I. INTRODUCTION
The integration of digital technologies into education has reshaped classroom instruction and redefined the expectations placed on future teachers. As digital platforms become more deeply embedded in educational practice, those entering the teaching profession are expected to move beyond basic tool use toward adaptive, creative, and pedagogically grounded applications of technology. The widespread belief that younger generations—often labeled as “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001)—naturally possess such skills is misleading. Many students are fluent in using digital media in everyday life, but this fluency does not automatically translate into the ability to design, apply, or critically evaluate technology in pedagogical contexts (Durriyah & Zuhdi, 2018; Mudra, 2020).
Although digital integration is now widely promoted in teacher education, many programs still offer limited opportunities for meaningful digital content creation, particularly within English education (Tondeur et al., 2012). This gap is concerning, as language teaching increasingly interacts with complex, media-rich environments (Hafner et al., 2015; Walsh, 2011). Yet in many programs, training continues to focus on navigating existing tools rather than supporting the development of learner-responsive and context-aware applications. Godwin-Jones (2012) critiques the static structure of commercial learning platforms and the narrowly defined functionality of most training, both of which tend to restrict pedagogical flexibility and discourage teachers from designing their own instructional solutions. Research has similarly concentrated on limited applications—such as vocabulary-building tools—while often overlooking broader efforts at pedagogical authorship or instructional creativity (Kukulska-Hulme, 2020).
Recent frameworks, however, define digital literacy as a dynamic and multidimensional competence. It includes not only technical skills but also critical awareness, ethical judgment, multimodal expression, and responsiveness to diverse learning contexts (George-Reyes et al., 2021; UNESCO Institute for Statistics [UNESCO], 2018). These perspectives emphasize the importance of creative digital authorship, positioning teachers as designers of flexible, learner-centered environments. In this vein, Vogel et al. (2020) argue that digital literacy in teacher education should extend beyond isolated technical skills to include critical, creative, and reflective orientations toward technology. For English language teachers, this means not simply operating software but integrating digital tools in ways that enhance communication, creativity, and learner agency. Programming and app creation, they suggest, can serve as bridges between technical knowledge and pedagogical insight, enabling the design of more adaptive and learner-centered environments. This shift is particularly relevant in English education, where digital tools shape not just language learning but also identity formation, intercultural engagement, and media literacy within increasingly globalized classrooms.
In light of these developments, this study presents a curriculum-level intervention—a university course titled Digital Literacy and English Education, offered in the Spring 2025 semester to second-year English education majors. While the course had been offered previously, the current iteration incorporates substantial refinements that reflect advances in educational technology and the expanding role of generative AI. Crucially, it moves beyond the typical focus of teacher education courses that center on general ICT skills or the passive adoption of ready-made tools. Instead, it integrates web-based app development using accessible platforms such as Streamlit (Streamlit, n.d.), Gradio (Abid et al., 2019), and Hugging Face (Wolf et al., 2020), enabling students to design and deploy customizable instructional applications with AI-driven features. By positioning students as active creators rather than consumers, the course links technical exploration directly to pedagogical goals. Working in small groups, participants developed lesson plans incorporating multimodal, learner-adaptive applications, engaging in collaborative decision-making about how technology can address specific learner needs. This design-oriented approach reframes digital literacy from a set of isolated technical abilities into an integrated pedagogical competence, one that requires creativity, adaptability, and the capacity to shape technology to meet evolving classroom realities.
Taken together, prior studies support curriculum-integrated experiences that develop both digital fluency and pedagogical creativity. Embedding design-based projects into teacher education can help future educators build the adaptability and confidence needed for technology-rich classrooms. This study builds on that foundation by examining a one-semester course for English education majors, in which students engage with programming and app development as part of their teacher preparation.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Evolving Concepts of Digital Literacy
The concept of digital literacy has shifted significantly over the past several decades—from a narrow focus on technical proficiency, such as basic computer operations or information retrieval, toward a broader, socially embedded understanding shaped by educational and social contexts. Recent studies reflect this change in emphasis. Pangrazio (2014), for example, argues that digital literacies should be viewed as diverse practices that emerge in specific social and cultural settings rather than as a single checklist of technical abilities. Likewise, Mensonides et al. (2024) examines how different notions of literacy—such as media, information, and digital literacies—have developed over time in response to technological innovations and evolving educational priorities.
However, with the growing recognition of the internet’s multimodal nature, definitions have expanded to include critical engagement, ethical awareness, and creative production. Gilster (1997), who first popularized the term digital literacy, described it as the ability to access and interpret information across digital formats, emphasizing flexible thinking rather than technical skill alone. Building on this, UNESCO (2018) defines digital literacy as the ability to access, evaluate, and create digital content ethically and effectively. This expanded view includes critical, multimodal, and computational literacies, the latter involving algorithmic thinking and digital problem-solving (George-Reyes et al., 2021).
While these evolving definitions highlight the growing complexity of digital literacy, recent scholarship stresses its significance as a socially and educationally embedded practice rather than a purely individual skillset. Deirmenci (2024), for instance, points to its role in fostering inclusive and globally connected English language teaching by enabling collaborative and intercultural engagement. Yet, despite these advances, many teacher education programs— particularly in English language teaching—continue to privilege operational skills and tool use over creative or design-oriented engagement. This disconnect suggests that preparing future English teachers requires moving beyond functional competence to cultivating the capacity to design pedagogical experiences and digital resources that align with broader instructional goals.
