Maftoon and Shahini

7/31/2019 Maftoon and Shahini

1/16

17

CALLnormalization:

A survey on

inhibitive actorsParviz MafooIsmi Azd Universiy, Siene ndReserh [email protected]

Ami ShahiiIsmi Azd Universiy, Siene ndReserh [email protected]

Te growing body o literature on ComputerAssisted Language Learning (CALL) in the pastdecades has advocated the use oCALL in edu-cational circles in order to get to a normalizedstate. However, the uptake o CALL is stipu-lated by various known and unknown actors.Tis study examined various actors that may

have inuenced the uptake oCALL resultingin disuse and discouragement. Fity Iranian in-service teachers flled out a questionnaire onthe sources oCALL use discouragement. Teresults indicated a comparative analysis othese sources. Lack o acilities and perceiveduseulness were regarded as the most andthe least discouraging actors in the uptakeoCALL respectively. Pertinent discussion andsome suggestions or consideration were also

put orth.

Iroduio

Normalization o Computer AssistedLanguage Learning (CALL) reers to thestage in which computer use has been sointegrated into our educational practicesthat it is no longer considered as somethingexceptional or as an experience o anxiety.

Tis stage is the end state and the ultimategoal oCALL a stage where a group oCALLexperts and educators wish to approach(Bax, 2002, 2003; Chambers & Bax, 2006,Hubbard, 2008). According to Bax (2003),CALLis normalized only:

when computers are used every day bylanguage students and teachers as anintegral part o every lesson, like a pen ora book . . . without ear or inhibition, andequally without an exaggerated respector what they can do. Tey will not be

he

jaltajournal

ISSn 1832-4215

Vo. 8, no.1 Paes 1732

2012jAlt cAll SIg

Regular Paper


2/16

18

Tejalt call Journal 2012: Regular Papers

the centre o any lesson, but they will play a part in almost all. Tey will be completelyintegrated into all other aspects o classroom lie, alongside course books, teachers andnotepads. Tey will go almost unnoticed. (p. 23)

As it is obviously inerred rom the above quote, Tis will probably mean that comput-

ers will be at the centre o no lessons, but will play a part in almost all. Tis in turn givesus an agenda or research and development, namely to nd ways o moving towards thatnormalized state. Only when CALLis normalized will teachers and learners reap its ullbenets. (Chambers & Bax, 2006, p. 465).

According to Bax (2003), iCALLis to be normalized it has to be integrated into theroutine classroom activities. By integration he means that CALLshould merge into thedaily classroom tasks to the extent that it becomes invisible in the same way that wehave Book Assisted Language Learning (BALL) or Pen Assisted Language Learning (PALL).However, this integration is not easy and the necessary grounds should be established. Te

rst step in normalizing CALLis to remove the sources o discouragement that teachersmay conront in CALLapplication.Tis paper proposes some sources o teachers CALLuse discouragement and the pos-

sible solutions that may lessen the distance between teachers and CALL, all with the aim onormalizing CALLin ELsettings.

Tis study is important due to the ollowing reasons:1. By removing the sources o discouragement in CALLapplication in classes, we can move

towards normalization. Te research highlights the act that in a successul approach toteaching a second language, many ecological complexities rather than technological

one-shot solutions are at work to produce a desirable outcome. (udor, 2003)

2. When normalization is achieved through removing the technical allacy, CALLwillbecome an integrated part o the syllabus. Consequently, the decision-makers can con-sider CALLas an important part o the course materials and syllabi so they can con-dently timetable CALLinto teaching practice and assessment.

3. In this way, the technology immigrants (Prensky, 2001), no longer have the phobiato conront computers and the probable technical ailures. Te mere act oCALLas aseparate and monstrous phenomenon brings with it reluctance and uneasiness in itsapplication.

Review of ieraure

Why normalization?

Chambers and Bax (2006) argued that CALLin its present status is exclusive to a ew groupso people. Tey remarked that or CALLto be normalized, rst it has to be incorporatedinto the daily lie o every school and educational systems exactly in the same way as pens,books and whiteboards.

Normalization, as an end state in itsel is signicant in the eld o language teach-ing on the ollowing grounds: First o all, normalization is the gateway that leads us to

the vast world o educational evolution through connecting us with the past literature.Normalization makes this connection easible as it treats CALLlike any other innovationamong myriads o innovations. Not that it downgrades CALLbut it tries to induce the eel-ing that CALLis not something unique that should be avoided (Fullan, 2005).


