CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 98 (2014) 258 - 266
International Conference on Current Trends in ELT
CALL and Teaching Writing: Language Teachers' Attitude,
An Iranian Survey
Morteza Amirsheibania, Matin Irajib *
a b English Department, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
Abstract
This study aims to probe the teachers' attitudes towards the effect of Computer- Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on teaching writing. Sixty one male and 40 female English language teachers participated in this study. They were administered a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part gathered personal information, and the next one gathered information about the participants' feelings about using computer. Data were analyzed by SPSS software. The results show that English language teachers have a positive attitude toward using computer for teaching writing.
© 2014 Matinlraji.Published byElsevierLtd. Thisisan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
Keywords: CALL; writing skill; language learning; language teaching
1. Introduction
For many years, language teachers have used the computer to provide supplemental exercises. Recently due to the technology advancement, teachers started to use computers as an essential part of the daily foreign/second language teaching and learning. Technology has the potential to play a major role in foreign/ second language teaching and learning. In other words, Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has gained considerable attention from different entities including researchers and writers. CALL is a language learning and teaching approach in which
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98-937-619-5477 E-mail address: matin.iraji@hotmail.com
1877-0428 © 2014 Matin Iraji. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.Org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Urmia University, Iran.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.415
computer is used as a tool for presentation, assisting students, and evaluating material (Jafarian, Soori & Kafipour, 2012).
Peterson (1998) stated that CALL has developed from small beginnings into major elements in many university language programs in Japan. The number of individual educators incorporating CALL materials into their classes has increased markedly. This increase of interest in CALL, and educational technology in general, has also been manifested in the number of CALL facilities created within universities and schools.
Since the 1980s, CALL software applications have tended to shift the focus of control from the computer to the learners. Later generation of CALL viewed the computer as a tool controlled by the learner rather than an expert controlled environment for the learner (Kern & Warschauer, 2000). From past to now, CALL has developed along with facilities provided by computer technology. Many studies worldwide have been conducted to investigate the effect of CALL on language learning. Computer based instruction has been challenging traditional teaching and learning process (Jafarian et al., 2012).
Computer assisted writing instruction also proposed an alternative method to the traditional ones (Jafarian et al., 2012). This approach may overcome some shortcomings of traditional method of writing to some extent by providing feedback about students' mistakes/errors. The learner can readily correct mistakes as soon as his/her attention is drawn to them. But errors are systematic, consistent evidence representative of the learner's linguistic system and evidence of his proficiency level. So computer- assisted teaching and learning writing contains features such as self-discovery, invention and multiple drafting (Kapalan, 1996).
Using computer in writing classes allows learners to receive feedback both from the teacher and computer. Computer provides the correct form of the erroneous word and structures that students have produced. Constantly, it seems that writing is more error-free and cohesive sentences and texts can be produced by using computers. The learners will also become aware of the mistakes/errors they have made just as they type the sentences (Jafarian et al., 2010). A lot of studies have been done regarding CALL. Some studies have suggested that the use of writing software application in students' text may be positively correlated with the text quality or L2 proficiency (Ferris, 1994; Grant & Ginther, 2000; Jarvis, Grant, Bikowskira & Farris, 2003). On the other hand, other studies have shown negative effects for novice writers (Brock, 1990a, 1990b; Pennington & Brock, 1990). Pennington and Brock (1990) noticed that, when ESL students used a text analyzer alone without teacher's feedback the results were that writers tended to accept the analyzers' suggestion, even when these alternatives were inappropriate. Studies conducted by Brock (1990a, 1990b) suggested that L2 writing errors are more idiosyncratic and harder to classify than L1 errors. Several researchers have emphasized the use of computer programs to enhance learner autonomy in second language learning, particularly in the field of EFL/ESL writing (Milton, 1997; Williams, 2005). According to Williams (2005), if the use of computer software is carefully modeled, it can offer students both assistance and autonomy in the writing process. Furthermore, Milton (1997) suggested the use of computer programs to serve the aim of the autonomous development of writing skills, particularly for EFL writers.
Bayraktar (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) on students' achievement in secondary and college science education compared to traditional instruction. Results showed a small
positive effect for CAI use when used in simulation or tutorial models, with individual computer use, and when used as a supplement to traditional instruction. Following the same path, Nagata (2000) developed a language tutor program to develop learners' grammatical and sentence production skill in Japanese language. The study revealed that students' achievement improved tremendously. Likewise Chikamatsu (2003) examined the effect of computer on writing efficiency and quality among intermediate learners of Japanese. One of the findings was that a number of Kanji characters used were significantly different, indicating that learners benefit from computer writing.
One of the important aspects of language teacher education programs is language teacher technology education which equips teachers with computer skills and strategies to help learners learn a foreign language better and easier. The majority of studies on teacher technology education explore the following issues: what teachers are and/or should be learning in technology courses (Hargrave & Hsu, 2000; Johnson, 1999); teacher-education students' knowledge of and attitudes toward technology (Atkins & Vasu, 2000; Milbraith & Kinzie, 2000); and how teachers think about and use computers in the classroom (Pilus,1995; Walker, 1994).
