


































Frontiers of Contemporary Education 
ISSN 2690-3520 (Print) ISSN 2690-3539 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce 

36 
 

Original Paper 

Does It Really Help? Merits and Demerits of CALL 

Implementation as Perceived by Jordanian Primary-Stage EFL 

Teachers 

Ruba Fahmi Bataineh
1*

, Nedal Awwad Bani-Hani
2
 & Rula Fahmi Bataineh

3 

1
 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan 

2
 Department of Basic Sciences, Al-Balqa’ Applied University, Irbid, Jordan 

3
 Department of English Language and Linguistics, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, 

Jordan 

*
 Ruba Fahmi Bataineh, rubab@yu.edu.jo 

 

Received: May 30, 2020         Accepted: June 13, 2020      Online Published: June 17, 2020 

doi:10.22158/fce.v1n1p36               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/fce.v1n1p36 

 

Abstract 

This research examines the merits and demerits of CALL implementation in Jordanian primary 

education as perceived by 200 primary-stage EFL teachers. A questionnaire was constructed and used 

to collect the data. The findings reveal that the most frequently perceived merits are immediate 

feedback, motivating students learning, initiating more interaction, excitement and enjoyment, and 

language skills integration. On the other hand, the most frequently perceived demerits of CALL 

implementation were found to be insufficient number of computers, technical problems, student view of 

the computer as an entertainment tool, weak student computer skills, and cost. The study concludes 

with a number of pedagogical implications and recommendations for further research. 

Keywords 

CALL implementation, demerits, Jordan, merits, TEFL 

 

1. Introduction and Background 

For the past few decades, technology has been prevalent in every aspect of modern life. The computer, 

having a marked pedagogical potential to affect the way teaching and learning are viewed, has been 

utilized in teaching language around the world. This has led to the prominence of Computer-Assisted 

Language Learning (CALL) in language instruction in general and Teaching English as a Foreign 

Language (TEFL) in particular despite a de facto consensus that the computer is a teaching tool rather 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

37 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

than a teacher substitute (cf., Frizler, 1995; Higgins & Johns, 1984; Kenning & Kenning, 1993; Levy, 

1997).  

The literature documents a long tradition of using visual aids (e.g., posters, videos, overhead projectors, 

language laboratories) in the language classroom to supplement instruction (Higgins & Johns, 1984). 

The prominence of the computer, one of the latest of these innovations, makes it essential for all 

stakeholders to acquire basic computer skills, not to mention that, for instructional computer use to be 

effective for teaching, access to hardware and software is of the essence.  

A plethora of research (e.g., Almekhlafi, 2006; Ayres, 2002; Baniabdelrahman, Bataineh, & Bataineh, 

2007; Bataineh & Mayyas, 2017; Bataineh, Bani Khalaf, & Baniabdelrahman, 2018; Harris, Mishra, & 

Koehler, 2009; Mayyas & Bataineh, 2019; Robert, 2002) reports on the utility of technology integration 

into teaching and learning in general and in teaching and learning language in particular. Not only has the 

computer been reported to facilitate students’ learning (Goldman, Cole, & Syer, 1999) but also to 

develop their ability to learn independently, analyze information, think critically, solve problems 

(Chavez, 1997), and increase their reading speed and comprehension (Kulik, Bangert, & Williams, 1983). 

Frizler (1995), for example, claims that even though they will never replace teachers, computers can 

provide excellent and fairly inexpensive materials to support classroom instruction. Computers have also 

been found not only to promote visual, verbal and kinesthetic learning, higher-level thinking, and 

problem-solving (Turnbull & Lawrence, 2002) but also to offer immediate feedback, hands-on learning, 

and collaborative instruction (e.g., Becker, 2000; Smith, 2008; Zapata, 2004). 

However, even though instructional technology has been expected to revolutionize the way teachers 

teach, learners learn, and schools deliver education, research (e.g., Cuban, 2001; Mumtaz, 2000; 

Warschauer, 2001) documents a divide between the claims made for Information and Communication 

Technologies (ICTs) and their actual effect on education. This divide has been attributed to material 

conditions like the insufficient computers and software and non-material conditions like insufficient ICT 

knowledge, skills, and experience and teacher time (Pelgrum, 2001).  

