University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Faculty of Literature and Humanities Department of Teaching Foreign Languages
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of M.A.in Teaching English Language
An investigation of CALL use in high school curriculum
By:
Fatemeh Mohammadi Seif Abad
Supervisor:
Reza Abdi (Ph.D)
Advisor:
Vali Mohammadi (Ph.D)
(August 2019)
Title and Author:
An investigation of CALL use in high school curriculum / Fatemeh Mohammadi Seif Abad
Supervisor: Reza Abdi Graduation date:
Number of pages: 226 Abstract
This study aimed to investigate Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) use at high school curriculum specially language learning. Through this study, the power of the attitude towards predicting CALL which was defined quantitatively based on new defined scale as dependent variable was revealed because attitude was considered as the best variable by book writers and researchers which can determine the role of CALL in language learning.
In order to reach to the purpose of this study, four main groups of stakeholders were selected. Two hundred ninety seven students, one hundred teachers, one hundred thirteen preservice teachers, and fifty principals were the intended four groups who filled in the questionnaires that were the instruments of this study. The results of the study have shown that stakeholders had different attitudes towards CALL. Teachers had positive attitudes towards CALL and students, preservice teachers, and principals had negative attitudes towards CALL. Additionally, based on the findings of the study, attitude had little power to predict CALL at high school curriculum.
Then, there should be other effective variables which have enough power to effect the integration of CALL into English classes at high schools. Some suggestions, based on open-ended questions, have been given which may be a starting point for future studies. Other suggestions have been expressed.
Keywords: Attitude, CALL, Curriculum, High School, Stakeholders
Chapter One Introduction 1.1. Preliminary Remarks
Nowadays, technology has a significant effect on everybody’s life and it changes their life style considerably. No one can ignore its determining role. Younger generation who are “expert young technology users” (p. 364) (students specially) who are called digital natives (Selwyn, 2009), mostly use technology. Also, adults (teachers specially) have technology knowledge to some extent. Using computer for language learning and teaching has become interesting in recent years despite small usage of it by some specialists a decade ago (Warschauer & Healey, 1998) and its rapid growth is the cause of so many changes in the twenty one century (Andoh, 2012). Specifically computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in education and teaching domain becomes popular. On the other hand, although technology is used in every aspect of our students’ lives, the same does not happen in the classrooms (Cheok, Wong, Ayub & Rosnaini, 2017). There are many factors that seem to affect this gap between students’ knowledge and performance of technology and their school and education performance. It would be a good idea to pay more attention to CALL and consider stakeholders’ attitude towards CALL and technology and
the use of these tools, effectiveness, barriers and difficulties of using CALL, and according to their attitudes, find suggestions and solutions to implement CALL and technology into schools more effectively because the attitude has vital position in predicting the future use of CALL (Teo, 2010).
Many scholars have investigated the stakeholders’ attitude towards CALL in different settings to determine factors, barriers, and reasons of using or not using CALL in education. Regarding the students’ attitudes toward CALL, positive attitudes of students have been supported since 2002 e.g., (Afshari, Ghanifekr, Siraj & Jing, 2013; Aşkar, Yavuz & köksal, 2015; Ayres, 2002; Fatemi Jahromi &
Salimi, 2013; Ỉşman, ÇaĞlar, Dabaj, Altinay & Altinay, 2004;
Izadpanah & Alavi, 2016; Liaw, 2002; Liaw, Huang & Chen, 2007;
Ösnoy, 2004; Talebinezhad & Abarghoui, 2013; Toe, 2006; Tsintavi, 2017; TunÇok, 2010;). Likewise, availability, accessibility, ownership of computer (Ỉșman et al., 2004; Toe, 2006; Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013), mothers’ and fathers’ education level, education position, computer education (Ỉșman et al., 2004), perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms (Afshari et al, 2013; Liaw et al, 2007), self- efficacy (Liaw et al., 2007; Toe, 2006), great computer use,
computer experience (Toe, 2006; TunÇok, 2010), age, gender (Liaw, 2002; TunÇok, 2010; Izadpanah et al., 2016), self-paced, teacher-led, multimedia (Liaw et al, 2007), cultural context, computer experience (Fatemi Jahromi te al., 2013), years of studying English (TunÇonk, 2010), web and computer attitude (Liaw, 2002), and cognitive domain (Aşkar et al., 2015) were factors affecting students’ attitude toward CALL and its use.
