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