Presupuesto TABLA Nº 36 TABLA Nº 36

Language teachers have always used technologies in their practices, but the ongoing arrival of new educational technologies demands comprehensive plans for the

implementation of CALL (Healey et al., 2008). Moreover, it is believed that technology is becoming an invisible and normalised part of teachers’ practices (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017). As Chapelle (2006) notes, it is a challenging task for most academics and professors in the field of applied linguistics to design and develop comprehensive language-teacher education curricula and related course content and materials. She asserts that teacher education in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) shares common areas with other parts of second-language teacher education, but it is emphasised that teachers in CALL should gain

75

the related literacies and skills to be able to choose, use, and sometimes ignore technology for their learners (Chapelle, 2006). Scrivener (2005) considers that at any point in the teaching process, teachers have a range of available options to solve problems in the classroom. This may involve changing the activities or keeping the status quo.

It is believed that CALL can benefit from other standards in other education areas for technology use (e.g., ISTE standards), but the uniqueness of language learning requires prudence about relying too much on generic educational standards and guidelines (Hubbard and Levy, 2006). Even though in contemporary times many language teachers use various technologies in their everyday lives, Kessler and Hubbard (2017) argue that teachers could not take advantage of these practices for language learning, unless they receive the relevant training. It seems that technology use for routine social activities, such as communication with friends, does not equip the teacher with the necessary skills to integrate the same technologies into their pedagogical practices. Teachers could gain this training through informal (e.g., individual experimentation) and formal (e.g., CALL workshop) learning pathways, and be prepared for the upcoming changes, interactive materials, and a social future (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017).

Several studies have attempted to identify the knowledge and skills that CALL teachers need to acquire and develop (Compton, 2009; Hong, 2010; Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Kessler, 2012, Kozlova & Priven, 2015; Krajka, 2012; Safari & Rashida, 2015). In TESOL technology standards framework (Healey et al., 2008), for instance, four major goals and 14 standards are identified for language teachers. Below, the four goals and one standard from each goal are presented (for the complete list of the standardbreds and performance indicators see Healey et al., 2008; p. 29-41):

76

• Goal 1. Language teachers acquire and maintain foundational knowledge and skills

in technology for professional purposes. Standard 1: language teachers demonstrate

knowledge and skills in basic technological concepts and operational competence, meeting or exceeding TESOL technology standards for students in whatever situation they teach.

• Goal 2. Language teachers integrate pedagogical knowledge and skills with

technology to enhance language teaching and learning. Standard 1: language

teachers identify and evaluate technological resources and environments for suitability to their teaching context.

• Goal 3. Language teachers apply technology in record-keeping, feedback, and

assessment. Standard 1: language teachers evaluate and implement relevant

technology to aid in effective learner assessment.

• Goal 4. language teachers use technology to improve communication, collaboration,

and efficiency. Standard 1: language teachers use communication technologies to

maintain effective contact and collaboration with peers, students, administration, and other stakeholders.

(Healey et al., 2008; p. 29-38)

Another thread of research has focused on teachers attitudes toward CALL (Davis, 2009; Kessler, 2007: Li, 2014). Teachers in general, and language teachers, in particular, are eager to have better conditions in which they can develop their skills and literacies in

educational technology integration (Kessler, 2006). Hubbard and Levy (2006) state that the increase in the availability of the Internet and computers in schools and home settings has resulted in extended use of technology in second or foreign language teaching and learning, and consequently teachers feel incompetent and ineffectual if they are not reasonably familiar with CALL. In addition, second language teachers are becoming more aware that the use of technology supports them with ample opportunities to design various syllabi and tasks

77

regarding different component of language (Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson & Freynik, 2014).

