Adoption of the PICRAT Model to Guide the Integration of Innovative Technologies in the Teaching of a Linguistics Course

Abstract

Due to the pandemic, more and more innovative technologies have been integrated into language education for blended and online learning. However, teachers often feel overwhelmed by various available technologies, and they need a framework that will guide them to integrate innovative technologies into their teaching effectively. This paper reports on the adoption of the PICRAT model that guided the integration of innovative technologies in the teaching of an undergraduate level linguistics course. The PICRAT model is a pedagogical framework for technology integration in education: students’ relationship with technology can be passive, interactive, and creative (PIC), and teachers’ use of technologies may replace, amplify, and transform (RAT) traditional practices. Guided by the PICRAT model, a wide range of innovative e-learning tools/resources were adopted in the course, such as VR applications, Flipgrid video sharing, EdPuzzle interactive video lectures, and Wikibook project. A total of 105 students participated in the course, and a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews were conducted to collect students’ feedback regarding the adoption of the PICRAT model in the course. The findings suggest that by systematically adopting various technologies to replace, amplify, and transform traditional practices, the teacher managed to turn students from passive learners into interactive and creative learners, leading to enhanced student performances and satisfactory learning outcomes.

1. Introduction

As online and blended learning and teaching are becoming very common due to the pandemic, a large number of innovative education technologies have been developed in recent years to facilitate online and blended learning and teaching. Teachers and students are found to have more access to education technology than before [1,2], and there is an urgent need for teachers to equip themselves with necessary skills to cope with such new norms in education. However, many teachers often feel overwhelmed by the large number of available education technologies, and they need a pedagogical framework that will guide them to integrate innovative technologies into their teaching effectively.

Although various technology integration models for pedagogical purposes have been proposed [3,4,5,6,7], which will be explained in detail in the literature review section of this article, many of these models have limitations and weaknesses and so a more balanced model needs to be identified and tried out in teaching courses. In addition, there are very few studies providing concrete and detailed examples of how university teachers adopt such models for effective technology integration in their actual teaching of tertiary level courses. To fill this research gap, this study aims to explore the adoption of the PICRAT model [8] that guides the concrete integration of innovative technologies into the teaching of an undergraduate level linguistics course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’. First, a literature review has been conducted to compare the theoretical models that guide effective integration of technologies in education, with an emphasis on the discussion of the PICRAT model and the reasons for adopting this model in this study. Research methods adopted to evaluate the effectiveness of adopting the PICRAT model in the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ are then reported. Next, how the PICRAT model was adopted to guide the integration of innovative technologies in the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ is discussed in detail. Finally, the research findings are discussed, and the implications are given.

The significance of this study is that it offers a concrete and detailed example regarding the adoption of the relatively new PICRAT model for effective integration of technologies in teaching tertiary level courses, which provides a valuable reference point for those who wish to adopt the PICRAT model in their own teaching.

2. Literature Review

Over the past decade the exponential advancement of technology has radically reshaped every sector of our society [9], including the education sector. Public exams are being delivered virtually in place of less cost-effective paper tests; schools are offering online courses that were previously not available to students; and teachers interacting with students through digital handheld devices is becoming more and more common in the classroom [10]. After the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020, emerging technologies such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence exerted far more influence on teaching and learning than ever [11]. Moreover, Miranda et al. [12] suggest that technology can boost educational chances and effectively connect students with feasible sources of information.

Facing the increasingly influential technologies, some researchers and practitioners are concerned that teachers and students would be outpaced or even consumed by the constant changes in technology. For example, Bauerlein [13] envisioned “the sense of inevitability” forcing researchers to tolerate what he described as “serious and catholic literacy” (p. 140). However, more counterpoints were found in the research to support educational technology. Heberer [14] articulated that “Technology is expandable, adaptable, and ever increasingly affordable” (p. 19). Educational technology encourages student interaction, improves learning outcomes, stimulates student engagement, and enriches learning experience [9,15,16].

