2.1 Why CALL teacher education?

In the discussion of theory and practice in L2 teacher education, Johnson (Reference Johnson1996: 766) states that “the problems that teachers face are generally caused by constraints imposed on them within the social, cultural, economic, and educational contexts in which their practice takes place, namely, the school and classroom”. While the problems are not mainly caused by the constraints in terms of CALL, L2 teachers have faced a parallel problem over the past decades, brought about by vicissitudes around L2 teachers in the school and classroom (cf., Chapelle, Reference Chapelle2001: 1–44; Kassen & Higgins, Reference Kassen and Higgins1997; Kern et al., Reference Kern, Ware and Warschauer2004). In particular, people in and outside the school setting are connected through Information and Communication Technology (ICT) beyond temporal and spatial boundaries (cf., White, Reference White2006); students participate in virtual communities to meet and communicate with people from all over the world, and create their own culture in communication and collaboration (cf., Thorne & Payne, Reference Thorne and Payne2005); personal computers equipped with ICT are commonly available in and out of the classroom, making paper-based materials and analog audio/video equipment obsolete in the L2 classroom (cf., Mishan, Reference Mishan2005: 241–282); and a considerable number of CALL research studies suggest the efficacy of computer technology on L2 teaching and learning (cf., Blin, Reference Blin2004; Chun & Plass, Reference Chun and Plass1996; Ducate & Lomicka, Reference Ducate and Lomicka2005; Kern, Reference Kern1995; Warschauer & Kern, Reference Warschauer and Kern2000).

Responding to these problems that confront L2 teachers, L2 researchers and teacher educators often ask, ‘How can such a changing milieu (e.g., the technology-enhanced L2 classroom) be successfully integrated into L2 instruction?’ How L2 researchers and teacher educators deal with the question is apparent in how the focus of research has changed in the CALL literature over several decades.

As Beatty (Reference Beatty2003: 14) notes, the research focus in the CALL literature has shifted from whether to use computer technology for L2 education to “how computers should be used [and] for what purposes”. And, by extension, as a way of achieving successful use of CALL technology for instructional purposes, both L2 researchers and teacher educators emphasize L2 teachers’ readiness for the use of CALL technology in the classroom (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2008; Hubbard & Levy, Reference Hubbard and Levy2006b; Kassen et al., Reference Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy and Peters2007), whilst also acknowledging the importance of learners’ readiness for the use of CALL technology (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2004; Stockwell & Levy, Reference Stockwell and Levy2001).

The underlying reason for emphasizing L2 teachers’ readiness with regard to the successful implementation of CALL technology in the classroom is that “forethought and preparation can help many possible problems” attributed to the presence of computer technology in the classroom (Levy & Stockwell, Reference Levy and Stockwell2006: 203). Hubbard (Reference Hubbard2008: 176) expresses this in a more practical sense:

In addition, rapidly changing CALL technology and the widening scope of technology-enhanced environment place more weight on the significance of L2 teachers in order to successfully implement computer technology in the L2 classroom (e.g., Godwin-Jones, Reference Godwin-Jones2002, Reference Godwin-Jones2003; Hong & Samimy, forthcoming). Moreover, unlike L2 teachers working in the traditional classroom, those in the technology-enhanced environment are even expected to be able to “understand frameworks for evaluating CALL in its many forms” as they use computer technology in the classroom; in other words, “they need to know why they do what they do” (Hubbard & Levy, Reference Hubbard and Levy2006a: 11).Footnote 2 In the technology-enhanced L2 teaching and learning environment, it behoves L2 teachers to surmount the integration of computer technology into the classroom; and the optimal way to achieve this is for L2 teachers to experience and become familiar with the use of available CALL technologies during their teacher education (Hubbard & Levy, Reference Hubbard and Levy2006b; Hughes, Reference Hughes2005; Kassen et al., Reference Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy and Peters2007).Footnote 3

2.2 CALL teacher education for pre- and in-service teachers

In a survey study about the use of computer technology in the classroom by K-12 teachers working in schools located in the most high-tech region of the nation, namely Silicon Valley, Hernández-Ramos (Reference Hernández-Ramos2005) found that teachers’ prior experience of technology in a teacher education program is positively associated with their use of technology in the classroom. This finding is in line with what Lam (Reference Lam2000) found in the context of L2 teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom. Grounded in qualitative data from interviewing L2 in-service teachers, her study found that teachers’ lack of knowledge about using computers and lack of training for integrating computer technology into the classroom were related to their reluctance to use computer technology in the classroom. These findings empirically espouse the growing attention in teacher education programs to enabling L2 teachers to have the wherewithal to attend to computer technology for L2 teaching and learning. In fact, several national guidelines for teacher education reflect this concern.