Additionally, according to students’ attitude, CALL had effect on speaking and reading skills, grammar and vocabulary knowledge (Önsoy, 2004; TunÇok, 2010), feedback (TunÇok, 2010), and receptive skills (Talebinzhad et al., 2013). “Increasing student motivation, greater access to information, ease of learning independently, ease of learning in classroom, covering more materials by computer technology, more attraction, variety of resources used (images, videos, applications, etc.), developing students’ computer skills and improved reading experience”
(p. 153) were benefits of CALL expressed by Izadpanah et al. (2016).
Also, as Ỉşman et al (2004) claimed lack of facility, encouragement, and education were the main problems of CALL implementation. So, providing more education and training were the solutions that have been suggested by Önsoy (2004). Also, providing enough facilities,
holding training courses of computer skills for both teachers and students, enhancing students’ awareness toward CALL and using communicative approach rather than grammar translation method were other suggestions to be considered (Izadpanah et al., 2016).
Equally important, teachers’ perception of CALL has been studied and positive and modest attitudes have been reported (Afshari, Abu Bakar, Luan, Abu Samah & Fooi, 2009; Cheok et al., 2017; Clark, 2000; Crane, 2005;Ertmer, Molly & Denise, 2014; Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013; Kessler, 2007; Lam, 2000; Liaw et al., 2007; Mollaei &
Riasati, 2013; Ösney, 2004; Park & Son, 2009; Sadik, 2006; Yang &
Huang, 2008;). Results have revealed that daily access (Jaber, 1997;
Ösnoy, 2004), presence of technology (Jaber, 1997; Crane, 2005), methods of technology (Crane, 2005), teachers’ experience and competence (Sadik, 2006; Liaw et al., 2007), self-efficacy, enjoyment, usefulness, behavioral intention of use (Liaw et al., 2007), higher level of computer training, computer literacy, well-supported school environment, creative teaching practice, positive beliefs (Yang et al., 2008), manipulative factors, non-manipulative factors, teachers' factors (Afshari et al., 2009), cultural factors (Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013), teacher readiness, learner-oriented learning environment (Mollaei et al.,
2013), informal and formal preparation (Kessler, 2007), first-order and second-order barriers (Ertmer & Addison, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2014), equipment, time, teachers’ goal for using technology, and teachers’
belief about learning and teaching (Ertmer et al., 2014), perceived usefulness, user acceptance, subjective norms, computer and self- efficacy (Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003), personal, institutional and technological factors (Andoh, 2012), dissatisfaction with the status quo, knowledge and skills, resources, time, rewards, participation, commitment, and leadership (Ely, 1990), thoughtful reasoning (Dexter, Anderson & Becker, 1999), and personal and behavioral factors (Dusick, 1998) are the most effective factors that influence the teachers’ attitudes.
Moreover, Cheok et al. (2017) have determined being interesting, improving learning outcomes, managing materials and resources, and providing more opportunity as the benefits of CALL from teachers’ perception. Furthermore, the barriers of implementation of CALL have been shown in this study too, such as less personal comfort and confidence, moderate skill level in using technology, lack of appropriate technology, training, time and not well-equipped schools (Jabber, 1997; Cheok et al., 2017), and teacher level, school level and
system level barriers (Andoh, 2012; Airesheed, 2015). Also, Cheok et al. (2017) have recommended opportunity to access resources, appropriate training (Jabber, 1997; Önsoy, 2004; Muir-Herzing, 2004;
Gilakjani & Leong, 2012; Sabzian & Gilakjani, 2013; Cheok et al., 2017; Kessler, 2007), and pedagogical practices as suggestions. Also, teachers’ attitude can influence students' stress and level of technology integration (Crane, 2005). In addition, teachers believed that technology was effective to improve reading, speaking skills, grammar and vocabulary knowledge (Ösnoy, 2004; Rahimi & Yadollahi, 2011), pronunciation, writing and listening (Rahimi et al., 2011). Mentorship (Ösnoy, 2004) and providing more software and equipment in class (Clark, 2000) have been suggested to remedy the barriers.
