQ3). The third factor comprises
five statements, as shown in Table 1. The participants were asked to respond to
these statements concerning their use of ICT tool in the evaluation process on a
4-point scale: (1) not at all; (2) sometimes; (3) often; and (4) almost always.
Table 1. Teachers’ mastery and use of ICT tools to teach and evaluate students’ L1 writing.
Factor loadinga
Teacher mastery of ICT tools Teacher use of ICT tools Teacher use of ICT tools to Teacher attitudes toward using
Statement (item) used to teach L1 writing to teach L1 writing evaluate students’ L1 writing ICT tools to teach L1 writing
Organization, location and search for information in disk folders .811
Handling files: saving, copying and deleting .848
Printing files: selecting a printer, indicating number of copies .717
Inserting a picture, changing its size, choosing a section of it .764
Inserting and formatting a table, handling text wrapping, .746
repeating column headings
Inserting a hyperlink to a website, to a file, to another part of the .516 .388
document (bookmark)
Inserting a video, a picture, an animation, a voice recording .656
Using the flowchart wizard to create a graph .547 .336
Downloading/saving files and images from the internet .665 .415
Use of instant messaging software .588 .397
During the lesson I use a computer, projector and/or computers in .369 .673
my classroom to present information, an explanation or a
demonstration
I upload assignments and/or content to the school website to .582
expand my students’ knowledge
I give my students online assignments for practice and drilling, .748
problem solving and using sources of information
I develop my own online tasks for various subjects (at least 2 .662
assignments per year)
I use various digital functions to improve my students’ writing .726
(correcting spelling mistakes, writing comments, saving drafts,
dictionary, etc.)
I guide my students to maintain a digital portfolio of their work .661 .319
I present my students with collaborative writing tasks using .665 .312
supporting tools such as discussion fora, wikis, blogs
I teach my students skills for text rewriting and editing (layout, .802
paragraphing, bullets and numbering …)
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

Word processing Tracking changes and adding comments .466 .513

Internet Responding on a forum or a blog .500 .588
communication
11

(continued)
 12

Table 1. (Continued )
Factor loadinga
Teacher mastery of ICT tools Teacher use of ICT tools Teacher use of ICT tools to Teacher attitudes toward using
Statement (item) used to teach L1 writing to teach L1 writing evaluate students’ L1 writing ICT tools to teach L1 writing
Assessment I use ICT tools to collect assessment and .619
monitoring data on my students’ progress
I give my students feedback using online .552 .433
tools, such as email, forums, blogs, wikis
I post my students’ products online for .479
purposes of peer assessment
Using a computer makes the work more efficient .735
Using a computer in teaching enables catering to different .798
learning styles
O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

Using a computer in teaching enables catering to diverse areas of .756

interest
Through the computer one can develop students’ thinking .814
Using a computer develops students’ learning skills (reading, .697
writing, integrating texts, searching for information, etc.)
The advantages of the computer outweigh its disadvantages .748
Integrating the computer into learning contributes to the .807
advancement of student achievement
The use of technology in the classroom makes it harder to convey .400
the material and slows down the students’ pace of learningb
M 3.17 1.6 2.46 3.0
SD .57 .54 .63 .50
Explained variance 30.8% 14.8% 7.6% 13.7%
Reliability (Cronbach’s a) .87 0.85 .71 .84
a
Factor loadings with eigenvalues <.4 are not reported.
b
This statement was formulated in the negative and, for calculation purposes, was encoded in reverse order.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

Table 2. Results summary: Teachers’ mastery and use of ICT tools and their attitudes towards
using ICT in teaching.
Factor Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Part 1: L1 teachers’ mastery and use of ICT tools
Factor 1: Teacher mastery of ICT tools 3.17 .57 1.60 4.00
Factor 1: Use of ICT tools to teach L1 writing 1.60 .54 1.00 3.75
Factor 3: Use of ICT tools to evaluate L1 writing 2.46 .63 1.17 4.00
Part 2: L1 teachers’ attitudes toward using ICT tool in teaching
Factor 4: Attitudes towards the use of ICT tools in teaching L1 writing 3.03 .46 1.88 4.00