More specific to the context of this study, Jordan started to integrate technology in formal education in 

the mid-1990s. Over the years, the Ministry of Education (MoE) has initiated a number of significant 

educational reforms, some of which are communication-oriented curricula, up-to-date teacher training 

programs, and personal computers for all schools. Thousands of computers were brought into public 

schools, bringing the average ratio of student to computer from 43:1 in 2001 (Bataineh & 

Baniabdelrahman, 2006) to a range of 10:1 to 30:1 in 70 percent of Jordanian public schools and 

Internet connectivity for over 85 percent of all public schools (UNESCO, 2011). 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

38 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. Rationale, Purpose and Question of the Study 

Jordan started to integrate technology in its schools in the mid-1990s, as government began to invest 

heavily in the provision of computers to schools and in the training of teachers. To the authors’ best 

knowledge, there has not been any research on the merits and demerits of CALL implementation in the 

Jordanian EFL context to date.  

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to identify the merits and demerits of CALL implementation 

as perceived by Jordanian primary-stage teachers. More specifically, the authors seek answers to the 

question, what are the merits and demerits of CALL implementation in Jordan as perceived by 

primary-stage teachers? 

Research (e.g., Atkinson & Davies, 2005; Domengo, 2007; Traynor, 2003; Stepp-Greany, 2002) 

reveals numerous advantages of computer use in teaching and learning: promoting experiential learning 

through using the vast resources of the Web, fostering autonomous learning, promoting student 

motivation for learning, round-the-clock access to authentic materials, interaction with peers or native 

language users, and opportunities for global understanding, not to mention visualization and reduction 

of learner anxiety.   

On the other hand, an equally rigorous body of research (Gips, DiMattia, & Gips, 2004; Kenning & 

Kenning, 1993; Underwood, 1984) suggests certain disadvantages for CALL implementation: the 

potential increase in cost, decrease in the equity of education, software quality, and insufficient teacher 

experience with ICT. 

The literature (e.g., Lai & Kritsonis, 2006; Lu, Liu, Fotouni, Dong, Reynolds, Aristar, Ratliff, Nathan, 

Tan, & Powell, 2004; Thelmadatter, 2007) seems to also suggest that, unlike their more technologically 

competent counterparts, technologically incompetent teachers tend to think that computers are 

worthless or even harmful. Additional obstacles include time pressures in- and outside the classroom 

(Lam, 2000; Levy, 1997; Reed, Anderson, Ervin, & Oughton, 1995; Smerdon, Cronen, Lanahan, 

Anderson, Iannotti, & Angeles, 2000; Strudler, Mckinney, & Jones, 1999); lack of resources (Loehr, 

1996), insufficient or inflexible guidelines, standards, and curricula (Langone, Wissick, Langone, & 

Ross, 1998); lack of support for computers integration (Grau, 1996; Strudler et al., 1999); lack of 

proper leadership (Smerdon et al., 2000); and inadequate training and technical support (Abdal-Haqq, 

1995; Lam, 2000; Langone et al., 1998; Levy, 1997; Smerdon et al., 2000).  

Some of the claims presented above have been mirrored in the observations of the current researchers 

as well as other fellow practitioners. In their rather extensive experience as teacher trainers and 

language instructors, they have heard a lot of concerns voiced out by pre- and in-service teachers alike. 

For example, claims similar to those made by Thelmadatter (2007) to the effect that CALL 

implementation is often misunderstood as solely acquiring hardware without paying serious attention to 

software or proper training are often heard in institutions of higher learning all over Jordan. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

39 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Methods and Procedure 

Based on a thorough review of the literature and the authors’ collective experience, a questionnaire (Note 

1) was designed. It consists of three parts: one for respondents’ demographic information, one for the 

merits, and the third for the demerits of CALL implementation. To establish its validity, the 

questionnaire was refereed by three experts in educational technology whose feedback was used to 

modify the questionnaire prior to distribution to 200 (110 male and 90 female) EFL primary-stage 

teachers in the public schools of the northern region of Jordan. 

 

4. Findings and Discussion 

The data were analyzed, categorized and tabulated. The subjects’ responses revealed a number of 

perceived merits and demerits of CALL implementation. Tables 1 presents the perceived merits of CALL 

implementation: 

 

Table 1. Perceived Merits of CALL Implementation 

No Merit n % 

1 immediate feedback 184 92 

2 motivating student learning 181 90.5 

3 initiating more interaction 180 90 

4 excitement and enjoyment 179 89.5 

5 language skill integration 176 88 

6 flexibility 175 87.5 

7 fostering individualization 171 85.5 

8 fostering learner-centeredness 168 84 

9 helping shy students 167 83.5 

10 exchanging experience with others 166 83 

11 self-paced progress 165 82.5 

12 animation 163 81.5 

13 more student participation 161 80.5 

14 learning extension 161 80.5 

15 less time and effort 154 77 

16 novelty of experienced 153 76.5 

17 variety 143 71.5 

18 technology support 137 63.5 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

40 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1 shows that the top merits of CALL implementation, perceived by the respondents, are 

immediate feedback, motivating student learning, initiating more interaction, excitement and enjoyment, 

and language skill integration with 92%, 91%, 90%, 89.5%, and 88%, respectively.  

That providing immediate feedback is the most frequently perceived merit of CALL implementation is 

consistent with earlier findings (e.g., Bani Hani, 2009; 2014; Murphy, 2007; Sauro, 2008; Ware, 2008), 

which can also be attributed to, unlike teachers, computers never forget to provide immediate feedback. 

Providing immediate (and continuous) feedback may readily be a catalyst for improving not only 

students’ participation but also their motivation for learning, which may, in turn, improve their 

achievement and encourage further learning. 

Moreover, that CALL implementation is perceived to initiate more interaction may constitute another 

catalyst for language learning, especially in light of emergent types of interaction (e.g., class-class and 

school-school interaction over the Web) in addition to the more traditional student-computer and 

computer-student interaction. One should also keep in mind that since the computer doubles as a means 

of entertainment, it is not surprising that the respondents perceive CALL implementation in the 

classroom as a source of excitement and fun.  

The integration of the four language skills is potentially made more possible with CALL implementation. 

As the Jordanian MoE is keen on skill integration in the English curriculum at all levels, CALL 

implantation may come in handy for achieving and facilitating this goal, which may be why teachers 

perceived this as a major merit of CALL implementation. 

It is worth noting that CALL implementation overall is viewed favorably by the respondents, as 

evidenced by the fact that the least perceived merit, technology support, got a rather high percentage of 

63.5%. However, CALL implementation was also perceived to have a number of demerits, as shown in 

Table 2. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

41 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 2. Perceived Demerits of CALL Implementation 

No Demerit n % 

1 insufficient number of computers 189 95 

2 technical problems 186 93 

3 student view the computer as an entertainment tool 183 91.5 

4 lack of student computer skills 183 91.5 

5 high cost 178 89 

6 need for more time 175 87.5 

7 need for more teacher training 172 86 

8 inappropriate for large classes 170 85 

9 fewer chances for weak students 163 81.5 

10 lack of well-designed software 162 81 

11 insufficient teacher experience 158 79 

12 inability to control students 155 77.5 

13 physical problems 154 77 

14 fear of teacher replacement 143 71.5 

15 slow computers 139 69.5 

16 need for continuous updating 124 63 

17 difficulty of lesson preparation 121 6o.5 

18 potentially vague instructions 112 56 

 

Table 2 reveals that the most frequently perceived demerits are inadequate number of computers, 

technical problems, student view of the computer as a means of play and entertainment, lack of 

students’ computer skills, and high cost, with 95%, 93%, 91.5%, 91.5%, and 89%, respectively.  

That the inadequate number of computers is perceived as the major demerit of CALL implementation 

(with a sweeping 95%) is hardly news given the large number of students in classrooms across Jordanian 

primary education. Albeit a serious problem, this can be overcome by pairing, or even grouping, students 

around each computer. Empirical evidence abounds on that students benefit most when they work on the 

computer in pairs (e.g., Murphy, 2007; NAEYC, 1996), for despite the efforts of the MoE, its schools still 

suffer from a shortage in computers, a matter which warrants immediate attention and feasible 

alternatives.  

Understandably, technical problems are the second most frequently perceived demerit of CALL 

implementation. Rarely does a school have a qualified technician in residence, but, more often than not, 

one or more computer teachers are responsible for the computer laboratory, which generally results in 

recurrent computer breakdowns and Internet service interruptions. By the same token, that cost is fifth 

most frequently perceived demerit is not only consistent with findings of previous research (e.g., Higgins 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

42 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

& Johns, 1984; Thelmadatter, 2007) but also limits the type of measures the MoE can take to overcome 

this problem (e.g., providing a computer technician for each school).  

