programs. Two groups evaluated hypothetical masters program's of study: one ..... interchangeably with web-based learning, web-based instruction and online ...
Computer Assisted Language Learning Within Masters Programs for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy
Greg Kessler June 2005
©2005 Greg Kessler All Rights Reserved
This dissertation entitled Computer Assisted Language Learning Within Masters Programs for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
By Greg Kessler
Has been approved for the Department of Educational Studies and the College of Education by
Teresa Franklin Associate Professor, Educational Studies
James Heap Dean, College of Education
Kessler, Greg. Ph.D. June 2005. Instructional Technology Computer Assisted Language Learning Within Masters Programs for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (151 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Teresa Franklin This study was conducted to evaluate the perception of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) within Teacher of English to speaker of other languages masters degree programs. Two groups evaluated hypothetical masters program’s of study: one including CALL coursework and an identical program without CALL coursework. The literature reveals little about the extent, focus, and perception of such training. The study also identified the contribution of formal CALL teacher preparation and informal CALL teacher preparation upon attitude toward technology through use of a mutliple regression test. Finally, a paired samples t-test was conducted to compare the values of formal CALL teaching preparation and informal CALL teaching preparation. A web-based survey was completed by 108 graduates of Teacher of English to speakers of other languages masters degree programs. The data reveal that there is a significant difference in rating of the hypothetical programs reflecting a significant preference for the program which included CALL. The study also concluded that informal CALL teaching preparation contributes to attitude toward technology while formal CALL teaching preparation does not. Further it appears from other data collection that most of what people attribute to their knowledge of CALL is based upon personal experience. The literature suggests that reliance upon this kind of preparation may not best serve pedagogical needs due to distinctions between personal and pedagogical use.
A number of additional observations were made based upon individual questions and demographic information. Among these, attitude toward technology was rated extremely high, suggesting that the teacher of English to speakers of other languages professionals are very technologically confident. The formal CALL training evaluation does not seem to differ among decades of graduation among respondents: 1965-1975, 1976-1985, 1986-1995, 1996-2005. Respondents felt their informal CALL preparation was more effective at preparing them to make decisions regarding the use of CALL. Respondents were more confident using technology for instruction than creating technology-based materials. Respondents were more confident using internet related materials for instruction than multimedia. They were least confident using audio and video related materials and teaching speaking through the use of CALL.
Approved:
Teresa Franklin Associate Professor, Educational Studies
ACKNOWLDGEMENTS
The current study would not have been possible to complete without the guidance, encouragement and support of my dissertation committee. I am extremely grateful for all the time and effort they have offered me. Special thanks to:
Dr. Teresa Franklin (My Ever-Available Advisor) Dr. George Johanson Dr. Bonnie Beach Dr. Marmo Soemarmo
To my wife, Melissa Wales and our son, Zachary Wales Kessler who are always loving and understanding and have shared me unselfishly with my work and this study.
To the extraordinary community of collaborative and supportive CALL professionals, some of whom participated in the pilots, shared their anecdotal information or helped to shape this study in innumerable ways over the past few years. Special thanks to Claire Bradin, Doug Coleman, Joy Egbert, Elizabeth Hanson-Smith, Phil Hubbard, John McVicker, Leslie Opp-Beckman and Tom Robb for friendship, inspiration, knowledge, and enthusiasm.
Table of Contents List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….
x
Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………………………………….
1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………
.3
Purpose of the Study...…………………………………………….....
4
Research Questions…………………………………………………..
4
Significance of the Study…………………………………………….. 5 Limitations & Delimitations of the Study……………………………
6
Scope of the Study…………………………………………………… 7 Definition of Terms…………………………………………………... 8 Organization of the Study…………………………………………….. 10 2. Literature Review…………………………………………………….. 12 History of TESOL Teacher Preparation……………………………… 12 Technology Shifts in TESOL Preparation…………………................ 15 Influence of CALL on ESL and EFL Teaching………………….…… 16 Establishing a Need for Technology Preparation…………………….. 17 Preparing Teachers to Use Technology………………………………. 19 Considerations in Preparation………………………………………… 21 Factors Influencing Technology Use………………………………… 25 Role of Teachers Using Computer Assisted Language Learning………………………………………………........ 26 Role of Administrators and Technology Leaders…………………… vii
28
What Teachers Should Know about Computer Assisted Language Learning………………..……………
29
Effective Practices in Computer Assisted Language Learning Contexts……….……………………… 35 The Role of Technological Change………………………………….. 37 Preparation Teachers to Train Learners……………………………… 38 Attention to Appropriateness in Materials…………………………… 39 Summary……………………………………………………………..
41
3. Methods……………………………………………………………… 44 Population and Sample……………………………………………….. 45 Development of the Survey…………………………………………..
48
Content Validity……………………………………………………… 50 First Pilot Study………………………………………………………. 51 Methodology of the First Pilot……………………………………….. 52 Results of First Pilot………………………………………………….. 53 Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………... 60 Research Design………………………………………………………. 61 Chapter 4 Analysis of Data……………………………...………………………… 65 Mann-Whitney Analysis…………………………………………….
68
Multiple Regression Analysis ………………………………………… 69 Further Analysis …………………………………………..................
74
Chapter 5 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations………………………. 96 Findings ……………………………………………………………… 97
viii
Conclusions ………………………………………………………….. 103 Recommendations …………………………………………………… 104 References…………………………………………………………….. 106 Appendix A………………………………………..………………….. 119 Appendix B…………………………………………………………… 124 Appendix C…………………………………………………..……….. 125 Appendix D…………………………………………………..……….. 126 Appendix E…………………………………………………..………... 127 Appendix F…………………………………………………..………... 132 Appendix G…………………………………………………..………… 134 Appendix H…………………………………………………..………… 135 Appendix I…………………………………………………..………… 138 IRB Letter……………………………………………………………….140
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Degree Program Effectiveness……………………………………..
55
Table 2. Relevance of Formal Program Coursework ……………………….
56
Table 3. Time Devoted to Learning to Teach with Technology……………..
57
Table 4. Technology Related Coursework in Degree Program………………
58
Table 5. General Perception of Formal CALL Preparation…………………..
59
Table 6. Perception of CALL in the Workplace………………………………
60
Table 7. Standardized Residual Scatterplot Outliers.......................................
67
Table 8. Results of Mann Whitney Test……………………………………...
68
Table 9. Boxplots for Mann Whitney Test……………………………………
69
Table 10. Mean and Standard Deviation for Independent Variables (FTP and ITP) and dependent variable, (ATT)……………………..
70
Table 11. Correlations Among Independent Variables (FTP and ITP) and Dependent Variable (ATT)…………………………………….
72
Table 12. Mann-Whitney Outliers.....................................................................
75
Table 13. Graduation Date and Perception of Formal Preparation……………
79
Table 14. Decades of Graduation and Formal Teaching Preparation…………
80
Table 15. Decade of Graduation and Informal Teaching Preparation…………
81
Table 16. Year of Graduation and Attitude Toward Technology……………..
82
Table 17. Age and Formal Teaching Preparation………………………………
83
x
Table 18. Age and Informal Teaching Preparation…………………………….
84
Table 19. Age and Attitude Toward Technology……………………………….
85
Table 20. Sex and Perception of Formal Teacher Preparation………………….
86
Table 21. Sex and Perception of Informal Teaching Preparation……………..
87
Table 22. Sex and Attitude Toward Technology……………………………….
88
Table 23. Individual Items in Measure, Formal Teaching Preparation…………
89
Table 24. Individual Items with Means from Measure Informal Teaching Preparation ………………………………………………..
91
Table 25. Individual Items in Measure Attitude Toward Technology …………… 94
xi
1 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has existed as an overlap of many unique educational contexts and academic cultures. While instructors who have had formal preparation in anticipation of public school careers are likely to have experienced similar preparation established by colleges of education, CALL professionals in higher education are likely from more divergent backgrounds. Departments of Linguistics, Education, English, Instructional Technology, Computer Science, Communications and Design have all contributed to CALL instructor preparation (Robb, in press). This complex ancestry has resulted in a varying set of expectations, practices, and standards. It is difficult to find any two language instructors who have received the same extent and type of preparation in language instruction preparation, much less identical preparation specifically geared toward the use of CALL theory, practices, and materials. Warschauer and Healey (1998) provide an overview of the approximately thirtyyear history of CALL. They identify a development congruent with the curricular change during the same period. Behaviorist CALL, consisting primarily of drill work, grammatical explanation and translation, was conceived in the late 1950’s and implemented through the 1960’s and 1970’s. Communicative CALL, which provided more of a focus on the use of language rather than the language itself, began in the late1970’s and continued through the 1980’s. The authors suggest that integrative CALL is currently predominant in practice. Integrative CALL recognizes the integrated nature
2 of technology as a tool rather than an isolated technique. This new approach incorporates many aspects of constructivism (Healey, 2002; Opp-Beckman, 2002). Perhaps the most alluring of those initial aspects of CALL for many language teachers was the promise of efficiency. Many early pioneers forecast that ultimately CALL development would save teachers time by automating tedious processes and timeconsuming aspects of correcting and grading (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). However, Burston (1996) soon presented research showing that CALL use generally contributed to an increase in the workload of teachers rather than a reduction. This reality didn’t hamper the proliferation of CALL practitioners whose methods, theories and materials were soon integrated into language teaching classrooms around the world (Egbert & Hanson-Smith, 1999). During the past decade CALL has inundated language teaching to such an extent that numerous schools now function solely in an online context (Nixon, 1999). The use of CALL in language programs has become a standard and expected part of a curriculum (Warschauer & Healey, 1998). However, CALL preparation continues to predominantly be acquired in an informal or ad hoc manner as conference workshops, inservices, personal reading and other forms of self-edification. Formal language teacher preparation programs have largely neglected to equip their graduates with the CALL related knowledge and skills they need to enter today’s technologically advanced language classroom (Kessler, in press). A recent visit to fifty randomly selected websites of North American TESOL MA websites reveal that only eight of these have any mention of CALL as a component within their masters degree program. Only three of these
3 include a CALL course among its requirements. At the same time, a survey of current job postings in the field indicates that 90 to 95 percent of current English as a Second Language (ESL) positions require CALL experience (TESOL, 2003). Statement of the Problem The increasing awareness of the potential of Computer Assisted Language Learning within English as a Second Language and English as a Foreign Language programs has necessitated research regarding its use and effectiveness. The integration of technology within the language classroom has benefited from a wealth of research during the past decade. This research has focused on issues of technology implementation within the language classroom, student characteristics that may cater to such technologies and determining the effectiveness of specific technology enhanced approaches. While this research is still in a nascent state, there are other compelling areas on the periphery that have yet to be addressed. Among these is the nature of the teacher preparation that underlies this integration of technology within the language classroom. While extensive attempts have been made to identify the applied aspects of CALL within the language teaching environment, very little has been done to characterize the type of preparation in which TESOL teacher preparation programs are engaging. The necessary first step along this path is an assessment of the extent of CALL preparation among TESOL teacher preparation programs as well as the perceived appropriateness and effectiveness of this preparation by graduates. Further, it is important to identify and assess alternatives to formal CALL preparation. Identifying the effectiveness of alternative preparation may guide CALL teacher trainers toward more effective methods.
4 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to examine and describe the perceived significance of Computer Assisted Language Learning preparation within North American Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Masters Degree preparation programs. Further, the study attempts to identify what recipients of such preparation feel is an appropriate quantity of preparation. The type of preparation is also examined. Specifically, comparing teachers’ satisfaction with formal CALL preparation and informal CALL preparation. Further, teachers’ satisfaction with preparation focused toward their own technology-related development as well as their pedagogical use of technology is addressed. Finally, teachers attitude toward technology is assessed and attempts are made to identify the contribution that formal CALL and informal CALL preparation make to this attitude. Research Questions: The following research questions are the focus of this study: 1. Are TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL rated differently from programs of study which do not include CALL? 2. How well do perception of informal CALL preparation and perception of formal CALL preparation predict attitude toward technology? The first question will be answered by comparing responses to two distinct sample masters program vignettes: one including CALL preparation and one void of such preparation. Participants rated the hypothetical program on a ten point scale in a single item response. While a single question may not serve as an ideal measure, any additional
5 content of value may distract from the simple act of rating such a program of study. Participants were randomly assigned to each of the two groups. A Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the medians of this single item rating. The second question was determined through the use of multiple regression. A number of additional findings are presented through descriptive statistics and discussed. Significance of the Study This study involved graduates of TESOL master degree teacher preparation programs from throughout North America. As there are no current established standards or best practices related to the preparation of TESOL MA candidates and no previous survey of this breadth has been conducted, the extent and types of computer assisted language preparation are currently unknown. Although the pilot study indicated that the extent of preparation is rather minimal and that those directly involved in CALL practices feel the preparation is inadequate, this study was the first to ask what amount of such preparation should be appropriate within a TESOL Master degree teacher preparation program. This study will provide insight into the base of CALL related skills and knowledge and the extent to which they are addressed in TESOL Master degree teacher preparation programs. Further, the study will identify and assess the satisfaction of teacher trainees who partake in such preparation. This information should inform improved preparation of TESOL masters degree candidates. While it should also serve to inform programs that prepare teachers of other languages and content areas that utilize technology, these are peripheral beneficiaries.
6 Limitations and Delimitations of the Study This study is limited to the Computer Assisted Language Learning preparation that teachers in North American TESOL programs receive. While many characteristics may be shared with similar teacher preparation programs (outside of North America, Bachelor degree-level, or directed toward the teaching of another language or even another academic discipline altogether) this limitation was made to identify a specific group of individuals and the systems in which they operate. Certainly, there are a number of characteristics involved in this study that may inform a wide breadth of outside disciplines as well. An initial pilot study was conducted to identify terminology that may be misleading as well as to clarify confusing or misleading questions. A second pilot was conducted in order to further refine the instrument and gather return rate information. Each of these pilot studies garnered a significant amount of feedback from the participants. Additionally, interviews and focus groups were conducted to identify issues of specific concern among specialists in the area of CALL as well as TESOL masters program teacher preparation. The sample was randomly selected from a database of TESOL membership representing members and presenters within the past five years. This period of time may have helped to account for periodic membership lapse. TESOL is the sole professional international organization for ESL, English as a foreign language (EFL), and English speakers of other languages (ESOL) teachers. However, it is possible that this sample may not represent the full range of such teachers as some may have chosen not to participate in the professional organization.
7 Some aspects of the instrument may contribute to variance among responses. The hypothetical TESOL masters program vignettes are identical other than CALL coursework. This results in the vignette which includes CALL coursework being longer. This simple fact of a larger body of coursework may contribute to some difference in rating of these vignettes. Further, the order of questions related to the independent variables may have influenced responses. The 25 questions representing Formal CALL Preparation preceded those representing Informal CALL Preparation (See Appendix E). There are a number of factors related to this study that are not fully addressed and would benefit from additional research. This is unavoidable considering the nascent nature of this area of research. Among these are: 1) a precise measure of the type and extent of informal CALL preparation in which TESOL professionals engage themselves, 2) a precise measure of the type and extent of formal CALL preparation that graduate departments are currently offering, and 3) a precise measure of the technological knowledge and abilities of faculty in TESOL graduate programs. Scope of the Study The scope of this study included graduates of North American TESOL masters teacher preparation programs who have been members of TESOL or presented at the annual TESOL convention within the past five years. There are currently approximately 196 TESOL masters programs in the United States and an additional 12 in Canada. As individuals were selected randomly from a database that included members and presenters, there was likely to be representation from throughout this area. In fact,
8 responses were gathered from a total of 98 programs. Research activities followed the established timeline. Contact with the random sample of individuals was made through email with a direct link to the survey instrument, which was delivered as a web-based survey. This email contact was made in mid to late March 2005. Data collected from these surveys was analyzed in early April in order to answer the research questions presented. Definition of Terms The following terms may not be familiar to the reader. Pilot responses suggest that some readers may benefit from these definitions. Application specific preparation- preparation which prepares trainees to use a specific software application Asynchronous Communication-a form of computer mediated communication that does not occur in real-time, allowing participants to respond at any time. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)-the use of technology for pedagogical purposes within language instruction. Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)- the use of computers as a communication tool across a local network or the Internet. Corpus – a set of linguistic content that serves as examples of authentic language use. Course Management System (CMS)- A web or network based system of instructional materials and communication areas specifically designed for education. Some common examples of Course Management Systems include Blackboard®, WebCT® and Desire2Learn®.