Realizing the benefits of educational technology is only the threshold of integrating it into the classroom successfully. Adopting the educational technology is also not sufficient for effective IT-enhanced learning activities [4,9,14], as the new “digital divide”, a division between people who have access to and use of digital media and those who do not [17], is not only associated with the convenient access to technology, but also the appropriate use of technology [18]. Therefore, it is very important to have a proper understanding of what Anderson [19] described as “net-aware theories of learning”, which provide a way to exploit the affordances of educational technology (p. 40). Theories help educators realize the importance of integrating technology in their teaching, whereas theoretical models provide guidance towards this direction [20].

According to Kimmons et al. [8], theoretical models are “theoretical constructs that guide researchers, educators, and other stakeholders in conceptualizing the messy, complex and unstructured phenomenon of technology integration” (p. 176). Currently there are various technology integration models available for preparing teachers for their teaching in online or blended contexts, including Substitution, Augmentation, Modification and Redefinition (SAMR [3]), Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK [4]), Replacement, Amplification and Transformation (RAT [5]), Technology Integration Matrix (TIM [6]), and Passive, Interactive, Creative—Replacement, Amplification and Transformation (PICRAT [7]).

Below is a brief introduction to these technology integration models:

• SAMR focuses on how technology could be used to enhance and transform teaching activities;
• TPACK centers on the interaction among teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge;
• RAT allows teachers to assess their own technology literacy in terms of replacement, amplification, and transformation;
• TIM targets how teachers and students implement technology in a meaningful learning environment;
• PICRAT: PIC (passive, interactive, creative) refers to the students’ relationship to technology in a particular scenario. RAT (replacement, amplification, transformation) describes the impact of the technology on a teacher’s previous practice.

These models are generally acknowledged for their efforts in addressing researchers’ and educators’ needs in technology use, but they should be carefully selected to align their strengths with the adoptees’ needs due to the complexity of technology integration and the diversity of models themselves [20]. Therefore, Kimmons and Hall [20] proposed six criteria that serve to verify the quality of teacher education technology integration models. These six criteria are: (a) Clarity (Is the model sufficiently simple, clear, and easy to understand, with no hidden complexities?); (b) Scope (Is the model sufficiently parsimonious to ignore aspects of technology integration not useful to teachers, but sufficiently comprehensive to guide their practice?); (c) Compatibility (Does the model complement/support existing educational practices deemed valuable to teachers?); (d) Fruitfulness (Does the model elicit fruitful thinking as teachers grapple with problems of technology integration?); (e) Student Outcomes (Does the model clearly emphasize students and student outcomes?); and (f) Role of Technology (Does the model treat technology integration as a means for achieving specific pedagogical or other benefits, rather than as an end in itself?). Based on these criteria, a good model should be simple, comprehensive, and compatible with existing IT-integrated pedagogical practices. It should also yield fruitful insights for teachers, focus on student achievement and view technology as “a means to an end” instead of “an end [to] itself” [20] (p. 59).

Technology integration models allow teachers to plan ahead, share practice, conduct evaluation and chart progress with the integration of new technologies and technology-enhanced pedagogies into course teaching. However, many of the models are unclear for teachers, being overly theoretical, deceptive, unintuitive, or confusing [8]. In the meantime, these models tend to focus more on technology-adoption or teacher-pedagogy goals than on clarity of what students do or learn, and some also lack fruitfulness, which often fails to lead teachers to meaningful reflection.

Regarding all the models mentioned above, there has already been some commentary on their usefulness, functionality, and weaknesses [8]. It seems that the SAMR, TPACK, RAT and TIM models do not meet the criterion Clarity, as they are overly conceptual for teachers. As Kimmons et al. pointed out in their proposal [8], concepts such as Substitution and Augmentation in SAMR, Technological Pedagogical Knowledge in TPACK and Transformation in RAT and TIM are difficult for teachers to understand, as they are very abstract concepts that may lead to a superficial understanding of complex issues [3,21]. The TPACK model, in particular, raises even more concerns over its Scope, as its components are too general to provide sufficient guidance for concrete practices [22]. In contrast, the TIM model offers more details, i.e., 25 levels for teachers to apply in actual contexts, but its lack of Fruitfulness may hinder meaningful reflection from teachers. Furthermore, compared with SAMR, TPACK and RAT that are more teacher-centric [14], the PICRAT model could be more effective in specific educational contexts as a “student-focused, pedagogy-driven” framework for educators [8] (p. 184).