In the literature few studies have been carried out in order to find out what makes English language teachers use computer, internet materials, resources and softwares in the language classroom). In order to help language teachers learn about and use technology effectively, we need to know more about the transfer of CALL experience, background and knowledge to the classroom. More specifically, we need to know to what extent computer attributes (availability, complexity, relative advantage, observability, and finally trainability) on the one hand and teachers' attitudes, computer competence on the other, influence teachers' use of the computers in the language classrooms(Albirini, 2004).
The promise of computer technologies, supported by both research and practice, underlies the emergence of technology classes across teacher-education programs and a sharp increase in courses specifically aimed at language teachers (Johnson,1999). However, the appropriateness of technology for student learning is only one factor in understanding teachers' use of CALL. Teacher educators need to design CALL courses that teach what language teachers really need to know. This study intends to probe the teachers' attitudes towards the effect of CALL on teaching writing. This research deals with the following question: Do teachers believe that CALL has a positive effect on teaching writing?
2. Method
2.1 Participants
Participants of this study were 101 English language teachers including 61 male and 40 female who were teaching English as a foreign language at universities or colleges. All of the participants were Persian L1 speakers which were selected from Yazd, Isfahan and Tehran Provinces.
2.2 Instruments
The participants were administered a questionnaire (see Appendix) in English divided into two parts. The first part gathered personal information including age, sex, self-rating of typing ability, self-rating of computer knowledge, and amount of experience using word processing, e-mail and World Wide Web. The second part consisted of 15
questions related to the participants' feeling about using computer. In a pilot test, some items were removed and the reliability of 0.83 was gained.
The questionnaire was distributed to the participants one by one. They were given instruction indicating that the survey was anonymous and for the purpose of finding out how English teachers feel about using computer in teaching writing skill. During answering the survey if there was an ambiguity in terms of understanding the questions, additional explanations were given to the participants.
First the demographic data about the questionnaire composing age and gender and then typing ability of the participants, their knowledge of computer and use of word processing , e-mail and web were analyzed. In the frequency column of the chart only the number of data can be seen, so it cannot provide a comprehensive description. In order to be able to determine the percentage of male and female participants the percent column is used. Because of the absence of lost data the column of percent and valid percent are the same. The participants of this study were 61 (60.4%) males and 40 (39.6%) females (see Table 1).
Table 1: Sex of participants
2.3 Procedure
3. Results
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Male 61
60.4 60.4
Female 40
39.6 39.6
Total 101
100.0 100.0
■ male
■ fe mal e
Figure 1 : Sex of participants
The next variable is the rate of typing ability. As it can be seen in the following chart 45.5 percent of the participants were very good regarding this ability, and in the cumulative percent column 52.5 percent were below the good level.
Table 2: Rate of typing ability
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid poor 4 4.0 4.0 4.0
fair 9 8.9 8.9 12.9
good 40 39.6 39.6 52.5
Very good 46 45.5 45.5 98.0
excellent 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
After analyzing the knowledge of computer, it was found that 2 percent were poor, 40.6 percent were good and 3 percent were excellent.
Table 3: Rate of knowledge
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid poor 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
fair 6 5.9 5.9 7.9
good 41 40.6 40.6 48.5
very good 49 48.5 48.5 97.0
excellent 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The extent to which the participants use word processing was analyzed and as it can be seen in the following chart 5.9 percent of participants never use word processing, 15.8 percent of the a little and 78.2 percent of them use word processing a lot.
Table 4: Using word percentage and frequency
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
_Percent
Valid never 6 5.9 5.9 5.9
a little 16 15.8 15.8 21.8
a lot 79 78.2 78.2 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
In the next chart it can be seen that 2 percent of the participants do not use e-mail, 12.9 percent of them use it a little and 85.1 percent use it a lot.
Table 5: Using e-mail
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
_Percent
never 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Valid a little 13 12.9 12.9 14.9
a lot 86 85.1 85.1 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The next chart indicates the amount of using web by the participants. Four percent of them never use web, 10.9 percent of them use it a little and 85.1 percent use it a lot.
Table 6: Using web
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid never 4 4.0 4.0 4.0
a little 11 10.9 10.9 14.9
a lot 86 85.1 85.1 100.0
Total 101 100.0 100.0
The teachers' attitude was between 1 to 5 that its mean was 3.85 ±0/43. It shows that teachers' attitude towards CALL is high and positive. T was 19.956 and sig. (2-tailed) or p value was 0.000, compared to the p value of 0.05 we can conclude that the teachers' computer usage affects learners' writing ability. The forth column of the following chart is the mean difference that is in the range of confidence interval of the difference (Table 8).
Table 7: One-sample t-test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower Upper
test 19.956 100 .000
.85677
4. Discussion
In the second half of the 20th century, education technologies were one of the most developed areas in the world. Computers which have entered the school life in the late 1950s in developed countries, are still developing day by day throughout the world. Today they have become more powerful, faster, easier to use, and they can process and store more data, as well. From the results of the survey questionnaire, the teachers' attitudes toward teaching writing with the computer-assisted writing program have been investigated. The results revealed the teachers' favorable attitudes toward the use of CALL as a teaching tool.