9 English as a Second Language (ESL)- the teaching of English to non-native speakers in the context of an English speaking country English as a Foreign language (EFL)- the teaching of English to non-native speakers in the context of an non-English speaking country English for Academic Purposes (EAP)- the teaching of English for the expressed use in the context of higher education English for Specific Purposes (ESP)- the teaching of English for the expressed use in a particular context (such as Piloting an airplane or performing the duties of a police officer. English Speaker of another Language (ES0L)- A non-native speaker of English who is engaged in using the English language, typically as a student Face-To-Face (F2F)-communication in which individuals share a common time and space Formal CALL Preparation – Instruction in the use of CALL materials or practices within degree related coursework. Informal CALL Preparation – Instruction in the use of CALL materials or practices outside of degree related coursework. Moore’s Law- A law stating that technological innovation (initially in terms of semiconductors and integrated circuits) doubles every eighteen months. Online Learning- Internet-based instruction of any sort. This term is used interchangeably with web-based learning, web-based instruction and online instruction.
10 Online Writing Lab (OWL)-Online resource centers with writing materials and activities specifically designed for ESOL learners. Second Language Acquisition (SLA)- the subfield within linguistics concerned with the learning of languages other than one’s native language. Skill-Based Preparation - preparation which prepares trainees to learn skills which may be transferable to a variety of software applications. Synchronous Communication-a form of computer mediated communication that takes place in real-time, requiring that all participants communicate simultaneously. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages- TESOL (also Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, the primary relevant professional organization) Organization of the Study This dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Chapter one introduces the study and the research questions and methodology. Chapter two presents a review of the related literature on computer assisted language learning, instructional technology, TESOL teacher preparation, language methodology and pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition. Chapter three reviews the methods used in the study. Included in this chapter is information regarding the two distinct pilot studies, the first serving as an exploratory guide to inform the survey and the second helping to refine the instrument and establish an expected rate of response. Also presented in this chapter are the process of selecting participants, the research instruments, procedures for collecting data, and explanation and analysis of the data. Chapter four includes an analysis of the data as well as a presentation
11 of the results. Chapter five provides a summary and interpretation of the research as well as suggestions for application and further research.
12 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review History of TESOL Teacher Preparation Change in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), as well as other areas of language instruction, has been frequent and extensive over the past fifty years. The obvious evolution of pedagogical thought has altered the way that teacher preparation programs prepare teachers. In addition, a number of less obvious influences have impacted the field. Through influence from political, social, cultural, scientific, and general educational contemporary thought, TESOL has broadened into a new, and dynamic field (Warschauer, 2001). TESOL practitioners today are often faced with politically charged issues brought about by migration as the result of war, famine, persecution, and social unrest (Scarcella, 1990). In the United States alone, these teachers work with students ranging from teenagers with no written first language knowledge, children with no traditional schooling background, adult refugees pursuing Ph.D.s and International Teaching Assistants (ITAs) who are responsible for educating many American undergraduates. Each of these areas has, in fact, become an individual subset within TESOL. It is often nearly impossible to separate the political and the educational worlds for those involved in this field. Long after struggles have left the headlines, teachers all around the world are faced with the realities of addressing the needs of their unique group of students. While this obviously involves the particular language needs of those students, it often also involves advocacy on behalf of students and students’ cultural groups as well as a dedication to assist in healing their individual
13 social and emotional scars. Throughout these changes, TESOL masters teacher preparation programs have adapted to incorporate the emerging needs of the ESOL community. The contributions of new ways of thinking have furthered the investigation into the individual needs of learners in even more directions. Critical works such as, Language Minority Students in the Multicultural Classroom (Scarcella, 1990) and Characteristics of Successful Second Language Learners (Crymes, 1986) began to provide new perspectives on the needs of learners and the emerging recognition of the need to respect and support the development of a multicultural society. In fact, the importance of multiculturalism in the ESL classroom was aptly predicted by Scarcella (1990, p.vii), “Educators who promote multicultural schooling are contributing to the success of language minority students and to the security and economic interests of the United States.” Concurrently, individual emotional and psychological issues affecting students were extended to new lengths and great changes occurred in the increased authenticity of materials and the establishment of a variety of English For Specific Purpose (ESP) areas. Groups such as International Teaching Assistants, refugees, certain professionals and some specific language groups began to benefit from an increased attention to their unique needs. Other movements adopted from other areas of education also influenced the field throughout the late seventies and early eighties. Whole Language, in particular, became one standard approach in public elementary schools throughout the late eighties and early nineties in areas with large ESOL communities.
14 In recent years there have been a number of other shifts in TESOL teacher preparation as well. Carrier (2003) estimates that currently between 60 and 70 percent of graduate students in TESOL masters programs in the United States are non-native speakers of English. This reality has caused programs that focus on explicit and intensive exploration of language teaching to make significant alterations in their coursework to accommodate the unique needs of these students ranging from an extended amount of time devoted to understanding Western ways of teaching, building up self confidence and becoming more informed of the rules of the English language. Recent worldwide economic difficulties and a tightening of immigration regulations have further altered the operations of a number of TESOL masters programs (Nixon, 2003). More Native speaking graduates are required to go overseas in order to find work as the number of language programs in the United States steadily decreases (Govardhan, Nayar, & Sheorey, 1999). With such a growing reliance on international students, these programs have become more vulnerable to shifts in international student enrollment. Further, these students often intend to return to their native countries to teach, which has caused some to question whether the unique needs of such students are being met by programs that otherwise seem to be intended to prepare graduates for the variety of positions that exist in the United States (Govardhan, Nayar, & Sheorey, 1999). It has also been noted that newly emerging international varieties of English are having a significant effect on changes in the English language itself, and that such change should be reflected in curricular goals of the future (Warschauer, 2000). Future changes are likely to reflect the internationalization of English and its variant dialects, the
15 changing needs of immigrant children and the language demands brought on by the rapid pace of technological change. Language instruction and its curriculum have changed in response to the influences of social, political and educational thought. This change has generally moved in a direction toward more focus on the individual needs of individual learners, more authentic and specific context, materials and subfields as well as more “use of” rather than “knowledge of” the target language. Similar changes are anticipated to continue as English instruction faces new demands and employs new technologies, hopefully to the increasing benefit of both students and educators. Technology Shifts in TESOL Preparation There is sparse evidence in the literature that some degree of technological innovation and attention to CALL practices is taking place within TESOL masters education. Kamhi-Stein (2001) reported that students in a TESOL methodology course who engaged in web-based bulletin board discussions were more likely to develop an understanding and an ability to use such tools as teachers. Further, students participated more freely in this forum and relied less upon the teacher as the sole authority figure. Dhonau and McAlpine (2002) make recommendations for streaming digital video of “best practices” as an augment to a methods course. They report that the authentic nature of the video allows students to get a better feel for methods than they might otherwise have. Cifuentes and Shih (2001) had students engage in a practicum course that required cross-cultural web-based interaction with students in Taiwan. They report that pre-service teachers entered the experience with great anxiety, but finished feeling confident about participating in such activities. Kouritzin (2002) reports that experiences teaching
16 TESOL Methodology courses online have taught her new appreciation for the field. She claims that the “relentlessness” of the context requires that students participate actively, unable to hide in the back of the classroom, which results in a more engaging and satisfying experience. However, most of the literature regarding the use of web-base learning for masters TESOL coursework fails to even mention the relationship with developing CALL knowledge, skills or even consciousness. A majority of articles identify the benefits of time and space flexibility and refer to the challenges presented to teacher and student without ever reflecting on how the masters students may ultimately be learning to use these methods and systems as teachers themselves (Nixon, 2003; Nunan, 2002). Influence of CALL on ESL and EFL Teaching Perhaps the greatest influence over curriculum change in the past fifteen years is the rate and extent to which technology has affected and been integrated into coursework and the curricula throughout the English teaching world (Hanson-Smith, 1999). Language teachers and curriculum designers quickly recognized the benefits of video for instruction when it was a new phenomenon. Likewise, the implementation of cassette player audio labs altered instructional abilities to some extent. But no one could have predicted the extent to which computer-based technology would take hold in the language curriculum. Computer-based technology has been embraced and integrated in nearly every language program in the United States to some extent. In many cases, curriculum has been completely redefined to accommodate the needs and implementation of this new technology into curriculum. A number of ESL instructors and curriculum specialists
17 began creating their own programs in the 1980’s and 1990’s in order to automate some of the more tedious or repetitive tasks related to language instruction. Today, these education professionals can create elaborate and impressive courseware packages which better address their students’ specific needs than many commercial alternatives (Iwabuchi & Fotos, 2004; Levy 1997a). In many cases, rapidly changing curriculum needs have been addressed by instructor-developed courseware (Kessler & Plakans, 2001). Many English programs now exist solely in an online format. Further, many programs with limited resources are now accustomed to creating and utilizing commonly available ESL materials on the Internet. In addition to this influence of technology, public demands for the re-investigation of bilingual education programs have resulted in a resurgence of immersion programs. Convinced that immigrant children were not performing satisfactorily, educators have returned to English-only programs even in schools districts with homogenous groups of students. Changes to the curricula, to at least an extent of limited immersion, are expected to affect most school districts in the country (Stern, 2002). Further altering the language teaching landscape, some have called for attention to the changing curricular needs of our increasingly technological and rapidly changing world, thus demanding instruction that focuses on universal skills and strategies rather than specific skills and narrowly defined tasks. Such instruction would allow for students to adapt to dynamically changing needs. Establishing a Need for Technology Preparation A general lack of technical skills has been identified among teachers who are both in the field and in preparation (Brinkerhoff, Ku, Glazewski & Brush, 2000; Burke, 2000).
18 Some have also suggested that the greatest restriction on technology-enhanced instruction is the lack of adequate teacher preparation for such use (Egbert, 1999; ButlerPascoe, 1995). Further, it has been suggested that teachers need to be trained to use CALL with their students and that without such preparation CALL would likely be used inappropriately and lose its credibility (Schwartz, 1995). Galloway (1996) found that teachers who felt comfortable using technology often relied upon the technical skills that they had learned to use for the context of their personal lives and not for the purposes related to teaching. The author concluded that this was likely to result in teachers who could adequately use word processing programs, but would be deficient in skills related to hypermedia, telecommunications and other program less likely to impact people’s personal computing needs. While some states and departments of education have begun to establish specific expectations for new teachers, many have left this need vaguely defined. Holland (2001) established a continuum to identify teachers’ level of development. Ranging from “Nonreadiness” to “Survival” to “Mastery” to “Impact” to “Innovation”, the continuum attempts to identify the varying needs of teachers involved in technology preparation. This preparation incorporates a range of peripheral concerns beyond teachers learning to use technology. Clark and Gorski (2001) point out that teachers who are learning to use technology or have recently learned how to use it often use it inappropriately in ways that may even detract from instruction. One of the predominant problems they observed is the inability to identify when not to use technology; when it would be more appropriate to rely on traditional techniques.
19 Preparing Teachers to Use Technology Wide agreement exists supporting the need for teachers to learn to use technology. The development of basic computer skills, such as keyboarding, using a mouse and working with menus, has been incorporated into many teacher preparation technology courses. Other skills identified as necessary for professional purposes include using software for record keeping, research, and maintaining electronic communication (Grau, 1996). Familiarity with a variety of approaches to electronic communication, such as email, discussion boards and file sharing, are identified as contributing to successful collaboration with colleagues and mentors for pre-service and novice teachers. The ability to effectively use the Internet is also considered essential (McCampbell, 2001; Thomas, Clift & Sugimoto, 1996). Attention is also given to the development of more sophisticated skills as well, such as video teleconferencing and development of webbased materials. While there are many important decisions surrounding the implementation of technology, decisions related to exactly what skills and/or software teachers are and/or should be learning in technology courses dominates much of the literature (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Levy, 1997a) specifies that teachers in preparation need to integrate their own philosophies of language learning with their use of technology in a manner that guides them toward what they should learn. However, an important distinction is made between preparing teachers to use technology and preparing teachers to use technology for instruction (Harrington, 1991). While the computer literacy of teaching professionals is certainly an important goal, and
20 an obvious prerequisite to learning to use technology for instruction, the distinction may not always be apparent. It should also be noted that the third unique focus of using technology to train teachers may provide some benefits for teacher literacy and teacher use of technology, but its primary intention should be acknowledged by decision-makers. Those working in the K-12 environment have begun calling for and establishing benchmarks representing the expected level of computer competency of teachers. Standards set by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) are effective for the P-12 environments for which they were established. However, this setting only applies to a subset of ESL teachers. Thus far, TESOL has not established standards similar to those set in place by NCATE. Many acknowledge that the expense of software and training programs may require collaboration with business leaders or community groups. A common set of skills that teachers need to be able to perform include: ability to power the computer on and off, ability to set up and use peripherals such as a scanner, ability to use word processors, spreadsheets, databases, desktop publishing and graphics programs, ability to use presentation software, ability to use authoring tools to create multimedia lessons and ability to effectively evaluate software (Northrup & Little, 1996). These benchmarks are limited to measuring the teachers’ abilities to use technology with no attention given to their abilities to incorporate technology into their courses. One of the most commonly studied aspects of teacher technology preparation programs is teachers’ perception of computer technology in general. Their knowledge of and attitude toward computer technology may determine the degree of success that they
21 will encounter in technology preparation (Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Milbraith & Kinzie, 2000). Further, how teachers think about and use computers in the classroom has been investigated extensively (Ermter, Addison, Lane, Ross & Woods, 1999; Levy, 1997b ; Pilus, 1995). The general consensus that results from these investigations is that those who enter thinking positively about technology find success and those who enter thinking negatively do not. Another frequently measured issue is the willingness of teachers to use technology on an ongoing basis. Technology preparation programs often incorporate funding that allows participants to have access to resources for the duration of the course or some limited time that follows. Once these resources become unavailable the teachers often neglect to continue practicing the technology related skills they have learned (Butler-Pascoe, 1995). Finally, it has been consistently suggested for years that there is little impact of technology teacher preparation programs on how teachers think about and implement technology in the classroom (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002; Cuban, 1996; FiemanNemser & Remillard, 1996). Considering this realization, it is important to consider those issues that may influence technology preparation for teachers. Considerations in Preparation A standard method of preparing technology teachers has not yet been established although many have offered suggestions for such approaches. Bliss and Mazur (1996) suggest an approach that would team up teachers with instructional technology experience with those who are inexperienced. By utilizing video conferencing and digital
22 video recording, experienced teachers shared their experiences with pre-service teachers. This collaboration offered both parties substantial benefits, initial insight for the novices and a means of establishing clarity for the experienced, however it required a great deal of coordination and technical support on behalf of the researchers. Such costly success is common among many similar investigations (Brown, 2002; Schlagel, Trathen & Blanton, 1996). Some have argued that teachers in preparation are often disserved by the technology preparation programs due to the outdated nature of the technology they tend to utilize in these courses (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002; Abdel-Haaq, 1995). In such courses students are likely to learn using older technologies and programs and therefore not be prepared to integrate newer technologies that would best serve their students’ needs into their own classrooms. In addition to recognizing the lack of access to newer technology, it has been suggested that technology courses may not be sufficiently integrated into teacher preparation programs. Instructional technology cannot be treated as only part of a teacher preparation program, but must be ongoing in order to be successful (Northrup & Little, 1996). Halttunen (2002) echoes this call for integration while adding that teachers also need repreparation as new technologies and materials become available. Another frequently measured issue is the willingness of teachers to use technology on an ongoing basis. Technology preparation programs often incorporate funding that allows participants to have access to resources for the duration of the course or some limited time that follows. Once these resources become unavailable the teachers
23 often neglect to continue practicing the technology related skills they have learned (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002; Butler-Pascoe, 1995). It has been suggested that there is little impact of technology teacher preparation programs on how teachers think about and implement technology in the classroom (Cuban, 1996; Fieman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). Research has suggested that teachers tend to practice very little of what they receive in technology preparation programs once they begin teaching unless they had already been technologically inclined prior to the technology preparation course. They are more likely to further their development by gathering information from colleagues than any other formal method of preparation (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002). Similarly, Galloway (1996) found that most teachers surveyed learned to use computers on their own or with the help of friends and colleagues outside of the classroom and not as a result of their formal preparation. In response, attempts have been made to identify potential alternative approaches to technology preparation. Joffe (2000) identifies myriad potentials for CALL practitioners to receive preparation through distance education. The author acknowledges the increased potential for interaction among cultures and insights. Addressing many critical arguments of online learning, she argues that the engagement in such a process as a teacher in preparation would positively enhance the teacher’s ability to implement CALL into the classroom. A 1998 study of 416 schools colleges and universities found that faculty and administrators believed they would receive greater benefit from integrating new technologies and providing technological support and instruction built around those
24 projects rather than by making new technology instruction courses available (Bielefeldt, 2000) Others have suggested expansion of such practices as well as providing faculty with access to publications and professional conferences that provide CALL instruction (Esin, 1997). However, the literature does not present any attempts to investigate the effectiveness of these kinds of preparation. With the current rise in CALL related research, such gaps are likely to be short lived. However, the issue is not limited to the amount of time or attention devoted to CALL; a consensus must also be reached regarding the type of preparation that is most appropriate (Robb, in press). By 1994, Matthews identified the single greatest detriment to the development of CALL as a weakness within research agendas. He argued that without the establishment of solid research CALL would simply become a technique and not a field of study. Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) echoed these concerns that CALL was suffering from a lack of competent research and researchers. Further exasperating the dilemma of research within CALL is the effectiveness of our communication about the field. Chappelle (1990) sounded a largely unheeded request for researchers to arrive at a standardized set of terms, thus providing consistency among discussion. However, the rapid rate of technological development and the breadth of influences that contribute to the field have further complicated any such coalescence of the lexicon. It is clear that CALL practitioners must be prepared to engage in research in order to better investigate the effects of their work.