This factor was found to explain 7.55% of the variance of the questionnaire.
Cronbach’s a for the internal consistency of this factor was .71. As Table 1
shows, three items that had originally been included within other factors were
ultimately included here. Specifically, in the draft tool, two items (‘tracking
changes and inserting comments’ and ‘responding on forums and blogs’)
appeared in the mastery factor, but they were moved because the factor analysis
revealed that these two statements were, in fact, linked to the evaluation factor.
The average Likert value obtained for the entire sample was 2.5 (SD .6), indicat-
ing that teachers sometimes-to-often evaluate students’ writing using ICT tools.

Teacher attitudes towards using ICT tools in teaching (RQ4). The fourth factor
comprises eight statements (Table 1). Teachers were presented with statements
about the use of ICT tools in teaching and were asked to express their agreement
with them on a 4-point Likert scale: (1) do not agree; (2) somewhat agree; (3)
agree; and (4) very much agree.
Cronbach’s a for the internal consistency of this factor, and following the
reversed encoding for negative statement 8 (‘The use of technology in the class-
room makes it harder to convey the material and slows down the students’ pace
of learning’) was .84. The average Likert value obtained for the entire sample
was 3.0 (SD .5), which indicates that teachers ‘agree’ with statements expressing
positive attitudes towards using ICT tools in teaching.

Results summary
Table 2 collates the data concerning all four variables.
Overall, teachers perceive themselves as having achieved some mastery of the
ICT tools examined (mean, 3.2) and agree with positive statements about the
value of using ICT tools in teaching (mean, 3.0). Teachers sometimes-to-often
use ICT tools to assess their students’ writing (mean, 2.5), however their use of
ICT tools to teach L1 is limited (mean, 1.6).

Discussion
The current research developed and investigated a questionnaire to examine the
use of ICT tools to teach and evaluate L1 writing and to explore teachers’ atti-
tudes towards the use of ICT tools in teaching. The investigation is preliminary
14 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

in the sense that only some of the tool’s psychometric properties can be reported
while others still require investigation.
A tool is considered valid if it measures the construct that it purports to mea-
sure (Mokkink et al., 2010). The tool’s validity was investigated by determining
its face validity with experts in ICT tool integration into education and with L1
Hebrew teachers. The results indicate that the tool indeed appears to reflect the
constructs (namely ICT tool mastery, two types of ICT tool use, and attitudes)
to be measured. The tool’s criterion validity could not be measured as the lack
of TPACK-based tools to assess first language teachers means that there is no
‘gold standard’ questionnaire against which the tool can be compared.
The greater the extent to which a tool is free from measurement error, the
more reliable it is. The degree of interrelatedness among the items, that is, their
internal consistency, is an important aspect of this and was the focus of the first
research question. The results showed that the items representing each factor
were interrelated. Future research should examine the tool’s reliability in greater
detail using a representative sample. However, for the general scoping purposes
of the current study, these reliability and validity measures were deemed suffi-
cient to proceed to an initial investigation of teachers’ mastery versus use of ICT
for teaching and their attitudes towards it.
The second research question examined the extent to which teachers consider
themselves to have mastered ICT tools that can promote the teaching of L1 writ-
ing. The findings indicate that teachers considered themselves to have achieved
some mastery of the technological content knowledge required to use ICT tools
to teach this content. This is consistent with the findings of Chai et al. (2013)) of
low scores by Chinese language teachers with regards to their technological con-
tent knowledge, and that technology-related TPACK factors were generally
rated lower than the non-technology-related factors.
The current research then investigated two aspects of the actual use of ICT
tools in teaching: the extent to which teachers use ICT tools to teach L1 writing
(RQ2), and the extent to which they use them to evaluate students’ writing
(RQ3). The findings showed that, although teachers used ICT tools to assess
their students’ writing sometimes-to-often, they made limited use of such tools
to teach L1 writing. Finally, the fifth research question examined teachers’ atti-
tudes towards the use of ICT tools in teaching and found them to be largely pos-
itive in that, on average, teachers agreed with positive statements (and disagreed
with the negative statement) presented to them.
Previous studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs about what is considered
successful integration of ICT into teaching and the value of technology in gen-
eral in teaching and learning processes affect how they actually behave in terms
of integrating ICT into their work at school (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al., 2015;
Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Harris &
Hofer, 2009; Lim & Chai, 2008; Petko, 2012). Similarly to others (e.g. Kim, Kim,
Lee, Spector, & Demeester, 2013), this study found that teachers have positive
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