The findings of this study may be specific to EFL teachers in Iranian education, but their implications are significant to other educators as well. Teachers' positive attitudes in the current study have a special significance given the limitations characterizing the current status of ICT in Iranian schools: insufficient computer resources and teachers' lack of computer competence. It is therefore essential for policy-makers to sustain and promote teachers' attitudes as a prerequisite for deriving the benefits of costly technology initiatives. Since positive attitudes toward ICT usually foretell future computer use, policy-makers can make use of teachers' positive attitudes toward ICT to better prepare them for incorporating ICT in their teaching practices. (Albirini, 2004 cited in Bordbar, 2010).
References
Atkins, N., & Vasu, E. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usage and stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school
teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(4), 279-302. Bayraktar, S. (2002). A meta analysis of computer assisted instruction in evidence education. Journal oof Research on Teaching in Education, 34(2), 173-188.
Bordbar, F. (2010). English teachers' attitudes toward computer-assisted language learning. International Journal of Language Studies, 4 (3), 179-206.
Brock, M. N. (1990a). Can the computer tutor? An analysis of disk-based text analyzer. System, 18, 351-359.
Brock, M.N. (1990b). Customizing a conceptualized text analyzer of ESL writers: Cost versus gain. CALIO Journal, 8(2), 51-60.
Chikamatsu, N. (2003). The effect of computer use on L2 Japanese writing. Foreign Language Annals, 19(30), 583-599.
Ferris, D. R. (1994). Theoretical strategies in student persuasive writing: Difference between native and non-native English speakers. Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 45-65.
Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe second language writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 123-145.
Hargrave, C., & Hsu, Y. (2000). Survey of instructional technology courses for preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4), 303-314.
Jafarian, K., Soori, A., & Kifipour, R. (2012). The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on EFL high school students' writing
achievement. European Journal of Social sciences, 27(2), 138-148. Jarvis, S., Grant, L., Bikowskia, D., & Ferris, D. (2003). Exploring multiple profiles of highly rated learner compositions. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 12(4), 377-403. Johnson, M. (1999). CALL and teacher education: Issues in course design. CALL-EJ Online, 1(2). Retrieved January 26, 2013, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/4-2/johnson.html
Kapalan, N. (1996). Ideology, technology and the future of writing instruction. In Hawsher, G., & Selfe, C. (Eds.), Evolving Perspectives on
Computer and Composition Studies, 19, 207-227. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern
(Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice, pp. 1-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milbrath, Y., & Kinzie, M. (2000). Computer technology training for prospective teachers: Computer attitudes and perceived self-efficacy.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 5(4), 373-396. Milton, J. (1997). Providing computerized self-access opportunities for the development of writing skills. In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.)
Autonomy and independence in language learning, pp. 237-263, London: Longman. Nagata, N. (2002). BANZI: An application of natural language processing to web-based learning. CALICO Journal, 19(3), 583-599. Pennington, M. C., & Brock, M. N. (1990). Process and product approaches to computer- assisted composition. In M. C. Pennington & V.
Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics, pp. 79-109, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Peterson, M. (1998). Gust editorial. Computer Assisted Language learning, 114(4), 347-348.
Pilus, Z. (1995). Teachers' interest in CALL and their level of computer literacy: Some implications. On-CALL, 9(3). Retrieved January 26,
2013, from http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/pilus93.html Walker, B. (1994). EFL teachers' attitudes about CALL. CMLL Journal, 5(3), 12-15. Williams, J. (2005). Teaching Writing in Second and foreign Language classrooms. Boston: Mc Graw-Hill.
Appendix
Age: ............Sex: ......
Please rate your typing ability:
□ poor □ fair □ good □ very good □ excellent Please rate your knowledge of computer:
□ poor □ fair □ good □ very good □ excellent Have you ever used a computer to do the following things?
Word processing: □ a lot □ a little □ never
E-mail: □ a lot □ a little □ never
World Wide Web: □ a lot □ a little □ never
For each statement, please write a number (1-5):
1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neutral 4=agree 5=strongly agree
1. I can use different software to improve the L2 learners' writing ability.
2. I can have neat pages with high quality when using word processing.
3. Using word processor needs more time than using paper and pencil writing.
4. I can ask L2 learners to send their paragraphs to my e-mail.
5. I can ask L2 learners to find writing samples on the Net.
6. I can chat with my L2 learners on the Net and correct their writing mistakes and errors simultaneously.
7. I can send sample paragraphs to L2 learners' e-mails.
8. Using computer and the Net costs a lot.
9. L2 learners can send their paragraphs to each other via e-mail and comment on their classmates' writing.
10. L2 learners can access native speaker teachers on the Net to enjoy their comments.
11. Computer can act as a stimulus presenting L2 learners a picture, telegram, love letter, etc to write about.
12. L2 learners can have access to the teacher via the Net even when they are out of school, university, etc.
13. I would like to continue using computer and the Net in teaching writing.
14. I can search on the Net to find new methods of teaching writing.
15. Generally, I agree with using the Net and computer in teaching writing.