25 Factors Influencing Technology Use While there may be many reasons that technology becomes unused or underused, access to resources is most often identified as the reason that technology for instruction remains unutilized. Resources include hardware, software, time and technical, emotional and curricular support (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002; Schrum, 1999). Many attempts at introducing instructional technology into the curriculum involve making those resources necessary for the current project available to the participants; however, when the introductory project is complete the resources are no longer available, thus leaving the faculty in a position that discourages use of technology (Barnes, 1997). Schrum (1999) adds that colleges of education have not maintained the same level of technological implementation as the K-12 schools and the public sector. Perhaps the widest recognized factor influencing access to technology is the digital divide. ESL communities, generally built on a multicultural model, are certainly subject to the negative impact of this phenomenon (Clark & Gorski, 2001). Brown (2002, p.3) integrates the thoughts of others to arrive at a collective and cohesive definition of the digital divide: the gap created by access or lack of access to and the manner of use of technology by members of various social identity groups (Bolt & Crawford, 2000). Its connotation is generally negative, describing the ways in which racism, language discrimination, class stratification (including, but not limited to, economic stratification based on educational level and geography), sexism, and abilities are exacerbated by technology
26 (Damarin, 2000; Mass Market Paperback, 1999). Especially salient in the context of an increasingly techno centric, capitalistic world economy, the digital divide is the latest challenge in multicultural education's struggle toward closing the larger gap in equity and access to and outcomes from full participation in democracy among those with different combinations of cultural, capital and economic standing (McLaren, 1997). A number of barriers have also presented themselves in the specific context of CALL teacher preparation. Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002) studied the use of CALL by teachers who had completed a CALL course. Teachers often continued to rely upon the skill and knowledge related to technology that they had acquired in their personal use. Despite being confident and capable with the technologies, teachers were not likely to implement these newly learned CALL practices due to a number of other factors. These impediments included time, curricular and administrative restrictions as well as an insufficient amount of resources. Role of Teachers Using Computer Assisted Language Learning Toward the end of the century trainers began to identify a growing potential for CALL. Many observed the effects of the introduction of CALL on the teachers’ role in the classroom. Some suggested that automated “teacherless” CALL should serve as the ultimate ideal while others recognized a growing need to prepare teachers to utilize CALL most appropriately (Davies & Williamson, 1998; Barnes, 1997).
27 Jones (2001) suggests that CALL agendas are in many cases self destructive, relying heavily on self-access and autonomy to the extreme that the language community becomes alienated from the use of CALL. He makes anecdotal reference to language centers that barely function due to the lack of human intervention in the learning process. Consequently, he argues that CALL agendas realign themselves with the idea that “teachers are needed to drive the CALL process.” The author goes on to conclude that it is not only the responsibility of researchers within the field of CALL, but also administrators and faculty that must act in a deliberate and inclusive manner to respond to this growing dilemma. Thus, teachers must be trained explicitly in CALL in order to be prepared to make important decisions regarding the manner of CALL implementation. However, Davies and Williamson (1998) conversely argue that CALL needs to aspire to a goal in which a teaching and learning process is implicit and the teacher is “built in.” They suggest that CALL that simply serves as a medium of instruction is no more than an “Electronic Chalkboard.” Ultimately, they suggest that teachers and developers should approach CALL development not in terms of what a computer can do, but in terms of what a human can do. This dichotomy has existed since the introduction of CALL. However, researchers have yet to investigate the influence of these two camps on the development of new CALL professionals. Some have suggested frameworks for guiding technology preparation. Egbert and Thomas (2001) recognize the vast divergence of experience within distance education. The introduction to their study states, “Even for those who live and breathe this new medium, there have been a myriad of successes, failures and truly baffling experiences.”
28 (p. 1). They go on to point out that, regardless of the outcome of these experiments, education will no long take place in the same manner in the future now that we have let the distance education Genie out of the bottle. Ultimately they introduce a framework for distance education that they suggest will serve the needs of pre-service teachers. Others have also recommended guidelines for teachers using CALL. Murray (1998) indicates that prior assessment will inform trainers of teacher technology courses. However, the range of technological abilities is likely to be vast and complicate preparation procedures. He identifies a preparation model that requires two facilitators and relies heavily on team-work among participants. Finally, a balance between theory and practice has been encouraged (Hubbard, 2004; Levy, 1997; Hubbard, 1996). However, there has still been no attempt to perform a broad assessment of the current state of CALL oriented teacher preparation within language teacher preparation programs. Role of Administrators and Technology Leaders It has been suggested that administrators also require preparation in order to make appropriate decisions regarding CALL. Among the factors that they need to be able to effectively consider are: software effectiveness, technology needs assessment, how the technology will be used, how the technology matches the infrastructure of the school, what technical support the technology will require and how the technology matches the needs of faculty and students (Shakeshaft, Mann, Becker & Sweeney, 2002). Murray (1998) identifies school library and media specialists as instructional technology leaders. She suggests that they encourage use of technology in instruction by
29 providing an environment that is welcoming and comfortable, providing individual attention to the needs of both the teacher and students and encouraging thoughtful involvement in the process of evaluation and instruction. Further investigation into issues of appropriateness will certainly contribute to a more informed implementation of CALL use. What Teachers Should Know About CALL There has been wide support for teachers to learn to use technology over the past twenty years. The development of basic computer skills, such as keyboarding, mouse skills and working with menus, has been incorporated into many teacher preparation technology courses within colleges of education (NCATE, 2004). Other skills identified as necessary for professional purposes include using software for record keeping, research, and maintaining electronic communication (Grau, 1996). Familiarity with a variety of approaches to electronic communication, such as email, discussion boards and file sharing, are identified as contributing to successful collaboration with colleagues and mentors for pre-service and novice teachers. The ability to effectively use the Internet is also considered essential, particularly the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) systems and course management systems (CMS) has also been recognized as important in today’s academic environment (Fotos & Browne, 2004; Thomas, Clift & Sugimoto, 1996). Attention is also given to the development of more sophisticated skills as well, such as video teleconferencing and development of web-based materials. Some have
30 acknowledged the proliferation of Weblogs, Chat and other forums as well the general move to distance or distance enhanced learning (Son, 2002). Hanson-Smith (1999) suggests that teachers need to have a solid understanding of current pedagogical principles and how they relate to CALL use. Through the use of constructivist principles, the author lays out a number of scenarios in which technology serves as a significant tool for language learning. This knowledge, she argues, must be coupled with the ability to create an environment that is conducive to learning through the establishments of authentic and engaging tasks. Barr and Gillespie (2003) expand upon this idea by suggesting that different environments are necessary for language learning in different contexts. This suggests that teachers have the responsibility to assess the needs of their particular environments and understand the technology options available to them well enough in order to determine what kind of structure will be most beneficial for their unique settings. Hanson-Smith (1999) presented an alternative perspectives of what CALL environments might provide. Identifying a variety of settings and arrangements that may cater to unique learning situations and needs served to motivate others to investigate this area. Others soon began to identify the important influence that environment plays in CALL implementation (Johnston, 1999; Sivert & Egbert, 1999). Ranging from the traditional classroom with one shared computer to the wireless mobile lab that can be used even in locations that lack electricity, issues of appropriateness began to dominate CALL discussions (Kessler, 2003).
31 It has also been noted that CALL professionals must make informed decisions regarding the factors that may influence the CALL environment (Hanson-Smith & Egbert, 1999). The authors suggest that many contexts do not provide for technology coordinators to make important and long-term decisions. Often, teachers who know little about the implications of CALL related decisions are forced into uncomfortable situations. In such a situation, a teacher who is ill-equipped to make such decisions will often not even know where to seek assistance (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002). Wang (2004) investigates the use of fourth generation video conferencing as a means of integrating oral and visual elements into distance practices within language teaching. The author further suggests that teachers and CALL specialists need to agree upon a new and shared taxonomy for all forms of CMC in order to overcome what is now an often confusing area of discussion. When utilizing such communication technologies, many have made identified a variety of distinct language teacher responsibilities. Among these is the recognition that a unique form of communication takes place within certain forms of CMC. Ypsilandis (2002) studied the feedback teachers provided to students through CMC. Since this type of communication is new to many teachers, it is likely that they will initially experience a need to negotiate the manner of communication. It may be important that teachers pay close attention to the terms that they use and the manner in which they participate in these discussions. Similarly, Freiermuth (2002) found that students utilizing synchronous CMC were likely to be more involved if they had actually met the interlocutors in a face-to-face
32 setting at some point in time. The author further noted that collaborative and goal oriented tasks were likely to engage students more than less guided individual tasks. By allowing students to have more control over their own language learning, students were likely to participate more and benefit more from these synchronous CMC sessions. Further complicating the use of CMC, some have suggested that individual student personalities and perceptions may affect the quality and success of CMC even though these factors might not manifest themselves in a traditional classroom (Kelly & Schorger, 2002). The authors compared the interaction and overall course performance of these students with those in a comparable face-to-face context and found that there was no distinguishable difference in overall performance. Studies on asynchronous communication in language learning have resulted in a variety of suggestions and concerns for further research. Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) discovered that students react in ways that may not be predictable when it comes to participation in online asynchronous forums. The students they observed were often reluctant to engage in such activities in a meaningful manner when required to do so, but that they were willing to participate when expectations were somewhat less formal and demanding. The authors suggest that both types of interaction are necessary for successful language learning. There are a number of tools that are unique to the language learning and linguistic community. One of these is the use of corpora. Corpora are collections of language samples provided in context. They are viewed in sets of multiple examples and used to investigate usage. This resource provides authenticity and context beyond similar tools
33 such as a dictionary, thesaurus, or encyclopedia. Corpus linguistics attempts to provide linguistic samples of a language through database referencing of extensive catalogs of authentic linguistic information. O’Keefe and Farr (2003) point out that until recently corpora were extremely limited due to the inconvenient nature of accessing and managing such extensive collections. However, the implementation of computer databases has made this area one of the most exciting within the field of linguistics. By using computer-based corpora as a tool in the preparation of language teachers, the authors contend that teachers’ language skills and awareness of subtleties of target language will be enhanced. The authors also suggest that this approach will better prepare teachers for conducting their own research. Examples of tasks that rely on corpora are included to demonstrate aspects of sociocultural conditioning that are likely to be overlooked by language teachers. Areas that are often overlooked in language teacher preparation, such as issues of register and word classification are also addressed. The authors suggest that language teachers need to make some practical considerations when using corpora for language teaching. While there are many important decisions surrounding the implementation of technology, decisions related to exactly what skills and/or software teachers are and/or should be learning in technology courses dominates much of the literature (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000). Many have pointed out the importance of conducting CALL preparation as part of language teacher preparation. Researchers have offered guidelines for those engaged in such preparation (Levy, 1996; Hubbard, 1996). While these guidelines share many characteristics, there are some distinctions worth noting. There is universal
34 agreement that teachers must be able to evaluate CALL materials. Chapelle (2001) identifies a method that may be used to evaluate CALL tasks, including aspects of theory and research, learner fit, meaning focus, authenticity, and practicality. Levy (1997) suggests that teaches need ongoing support to effectively implement, and appreciate, CALL. Chapelle and Hegelheimer (2004) recognize the need for teachers to be familiar with a variety of information regarding basic computer, hardware, software and lab operation in order to make informed decisions regarding CALL use. The authors also stress that teachers need to be aware of the variety of potential tasks and associated research. While many sets of extensive guidelines have been suggested, there appears to be a lack of preparation within language teacher preparation. Some acknowledge that a variety of limitations make it impossible to truly incorporate everything in the short amount of time allowed for CALL (Susser, in press; Hatasa, 1999). Some have suggested that the greatest restriction on technology-enhanced instruction is the lack of adequate teacher preparation for such use (Egbert & Thomas, 2001; Butler-Pascoe, 1995). Murray (1998) indicates that prior assessment will inform trainers of teacher technology courses of the specific needs of each unique group. However, ranges are likely to be vast and complicate preparation procedures. There is a sense of intimidation prevalent among users of technology who are not integrally motivated. Reports abound of teachers, including young teachers, who express discomfort at the mention of any activity requiring the use of computers (Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi, 2002; Lam, 2000). It may seem logical that as we become more comfortable with computers in our everyday lives, we will naturally experience a
35 successful crossover into our professional lives. However, this has proven to be untrue. This argument would support the long held fallacy that any native speaker can successfully teach grammar without explicitly studying grammar. Just like the teaching of grammar, the utilization of CALL requires an intimate and extensive knowledge of technology that is pedagogically focused and informed by the literature (O’Conner & Gatton, 2004). Among the most practical and common approaches to determining what aspects should dominate CALL teacher preparation, is an investigation into what dominates CALL use within the language classroom. Effective Practices in CALL Contexts Warschauer (1996) identified seven types of CALL activities. Perhaps the most obvious and most frequently addressed is writing. Much of formal ESL/EFL teaching has traditionally addressed writing as this is an area of language acquisition that is directly targeted in a variety of formal educational contexts outside of ESL as well. A number of writing related strategies, exercises and skills that incorporate CALL have been identified as common practice by CALL practitioners (Pennington, 2004). Basic use of a word processor is seen as the primary skill within this realm. Among these is the exchange of documents through email and Course Management Systems (CMS). Effectively utilizing online resources of various Online Writing Labs (OWL) is also important. Additional skills include using online forums and Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) systems as a means of exchanging formal written work. Using advanced features of word processing programs that allow users to insert comments in multiple layers that can be
36 maintained throughout the revision process has also been determined to be a crucial aspect of CALL related writing instruction (Pennington, 2003). Communicating is the second type of CALL activity. This includes any of the forms of CMC, such as synchronous and asynchronous communication, email, discussions over a local area network (LAN) and a Multiple user object oriented dimension (MOO). In addition to earlier discussion of CMC in this paper, these activities are often effective for establishing motivation to communicate in the target language for linguistically homogeneous contexts (Fotos & Browne, 2004). The use of multimedia is the third CALL activity. This can include courseware available to students online, through CD-ROM or DVD. Multimedia can incorporate video, audio, text, images, hyperlinks and any other supplementary material that may enhance the learning of any of the language skills (Warschauer, 1996). Use of the Internet for web searching and creating web pages is the fourth kind of activity. The ability to search for meaningful materials in the ever-increasing realm of cyberspace can be quite a challenge. Often it is necessary to explicitly teach students the ability to evaluate websites (Susser & Robb, 2004). Concordancing and referencing is the fifth use of CALL. Concordancing involves the use of corpora for investigating grammar and vocabulary meaning in context. Referencing refers to the use of an online dictionary, thesaurus, pronunciation guide or other source of information for usage and meaning (Fotos & Browne, 2004). Distance learning is another distinct CALL use. Increasingly, university and language courses are gravitating toward internet-only delivery as researchers have begun
37 to suggest that the outcomes are equivalent (McIntyre & Wolff, 1998). Additionally, it has been noted that university libraries are making a shift to distance delivery of their collections (Carlson, 2001). This shift will require new sets of skills from both teachers and students (Opp-Beckman & Keiffer, 2004). Teacher creation of Internet materials is the sixth aspect of CALL use. The ability for teachers to create materials that are impressive and effective has continued to improve in recent years. Teachers with no programming skill can incorporate multimedia and interactivity in any context they deem appropriate (O’Conner & Gatton, 2004). Consequently collections of local teacher resources have disappeared and teachers have become more reliant upon these new sets of resources. This shift has also been accompanied by the need for teachers to be able to effectively evaluate web-based resources (Chappelle & Hegelheimer, 2004; Susser & Robb, 2004). Pederson (1988) found that students respond more favorably to materials that they know have been authored by their instructors explicitly for their use. Finally, the seventh aspect of CALL involves communicative competence. A number of recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of CALL activities at increasing linguistic proficiency and communicative competence. These researchers have also demonstrated the significant role that CALL materials have played in increasing learner autonomy, motivation, satisfaction and self-confidence (Fotos & Browne, 2004). The Role of Technological Change With each generation of technological change, there are perhaps just as many casualties as there are innovations (Warschauer, 2004). It is important that teachers be
38 prepared not only for the challenges that face them today, but also that they be competent at making decisions about the technologies that they are a likely to encounter in the near future. By focusing on skills and strategies associated with decision-making and pedagogical considerations, teachers are better prepared than they might be if they were to only learn how to use certain kinds of contemporary software (Chappelle & Hegelheimer, 2004). Warschauer (2004) suggests that it is important for teachers to understand when a technology has outlived its usefulness. In order to do this it is crucial that teachers be able to understand the usefulness of certain technologies within a pedagogical framework as well as to identify alternatives. This ability to identify and understand any and all options requires that instructors learn a base of skills that can easily transfer to new contexts. They also require exposure to considering issues of administration and program management within a large framework in order to better understand the role that vision plays in CALL implementation (Chappelle & Hegelheimer, 2004). As media use throughout the world becomes increasingly digital, it is important for language teachers to learn to operate within this dynamic shift (Kessler, 2003). While the use of these materials is often much easier and more reliable than their traditional analog equivalent, teachers need to be prepared to use them in an effective manner. Teachers who do not use these kinds of materials in their personal lives are only likely to learn about them through explicit instruction (O’Conner & Gatton, 2004).
