Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 2179–2200 | Cite as

Introducing an innovative technology integration model: Echoes from EFL pre-service teachers

  • Esra Harmandaoğlu Baz
  • Cem Balçıkanlı
  • Paşa Tevfik Cephe


Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has been considered an important component to integrate into teacher education programs in the twenty-first century. However, neither faculty members nor the pre-service teachers seem to benefit from ICT efficiently throughout the 4-year teacher education program in Turkey. This study was designed to find out the experiences of Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) pre-service teachers about their practice-based training on ICT integration into language learning and teaching. The junior pre-service teachers were given training about ICT integration based on SAMR model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) throughout 4 weeks. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and observations. The findings show that the participants found SAMR model beneficial and held positive attitudes towards using SAMR in their future classes.


SAMR EFL pre-service teachers ICT 


  1. Abidin-Mısırlı, Z. (2016). Integrating technology into teaching and learning using variety of models. Ihlara Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 37–48.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Bena, K., & James, M. (2001). Information technology for schools, creating practical knowledge to improve students’ performance. San Fransico: Jossey–Bass A Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Chai, C. S., & Lim, C. P. (2011). The internet and teacher education: traversing between the digitized world and schools. Internet and Higher Education, 14(1), 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Charbonneau-Gowdy, P. (2015). It takes a community to develop a teacher: testing a new teacher education model for promoting ICT in classroom teaching practices in Chile. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(4), 237–249.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cummings, C. (2014). Teacher created prescriptive interactive content (TCPIC), SAMR, and modernizing remediation in social science education. The International Society for the Social Studies Annual Conference Proceedings, 2014(1), 37–39.Google Scholar
  8. Divaharan, S., & Koh, J. H. L. (2010). Learning as students to become better teachers: pre-service teachers’ IWB learning experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 553–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duncan, H. E., & Barnett, J. (2009). Learning to teach online: what works for pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flanagan, M. (2016). The effects of a one-to-one ipad initiative: a case study (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Grossman, P. L., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E. C., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: a cross-professional perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 111, 2055–2100.Google Scholar
  13. Guhlin, M. (2012). Classroom learning activity rubric. Retrieved February 15, 2015 from
  14. Günüç, S., & Kuzu, A. (2014). Factors influencing student engagement and the role of technology in student engagement in higher education: campus-class-technology theory. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 5(4), 56–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akçaoğlu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: a critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins, R. (2002). Ten lessons for ICT and education in the developing world. Retrieved February 9, 2016 from
  17. Herbst, P., Chazan, D., Chieu, V. M., Milewski, A., Kosko, K. W., & Aaron, W. R. (2016). Technology-mediated mathematics teacher development: Research on digital pedagogies of practice. In M. Niess, S. Driskell, & K. Hollebrands (Eds.), Handbook of research on transforming mathematics teacher education in the digital age (pp. 78–106). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Irish, S. J. (2017). A teacher retrospective of a decade of one-to-one devices (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Walden University, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Jones, C. A. (2001). Preparing teachers to use technology. Principal Leadership, 1(9), 35–39.Google Scholar
  21. Jude, L. T., Kajura, M. A., & Birevu, M. P. (2014). Adoption of the SAMR model to asses ICT pedagogical adoption: a case of Makerere university. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 4(2), 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lei, J. (2009). Digital natives as preservice teachers: what technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97.Google Scholar
  23. Liton, H. A. (2015). Examining students’ perception & efficacy of using technology in teaching English. Technology, 1(1), 11–19.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, J. (2009). A survey of EFL learners’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. USA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  26. Morris, N. (2012). Learning and teaching with emerging technologies: Preservice pedagogy and classroom realities (Unpublished Master Thesis). University of Windsor, Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education in the state of Maine. Retrieved May 13, 2015 from
  29. Puentedura, R. R. (2008). TPCK and SAMR. Retrieved May 13, 2015 from
  30. Puentedura, R. R. (2009). SAMR: a contextualized introduction. Retrieved May 13, 2015 from
  31. Raman, K., & Yamat, H. (2014). Barriers teachers face in integrating ICT during English lessons: a case study. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(11), 11–19.Google Scholar
  32. Reinders, H., & White, C. (2010). The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design. In N. Harwood (Ed.), Materials in ELT: Theory and practice (pp. 58–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  33. Schmid, E. C. (2009). The pedagogical potential of interactive whiteboards 2.0. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 491–505). USA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seidlhofer, B. (2007). Common property: English as a lingua franca in Europe. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 137–153). New York: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sutton, S. R. (2011). The preservice technology training experiences of novice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 28(1), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Theisen, T. (2013). New spaces new realities: expanding learning any time, any place. Foreign Language Annals, 46(4), 523–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Townsend, M. B. (2017). Ipads in K-12 schools: a grounded theory study of value (Doctoral dissertation) University of Phoenix, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15–26). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esra Harmandaoğlu Baz
    • 1
  • Cem Balçıkanlı
    • 2
  • Paşa Tevfik Cephe
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of English Language Teachingİstanbul Medeniyet UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of English Language TeachingGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations