Introduction Statement
Following
the rationale for using CALL programs into language teaching, this module
provides the reader with the knowledge of factors that difficult the language
teaching via technology. Indeed, these factors have to do with the nature or
the properties of CALL programs and particular cases of studies involving their
mediation in the U.S. or anywhere else around the world.
The
thought of this module is built upon the communicative function as initiated by
Krashen’s (1982) monitor hypothesis. This theoretical approach is based on the
two modes of communication: asynchronous and synchronous (Abraham, 2008; Gündüz, 2005). Thus,
as CALL designers’ mission consists of modifying and accelerating the normal
process of language acquisition (Garrett, 1991); they must face resistance that
hinders their mission.
One of
the hindering factors is related to the nature and original purpose of these
technologies. For the case of virtual worlds used in teaching languages, for
instance, it is known that they fall under two structures that mean their
purposes. Virtual world applications were typically game focused and
classically socially oriented (Wehner, Gump, & Downey, 2011). If the
learner or the instructor cannot see beyond borders, i.e. beyond these two
initial perspectives, it would be hard for the learning through virtual worlds to
transcend and to be effective. There is a risk of never seeing the great
opportunity of being motivated to access the linguistic repertoire of the
speakers from the target language. Therefore, this type of learner or
instructor with limited prospective on Virtual worlds would miss out to make
new friends who can help to practice the language in a synchronous and
asynchronous mode (Wehner, Gump, & Downey, 2011, p. 278).
Regarding the hindering factors grounded in the
interactive and the computer-based styles, one of the recurrent obstacles
consists of conservative instructor’s fears to get trapped by the technology,
so they may lose control of the class (Garrett, 1991). Most teachers involved in teaching through
CALL lack technology or digital skills. Learners are also called to learn how
to use computers and software in order to secure a great deal-learning. Additionally,
the use of CALL in language learning/teaching underestimates the different types
of feedback, especially those requiring a critical thinking since the ‘machine’
(technology) can –in a slavery way - control drills, exercises, quizzes, and
tests. Also, if the instructor thinks
that the CALL software is taking his/her function, then the instruction will
lose its efficacy: the software or program does not replace the teacher. This
later is supposed to adapt, improve, and compensate the software with practical
perspectives and realities encountered in his/her students (Gündüz, 2005).
On another note, it is proved that knowledge and
learning are part of social activity. Therefore, most CALL programs and
computer programs are conceived to let learners work in isolation even though
they are kept active. This focus does not contribute at developing interaction
and communication between learners and the instructor. In other words, CALL
programs are not always suitable to different activities (Ernest et al., 2012; Gündüz,
2005; Stroia, 2012).
Some other factors hindering the language teaching/learning
through CALL are to the aforementioned lack of trained instructors who can
overcome didactical technology or digital challenges and unforeseen situations,
the imperfection of existing CALL programs (Ernest et al., 2012; Indrawati,
2008; Stroia, 2012). In some other cases, ethical issues such as privacy,
confidentiality, security, copyright, and so forth (Wang & Heffernan, 2010)
can be a prejudice in learning/teaching through synchronous or asynchronous
CALL.