2. Frameworks and Challenges in Teacher Preparation
Building on this evolving definition, frameworks such as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) provide a way to conceptualize how digital literacy can be integrated into teacher preparation. The TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) extends Shulman’s (1986) concept of pedagogical content knowledge by explicitly incorporating technology as a third domain of teacher expertise. While Shulman emphasized the integration of content and pedagogy, Koehler and Mishra highlighted how technology interacts with both. Rather than treating technology as a separate component, TPACK highlights the dynamic interplay between technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, illustrating how these domains overlap to create opportunities for innovative practice. Research applying TPACK has shown that teachers who can navigate these intersections are more likely to design technology-rich lessons that foster learner engagement and higher-order thinking. From this perspective, effective digital integration involves more than selecting tools. Instead, it requires insight into how digital resources can transform instructional goals and classroom practice.
In line with this perspective, the present study introduces coding-based tool creation into English teacher education, offering future educators opportunities to align digital resources with instructional objectives in creative ways. Similarly, the OECD (2023) calls for professional development that goes beyond technical skills to include pedagogical reasoning and ethical awareness. Current frameworks stress competencies such as critical thinking, multimodal communication, and sensitivity to learner diversity—skills necessary in increasingly flexible and digitally mediated classrooms (Mhlongo et al., 2023).
Despite growing interest, digital literacy remains unevenly integrated into English language teaching. Many preand in-service teachers lack the training or confidence to move beyond basic use, often due to time constraints, limited support, or infrastructure gaps (Akin Demircan et al., 2025; Dolezal et al., 2025; Teo, 2009). Generational differences may further inhibit creative, learner-centered technology use. Even when teachers see the value of digital tools, they may hesitate to explore new methods without guided support. Confidence and positive attitudes have been shown to be essential for successful integration (Johnson & Sadaf, 2017), highlighting the need for hands-on learning environments. At the same time, a growing body of work explores how generative AI, including platforms such as ChatGPT, can be used in language teaching for specific skills such as reading or writing. While these studies offer valuable insights, they often position AI primarily as a delivery tool or supplementary medium. Expanding this scope to embed generative AI within broader digital literacy training can enable teachers to design adaptive, context-aware, and pedagogically original applications. This orientation aligns closely with project-based, design-oriented models of teacher education, which emphasize technology as a medium for instructional creation rather than mere content delivery.
3. Project-Based and Design-Oriented Approaches to Digital Literacy
In response to these challenges, recent studies have explored project-based and design-oriented models as promising approaches to digital literacy training. Recent studies support project-based approaches as a way to build digital literacy. These methods position technology as a medium for instructional design, not just delivery (Lim, 2023; Pozas et al., 2022). However, such practices are still rare in English education curricula. Kim and Nam (2023) introduced Python, AI tools, and lesson planning to help students create multimodal applications—promoting digital authorship. Moundridou and Matzakos (2025) reported similar outcomes in non-ELT contexts, noting enhanced critical reflection on AI. In English education, Kim and Lee (2023) found that future teachers increasingly value digital literacy and its relevance for their own classrooms. A follow-up study by Kim and Lee (2024) linked prior exposure to coding or AI with greater teaching ambition, even among students with limited early experience. Vogel et al. (2020) similarly highlight that project-based experimentation—whether through coding, app design, or data visualization—creates space for teachers to reflect on how technology reshapes pedagogy, reinforcing the role of design as central to meaningful digital literacy. As digital tools and AI technologies continue to evolve rapidly, continuous training models and sustained integration into teacher education are essential to ensure adaptability and long-term pedagogical impact.
These interventions also raise questions about readiness. Taheri and Pennington (2024) identified four key factors—challenges, concerns, perceived benefits, and future intentions—that influence engagement with digital literacy. While many students saw instructional value, others expressed doubt about their preparedness. These findings underscore the need for structured, hands-on practice to build confidence. Ybarra (2023) similarly emphasizes early exposure, and Mantiri et al. (2019) highlight the role of multimodal practices in promoting both instructional effectiveness and digital citizenship. Building on these insights, the present study investigates how a coding-based, project-oriented course in English teacher education can address such needs.
The reviewed studies highlight the evolution of digital literacy, the frameworks and challenges shaping its integration into English teacher education, and the potential of project-based approaches to build pedagogical creativity and professional confidence. While many studies on generative AI such as ChatGPT demonstrate its usefulness as a direct tool for language learning, they rarely move beyond this instrumental role, which distinguishes the present study’s code-based, design-oriented approach. Building on these insights, the present study investigates the following research questions:
1. What do English education majors, preparing to become secondary English teachers in Korea, perceive about their experience with coding-based app development during the course?
2. How does the course influence these students’ digital confidence and pedagogical creativity in the context of their future roles as secondary English teachers in Korea?
III. METHOD
1. Participants
This study adopts a descriptive case study approach to examine the development and outcomes of a semester-long course titled Digital Literacy and English Education, offered to second-year majors in English education at a university. Thirteen students (N = 13; 3 male and 10 female) enrolled in the course during the Spring 2025 semester. The course, a three-credit elective, ran for 15 weeks with two 90-minute sessions each week.