3/16

19

Matoon & Shahini: CALL normalization

Te second merit o normalization builds on the idea that it makes practitioners keeppace with the most recent and state-o-the-art studies on educational change and advance-ments. It advances humans capacity on how to cope with this educational change andbuilds their know-how on the way that these innovations unction and integrate into oureveryday lie (Rogers, 1995). Tis knowledge is undoubtedly o certain value to ELproes-

sion in a computer assisted environment. Moreover, it is o undeniable value to CALLprac-titioners to base their research partly on the ndings o the pertinent literature concerningthe more meticulous analysis and discussion o new technologies and also in part to directtheir ocus to the new aspects o the emerging innovation all with one aim which is help-ing CALLmove towards normalization. Accordingly, the useulness o normalization ndssignicance in ELin that it draws on insights rom that wider literature on how humanbeings deal with change in general.

Te third merit o normalization which is actually an amalgamation o the rst twoprovides CALLpractitioners with an objective aim and agenda. In act, normalization sheds

light on the path stretched between computer application in one end and language teach-ing in another with the aim o making CALLas unremarkable in ELsetting as BALLandPALL(Chambers & Bax, 2006).

CALL discouragement in teachers

A number o studies have been carried out to investigate the possible sources o discour-agement in computer use (Demetriadis et al., 2003; Jaeglin, 1998; Ioannou-Georgiou, 2006;Mumtaz, 2000; Russel & Bradley, 1997; eo, Lee & Chai, 2008).

Mumtaz (2000) argued that although there was some evidence that Inormation and

Commuincation echnology (IC) is nding its way into education system, regrettably itwas not equally welcomed by teachers. In her study she brought to light three intercon-nected actors that aect teachers take-up o technology in classrooms. She categorizedthese actors under the general headings o institution, resources, and the teacher himsel.

Rosen and Weil (1995) maintained that schools and institutions give little support toteachers in their use oIC in their classes. Tese limited resources within schools area great impediment to the take up oIC (eo et al., 2008). Limited resources will leadto the lack o computer integration into the classroom and thus a hindrance to CALLnormalization.

However, Veen (1993) showed that teacher actors ar outweighed the institutional orschool actors. Despite essential technical support provided by the school and a positiveattitude to Inormation echnology (I) rom the school principal, the teacher actors thatinvolved belies about the way the subject should be taught and skills associated with com-petence in managing classroom activities and computer-handling technical skills were themost inuential in teachers use o computers.

In a related vein, Askar and Umay (2001) reerring to the possible sources o discourage-ment pinpointed that i teachers do not perceive computers as to be ullling their own andtheir students needs, they will most probably resist applying computers in their teaching.Research has shown that teachers attitudes towards the computer is a major predictor

or uture computer use (Myers & Halpin, 2002) and their need or learning computingskills that in turn will lead to computer literacy (Zhang & Espinoza, 1997). As an example,

Yildirim (2000) ound that teachers who used computers more would tend to developpositive attitudes that promote urther use o the computer in their daily teaching tasks.


4/16

20


Obstacles to normalization

eo (2006) argued that teachers attitudes towards computers whether positive or nega-tive will have a direct eect on their students attitudes towards CALLand in case oteachers negative attitude it may adversely aect students current and uture computer

application which may endanger CALLintegration and normalization.A study carried out by Chambers and Bax (2006) dealt with identiying the contextual

sources and other obstacles that intervened with the normalization oCALL. In this qualita-tive study, they identied productive ways o moving towards normalization in the uture.

Tey proposed Stakeholders Conceptions, Knowledge and Abilities as one o the barrierson the way to normalization.

In a more detailed analysis o their proposal, they came up with (a) worries, expectationsand misunderstandings, and (b) monitoring and evaluation. With regard to worries, expec-tations and misunderstandings, Chambers and Bax believed that although some teachers

are skilled computer users, they are apprehensive that they might lose ace in conronta-tion with students who are more technologically competent. Some other teachers, basedon the study report, misunderstood the role oCALLin language classrooms. Tey provedto have a wrong conception oCALLby placing the students in ront o the computers orall session long without any role or the teacher.

As or monitoring and evaluation, Chambers and Bax (2006) discerned that no sys-tematic appraisal o current practice in applying CALLin the curriculum has been carriedout. And even i there were any evaluation, it would be limited to evaluation o the tech-nological issues rather than the ecological and pedagogical dimensions, along with a bulko recommendations on the needed types o equipment to improve current application o

CALL(udor, 2003).Te increasing emphasis on the evaluation o physical aspects oCALLper se was some-

how due to experts recommendation or heavily investing on the technological dimensionsoCALLapplication. Many teachers reported they had not been consulted as which sotware,or example, was better in terms o educational merits. On the whole, the prevalent belie

was that the mere provision o sotware and hardware could thoroughly obviate CALLprob-lems without considering the teachers real needs and actors (Lam, 2000).

Te alse belie o considering technology as the only cure-all or way to successul teach-ing has been dubbed technical allacy (Bax, 2000). According to Bax (2000) technical al-lacy may lead to misusing or underusing o the device since the teacher merely relieson the technology and nothing beyond (Healey, 1998). o worsen the issue urther, thetechnology being misused will not reach its ull potential and applications, thus inducinga eeling o ineectiveness among other teachers. Tis impedes CALLto enter the public

world and keeps it in the conned world o so-called geeks and experts, acting as a barrierto normalization (Levy, 1997).