With respect to students and teachers, preservice teachers had positive attitude towards CALL (Teo, 2008; Teo, 2009; Hismanoglu, 2012; Zrinć, 2016; Mei, Brown, & Teo; 2017) and have stated that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms (Kit-Ma, Anderson & Streith, 2005; Teo, Lee, & Chai, 2007; Teo, 2008; Teo, 2009; Teo, 2010; Mei et al, 2017), facilitating conditions, technological complexity (Teo et al., 2007; Teo, 2008; Teo, 2009; Teo, 2010; Mei et al, 2017), computer attitude, self-efficacy (Teo, 2009), age, perceived
usefulness, computer course, behavioral intention (Teo, 2008;
SariÇoban, 2013) were the main factors that affected the preservice teachers' attitudes and have claimed that it was effective in learning and teaching vocabulary and grammar, reduced stress and anxiety, and helped them to be relax (SariÇoban, 2013). At last, infrastructure like physical settings, equipment, breakdowns, security, and maintenance, personnel such as computer coordinators and teachers, curriculum that did not analyzed the students' needs well during curriculum development process, did not provide needed and suitable software and hardware, did not establish the clear goals and objectives which cause difficulties in assessment process, and had difficulty in delivering the instruction because of the nature of computer, administrative issues that were raised by computer coordinators and supervisors which were related to levels of responsibility and anxiety and also, classroom policies were the problematic areas for principals and authorities to integrate CALL to schools (Akbaba-Altune, 2006).
1.2. The Statement of the Problem
Although so many studies have been done to gather stakeholders’ attitudes toward CALL, little research has been conducted in the Iranian context. All investigations have addressed just
one of stakeholders including teachers (Afshariet al., 2009; Cheok et al., 2017; Clark, 2000; Crane, 2005; Ertmer, Molly et al., 2014; Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013; Kessler, 2007; Lam, 2000; Liaw et al., 2007;
Mollaei et al., 2013; Ösney, 2004; Park et al., 2009; Sadik, 2006; Yang et al., 2008;), students (Afshari et al., 2013; Aşkaret al., 2015; Ayres, 2002; Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013; Ỉşmanet al., 2004; Izadpanah et al., 2016; Liaw, 2002; Liawet al., 2007; Ösnoy, 2004; Talebinezhad et al., 2013; Toe, 2006; Tsintavi, 2017; TunÇok, 2010;), preservice teachers (Hismanoglu, 2012; Zrinć, 2016; Mei et al, 2017; SariÇoban, 2013;
Teo et al., 2007; Teo, 2008; Teo, 2009; Teo, 2010; Teo, 2017; Zrinć, 2016;) or principals (Akbaba-Altune, 2006) and few studies focused on Iranian high schools (Afshari et al., 2009; Afshari et al., 2013; Fatemi Jahromi et al., 2013; Gilakjani et al., 2012; Izadpanah et al., 2016;
Ketabi et al., 2009; Mollaei et al., 2013; Rahimi et al., 2011; Sabzian et al., 2013; Talebinzadeh et al., 2013). Because the fixed English as foreign language (EFL) curriculum in Iran has not been changed, teachers face “cultural clash” between the existing learning environment and the emergence of technology and changes it causes (Ketabi & Talebinzadeh, 2009; Goodson & Mangou, 1995). Also, the lack of time to teach content through computer and inappropriate
teaching materials in Iran inhibit the integration of CALL (Rahimi &
Nabilou, 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to consider these elements and conduct a new research to reach more complete and useful perspective and suggestions as guidelines for the integration of CALL into high school classrooms, especially English classrooms. The most important point that makes this research distinct from previous studies was that CALL, as target variable of this study, was considered as dependent variable. For considering CALL as one variable, it was required to provide a new quantitative definition for CALL. Previous studies did not consider CALL as a distinct variable and just focused on attitudes toward CALL without defining what they exactly meant by CALL in quantitative way. They just used common and famous definition provided by pioneers and CALL practitioners and just considered effectiveness of computer in language learning based on stakeholders' attitudes. Also, they considered CALL just as computer only and did not pay attention to other components of CALL such as tools, hours of using computer and these tools and ownership of computer which was effective in language learning and curriculum developing process and they were considered these components as background information. Additionally, the effect of these components
of CALL on attitudes and on components of attitudes were discussed and investigated although the target goal should be CALL itself not attitude toward CALL. The CALL itself should be defined and considered. Some common and famous definitions of CALL were introduced by Beatty (2003, 2010), Egbert and Petriel (2005) and Levy (1997). These definitions were too broad and as Torsani (2016) claimed because of double nature of CALL as academic discipline as well as professional tool, it is difficult to provide unitary definition of CALL.
Then, providing specific and quantitative definition for CALL even for specific contexts with their specific circumstances and requirements to reach precise definition of CALL was very important and effective in learning specially language learning and curriculum development.