At the time of participation, students had completed general education and English proficiency subjects but had limited exposure to language pedagogy. Their experience with instructional design or educational technology was minimal, making this class their first formal engagement with the intersection of technology and teaching. Rather than requiring full-scale lesson planning, the course asked them to reflect on their past English learning experiences and identify familiar classroom tasks—such as vocabulary practice or grammar review—that could be enhanced through digital tools. This framing allowed them to explore basic app development in ways that connected with their learning histories and emerging teaching interests.
To better understand their background, a short two-question survey was conducted at the beginning of the semester. Table 1 presents the survey items, which asked about the familiarity of participants with digital tools and programming languages.
These preview questions examined students’ prior digital experience to determine whether the lesson structure would suit their literacy levels.
As shown in Figure 1A, responses to the first question varied. The most frequent response was “2” (41.7%), suggesting limited prior use. Two students (16.7%) selected “1,” indicating little or no experience, while two (16.7%) chose “5.” No student selected “6,” suggesting that extensive experience was rare.
Overall, most students had minimal hands-on experience creating digital content. On the other hand, Figure 1B shows a more consistent pattern. Nine students (69.2%) selected “1,” indicating little to no coding experience. The remaining responses ranged from “2” to “5” (7.7% each), with none selecting the highest level. These results confirm that programming was largely unfamiliar to the group.
These results indicate that although some students had limited prior exposure to digital tools, programming experience was generally absent. This disparity underscores the distinction between using existing tools and developing new digital solutions through programming. Based on these insights, the course was designed for beginners, prioritizing scaffolded, hands-on experiences that emphasized accessibility and direct classroom relevance.
2. Course Design and Implementation
The course was delivered over a semester and structured into five sequential stages (detailed course design, tasks, and student project outcomes are described in Kim, in press).1 Each stage built on the previous one: about four weeks were devoted to Stage I, followed by two weeks for Stage II, three weeks for Stage III, and the final four weeks for Stage IV. An additional two weeks in Stage V were allocated for preparing the final project, in which students developed lesson plans incorporating their own apps. Students worked in groups of four to five throughout. This progression was designed to help them gradually move from basic coding knowledge to designing and presenting their own educational applications. Assessments were aligned with the course stages. The midterm exam, conducted via Google Forms, tested basic Python concepts and general digital literacy. The final evaluation combined group project performance, peer feedback, and individual reflections to assess both collaborative effort and personal growth.
The staged design shown in Table 2 reflects a deliberate application of project-based learning principles, where each phase builds the knowledge, skills, and collaborative habits needed for the next. The early stages (Stages I-II) emphasize foundational coding skills and exploration of digital and AI tools within structured, teacher-guided activities, laying the groundwork for later autonomy. Midway through the course (Stages III-IV), the focus shifts toward collaborative design and iterative prototyping, as students begin applying technical skills to pedagogically driven projects. The final stage (Stage V) emphasizes learner-led work, with project presentations, peer feedback, and reflective evaluation encouraging critical engagement with both process and product. This progression ensures that by the conclusion of the course, students have not only created functional applications but have also developed the capacity to integrate such tools thoughtfully into language teaching contexts.
1) Stage I: Foundations of Python for Educators (Weeks 1-4)
The course began with an introduction to Python, with students practicing basic coding through platforms such as Google Colab. Since most participants had little or no prior programming experience, step-by-step guides, tutorials, and video walkthroughs were provided through the LMS to support self-paced learning, and these open-access resources remained available throughout the semester. Group work was used for more challenging tasks to encourage collaboration and shared submissions. Instruction at this foundational stage concentrated on core Python grammar and concepts essential for reading and modifying application code, including variables, data types, functions, and basic input/output operations. The goal was not advanced programming proficiency but rather the minimal literacy required to interpret and adapt existing app code. Supplementary Python manuals were also distributed so that students could revisit key concepts as they progressed to later stages of the course.
2) Stage II: Exploring Digital and AI Tools (Weeks 5-6)
In the second phase, students explored freely available digital and AI-based platforms for language education, focusing on integrating text, audio, video, and interactive components.2 Each group selected one platform, examined its functionalities and potential classroom applications, and created a ten-minute demonstration video. These videos were shared among groups to facilitate comparison and idea exchange. Students were also encouraged to incorporate accessibility-oriented features, such as text-to-speech (TTS), which can provide model pronunciation, support listening comprehension, and increase engagement in language learning tasks. This exploration provided a reference point for later comparing ready-made platforms with the customizable tools they would subsequently develop, highlighting differences in flexibility, adaptability, and pedagogical control.
3) Stage III: App Deployment With Python-Based Platforms (Weeks 7-9)
Students were introduced to Gradio, Streamlit, and Hugging Face, each serving a distinct role in developing and publishing ELT-oriented digital tools that could be accessed and used online. Gradio and Streamlit are Python-based UI frameworks that enable users to convert Python scripts into interactive web applications with minimal coding, making them suitable for tasks such as producing text-to-speech output, creating vocabulary quizzes, or delivering multimodal lesson content. Hugging Face, in contrast, offers access to a wide range of AI models and cloud-based hosting, allowing the integration of natural language processing and other AI-driven features into classroom tools. Students practiced customizing and deploying simple apps, gaining hands-on experience in designing media-rich prototypes that support lesson delivery and foster learner engagement. This stage bridged programming practice with classroom application, illustrating how adaptable digital tools can be integrated into ELT contexts.