Chamber and Bax (2006) argued that schools, universities, and institutions will havea more valuable and productive output in uture i teachers make more eective use othe acilities at hand. o put it another way, development o teachers might be more eec-tive than simply assuming that the solution is to ocus on buying more technology. Tis

study is an extension o Chamber and Baxs (2006) study oCALLnormalization, aimingat investigating the sources o discouragement in CALLin language teaching settings. Tequestions guiding data collection were:


5/16

21


1. What is the relationship between the amiliarity o teachers with computers and theirrecognition o the sources o discouragement in computer use?

2. Which o these actors are the most infuential in discouraging teachers in usingcomputers?

Mehod

Participants

Out o 70 Iranian teachers who were approached, a total o ty in-service male and emaleteachers (emale = 34, male = 16) took part in this study. Tey worked in dierent Englishlanguage teaching institutions and universities in ehran with at least three years o expe-rience. Stratied random sampling was carried out not only to come up with a more orless homogeneous population o participants but also to account or the typicality o the

recruited teachers. Some control actors were considered when drawing rom the totalpopulation. For example, all participants had to be majored or studying in eaching oEnglish as a Foreign Language (EFL) and all were between 20 to 50 years old.

Instruments

A 33-item questionnaire on the sources o discouragement in computer/technology usein language classrooms was given to all participants. Te items o the questionnaire werein English and originally taken rom a previous study done at Simon Fraser University inCanada (Akins, 1992). Tese items were taken and altered to a orm o a questionnaire to

t the purpose o the present study. Prior to the main study, the pilot questionnaire wasgiven to 20 in-service teachers with the same qualities o the main participants. Tey wererequired to ll out the questionnaire so that any problematic points like ambiguity ormultidimensionality o the items show up. Tey were also required to include any sourceso discouragement not mentioned in the body o the questionnaire. Later, those comments

were considered and included in the body o the nalized questionnaire. Te questionnairewas composed o two sections. Both sections were in the orm o Likert scale where 1 indi-cated strong disagreement with the statement and 5 indicated strong agreement. Sectionone, which consisted o nine items, measured teachers amiliarity with and interest incomputers and technology. Section two with twenty our items measured the sources odiscouragement and unwillingness that any teacher might experience with regard to theuse o computers and technology in his/her teaching career. Te questionnaire had a highlyacceptable reliability index ( = 0.82).

Procedure

Te questionnaire used in the present study was distributed among the participants eitherby email or in person. In in-person mode, it didnt take more than ten minutes or theparticipants to ll out the questionnaire, whereas in e-mail mode, the majority o the

questionnaires were returned only ater one day. Only two participants ailed to hand inthe questionnaire on time.

Ater collection, all o the questionnaires were coded and inserted into the SPSS sot-ware or analysis. Also, the items o the questionnaire were grouped into seven general


6/16

22


sources o computer use discouragement: 1. Lack o time, 2. Lack o administrative support,3. Low mastery, 4. Perceived useulness, 5. Perceived ease o use, 6. Others attitudes, and 7.Facilities. As or the third section o the questionnaire, the written comments were care-ully read and considered as other possible participants- believed sources o technologyuse discouragement in classrooms.

Resus ad disussio

In this section, the questions under study are statistically investigated and their resultsare put to discussion:

Research question 1

In order to answer the rst question regarding the relationship between the amiliarityo teachers with computers and their recognition o the sources o discouragement incomputer use, Pearson correlation coefcients were calculated to probe the relationships

able 1: Pearson correlation teachers amiliarity with computer with the sources odiscouragement

Familiarity

Lack o time Pearson correlation .082

Sig. (2-tailed) .572

N 50

Lack o administrative support Pearson correlation .068


N 50

Low mastery Pearson correlation .176


N 50

Perceived useulness Pearson correlation .193


N 50

Perceived ease o use Pearson correlation .072


N 50

Others attitudes Pearson correlation .101


N 50

Facilities Pearson correlation .093


N 50

**. Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


7/16

23


between the teachers amiliarity with the computer and their recognition o the sourceso discouragement in CALL. As displayed in able 1, teachers amiliarity with the computerhave statistically non-signicant relationships with their recognition o the sources o dis-couragement in computer use. Based on these results it can be claimed that there are notany signicant relationships between teachers amiliarity with the computer and their

recognition o the sources o discouragement in computer use.

Research question 2

As or the second research question regarding the actors that are the most inuential indiscouraging teacher in using computers, a repeated measuresANOVAis run to comparethe seven actors that discourage teachers in using computers. Te F-observed value orcomparing the seven sources o discouragement is 21.05 (able 2). Tis amount o F-valueis higher than the critical value o 2.31 at 6 and 44 degrees o reedom.

able 2: Repeated measures ANOVA seven sources o discouragement

Value F Hypothesis d Error d Sig.