Considering the rapid development of technology and respectively, its integration with language learning, the teacher’s role becomes more significant in managing the

classroom where technology is an inseparable part (Arnold & Ducate, 2015). Chapelle (2003) notes that “in the 21st century, English language teachers apparently need to add another thick layer to the object of their critical reflection – technology” (p. 9). Many students are using technological tools in their everyday lives, and it is their reasonable expectations to have technology in their language learning experience (Chik, 2011). Beaven et al. (2010) point out that “language teachers need to acquire and constantly update their ICT skills, while also ensuring that the online teaching activities they use are fully integrated into their own individual pedagogical framework and are thus beneficial both for their students and for themselves” (p 16).

The successful implementation of technology in second language instruction requires trained teachers to be prepared to act effectively in CALL (Kessler & Hubbard, 2017). Hubbard and Levy (2006) argue that this preparation may include: “reading a chapter within a comprehensive methodology textbook, or participating in a one-time, in-service workshop, through dedicated courses and seminars, CALL course series, CALL certificates, and even CALL graduate degrees” (p. 3). They argue that irrespective of studies related to CALL methodology, materials and techniques, there is a sheer necessity to study the nature of knowledge and skills that CALL teachers need to have and develop. One problem in developing a comprehensive CALL teacher education is that there is not a definitive

agreement on what constitutes CALL, and how much technological use in language teaching is optimal or acceptable (Hubbard and Levy, 2006).

78

Levy (1997) notes that the context of CALL is dynamic due to the rapid development of new technologies. Therefore, he adds, if a teacher education program is circumscribed exclusively to the use of certain technologies, by the arrival of newer technologies those programs may be no longer useful and effective (Chao, 2015). The dynamic nature of CALL requires this field not be led by the latest technologies, but it is expected to be wary of what is going on in the world of technology and make the best use of those technologies in the

pedagogy of second language learning (Levy, 1997).

Research shows that teachers face various challenges in integrating new technologies into their practices; this includes time and cost barriers (Thomas, Reinders & Warschauer, 2013), absence of learner discipline and cultural differences in the online learning

environment (Blake, 2008), relocation to computer sites (Corder & U-Mackey, 2011), institutional, social and professional limitations (Beaven, et al, 2010), and technical constraints, such as absence of body language in synchronous audio communication (Hampel, 2009). The most important barrier among all might be teacher resistance, which could be the result of personal factors, such as anxiety (Thomas, Reinders & Warschauer, 2013). Finally, some teachers perceive computers as threats that could replace them (Blake, 2008).

Overall, CALL research, regarding the teachers position in the procedure of teaching and learning has been mainly focused on: a) investigating obstacles that teachers face during implementation of technological tools in pedagogy (Chambers & Bax, 2006), b) teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards using CALL (Davis, 2009; Kessler, 2007: Li, 2014) and c) teacher education for training teachers capable of using technology (Arnold and Ducate, 2015; Borthwick & Gallagher-Brett, 2014; Cunningham & Redmond, 2002; Hubbard, 2008a; Luke & Briton, 2007).

79

Levy (1997) asserts the nature of CALL studies is interdisciplinary and it has language and pedagogy in its kernel which is influenced by other fields and disciplines like “psychology, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, instructional technology and design, and human-computer interaction studies” (p. 47). Social psychology is one of the fields that can help to understand the roles performed by the individuals involved in the CALL (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). The following section will describe Hubbard and Levy’ (2006) CALL teacher framework, together with Biddle’s (1986) role theory, that constitutes the theoretical framework of the current study.

2.4.1.1 CALL Teacher Framework and Role Theory

Hubbard and Levy (2006) state that the increase in the availability of the Internet and computers in schools and home settings has resulted in more use of technology in second or foreign language teaching and learning, and consequently teachers feel incompetent and ineffectual if they are not reasonably familiar with CALL. Hubbard and Levy (2006) proposed a framework for teachers’ and educators’ roles in computer-assisted language learning, which is based on the role theory (Biddle, 1986). Therefore, before discussing the framework, the role theory is explained here first. Biddle (1986) defines Role Theory as “a science concerned with study of behaviours that are characteristics of persons within contexts and with various processes that presumably produce, explain, or are affected by those behaviours” (p. 4). In Biddle’s definition, the individuals’ behaviours are studied in relation to the context, and this emphasises the impact of contextual factors on how individuals define their roles and behave. According to Biddle, in a reciprocal relationship, individuals produce certain behaviours and the result of those behaviours affects them equally. Early conceptions of the role concept defined roles as being prescriptive, normative and fixed and stable across individuals and time, and it was reasoned that assigned roles directed individuals’ practices (Parsons, 1951). In more

80

recent times, however, roles are defined and interpreted by individuals according to contextual factors (Burke & Stets, 2009).