4) Stage IV: Designing Web-Based Instructional Applications (Weeks 10-13)
In the final stage, each group was assigned a short, 500-character story and asked to design a full lesson around it using multiple app components—such as vocabulary, grammar, or listening tasks. These apps were built using Streamlit and combined into a single web application. Three weeks before the deadline, groups presented their drafts in class. Oral feedback was given through Q&A sessions, and written peer evaluations were collected through Google Forms. Based on this input, students revised their apps and created a short video introducing the purpose and features of their final product. Each video was embedded into the corresponding web app.
5) Stage V: Presentation and Reflection (Weeks 14-15)
The web applications produced by each group showed a range of ideas for classroom use and instructional design. All apps were created using Streamlit, supported by simple Python code and generative AI tools such as ChatGPT. Students incorporated multimedia content, quizzes, and interactive features to shape flexible teaching materials accessible via web browsers. The projects demonstrated a shift from using ready-made tools to creating customized, learner-oriented resources (see Footnote 1 for access and instructions).
3. Survey Data Collection
A post-course survey was conducted to examine how students responded to the coding-based app development experience in terms of digital confidence (Q1 & Q2) and pedagogical creativity (Q3 & Q4). The survey included four items, each rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 6 = Strongly Agree). This format was used to reduce neutral responses and encourage clearer distinctions between positive (4-6) and negative (1-3) views. Participation was voluntary.
Table 3 lists the four items and their focus. The questions asked whether students felt more confident using digital tools, whether the course difficulty was appropriate, whether the experience helped them think more creatively as future teachers, and whether they viewed coding as relevant for English education. These items were developed to explore how app development could help students approach classroom design in more creative and digitally informed ways.3
In addition to the survey, students were asked to submit a short reflection essay as a separate file attachment. The essay prompt was provided in both English and Korean, and students were encouraged to respond in the language of their choice. This open-ended written component was intended to capture more nuanced personal experiences and insights that might not be fully expressed through scaled survey responses.4
IV. RESULT AND ANALYSIS
To examine how individual learning unfolded, this study applied a flexible thematic analysis of the end-of-course reflection essays, informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase model. The analysis followed an exploratory approach, aimed at identifying recurring ideas and notable language use rather than adhering strictly to procedural steps. Students were asked to reflect on what they learned through the project, especially in relation to digital confidence and instructional thinking (see Table 2).
In the familiarization phase, all essays were read in full, and preliminary notes were recorded. This was followed by open coding, in which excerpts related to confidence, creativity, collaboration, and pedagogical ideas were grouped into tentative categories. To support the coding process, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF: Jones, 1972) analysis was applied to the English texts. This technique highlighted words that appeared frequently in individual essays but rarely across the dataset, drawing attention to personalized and potentially revealing expressions. TF-IDF was used as a heuristic tool alongside manual coding.
Initial codes were then refined into broader themes such as “overcoming fear,” “tool-making confidence,” and “peer scaffolding.” Weak or overlapping categories were removed or merged to improve thematic clarity. This process led to the identification of five final themes: (1) digital tool confidence, (2) overcoming fear and growth, (3) collaborative teamwork, (4) learning through process, and (5) application to teaching. Themes were developed through iterative memo writing to clarify scope and meaning. Illustrative quotes were selected to represent each theme.
Although the dataset was small (N = 13), the combination of qualitative coding and computational support provided a context-rich understanding of student development. These insights complemented the quantitative survey results.
1. Summary Statistics on Digital Learning Experience
This subsection presents findings based on students’ responses to four survey items designed to assess their perceived growth in digital confidence and pedagogical creativity. Specifically, the items asked whether students felt more confident using digital tools in future English classes (Q1), whether the course difficulty was appropriate for their background (Q2), whether the project helped them think more creatively as future English teachers (Q3), and whether they came to view coding as a meaningful part of English language education (Q4). Together, these questions provide insight into how students experienced the course from both technical and pedagogical perspectives.
A 6-point Likert scale was used to encourage clear reflections and reduce neutral responses, helping to distinguish between positive (4-6) and negative (1-3) attitudes. Although the survey involved a small cohort of thirteen students, the results offer preliminary evidence that a thoughtfully designed course can foster both digital readiness and creative instructional thinking.
Table 4 below summarizes the mean and standard deviation for each of the four items. These descriptive statistics offer a snapshot of the overall positive reception of the course and highlight areas of perceived impact across technical confidence, creative development, and views on coding as an educational tool. The responses suggest that students generally felt more confident using digital tools (Q1), found the course level appropriate (Q2), and developed stronger pedagogical creativity (Q3 and Q4). While exploratory in nature, the findings support the relevance of coding-based, design-oriented instruction in building both digital confidence and pedagogical imagination among pre-service secondary English teachers.
2. Item Analysis: Digital Literacy Training and Pedagogical Thinking
To offer a more detailed understanding of student responses, this section presents four subsections aligned with the survey questions introduced in Section I. Each subsection highlights patterns in the distribution of responses and interprets them in relation to the course’s aims. By examining each item individually, the analysis draws attention to specific dimensions of students’ engagement with app development and their perceived learning gains.