Building upon the SAMR and RAT models, the PICRAT model is “not only user friendly and easily applied but also student-focused and triggered thinking” [23] (p. 40). In addition, this model is found to be helpful in explaining how to think meaningfully about integrating technology into the classroom. This is because the model “takes into consideration how teachers use technology compared to traditional practices, and how students use the technology to support their learning” [24] (p. 531). In a word, the PICRAT model highlights two essential questions for exploring implications regarding teachers’ use of technology and students’ relationship with technology. These two questions are: (1) “What is the student’s relationship to the technology?”; and (2) “How is the use of technology influencing the teacher’s existing practice?” [25] (p. 1).

The emphasis placed on this model also echoes the two principles presented by Allman and West [15] for making decisions relevant to technology integration. These two principles are: (1) “Align Technology with Pedagogy”; and (2) “Identify What Students Will Do with the Technology” [15] (p. 4). According to them, the PICRAT model not only helps to evaluate how effectively teachers utilize technology, but also helps elicit thinking about students’ learning experiences.

However, since the PICRAT model is relatively new to the field of technology integration into educational practices, more efforts need to be made to explore its usefulness in guiding teachers and students in online and blended teaching and learning [8,13]. Therefore, in this study we aim to adopt the PICRAT model in an undergraduate-level linguistics course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, to find out how effective the model is for guiding the integration of innovative technologies in teaching and learning.

3. Research Methods

In this study, a teaching intervention was carried out in the Year 1 undergraduate level course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’. By adopting the PICRAT model, a wide range of education technologies (e.g., ZOOM live lectures; student-made video presentations; EdPuzzle video lectures; MOOC-style video lectures; minMOOC on English Academic Writing; Padlet interactive learning activities; Mentimeter assessment activities; Moodle online quizzes; online discussion forums; Flipgrid video sharing; Wikibook projects; and Theasys VR pages) were employed in the course to facilitate teaching and learning. All these technology-enhanced teaching and learning activities were carefully designed to match different categories of the PICRAT model, which will be discussed in detail in Section 3.1. The course lasted for 13 weeks, and 105 Year 1 undergraduate students participated in the course. After the course was completed a questionnaire survey was conducted to find out students’ views on their technology-enhanced online learning experiences in the course, and follow-up interviews were carried out. A mixed method was adopted for this study, as both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed.

3.1. Adopting the PICRAT Model in the Teaching of a Linguistics Course

The course “Introduction to Linguistics” introduced students to the main theoretical approaches to linguistic study and the formal structures of the English language. Based on the PICRAT model, a wide variety of online resources were integrated into the learning activities to replace, amplify, and transform traditional teaching practices, such as face-to-face live lectures, live discussions in the classroom, paper-based quizzes, and traditional essay writing.

The PICRAT Model [8], which focuses on both student learning and teachers’ pedagogy, was adopted in the undergraduate course “Introduction to Linguistics”. According to the model, students’ relationship to technology can be passive, interactive, or creative, while teachers’ use of technology may replace, amplify, or transform traditional practices (Figure 1).

In this study the different categories in the PICRAT model represent different scenarios of technology integration in education. For example, (PR) on the bottom left (Figure 1) means the teacher replaces the written class notes on chalkboard with a PowerPoint presentation on screen, and students listen to the Powerpoint Presentation passively. Meanwhile, (CT) on the top right represents that the teacher guides students to write a chapter online for a Wikibook ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, and students co-create the content together online and get feedback from their peers on their Wikibook chapter, which transforms the traditional practice of students writing an essay on their own. These different categories all have their own values and serve their own purposes depending on the learning goals that have been set, but the bottom left PR (Passive, Replacement) category represents the most basic technology integration cases, while the top right CT (Creative, Transformation) category represents the more advanced technology integration cases that require higher order thinking skills such as creative thinking.