Having reviewed national guidelines for teacher education such as National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), and No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Oxford and Jung (Reference Oxford and Jung2007: 29) conclude that the guidelines include a “strong basis for technology integration, both in teacher education programs and in P-12 public schools”. The increasing attention to L2 teachers’ technology education and the national guidelines concerning technology integration notwithstanding, several researchers note that there is still an insufficient number and quality of courses and workshops that integrate technology education into L2 teacher education programs (cf., Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2008; Kessler, Reference Kessler2006; Oxford & Jung, Reference Oxford and Jung2007). Nonetheless, continuing efforts have been made to develop and integrate CALL teacher education into L2 teacher education programs.

The variety of these efforts is well represented in a wide range of the forms and designs of CALL teacher education in L2 teacher education programs. These include online courses along with face-to-face courses (e.g., Bauer-Ramazani, Reference Bauer-Ramazani2006; Davies, Reference Davies2003; Jones & Youngs, Reference Jones and Youngs2006), introduction of computer technology as part of an L2 teacher education course (e.g., Desjardins & Peters, Reference Desjardins and Peters2007; Kamhi-Stein, Reference Kamhi-Stein2000), technology workshops (e.g., Rickard et al., Reference Rickard, Blin and Appel2006), a series of courses offered throughout the teacher education programs (e.g., Luke & Britten, Reference Luke and Britten2007), and even courses specifically designed for a CALL certificate and a CALL graduate degree (e.g., Partridge, Reference Partridge2006; Slaouti & Motteram, Reference Slaouti and Motteram2006). These endeavors are worthwhile because they serve to provide a better understanding of how such courses influence future and current L2 teachers with regard to the use of CALL technology; they also inform other L2 researchers and teacher educators about making better plans for context-specific parallel courses by showing the pros and cons in the already-administered courses.

The most noticeable benefits of CALL teacher education in teacher education programs include the following: CALL technology courses serve to assist L2 teachers in gaining confidence in using computer technology (e.g., Hegelheimer, Reference Hegelheimer2006; Hoven, Reference Hoven2007; Peters, Reference Peters2006; Wetzel & Chisholm, Reference Wetzel and Chisholm1998) as well as having a positive attitude toward computer technology (e.g., Kamhi-Stein, Reference Kamhi-Stein2000; Kassen & Higgins, Reference Kassen and Higgins1997; van Olphen, Reference van Olphen2007). Teachers’ confidence in using CALL technology is the necessary first step toward expanding their knowledge of how to harness the pedagogical potential of CALL technology. Grounded in the responses of English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual teacher candidates to pre- and post-technology-integrated course project surveys, for example, Wetzel and Chisholm (Reference Wetzel and Chisholm1998) found that the course gave pre-service ESL and bilingual teachers confidence in using computer technology for their future classroom instruction. Examining L2 pre-service teachers’ technological competencies through a technology course in a 4-year teacher education program, Peters (Reference Peters2006) also reported that the overall competencies of the pre-service teachers taking the course were improved. Hegelheimer (Reference Hegelheimer2006) even argued for the early exposure of pre-service L2 teachers to a technology course offered in the beginning of a teacher education program, so that pre-service L2 teachers were able to hone their knowledge and skills obtained from the technology course by incorporating them into what would be learned from other L2 teaching courses throughout the teacher education program. His findings suggest that such an attempt contributes to enhancing students’ computer literacy skills, resulting in more confidence in using web resources and evaluating computer technology for instructional purposes. Along similar lines, Hoven (Reference Hoven2007) took an evolutionary approach to developing a technology course, continuously reflecting on students’ feedback from previous courses; this eventually helped practising L2 teachers familiarize themselves with web-based technologies (e.g., WebQuest, Blog, and Wiki) which, in turn, enhanced student teachers’ competencies and confidence in using the technologies in their future classes.