39 Preparing Teachers to Train Learners Hubbard (2004) recognizes the need for teachers to train learners for effective CALL use. His identification of five principles can help to guide the preparation of language teachers: •
Experience Call Yourself (As a student to understand the perspective)
•
Give Learners Teacher Preparation (In a simplified manner)
•
Use a Cyclic Approach (Allowing accretion of new ideas and reinforcement of previous points)
•
Use Collaborative Debriefings (At the beginning and/or end of a class)
•
Teach General Exploitation Strategies (Mine materials for variety of potential uses, adjust difficulty of materials) (p. 51-56)
Barretta (2001) supports this notion that students require training from teachers who are themselves informed about the use of CALL materials. While the author suggests that the amount of time necessary for such orientation is marginal, it should involve a needs assessment of the students’ technological knowledge and abilities as well as their language abilities and needs. Attention to Appropriateness in Materials Once teachers begin to implement CALL, it is important for them to consider the appropriateness of materials. This may be the most important decision made by those teaching with technology since materials are the final product of curriculum, methodology and other preparatory considerations. Schwartz (1995) recognized that CALL materials were distributed to students in a potentially haphazard manner.
40 Consequently, he suggests that the materials be based on the ease of their use and the soundness of their pedagogy. He also suggests that the incorporation of a particular feature within instructional materials (such as a grammar point) does not mean that students would master that feature. Clearly, not everything included in traditional textbooks has been wholly absorbed of understood by all students who use those books. He suggests that this reality may disappoint teachers and administrators. Recently, it has been noted that students’ participation in the materials development contributes to a set of materials that best meet their needs (Iwabuchi & Fotos, 2004). Kessler and Plakans (2001) identified the potential significance of the instructor as CALL materials developer. They also argued that it is crucial for students to play an active role in the development of CALL materials and decisions. By incorporating student feedback and observation information, the predictability and usability of instructional software is greatly enhanced. The involvement of these stakeholders also contributes to a higher quality product and better understanding of the intentions of the CALL process. Dlaska (2002) argues that subject specific materials best address needs of Language for Specific Purpose (LSP) students and that the technical aspects be combines with pedagogical concerns. Further, these LSP materials should provide for collaboration and involve learners in the development of materials. Multimedia technology is recognized as capable of accommodating these needs.
41 Summary It is clear that CALL use is becoming more prevalent within language programs, particularly as these programs gravitate toward the web as their primary medium, As these materials begin to dominate the time students spend in their learning process it becomes evident that teachers need to become more proficient in their understanding of CALL methodology, practices, history and possibilities. The creation of an online course is an activity that must be approached in a systematic and logical manner (Opp-Beckman & Kieffer, 2004). This is due in part to the fact that users must be able to navigate their way through materials and procedures independently. Users who are anything less than technophiles are likely to encounter some difficulty with virtually any system (Barreta, 2002). As Opp-Beckman and Kieffer (2004) suggest, distance courses require planning, participation and practice that reflects knowledge of a larger scope. A systematic CALL course of preparation would provide teachers with the resources to create such courses and, most importantly, deal with teaching through the difficult moments that are likely to arise The significance of a need for teachers to improve their technical computer skills has been recognized in recent years. As teacher preparation has attempted to address this need, researchers have found that approaches vary between teaching teachers to use technology, teaching teachers to use technology for instruction or using technology as a means of teaching teachers. Once an instructor has determined which of these approaches may be most appropriate for a given situation, it is important that the
42 approach also incorporate a set of skills or abilities deemed necessary for teachers using technology. Upon further inspection technology trainers may realize that alternative options best meet the needs and attitudes of some teachers in preparation. It may be necessary to utilize project-based learning within a school or department or establishment of collaborative team-work as a substitute for more formal classroom preparation. Further inquiry into the use of these alternative approaches may prove beneficial. Decisions influencing CALL use should be informed by an understanding of pedagogy and technology and how the two merge. By carefully evaluating a teaching situation and identifying how they correlate with potential technology solutions, technology leaders can ensure their use will be more appropriate. They may further improve their teaching by incorporating student feedback and suggestions into their lessons and materials. In addition to these considerations, technology teacher trainers and administrators need to be aware of the factors that may contribute to a successful or unsuccessful CALL environment. They must also work to make necessary resources available to those instructors utilizing technology for instruction. Further, teachers need to be willing to experiment with approaches to determine which may work best for the teachers they are preparing. Such decisions may be informed by further study of current and emerging instructional technology practices. In addition, it would important to identify those practices that are deemed to be most appropriate for the ESL Classroom, ESL environment, ESL students and the desired outcomes of their instruction. Research into
43 the perceived effectiveness of various CALL preparation methods and approaches is crucial to improving our understanding of how preparation may best be conducted. Such research will contribute to an establishment of best practices for all aspects of CALL implementation.
44 CHAPTER THREE Methods While CALL implementation and awareness have become recognized attributes for language teachers, little has been done to determine how these needs are addressed in teacher preparation programs. A review of the literature reveals that teachers who engage in pedagogically focused technology preparation are likely to feel more effective in their implementation of CALL as well as decision-making related to CALL. The extent and focus of CALL preparation within TESOL masters degree programs has not been studied, nor has the overall satisfaction with any such preparation. Questions to be addressed by this study are: 1. Are TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL rated differently from programs of study which do not include CALL? 2. How well do perception of informal CALL preparation and perception of formal CALL preparation predict attitude toward technology? The first question was answered by comparing responses to two distinct sample masters program vignettes: one including CALL preparation and one void of such preparation. Participants rated the hypothetical program on a ten point scale in a single item response. While a single question may not serve as an ideal measure, any additional content of value may have distracted from the simple act of rating such a program of study. Any additional questions regarding CALL at this point of the survey may have biased participants’ rating. Participants were randomly assigned to each of two groups. A Mann-Whitney test of medians was used to compare the ratings of the two groups.
45 Question 2 was determined through the use of multiple regression. Additional investigation is provided through descriptive statistics. These methods will be explored further in this chapter. This chapter will also review the variables and research approaches chosen to answer the research questions. The following components are provided: 1) the sample used for the study, 2) rationale for and identification of independent and dependent variables, 3) a statement of the statistical hypothesis, and 4) a description of the instrumentation. Population and Sample The population of this study consists of language teachers who have graduated from TESOL masters programs in North America. Such teachers often hold degrees from fields as disparate as Linguistics, Education, English, Communications and Modern Languages. However, as these program are all affiliated with the professional organization, TESOL, the preparation that they received has been determined to be quite similar (Zhang, 1990). Participants should all be familiar with the language teaching field in general, prepared to evaluate a hypothetical masters degree teacher preparation program and familiar with the CALL related demands and experiences that may accompany the authentic teaching environment. Participation was limited to graduates of North American TESOL masters programs. Participation beyond preparation that occurs within North America may have resulted in such variation as to invalidate the research findings due to the variety of expectations, contexts, and linguistic issues (Carrier, 2003). The size of the sample was 108 participants. This number was determined through the
46 use of the Precision Efficacy Analysis for Regression (PEAR) method (Brooks & Barcikowski, 1999). The actual number resulting from the use of this formula was 107. However, in an attempt to collect data from two equal groups for the hypothetical course of study rating related to the first research question, the responses of 108 individuals were gathered. The following formula represents the (PEAR) model that was utilized: N= (P+1) (2-2R2 +∝ ) ∝ Where P =2, R2 = .13 and ∝ = .05. These parameters indicated that a design with 2 independent variables and a medium effect size (.13) at ∝ = .05 significance level would require a sample size of 107 people. A medium effect size was chosen due to the lack of previous research in this area. Brooks (2003) software, MC2G: Monte Carlo Analyses for 1 or 2 Groups was used to determine that this sample size would also provide adequate robustness for the Mann-Whitney test under a near worse case scenario of near equal means, normal distribution and near equal standard deviations. Individuals were randomly selected through simple random selection from a database of members and presenters of TESOL who had received North American masters degrees. As this is the only international organization for the profession, it is a reliable place to find a broad sample of the population. Individuals were contacted through an email message that included a link to the survey (Appendix D).The survey was housed on a dedicated web server and responses were collected through this webbased interface. This interface utilized a random number generator within the page’s
47 script to randomly distribute the two versions of the hypothetical TESOL masters degree program description vignette among the participants (Appendix E). The remainder of the instrument was identical for both groups. The results were logged to a database directly through a web-based form encrypted with secure technology similar to that of online banking. The literature suggested that response rates are likely to be similar to those of a traditional survey with proper follow-up encouragement (Sax, Gilmartin & Bryant, 2003; Montez, 2003). Mertler (2003) concludes that a slightly higher response rate may result by providing an option between paper and web-based surveys. However, the aforementioned studies suggest that any such differences are likely to be minimal (Sax, Gilmartin & Bryant, 2003; Montez, 2003). Further, the required sequence of this instrument was best served through a web-based survey due to the added control over sequence of delivery. Responses to the hypothetical masters program vignette would be compromised if delivered together with the other sections of the survey. Expected response rates of webbased surveys range from seventeen to fifty percent (Sax, Gilmartin & Bryant, 2003; Mertler, 2003). Ease of use for web-based surveys is identified as the most significant influence on response rate (Montez, 2003). Acknowledging this, a second pilot study of 50 individuals was performed in part to determine ease of use and identify points of potential confusion with the final instrument. The pilot study yielded a twenty-five percent return rate with no follow up. After a single follow up email message, a forty percent return was achieved. Further, the literature supported appropriate follow up measures would result in a modest return of 40%. Thus, a total of 270 surveys were
48 distributed randomly. This distribution allowed for a total return of 108 completed surveys. Participants were required to include their email address on the consent form page in order to continue the survey. This documentation allowed for incremental follow up. Follow-up emails were distributed after one week and a second email was distributed at the end of two weeks. The researcher was prepared to send postcards at the end of the third week if necessary. Development of the Survey The survey was developed from the literature review as well as information garnered from the first pilot study and focus groups. Some initial results of this study are presented later in this chapter. The literature provided two isolated aspects that converged to form the current instrument, formal and informal CALL teaching preparation. A brief vignette describing the characteristics of a hypothetical TESOL masters program began the survey. There are two versions of this vignette. One group received a vignette of a TESOL master program including courses specific to CALL while the other received a vignette void of CALL in attempt to identify the perceived importance of CALL as a component of TESOL masters programs among the greater population. The segment of the survey related to the independent variables formal CALL teaching preparation and informal CALL teaching preparation were identical sets of questions with distinct headings. The formal CALL teaching preparation segment was introduced with the heading: My degree program prepared me to effectively…followed by the 25 questions that comprised the respective measure. The informal CALL teaching preparation segment of the survey is preceded by the heading, Outside of my degree program I have
49 effectively…followed by the 25 questions that comprise the related measure. These two twenty-five-question attitudinal scales measured the perception of satisfaction with respondents’ own CALL preparation that has taken place both formally and informally. An additional eleven-question survey addressing teacher attitude toward technology established the measure attitude toward technology. This measure served as the dependent variable. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship that exists among these three measures. Due to the lack of previous research in this specific area, the pilot survey also aided in the identification of topics of importance. In addition to this survey, two individual focus groups were conducted to identify themes, trends and concerns of those involved in conducting CALL teacher preparation. Both of these focus groups were conducted at the annual Teacher of English to Speakers of Other Languages convention in March 2003. One was organized as a formal discussion group that was recognized as a presentation within the convention program while the other was arranged as an informal gathering of individuals the researcher identified as exemplary practitioners of CALL. These individuals were identified based on their experience as leaders, developers, trainers, presenters and publishers within the field. In light of the lack of literature specifically focused on this area of teacher preparation in CALL, this approach served well to identify issues that the researcher would not have recognized on his own. Patton (2002) refers to this approach of identifying participants as “sampling the best.” This intentionally biased practice helped the researcher to identify a variety of topics
50 relevant to the field. Such a collection of topics would not be likely to appear in an unbiased selection of participants. The final instrument was modeled after an instrument that was developed and evaluated in a series of subsequent studies related to mathematics education teacher preparation. These studies were specifically intended to arrive at an instrument for evaluating attitude toward technology and satisfaction with preparation for instructional technology professional development in Mathematics education. The subsequent, “Teacher Attitude Survey” was the result (Race, 2001). In the current study, mathematics content was replaced with content arrived at through the literature regarding what aspects of CALL are deemed to be most effective in ESL teaching. In addition, questions were added that reflect the shifting technology trends in TESOL masters courses. Content Validity The content validity of the instrument that informed this instrument has been tested in at least two distinct studies. The internal reliability of the instrument was found to be very high at .89 (Race, 2001). This instrument is a modified form of an instrument used for attitude toward technology measures by many researchers for a number of years (Kinzie & Delcourt, 1993). This updated version was partially motivated by the intent to incorporate newer technologies, including the predominance of internetbased activity. The validity of the content represented within the questions is representative of the NCATE accreditation standards (Moore, Hopkins & Tullis, 1993). The program description vignette that served as the opening item in the survey was synthesized from actual program descriptions of TESOL masters degree teacher
51 preparation programs at six North American universities (Appendix G). The CALL related descriptors were the only aspects of the description that were modified. These modifications were borrowed from teacher preparation and classroom practice recommendations across the literature (Appendix F). The instrument that was used to build the attitudinal measures was based upon a measure for evaluating attitude toward technology and satisfaction with preparation for instructional technology professional development in Mathematics education (Race, 2001). Mathematics content was replaced with content arrived at through the literature regarding aspects of CALL deemed to be most effective and necessary in ESL teaching. In addition, questions were rephrased to reflect shifting technology trends. This instrument has proven to have an internal reliability of .81 in three previous studies (Race, 2001). First Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted between December 2003 and February 2004. This survey of 240 participants helped to inform and guide the survey instrument. Participants in the pilot study were specifically targeted as CALL practitioners and experts in the area of CALL by distributing the survey through listservs that support such individuals. This intentional targeting was an attempt to identify those areas that are identified as most significant within teacher preparation from the community of those most closely associated with CALL in practice. As a result of the pilot study, questions were reworded and some “yes/no” questions were converted to 5-point Likert measures. Also, the clarification of independent variables was arrived at as a result of the pilot. The pilot
52 provided a significant amount of helpful descriptive statistics, including a number of indications that the null hypothesis might not only be rejected, but that there is a large effect size. Eighty-five percent of the participants either disagreed or strongly disagreed that their TESOL masters degree programs taught them to effectively teach with technology. Ninety-three percent claimed that they had a general lack of CALL preparation. Ninety-two percent had taken courses outside of their degree programs to gain more knowledge in the area of instructional technology. Eighty-six percent state that they would have benefited from more preparation in CALL. While these questions were direct and isolated, the final instrument will benefit from the conversion to measurements based on 25 questions each. Methodology of the First Pilot The population of this study consisted of language teachers who have graduated from TESOL masters programs in North America. Since all of the participants have graduated from TESOL masters degree programs and taught language, they should all be familiar with the language teaching field in general, prepared to evaluate a hypothetical masters degree teacher preparation program and specifically familiar with the CALL related demands and experiences that may accompany the authentic teaching environment. The sample consisted of 240 participants. Surveys were distributed through the NetTeach, TESL_CALL, CALICO and LLTI lists and collected through a web-based interface. Each of these lists function as an informal means of communication among language teachers who are interested in CALL. While this approach may have compromised the control aspects of a true experiment, it has been chosen to address a
53 large group of specific CALL practitioners. Due to the nature of this pilot, response rates were not known. Consequently, a second pilot (utilizing the revised, current instrument) was conducted for the specific purpose of identifying likely response rates. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents claimed to be either somewhat confident (45 percent) or extremely confident (53 percent) about using CALL for language teaching. The study was conducted between December 2003 and February 2004 and included responses from a total of 240 individuals. In addition to this survey, two individual focus groups were conducted to identify themes, trends and concerns of those involved in conducting CALL teacher preparation. Both of these focus groups were conducted at the annual TESOL convention in Long Beach, California, March 2004. One was organized as a formal discussion group that was recognized as a presentation within the convention program while the other was arranged as an informal gathering of individuals the researcher identified as exemplary practitioners of CALL based on publication or participation in a CALL related area. Further, individual interviews were conducted with TESOL masters degree program professors and coordinators. These interviews were conducted to identify potential causes of the deficiency in CALL preparation. The results of these qualitative inquiries have assisted in the refinement of the final survey instrument for the proposed study. Results of First Pilot The results of the fist pilot revealed a general dissatisfaction with, and lack of, CALL preparation. There is also evidence that as many as 85 percent of CALL practitioners have relied upon alternative sources of information for their CALL
54 preparation (such as workshops, in-services and self-guided study) as has been noted by others (Robb, 2004). Finally it appears that as many as 80 percent have even engaged in formal preparation outside of their language teacher preparation programs in order to compensate for this deficit. Some respondents suggested that since they had graduated (as one stated), “Before CALL became in vogue,” they expected that some of the questions weren’t appropriate. These individuals began using technology for instruction between ten and twenty years ago. CALL preparation was already, albeit on a limited scale, a matter of discussion and teacher preparation as early as the 1970’s (Delcloque, 2000). Since the literature suggests that CALL preparation began to be a fully recognized and significant component of teacher preparation in the early 1990’s, respondents were organized into two groups: Group 1 consists of those who have been teaching for 10 years or fewer; Group 2 consists of those who have been teaching for more than ten years. The means of the two groups were compared in responding to the summative prompt: My Degree program effectively taught me to teach using technology. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in regard to their perceptions of the overall effectiveness of their degree programs. Comparing the means, none resulted in a statistically significant difference between the groups. Descriptive statistics are presented for all respondents (N=240), those who have been teaching for more than ten years (N=80), and those who have been teaching for fewer than ten years (N=160).
