In this section, there are eight major themes: (1) the language skills with the most adoption of CALL; (2) the common elements of CALL; (3) the differences between the CALL and the non-CALL groups; (4) the potential factors affecting adoption of CALL; (5) more discussion of the important findings are discussed as a whole; (6) teachers’ perspectives on CALL; (7) teachers’ perspectives on learners; (8) teachers’
perspectives on administrators. The four research questions proposed in the first chapter are answered based on the first four themes, including:
1) What language skills are taught with the most adoption rate of CALL?
2) What CALL elements are widely used by the college teachers?
3) What are the differences between the responses of the CALL and the non-CALL teacher groups?
4) What factors may affect the adoption of CALL in the college contexts?
The Skills with the Most Adoption Rate of CALL
Based on the data collected from the questionnaires and the teacher’s interviews, among the four language skills, CALL was most frequently used in listening instruction, and the second most commonly used in teaching reading. As suggested by the results, the receptive skills such as listening and reading received more assistance from CALL.
A plausible interpretation is that these two skills are closely concerned with the receptive processes involving the decoding of messages (Flowerdew, 1994; Wolvin and Coakley, 1996); CALL could provide more comprehensible and diverse inputs, such as more authentic audio and visual information to facilitate learning listening and reading. Teachers could take advantage of CALL to make up for the inadequate language exposure in an EFL context, where English is usually learned and used within classrooms. The more opportunities for students to expose to listening and reading inputs, the more exercise and practice learners could receive. The other explanation may be found in the responses from teachers in the interviews. Some teachers mentioned that they used multimedia software to give students diverse types of inputs, like authentic speech, cultural messages; in this way, EFL students could have more opportunities for acquiring more language inputs from the real world, which is the most encouraging function served by CALL-related resources.
On the other hand, writing and speaking are the productive skills that require learners to transform their thoughts into either written or spoken forms. A good deal of the cognitive process should be done by learners themselves rather than relying on the supplementary tools or materials. Consequently, the percentages of using CALL in writing and speaking were apparently lower than those in receptive skills. However, if taking a closer examination of the difference between writing and speaking, it is
found the percentage of writing is a little higher than speaking, and this quantitative data could be further supplemented by the teacher’s interviews. In many respects, the very general contrasts between speaking and writing relate to that the nature of speaking runs directly counter to the written forms, particularly considered the static, planned and decontextualized features pertaining to writing (Hughes, 2002). Some teachers stated that speaking was excluded to the adoption of CALL because they had no idea about how to put CALL into practical use in speaking class. For example, one teacher remarked that conducting the speaking courses in a language laboratory was somewhat awkward with earphones. She believed that students would prefer face-to-face communication to exchange information with a real interlocutor instead of the machine.
The Common Elements of CALL
A summary of the frequencies and percentages of using CALL subcomponents is displayed in Table 4.4. In terms of the general look, it has to be marked that online reference tools like dictionary were most frequently used as a teaching instrument, whereas E-learning delivery platform was the highest category that never used by most people among the four categories. Furthermore, the means of the four major categories including hypermedia/multimedia, E-learning delivery platforms, on-line reference tools and learning websites were near or over 3, which showed that they were generally known and accepted in the teaching discipline. Since there are no clear distinctions among the four sub-categories, it is impossible to conclude which one is most popular among language teachers. But none of the components mentioned in the questionnaire was never or rarely used by teachers. In general, these four categories of CALL are frequently used by language teachers. The sub-classification of CALL in the present study could generally shed some lights on the current administration of
CALL in Taiwan.
Moreover, the results from the interviews suggested that different teachers have different attitudes toward subcategories of CALL depending on the resources available to them, the needs and types for the courses, and the personal preferences for the elements. Given the comprehensive nature of CALL, the combination of several elements into teaching is normal for all the teachers because it is impossible to merely use one category in teaching practices.
The Differences between the CALL and the non-CALL Groups
Since the numbers of teachers in CALL and non-CALL groups are greatly different from each other, with CALL group of 84.7% and non-CALL group of 15.3%, it was found that the means of the demographic variables between these two groups were no statistical significance. If we take a closer look at the data in Table 4.7, there was no statically significant interaction between the first three demographic variables of CALL and non-CALL groups.
One reason for no statistical significance may lie in the small size of the non-CALL group. In the present study, only 27 college teachers did not adopt CALL into language teaching, which implies that the numbers of this group are too limited to compare with CALL group. Moreover, another possible reason may be that teachers’
age, educational background and years of teaching experience actually have little to do with their teaching decision-making. To people’s common impression, younger or junior teachers may be more open-minded toward innovative technology; however, the findings here could provide more empirical evidence to clarify the myth.
Moreover, whether teachers’ adoption of CALL or not may beyond the intrinsic factors of teachers themselves, more extrinsic causes should be taken into account, such as the administrative support, learners’ characteristics, and the like, which would
be further endorsed by the statements from teachers’ interviews.