One of the assumptions of role theory is “the fact that human beings behave in ways that are different and predictable depending on their respective social identities and the situation” (Biddle, 1986; p. 68). Thus, three main concepts that underlie role theory are: “patterned and characteristic social behaviours [i.e., roles], parts or identities that are assumed by social participants [i.e., social positions] and scripts or expectations for behaviour that are understood by all and adhered to by performer [i.e., expectations, that includes norms, beliefs and preferences or attitudes]” (Biddle, 1986; p. 68). Biddle states that expectations are the main generators of roles and that these can be learned through experience. According to this theory, social positions are linked to norms, which provide individuals with broad imperatives; however, it is up to individuals to work out the details of the roles (Biddle, 1986).

The socio-psychological concepts and assumptions of the role theory appear to be extremely helpful in analysing and interpreting teachers’ behaviours within the school system (Biddle, 1986). According to Biddle, social positions that teachers work in are surrounded by the role definitions and expectations generated by different stakeholders (i.e., teachers, students, colleagues and parents); hence, teachers receive the broad imperatives, generally in the form of role descriptions and school policies and interpret the details of their roles according to their attitude and beliefs. Given this, the concept of Role Theory has been widely used in various educational studies (Allen, 2013; Balli, 2014; Belogolovsky & Somech, 2012; Normore, 2004; Somech & Oplatka, 2014).

Drawing on this theory, Phillippo and Stone (2013) examined the relationship between how teachers define their roles and responsibilities and their provision of various social and emotional support to students. They reported that the way teachers define their

81

roles was positively related to the amount of social support they provided to students in required conditions. In another study, Valli and Buese (2007) investigated how teachers’ work increased, expanded, and intensified over four years since 2001. The results showed that teachers engaged in a larger number of tasks within an expanded scope in 2005, compared to earlier years. The main reason for this increase was reported to be intensified policies, which also promoted hierarchical control on teachers’ roles and responsibilities.

One of the studies in second language learning/teaching that has benefited from Role Theory is the study conducted by Hubbard and Levy (2006). They developed a descriptive framework which attempts to remain flexible and reflect on teachers’ technology-enhanced practices. The framework, therefore, does not claim any prescriptive approach (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). In this role-based framework for CALL education, two kinds of roles are proposed for language teachers: functional roles (i.e., what teachers actually do) and institutional roles (i.e., teachers’ position in the school setting). Under functional roles, Hubbard and Levy introduced roles of practitioner, developer, researcher, and trainer, which are related to institutional roles in a matrix. Institutional roles include pre-service and in- service classroom teacher, CALL specialists, and CALL professionals. The functional roles are defined by Hubbard and Levy (2006, p. 11-12) as below:

• Practitioners are those who apply their knowledge and skill directly in the

performance of their institutional roles. In particular, the traditional role of a teacher is linked to practitioner.

• Developers are those who are actively engaged in the creation of something new or revision or adaptation of existing work. Although “developer” has most often been used in the literature to label those who produce CALL software, it is intended here to refer also to those who construct language activities and tasks involving the computer in a significant way.

82

• Researchers in this context are those who attempt to discover new information relating to CALL or to pursue evaluation of the success of a CALL initiative. • Trainers are those who are acting to build CALL knowledge and skills in others,

rather than just language knowledge and skills. This role accommodates both formal and informal training, mentoring, and assisting of students and colleagues not subsumed by the previous roles.