55 Table 1 reveals that 77 percent of respondents do not feel that their degree programs taught them to effectively teach with technology while 23 percent feel that such preparation was either somewhat or extremely effective.
Table 1 Degree Program Effectiveness My Degree Program Taught Me To Effectively Teach With Technology: All respondents
Respondents who have
Respondents who have
(N=240)
taught for 10 or fewer
taught for 11 years
years (N=160)
or more (N=80)
Extremely Effective
8%
8.8%
7.5%
Somewhat Effective 15%
17.5%
10%
Somewhat Ineffective 25%
23.8%
27.5%
Extremely Ineffective 51%
50%
55%
Table 2 indicates that 18 percent of respondents felt that the technology for teaching courses were always relevant to future teaching experience. The largest group, 43 percent, felt that these courses were sometimes relevant and 38 percent of all respondents felt that these courses that they took were never relevant.
56 Table 2 Relevance of Formal CALL Program Coursework The Technology for Teaching Courses that I Took Were Relevant To My Future All respondents
Respondents who have
Respondents who have
(N=240)
taught for 10 or fewer
taught for 11 years
years (N=160)
or more (N=80)
Always
18.3%
17.5%
20%
Sometimes
43.3%
42.5%
45%
Never
38.3%
40%
35%
Table 3 indicates that respondents felt that the amount of time devoted to learning about CALL is deficient. Just less than 85 percent of all respondents agreed that the amount of time was either insufficient or extremely insufficient.
57 Table 3 Time Devoted to Learning to Teach with Technology The Amount of Time Devoted to Learning to Teach with Technology in Degree Program All respondents
Respondents who have
Respondents who
(N=240)
taught for 10 or fewer years (N=160)
have taught for 11 years or more (N=80)
Extremely Excessive
1.7%
1.3%
2.5%
Excessive
0.8%
1.3%
0%
Perfect
13.3%
15%
10%
Insufficient
42.5%
42.5%
42.5%
Extremely Insufficient
41.7%
40%
45%
Table 4 presents the coursework of the respondents. While there is slight variation among the groups, it was not statistically significant. However, it is interesting to see a reflection of the general lack of coursework. The most disconcerting results are reflected in the required CALL coursework. Eighty percent of those who have taught for longer than ten years were not required to take a course regarding teaching with technology while 78.8 percent of those who have taught for 10 or fewer years had not had such a required course. With 60.8 percent having never taken a course that involved any CALL preparation, it is no wonder that there is such reliance upon alternative forms of preparation.
58 Table 4 Technology Related Coursework in Degree Program
Number
How many courses
How many courses
How many courses
did you take in your
did you take in your
focused on using
degree program that
degree program that
technology for teaching
focused on
involved any training
were required in
technology?
for teaching
your program?
of courses 0
1-2
3-4
5-6
7 or more
with technology? 56.7% N=240
60.8% N=240
79.2% N=240
62.5% N=80
55% N=80
80% N=80
53.8% N=160
63.7% N=160
78.8% N=160
27.5% N=240
25.8% N=240
14.2% N=240
17.5% N=80
27.5% N=80
12.5% N=80
32.5% N=160
25% N=160
15% N=160
5% N=240
5% N=240
1.7% N=240
7.5% N=80
7.5% N=80
2.5% N=80
3.8% N=160
3.8% N=160
1.3% N=160
5.8% N=240
2.5% N=240
3.3% N=240
10% N=80
5% N=80
2.5% N=80
3.8% N=160
1.3% N=160
3.8% N=160
5% N=240
4.2% N=240
1.7% N=240
2.5% N=80
5% N=80
2.5% N=80
6.3% N=160
3.8% N=160
1.3% N=160
59 The results presented in Table 5 suggest that those who claim that they would have benefited from more instruction have taken action to compensate for the inadequacy of their degree program preparation. Beyond the informal practices that are assumed to fill this gap, conventional technology courses also appear to serve as a means of further instruction in this area. Contrary to the assumptions that there is obviously more effective and extensive CALL preparation than in the past, these results indicate that it may only be expectations that have increased.
Table 5 General Perception of Formal CALL Preparation Would you have benefited
Have you taken courses outside
from more instruction regarding
of your degree program to learn
teaching with technology?
more about teaching with technology?
(All)
87.5% Yes
91.7% Yes
N=240
12.5% No
8.3% No
(10 years)
90% Yes
90% Yes
N=80
10% No
10% No
60 The results in Table 6 further support the assumption that CALL is valued as a component with language teaching programs. This assumption does not appear to be supported by the majority of teacher preparation programs. Consequently, the proposed study is intended to determine the perceived importance of this type of preparation with such programs.
Table 6 Perception of CALL in the Workplace Is the Use of Technology
Does your school offer
Does your school offer
Encouraged at Your School? incentives for teachers
incentives for teachers
who use technology
who develop technology
for teaching?
for teaching?
Always
48.3%
51.7%
41.75%
Sometimes
47.5%
43.3%
50.8%
4.2%
5%
7.5%
Never
Data Collection Procedures Research was completed according to a prepared timeline. Two hundred and seventy participants who were randomly selected from a TESOL organization membership database, which reflected membership or conference attendance at any point in time during the past five years, were contacted via email in March 2005. The randomly
61 selected teachers received an email message with a link to the web-based survey. The consent form page of the survey includes a random number generator that randomly assigned participants to one of the program vignettes. Appendix A and B provides copies of the cover letter and survey respectively. The surveys contained a consent form that explained the confidentiality and method for scoring the survey. No identification information was associated with the individual surveys. Email address were collected to allow for follow up as well as to provide an executive summary to those who expressed interest in receiving such documentation. Participants were provided with information on how to obtain survey results. The surveys were disseminated in late March, 2005 and remained available until the first week of April. Survey results were analyzed in late April. Research Design The web-based survey instrument operated upon a random number generator. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the two hypothetical masters program course of study vignettes: one which included CALL coursework and which did not. The TESOL masters courses programs of study were rated on a scale of 1 (weak) to 10 (strong). A Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the means of these two ratings. The maximum value possible for “perceived importance of CALL” was 10. This maximum score represents a ten point Likert scale rating of the vignette representing a TESOL masters degree teacher preparation program. Thus, the minimum possible value for “perceived importance of CALL” was 1.
62 The additional survey data was analyzed through the use of multiple regression in order to answer the second research question: Are TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL rated differently from programs of study which do not include CALL?. This method was selected as the most appropriate approach to determine the extent to which the independent variables might most significantly predict the dependent variable. Correlations were also examined between the variables. This approach allowed the researcher to identify the strength of relationships among the variables. The dependent variable in this study is ATT representing attitude toward technology. The independent variables were FTP representing perception of formal CALL teaching preparation as a component of a language teacher preparation program and ITP representing perception of informal CALL teaching preparation. These variables were selected after careful consideration in response to the literature, the pilot studies and years of personal experience as being most significant in predicting a teachers’ perception of the importance of CALL. The statistical hypothesis for research question 1 is stated as: H0: M1=M2 HA: M1≠ M2 whereas M1 represents the median score of the rating of the TESOL masters degree program of study vignette with no CALL component M2 represents the median score of the rating of the TESOL masters degree program of study vignette with a CALL component
63 The research hypotheses include: H0: There is no difference in rating between TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL and those which do not include CALL. HA: There is a difference in rating between TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL and those which do not include CALL. The statistical hypotheses for question 2 is stated as: H0: R=ø HA: R≠ø whereas ATT represents attitude toward technology FTP represents perception of formal CALL teaching preparation ITP represents perception of informal CALL teaching preparation The research hypotheses include: H0: The independent variables, perception of informal CALL teaching preparation and perception of formal CALL teaching preparation are not significant predictors of the dependent variable, attitude toward technology HA: The independent variables, perception of informal CALL teaching preparation and perception of formal CALL teaching preparation are significant predictors of the dependent variable, attitude toward technology
64 Relationships were examined between the dependent variables and the independent variables as well as among the independent variables themselves. The significance of these relationships and the impact they may have upon TESOL masters degree preparation will be discussed in Chapter Four.
65 CHAPTER FOUR Analysis of Data This chapter presents an analysis of data collected from 108 randomly selected TESOL professionals identified within the research design. Subjects in this study had been members or presenters of TESOL at some point in the previous 5 years. Data collected include: 1) demographic data, 2) selected rating of one of the two hypothetical TESOL masters programs of study, 3) perception of formal CALL teaching preparation, 4) Perception of informal CALL teaching preparation, and 5) attitude toward technology. Data were collected through a web-base survey over a period of three weeks. This collection involved an initial contact and a single follow-up contact, both of which were made through email. A total of 270 individuals were contacted in order to accomplish the return rate of 40% that resulted in the desired 108 responses. This chapter used the data collected to answer the questions posed in the research design (See p. 62). The statistical software used in the analysis of this data was SPSS version 11.0 for MacIntosh and 12.0 for Windows by SPSS Inc. Power for the MannWhitney test was determined through use of the MC2G: Monte Carlo Analyses for 1 or 2 Groups software by Brooks (2003). The hypothetical TESOL masters program vignettes, including and not including CALL, were rated on a scale of 1 to 10. A comparison was made of the medians of these ratings in order to determine if there was a significant difference. A Mann-Whitney test of medians was conducted to measure this difference.
66 A multiple regression equation was conducted to determine the predictive power of the independent variables, informal CALL preparation and formal CALL preparation upon the measure attitude toward technology. The series of 25 questions that made up the variables informal CALL preparation and formal CALL preparation reflected a variety of skills and abilities associated with the use of CALL. Cross validation through data splitting confirmed that this regression model maintained stability across samples. Further, Cronbach’s alpha was also conducted in order to identify the reliability of the measures. For the measure, attitude toward technology, α = .878, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation α = .982, and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation α = .953. These scores suggest that these measures contribute consistency to the overall test. Due to these large effect sizes, a principle component analysis was conducted to further explore the nature of the independent variables. While the variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation seems to load 90% of its variance on a single component, the variable Informal CALL Teaching Preparation is more spread out with only 40% of the variance determined by the primary component.
67 Table 7 Standardized Residual Scatterplot Outliers Case
FTP
ITP
ATT
Explanation
50
2.24
3.92
3.45
Most scores tend to be extreme within same measure
86
2.20
3.08
3.73
All scores are 3 for all items in all measures
103
1.72
2.88
3.45
Scores between FTP and ITP do not vary as much as norm
77
1.32
3.32
3.55
ATT score is lower than norm. All FTP scores are 2
43
1.12
4.04
4.73
Nearly all FTP scores are 2. Most ITP scores are 4
71
1.36
3.52
4.00
ALL FTP scores are 1 except two instances of 2.
76
3.36
3.36
4.55
All FTP scores are 1. ATT is predominantly 5
99
3.00
3.00
4.64
ALL FTP and ITP scores are 3. Most ATT scores are 5
104
4.20
3.96
5.00
FTP scores are higher than ITP. Scores vary.
19
1.12
3.96
3.27
FTP scores are predominantly 1. ITP is varied. ATT is 5.0
30
4.12
4.44
3.55
FTP and ITP are similar. Scores vary.
Characteristics of the outlying data cases in the scatterplot (see Appendix H). A number of outlying cases were identified in the regression equation. These were typically cases which reflected static responses to all items in one or more of the measures. However, attempts to eliminate the greatest among them resulted in no improvement to the power of the equation. All variables were entered simultaneously through means of forced entry with no stepwise, forward or backward procedures. When conducting a multiple regression, it is
68 possible to enter the independent variables in a variety of sequences. As this study is an exploratory study, the literature review determined that the most appropriate method would be to enter all variables at once in a forced entry manner. However, it is worth noting that variables can be entered in other sequences in order to partial out the variance shared with the dependent variable among the independent variables. Forward, Stepwise and Backward selection are all common variations of sequencing the entrance of variables into the equation. Mann-Whitney Analysis As Table 8 indicates, a Mann Whitney analysis revealed significant differences between ratings of hypothetical TESOL masters programs with and without a CALL component. This test was conducted to answer question 1. As proposed, the sum of the average ratings associated with the hypothetical TESOL masters program including a CALL component were significantly higher (M rating = 65.36, n = 54) than the sum of the average ratings associated with the hypothetical TESOL masters program not including a CALL component (M rating = 43.64, n = 54) z(108) = -3.714, p < .001.
Table 8 Results of Mann Whitney Test Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
871.500 2356.500 -3.714 .000
69 Table 9 Boxplots for Mann Whitney Test 12
10
30 60
8
6 27 15 17 85
69
51
57
Ranking
4
2 18
0 N =
54
54
Wi thout CALL
Wi th C ALL
GROUP
Multiple Regression Analysis Following the Mann-Whitney test, a multiple regression was conducted to answer question 2. This test was intended to determine if the independent variables, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation were significant predictors of the dependent variable, Attitude Toward Technology. The independent variable, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation, is a measure of graduates’ perceived value
70 of their formal masters program preparation in regards to CALL. This measure was compiled from the aforementioned set of twenty-five questions reflecting the expectations of CALL preparation within the literature. These questions involved a variety of teaching techniques, materials and evaluative abilities. They also reflect the recognition that teachers need to be able to effectively use computer-based materials, as well as create them. Each of the questions included a five point Likert scale including 1) Strongly Disagree, 2) Disagree, 3) Neutral, 4) Agree, and 5) Strongly Agree. This same set of 25 questions was used to determine the measure, perception of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation.