1) Digital Literacy Training (Q1 & Q2)
Survey Question 1 asked students whether they felt more confident using digital tools in their future English classrooms. For English education majors with limited prior experience in digital creation, this question served as a key measure of how the course supported their growth in confidence for integrating technology into teaching. The responses reflect not only the accessibility of the course but also its potential to reduce apprehension about unfamiliar tools. A strong sense of confidence suggests that hands-on, well-supported exposure can help students without technical backgrounds see themselves as capable of using technology in educational settings.
As shown in Figure 3A, responses were overwhelmingly positive: seven students (54%) selected “5,” and five (38%) chose the highest score, “6.” Only one student (8%) selected “4,” and no lower responses were recorded. These results show that structured, purposeful learning opportunities can foster digital confidence even among students with little prior experience. Survey Question 2 asked whether students found the difficulty level of the coding-based app design course appropriate for them as English education majors. For students with little or no prior experience in programming, a well-calibrated challenge is essential for maintaining engagement and supporting a sense of progress. Their responses offer useful insight into the viability of integrating project-based digital literacy instruction into teacher education.
As shown in Figure 3B, most students responded positively. Eight (62%) selected “5,” and four (31%) chose “6,” indicating that the course was generally perceived as manageable and appropriately paced. One student (8%) selected “4,” and no one rated the course more negatively. These responses suggest that the course successfully balanced challenge and support, likely contributing to students’ motivation and their ability to complete complex tasks like app development with growing confidence.
In summary, the results from Questions 1 and 2 indicate that the course supported students—most with limited prior experience—in both gaining digital confidence and handling technical tasks. The consistently high scores suggest that scaffolded instruction and a clear instructional goal can lower barriers to digital learning. These findings point to the potential of coding-based coursework not just for skill-building, but also for fostering a stronger sense of self-efficacy among future English teachers.
2) Pedagogical Thinking (Q3 & Q4)
Survey Questions 3 and 4 examined how the coding-based project shaped students’ pedagogical thinking— particularly their creative engagement with lesson planning (Q3) and their perception of coding as a meaningful component of English language education (Q4). These items aimed to assess whether the course went beyond technical training to foster deeper shifts in how future teachers approach instructional design.
As shown in Figure 4A, responses to Question 3 were unanimously positive: all thirteen students selected either 5 or 6 on the 6-point scale. Notably, over half (54%) chose the highest point. This strong consensus indicates that the project was genuinely helpful in encouraging students to think more creatively about future teaching. These results suggest that coding tasks—when embedded in lesson design—can serve not only as technical practice, but also as a springboard for developing learner-centered instructional ideas.
Responses to Question 4, which asked whether students came to view coding as a meaningful part of English education, were similarly positive, though slightly more varied. As shown in Figure 4B, twelve students selected either 5 or 6, while one selected 3 (discussed further in thematic analysis). The absence of negative responses and the fact that over half of the cohort again chose the highest rating (54%) underscore the potential of coding to be integrated meaningfully into pedagogical thinking. Rather than being seen as an isolated skill, coding was increasingly viewed by students as a design tool that can enhance and expand instructional possibilities.
These findings suggest that integrating app development into teacher education can foster not only digital proficiency but also pedagogical imagination. By engaging with coding tasks in an instructional context, students began to reframe their roles—not merely as users of digital tools, but as creative designers of learning experiences. This shift points to their growing ability to make informed, innovative decisions in their future classrooms.
3. Reflection-Based Insights into Digital Confidence and Pedagogical Thinking
To complement the survey data and gain deeper insight into students’ individual learning experiences, two openended reflection questions were posed at the end of the course. Students were invited to write short paragraphs describing how the project contributed to their confidence with digital tools and their thinking as future educators. These written reflections offered a more nuanced perspective on how students interpreted key aspects of the course, particularly with regard to digital confidence and pedagogical creativity.
The analysis followed a two-step process that combined computational keyword extraction with inductive thematic grouping. First, a Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) analysis was performed using the TfidfVectorizer class from the scikit-learn library in Python (Pedregosa et al., 2011). This method highlighted highweight terms that were relatively common within individual essays but infrequent across the entire dataset, helping identify distinctive vocabulary patterns. For example, in Essay 1 (S01), the top keywords included tools (0.275), digital (0.255), use (0.173), active (0.163), and tried (0.163). These terms served as lexical cues for the initial organization of reflections into thematic clusters. Table 5 below presents the most prominent TF-IDF keywords for each theme, alongside representative student excerpts.
In the second step, we carried out a thematic analysis to identify broader patterns in the reflections. Five themes emerged: digital tool confidence, overcoming fear and growth, collaboration and teamwork, learning through process, and application to teaching. These themes were based both on what the students expressed and on recurring vocabulary identified earlier. Together, they show how students navigated the learning experience—moving past initial hesitation, working with peers, and imagining how the tools could be used in their future classrooms. Table 5 presents how the reflections were grouped, showing both shared and individual aspects of the students’ learning. The following subsections briefly explore each theme, highlighting different ways students described their development in digital confidence, collaboration, and pedagogical thinking.
1) Digital Tool Confidence
Many students began the course with little programming experience and felt uncertain about using digital tools in a teaching context. Their reflections reveal a shift from hesitation to confidence as they engaged with course activities. Technology, once perceived as distant or overly technical, began to feel approachable. Words like “tools,” “digital,” “use,” and “try” often appeared in contexts describing hands-on exploration and growing familiarity. One student, for instance, shared that they had always seen coding as beyond their reach but changed their view after successfully working with simple applications.