Pillais race .742 21.052 6.000 44.000 .000

Wilks Lambda .258 21.052 6.000 44.000 .000

Hotellings race 2.871 21.052 6.000 44.000 .000

Roys Largest Root 2.871 21.052 6.000 44.000 .000

Based on these results it can be concluded that there are signicant dierences between theseven sources o discouragement. As displayed in able 3, the order o means are 1) lack oenough acilities, 2) lack o administrative support, 3) lack o time, 4) perceived easeo use, 5) low mastery , 6) others attitude and 7) perceived useulness.

able 3: Descriptive statistics or sources o discouragement

95% Condence intervalFactors Mean Std. error Lower bound Upper bound

Lack o ime 3.380 .164 3.051 3.709

Lack o Admin Support 3.440 .143 3.153 3.727Low Mastery 3.020 .111 2.797 3.243

Perceived Useulness 2.106 .091 1.924 2.288

Perceived Ease o Use 3.360 .195 2.967 3.753

Others Attitude 2.292 .096 2.099 2.485

Facilities 3.645 .136 3.372 3.918

Tis comparison is urther illuminated in Figure 1.Although the F-observed value indicate signicant dierences between the seven sources

o discouragement, the post-hoc Schees tests should be run to locate the exact places odierences between the means. Te results o the post-hoc Schees tests are displayed in

able 4.


8/16

24


able 4: Post-hoc Schefes tests sources o discouragement

Mean

diference

(I-J)

95% Condence

interval or diference

(I) Factors (J) Factors Std. error Sig.

Lower

bound

Upper

bound

Lack o time Lack o admin support .060 .198 1.000 .695 .575

Low mastery .360 .172 .881 .192 .912Perceived useulness 1.274* .182 .000 .691 1.857

Perceived ease o use .020 .266 1.000 .831 .871

Others attitude 1.088* .194 .000 .466 1.710

Facilities .265 .192 1.000 .881 .351

Lack o admin

support

Low mastery .420* .128 .041 .008 .832

Perceived useulness 1.334* .166 .000 .801 1.867

Perceived ease o use .080 .223 1.000 .636 .796

Others attitude 1.148* .157 .000 .646 1.650

Facilities .205 .139 1.000 .651 .241Low mastery Perceived useulness .914* .142 .000 .458 1.370

Perceived ease o use .340 .206 1.000 1.000 .320

Others attitude .728* .141 .000 .275 1.181

Facilities .625* .147 .002 1.098 .152

Perceived

useulness

Perceived ease o use 1.254* .203 .000 1.904 .605

Others attitude .186 .100 1.000 .507 .135

Facilities 1.539* .159 .000 2.049 1.030

Perceived ease

o use

Others attitude 1.068* .192 .000 .452 1.684

Facilities .285 .218 1.000 .984 .414Others attitude Facilities 1.353* .145 .000 1.817 .889

*. Te mean diference is signicant at the .05 level.

Sources o discouragement

4

3.5

3

3.5

21.5

1Mean 0.5

0

Figure 1. Sources o discouragement

Facilities

Others

attit

ude

Perceiv

ed

ease

ofu

se

Perceiv

ed

usefulne

ss

Low

mastery

Lack

ofa

dmin

supp

ort

Lack

oft

ime


9/16

25


All o the mean dierences receiving an asterisk are signicant at 0.05 level o signicance.Based on these results or question number 2, the ollowing claims can be presented:

1. Lack of time is more discouraging than perceived usefulness and others attitude(means = 3.38, 2.10, 2.29 respectively). What really prevents teachers rom ollowing an

interest in CALLis a lack o time, since they tend to be sufciently burdened already by theirconventional administrative and classroom duties (Jones, 2001, p. 365)

Te amount o time available to plan or implementing computers as instructionalresources is scarce. eachers see the time to plan as being the time to learn to become com-ortable with computers; to take courses or training as necessary; to learn what sotware isavailable; to develop lesson plans and to implement lessons employing this new knowledgeand technology (Akins, 1992, as cited in Lee, 2000).

It is natural and not unexpected to see a CALL-based course ail i no enough time orteacher training and preparation is allotted. eachers need to be taught the necessary com-

puter skills and expertise that are essential or a teacher i he/she is to survive the technicalproblems that may be caused by a malunctioning system.In this regard, school administrators and programmers are suggested to provide teach-

ers with enough time beore each class session to prepare themselves and the materialsthat are to be delivered by computer.

