«jaltcalljournal ISSn 1832-4215 Vol. 8, no.1 Pages 17–32 ©2012 jAlt cAll SIg The growing body of literature on Computer CALL Assisted Language Learning ...»
Basically, teachers have not rightly understood the potential effectiveness of CALL in education. As it was discussed above, most technology immigrants fear the risk of losing face or they simply consider computer as a luxurious device that is only appropriate for the kind of engineering-type technical use. As some of the teachers discussed in the third section of the questionnaire, they seem to have a clear misconception about CALL application as they equated computer use in class as being as computer literate as a technician. However, what these teachers claim is not off the wall. The mere knowledge and experience of computers do not equip teachers with the required skills to fully operate computers. As Somekh and Davis (1997) remarked the effective adoption of computers in an educational context takes a good amount of time. Sandholtz (2001) argued that with an optimistic estimate, at least 28 a year or so should be set aside on part of institutions and educational systems to train Maftoon & Shahini: CALL normalization their teachers by professional technicians and through collaborative work. As a key step to normalization, teachers should become more CALL friendly. To this end some measures
should be taken:
First, institutional principals should attempt to encourage teachers to use CALL inside their classrooms (Veen, 1993) and also to provide them with IT courses in case it seems necessary. By meticulous programming, principals can raise funds in order to equip their institutions with CALL laboratories and essential hardware and software. This, in part, will give confidence to teachers to start using the facilities being provided with much trouble and inconvenience. However, any deficit in budgeting of the courses or implementational affairs should it be out of the affordance of the institution should be reflected to the governmental bodies for further action. Teachers should feel that their voice is heard and acted upon. This will make the process of teachers’ CALL adoption way easier and faster.
Normalization is a state of educational change (Fullan, 2005) and adoption is the first step in the three-staged process of change implementation (Fullan, 1991). The other two are implementation and institutionalization. However, theories of educational change do not have equal impact on each of the three stages of innovation and each stage in influenced by some known and unknown factors. Teachers own attitudes, subjective norms, perceived ease of use and usefulness, administrative support, time, financial budgeting and macro social factors are among the known. Further research is required to unveil the clandestine factors at work in the uptake of CALL by teachers. Following this, barriers to successful CALL adoption would be identified and an awareness of these impediments raised which in turn could provide us with some solutions which can be offered to pre-service teachers in training courses.
Next, teacher training courses play an undeniable role in giving the necessary leadership skills and techniques to pre-service and in-service teachers. It constitutes a great part of any teacher’s challenges and dilemmas that may come up during their teaching career.
Therefore, they should provide them with a suitable model of new pedagogies and technologies, aiming at advancing the borders of learning. Furthermore, these courses should have the duty of having teachers understood how new technologies can be perfectly employed in the economic and cultural status quo of a given context. Therefore, it seems that teachers’ training in this regard is not an easy one and needs to be carried out by the experts of the field. This timely process is a collaborative one, begging for support from principals, administrators and governmental bodies.
Finally, it is of utmost importance to note that unless the necessary technological, ecological administrative resources and infrastructures are not established, all we do is paying lip service to the merits of CALL without practicing what we preach. As Ioannou-Georgiou (2006) pointed out, appropriate hardware and software, easy access to technology, topdown policy to use computers, technology-syllabus integration, teacher technology training, teachers’ CALL implementation training, teachers’ technical and pedagogical support are only among many of the known and on-the-surface factors that are essential to reach normalization. However, what is even more essential is much research and work to be undertaken to investigate other deeply rooted sources of CALL disuse if this new field of education is to survive and grow.
The jalt call Journal 2012: Regular Papers
References Askar, P., & Umay, A. (2001). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ computer self-efficacy, attitudes towards computers, and their perceptions of computer enriched learning environments. In C. Crawford, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference ( pp. 2262–2263). VA : AACE, Chesapeake.
Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language learning.
In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreign language teaching (pp. 208–219). NY:
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present and future. System, 31 (1), 13–28.
Birren, F., Woods, A., & Williams, M. (1980). Behavioral slowing with age: Causes, organization and consequences. In L. W. Pool (Ed.), Aging in the 1980s (pp. 293–308).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34, 465–479.
Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1993). Age differences in the performance of computer-based work. Psychology and Aging, 8, 59–67.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 928–1003.
Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgious, G., Psillos, D., Valhavas, I., Tsoukalas, I., & Pombortsis, A. (2003). Cultures in negotiation: Teachers’ acceptance/ resistance attitudes considering the infusion of technology into schools. Computers and Education, 41 (1), 19–37.
Farquhar, J. D. & Surry D.W. (1994) Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Education and Training Technology International, 31, 19–25.
Froke, M. (1994). A vision and promise: Distance education at Penn state, part1-Toward an experience-based definition. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 42 (2), 16–22.
Fullan, M. (1991). The best faculty of education in the country: A fable submitted to the strategic planning committee faculty of education, University of Toronto.
Fullan, M. (Ed.) (2005). Fundamental change: International handbook of educational change.
Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P.C. (2000) Instructional technology adoption in higher education: an action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 57–65.
Guha, S. (2003). Are we all technically prepared? Teachers’ perspective on the causes of comfort or discomfort in using computers at elementary grade teaching. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 32, 317–349.
Healey, J. M. (1998). Failure to connect. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Herschbach, D. (1994). Addressing vocational training and retaining through educational technology: Policy alternatives. Columbus, OH: The National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Holliday, A. (1997). Six lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching.
Language Teaching Research, 1 (3), 212–238.
Maftoon & Shahini: CALL normalization Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the Future of Language Teacher Education. CALICO Journal, 25 (2), 175-188.
Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). The future of CALL. ELT Journal, 60 (4), 382–384.
Jaeglin, C. (1998). Learners’ and instructors’ attitudes towards computer-assisted class discussion. In J. Swaffar, S. Romano, P. Markley & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning online (pp. 121–139). TX: The Daedalus Group, Inc.
Jones, J. F. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT Journal, 55 (4), 360–367.
Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56 (3), 390–420.
Lee, K. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6 (12). Retrieved August 21, 2011 from: http://iteslj.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation. NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on benefits about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27 (4), 657–678.
Moon J., & Kim Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a worldwide- web context. Information and Management, 38, 217–230.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, M. G. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing workforce. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403.
Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: A review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 (3), 319–342.
Myers, C., & Conner, M. (1992). Age differences in skill acquisition and transfer in an implicit learning paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 429–442.
Myers, J.M., & Halpin, R. (2002) Teachers’ attitudes and use of multimedia technology in the classroom: Constructivist based professional development training for school districts. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18, 133–140.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1–10.
Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils, teachers and palmtop computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 194-204.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). NY: Free Press.
Rosen, L.D., & Weil, M. M. (1995). Computer availability, computer experience and technophobia among public school teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 11 (1), 9–31.
Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). Teachers’ computer anxiety: Implications for professional development. Education and Information Technologies, 2 (1), 17–30.
Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison of teacher development programs. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9 (3), 349–374.
Sharit, J., & Czaja, S. J. (1994). Aging, computer-based task performance and stress: Issues and challenges. Economics, 39, 559–577.
Sime, D., & Priestley, M. (2005). Student teachers’ first reflections on information and communications technology and classroom learning: Implications for initial teacher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 130–142.
The jalt call Journal 2012: Regular Papers Somekh, B., & Davis, N. (Eds.) (1997). Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning. London: Routledge.
Stefl-Mabry, J. (1999). Professional staff development: Lessons learned from current usability studies. Journal of Information Technology Impact, 1 (2), 81–104.
Taylor, S. (1996). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6 (2), 144–176.
Teo, T., Chai, C. S., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Beliefs about teaching and uses of technology among pre-service teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (2), 163–174.
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2007). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 128–143.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System, 31, 1–12.
Veen, W. (1993). How teachers use computers in instructional practice: Four case studies in a Dutch secondary school. Computers and Education, 21 (1/2), 1–8.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.
Yildirim, S. (2000). Effects of an educational computing course on pre-service and in-service teachers: A discussion and analysis of attitudes and use. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 479–495.
Author biodata Parviz Maftoon is associate professor of TEFL at Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran. He received his PhD degree from New York University in 1978 in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). His primary research interests concern EFL writing, second language acquisition, SL/FL language teaching methodology, and language syllabus design. He has published and edited a number of research articles and books. He is currently on the editorial board of some language journals in Iran.
Amin Shahini is a faculty member at the University of Imam Sadiq. He is also a PhD candidate at Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran. His interests are CALL,