attitudes towards integrating ICT into teaching. However, teachers make limited
use of ICT tools in their teaching.
To examine the use of ICT in a specific teaching discipline (in this case, teach-
ing L1 writing), researchers must relate to the technological, pedagogical, and
content areas associated with that discipline. The current research indicates that
teachers of L1 Hebrew writing consider themselves to possess adequate techno-
logical knowledge, in that they have some mastery of the basic ICT tools of rele-
vance to L1 writing examined in this study, and that they possess some
technological content knowledge concerning ICT tools, in that they sometime-
to-often use them to assess L1 writing. However, there seem to be weaknesses
pertaining to technological pedagogical knowledge regarding how ICT can be
used in the teaching of L1 writing, given teachers’ limited use of ICT in that con-
text. This, in turn, leads to deficits in the technological pedagogical content
knowledge required by teachers to apply ICT to teaching-learning processes in
the classroom.
Our findings of positive ICT attitudes coupled with limited ICT use and the
consideration of these findings in the context of the knowledge areas of the
TPACK framework raises a question as to barriers that possibly inhibit L1 teach-
ers’ use of ICT tools. Scholars indicate two types of barriers to integrating tech-
nology into teaching. The first is an environmental barrier, such as problems or
concerns about end-user equipment (e.g. computers and other technological
aids), Internet access, and teachers’ knowledge of technology. In this respect, we
speculate that possessing some mastery may constitute a barrier to teachers
using ICT tools to teach writing, notwithstanding their positive attitudes
towards using ICT tools and their sometimes-to-often using them to evaluate
their students’ work. This possibility is consistent with the suggestion of Chai
et al. (2013)) and Tsai and Chai (2012) that teachers lack design competency.
The second barrier identified in the literature is the human barrier, which
pertains to the beliefs and perceptions of the individual (Ertmer et al., 2015;
Kim et al., 2013). Implementing ICT requires technological knowledge, but in
order to realize the full potential of technology, pedagogical knowledge is also
required (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The research findings lead us to consider another barrier, which we call a dis-
ciplinary barrier. It appears that in order to promote the integration of technol-
ogy into teaching, teachers need familiarity with the technological tools that can
help them to advance the teaching of their specific discipline and must more
profoundly understand that these tools can greatly promote their teaching of
that discipline.

Limitations and further research

As detailed earlier, the study was preliminary in nature and the tool requires fur-
ther analysis before statements about its reliability and validity can be made with
16 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

full confidence. The additional analysis should be conducted on data obtained

from a representative sample of L1 teachers. Prior to that, consideration should
be given to widening the tool beyond its current emphasis on writing, such that
it examines all aspects of L1 teaching content in a balanced manner. The gener-
alist tool developed by Chai et al. (2013)) should prove a useful model in this
regard and future research should also investigate the degree of overlap (if any)
between design competency and the disciplinary barrier. Although this study sug-
gests that even basic ICT tools are used to only a limited extent in teaching L1
writing, this may not be the case in other locations and therefore consideration
should also be given to including more sophisticated uses of ICT in the tool.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the The MOFET Institute.

Notes on contributors
Prof. Orit Avidov-Ungar is the Head of the Graduate School and a senior lecturer at Achva
Academic College, Israel. She also lectures in the Faculty of Education and Psychology in the
Open University. She heads the specialization in professional development program at
MOFET (the institute for research, curriculum, and program development for teacher educa-
tors). Her research explores the empowerment and professional development of teachers,
and the leadership of organizational change in education systems with an emphasis on the
implementation of innovative technologies in education systems.