2. Lack of administrative support is more discouraging than low mastery, perceived use-fulness and others attitude (means = 3.44, 3.02, 2.29 respectively). Many teachers rerainrom using computers simply because they receive scant administrative support (Robertsonet al, 1996). According to the results, little administrative support is a more infuential

actor than low mastery and other attitudes in discouraging CALLapplication in teach-ers. Scant administrative back up can have various reasons and is in part triggered bypoor nancial situation (see Froke, 1994; Herschbach, 1994; Lee, 2000; Lewis, Agarwal, &Sambamurthy, 2003). Cost o sotware, hard ware, systems maintenance, and sta trainingmight not be aordable or all educational institutions.

On the other hand, ear o the technology crashing, reezing or being slow or gener-ally going wrong and the absence o an on-call help has signicantly degenerated CALLapplications in educational contexts. Many academic institutions dont have an on-calladministrative support unit and most o the troubleshooting is expected to be carried outby the teacher hersel or the students. Many teachers, as will be discussed in the low mas-tery section dont have the required know-how to overcome the probable technologicalailures and this in turn triggers teachers reluctance and a sort o phobia in technologyadministration. raining technical sta or even training teachers themselves can obviatethis problem to a great extent.

3. Low mastery is more discouraging than perceived usefulness and others attitude butit is less discouraging than lack of facilities (means = 3.02, 2.10, 2.29, 3.64 respectively).In the present study, low mastery is reerred to the lack o the required knowledge andskill to cope with computers. Many teachers lack the experience o independently working

with computers in their teaching career and thus eel uneasy to apply technology in theirclassrooms. In case o younger teachers, the situation is much more avorable since younggeneration has merged with technology and computers. Prensky (2001) has termed youngertechnophile generation digital natives in contrast with digital immigrants which reers


10/16

26


to old generation with much less contact with technology. However, even in case o digitalnatives, they are not trained in a systematic way to deal with the instructional unctionsand capabilities or limitations o technology in classrooms. All or the major part o whatthey have experienced about technology is non-instructional or unocused.

Even the mastery level o the students also has a direct eect on the teachers willingness

to use computers in class. In case when students know more than teacher and they otendo the teacher may ear to lose ace (Chambers & Bax, 2006) and thereore is discouraged.

Te other end o the scale, when students know little about computers, teacher may loseinterest in applying CALLin class, earing the reluctance and boredom on the part o thestudents that he might ace during instruction.

4. Perceived usefulness is less discouraging than perceived ease of use and lack of facili-ties (means = 2.10, 3.36, 3.64 respectively). Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw (1989) dened PU asthe degree to which a person believes that using a particular technology will enhance his

or her job perormance. According to the results, teachers in this study considered PU asweak inhibitor to computer use. It is interesting to note that among the means o sourceso discouragement PU has the lowest mean. Tis shows that teachers under study have nonegative perception about the useulness o computers and technology in class. Tey haveno doubt about the educational merits o students who use computers, no doubts about theuseulness o technology in the uture o the students, in ulllment o curriculum goals,and in students quality o learning in all language prociency levels without underestimat-ing the role and presence o the teacher.

5. Perceived ease of use is more discouraging than others attitude (means = 3.36, 2.29

respectively). Tis reers to the degree to which a person believes that using a particulartechnology will be ree o eort (Davis et al., 1989). It is possible that while users may believethat computers are unctional tools, at the same time they might have a eeling that theyare hard to use too and this may outweigh the perormance benets by the eorts o usingthe application (Davis, 1989). PE explains the users perception o the amount o eortrequired to utilize the system or the extent to which a user believes that using a particu-lar technology will be eortless (Davis et al., 1989). As such, it is possible that educationaltechnology with a high level o perceived useulness (PU) the degree to which a personbelieves that using a particular technology will enhance his or her job perormance ismore likely to induce positive attitudes. Furthermore, the relation between PU and PE isthat PU mediates the eect oPE on attitude (Moon & Kim, 2001). Tat is to say, while PUhas direct impacts on attitude, PE inuences attitude indirectly through PU.

In the context o the present study, PE is the ourth discouraging actor in using com-puters. Tat is to say, teachers may have a dubious look towards the ease o computerapplications in class. O course, this view might be mainly derived rom the other sourceso discouragement like lack o administrative support, lack o enough training or even theirattitude towards CALLapplication. Sime and Priestley (2005) ound that teachers attitudestowards the use o computers is heavily inuenced by how easy it is to use the tool and thatteachers are reluctant to use the tools that seemed difcult to use. As Bax (2000) reerred

to in his article, lack o experience and technology use in classrooms gives rise to lack oPE. Tis is a allacy that has emerged and ueled by teachers ear o technology as a hard-to-get-along-with phenomenon.