Some students also described a new sense of agency. They moved beyond using provided tools to imagining how they might design or adapt digital resources for their own classrooms. In this way, digital confidence became more than just skill acquisition—it marked a shift from passive user to active creator.
… At first, I had vague fears about the word ‘digital’ itself, … but as I repeatedly tried things through the project, I became more confident—even to the point of considering building tools myself if needed. (Original: 처음에는 ‘디지털’이라는 단어만으로도 막연한 두려움과 거부감이 있었고, …, 그러나 이번 프로젝트를 통해 영어 수업에 필요한 도구를 직접 기획하고, 간단한 코딩을 해보는 과정을 거치면서 점차 자신감이 생겼다 …, 반복적인 시도와 실습을 통해 점차 익숙해졌고, 이제는 필요한 경우 직접 만들어볼 수 있다는 가능성까지 염두에 두게 되었다; Student 1)
This reflection signals a turning point in how the student began to view digital engagement—not as something done with pre-made tools, but as a space where they might take initiative and shape the tools themselves. It illustrates how hands-on experience can support not only familiarity but also ownership, which is a critical step in building instructional autonomy.
2) Overcoming Fear / Growth
For many students, this course was their first real experience with coding. Several reflected on their early hesitation, describing coding as something intimidating or distant—something meant for others. Words like “worries” and “difficult” showed how unfamiliar and unapproachable the task initially felt.
What changed over time was their mindset. With repeated practice, peer support, and manageable steps, students began to view coding as something they could try, use, and even enjoy. Many described a shift from avoidance to engagement, with moments of success—like fixing errors or completing an app—marking important breakthroughs. These experiences did more than teach technical skills. They helped students feel capable of learning something new and challenging, a shift especially meaningful for future educators who will face evolving tools. As one student shared:
… I never imagined I’d be coding. It always looked difficult, and I tried to avoid it. But through this course, I realized Python is something I can approach and use it to build a Streamlit app, and I gained real confidence. (Original: 코딩 분야에서는 지식이 전혀 없었어서 내가 코딩을 하게 될 것이라는 걸 상상치도 못했고 코딩이라는 것이 어려워보여 언젠가는 배워야 한다는 것을 알고 있었지만 피하고 있었다. 하지만 수강함으로써 파이썬에 대한 지식을 쉽고 편하게 배울 수 있음을 알게 되었고 배운 지식으로 스트림릿 앱을 만들 수 있게 되어 자신감을 얻게 되었다; Student 10)
This comment captures the essence of the transformation that many students underwent—moving from a fixed mindset to a belief in their ability to adapt and grow. For pre-service teachers, this kind of personal breakthrough is not just about coding but about developing the resilience and openness needed to engage with unfamiliar teaching tools in the future.
3) Collaboration and Teamwork
Many students emphasized the role of teamwork in their learning process. Phrases like “team,” “together,” and “we built” reflected how collaboration helped lower barriers, both technical and emotional. Working in groups provided opportunities to learn from peers, share challenges, and stay motivated—especially when facing unfamiliar tasks like app development. Some students described moments when others' explanations or encouragement helped them move forward. For others, contributing their own ideas gave them a sense of agency. The sense of shared achievement—getting the app to work, meeting deadlines, or solving coding issues—became an important source of confidence. This theme shows that collaboration did more than divide the workload—it created a learning environment where students supported each other, grew together, and stayed engaged through a shared sense of purpose.
…Even though it was difficult, directly working with my teammates to build the app made me realize that with effort I could improve, which boosted my confidence in digital literacy. (Original: 어렵더라도 조원들과 함께 실제로 앱을 만드는 과제에 직접 부딪히다 보니, 생각 외로 열심히 배우면 더 나아갈 수 있을 것 같다는 생각이 들어 디지털 리터러시에 대한 자신감이 높아졌다; Student 2)
This comment illustrates how confidence often emerged not in isolation, but through meaningful interaction. For this student, the team process provided both emotional reassurance and practical learning, reinforcing the value of collaborative settings in unfamiliar tasks.
4) Learning Process
Several students described their experience as a gradual, step-by-step journey. Words like “learn,” “step,” “code,” and “understanding” appeared frequently, reflecting how the course structure supported steady progress. Instead of being overwhelmed, students found that repeated practice, hands-on activities, and space to revise their work helped them internalize concepts that once felt out of reach.
What made the process effective was its emphasis on doing—not just reading or watching. Students experimented with modifying code, solving small problems, and learning from their own errors. Over time, even unfamiliar technical terms and symbols began to make sense. Rather than trying to master everything at once, they developed confidence by building on small successes. This theme shows how learning was not just about outcomes, but about becoming comfortable with the process itself—trying, failing, adjusting, and gradually gaining independence.
… Even unfamiliar symbols became manageable as I realized they were just combinations of simple elements. Eventually, I could even analyze and modify new code for my purposes. (Original: … 낯설어 보이는 기호들의 집합도 결국에는 단순한 요소들이 하나씩 누적되어가며 형성된다는 점을 체감하며, 처음 보는 코드도 어느 정도 분석을 하고 그 기능에 대한 이해를 하며 필요한 목적에 맞도록 수정을 하는 능력을 함양할 수 있었다; Student 8)
This reflection captures the heart of process-based learning. The student’s ability to deconstruct complexity and adapt unfamiliar code signals not only growing competence, but also a deeper conceptual understanding—a shift from surface-level imitation to independent problem-solving.