In this course, a wide range of e-learning tools or resources were used to design online learning activities, aiming not simply to replace traditional practices, but to amplify and transform them. These technology-enhanced activities are categorized under the following three categories of the PICRAT model:

• Replacement: In this case, technology functions as a different (digital) means to the same instructional practices [25]; for example, ZOOM live lectures (PR/IR) to replace face-to-face live lectures, and student-made video presentations (CR) to replace face-to-face student-led live oral presentations;
• Amplification: In this case, technology enhances the efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of the same instructional practices [25]. For example, EdPuzzle video lectures (IA) and MOOC-style video lectures (IA) were adopted to amplify traditional face-to-face live lectures; a miniMOOC on English Academic Writing (IA) was adopted to amplify a traditional short lesson on English Academic Writing conducted in the classroom; Padlet interactive learning activities (IA/CA) were adopted to amplify traditional face-to-face interaction in the classroom; Mentimeter assessment activities (IA) were adopted to amplify traditional paper-based assessment activities; Moodle online quizzes (IA) were adopted to amplify traditional paper-based quizzes; and online discussion forums (IA) were adopted to amplify traditional face-to-face oral discussions in the classroom;
• Transformation: In this case, technology creates new instructions, learning, or curricula [25]. For example, Flipgrid video sharing (CT) was adopted to transform the traditional ways of face-to-face interaction among the students and the teachers in the classroom; Wikibook projects (CT) were adopted to transform the traditional way of writing a piece of academic writing; and Theasys VR page (IT) was adopted to transform the traditional way of using printed pictures in the classroom.

Some examples are given below to explain how the above technology-enhanced activities were categorized under different categories in the PICRAT model.

3.1.1. Replacement

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic all the lessons were taught online when this study was conducted. The traditional face-to-face lectures were replaced by online ZOOM live lectures, which fall into the PR (Passive, Replacement)/IR (Interactive, Replacement) category of the PICRAT model, as students either listened to the ZOOM lectures online passively or interacted with the lecturer during the ZOOM lectures. The benefits of replacing the traditional face-to-face lectures with ZOOM lectures were that normal teaching and learning activities could be resumed despite the fact that students could not attend face-to-face lessons during the pandemic.

Also, as face-to-face student-led group oral presentations were not possible during the pandemic, to replace the live oral presentation in the classroom students were asked to work in groups to create a video oral presentation using PowerPoint and ZOOM for a chapter of the student-authored academic book “Introduction to Linguistics”, based on the topics introduced in the course. After they recorded their presentation they had to upload the video recordings to Moodle (Figure 2), and then their classmates were invited to comment on the presentation. This activity falls into the CR category of the PICRAT model: students create their own video oral presentation to replace the traditional practice of live oral presentation in the classroom.

3.1.2. Amplification

Replacing face-to-face lectures with pre-recorded lectures may not be sufficient for students’ learning online, thus video lectures in the course were improved by converting them into interactive EdPuzzle video lectures with embedded quiz questions. Students who had logged into their EdPuzzle accounts were prompted to answer questions while watching a video (Figure 3). Their performance was recorded and analyzed on EdPuzzle for teachers to monitor their learning progress. This activity falls into the IA category of the PICRAT model: the original lecture video clips were recorded by the lecturer using ZOOM (basically a video recording of a PPT presentation on ZOOM with a talking head at the top right corner of the screen), to further amplify the attractiveness and effectiveness of the EdPuzzle video lectures; the video clips were edited carefully and many animation effects or other special effects were added to make students feel that they were interacting with the video lectures constantly while watching, thus positively impacting students’ English proficiency, engagement and satisfaction [26].

Alternatively, students were required to watch MOOC-style video lectures (Figure 4) and finish follow-up quizzes on Moodle. Again, to amplify the attractiveness and effectiveness of the video lectures, these MOOC-style video lectures were shot in professional studios with professional equipment and lighting, and green screen and props were used to create various scenes. Yu’s study [27] (p. 9) suggests that “videos with teacher presence can significantly improve academic achievements and increase intrinsic cognitive loads with those without the presence”. Therefore, the lecturer did many role-plays to present the lecture topics in a dramatic and fun manner. When shooting the video lecture for the topic ‘World Englishes’, seven university professors who spoke different English accents (British English, American English, Australian English, Irish English, German English, Korean English, and Hong Kong English) were interviewed, and demonstrated their own English accents and gave their opinions regarding what appropriate attitudes we should have towards different varieties of English. Such interviews greatly amplified the effectiveness of the video lecture.