Table 10 Mean and Standard Deviation for Independent Variables (FTP and ITP) and dependent variable, (ATT) Mean
Standard Deviation
Attitude Toward Technology
4.0606
.35885
Formal CALL Teaching Preparation
2.2274
.89037
Perception of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation
3.7919
.43489
The data were examined to determine if assumptions of linearity, normality and homoscedasticity of the residuals and errors were met and if they met the criteria for
71 multiple regression analysis. Independence of observation was met when the survey invitations were distributed randomly with a link to the online survey. The assumption of normality was noticeably violated. Through investigation of the individual variables, it became obvious that the violation of normality was due solely to the variable, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation. This variable had a non-normal distribution. This was initially identified through a histogram and confirmed through the operation of a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with a score of .115 (108) α = .001. Consequently, the researcher considered a variety of reactions. The regression could be executed as planned, transform the offending variable, or remove it from the equation. A number of sources suggest that non-normality with n > 50 would not likely influence a multiple regression equation in a substantial manner unless the skewness or kurtosis were extreme (Triggs & Moss, 2002; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). These values were all below 1.0 and thus merited no alterations. In cases where skewness or kurtosis are extreme, non-normality may be addressed by adjusting the alpha level to .025 or .01 (Triggs & Moss, 2002). Further, it is suggested that such a violation is less serious when not accompanied by another violation, particularly non-linearity. Therefore, no consequential departures of normality were identified. Although the variable contributed so little to the predictability of the dependent variable both directly and indirectly and thus could have been removed from the equation, the exploratory nature of the study contributed to this conclusion. In order to further attempt to explain and identify characteristics of the variables, the 25 individual items of both independent variables are explored later in this chapter. In addition, a paired
72 samples t-test comparing the two independent variables will be explored. With the exception of homoscedasticity due to the variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation, the assumptions of linearity, normality and homoscedasticity were met as indicated in the tables included in APPENDIX H. Upon first glance of the results it is obvious that the variable FTP has a very low correlation to both the dependent variable, ATT (-.006) and the independent variable, ITP (.029)
Table 11 Correlations Among Independent Variables (FTP and ITP) and Dependent Variable (ATT) Attitude Toward Technology Attitude Toward Technology
1.00
Formal CALL Teaching Preparation
-.006
Informal CALL Teaching Preparation
.601
Formal CALL Teaching Preparation
.029
The minimal influence of the variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation upon the other variables would make alternative entry approaches inconsequential.
73 A .05 Alpha level was established for the evaluation. The probability value, p, represents the significance of the independent variables to predict the variation in the dependent variable, Attitude Toward Technology. Both independent variables were used in the regression equation. Only the variable, Informal CALL Teaching Preparation was significant at p < 0.001. In order to obtain the ideal of a high R value in multiple regression it is important that the independent variables be highly correlated with the dependent variable while having a low correlation among themselves (Stevens, 2002). Consequently, it is necessary that we examine the potential effects of multicollinearity. Observing the correlations among the independent variable is the first step in identifying any problems with multicollinearity. It appears that there is no problem with multicollinearity based on this observation. However, to confirm this we refer to the variation inflation factor (VIF) statistics in the regression output. According to Stevens (2002) any VIF score above 15 may suggest there is a problem with multicollinearity. As the VIF scores in this output are all near 1.0 there appears to be no problem with the current set of data. It is important to identify and investigate outlier statistics since they may often reflect data input errors as well as problems inherent in the data. According to the Mahalanobis D2 method for evaluating outlier cases, there are no problems with this set of data regarding outliers (Stevens, 2002). This measurement represents the distance of these data points from the centroid of all cases for the predictor variables. Thus, points in this set do not lie far enough from the centroid to raise concerns. Stevens also suggests
74 that any Cook’s Distance measurements greater than 1 deserves closer attention regarding influential data points. None of the cases in this data appear to require this additional attention. The R2 value was.362. This reveals that 36% of the variance of Attitude Toward Technology is explained by the combination of the independent variables. The adjusted R2 (or correlation coefficient) is .349. The multiple linear regression calculated to answer question 2 revealed that there is a correlation between the independent variables, Informal CALL Teaching Preparation and Attitude Toward Technology (See Table 14, p. 70). Further Analysis The outliers in the Mann-Whitney analysis were examined to identify patterns or unique contributing characteristics.
75 Table 12 Mann-Whitney Outliers Case
Vignette Rating Age (C=CALL, NC=No CALL)
Year of Graduation
FTP
ITP
ATT
18
1 (NC)
30
2002
1.40
4.04
4.27
51
3 (NC)
39
1992
3.00
4.08
3.64
37
5 (NC)
NA
2000
1.32
3.32
3.55
3
5 (NC)
52
1978
1.12
4.96
5.00
60
10 (NC)
53
1980
4.12
4.44
3.55
2
10 (NC)
32
1999
1.00
5.00
4.91
69
5 (C)
38
2002
4.24
4.36
4.91
57
3 (C)
30
2002
1.40
4.04
4.27
Table 15 identifies the individual scores represented as outliers on the MannWhitney boxplots (Table 8, p. 61). With the exception of case 60 the others have scores on the variables that are representative of the overall means. Case 60 represents an exceptionally high score on Formal CALL Teaching Preparation. The weak influence of the variable, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation upon the equation influenced the researcher to investigate the difference between the two independent variables. The researcher conducted a paired samples t-test comparing the means of Formal CALL Teaching Preparation and Informal CALL Teaching
76 Preparation. This test was conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between the means of these two independent variables. While we can easily observe a noticeable difference, the t-test will better quantify this observation. The results of this test, (t (107) = -14.322, p < .001) confirm that there is a significant difference between the two independent measures, FTP (2.22) and ITP (3.79). In the interest of exploring any potentially unobvious relationships between the independent and dependent variables, the researcher attempted to recode the nonnormally distributed variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation in a number of different ways. Each of these was chosen for its contributive power or conceptual contribution to the regression equation. First attempts were made to identify characteristics within the individual items that might allow it to be subdivided into alternate measures that may better reflect the variety of responses in a coherent manner. By organizing the variables into subsets that reflected creation of CALL, use of CALL and decision making the single set decision making stood out as a normally distributed variable. However, there was no noticeable improvement in the others or the resulting regression equation. Next, attempts were made to eliminate outlying contributions, but as the overall variance of the data set is so high this had little effect upon the normality of the variable or the regression equation. The Likert scale was reconfigured within the items representing the measure in order to reflect the tri-modal nature of the data, thus resulting a three point Likert scale. 4 and 5 were truncated into 3 in order to see if this could accomplish a closer resemblance
77 to normality and thus a greater contribution to the regression equation. This approach did not result in a normally distributed variable nor did it effect on the outcome of the regression equation. The results of this collapse into a three point Likert scale were then recoded into new categorical variables representing the three modes within the Likert scale. This recoding allowed further investigation into the characteristics of the measure, but none of this investigation provided opportunities for meaningful improvement in the variable’s inclusion in the regression model. Additional attempts were made to identify and eliminate those cases with constant scores of 3 representing neutral across the measure. The elimination of the eleven such cases resulted in no improvement to the normality of the variable or the resulting regression equation. Ultimately, no analysis of the values, individual items or demographic data related to the variable provided an opportunity to alter the variable in a manner allowing it to claim any portion of the variance in the dependent variable, Attitude Toward Technology. Demographic questions comprised the first portion of the survey. Data were collected concerning Sex, Age, Year of Graduation, and Location of Graduate Study. Eighty-four of the 108 participants were female while only 24 were male. According to the literature, this is an accurate reflection of the field of TESOL. Due to the large effect size, the difference between Formal CALL Teaching Preparation and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation was investigated regarding these demographic variables. There
78 appears to be no correlation between this difference and age, gender or decade of graduation. Data were also analyzed to determine if female responses differed from the responses of their male counterparts. In addition, the measures, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation, Informal CALL Teaching Preparation, and Attitude Toward Technology were examined in regard to demographic information regarding age and year of graduation.
79 Table 13
Graduation Date and Perception of Formal CALL Preparation 4.5 4.0 3.5
Formal Teaching Prepartion
3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 .5 1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year of Graduation
This scatterplot indicates that perception of formal CALL preparation has not increased steadily as time has passed.
80 Table 14
Decades of Graduation and Formal CALL Teaching Preparation
When observed in terms of decades of graduation, we can see that there is a difference between the two earliest decades and the two most recent. However, it is interesting to note the very slight difference between the decades, 1986-1995 and 19962005.
81 Table 15
Decade of Graduation and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation
Perception o f Informal Teach ing Preparation
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 55 50
2.0 N=
9
20
26
53
1965-19 75
197 6-19 85
198 6-19 95
199 6-20 05
Decade of graduation
This boxplot illustrates the difference of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation scores among different decades of TESOL masters degree completion.
82 Table 16
Year of Graduation and Attitude Toward Technology 5.5
5.0
Attitude Toward Technology
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
46
2.0 N=
9
20
26
53
1965-19 75
197 6-19 85
198 6-19 95
199 6-20 05
Decade of graduation This boxplot illustrates the difference of Attitude Toward Technology scores among different decades of TESOL masters degree completion.
83 Table 17
Age and Formal CALL Teaching Preparation
This boxplot illustrates the difference of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation scores among different age groups.
84 Table 18
Age and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation
This boxplot illustrates the difference of Formal CALL Teaching Preparation scores among different age groups.
85 Table 19
Age and Attitude Toward Technology
This boxplot illustrates the difference of Attitude Toward Technology scores among different age groups. It is interesting to note that there is a slight increase in this measure as age increases.
86 Table 20
Sex and Perception of Formal CALL Teacher Preparation
This boxplot indicates that there is little difference between males and females in regard to their perception of formal CALL teacher preparation. However, It is interesting that males have a slightly higher median score than females.
87 Table 21
Sex and Perception of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation
Table 21 shows that females had an overall broader range of response, but a narrower interquartile range. The median response of females is slightly higher than that of males.
88 Table 22
Sex and Attitude Toward Technology
Table 22 shows very little difference between males and females regarding attitude toward technology.
89 Table 23 Individual Items with Means from Measure Formal CALL Teaching Preparation Use computers for language instruction
2.29
Use computer-mediated communication for instruction
2.20
Use the Internet for instruction
2.21
Evaluate computer-based instructional materials
2.23
Use computer-based materials for teaching speaking skills
1.92
Use computer-based audio materials for instruction
2.15
Use computer-based materials for teaching listening skills
2.08
Use computer-based video materials for instruction
2.08
Use computer-based materials for teaching writing skills
2.38
Use computer-based images for instruction
2.23
Use computer-based materials for teaching reading skills
2.23
Use multimedia for instruction
2.78
Use computer-based materials for teaching grammar skills
2.23
Create computer-based audio materials for instruction
1.98
Create computer-based instructional materials
2.19
Create computer-based video materials for instruction
2.04
Use computer-based solutions for evaluating students
2.06
Create computer-based images for instruction
2.07
Select appropriate web-based materials for instruction
2.26
Make effective decisions regarding the use of technology for instruction
2.64
90 Table 23 Cont… Train students to use computer-based instructional materials
2.22
Make decisions regarding the selection of software for instruction
2.35
Use course management systems (such as Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, etc.)
2.02
Make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes
2.67
Make decisions regarding the design of technology learning spaces (such as computer labs)
2.08
A series of twenty-five questions reflecting skills and abilities from the literature related to CALL teacher preparation comprised the measure, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation. These questions involved a variety of teaching techniques, materials and evaluative abilities. They also reflect the recognition that teachers need to be able to effectively use computer-based materials, as well as create them. Each of the questions included a five point Likert scale including 1) Strongly Disagree, 2) Disagree, 3) Neutral, 4) Agree, and 5) Strongly Agree. The overall mean of these scores as a combined measure was 2.2, indicating that participants generally disagree that their formal CALL teaching preparation prepared them to effectively perform the twenty-five related activities. Within this measure, individual items were analyzed to identify areas that tended to be weaker or stronger than this mean score. The mean of each question within this measure is below 3.0. In fact, two of the questions have a mean below the 2.0 that represents Disagree on the Likert scale, My degree program prepared me to effectively use computer-based materials for teaching
91 speaking skills (1.92) and My degree program prepared me to effectively create computer-based audio materials for instruction (1.98). Among the extreme items in the positive direction were My degree program prepared me to effectively use multimedia for instruction (2.78), My degree program prepared me to effectively make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes (2.67), and My degree program prepared me to effectively make effective decisions regarding the use of technology for instruction (M = 2.64).
Table 24 Individual Items with Means from Measure Informal CALL Teaching Preparation Use computers for language instruction
4.06
Use computer-mediated communication for instruction
3.92
Use the Internet for instruction
4.23
Evaluate computer-based instructional materials
3.92
Use computer-based materials for teaching speaking skills
3.45
Use computer-based audio materials for instruction
3.57
Use computer-based materials for teaching listening skills
3.55
Use computer-based video materials for instruction
3.57
Use computer-based materials for teaching writing skills
4.01
Use computer-based images for instruction
3.91
Use computer-based materials for teaching reading skills
3.92
Use multimedia for instruction
4.02
92 Table 24 Cont… Use computer-based materials for teaching grammar skills
3.77
Create computer-based audio materials for instruction
3.26
Create computer-based instructional materials
3.93
Create computer-based video materials for instruction
3.15
Use computer-based solutions for evaluating students
3.42
Create computer-based images for instruction
3.46
Select appropriate web-based materials for instruction
4.15
Make effective decisions regarding the use of technology for instruction
4.12
Train students to use computer-based instructional materials
3.87
Make decisions regarding the selection of software for instruction
3.94
Use course management systems (such as Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, etc.)
3.92
Make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes
4.19
Make decisions regarding the design of technology learning spaces (such as computer labs)
3.52
The mean for this combined measure is just below the 4.0 Likert score representing, Agree. In fact, 7 of the individual questions in this measure had a mean above 4.0. The highest three among these included, Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes (4.19), Outside of my degree program I have learned to select appropriate webbased materials for instruction (4.15), and Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively make decisions regarding the use of technology for instruction (4.12).
93 Five individual items in this measure had a mean score below 3.5 (representing the mid-point between Neutral and Agree on the LIkert Scale). These included, Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively use computer-based materials for teaching speaking skills (3.45), Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively create computer-based audio materials for instruction (3.26), Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively create computer-based video materials for instruction (3.15), Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively use computer-based solutions for evaluating students (3.42), and Outside of my degree program I have learned to effectively create computer-based images for instruction (3.46). While these items all had a mean score above the 3.0 Neutral point on the Likert scale, they may indicate a need for more attention to these areas.
94 Table 28 Individual Items in Measure Attitude Toward Technology Technology makes my professional work more difficult.
3.73
Using computers for learning takes students away from important instructional time.
3.73
Computers should be as important and available to students as pencils and books.
3.98
I am confident using technology as a learning resource.
4.06
I feel out of place when confronted with technology
4.06
I do not believe the quality of English education is improved by the use of technology.
4.11
I am concerned that technology might interfere with student interactions.
4.11
There is not enough time to incorporate technology into the subjects I teach.
4.14
I really enjoy using computers and the Internet instructionally.
4.20
Students should be able to use computers to help them solve problems in English.
4.23
Students can use computers and technology to help make informed decisions.
4.31
95
The measure, Attitude Toward Technology, was also examined in terms of individual items. Among the three measures, it had the highest mean (4.06). Low scores represented only the negatively phrased items, including I am concerned that technology might interfere with student interactions (3.73), There is not enough time to incorporate technology into the subjects I teach (3.73), and I do not believe the quality of English education is improved by the use of technology (3.98). These scores represent a reversecoded Likert scale score, thus converting 5 to 1, 4 to 2 and so forth. Consequently, a converted score near 4 would represent the Likert scale point 2.0 or Disagree. Higher scores within this measure included the negatively phrased item, I feel out of place when confronted with technology (4.31), as well the positively phrased items, Students should be able to use computers to help them solve problems in English (4.20), and Students can use computers and technology to help make informed decisions (4.23). Overall. it appears that a TESOL masters program which includes CALL is valued over one which does not. Further it appears that there is a low perception of the value of effectiveness regarding CALL preparation among graduates of TESOL masters programs. Conversely, there is a high perception of the value of informal CALL related preparation. This informal CALL preparation appears to contribute to teachers attitude toward technology. Finally, the high level of attitude toward technology suggests that teachers are receiving preparation from other sources and generally feel confident about their use of technology for instruction and related purposes.