 

5. Implications and Recommendations 

Much research has been conducted on the effect of computer use on the various aspects of the 

teaching/learning process. However, relatively little research has been conducted on the merits and 

demerits of CALL implementation in teaching in general and teaching English as a foreign language in 

particular. Since the use of technology has to be driven by pedagogy, pre-service teacher training should 

include coursework to provide teachers with optimal levels of computer knowledge and skill to enable 

them to better use technology to support teaching and learning. The researchers further urge scholars to 

conduct more research on students and teachers’ need for instructional technologies, on computer use for 

the integration of the four language skills, and on subsidizing CALL implementation. 

 

References 

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1995). Infusing Technology into Pre-service Teacher Education. ERIC Digest. Retrieved 

February 23, 2020, from https://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/distance.htm  

Almekhlafi, A. (2006). The Effect of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on United Arab 

Emirates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) School Students’ Achievement and Attitudes. 

Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 121-142. 

Atkinson, T., & Davies, G. (2005). Computer Aided Assessment (CAA) and Language Learning. 

Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers. Retrieved December 1, 

2019, from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod4-1.htm  

Ayres, R. (2002). Learner Attitudes towards the Use of CALL. Computer-Assisted Language Learning 

Journal, 15(3), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189 

Bani, H. N. (2009). Designing an English Computerized Instructional Program for Jordanian Sixth 

Grade Students and Measuring Its Effect on their Achievement (Unpublished Doctoral 

Dissertation). Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. 

Bani, H. N. A. (2014). Benefits and Barriers of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching in 

the Arab World: Jordan as a Model. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1609-1615. 

https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.8.1609-1615 

Baniabdelrahman, A. A., Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2007). An Exploratory Study of Jordanian 

EFL Students’ Perceptions of their Use of the Internet. Teaching English with Technology, 7(3). 

Retrieved August 26, 2019, from 

https://www.tewtjournal.org/issues/past-issue-2007/past-issue-2007-issue-3/ 

Bataineh, R. F., & Mayyas, M. B. (2017). The Utility of Blended Learning in EFL Reading and 

Grammar: A Case for MOODLE. Teaching English with Technology, 3(7), 35-49.  

 

https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.8.1609-1615
https://www.ceeol.com/content-files/document-557844.pdf
https://www.ceeol.com/content-files/document-557844.pdf


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

43 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Bataineh, R. F., Bani, K. K., & Baniabdelrahman, A. (2018). The Effect of E-mail and WhatsApp on 

Jordanian EFL Learners’ Paraphrasing and Summarizing Skills. International Journal of 

Education and Development using ICT, 14(3).  

Bataineh, R., & Baniabdelrahman, A. (2006). Jordanian EFL Students’ Perceptions of their Computer 

Literacy: An Exploratory Case Study. International Journal of Education and Development Using 

ICT, 2(2). Retrieved February 23, 2020, from 

http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=169&layout=html 

Becker, H. (2000). Pedagogical Motivations for Student Computer Use that Lead to Student 

Engagement. Educational Technology, 40, 5-17.  

Chavez, C. (1997). Students Take Flight with Daedalus: Learning Spanish in Networked Classroom. 

Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb01314.x 

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. London: Harvard University 

Press. 

Domengo, N. (2007). Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Increase of Freedom of Submission to 

Machines? Retrieved February 23, 2020, from http://www.terra.es/personal/nostat/ 

Fenfang, H. (2003). Learners’ Behaviors in Computer-Based Input Activities Elicited through Tracking 

Technologies. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 5-29. 

https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.5.15529 

Frizler, K. (1995). The Internet as an Educational Tool in ESOL Writing Instruction (Unpublished 

Master’s Thesis). San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California. 

Gips, A., DiMattia, P., & Gips, J. (2004). The Effect of Assistive Technology on Educational Costs: 

Two Case Studies. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, & D. Burger (Eds.), Computers 

Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 206-213). New York: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27817-7_31 

Goldman, S., Cole, K., & Syer, C. (1999). The Technology/Content Dilemma. In Paper Presented at 

the Secretary’s Conference on Educational Technology. Retrieved February 23, 2020, from 

http://www.ed.gov/technology/techConf/1999/whitepapers/ %20paper%204.html 

Grau, I. (1996). Teacher Development in Technology Instruction: Does Computer Coursework 

Transfer into Actual Teaching Practice? In Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

Southwest Educational Research Association. Dallas, Texas, USA (ERIC Document Reproduction 

Service No. ED394949). 

Higgins, J., & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. London: Collins. 

Kenning, M., & Kenning, M. (1993). An Introduction to Computer Assisted Language Teaching. London, 

Oxford University Press. 