For specific issues involved in the course, students were then invited to join discussion sessions on Moodle Forums to interact with each other after the online quizzes (Figure 5). These activities all fall into the IA category of the PICRAT model, as the online quizzes and online discussion forums managed to amplify traditional practices of paper-based quizzes and classroom discussion, enabling the learners to interact with the learning content (online quizzes) and with each other (online discussion forums). The online quizzes provide opportunities for students to self-assess their understanding of the course content.

English academic writing is extremely important for university students. However, year 1 university students are not familiar with English academic writing, so it is important to introduce the basics to them, which will help them to complete the academic writing assignments in the course properly. As there was not enough teaching time in the course to teach this highly complicated topic through live lessons, to solve the problem a miniMOOC on English Academic Writing was developed to introduce the topic systematically and comprehensively; students can study the miniMOOC on their own at any time. The miniMOOC provides all the elements of an online MOOC course: an Introduction (including Course intended learning outcomes, Syllabus, Acknowledgement, Biography of the course lecturer, and an Introduction video), five sessions of video lectures with follow-up quizzes and discussion forums, Reference, and Exercises (see Figure 6). Unlike a full MOOC course which will normally take 30–50 h to complete, this miniMOOC on the specific topic English Academic Writing will take only 3–5 h to complete. It is a supplementary component of the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, aiming to provide the necessary basic training to students for completing the academic writing tasks in the course. It is hoped that this miniMOOC could “bridge the gap between learning contents acquired in the physical classroom and those reviewed beyond the classroom” [28] (p. 15).

The MiniMOOC activity also falls into the IA category of the PICRAT model. The video lectures in the miniMOOC were shot by a professional team in a video studio or other settings (e.g., library) (see Figure 7). This is to amplify the effectiveness of the video lectures. Subtitles were created to match the speech in the video lecture, and online quizzes and discussion forums were attached to different sections of the video lecture so that students can interact with the content by completing the online quizzes (online feedback were provided when students checked the answers to the quiz questions) and also interact with their tutor and peers through the online discussion forums.

Sometimes, the discussion activity would be accompanied by a Padlet activity (Figure 8) so students could discuss course-related topics conveniently through sharing texts, images, and audio/video feeds online. The Padlet activity fell into the IA/CA category of the PICRAT model: it amplified the traditional practice of sharing only texts or drawings on the blackboard in a classroom, and students could create their own content and interact with their peers via Padlet efficiently and learn from each other.

When the classes were conducted synchronously via ZOOM, sometimes the assessment tool Mentimeter was adopted to encourage seamless interaction in the virtual classroom (Figure 9). Using Mentimeter, the lecturer organized live online polls, invited students to contribute words to form word clouds online, and asked questions using different formats (multiple choice, open ended, ranking, scales, etc.), and students competed against each other when answering questions, trying to get the highest score. The Mentimeter activity falls into the IA category of the PICRAT model: it is a great tool to amplify traditional classroom learning activities, and it provides great opportunities for students to interact with the tutor and with each other.

3.1.3. Transformation

Traditionally, at the beginning of a course, students are invited to introduce themselves in front of the class in a classroom. However, due to the pandemic, the lessons in this course were conducted online via ZOOM, so at the beginning of the course students were asked to make short self-introduction videos and share them on Flipgrid (now renamed as Flip), following the sample self-introduction video created by the teacher (Figure 10). They could be as creative as possible when it came to making a video, as Flipgrid enables them to add text, drawings, stickers, images, backdrops and more to their videos. After they had posted their videos they were encouraged to interact with each other by commenting on the other videos. The Flipgrid activity falls into the CT category of the PICRAT model: students create their own self-introduction videos with many special features (inclusion of photos, drawings, past video footages, etc.) and share them online, and other students can comment on the videos and interact with them, which has transformed the traditional way of face-to-face self-introduction.

In addition to the Flipgrid activity, students were required to work in groups to co-create a chapter of the student-authored Wikibook “Introduction to Linguistics” based on the topics introduced in the course (Figure 11). They then needed to give constructive comments on each other’s chapter and evaluate the chapter by rating it on a scale of 1–5. The Wikibook project also falls into the CT category of the PICRAT model: students work in groups to create their own Wikibook chapters online, which include many multimedia elements (photos, images, videos, drawings, diagrams, etc.), and peer-edit each other’s work online; other students can view the chapters any time and leave comments so that they can interact with the authors and make suggestions for improvement. This has transformed the traditional way of essay writing: writing is no longer a private activity; instead, the chapters are openly available online for viewing and peer-editing and students can learn from each other through constant online interactions. The collaborative experience of developing the Wikibook project was turned into a social process of knowledge construction.