In addition to the enhancement of L2 teachers’ confidence and competencies in using CALL technology, research studies indicate that both pre- and in-service L2 teachers’ CALL technology education positively affects L2 teachers’ attitude toward the use of CALL technology. Introducing a thoughtfully designed Language Learning Technology (LLT) module to graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) of a foreign language department, Kassen and Higgins (Reference Kassen and Higgins1997) reported how the GTAs’ familiarity and comfort with computer technology contributed to their successful application of computer technology for instructional purposes. Similarly, Kamhi-Stein (Reference Kamhi-Stein2000) employed a computer mediated communication (CMC) mode (i.e., web-based bulletin board) in a TESOL methods course in a graduate program as a means of providing pre-service teachers with an opportunity to build their knowledge about CMC modes by learning through them. The findings of her study, based on students’ responses, suggest that with their own experience of using the CMC modes as learners, the pre-service L2 teachers considered the CMC mode a useful tool for peer communication and collaboration, leading to their positive attitude toward CMC technology. In much the same way, world language teacher candidates in van Olphen’s (Reference van Olphen2007) study acquired a positive attitude toward integrating computer technology in their future teaching by learning to develop digital portfolios through using a web-based system, WebCT. This review of a small body of selected studies in the literature highlights teachers’ confidence and positive attitude as notable benefits of CALL teacher education. However, it is also important to note that issues concerning teachers’ confidence in and attitude toward computer technology frequently emerge from studies both on the integration of computer technology into the teacher education program and on teachers’ integration of computer technology into the classroom, and appear routinely in the literature in the fields of CALL teacher education (cf., Desjardins & Peters, Reference Desjardins and Peters2007; Kessler, Reference Kessler2007; Olesova & Meloni, Reference Olesova and Meloni2006; Wong & Benson, Reference Wong and Benson2006) and educational technology (cf., Christensen, Reference Christensen2002; Mumtaz, Reference Mumtaz2000; Penuel, Reference Penuel2006; Russell et al., Reference Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer and O’Connor2003).

Despite the benefits of integrating CALL technology into the teacher education program for L2 teachers, several researchers are wary of the efficacy of introducing only one or two CALL technology courses or workshops during the teacher education program (Desjardins & Peters, Reference Desjardins and Peters2007; Kessler, Reference Kessler2006; Luke & Britten, Reference Luke and Britten2007; Peters, Reference Peters2006).Footnote 4 They do not consider a small number of courses or workshops sufficient for L2 teachers to experience a variety of CALL technology and to understand the pedagogical potential of CALL technology; and they do not believe that a small numbers of courses or workshops can contribute, as expected, to L2 teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom. Several attempts have been made to resolve this problem: (1) providing multiple opportunities for L2 teachers to experience CALL technology through a series of courses throughout the teacher education program (e.g., Luke & Britten, Reference Luke and Britten2007); (2) designing a CALL technology course that reflects the verisimilitude of the actual L2 classroom environment where L2 teachers actually integrate technology (e.g., Chao, Reference Chao2006; Debski, Reference Debski2006; Egbert, Reference Egbert2006); (3) establishing a community of practice for promoting the collaboration of L2 teachers during or after their formal technology education (e.g., Arnold et al., Reference Arnold, Ducate and Lomicka2007; Hanson-Smith, Reference Hanson-Smith2006; Kolaitis et al., Reference Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann and Hubbard2006; Meskill et al., Reference Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng and You2006b); and (4) supporting L2 teachers’ continuous learning about CALL technology by themselves (e.g., Robb, Reference Robb2006; Szendeffy, Reference Szendeffy2005). These attempts lend themselves naturally and logically to L2 teachers’ attainment of “technopedagogical skills” Desjardins & Peters, Reference Desjardins and Peters2007: 6).Footnote 5 Nevertheless, L2 researchers and teacher educators still face a substantive question of whether such efforts (e.g., single or multiple CALL technology courses, situation-based and project-based CALL courses, and L2 teachers’ collaboration through a community of practice) promote L2 teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom.