5) Application to Teaching
In this final theme, several students moved beyond their own learning process to consider how they might apply what they learned in their future classrooms. Words like “plan,” “intended,” and “create” reflected a growing interest in the practical use of digital tools for lesson design. Rather than seeing coding as a skill separate from teaching, students began to connect it with their identity as educators.
Some reflected on specific ideas for using simple apps to support learners, while others expressed a broader shift in how they think about digital tools—not as external resources to adopt, but as something they could shape themselves. The project encouraged a mindset where technology was not just used but designed with pedagogical intent.
… Now I see that if I need a certain feature, I can not only use tools made by others but also make my own. This experience gave me the belief that I can design my future lessons more creatively and actively... (Original: 이제는 필요한 기능이 있다면 다른 사람이 만든 도구를 활용하는 것뿐 아니라, 직접 만들어볼 수 있다는 가능성까지 염두에 두게 되었습니다. 이러한 경험은 앞으로 내가 원하는 방향으로 수업을 더욱 창의적이고 능동적으로 설계할 수 있다는 믿음으로 이어졌고…; Student 9)
These responses suggest a transition from passive adoption to active creation, pointing toward a more empowered and imaginative role for future teachers as designers of digital learning.
One participant, however, rated Q4 (perception of coding in English language teaching) lower than most peers, as shown in Figure 4b earlier. The reflection of this student shows a shift from skepticism to conditional acceptance as follows:
… I originally had almost no understanding of digital tools. Since I was someone who used paper books, I questioned whether digital lessons would have any real value. After taking this course, my thinking changed—I now believe I can actively use digital learning in line with the times… In future English classes, basic coding education is essential for people like me who do not know coding. Learning with a foundation is far more effective than starting from a blank slate. (Original: 저는 원래 디지털 도구에 대한 이해도가 거의 없었습니다. 제가 종이책을 사용하던 사람이라 그런지 디지털 수업이 사실 의미가 있을까 생각을 했었는데 수업을 듣고 나니 발전하는 시대에 맞춰 저도 디지털 학습을 적극적으로 활용할 수 있겠다는 생각으로 바뀌었습니다… 미래 영어 수업에서는 저처럼 코딩을 모르는 사람들을 위해 기초 코딩 교육이 필수적이라고 생각합니다. 백지상태에서의 학습보다 기초를 배우고 시작하는 학습이 훨씬 더 효과적이라고 생각합니다; Student 11)
This lower rating for Q4 likely reflected a cautious endorsement—recognizing the value of coding in English language teaching, but only when preceded by structured foundational training. The reference to being “someone who used paper books” suggests a learning background more rooted in traditional, print-based resources, which may have contributed to initial skepticism toward digital methods and a preference for gradual, scaffolded adoption.
V. DISCUSSION
1. Interpreting Thematic Patterns in Light of Research Questions
Themes from student reflections offer grounded insights into both research questions, showing how English education majors engaged with the app project and how this contributed to their growth as future teachers with greater digital confidence.
In relation to the first research question—how English education majors perceived their experience with codingbased app development during the course—the themes of overcoming fear and growth, as well as the learning process, are particularly relevant. Many students began with hesitation or anxiety, often due to limited prior experience with coding. Yet their reflections show a steady change over time. Through repeated practice, peer interaction, and stepby-step instruction, students began to view coding as approachable. Building a simple, functional application gave them a sense of achievement and shifted their perception: coding became less of a barrier and more of a usable tool.
The second research question—how the course influenced the digital confidence and pedagogical creativity of English education majors—relates more directly to the themes of digital tool confidence, collaboration and teamwork, and application to teaching. Many students described becoming more comfortable with digital platforms such as GitHub for version control, Streamlit for deployment, and Python as the programming language used throughout the course. More importantly, this growing familiarity with tools was often accompanied by a shift in perspective. Beyond technical understanding, students imagined how digital tools could be adapted for classroom use. Several shared ideas for developing learner-centered materials or modifying basic applications to fit different instructional goals. Teamwork was central to this process. Collaborative work did not only help with solving practical problems but also encouraged creative thinking, as students exchanged ideas, tried new approaches, and supported one another in applying concepts to teaching scenarios.
Altogether, the five themes suggest that the course encouraged a shift from surface-level tool use to a more active stance toward digital creation. Rather than remaining users of pre-designed applications, many students began to view themselves as individuals capable of developing and adapting tools to fit future classroom needs. This movement—from hesitation to engagement, from fear to experimentation—represents more than technical improvement. It reflects a change in how students understood the role of technology in teaching. Coding was no longer something distant or externally imposed, but a method they could shape according to their goals. The thematic categories were based on detailed readings of reflection essays, and the TF-IDF keyword patterns served to highlight recurring language in a way that supported, rather than reduced, the qualitative interpretation.