Among the four variables, weekly computer using hours was the only variable proven to be significant in Table 4.7. Compared to the first three variables aforementioned, weekly computer using hours has a strong connection with a person’s style and behaviors. A plausible interpretation is that the amount of time used on the computer reflects the personal habits or the extent of reliance on the computer and technology. The more they spent time on the operation of the computer, the more likely they would integrate CALL in their teaching. Along the same vein, the total computer using hours may partially show the extent how teachers master the manipulation of CALL; that is, a teacher who is familiar with or good at operating CALL, they would like to spend more time with computers. As a result, the weekly computer using hours turned out to be significantly correlated to CALL adoption rate.
The Potential Factors Affecting Adoption of CALL
Generally speaking, an item mean greater than 3 indicates that specific statement described in the item is highly agreed by the participants. An item mean between 2.5 to 2.9 indicates that the item is moderately agreed. In terms of the descriptive statistics in each attribute shown in Table 4.5, on average, the 5 factors had medium to high means (M＞3) which imply that most of these participants generally regarded the 5 attributes as medium to high level of importance. In other words, they endorsed that these five factors played important roles in the uses of CALL in their teaching.
In accordance with Martins et al’s study (2004), Trialability (M=3.8) was the most important factor for the adoption of CALL. Similarly, Relative Advantage were the same with Trialability as the most influential factor in the present study (M=3.8);
however, this factor exerted little influence in Martins’ study (2004) in Brazil. This difference on the weights of the variables is likely due to the different characteristics
of the participants and the different research contexts. In Martins et al’s study (2004), they investigated foreign language school administrators’ views on the potential factors for Internet adoption rate, but the target population in the present study is college English teachers in Taiwan.
Moreover, the results from the logistic regression in Table 4.9 could be further served to estimate the influence of the five attributes on CALL adoption rate. Among the five attributes in the questionnaire, Trialability and Compatibility were the two most outstanding variables for predicting the CALL adoption rate. In line with Martins et al’s (2004) findings, Trialability was the most adequate factor for predicting CALL adoption rate. As suggested by Rogers (1995), if an innovation could be experimented with before its actual implantation, the adoption rate will be higher. Therefore, the findings from both the present research and Martins et al’s study were generally consistent. It may imply that the potential users of an innovation, like teachers in different teaching contexts, valued the importance of trying out an innovation prior to implementation.
However, the present study is a cross-sectional or one-shot study aiming at investigating the underlying factors affecting CALL adoption rate. A cross-sectional study is one that compares subjects or experimental items at a particular point in time (Beth and Robert, 2004). Unlike a longitudinal study which allows the assessment of changes for specific groups at two or more points in time to investigate long and complex issues, what we can draw from the results is the interrelationships between the five attributes and CALL adoption rate. The casual relationships, whether the five attributes could be served as the predictors of CALL adoption rate, or they may be to certain degree influenced after adopting CALL, could not be revealed from this study.
With reference to the qualitative data from both open-ended questions and
teachers interviews, most people claimed that they are reluctant to implement CALL due to the reasons like insufficient resources at their schools, complicated manipulation process, and unsatisfying learning outcomes. For these reasons, the five attributes tend to be seen as the causes instead of the effects in explaining the causal relationship.
Additionally, the major factors for adopting CALL drawn form the teachers’
interviews were the reliability of the instruments, enough technology training, administrative facilitation, learners’ feedback, and so on. These factors were beyond the hindrance within teachers themselves, and were more related to the lack of administrative support at institutions.
More Discussion on the Significant Quantitative Findings
As can be seen in Table 4.6, the correlations showed a strong and significant relationship among the five attributes, which implies that all of them could be served as predictors for adoption of CALL for those respondents in the study. It is noteworthy that weekly computer using hours played a significant role in the decision-making of the participants. It was found that the weekly computer using hours was negatively correlated with CALL availability, although the correlation did not reach a significant level. One possible reason is that teachers themselves might have to spend more time and effort compensating for the insufficient resources provided by the schools. In such situations, teachers might bear more workload on the computer and the Internet to prepare for supplementary materials.
In terms of years of teaching experience, it was only positively and significantly correlated with Observability. While there seems no clear reason for the result, one plausible explanation could be forwarded. Perhaps those senior teachers have more experiences in teaching, which may result in being less dependent on CALL-related
teaching components. They might rely more on their own teaching methods and styles;
therefore, they seem to have more conservative views on the effectiveness of CALL.
In other words, those senior teachers need more concrete and observable outcomes to convince themselves of the positive effects of using CALL in their teaching practices.
Considering the interaction of genders with the adoption of CALL, there was no obviously significant difference between male and female teachers. Reasonable explanations may be found in the characteristics of the target population. The number of female teachers is in fact larger than that of male teachers in English teaching profession. The fact could be partially drawn from the participants in the present study, which the number of females was tripled than that of males. That is why no difference exists in genders. Furthermore, since CALL is regarded as an assistant tool for language teachers, they would like to embrace the positive effects of CALL adoption if they have no difficulty in implementing CALL. Therefore, genders are of no particular importance on this aspect.
