Altogether five focal participants took part in the study. Three of them worked in the same bilingual primary and secondary school, although at different campuses of the institution and teaching different grades. The other two participants came from two other institutions. The demographic data of the participants is summarised in Table 11.

School A. This institution is a private bilingual primary and secondary school located in Budapest, with several campuses. Three of the focal participants of the study, Bea, Rebeka and Tímea work here. Bea and Rebeka teach at the same primary school campus, while Tímea works at the secondary school campus. Although the teachers from the primary and secondary school campuses typically convene twice a year for institutional level meetings, the two sectors function as separate entities.

The most distinctive feature of the institution is its international profile: while most of the students are of Hungarian nationality, students from other countries, such as China, Brazil, India, Jordan, Libya, Romania, Syria, Turkey, and the United States, are also represented. The children, therefore, come from various linguistic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, with Hungarian and English being used as the languages of communication in the school. The students’ English language proficiency is quite heterogeneous; among the students there are complete beginners, intermediate learners, native-level speakers, and actual native speakers. The teaching staff is predominantly Hungarian, but there are teachers from other countries as well. The teachers regularly share and exchange ideas in subject-specific professional groups (e.g., English, Hungarian and Hungarian as a foreign language, science). The school also has a Development Department, which includes a special education teacher, a speech therapist, and a psychologist.

The school’s educational programme is bilingual and is based on the framework curriculum of Hungarian bilingual elementary schools. As stated in the school’s pedagogical programme, the institution’s value system is based on two main pillars: knowledge of Hungary’s national, cultural, and linguistic peculiarities, and a recognition of and mutual respect for the different ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious identities living in Hungary. The pedagogical programme highlights various guiding principles of the teaching-learning process, such as providing education tailored to the individual needs of students and educating students to use digital culture in responsible and innovative ways.

Regarding ICT infrastructure, classrooms at each campus are equipped with a smart board. The campus where Bea and Rebeka teach has 30 tablets which are booked for each English group once or twice a week, so these devices are also used on a weekly basis. Besides, at this campus each English group has their lesson in the ICT room once a week, where students can work on PCs individually. Teachers can also decide to let their students use their own mobile devices in the lessons.

School B. The institution where Emma works is a public vocational secondary school, also based in Budapest. It offers vocational training in various fields such as IT and environmental studies, and as such, has students with varied interests and career aspirations. Both the teacher and student populations are almost entirely of Hungarian nationality.

The school’s educational programme is Hungarian, although certain training programmes are also run in a bilingual framework, which means that about a quarter of the total number of students in the school receive instruction both in Hungarian and English. As stated both on the school’s website and in the pedagogical programme, student-centredness is an important tenet of the school’s educational philosophy, as well as providing equal access to knowledge for all and connecting the needs of students with those of the industrial sector. The institution also finds it important to cater for the needs of gifted learners and learners with special educational needs or learning and behavioural difficulties.

As for ICT facilities, Emma primarily teaches students taking the IT specialisation, most of whom use their own laptops as part of their learning equipment and can bring and use these in the EFL lessons as well. The use of mobile phones for educational purposes is also allowed. Besides, like Bea and Rebeka, Emma also occasionally schedules EFL lessons in the ICT room where each student can work on a desktop computer.

School C. This institution is a private primary and secondary school with various campuses across the country, with Kamilla teaching in one of the Budapest-based campuses. Most of the students and teachers are of Hungarian nationality, although there are some students who come from mixed marriages between Hungarians and foreigners, as well. Although the majority of the students come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, the institution’s scholarship system makes it possible for children from lower-income families to join, too, in line with the schools’ objective to foster diversity in the social and financial backgrounds of the students.

The educational philosophy of the school is centred around the notion of personalised learning; as it is highlighted on their website, they aim to cater for the needs and interests of students and educate them into self-regulating learners. The educational programme of the school complies with the National Core Curriculum, but it also provides flexibility by putting personal learning goals as well as experience-based and cross-subject learning at the forefront of the teaching and learning process. In line with these objectives, the students, the parents and the teachers collectively set learning goals and learning content and monitor and assess the accomplishment of these goals. Flexible grouping, project work and team-teaching, i.e., teachers collaborating throughout the stages of the teaching process, all form an integral part of the daily activities.

Regarding ICT infrastructure, as Kamilla explained, teachers use their own laptop for projection, and students are also allowed to use their personal mobile devices in the lessons. There are also some tablets that were bought by the parents and are available for reservation and use in specific classes.

Before moving on to the description of the specific data collection and analysis procedures applied in Phase 2 of the research project, two important points need to be addressed. First, it is important to note that the schools participating in Phase 2 are all relatively prestigious, have excellent ICT resources, and predominantly serve students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. While this setting provided a valuable opportunity to observe and analyse innovative TEDI practices, it is important to consider that the technological infrastructure and student demographics of these institutions may not be representative of the broader Hungarian public education system, and further research is needed to explore how these practices could be adapted to schools with fewer technological and financial resources.

Second, Duff (2008) and Lundy (2008) highlight that in any qualitative research, the researcher needs to reflect on and articulate their own positionality and role with respect to the research site and the participants. In my case, it is essential to point out that, prior to this research project, I had been colleagues with some of the participants at School A. Given that the school and these colleagues met my project’s sampling criteria, I conducted the piloting of my data collection tools for Studies 3, 4, and 5 at this location (detailed in Sections 3.3.2.2, 3.3.3.2, and 3.3.4.2). Upon analysing the results of these pilot studies, especially those originating from the interviews conducted with Bea and Rebeka, I felt that their insightful responses would be important additions to my database, and, therefore, in line with Richards’ (2015) advice not to discard valuable data from pilot projects, I decided to involve these colleagues in the main studies of Phase 2. I believe that my former prolonged engagement and familiarity with the context could be beneficial in enhancing the validity of my analysis and conclusions (Dörnyei, 2007; Pollard, 1985); however, my personal experiences might also potentially influence the interpretation of the data. In order to mitigate this problem, throughout Phase 2, I employed various strategies to secure the integrity of the project. These included providing a detailed description of the research context, ensuring reflexivity, and using peer debriefing and occasional member checking to counteract any potential biases arising from my pre-existing connections (Dörnyei, 2007).