2. Pedagogical Implications
The findings reported in this paper indicate that even a short-term, coding-based project can build digital confidence and support pedagogical creativity among future English teachers—when learning is grounded in handson tasks, clear structure, and classroom-relevant activities. The five themes identified—confidence with digital tools, overcoming fear, collaboration and teamwork, learning through process, and application to teaching—point to a shift from tentative participation to more confident and creative involvement. One notable outcome was the way students began to understand coding not as a technical add-on but as a tool for instructional design. Rather than relying solely on pre-existing platforms, they started to see the value of creating simple applications shaped by the needs of future classrooms. This change reflects broader discussions in teacher education around adaptability and learner-centered practice. Several students described moments when they realized they could adapt or build digital resources themselves, rather than waiting for ready-made solutions. These moments marked a growing sense of agency— important for any teacher working in rapidly evolving digital environments.
At the same time, implementing this type of digital training course model presents notable pedagogical challenges. Instructor preparation requires substantial time and effort before the start of the course, including the design of tasks, development of resources, and alignment with rapidly evolving digital and AI technologies. Given that coding-based platforms such as Streamlit can be updated or modified at any stage, instructors must provide stable instructional scaffolding so that students—particularly those less comfortable with technological change—can maintain progress. Addressing this challenge involves fostering what research on teacher education describes as adaptive expertise and technological resilience (Hatano & Inagaki, 1986; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Building this capacity helps future teachers view change not as a disruption but as an integral element of contemporary educational practice, thereby strengthening their readiness to integrate emerging tools into pedagogically sound designs.
These developments are similar to prior research that emphasizes the value of real, participatory learning experiences in digital literacy education (Instefjord & Munthe, 2017; Tondeur et al., 2012). We believe that the teambased structure of the course activities was central to supporting these participatory learning experiences. Working in small groups could lower the pressure of unfamiliar tasks and encouraged the sharing of strategies and perspectives. Students often described collaboration as a space where ideas could be tested and refined with peer support. This approach aligns with socio-constructivist models of teacher development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Vygotsky, 1978), which highlight learning as something shaped through dialogue and shared problem-solving. By working in teams, students not only built confidence, but also developed practical habits of professional exchange.
The theme of pedagogical application was especially important. Several reflections revealed that students were no longer just completing tasks for the course. They were beginning to design with specific learners and teaching goals in mind. This mindset links digital knowledge with subject content and teaching strategies—what the TPACK framework describes as the integration of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Some students even noted that writing or editing a piece of code felt like preparing a lesson, as it required attention to clarity, audience, and learning purpose. For some, such as one participant who described a background rooted in traditional paper-based learning, this shift involved moving from skepticism toward conditional acceptance— recognizing the value of digital tools in English language teaching when accompanied by structured, foundational training. These moments of experimentation allowed students to rehearse their emerging teacher identities in a creative, low-risk environment.
The act of building even a simple application—playing words (texts) as sounds using TTS (Text-to-Speech)— served a purpose beyond technical accomplishment. It became a way to test ideas, think about learners, and gain a sense of what designing for a classroom actually feels like. Students who began the course uncertain about what coding involved ended it with a clearer picture of how digital tools might be shaped from the ground up, even when starting from existing templates. This shift—from borrowing tools to modifying or creating them—signaled a deeper engagement with the idea of instructional authorship.
Finally, many students began to rethink their roles in the classroom. They no longer described themselves only as users of educational technology. Instead, they began to see themselves as teachers who might actively shape how technology is used and why. This shift—from passive use to purposeful design—suggests that with the right structure and support, even novice learners can begin to engage with digital tools in ways that feel empowering, flexible, and grounded in the realities of teaching.
VI. CONCLUSION
This study examined how a coding-based, project-oriented curriculum shaped the perceptions, digital confidence, and pedagogical creativity of English education majors preparing to become secondary English teachers in Korea. In relation to the first research question, students described their experiences as both challenging and transformative. Initial hesitation gave way to a stronger sense of capability as they progressed from basic Python exercises to the creation of web-based instructional applications. Coding shifted from being perceived as a technical barrier to being recognized as a means for producing learner-responsive resources.
For the second research question, results indicated that the course fostered both digital confidence and pedagogical creativity. Scaffolded tasks, group collaboration, and repeated practice supported skill acquisition, while hands-on engagement with platforms such as Streamlit, Gradio, and Hugging Face encouraged more flexible thinking about technology’s role in multimodal, learner-centered lesson planning. Participants increasingly viewed digital tools as adaptable instructional resources rather than fixed, pre-packaged platforms.
This research offers a focused look at one cohort in a single institutional context, serving as a starting point for broader investigation. The small-scale setting provided rich, in-depth insights, but future studies could expand across institutions, integrate more systematic qualitative coding or mixed-method designs, and include a wider variety of participant voices from different teaching specializations. Another avenue for extension is examining how similar training models operate in different educational systems and regional contexts, which could reveal whether the challenges and opportunities observed here—such as reliance on commercial tools or limited experience in creative tool-making—are consistent or vary across settings.
Given the pace of change in digital tools and AI technologies, ongoing case studies are needed to capture how teacher education programs adapt to emerging pedagogical opportunities and constraints. Longitudinal tracking of graduates, combined with comparative analyses of subject-specific and generic digital literacy models, would further clarify how best to prepare teachers to design meaningful, contextually relevant learning experiences. Institutional support—through resources, targeted training, and cross-disciplinary collaboration—remains key to sustaining such innovations.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
Print