However, one might say that the perceived ease o use might be highly correlated with


11/16

27


the age o the computer user and may claim that the higher the age o the applicant is, thehigher the perceived ease o use would be. Among countless justications or this act, onecan reer to the concept o digital immigrants which argued that older ages tend to bemore unwilling to apply computers as they see it as an uneasy and earsome tool (Prensky,2001) or to the signicant and negative correlation o subjective norms with the computer

application o older users (Morris & Venkatesh, 2000). Although, this might seem a plau-sible argument as some studies have suggested (For example, Birren, Woods, & Williams,1980; Czaja & Sharit, 1993; Myers & Conner, 1992; Sharit & Czaja, 1994), this study oundan insignicant correlation between the age o the participants and their perceived easeo use (R = .046; P = .75 > .05)

able 5: Pearson correlation age with perceived ease o use

PE

Age Pearson Correlation .046


N 50

Tis nding might be justied by acknowledging the act that in the context o the pres-ent study, Iran, lack o acilities with a mean o 3.64 which has the highest mean amongthe sources oCALLuse discouragement buys a large proportion o the blame. Lack oacilities as the primary culprit seems to have aected other actors as well. PE and PUalthough might have been generally believed to be much highly avored by younger teach-

ers as they are relatively more digital native; this view has been adversely aected by thelack o acilities. No matter how a given task oCALLseems easy and useul, no willingnessoCALLapplication on the part o users will arise i the necessary conditions are not met.

6. Others attitude (subjective norms) is less discouraging than lack of facilities (means=2.29, 3.64 respectively). eo et al. (2008) dene subjective norms as as a persons perceptionthat most people who are important to that person think whether the behavior in questionshould or should not be perormed by the person (p. 131). Previous studies ound a positiveand signicant relationship between subjective norms and the uptake o technology (orexample, Guha, 2003; Ste-Mabry, 1999; aylor, 1996).

In an organizational setting, it is possible to trace back the concept o important peopleto the supervisor and the reerent group. In other words, subjective norm is the degree to

which a person perceives the demands o others on that individual to complete a task or,as in the case o this study, to use the computer. In the area o technology acceptance, thisargument was implicitly assumed by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) who argued that whena co-worker thought that the system was useul, a person tended to have the same idea.

It should be noted that subjective norms can go beyond the academic environment andcan be extended to the societal and even parental level. A teacher might contemplate theexpectations o the society in the uture; about the positive eects that can the employment

o technology have on the students. What are students parents expectations o teacher inusing CALLin class? How can he answer these expectations?

Tese questions and many others can induce anxiety in teachers (Russell & Bradley, 1997)which in return will discourage them to use CALL.


12/16

28


Lack o acilities however topped the means among the discouragement actors andneedless to say, is ar more discouraging than subjective norms. Te number o the avail-able computers in schools, the physical arrangement o computers, the availability o sot-

ware, the timing and scheduling o the computer acilities in schools are among the manyactors that discourage teachers to implement technology in their classes. Groves and

Zemel (2000) rated acility availability as very important actors which inuence the useo instructional technologies in teaching. In a similar vein, Farquhar and Surray (1994)proposed the importance o physical environment under the heading o organizationalactors. Tey believe that the physical acilities available to the teachers play a key role inencouraging teachers to use computers.

Tereore, a key issue against the process oCALLnormalization particularly in thecontext o this study is the lack and inadequacy o technological acilities. In order toreverse this anti-normalization process, many actors and serious measures should comeinto play. Schools, institutions, and university administrators should allocate decent nan-

cial budgets to buy and maintain enough numbers o acilities. Although Chambers andBax (2006) argued against the mere dependence on hardware technologies and insteadadvanced a more ecological (rather than technological) perspective, it must be noted thata minimum and adequate number o acilities and provisions are necessary beore anyurther step can be taken.

Based on the ndings o the questionnaire, many teachers have complained thatalthough there might be an available computer in each class, there are in most cases seri-ous problems either with the hardware or with the sotware. Tey report that the majorityo systems are inected with virus or so old, battered, and slow that a great portion o theclass time is always wasted getting these problems xed. Unsurprisingly, this will discour-

age many teachers to use computers in class and gets them to stick to more traditionalmeans o inormation delivery.

cousio

In this study, authors aimed at investigating the sources o discouragement that act as aninhibitor to normalization oCALLin educational systems. Tese sources were identiedand discussed and solutions were oered to overcome these inhibitors in an EFL/ESLsetting.

echnology prolieration is inevitable and has become one o the challenges o thecurrent century. Te relation between the technology and teachers acceptance o it hasbecome a major issue in the modern world. As discussed in this paper this unison is stillnot reached optimally and it will not unless the necessary inrastructures are established.Basically, teachers have not rightly understood the potential eectiveness oCALLin educa-tion. As it was discussed above, most technology immigrants ear the risk o losing ace orthey simply consider computer as a luxurious device that is only appropriate or the kindo engineering-type technical use. As some o the teachers discussed in the third section othe questionnaire, they seem to have a clear misconception about CALLapplication as theyequated computer use in class as being as computer literate as a technician. However, whatthese teachers claim is not o the wall. Te mere knowledge and experience o computers

do not equip teachers with the required skills to ully operate computers. As Somekh andDavis (1997) remarked the eective adoption o computers in an educational context takesa good amount o time. Sandholtz (2001) argued that with an optimistic estimate, at leasta year or so should be set aside on part o institutions and educational systems to train