Dr. Aliza Amir holds a position of a lecturer at the Achva College for Education in the
Hebrew Language department and in the faculty of education, and is the head of the Hebrew
Language department. Amir’s research studies focus on the Hebrew language and its teaching
in elementary and secondary school, generic and disciplinary literacy. Dr. Amir’s research
studies combine the disciplinary issues and the teachers’ development point of view. Along-
side her academic work at the college, she is the coordinator of the program Shalhevet (inte-
gration of literacy skills in all disciplines) in the Israeli ministry of education and is the
person in command of the professional development of the supervisors of the Hebrew Lan-
guage and of the teaching of Hebrew in the central district of Israel. She is a member of
ARLE (International Association for Research in L1 Education) and takes part in an interna-
tional research study on the writing of school children.

ORCID
Orit Avidov-Ungar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0928-9280

References
As
un, R.A., Rdz-Navarro, K., & Alvarado, J.M. (2016). Developing multidimensional Likert
scales using item factor analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(1), 109–133.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

Australian Council for Educational Research. (2017). IEA international computer and infor-
mation literacy study (ICILS). ACER, official partner of UNESCO. Retrieved fromhttps://
icils.acer.org/
Avidov-Ungar, O., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2014). TPACK revisited: A systemic perspective on
measures for predicting effective integration of innovative technologies in school systems.
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13(1), 19–31. http://doi.org/10.1891/1945-
8959.13.1.19
Bartlett, E.J. (1981). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Washington,
D C: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Baser, D., Kopcha, T.J., & Ozden, M.Y. (2016). Developing a technological pedagogical con-
tent knowledge (TPACK) assessment for preservice teachers learning to teach English as
a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 749–764.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
Bonk, C.J. (2010). For openers: How technology is changing school. Educational Leadership,
67(7), 60–65.
Boote, A. (1981). Reliability testing of psychographic scales. Journal of Advertising Research.
21(5), 53–60.
Brandt, D. (2015). The rise of writing: Redefining mass literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Chai, C.S., Chin, C.K., Koh, J.H.L., & Tan, C.L. (2013). Exploring Singaporean Chinese lan-
guage teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and its relationship to the
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(4), 657–666.
Chang, L. (1994). A psychometric evaluation of 4-point and 6-point Likert-type scales in
relation to reliability and validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 205–215.
Cheng, K.H. (2017). A survey of native language teachers’ technological pedagogical and con-
tent knowledge (TPACK) in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(7), 692–
708. Retrieved fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09588221.2017.1349805
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychological
Measures, 20, 37–46.
Doering, A., Scharber, C., Miller, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2009). GeoThentic: Designing and
assessing with technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. CITE Journal, 9(3), 316–336.
Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technol-
ogy integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 423–435.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Tonduer, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of tech-
nology to support 21st century teaching and learning. In H. Fives & M. Gills (Ed.), Inter-
national handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs. New York, NY: Routledge.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
Fraillon, J., Ainley, J.G., Schulz, W., Friedman, T., & Gebhardt, E. (2014). Preparing for life in
a digital age: The IEA international computer and information literacy study international
report. Wellington: Becky Bliss Design and Production.
Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., & Ainley, J. (2013). International computer and information literacy
study assessment framework. Oturehua, Central Otago: Paula Wagemaker Editorial
Services.
Freedman, A., Pringle, I., & Yalden, J. (Eds.). (2014). Part I: The writing process: Three orien-
tations. In learning to write: First language/second language. New York, NY: Routledge.
18 O. AVIDOV-UNGAR AND A. AMIR