96 CHAPTER 5 Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations This chapter is intended to provide a summary of the research problem and procedures followed in the execution of the study. The results will be presented and discussed. Conclusions and recommendations of the researcher will follow. The current study examined the perceived value of CALL as a component of TESOL masters programs, as well as the predictability of attitude toward technology through perceptions of formal and informal preparation in CALL. Within these measures, a number of important skills, abilities and attitudes are reflected; the present research attempted to identify and better understand perceptions regarding these characteristics. Since this is the first study of its kind in this discipline, further study in this area would be extremely beneficial. The literature reveals that the skills and abilities reflected in the questions that comprised this study are desirable, if not necessary, for teacher success in today’s language classroom. The literature also suggests weaknesses within instructional agendas regarding some of these criteria. Many of these concerns are confirmed by this study while new areas of concern were identified. The pilot study further illustrated a general weakness among TESOL masters programs in preparing their graduates to effectively use CALL. This study confirms that graduates do not feel that they are receiving the same extent of preparation from their degree programs as they are through informal means. Further, a positive attitude toward technology is currently not enhanced by study within
97 TESOL masters programs. In fact, according to graduates’ perceptions, there is a slight negative influence on attitude toward technology. One hundred eight randomly selected participants contributed to the data collection for this study. They completed a web-based survey containing demographic information, a hypothetical program description vignette and questions related to the three variables, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation, Informal CALL Teaching Preparation and Attitude Toward Technology. This study addressed two questions: 1. Are TESOL masters degree programs of study which include CALL rated differently from programs of study which do not include CALL? 2. How well do perceptions of informal CALL preparation and perception of formal CALL preparation predict attitude toward technology? Findings The Mann-Whitney test indicated that there is a significant difference in perception of TESOL masters programs which include a CALL component and those which do not. The hypothetical program which included a CALL component received a significantly higher rating than the hypothetical program which did not. While the participants were not aware of the distinction between these programs, the value of CALL as a component of TESOL masters programs appears to be significant. This significant result from a random sample suggests that this value of CALL as a component of TESOL masters programs also exists within the greater population of TESOL
98 professionals. Thus, a CALL preparation component is valued by graduates of TESOL masters programs. Therefore, the Null hypothesis of this test was rejected. It is possible that some of the distinction made between these two hypothetical programs may reflect the simple fact that there is additional coursework in the program which includes CALL. The regression equation suggested that the variable Informal CALL Teaching Preparation had the most predictive power regarding attitude toward technology. This conclusion supports the findings of the pilot, specifically that a majority of what teachers are learning regarding CALL is being achieved through a variety of informal means. Although the literature is only beginning to address this, concerns have been raised that this ad-hoc approach limits the use of CALL and may be detrimental to longevity and success of CALL agendas. The predictive power of the variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation is evidently weaker than it was even expected to be. The literature, as well as the pilot, indicated that there may be a combined effect of both of these variables upon a teacher’s attitude toward technology. While the independent variable, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation was not expected to have a great deal of influence on the dependent variable, Attitude Toward Technology, it is surprising to see just how small this influence is. It is further surprising to find that the variable, Formal CALL Teaching Preparation, had little influence on the other independent variable, Informal CALL Teaching Preparation (.029 correlation). Although the researcher made every attempt possible to recode the variable Formal CALL Teaching Preparation into a contributing force within the regression equation, there appears to be no relationship whatsoever between this variable and
99 Attitude Toward Technology. This rather disturbing finding suggests that much more needs to be done to include effective CALL preparation into TESOL masters programs. The results of the t test do indicate that there is a perception that informal teacher preparation regarding CALL is significantly more effective (3.79) than formal CALL teacher preparation (2.22). Thus, it can be concluded that TESOL professionals perceive that the informal CALL preparation that they engage in is significantly more effective than the formal CALL preparation they have experienced in relation to pedagogical use of technology. It is interesting to note the high score related to attitude toward technology, perhaps this is in some part the result of conducting the survey via a web-based interface and eliciting participants through an email invitation. While the sample was arrived at randomly, perhaps those who were less inclined to participate through a computer-based interface selected themselves out of the study. Perhaps this method of delivery resulted in a higher rate of responses by those who are technologically inclined. The high value of perceived attitude toward technology suggests that TESOL professionals are confident regarding technology. Partnered with the high value placed on perception of informal CALL teaching preparation, it appears that they, to some degree, arrive at this comfort level through a variety of informal means touched upon in this literature review as well as the pilot study. Inservice participation, conference attendance, brief training sessions, online collaboration, and listserv participation all contribute to this informal gathering of CALL related abilities. While the literature does suggest that this disparate approach may not sufficiently address the needs of language teachers, it is
100 encouraging to see such a high level of perceived ability in spite of the general disappointment with formal preparation. It is possible that this perception of abilities is inflated due to a lack of exposure through formal means. Further research could indicate to what extent a greater amount and more focused type of formal CALL preparation would further influence this perception of abilities. Informal CALL preparation was rated rather highly as well. Again, it is encouraging that TESOL professionals are engaging in such informal means of professional development, thus compensating for the disappointing perception of the formal CALL preparation they have received regarding the pedagogical use of technology. This study did not attempt to identify the extent and type of involvement participants had experience with these forms of informal CALL preparation. Further research in this area would be beneficial. It is difficult to predict what other contributing forces may account for the remaining variance in attitude toward technology. However, it is assumed that much of this may be related to informal CALL teaching preparation. It may be the result of personal inquiry such as personal experimentation, collaboration with colleagues, personal reading of books and journals, and experience that overlaps from personal and other exposure to technology. If this is in fact true, it may suggest that the only TESOL professionals who are obtaining this high attitude toward technology are those who are already inclined to engage in it. The study revealed that training has not seen dramatic increases in perceived effectiveness as technology has become more readily available Many comments
101 accompanied both the pilot and the current study based upon the assumption that CALL training is being done with great frequency in today’s TESOL masters programs. While there is a slight increase in the perceived effectiveness among those who have graduated within the past decade (See Table 16, p. 74), it does not appear to reflect the extent to which technology has impacted daily life in general, and the classroom in particular. While this study did not attempt to measure the total extent of CALL preparation that is taking place, it instead focused upon the perception of effectiveness. However, pilot results did indicate a perceived dearth of CALL training. Regarding decade of graduation, it is interesting that the highest rating of Attitude Toward Technology was among those who had graduated between 1965- 1975. This median (4.9) was much higher than the next nearest score representing the decade 19962005 (4.1). In fact, the median of this group is higher than the interquartile ranges of the other three decades. Similarly, the age group 61-70 (n = 2) scored higher on the measures, perception of Informal CALL Teaching Preparation and Attitude Toward Technology than any of the other decades. There appears to be little difference between males and females in this survey. While the predominance of females among survey participants is reflective of the field, it may surprise some that females rate their perception of informal CALL teaching preparation higher than their male counterparts. However, males did have a very slightly higher score for Formal CALL Teaching Preparation and Attitude Toward Technology than females.
102 The investigation into individual items revealed that there may be some distinction among the skills and abilities represented within the measures (See Table 26, p.84). While the entire measure formal CALL teaching preparation appears to be considered rather negatively by this random sample, the two items in this measure, Use computer-based audio for teaching speaking skills and Create computer-based audio materials for instruction are scored much lower than the other items. These items are both related to the rather significant language instruction aspect of speaking, suggesting that this is an area that may require more attention. While there are three items somewhat higher than the overall mean of this measure, they are still below the 3.0 score that represents Neutral on the Likert scale. The highest scored item, Use multimedia for instruction (2.78) and second highest score, Make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes (2.67) suggest there is a higher degree of perceived success regarding the formal CALL teaching of decisionmaking skills and use of multimedia. However, when asked about specific multimedia examples, including, My degree program prepared me to effectively use computer-based audio materials (2.15), My degree program prepared me to effectively use computerbased video materials for instruction (2.08), and My degree program prepared me to effectively use computer-based images for instruction (2.23) responses were much closer to the mean. Decision making abilities with such a low level of perceived effectiveness in formal CALL training may raise some concerns. Similarly, decision making abilities are identified as strong within the individual items of the measure informal CALL teaching preparation. Among the weaker scores
103 were those related to teaching speaking skills and creating materials for instruction, suggesting that these are areas that may need additional attention. Conclusions This study supports an increased level of attention to the inclusion and effectiveness of CALL within TESOL masters programs. While the first question in this study revealed that there is a significant value placed upon CALL as a component of these programs of study, the second suggested that little of what is being done in this regard is influencing graduates attitudes toward technology. If graduates continue to rely upon informal, ad-hoc, methods of preparation, they may not be able to exploit the resources and learning opportunities available to them as CALL continues to evolve. Further, those individuals who are not personally, financially, or socially inclined to seek such informal development are not likely to receive it in this current model. Informal CALL preparation is certainly a positive and important force within professional development and should remain as such. There may be no substitute for conference presentations and workshops as well as listservers and inservices. Certainly these resources and services have thus far allowed a number of interested individuals to develop and collaborate upon a professional CALL repertoire as the field was in its nascent state. As with any young field, a certain degree of creativity and adaptation are necessary steps toward success. However, continuing to rely solely upon such a fragile and unpredictable system of professional development does not seem like an ideal long term solution.
104 Recommendations As many respondents mentioned in peripheral emails, there is an assumption among earlier graduates that today’s TESOL masters programs are extensively engaged in CALL preparation as a standard part of their programs of study. As this study and pilot have begun to reveal that this may not be the case, those concerned with the direction of preparation in the profession should be concerned. Among the recommendations supported by this study are: 1. Perhaps a CALL component should be introduced into all TESOL masters programs. Formal CALL preparation should be at least as influential toward a teacher’s attitude toward technology informal training. To achieve this, programs of study may need to face revision to include a CALL component in order to adequately address the changing needs of TESOL professionals. CALL could be integrated into a variety of pedagogical classes, thus allowing it to be introduced in a contextualized and relevant manner. The precise content of what should be taught in such courses would benefit form continued research. 2. As respondents seem to feel confident in their use of technology, it may be that this reliance upon informal CALL training is serving their needs well. However, further research may inform both formal and informal CALL preparation as foundational and metacognitive skills may need to be addressed in a formal context in order to prepare teachers for the ongoing developments in technology they are likely to encounter through other informal means throughout their careers. 3. TESOL, as the sole professional organization overseeing the profession, should establish a set of standards representing CALL competencies similar to those established
105 for teacher trainers in the P-12 environment by NCATE. Only through the introduction of such a set of standards, can we expect that all within the profession be adequately prepared to utilize CALL effectively. 4. Further study into the contribution of other means CALL preparation are recommended. In order to better understand the results of this study, it may be crucial to identify other influences upon teachers’ attitude toward technology. Further investigation regarding the prediction of attitude toward technology would benefit from the inclusion of a wider breadth of variables, thus providing more opportunities to account for the various elements that may contribute to ESL teachers’ attitude toward technology. 5. Further study into CALL preparation is necessary. As indicated in this study, a number of unanswered questions may need to be addressed to obtain a complete and accurate understanding of the state of CALL preparation in TESOL masters programs. This study identified graduates of such programs. Faculty and administrators need to be involved in the continued exploration of these issues. Some information that would contribute to a better understanding are: 1) a precise measure of the type and extent of informal CALL preparation in which TESOL professionals engage themselves, 2) a precise measure of the type and extent of formal CALL preparation that graduate departments are currently offering, and 3) a precise measure of the technological knowledge and abilities of faculty in TESOL graduate programs.
106 References Al-Hazmi, S. (2003). EFL teacher preparation programs in Saudi Arabia: Trends and challenges. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 341-4. Barr, J. D., & Gillespie, J. H. (2003). Creating a computer-based language learning environment. ReCALL, 15(1), 68-79. Barretta, C. M. (2001). Students’ preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 5-35. Benremouga, K. (2000). The LEO Lab: Student and Teacher Training. In E. Hanson-Smith (Ed.), Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments. 5766. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL Publications. Bikowski, D., & Kessler, G. (2002). Making the most of discussion boards in the ESL classroom. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 27-29. Bliss, T. & Mazur, J. (1996). Common thread case project: Developing associations of experienced and novice educators through technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 185-190. Brinkerhoff, J. D., Ku, H. Y., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2001). An assessment of technology skills and classroom technology integration experience in preservice and practicing teachers. Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, USA, 12, 1866-1871. Brooks, G. (2003). MC2G: Monte Carlo Analyses for 1 or 2 Groups [computer software] Retrieved from: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~brooksg/software.htm#mc2g
107 Brooks, G. P. (2003). Using Monte Carlo methods to teach statistics: The MC2G computer program. Understanding Statistics, 2, 137-150. Brooks, G. P., & Barcikowski, R. S. (1999). The precision efficacy analysis for regression sample size method. (EDRS #ED449177) Brown, K. (2002). Ideology and context: World Englishes and EFL teacher training. World Englishes, 21(3), 59-73. Brown, M. (2002). Multicultural education and technology: Perspectives to Consider. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 51-55. Browne, C., & Gerrity, S. (2004). Setting up and maintaining a CALL laboratory. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 171-197). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buket, A. (2001). The use of computers in K-12 schools in Turkey. TechTrends, 45(6), 29-31. Burston, J. (1996). CALL at the Crossroads: Myths, Realities, Promises and Challenges. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 27-36. Carlson, S. (2001). The deserted library: as students work online, reading rooms empty out leading some campuses to add Starbucks. Chronicle of Higher Education Nov. 16, 2001, http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i12/12a03501.htm Carrier, K. A. (2003). NNS teacher trainees in Western-based TESOL programs. ELT Journal, 57(3), 242-250. Chapelle, C. A. (1990). The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 199- 225.
108 Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). The language teacher in the 21st century. In S. Fotos, & C. Browne, (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 299-316). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Charol, S., Dale, M., & Jonathan, B. (2002). Choosing the right technology. School Administrator, 59(1), 34-37. Cifuentes, L., & Shih, Y. C.. (2001). Teaching and learning online: A collaborative between U.S. and Taiwanese students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 456-475. Davies, T. (1998). The ghost in the machine: Are 'teacherless' CALL programs really possible? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 7-18. Delcloque, P. (2000). The history of CALL. Retrieved July 30, 2004, from http://www.history-of-call.org Dhonau, S., & McAlpine, D. (2002). “Streaming" best practices: Using digital videoteaching segments in the FL/ESL methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 35(6), 632-636. Dlaska, A. (2002). Sites of construction: Language learning, multimedia, and the international engineer. Computers & Education, 39(2), 129-143. Dudeney, G. (2000). The internet and the language classroom. A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egbert, J. (1999). Classroom practice: Creating interactive CALL activities. J. Egbert, &
109 E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues, 27-40. Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language, Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Egbert, J., & Thomas, M. (2001). The new frontier: A case study in applying instructional design for distance teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 9(3), 391-405. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). The development of CALL and current options in S. Fotos & C. Browne, (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 3-14). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freiermuth, M. (2002) Internet chat: Collaborating and learning via e-conversations. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 36-40. Galloway, J. P. (1997). How teachers use and learn to use computers. In Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 857-859. Govardhan, A. K., Nayar, B., & Sheorey, R. (1999). Do U.S. MATESOL programs
110 prepare students to teach abroad? TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 114-125. Gudmundsson, A. (1997). How educational media is used. Educational Media International, 34, 54-96. Grau, I. (1996, January). Teacher development in technology instruction: Does computer coursework transfer into actual teaching practice? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Dallas, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394949) Halttunen, L. G. (2002). Palomar College: A technological transformation. Community College Journal, 73(2), 26-31. Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for pre-service teachers. Journal of technology and teacher education, 8(4), 303-314. Hannafin, R. D. (1999). Instructional technology and teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 27-92. Hanson-Smith, E. (1999, March/April). CALL environments: The quiet revolution. ESL Magazine, 8-12. Healey, D. & Klinghammer, S. (2002). Constructing meaning with computers. (Guest editors' note). TESOL Journal, 11(3), 3. Holland, P. E. (2001). Professional development in technology: Catalyst for school reform. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 245-267. Hubbard, P. (1996). Elements of CALL methodology: Development, evaluation, and implementation. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL, 15-32. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
111 Hubbard, P. (2004). "Learner Training for Effective Use of CALL" in S. Fotos & C. Browne, (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-68). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2002). Constructing meaning with virtual reality. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 21-26. Iwabuchi, T., & Fotos, S. (2004). Creating Course-Specific CD ROMs for Interactive Language Learning in Fotos, S. and Browne, C. (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 149-167). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Joffe, L. (2000). Getting connected: Online learning for the EFL professional. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No 447298) Jones, J. F. (2002). “CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators”, ELT Journal, 55(4), 360-67. Kamhi-Stein, L.D. (2001). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Webbased bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 423-455. Kelly, K. L., & Schorger, J. (2002). Online learning: Personalities, preferences and perceptions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED470663) Kessler, G. (2003). Preparing for the Future of CALL. Essential Teacher, 1(1), 32-36. Kessler, G. (in press). Assessing CALL Teacher Training: What are We Doing and What Could We Do Better? In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners' feedback and
112 usability testing in instructor-developed CALL materials. TESOL Journal, 10(1), 15-20. King, K. P. (2002). Identifying success in online teacher education and professional development. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 231-246. Kinzie, M. B., & Delcourt, M. B. (1993). Computer technologies in teacher education: The measurement of attitudes and self-efficacy. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 35-41. Kubala, T. 2000. Teaching community college faculty members on the Internet. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 331-339. Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why secondlanguage teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review 56(3), 391-422. Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Supporting Language Students' Interactions in Web-based Conferencing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 457477. Levy, M. (1996). A rationale for teacher education and CALL: The holistic view and its implications. Computers and the Humanities, 30, 293-302. Levy, M. (1997). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Liaw, M. L. (2003). Cross-cultural E-mail correspondence for reflective EFL teacher education. TESL-Electronic Journal. 6(4) Retrieved February 12, 2003, from http://www-writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej24/a2.html
113 Macpherson S. (2003). The short intensive teacher-training course. ELT Journal, 57(3), 297-300. Matthews, C. (1994). Integrating CALL into “strong” research agendas. Computers and Education, 23, 35-40. McCampbell, B. (2001). Online learning tools: Hidden in plain sight. Principal Leadership (High School Ed.), 1(6), 73-4. Mertler, C. (2003). What…another survey??? Patterns of response and nonresponse from teachers to traditional and web surveys. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482278) Montez, J. (2003). Web Surveys as a source of nonresponse explication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479130) Moore, K., Hopkins, S., & Tullis, R. (1993). NCATE accreditation: Visions of excellence. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27(1), 28-35. Moursund, D. G. (1997). The growth of instructional technology. Learning and Leading with Technology, 25(2), 4-5. Murray, J. (1998). Help them get IT: Infusing technology in instruction. Multimedia Schools, 5(5), 20-2. Murray, L. (1998). CALL and web training with teacher self-empowerment: A departmental and long-term approach. Computers & Education, 31(1), 1723. Nixon, T. (2003, May/June). Online TESL/TEFL training. ESL Magazine, 22-25.