According to the above explanations, CALL teachers’ roles are perceived to be wider than technology-enhanced pedagogical practices and include searching and creating new learning materials, as well as engaging in peer-learning with colleagues and students

(Hubbard & Levy, 2006). In other words, teachers are thought to have the capacity to become more than consumers, and develop context-specific learning materials, that others could also benefit from (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). According to the CALL teacher framework, it is simply possible through research that teachers could access a variety of technology-enhanced language learning materials. In view of this, acting the role of researchers could help teachers to become more effective practitioners and developers. Becoming a trainer, in contrast, is considered as the most advanced level for a language teacher’s career, where he/she can train, mentor and assist students and colleagues in integrating technology into their practices

(Hubbard & Levy, 2006).

Hubbard and Levy argue that knowing about CALL (knowledge) is different from what teachers can actually do (skills) with the available technologies to enhance their efficacy. A similar distinction is drawn between technical knowledge of new technologies and the pedagogical knowledge of language teaching. For a CALL teacher, it is unlikely to achieve effective teaching, without having adequate technical foundation (Hubbard & Levy, 2006). Teachers with technical CALL knowledge have fundamental understanding of computers and the peripheral tools and are able to update their knowledge by the advent of

83

new technologies. Teachers with pedagogical CALL knowledge, on the other hand, understand the ways to effectively benefit from computers and new technologies in their language teaching practices. Both technical and pedagogical knowledge are considered to be skills when teachers practically benefit from their knowledge and are able deal with various problems (Hubbard & Levy, 2006).

In a similar vein, Beaven et al. (2010) point out that language teachers need to continuously update their ICT knowledge and skills, and make sure that their knowledge is fully integrated into their own individual pedagogical beliefs and practices. If a teacher education program is circumscribed exclusively to the use of certain technologies (i.e., technological knowledge and skills), by the arrival of newer technologies those programs may be no longer useful and effective (Chao, 2015). The dynamic nature of CALL requires this field not be led by the latest technologies, but it is expected to be wary of what is going on in the world of technology and make the best use of those technologies in the pedagogy of second language learning (Levy, 1997).

It is argued here that there are a few important aspects that needed to be considered in this framework to strengthen its description of teachers’ position in CALL. First, students and administrators’ roles in the successful CALL program and contextual factors have not been included in this framework. Another limitation to this framework may be the lack of empirical research which could include various stakeholders’ voices. Egbert et al. (2009) argued that the consideration of the classroom context is one of the fundamental requirements of rigorous research in CALL. They consider that to achieve this goal, teacher’ and students’ voices, observations, and concerns should be valued and taken into account. They asserted “teachers play a vital role in determining the success of the CALL classrooms; for this reason alone, we must change the way we do research” (Egbert et al. 2009, p. 754).

84

It may be argued that some consideration of the teacher’s voice, indeed, can

contribute to a better understanding of their roles in CALL, and build a bridge between theory and practice. Including CALL stakeholders’ voices from different contexts, also, could

provide us with rich information about each context’s individual merits and weaknesses to develop and design more context-specific CALL education programs.

Levy and Hubbard’s (2006) framework and Biddle’s (1986) role theory provide valuable insights about the role of teachers in successful implementation CALL. Levy and Hubbard’s framework in particular demonstrates how CALL teachers’ roles can be divided into smaller sub-roles and explored individually. Similarly, Biddle’s theory helps to

understand how these roles and sub-roles are defined in particular social contexts. This helps to explore how language teachers perceive various roles for themselves in a CALL context and how these perceptions guide their actions.

As mentioned earlier in section 1.2 (statement of the problem), despite the existence of technological facilities in the Iranian PLSs, few teachers are willing to integrate

technology into their teaching practices, and these technological tools usually remain untouched (Hedayati & Marandi, 2014). To address this problem and drawing on Levy and Hubbard’s (2006) framework and Biddle’s (1986) role theory, the current study attempted to investigate language teachers’ roles in CALL in the Iranian context, by considering various stakeholders’ voices and the contextual factors. Given this, it is important to gain a clear understanding of the foreign language learning, and CALL in particular, in the Iranian context, which is presented in the following section.