2.3 CALL technology education and L2 teachers’ technology integration

With CALL teacher education burgeoning in L2 teacher education programs, attention has been paid, without doubt, to the efficacy of such efforts; that is to say, whether L2 teachers’ experience of CALL technology education fosters their use of computer technology in the classroom. Based on the responses of 108 graduates of TESOL master’s degree programs to a web-based survey about formal and informal technology education, Kessler (Reference Kessler2007) remarks that while TESOL professionals seem to feel confident about CALL technology, they do not show much confidence about integrating it into their classroom instruction. This finding clearly indicates a discrepancy between what teachers learned from technology education and how much they are able to integrate it into their classes. Although teachers’ integration of technology can be defined differently depending upon their subject area and pedagogical purposes, the following operational definition of it was offered by the Technology in Schools Task Force (2003):

This definition satisfactorily covers, albeit generically, the context of L2 teachers’ integration of technology. In fact, a small body of literature looks into L2 teachers’ integration of computer technology into the classroom in relation to their previous technology education experience within the boundary of the definition (e.g., Egbert et al., Reference Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi2002; Lam, Reference Lam2000; Meskill et al., Reference Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng and You2006a; Meskill et al., Reference Meskill, Mossop, DiAngelo and Pasquale2002; Moore et al., Reference Moore, Morales and Carel1998).

Through a statewide survey research in which about 400 L2 teachers participated across 100 school districts, Moore et al. (Reference Moore, Morales and Carel1998) explored L2 teachers’ use of computer technology for instructional purposes. They attributed the fact that teachers made little use of CALL technology (e.g., the Internet, e-mail, and CD-ROM) in their instruction to their lack of knowledge about how to use CALL technology in the classroom, further emphasizing the importance of CALL technology education for both pre- and in-service L2 teachers. Looking more closely into the L2 classroom settings through the teachers’ eyes and voices, Lam (Reference Lam2000) examined the reasons behind teachers’ decisions whether to use computer technology in the classroom, and the factors that influenced those decisions. Supporting the findings of Moore et al. (Reference Moore, Morales and Carel1998), Lam also found that teachers’ lack of training in the use of computers in language teaching was one of the primary factors that obstructed their decision to use computer technology. Lam (Reference Lam2000) noted additional factors that influenced the teachers’ decisions, such as their computer literacy skills, technology resources in the school, and a shortage of preparation time for instruction with computer technology. Extending these previous studies, Meskill et al. (Reference Meskill, Mossop, DiAngelo and Pasquale2002) examined L2 teachers’ use of computer technology in relation to their former technology training by focusing on the contrast between novice and experienced teachers. The findings of the study showed that the novice teachers, even if they had received formal technology training, felt less comfortable in using computer technology for their classroom instruction than did the experienced teachers with no, or relatively little, formal technology training. Based on the findings, Meskill and her colleagues (Reference Meskill, Mossop, DiAngelo and Pasquale2002: 54) further postulated that “[formal technology training] may not be sufficient for the needed conceptual development that leads to the kinds of ease and repertoire characteristics of expert users [teachers who have more teaching experience and who use computer technology]”. In addition, based on statewide survey responses of 847 L2 teachers on their use of computer technology in the classroom, Meskill et al. (Reference Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng and You2006a) reported lack of time and technology resources, lack of technology training, and lack of support from the school as hindrances to the teachers’ use of computer technology for instructional purposes.

