Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T13:56:18.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Iranian EFL teachers’ perceptions of the difficulties of implementing CALL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Hora (Fatemeh) Hedayati  and
S. Susan Marandi
Hora (Fatemeh) Hedayati
Affiliation:
Alzahra University, Iran (email: hora.hedayati@gmail.com)
S. Susan Marandi
Affiliation:
Alzahra University, Iran (email: susanmarandi@alzahra.ac.ir)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the spread of reliable technological tools and the availability of computers in Iranian universities, as well as the mounting evidence of the effectiveness of blended learning, many Iranian language teachers are still reluctant to incorporate such tools in their English as a foreign language (EFL) classes. This study inspected the status quo of technology integration in Iranian EFL classes and investigated the obstacles, as perceived by the Iranian EFL teachers, toward implementing CALL in Iran. First, 100 EFL teachers completed the Teacher Technology Integration Survey developed by Vannatta and Banister (2009), to help estimate technology use in EFL classes. Then the researchers interviewed twelve teachers, comprising two EFL teacher educators with no CALL experience, four teachers with the experience of integrating technology in their EFL classes, four EFL teachers who had recently finished an online CALL teacher education program, and two EFL teachers with no CALL experience. The semi-structured interview questions were designed by the researchers, one of whom has extensive experience with CALL, and were revised based on the suggestions of a colleague with expertise in teacher education. One of the researchers conducted the interviews, each of which lasted for 30–50 minutes. The researchers used structural content analysis of the interview transcripts to find themes relevant to the research question. The results suggest that on the whole, Iranian EFL teachers do not usually integrate digital technology into their classes; and the obstacles in implementing CALL in language classrooms could be classified into three categories: teacher, facility, and learner constraints. Each of the categories is discussed in detail and suggestions are provided for promoting CALL in the Iranian context.

Keywords

CALL obstaclesEFLtechnology integration
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 298 - 314
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blake, C. (2009) Potential of text-based Internet chats for improving oral fluency in a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordbar, F. (2010) English teachers’ attitudes toward computer-assisted language learning. International Journal of Language Studies, 4(3): 27–54.Google Scholar
Burke, J. (2000 New directions-teacher technology standards. SREB Educational Technology Cooperative. http://info.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/pubs/NewDirections/NewDirections.pdfGoogle Scholar
Butler-Pascoe, M. (1995) A national survey of the integration of technology into master’s programs. In: Willis, D., Robin, B. and Willis, J. (eds.), Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 98–101.Google Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods in education (6th ed.). NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compton, L. K. (2009) Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1): 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, P. and Davesne, C. (2009) Using electronic portfolios for second language assessment. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 848–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneshdoust, B. and Keshmiri hagh, M. (2012) The advantages and disadvantages of Internet-based language learning in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31: 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DelliCarpini, M. (2012) Building Computer Skills in TESOL Teacher Education. Language Learning & Technology, 16(2): 14–23.Google Scholar
Egbert, J. and 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.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., Paulus, T. and 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.Google Scholar
Fatemi Jahromi, A. and Salimi, F. (2011) Exploring the human element of computer-assisted language learning: An Iranian context. Computer-assisted language learning, 26(2): 158–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafner, C. and Miller, L. (2011) Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3): 68–86.Google Scholar
Hastings, T. (2009) Factors that predict quality classroom technology use. Doctoral dissertation, Graduate College of Bowling Green State University. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:bgsu1257194863Google Scholar
Kárpáti, A. (2009) Web 2 technologies for Net Native language learners: A social CALL. ReCALL, 21(2): 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, G. (2006) Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In: Hubbard, P. and Levy, M. (eds.), Teacher Education in CALL. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laborda, J. G. (2009) Using webquests for oral communication in English as a foreign language for Tourism Studies. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1): 258–270.Google Scholar
Lam, Y. (2000) Technophilia v. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56: 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marandi, S. S. (2010) Bravely stepping forward: Creating CALL communities to support teachers and learners in Iran. In: Egbert, J. (ed.), CALICO monograph series 9: CALL in limited technology contexts. Texas: CALICO, 179–188.Google Scholar
Marandi, S. S. (2013) Computer-assisted language learning. In: Akbari, R. and Coombe, C. (eds.), Middle East handbook of applied linguistics. Dubai, United Arab Emirates: TESOL Arabia, 185–208.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2000) Qualitative content analysis. In: Flick, U., Kardoff, E. and Steinke, I. (eds.), A companion to qualitative research. London: Sage, 266–269.Google Scholar
Mompean, A. (2010) The development of meaningful interactions on a blog used for the learning of English as a Foreign Language. ReCALL, 22(3): 376–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumtaz, S. (2000) Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education, 9(3): 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, L. and Hourigan, T. (2008) Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio-cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20(1): 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Bryan, A. and Hegelheimer, V. (2007) Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL, 19(2): 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon MCB University Press, 9(5): http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Reed, W., Anderson, D., Ervin, J. and Oughton, J. (1995) Computers and teacher education students: A ten year analysis. Journal of computing in childhood education, 6: 5–24.Google Scholar
Robertson, S. I., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O’Shea, T. and Lambrechts, G. (1996) Pupils, Teachers and Palmtop Computers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12: 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ros I Sole, C., Calic, J. and Neijmann, D. (2010) A social and self-reflective approach to MALL. ReCALL, 22(1): 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Center of Iran. (2012) Natayej eamargiri az karbarane Internet–1389. [Statistics for Internet Users: 2011]. http://www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/Files/abstract/1389/n_IT_89.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vannatta, R. and Banister, S. (2009) Validating a measure of teacher technology integration. In: Maddux, C. D. (ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education. Chesapeake, VA: SITE, 329–338.Google Scholar
White, C. (2003) Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, S., Witten, I. and Franken, M. (2010) Utilizing lexical data from a Web-derived corpus to expand productive collocation knowledge. ReCALL, 22(1): 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeok-Hwa Ngeow, K. (2010) Restricted Internet Access and Censorship: CALL Alternatives and Initiatives. In: Egbert, J. (ed.), CALICO monograph series 9: CALL in limited technology contexts. Texas: CALICO.Google Scholar