Thus, this study was investigated teachers, students, principals, and preservice teachers’ attitudes, as main agents,towards the quantitative definition of CALL to investigate the effect of attitude in integration or acceptance of CALL at high schools and help authorities provide effective curriculum based on gathered stakeholders’ attitude.
1.3. Aims of the Study
As a result of developments of technology and their effect on education and because of the lack of adequate previous research gathering stakeholders’ attitudes toward CALL for education purposes in Iranian high schools and additionally based on new quantitative definition of CALL, this study aimed to investigate stakeholders’
attitude (students, teachers, preservice teachers, and principals) toward integration and use of CALL as dependent variable at Iranian high schools. Also, this study aimed to examine the relationship between CALL as dependent variable and attitude as independent variable in order to provide good picture of the relationship between these two variables. Additionally, this study intended to reveal the components of attitude which had potential to predict CALL and overall attitudes (two main variables) and was the reasons of positive or negative attitudes that should be considered and based on them compensated for existing curriculum and provided better environment for learning English.
1.4. Significance of the Study
Involvement of students and teachers in technology and determining the role of technology in language teaching and learning made it necessary to integrate technology to classrooms, especially English classes at Iranian high schools. Also, the importance of attitude
and its relationship with CALL should not be overlooked in developing future learning environments. Findings of this study will affect the use of CALL at Iranian high schools through providing guidelines and suggestions and identifying barriers that could be concluded from stakeholders’ attitudes toward CALL. Results of this study will improve teaching English and will make it more effective and useful than traditional ways of teaching. Additionally, authorities, materials writers, supervisors, syllabus designers, education administers and principals even in small schools, cities, and ministries can use the results of this study to provide better and effective curriculum, materials, and syllabi especially in the targeted city of this study, Ardabil, based on what stakeholders claim and respect through expressing their attitudes and their relationship between CALL and their attitudes. Finally, it is students who will drive a benefit from this big change in curriculum of educational domain. All in all, through findings of this research, teaching English would significantly improve and provide more benefits for stakeholders and through generalizing it to larger population, its benefits will be more visible and tangible.
1.5. Research Questions
1. What is the students’ attitude towards the use of CALL at high schools?
2. What is the teachers’ attitude toward use of CALL at high schools?
3. What is the preservice teachers’ attitude toward use of CALL at high schools?
4. What is the principals’ attitude toward use of CALL at high schools?
5. What is the relationship between CALL and the stakeholders’
attitude?
6. Do stakeholders’ attitudes predict the use of CALL in high school curriculum?
1.6. Hypotheses
1. Students do not have positive attitude toward use of CALL at high schools.
2. Teachers do not have positive attitude toward use of CALL at high schools.
3. Preservice teachers do not have positive attitude toward use of CALL at high schools.
4. Principals do not have positive attitude toward use of CALL at high schools.
5. There is no relationship between CALL and the stakeholders’
attitudes.
6. Stakeholders’ attitudes do not predict the use of CALL in high school curriculum.
1.7. Definition of Key Terms
Attitude is a relatively enduring organization of beliefs and feelings and behavioral tendencies towards socially significant objects, groups, events and symbols (Hogg & Vaughon, 2005)
Computer assisted language learning (CALL) means leaners learning language in any context with, through, and around computer technology (Egbert et al., 2005)
Curriculum is the subjects that are included in a course of study or taught in a school, college, etc. (Oxford Dictionary, 2008)
Preservice teachers are university students of Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL) both in bachelor degree (BA) and Master of Arts (MA)
Quantitative definition of CALL says that CALL should be scored in a way that total CALL score obtains from sum the scores of
every component of the CALL (ownership of computer, skill, passing computer course, hours spend using computer and related tools, course attendance, access to internet, experience with CALL) for each participants
1.8. Limitations and Delimitations
This study like other studies had limitations and delimitations.
Limitations of this study consisted of the limitations of ministry of education and accordingly, schools in Ardabil when conducting the research that did not allow me to contact students face to face to distribute the questionnaire among the students, and teachers or principals distributed them, and as a result, interview with teachers and students and observation of classrooms were not possible. Because of the limitation of ministry of education for schools that schools did not have permission to let researchers to conduct research in schools because of the research that was done in other province without permission of ministry of education and caused harmful results for students, some of the selected schools did not cooperate with researchers and then random selection of schools did not meet but it was tried to have reasonable sample size to compensate for this limitation.
تسرهف لکش
اه
1 - فده و همدقم
2 - نابم ی پ و ی ش ی هن قحت ی ق
دوش فذح هحفص نیا
.
