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…………………… 28

vii
 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 thirty-

year 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 time-

consuming 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, in-

services, 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; Butler-

Pascoe, 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 “Non-

readiness” 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 web-

based 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; Fieman-

Nemser & 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 web-

based 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 web-

based 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 internet-

based 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 have taught for 11
years (N=160) 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

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
Number technology? for teaching your program?
of courses with technology?

0 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

1-2 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

3-4 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

5-6 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

7 or more 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) 6.3% Yes 92.5% Yes

N=160 13.8% No 7.5% 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%

Never 4.2% 5% 7.5%

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 Mann-

Whitney 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 871.500

Wilcoxon W 2356.500

Z -3.714

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .000

 69

Table 9 Boxplots for Mann Whitney Test

12

10 30
60

27
15
17
85 69

51 57

2
Ranking

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 4.0606 .35885

Technology

Formal CALL Teaching 2.2274 .89037

Preparation

Perception of Informal CALL 3.7919 .43489

Teaching Preparation

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 Formal CALL Teaching

Technology Preparation

Attitude Toward 1.00

Technology

Formal CALL Teaching -.006

Preparation

Informal CALL Teaching .601 .029

Preparation

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 Year of Graduation FTP ITP ATT

(C=CALL, NC=No CALL)

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 Mann-

Whitney 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 non-

normally 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

3.0
Formal Teaching Prepartion

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 1996-

2005.
 81
Table 15

Decade of Graduation and Informal CALL Teaching Preparation

5.5
Perception o f Informal Teach ing Preparation

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

4.5

4.0
Attitude Toward Technology

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 2.08
computer labs)

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 3.52
computer labs)

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 web-

based 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 3.73

work more difficult.

Using computers for learning takes 3.73

students away from important
instructional time.

Computers should be as important 3.98

and available to students
as pencils and books.

I am confident using technology 4.06

as a learning resource.

I feel out of place when 4.06

confronted with technology

I do not believe the quality of English 4.11

education is improved by the use of
technology.

I am concerned that technology might 4.11

interfere with student interactions.

There is not enough time to incorporate 4.14

technology into the subjects I teach.

I really enjoy using computers and 4.20

the Internet instructionally.

Students should be able to use computers 4.23

to help them solve problems in English.

Students can use computers and technology 4.31

to help make informed decisions.
 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 reverse-

coded 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 1996-

2005 (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 decision-

making 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 computer-

based 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. 57-

66. 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 video-

teaching 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: Web-

based 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 second-

language 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), 457-

477.

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), 17-

23.

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 Fotos & Browne, 2004; Warschauer &
instruction Healey, 1998; Levy, 1997

Use computer-mediated Opp-Beckman, 2002; Freiermuth, 2002;

communication for instruction Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999

Use the Internet for instruction Opp-Beckman, 2002;

Warschauer, 1996

Evaluate computer-based Susser & Robb, 2004; Warschauer &

instructional materials Healey, 1998;

Use computer-based materials Iwabuchi & Fotos, 2004;

for teaching speaking skills O’Conner & Gatton, 2004;
Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based audio O’Conner & Gatton, 2004

materials for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based materials O’Conner & Gatton, 2004

for teaching listening skills Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based video O’Conner & Gatton, 2004

materials for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based materials Pennington, 2004; Pennington, 2003

for teaching writing skills

Use computer-based images O’Conner & Gatton, 2004

for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based materials Pennington, 2004; Pennington, 2003

for teaching reading skills

Use multimedia for instruction O’Conner & Gatton, 2004;

Northrup & Little, 1996

Use computer-based materials Pennington, 2003;

for teaching grammar skills Warschauer, 1996
 133

Create computer-based audio O’Conner & Gatton, 2004;

materials for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Create computer-based Susser & Robb, 2004

instructional materials Warschauer, 1996

Create computer-based video O’Conner & Gatton, 2004;

materials for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Use computer-based solutions Opp-Beckman & Keiffer, 2004

for evaluating students Warschauer, 1996

Create computer-based images O’Conner & Gatton, 2004;

for instruction Warschauer, 1996

Select appropriate web-based Susser & Robb, 2004;

materials for instruction Warschauer & Healey, 1998

Make effective decisions regarding Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson,

the use of technology for instruction 1999; Levy, 1997

Train students to use computer-based Hubbard, 2004; Barretta, 2001; Hubbard,

instructional materials 1996

Make decisions regarding the selection Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson,
of software for instruction 1999; Levy, 1997

Use course management systems (such Opp-Beckman & Keiffer, 2004;

as Blackboard, WebCT, Moodle, etc.) Taylor & Gitsaki, 2004

Make decisions regarding the Susser & Robb, 2004; Hargrave & Hsu,
integration of technology in my classes 2000; Johnson, 1999; Levy, 1997

Make decisions regarding the design of Browne & Gerrity, 2004;

technology learning spaces (such as Hanson-Smith, 199
computer labs)
 134
APPENDIX G

Sources for Program Vignettes

Program Website Source

California State University http://www.csus.edu/engl/tesol.htm

Sacramento

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

4.5
Attitude Toward Technology

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Standardized Predicted Value

 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