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference,
11.0 Update. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curricu-
lum-based TPACK development. In C.D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology
and teacher education (pp. 99–108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology
in Teacher Education (SITE).
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
Knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
41(4), 393–416.
Hicks, T., & Turner, K.H. (2013). No longer a luxury: Digital literacy can’t wait. The English
Journal, 102(6), 58–65.
Jung, M., & Carstens, R. (2013). In Michael Jung & Ralph Carstens (Eds.), International com-
puter and information literacy study ICILS 2013 user guide for the international database.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA). Retrieved fromhttp://doi.org/10.15478/uuid:73a9f018-7b64-4299-
affc-dc33fe57f3e1
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and stu-
dent learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6),
560–565.
Kim, C., Kim, M.K., Lee, C., Spector, J.M., & Demeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and tech-
nology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
Lim, C.P., & Chai, C.S. (2008). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their planning and conduct
of computer-mediated classroom lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39
(5), 807–828.
Liu, H., Lin, C.H., & Zhang, D., & Zhang, B. (2017). Language teachers’ perceptions of exter-
nal and internal factors in their instructional (non-) use of technology. In Preparing for-
eign language teachers for next-generation education. (pp. 56–73). IGI Global
Lorenz, R., Eickelmann, B., & Gerick, J. (2015). What affects students’ computer and infor-
mation literacy around the world? – An analysis of school and teacher factors in high per-
forming countries. In D. Rutledg & D. Slykhuis (Eds.), Proceeding of the Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1212–1219).
Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Manch on, R.M. (2011). Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
McHugh, M.L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3),
276–282.
Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285–307.
Ministry of Education. (2014). ‫ חזון ורציונל‬:21-‫[ התאמת מערכת החינוך למאה ה‬The national
plan for adapting the education system to the 21st century – vision and rationale]
[Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Author.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A frame-
work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P.W., Knol, D.L., & de Vet,
H.C.W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, ter-
minology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported
outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.
Monteith, M. (Ed.). (2005). Teaching secondary school literacies with ICT. Berkshire, England:
Open University Press.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

Northcote, M., & Lim, C.P. (2009). The state of pre-service teacher education in the Asia-
Pacific region. In C.P. Lim, K. Cock, G. Lock, & C. Brook (Eds.), Innovative practices in
pre-service teacher education: An Asia-Pacific perspective (pp. 23–38). Rotterdam, Nether-
lands: Sense Publishers.
Petko, D. (2012). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their use of digital media in the class-
rooms: Sharpening the focus of the “will, skill, too” model and integrating teachers’ con-
structivist orientations. Computers & Education, 58, 1351–1359.
Preston, C.C., & Colman, A.M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating
scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psy-
chologica, 104(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. (2009). Developing linguistic register across text types: The case of
modern Hebrew. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 108–145.
Rijlaarsdam, G., Braaksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., van Steendam, E., & van
den Bergh, H. (2008). Observation of peers in learning to write: Practice and research.
Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 53–83.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1987). Knowledge telling and knowledge transforming in
written composition | BibSonomy. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholin-
guistics. Vol. 2: Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 142–175). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The development and valida-
tion of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technol-
ogy in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
Squire, J.R. (2014). Instructional focus and the teaching of writing. In Aviva Freedman, Ian
Pringle, & Janice Yalden (Eds.), Learning to write: First language/second language (p.
Chap. 15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sun, Y.-C. (2007). Learner perceptions of a concordancing tool for academic writing. Com-
puter Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 323–343.
Thompson, A., & Mishra, P. (2008). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38–39.
Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C.S. (2012). The “third”-order barrier for technology-integration instruc-
tion: Implications for teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
28(6), 1057–1060
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical per-
spectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199–210.
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological ped-
agogical content knowledge - a review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 29(2), 109–121.
Weijen, D. van (2008). Writing processes, text quality, and task effects: Empirical studies in
first and second language writing. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics: LOT.
Wilkinson, K. (2006). Students computer literacy: Perception versus reality. Delta Pi Epsilon
Journal, 48(2), 108–120.
Young, C.A., & Kajder, S. (2014). Research on technology in English education. In Carl A.
Young & Sara Kajder (Eds.), Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Educa-
tion. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Zeldes, A. (2013). Is modern Hebrew standard average European? European. Linguistic
Typology, 17(3), 439–470.