Other than the Wikibook project, some Virtual Reality (VR) pages were developed using the Theasys online platform to introduce the topic of animal communication in the course (see Figure 12); the learning goal of this activity is for students to compare animal communication systems with human language systems, so as to obtain a proper understanding of the unique features of human language. The VR activity falls into the IT category of the PICRAT model: students were immersed in a virtual reality environment and were able to interact with different animals by clicking on the hotspots to trigger animations and audio/video feeds and learn about animal communication systems, which has transformed the traditional way of learning.

4. Findings and Discussion

At the end of the course students were invited to complete an online survey regarding their online learning experiences in the course.

Table 1. Questionnaire survey results.

Statement	Agree or Strongly Agree (%)
The online learning materials/activities (e.g., Online Quizzes, Padlet, Wikibook, EdPuzzle) made me a more active learner.	83.3%
2. The online learning materials/activities (e.g., miniMOOC, EdPuzzle, MOOC-style video lectures, Padlet) allowed me to interact with the learning content effectively.	86.7%
3. The online learning materials/activities (e.g., Flipgrid, Wikibook, online discussion forums) gave me good opportunities to interact with my peers.	83.3%
4. The online learning materials/activities (e.g., Wikibook project, video recording of oral presentation, Flipgrid video sharing) gave me good opportunities to create my own content, which enriched my learning.	90%
5. The online quizzes in this course were helpful in self-assessing my understanding of the course content.	96.7%
6. The discussion forums in this course provided a platform for meaningful discussion about the course content.	83.3%
7. I found reading comments/responses/answers by other learners in the discussion forums stimulating and thought provoking.	86.7%
8. The design of the online learning materials helped increase my learning motivation.	80%
9. The online learning materials were user friendly.	93.3%
10. Overall, I enjoyed the online learning activities.	86.7%

shows the students’ agreement to the statements in the survey (n = 30). The scales are: Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree.

Although 105 students took the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, they were divided into four small tutorial groups. Each week, a one-hour plenary lecture (either a ZOOM live lecture or a recorded video lecture) was offered to all the 105 students, followed by a two-hour tutorial session conducted in four small tutorial groups. The author was in charge of two of the tutorial groups (55 students in total), and the questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews were conducted among these 55 students. The questionnaire items were validated as they were reviewed by experts in the field, and a trial run was conducted to ensure that the questions were valid and reliable.

From Table 1 we understand that during the study of the course the students’ relationship to technologies was interactive, as 86.7% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the online learning materials/activities (e.g., miniMOOC, EdPuzzle, MOOC-style video lectures, Padlet) allowed them to interact with the learning content effectively, and 83.3% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the online learning materials/activities (e.g., Flipgrid, Wikibook, online discussion forums) gave them good opportunities to interact with their peers. In addition, 96.7% (the highest percentage) of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the online quizzes in this course were helpful in self-assessing their understanding of the course content. The interactive nature of online quizzes was very well received by the students, as many claimed that it was their favorite learning activity in the course. After completing an online quiz students not only received the grades immediately, but also received instant feedback on each quiz item provided by the quiz system so that they could learn from the mistakes they made and obtain a proper understanding of the course topics. If they wished to improve their grades they could choose to re-do the quiz, but a new set of quiz questions would be generated which were taken from an electronic question bank; this way, students were answering some new quiz questions each time they re-did the quiz, and as a result they could learn a lot by re-doing the quizzes and being rewarded with high grades in the end. This is assessment for learning, which would be quite difficult to manage through paper-based quizzes. The technology integration in this case has amplified traditional paper-based quizzes, leading to satisfactory learning outcomes.