On the other hand, CALL availability conditions do play a large part in teachers’
attitudes and decisions, which implies that the support from school administration will assist teachers to make good use of CALL in their teaching (Sherry, 1998; Martins et al, 2004). Conversely, it is more challenging and difficult for language teachers to construct a CALL environment or set up CALL-relevant facility on their own. If teachers can access to various components of CALL in their teaching environments, they will be more willing to try on or incorporate CALL in their teaching practices;
along the same vine, they are not likely to relate CALL to teaching without the resources available, even some indeed would like to be CALL users (Levy, 1997;
Felix, 2003). Compared with the findings on genders and CALL availability conditions, we found that the external factors weight more than teachers’ internal
variables on the CALL adoption rate.
Teachers’ Perspectives on CALL
The responses from both the questionnaires and interviews were classified into three major sections. More specifically, the opinions were examined towards the following areas: (1) teachers themselves, (2) learners, and (3) school administration.
Firstly, in terms of teachers themselves, there are several additional factors or problems of using CALL lying in their teaching process. Some teachers reported that the lack of ability to operate computers and technology skillfully and the obstructions of technical problems on computers are two major external factors to refuse the use of CALL. As mentioned by Hémard (2003), being user-friendly and easy to manipulate CALL-related resources is a major concern. Moreover, they were also concerned with the accesses to obtain and update information about CALL. As pointed out in the interviews, most of them were not familiar with CALL or did not have many chances to exchange and share information with other colleagues during the implementations of CALL. As a result, they sometimes felt like being alone in this trend of CALL in the teaching community. Without a supportive team, the quality of CALL in language teaching will be reduced or even failed in the end (Brent et al. 2002).
Other than the lack of technological knowledge and access to information exchange, teachers’ personalities also have a deep influence on the attitudes toward CALL. Two interviewees recommended that being open-minded, curious and innovative is a great asset for language teachers because teaching and learning can promote and enhance each other. If teachers embrace the trend of CALL, they would like to spend more effort and energy on undertaking teaching with new innovations;
consequently, students would benefit more from teachers’ involvement.
Besides, some teachers observed that CALL operates on drilling and repetitive
mode of learning and involves only a rather low level of intellectual engagement and investment. This underlying reason may result from the misconception or ambiguous conceptualization of CALL. Therefore, language teachers should be equipped more knowledge and technology training on CALL to implement the courses with more all-round and in-depth inclusion of CALL other than the mechanical and superficial practices.
Teachers’ Perspectives on Learners
As for the teachers’ views towards learner’s parts, an important issue revealed by several participants in the interviews is called “Hawthorne effect” or “placebo effect”. According to Mousavi’s definition (2002), Hawthorne effect refers to the tendency of humans to temporarily improve their performance when they are aware it is being studied. With regard to education, if a new teaching method or tool is used, there may appear certain improvement in learning, which is not caused by the method or tool introduced, but by the fact that it is new. To be more specific, learners may be motivated to some extent by the new technology at the beginning stage of using CALL; however, the effectiveness may gradually decrease as the instruction continues.
In response to the dilemma, the teachers in the interviews suggested some possible ways to avoid or improve Hawthorne Effect. First of all, what teachers should bear in mind is not overly emphasize or rely on the use of CALL during the adoption of CALL in teaching; that is, CALL is not the “panacea” that has the magic power to stimulate and maintain learners’ motivation all the time. Instead, teachers should plan their teaching based on the nature of the courses, the characteristics of the learners, the class size, and their own teaching styles. Secondly, besides presenting and introducing the CALL-related resources, the teachers had better intertwine CALL
with students’ participation so that the courses could provide multiple opportunities to use CALL.
Additionally, teaching students how to make good use of CALL-related materials is another important way to lengthen their interests (Ertmer et al. 1999). For example, teachers can lead their students to organize and manage information and provide some relevant practices and evaluation for them. Last but not least, teachers have to enhance learners’ intrinsic motivation and educate them the importance of learner autonomy in learning English, which will in turn become an asset for learners to carry through their whole learning process. For example, cooperative learning is a practicable strategy, as pointed out by Jacobs et al (1995), to encourage students to actively participate in learning. Findings from the interviews also showed that the use of the cooperative learning techniques could engage students in learning tasks.
Teachers’ Perspectives on Administrators
The assistance from the school administration is also an immediate and necessary solution corresponding to the specific difficulties encounter by most teachers. As agreed by all the interviewees and most responses in the questionnaires, the CALL-related resources in these teachers’ institutions had not been systematically and explicitly introduced to them based on the need of the teachers. What is worse, some schools only focused on the great investment in advanced facilities without providing enough training courses or workshops for teachers. Therefore, some expensive equipment and devices finally became of no use due to the fact that the
The assistance from the school administration is also an immediate and necessary solution corresponding to the specific difficulties encounter by most teachers. As agreed by all the interviewees and most responses in the questionnaires, the CALL-related resources in these teachers’ institutions had not been systematically and explicitly introduced to them based on the need of the teachers. What is worse, some schools only focused on the great investment in advanced facilities without providing enough training courses or workshops for teachers. Therefore, some expensive equipment and devices finally became of no use due to the fact that the