13/16

29


their teachers by proessional technicians and through collaborative work. As a key stepto normalization, teachers should become more CALLriendly. o this end some measuresshould be taken:

First, institutional principals should attempt to encourage teachers to use CALLinsidetheir classrooms (Veen, 1993) and also to provide them with Icourses in case it seems

necessary. By meticulous programming, principals can raise unds in order to equip theirinstitutions with CALLlaboratories and essential hardware and sotware. Tis, in part, willgive condence to teachers to start using the acilities being provided with much troubleand inconvenience. However, any decit in budgeting o the courses or implementationalaairs should it be out o the aordance o the institution should be reected to the gov-ernmental bodies or urther action. eachers should eel that their voice is heard and actedupon. Tis will make the process o teachers CALLadoption way easier and aster.

Normalization is a state o educational change (Fullan, 2005) and adoption is the rststep in the three-staged process o change implementation (Fullan, 1991). Te other two are

implementation and institutionalization. However, theories o educational change do nothave equal impact on each o the three stages o innovation and each stage in inuencedby some known and unknown actors. eachers own attitudes, subjective norms, perceivedease o use and useulness, administrative support, time, nancial budgeting and macrosocial actors are among the known. Further research is required to unveil the clandestineactors at work in the uptake oCALLby teachers. Following this, barriers to successulCALLadoption would be identied and an awareness o these impediments raised whichin turn could provide us with some solutions which can be oered to pre-service teachersin training courses.

Next, teacher training courses play an undeniable role in giving the necessary leader-

ship skills and techniques to pre-service and in-service teachers. It constitutes a great parto any teachers challenges and dilemmas that may come up during their teaching career.

Tereore, they should provide them with a suitable model o new pedagogies and technolo-gies, aiming at advancing the borders o learning. Furthermore, these courses should havethe duty o having teachers understood how new technologies can be perectly employedin the economic and cultural status quo o a given context. Tereore, it seems that teach-ers training in this regard is not an easy one and needs to be carried out by the experts othe eld. Tis timely process is a collaborative one, begging or support rom principals,administrators and governmental bodies.

Finally, it is o utmost importance to note that unless the necessary technological, eco-logical administrative resources and inrastructures are not established, all we do is payinglip service to the merits oCALLwithout practicing what we preach. As Ioannou-Georgiou(2006) pointed out, appropriate hardware and sotware, easy access to technology, top-down policy to use computers, technology-syllabus integration, teacher technology train-ing, teachers CALLimplementation training, teachers technical and pedagogical supportare only among many o the known and on-the-surace actors that are essential to reachnormalization. However, what is even more essential is much research and work to beundertaken to investigate other deeply rooted sources oCALLdisuse i this new eld oeducation is to survive and grow.


14/16

30


Referees

Askar, P., & Umay, A. (2001). Pre-service elementary mathematics teachers computersel-efcacy, attitudes towards computers, and their perceptions o computer enrichedlearning environments. In C. Craword, D. A. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin,

J. Price & R. Weber (Eds.),Proceedings o society or inormation technology and teachereducation international conerence ( pp. 22622263).VA : AACE, Chesapeake.Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place: ICin modern oreign language learning.

In K. Field (Ed.),Issues in modern oreign language teaching (pp. 208219). NY:Routledge.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL past, present and uture. System, 31 (1), 1328.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. 293308).Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALLwork: owards normalization. System, 34,

465479.Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1993). Age dierences in the perormance o computer-based

work.Psychology and Aging, 8, 5967.Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived useulness, perceived ease o use, and user acceptance o

inormation technology.MIS Quarterly, 13, 319340.Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance o computer

technology a comparison o two theoretical models.Management Science, 35, 9281003.Demetriadis, S., Barbas, A., Molohides, A., Palaigeorgious, G., Psillos, D., Valhavas, I.,

soukalas, I., & Pombortsis, A. (2003). Cultures in negotiation: eachers acceptance/

resistance attitudes considering the inusion o technology into schools. Computersand Education, 41 (1), 1937.Farquhar, J. D. & Surry D.W. (1994) Adoption analysis: An additional tool or

instructional developers.Education and raining echnology International, 31, 1925.Froke, M. (1994). A vision and promise: Distance education at Penn state, part1-oward

an experience-based denition. Te Journal o Continuing Higher Education, 42 (2),1622.

Fullan, M. (1991). Te best aculty o education in the country: A able submitted to thestrategic planning committee aculty o education, University o oronto.

Fullan, M. (Ed.) (2005).Fundamental change: International handbook o educational change.

NY: Springer-Verlag.Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P.C. (2000) Instructional technology adoption in higher

education: an action research case study.International Journal o Instructional Media,27, 5765.