At the same time, 83.3% of the students agreed or strongly agreed that the discussion forums in this course provided a platform for meaningful discussion about the course content. Students enjoyed interacting with their peers through online discussion forums, as 86.7% of them agreed or strongly agreed that they found reading comments/responses/answers by other learners in the discussion forums stimulating and thought-provoking. Indeed, for the topic ‘Pragmatics’, students posted over 350 messages on the discussion forums on Moodle, enthusiastically sharing their own entertaining experiences of interpreting the pragmatic meaning of certain strange expressions in real-life situations. For example, one student wrote, ‘The first time I heard about “I got it for a five-finger discount”, I misunderstood its meaning; that is, I thought it meant some kind of discount while selling something. But later I figured out that it actually meant stealing something or picking up something in passing.’ The online discussion forums amplified the traditional face-to-face discussion in the classroom, as students can interact with everybody in the class with less limitations, as the online discussion is asynchronous, students can go to the discussion forum any time to view the postings, and post new messages, which has amplified the scope and depth of traditional classroom discussions quite significantly.

At the end of the survey students were further invited to participate in a follow-up interview. The purpose of the interview is to seek clarification from the interviewees regarding their experiences of using different technologies to facilitate their learning in the course. The interview involved six follow-up questions regarding their online learning experiences in the course. Three students (S1, S2 and S3) who completed the questionnaire survey earlier took part in the follow-up interview voluntarily. The focus group interview lasted for one hour. The following are the interview questions:

(1)

What are your thoughts about online learning compared with face-to-face learning in general (not only in this course)? What are the advantages and what are the concerns?

(2)

Please share your experience of using online learning materials in this course. For example, Flipgrid video sharing, Padlet, Edpuzzle, miniMOOC on academic writing, MOOC-style video lectures, live ZOOM lectures, online quizzes, Wikibook project, online discussion forums, songs and videos played in the course, etc.

(3)

What aspect of using the online learning materials did you most enjoy or find most helpful for learning? Please elaborate. For example, online quizzes? online lectures? Wikibook project? In what ways?

(4)

Do you think the choice of technology was well suited for the learning activities and learning content of the course? For example, Flipgrid for self-introduction, online quizzes for self-assessment, Padlet for online interaction, Wikibook project to promote peer collaborative learning and peer teaching, etc. Please explain.

(5)

Do you have any suggestions for further improving the use of the online learning materials in this course?

(6)

Do you have any other overall comments on this course?

During the follow-up interviews, Students 1 and 3 (S1 and S3) stated that studying EdPuzzle video lectures on their own was one of their favorite learning activities, as it enabled them to engage in the video and deepen their understanding of the video content with the quiz questions embedded in the video. Meanwhile, S1 found the learning content was well presented in the MOOC-style video lectures and S2 claimed that the video recordings were creative and interesting. These carefully produced video lectures greatly amplified traditional face-to-face live lectures, as in a lecture hall the lecturer has limited resources and is heavily relying on ‘chalk-and-talk’, while when making a video lecture the lecturer could act out different scenes in a video studio, and props can be used to create the environment that matches the scenario. Technologies such as green screen and post-editing of video clips can help to create really exciting video lecture content (e.g., any background can be added to any video scene, and different special effects such as animations and sound effects can be added to further engage the audience), and EdPuzzle technology allows students to answer quiz questions during the watching of the video lecture, making the process far more interactive. In addition, students can re-watch the video lectures if they wish to in order to get a better understanding of the lecture content. This is not possible for live lectures in a classroom.

S1 expressed that the miniMOOC on English academic writing provided them with more diverse learning modes that were more interesting to them than face-to-face learning. S2 also pointed out that it allowed him to learn more about plagiarism and academic writing on his own. Students also regarded Padlet as one of the most enjoyable and helpful apps for students’ learning online. Since the Padlet activity was conducted during the lesson, they were able to view all of the comments made by their classmates in real time, while Moodle Forums lack such a feature (S2). The above data show that the teacher’s use of technology in this study has not only replaced but also amplified traditional practices, thus increasing efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity of instructional practices, student learning processes, and content goals. The findings match what Hughes et al. [5] have described in their study.