114 Northrup, P., & Little, W. (1996). Establishing instructional technology benchmarks for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 213-222. Nunan, D. (2002). Teaching MA-TESOL courses online: Challenges and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 617-620. O’Connor, P., & Gatton, W. (2004). Implementing Multimedia in a University EFL Program: A Case Study in CALL in S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. (pp. 199-224). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Okamoto, T., & Christea, A. (2001). A distance ecological model for individual and collaborative-learning support. Educational Technology & Society, 4(2), 1-5. O’Keefe, A., & Farr, F. (2003). Using language corpora in initial teacher education: Pedagogic issues and practical applications. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 389-418. Opp-Beckman, L. (2002) Africa online: a web and content-based English language teaching course. TESOL Journal, 11(3), 4-8. Opp-Beckman, L., & Keiffer, C. (2004). A collaborative model for online instruction in the teaching of language and culture. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 225-252). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Patton, M. (2002), Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage. Pennington, M. (2004). Electronic Media in Second Language Writing: An Overview of
115 Tools and Research Findings in S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 69-92). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Race, K. (2001, June). Development of an attitude survey to gauge teacher attitudes Toward instructional strategies and classroom pedagogy in support of a larger outcomes-based evaluation effort. Paper presented at the 2001 American Evaluation Association National Meeting, St. Louis, MO. Robb, T. (in press). CALL Training Expectations and the Reality of Skills Attainment Among CALL Practitioners. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sax, L., Gilmartin, S., & Bryant, A. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44(4), 409-32. Serdiukov, P., & Tarnopolsky, O. (1999). EFL teachers’ professional development: A concept, a model, and tools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439604). Schlagal, B., Trathen, W., & Blanton, W. (1996). Structuring telecommunications to create instructional conversations about student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, (3), 175-183. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83-90. Schwartz, M. (1995). Computers and the language laboratory: learning from history. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 527-535.
116 Schocker-von Ditfurth, M., & Legutke, M. K. (2002) Visions of what is possible in teacher education-or lost in complexity? ELT Journal, 56(2), 162-171. Solomon, G. (2002, April 1). Digital equity: It's not just about access anymore. Technology & Learning, 18-19. Retrieved May 20, 2003, from http://www.techlearning.com/db_area/archives/TL/2002/04/equity.html Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 132-40. Stevens, J. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Susser, B. (in press). CALL and JSL teacher education in Japan: A course description. In Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (Eds.), Teacher Education in CALL. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Susser, B., & Robb, T. (2004). Evaluation of ESL/EFL instructional websites. In Fotos, S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. (pp. 279-295). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics: Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Thomas, L., et al. (1996). Telecommunication, student teaching, and methods instruction: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 165-174.
117 Thomas, L.G., & Knezek, D.G. (2002). Standards for technology-supported learning environments. The State Education Standard, 3, 14-20. Triggs, T., & Moss, S. (2002). Research design and analysis unit. Retrieved April 15, 2005, from: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/psych/research/rda/ Wang, Y. (2004). Distance language learning: Interactivity and fourth-generation Internet-based videoconferencing. Calico Journal, 21(2) 373-396. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer Assisted Language Learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp.3-20). Tokyo: Logos International Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic Literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Warschauer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 511-535. Warschauer, M. (2002). A developmental perspective on technology in language education. TESOL Quarterly, 36(3), 453-475. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological Change and the Future of CALL in Fotos, S. and Browne, C. (eds.) New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71. Retrieved November 19, 2001, from http://www.gse.uci.edu/markw/overview.html. Yates, R., & Muchisky, D. (2003). On reconceptualizing teacher education. TESOL Quarterly. 37(1) 135-47.
118 Ypsilandis, G.S. (2002). Feedback in distance education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(2), 167-181. Zhang, X. (1990). Survey of TESOL Preparation Programs in the U.S. ERIC Document Number ED331280.
119 APPENDIX A Questions for Pilot Survey 1) How many years have you taught language? 0-1 2-5 6-9 10-15 15 or more 2) In which of the following settings do you currently teach? (Choose Up To 5) Intensive English Program (in North America) Post Matriculation University Program (in North America) Language Program Overseas K-12 Other 3) What language(s) are you currently teaching? (Choose Up To 8) English Spanish French German Russian Japanese Chinese Other 4) How many hours per week do you currently teach? 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21 or more 5) Is the use of technology for language instruction encouraged at your school? Always Sometimes Never 6) Does your school offer incentives for teachers who use technology for teaching? Always Sometimes Never
120 7) Does your school offer incentives for teachers who develop technology for instruction? Always Sometimes Never 8) How long have you been using technology for teaching? 0-1 year 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16 or more years 9) How confident do you feel using technology for instruction? Extremely confident Somewhat confident Not sure Somewhat unconfident Extremely unconfident 10) Which is the highest degree you hold? PhD in Linguistics PhD in Modern Languages PhD in Education MA in Linguistics MA in Modern Languages MA in Education Other PhD Other MA BA Language teaching certificate 11) To what extent did your degree program prepare you for teaching with technology? very prepared Somewhat prepared Neutral Somewhat unprepared very unprepared 12) How many courses did you take in your degree program that focused on using technology for teaching? 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more
121 13) How many courses did you take in your degree program that devoted more than 20% of the time to issues regarding teaching with technology? 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more 14) How many courses did you take in your degree program that involved any training for teaching with technology? 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 15) How many courses focusing on technology for teaching were required in your degree program? 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more 16) My degree program taught me how to effectively teach with technology Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 17) How would you best finish this sentence? The extent of time devoted to learning about teaching with technology in my degree program was: Extremely excessive Excessive Perfect Insufficient Extremely insufficient 18) Do you feel you would have benefited from more instruction in your degree program regarding teaching with technology? Yes No
122 19) The technology for teaching courses that I took were relevant to my future teaching experience: Always Sometimes Never 20) Have you taken classes or attended conference workshops outside of your degree program to gain more knowledge about using technology for teaching? Yes No 21) Do you feel that you are capable of keeping up with the rapid pace of technological growth? Always Sometimes Never 22) How do you currently stay informed about CALL approaches, techniques and or methods? 23) Have you presented at professional conferences on topics related to CALL? Yes No 24) Which professional organizations do you belong to? (Choose Up To 10) CALICO ISTE MLA TESOL EUROCALL IALL IFETS AACE ACTFL LLTI 25) What challenges do computers present for language instructors? 26) What is most promising about using technology for language instruction? 28) Why do you use technology for instruction? 29) What was your first experience using CALL as a teacher? 30) Which of the following do you utilize for your knowledge of CALL? (Choose Up To 8) Journals Professional Conferences Listservs
123 University Courses Public Libraries University Libraries Colleagues Web Sites 31) Would you mind answering follow up questions about CALL teacher training? Yes No 32) If you found any of the questions confusing, please comment on them here.
124 APPENDIX B Questions for pilot focus groups
What kind of CALL training did you receive as a graduate student?
What kind of training did you not receive that you believe you would have benefited from?
How have you attempted to stay informed of CALL?
What kind of training do you provide for your colleagues?
What barriers to CALL do you face in your current environments?
What kind of training do you dream of?
125 APPENDIX C Questions for pilot study interviews
What kind/extent of CALL training do you provide for your graduate students?
Do you think this training meets their needs in the profession?
What kind of training do you wish you could provide them?
What barriers do you face to providing more CALL training?
How CALL proficient is your faculty?
What would you need to provide the training you which to provide?
126 APPENDIX D Email request for participation
127 APPENDIX E Survey Instruments Program Vignette without CALL coursework
128 Program Vignette including CALL coursework
129
130
131
132 APPENDIX F Survey Questions and Sources Question
Source
Use computers for language instruction
Fotos & Browne, 2004; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; Levy, 1997
Use computer-mediated communication for instruction
Opp-Beckman, 2002; Freiermuth, 2002; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999
Use the Internet for instruction
Opp-Beckman, 2002; Warschauer, 1996
Evaluate computer-based instructional materials
Susser & Robb, 2004; Warschauer & Healey, 1998;
Use computer-based materials for teaching speaking skills
Iwabuchi & Fotos, 2004; O’Conner & Gatton, 2004; Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based audio materials for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based materials for teaching listening skills
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based video materials for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based materials for teaching writing skills
Pennington, 2004; Pennington, 2003
Use computer-based images for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based materials for teaching reading skills
Pennington, 2004; Pennington, 2003
Use multimedia for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004; Northrup & Little, 1996
Use computer-based materials for teaching grammar skills
Pennington, 2003; Warschauer, 1996
133 Create computer-based audio materials for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004; Warschauer, 1996
Create computer-based instructional materials
Susser & Robb, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Create computer-based video materials for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004; Warschauer, 1996
Use computer-based solutions for evaluating students
Opp-Beckman & Keiffer, 2004 Warschauer, 1996
Create computer-based images for instruction
O’Conner & Gatton, 2004; Warschauer, 1996
Select appropriate web-based materials for instruction
Susser & Robb, 2004; Warschauer & Healey, 1998
Make effective decisions regarding the use of technology for instruction
Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Levy, 1997
Train students to use computer-based instructional materials
Hubbard, 2004; Barretta, 2001; Hubbard, 1996
Make decisions regarding the selection of software for instruction
Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Levy, 1997
Use course management systems (such as Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, etc.)
Opp-Beckman & Keiffer, 2004; Taylor & Gitsaki, 2004
Make decisions regarding the integration of technology in my classes
Susser & Robb, 2004; Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999; Levy, 1997
Make decisions regarding the design of technology learning spaces (such as computer labs)
Browne & Gerrity, 2004; Hanson-Smith, 199
134 APPENDIX G Sources for Program Vignettes Program
Website Source
California State University Sacramento
http://www.csus.edu/engl/tesol.htm
Georgetown University
http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/ linguistics/program/applied.htm
Georgia State University
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/alesl/ma_program/ ma_program.html
Iowa State University
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~apling/ma.html
Northern Arizona University
http://www.nau.edu/english/ling/ma-tesl/ ma-applied.html
Ohio University
http://www.ohiou.edu/linguistics
135 APPENDIX H Histogram Representing Normality of Dependent Variable (ATT)
136 Dependent Variable: ATT by Predicted ATT, Demonstrating Linear Relationship of Errors 5.5
5.0
Attitude Toward Technology
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 2.0 -3
-2
-1
Standardized Predicted Value
0
1
2
137 Standardized Residual by Predicted Value to demonstrate Regression Assumptions of Linearity, Normality and Homoscedaticity
138 APPENDIX I Email Feedback My training in TESOL and Linguistics predates the widespread use of personal computers, so most of the stuff I know was picked up on my own. I got my MA degree in 1970 and none of these options existed at that time, so it taints the results. Second, I haven't taught ESL in many years...I've been preparing bilingual teachers and teaching in an MA and Ph.D. program so the questions don't apply, again tainting your results. Then, I would have liked an open ended question about technology. For ESL I have GRAVE issues because I think face to face interaction vs technological interaction changes the learning dynamic. I know in doctoral defenses we have been forced to do via video conferencing (our Ph.D. is joint with a university 2 hours away) the quality of the defense is reduced, and very little of the social chat exchange occurs. If that happens there, then technology will also impact any ESL type work. And for me, the joy of having taught over 30 years are the formal and informal interactions that occur in the classroom...roundtables of what is happening in the schools...learning is not just knowledge and skills, there is the affect, and technology has yet to overcome that...or we would all just sit as I am now in front of the computer and not need to talk to anyone "live"....even saying that, email has been a GREAT boon with my students. we can "chat" at any time and not have to wait til I'm in my office or we're in class...I've done several dissertations primarily by email, with a few live meetings. But for discussing theoretical frameworks, methodology, sitting down together, sketching, exchanging ideas...for me that's what its all about. But I'm sure your generation having grown up with technology, will see it all differently and whose to say which is best... Since I got my degree in 1980, I felt many of the questions were nonapplicable; in a way, the negative responses made (NAME REMOVED)'s program look bad! But the overall preparation to use resources (tapes/video back then) laid the foundation for the move into the computer age, I'd say. Interesting survey-- the new program looks great. I'd add more tech. to the required courses as well! may have missed something in your survey, but I didn't see a question about whether or not the person being surveyed is currently teaching ESL (or what kind of program they are teaching in). I'm not, and I answered in terms of the courses I have been teaching for the past 9 years, which are in Speech Comm, not ESL, though some of my students are NNS and even LES. I have not taught ESL since 1996. When the questions directly addressed ESL I simply chose "neutral." You may want to discount my survey and double check those you receive from others. I assume you will also be taking into account when folks got their degrees (I noted you do ask). '76-77 (when I took my MAT in ESL courses) there was no Internet to learn
139 about, so learning about computer based instructional technology was not an option. I do use it now, in a hybrid half on-campus, half on WebCT Intercultural Communication CC course, and I do think it provides LES more opportunities to "be heard" so to speak (I teach the same course at the same college in a 100% on-campus format as well, so I can compare), and to share their insights and perspectives. They also get a LOT of writing and reading practice (I give them a revision option on their postings so if they are unclear they have a chance to try again, and because I have an ESL background I can help them express themselves clearly). Of course when we meet live I make sure to give them as much 1:1 speaking time as possible (pair and small group exercises). Hope the above is helpful in supplementing my survey responses. I don’t know if I’m much help as (1) my degree work was in the late 80s and that was just the start of the explosion of using computers. The “LingaCenter” (computer lab for the IEP students) at the University of Illinois was just starting at that time. Nowadays I rarely teach (I’m the Academic Coordinator), so it was also hard to answer the questions in the present. As far as the curriculum of the M.A. Program, my rating of “8” was because the “Testing” course was not required. I filled out a questionnaire, although I am not sure my answers are helpful. The summary is that I haven't learned anything about using technology in instruction while getting my degree in General Linguistics (but perhaps this is not a TESOL-related MA). I did learn a lot about technology while on the job as a TESOL professor and program coordinator, and it is an intrinsic part of our program but not a dominant one. Do hope it helps you and of course a summary is always interesting, I've learnt everything there is to learn about CALL, but on the job, so do I still qualify to respond to the survey??
140
![[PDF] Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning](https://m.moam.info/img/260x300/pdf-contemporary-computer-assisted-language-learni_647739d5097c474c228bcab3.jpg)