Guha, S. (2003). Are we all technically prepared? eachers perspective on the causes ocomort or discomort in using computers at elementary grade teaching.Inormationechnology in Childhood Education Annual, 32, 317349.

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: Te National Center or Research inVocational Education.Holliday, A. (1997). Six lessons: Cultural continuity in communicative language teaching.

Language eaching Research, 1 (3), 212238.


15/16

31


Hubbard, P. (2008). CALLand the Future o Language eacher Education. CALICO Journal,25 (2), 175-188.

Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). Te uture oCALL.ELJournal, 60 (4), 382384.Jaeglin, C. (1998). Learners and instructors attitudes towards computer-assisted class

discussion. In J. Swaar, S. Romano, P. Markley & K. Arens (Eds.), Language learning

online (pp. 121139).X: Te Daedalus Group, Inc.Jones, J. F. (2001). CALLand the responsibilities o teachers and administrators.EL

Journal, 55 (4), 360367.Lam, Y. (2000). echnophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second

language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Te CanadianModern Language Review, 56 (3), 390420.

Lee, K. (2000). English teachers barriers to the use o computer-assisted languagelearning. Te InternetESL Journal, 6 (12). Retrieved August 21, 2011 rom: http://iteslj.org/.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation.NY:Oxord University Press.Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources o inuence on benets about

inormation technology use: An empirical study o knowledge workers.MIS Quarterly,27(4), 657678.

Moon J., & Kim Y. (2001). Extending theAM or a worldwide- web context.Inormationand Management, 38, 217230.

Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, M. G. (2000). Age dierences in technology adoptiondecisions: Implications or a changing workorce.Personnel Psychology, 53, 375403.

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors aecting teachers use o inormation and communications

technology: A review o the literature.Journal o Inormation echnology or eacherEducation, 9 (3), 319342.

Myers, C., & Conner, M. (1992). Age dierences in skill acquisition and transer in animplicit learning paradigm.Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 429442.

Myers, J.M., & Halpin, R. (2002) eachers attitudes and use o multimedia technologyin the classroom: Constructivist based proessional development training or schooldistricts.Journal o Computing in eacher Education, 18, 133140.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 110.Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., OShea, ., & Lambrechts, G. (1996). Pupils,

teachers and palmtop computers.Journal o Computer Assisted Learning, 12, 194-204.Rogers, E. (1995).Difusion o 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), 931.Russell, G., & Bradley, G. (1997). eachers computer anxiety: Implications or proessional

development.Education and Inormation echnologies, 2 (1), 1730.Sandholtz, J. H. (2001). Learning to teach with technology: A comparison o teacher

development programs.Journal o echnology and eacher Education, 9 (3), 349374.Sharit, J., & Czaja, S. J. (1994). Aging, computer-based task perormance and stress: Issues

and challenges.Economics, 39, 559577.

Sime, D., & Priestley, M. (2005). Student teachers rst reections on inormation andcommunications technology and classroom learning: Implications or initial teachereducation.Journal o Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 130142.


16/16

32


Somekh, B., & Davis, N. (Eds.) (1997). Using inormation technology efectively in teachingand learning. London: Routledge.

Ste-Mabry, J. (1999). Proessional sta development: Lessons learned rom currentusability studies. Journal o Inormation echnology Impact, 1 (2), 81104.

aylor, S. (1996). Understanding inormation technology usage: A test o competing

models.Inormation Systems Research, 6 (2), 144176.eo, ., Chai, C. S., & Lee, C. B. (2008). Belies about teaching and uses o technology

among pre-service teachers.Asia-Pacic Journal o eacher Education, 36 (2), 163174.eo, ., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2007). Understanding pre-service teachers computer

attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model.Journal oComputer Assisted Learning, 24, 128143.

udor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: owards an ecological perspective onlanguage teaching. System, 31, 112.

Veen, W. (1993). How teachers use computers in instructional practice: Four case studies

in a Dutch secondary school. Computers and Education, 21 (1/2), 18.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension o the technology acceptancemodel: Four longitudinal eld studies.Management Science, 46, 186204.

Yildirim, S. (2000). Eects o an educational computing course on pre-service andin-service teachers: A discussion and analysis o attitudes and use.Journal o Researchon Computing in Education, 32, 479495.

Auhor biodaa

Parviz Maftoon is associate proessor oEFL at Islamic Azad University, Science and

Research Branch, ehran, Iran. He received his PhD degree rom New York University in1978 in eaching English to Speakers o Other Languages (ESOL). His primary researchinterests concern EFLwriting, second language acquisition, SL/FLlanguage teaching meth-odology, and language syllabus design. He has published and edited a number o researcharticles and books. He is currently on the editorial board o some language journals in Iran.

Amin Shahini is a aculty member at the University o Imam Sadiq. He is also a PhD candi-date at Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran. His interests are CALL,and teacher education.

Documents

Maftoon and Shahini