Kulik, J., Bangert, R., & Williams, G. (1983). Effects of Computer-Based Teaching on Secondary 

School Students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 19-26. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.1.19 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb01314.x
https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.5.15529
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-27817-7_31
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.1.19


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

44 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lai, C., & Kritsonis, W. (2006). The Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer Technology in Second 

Language Acquisition. Doctoral Forum: National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral 

Student Research, 3(1), 1-6. 

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia v. Technophobia: A Preliminary Look at why Second Language Teachers 

do or do not Use Technology in their Classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 

389-420. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.3.389 

Langone, C., Wissick, C., Langone, J., & Ross, G. (1998). A Study of Graduates of a Technology 

Teacher Preparation Program. Journal of Teacher Education, 6(4), 283-302. 

Levy, M. (1997). Computer Assisted Language Learning, Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: 

Clarendon Press. 

Loehr, M. (1996). Top Ten Media Competency Recommendations by Teachers for Teacher Training. 

Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 474-476. 

Lu, S., Liu, D., Fotouni, F., Dong, M., Reynolds, R., Aristar, A., … Powell, R. (2004). Language 

Engineering for the Semantic Web: A Digital Library for Endangered Languages. Information 

Research, 9(3).  

Mayyas, M. B., & Bataineh, R. F. (2019). Perceived and Actual Effectiveness of Easyclass in Jordanian 

EFL Tertiary-Level Students’ Grammar Learning. International Journal of Education and 

Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 15(4), 89-100.  

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communications Technology: 

A Review of the Literature. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), 

319-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096 

Murphy, P. (2007). Reading Comprehension Exercises Online: The Effects of Feedback, Proficiency 

and Interaction. Language Learning and Technology, 11(3), 107-129. 

NAEYC. (1996). Technology and Young Children Ages 3 through 8. Washington: NAEYC. 

Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the Integration of ICT in Education: Results from a Worldwide 

Educational Assessment. Computers and Education, 37(2), 163-178. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00045-8 

Ravichandran, T. (2000). Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in the Perspective of the 

Interactive Approach Advantages and Apprehensions. CALL, 30(4), 1-15.  

Reed, W., Anderson, D., Ervin, J., & Oughton, J. (1995). Computers and Teacher Education Students: 

A Ten-Year Analysis. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 6, 5-24. 

Robert, A. (2002). Learner Attitudes towards the Use of CALL. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 

15(3), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189 

Sauro, S. (2008). Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Development of L2 Grammar. 

Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96-120.  

 

 

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.3.389
https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390000200096
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00045-8
https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.241.8189


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/fce           Frontiers of Contemporary Education             Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

45 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ Tools 

for the 21
st
 Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology. Washington, DC: National Center 

for Education Statistics. 

Smith, B. (20087). Methodological Hurdles in Capturing CMC Data: The Case of the Missing 

Self-Repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103. 

Stepp-Greany, C. (2002). Students’ Implications for the New Millennium. Language Learning & 

Technology, 6(1), 165-180.  

Strudler, N., Mckinney, S., & Jones, W. (1999). First-year Teachers’ Use of Technology: Preparation, 

Expectations and Realities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 115-129.  

Thelmadatter, L. (2007). The Computers are Coming … Are Here. TESOL Greece Newsletter, 3(4), 

8-18.  

Traynor, P. (2003). Effects of CAI on Different Learners. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 12(2), 

25-39.  

Turnbull, M., & Lawrence, G. (2002). Computers Make Sense according to Brain Research … but 

what do Students Think? Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Retrieved February 

23, 2020, from http://www.caslt.org 

Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics Computers and the Language Teacher: A Communicative Approach. 

Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House. 

UNESCO. (2011). Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris: UNESCO. 

Ware, P. (2008). Peer Feedback on Language Form in Telecollaboration. Language Learning and 

Technology, 12(1), 43-63. 

Warschauer, M. (2001). Online Learning in Sociocultural Contexts. In C. Paechter, R. Harrison, & P. 

Twining (Eds.), Learning Space and Identity (pp. 121-141). London: Sage. 

Zapata, G. (2004). Second Language Instructors and CALL: A Multidisciplinary Research Framework. 

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3-4), 339-356. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822042000319610 

 

Note 

Note 1. For a copy of the questionnaire, contact the corresponding author at rubab@yu.edu.jo 

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t716100697~tab=issueslist~branches=17#v17
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g725289496
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822042000319610