ناونع و :روآدیدپ مان درکراک یسررب
ناتسریبد عطقم یلیصحت همانرب ردCALL
دابآ فیس یدمحم همطاف
داتسا نا امنهار : یدبع اضر
داتسا :رواشم نا یدمحم یلو
خیرات :عافد 4
/ 6 / 98
حفصدادعت :تا 226
.ص
نایاپ هرامش :همان
اپ هرامش / هورگ مان ی
نا همان
:هدیکچ درکراک هک تسا هدوب نآ رب رضاح هعلاطم صحت همانرب ردCALL
یلی بد عطقم ناتتسری وتصص هتب یرییداتی
لگنا نابز یسی سررب ی رعت هئارا اب رضاح هعلاطم .دنک فی
مک ی دج یدی CALL زا غتم ناونع هب ریی
نآ رتب هتسباو
پ تردق هک تسا هدوب ینیبشی
دتم ،ناتملعم ،نازومآ شناد تارظن ناری
ووتشناد و ای لگنا ناتبز زوتمآ ن یتسی
رد
پماک زا هدافتسا رتوی
رد یرییدای لگنا نابز یسی سررب ی ز دنک اری قبط هتفای اه ی پ تاعلاطم
،نیشی شتناد تارتظن
دم ،ناملعم ،نازومآ ناری
ووشناد و نای لگنا ناتبز زومآ یتسی
ور رتب ی پماتک زا هدافتتسا رتوی
رد یرییداتی ناتبز
لگنا یسی ثات ری .دراد 297 اپ هس رد زومآ شناد هی
تطقم مود هرود رد موس و مود ،لوا تصحت ع
یلی بد
،ناتتسری 100
اپ هس رد ناملعم هتی
تصحت عتطقم مود هرود رد موتس و مود ،لوا یلی
بد
،ناتتسری 113 ووتشناد ی ناتبز زوتمآ
لگنا یسی و 50 دم ری بد ناتسری هتنایادج روتط هتب هورتی رته تارظن .دندش باختنا هوری راهچ بلاق رد مود هرود
اهچ طسوت ر
تن .تفری رارق شونس دروم ازوم همانشسرپ ا
جی م ناشن رضاح هعلاطم دهدی
رتظن ناتملعم اتهنت هتک
تبثم ی پماک زا هدافتسا هرابرد رتوی
رد یرییدای لگنا نابز یسی دم ،نازومآ شناد و دنراد ناری
ووشناد و نای زوتمآ
لگنا نابز یسی پماک زا هدافتسا فلاخم رتوی
رد یرییدای لگنا نابز یسی اتسا رتب ،هوهتع هتب .دنتسه هتتفای
اته ی
دم ،ناملعم ،نازومآ شناد تارظن ،رضاح هعلاطم ناری
ووشناد و نای لگنا نابز زومآ یسی
پ تردق شی ب ینی تمک ی
پماک زا هدافتسا رد رتوی
رد یرییدای لگنا نابز یسی صحت همانرب رد یلی
تصحت عتطقم مود هرود یلی
بد ناتتسری .دراد
غتم سپ یاهریی د راذیرثا یرگی تسه دن پماک زا هدافتسا رب رتوی
رد یرییدای لگنا نابز یسی صحت همانرب رد یلی
هرود
صحت عطقم مود یلی
بد ناتسری ثات ری دعب تاعلاطم رد هک دنراد ی
اب دی سررب دروم ی ی رارق دنری اته خساپ . ی
شتناد
دم ،ناملعم ،نازومآ ناری
ووشناد و نای لگنا نابز زومآ یسی
اهتنا تلااوس هب یی
م همانشسرپ ی
وت دنا زاتغآ هطقن ی
ارب ی آ تاعلاطم ت ی .دنشاب
هژاو :یدیلک یاه ،تارظن
،ناتسریبد ،یلیصحت همانرب ،CALL stakeholders
هادکشناد یناسنا مولع و تایبد
یشزومآ هورگ یسیلگن
ا تایبدا و نابز
اپ هجرد تفایرد یارب همان نای دشرا یسانشراک
یسیلگنا نابز زومآ شیاری یسیلگنا نابز زومآ هتشر
درکراک یسررب یلیصحت همانرب رد CALL
ناتسریبد عطقم
رگشهوژپ :
دابآ فیس یدمحم همطاف
امنهار داتسا :
رتکد یدبع اضر
رواشم داتسا :
رتکد یدمحم یلو
رویرهش 98