During the study of the course, students’ relationship to technologies was also creative, as 86.7% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the online learning materials/activities (e.g., Wikibook project, video recording of oral presentation, Flipgrid video sharing) gave them good opportunities to create their own content which enriched their learning. In the follow-up interviews, students reported that Flipgrid self-introduction video sharing activity was interesting and helpful, as it enabled them to create and share their own content so that they could know more about each other and make friends through the activity (S2 and S3). Students also enjoyed the Wikibook project as they were able to create their own chapters, and they felt proud of co-authoring an academic book together and publishing it online at the end of the course. Such strong learning satisfaction is not common in other traditional courses. The Wikibook project has transformed the traditional way of essay writing, as students were no longer writing on their own; instead, their writing was openly available on the Wikibook site to their classmates, which meant that the content was under public scrutiny. The peer comments and peer editing they received greatly helped them to further improve their writing skills, as they could learn from each other and improve as a whole group. The above data show that the teacher’s use of technology has transformed the instructional method and the students’ learning process. Again, the findings match what Hughes et al. [5] have described in their study.

Below are some general comments on the course by the interviewees and other students who completed the standard and compulsory end-of-course Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) online evaluation form which was designed by the university and administered at the end of every course:

“All apps were well suited for the learning activities.”

(S1)

“The whole learning experience was very smooth and natural.”

(S2)

“It was interesting to share experience and learn about others’ experience on the discussion forum.”

(S2)

“Online quizzes help consolidate students’ knowledge.”

(S3)

“The lecturer always tried to give us a vibe that is fun, relaxed and chill in the class.”

(S1)

“Sometimes I will compare XXX’s class with other teachers’ class and obviously XXX’s class is more fun and interesting because [of] those apps he used.”

(S1)

“I am really grateful for what our teacher did.”

(S3)

“It’s so interesting to watch the video made by XXX, and it did make linguistics easier to understand.”

(Comment collected from the SET online evaluation form)

“I enjoyed this course very much. I found lectures interesting and very engaging.”

(Comment collected from the SET online evaluation form)

All the survey results and positive subjective comments suggest that students found the technology-enhanced teaching and learning activities in this course effective and helpful, and the adoption of the PICRAT model in the course was a success.

In general, the goal of this study matches the Sustainable Development Goal 4 established by the United Nations; that is, “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” [29] (para. 1). By adopting the PICRAT model for technology integration in the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’, the lecturer ensured that all students were able to receive equitable quality education through engaging with various technology-enhanced learning activities, even when face-to-face lessons were not possible during the pandemic. The students gained valuable skills for lifelong learning, and they will be able to overcome the challenges even if a pandemic breaks out again in the future.

5. Conclusions

As suggested by the findings, the adoption of the PICRAT model for integrating technologies into the teaching of the course ‘Introduction to Linguistics’ was very successful, as the teacher employed various technologies such as EdPuzzle video lectures, miniMOOC, Padlet, Mentimetre, Flipgrid, online quizzes, online forums, VR pages and Wikibook to not only replace, but also amplify and transform traditional practices such as face-to-face live lectures, live discussions in the classroom, paper-based quizzes, and traditional essay writing. Students who participated in the IT-enhanced activities were turned from passive learners into interactive and creative learners. The PICRAT model can be adopted as a shared reference for planning, development, coordination, and evaluation of the clarity, fruitfulness, and student focus of technology-enhanced teaching and learning practices.

To adopt the PICRAT model successfully in a course we need to adopt a variety of educational technologies to facilitate students learning. The different categories in the PICRAT model, such as PR (Passive Replacement) and CT (Creative Transformation), are all valuable and serve different purposes, and what technologies should be adopted to achieve which category of technology integration all depends on the learning goals. Generally speaking, it is important to add interactive elements to the technology-enhanced learning activities, so that students would actively engage in the activities and benefit through interaction with the learning content and with their tutors and peers. Creative elements should be added as well, so that students can create their own learning artifacts through engaging with various technologies. The technology-enhanced learning activities should be linked to assessment as well, so that the activities will lead to clear and measurable learning outcomes. Through adopting the PICRAT model and taking full advantage of various educational technologies, we will be able to create a stimulating and enjoyable learning environment for our students, which will lead to enhanced student performances and satisfactory learning outcomes.

Regarding the limitations of the study and the implications for future research, as this study is only one teacher’s personal attempt in adopting the PICRAT model in his teaching and the sample size is limited, it will be desirable that the study is replicated in the future in different courses taught by different teachers, with a larger sample size, and when more technological tools can be explored for replacing, amplifying and transforming traditional practices under the guidance of the PICRAT model, and systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the technology-enhanced teaching and learning activities needs to be carried out.