Rather than providing a definitive answer to the question of whether L2 teachers’ technology education contributes to their integration of computer technology into the classroom, the findings of the above-mentioned studies bring into view the complicated and protean nature of L2 teachers’ integration of computer technology into the classroom. Such multi-dimensional aspects of L2 teachers’ use of computer technology are further reinforced by many studies in educational technology, which find numerous variables involved in teachers’ use of computer technology for their instructional purposes. In their extensive reviews of the literature on teachers’ integration of computer technology, Mumtaz (Reference Mumtaz2000) and Penuel (Reference Penuel2006) reported factors that influence teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom, such as their formal technology training experience, their attitude toward computer technology, and the availability of technology resources and technical support in the school. Similar research findings are recounted, including teachers’ attitude toward computer technology (Russell et al., Reference Russell, Bebell, O’Dwyer and O’Connor2003); teachers’ computer literacy skills (Scheffler & Logan, Reference Scheffler and Logan1999); availability of technology infrastructure and resources (Norris et al., Reference Norris, Sullivan, Poirot and Soloway2003; Pelgrum, Reference Pelgrum2001); lack of support from the school (Weikart & Marrapodi, Reference Weikart and Marrapodi1999); and teachers’ demographic characteristics – e.g., age, gender, years of teaching experience, years of technology use, and school workload (Becker, Reference Becker1994; Wozney et al., Reference Wozney, Venkatesh and Abrami2006).

The findings of previous studies make it a more formidable challenge for L2 researchers and teacher educators to pursue the substantive question of whether L2 teachers’ experience of technology education serves to foster their use of computer technology in the classroom. Yet, they contribute to our conceptual understanding of what happens in the process of L2 teachers’ use of computer technology in the classroom by shedding light on multi-dimensional aspects of teachers’ integration of computer technology. In addition, such findings allow us to discern seemingly indiscrete variables involved in L2 teachers’ integration of technology, so that we can conceive of them as distinct sets of factors. In other words, embracing the outwardly fragmented variables can lead to a fresh insight into L2 teachers’ integration of computer technology pertaining to their experience of technology education. In this sense, it is possible to glean from previous research three categorized factors: CALL teacher education, teachers’ individual factors, and contextual factors. These three categories not only capture the quintessence but also summarize the process of L2 teachers’ integration of computer technology into the classroom. While the importance of these factors cannot be placed, with absolute certainty, in a sequential order, previous studies suggest that well-organized and well-prepared CALL technology education is considered to be relatively more salient to teachers’ integration of technology than teachers’ individual factors and contextual factors (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2008; Hubbard & Levy, Reference Hubbard and Levy2006b; Kassen et al., Reference Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy and Peters2007).

This point is graphically illustrated in Figure 1, which presents a spherical model of L2 teachers’ integration of technology into the classroom. The sphere has three orbital factors influencing it: CALL teacher education, teachers’ individual factors, and contextual factors. CALL teacher education is orbiting around the equator (i.e., the center of the sphere), which indicates the relative importance to L2 teachers’ technology integration compared to teachers’ individual factors and contextual factors. Teachers’ individual factors are orbiting slightly above the orbit of CALL teacher education, whereas the orbit of the contextual factors is further away from that of CALL teacher education. The proximity between CALL teacher education and teachers’ individual factors indicates that CALL teacher education, as also shown in the review of the literature, is likely to influence teachers’ individual factors (e.g., L2 teachers’ general computer literacy skills or teachers’ attitude toward and confidence in computer technology). The orbit of contextual factors is further away from that of CALL teacher education, in that contextual factors are relatively independent of CALL teacher education; for instance, lack of computers in and little support from the school where L2 teachers work has nothing to do with CALL teacher education. Possible ways to reduce the distance between the two orbits (i.e., to bridge the gap between CALL teacher education and the actual situations in the schools and classrooms where teachers use computer technology) can be found in the attempts that several researchers have made. These include: continuous technology education for pre- and in-service teachers (e.g., Luke & Britten, Reference Luke and Britten2007; Olesova & Meloni, Reference Olesova and Meloni2006; Robb, Reference Robb2006); formal technology education reflecting actual classroom situations (e.g., Chao, Reference Chao2006; Debski, Reference Debski2006; Egbert, Reference Egbert2006); and community of practice encouraging collaboration among teachers (e.g., Arnold et al., Reference Arnold, Ducate and Lomicka2007; Hanson-Smith, Reference Hanson-Smith2006; Kolaitis et al., Reference Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann and Hubbard2006; Meskill et al., Reference Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng and You2006b).Footnote 7

Fig. 1 The spherical model of L2 teachers’ integration of CALL technology into the classroom