making call work: towards normalisation

System 34 (2006) 465–479

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

Making CALL work: Towards normalisation

Andrea Chambers a,*, Stephen Bax b

a INSA de LYON, Humanites, Domaine scientifique de la Doua, 20, rue Albert Einstein, 69621 Villeurbanne, Franceb Department of Language Studies, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road,

Canterbury, Kent CT11QU, England, United Kingdom

Received 22 February 2006; received in revised form 20 July 2006; accepted 15 August 2006

Abstract

The aim of CALL practitioners is to work towards a state where computers are fully integratedinto pedagogy, a state of ‘normalisation’. This article draws on a qualitative research study into twoEFL settings to discuss obstacles to normalisation and ways of overcoming them. It identifies a num-ber of key features which appear to be significant in achieving normalisation, and relates the findingsto previous studies concerning the implementation of CALL in language teaching. The discussionand findings should be of value to those seeking to achieve the normalisation of computer technol-ogy in their own language teaching contexts, and also of value to those seeking to research the effec-tiveness of CALL in other settings in qualitative mode.� 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: CALL; Computers; Language teaching; Education; Normalisation; Integration

In Bax’s terms (2000, 2003), a central aim for CALL practitioners is to strive for‘normalisation’, namely the state in which the technology is so embedded in our practicethat it ceases to be regarded as either a miracle cure-all (cf. Murray and Barnes, 1998) orsomething to be feared. Bax notes that the state of normalisation will have been achieved

0346-2

doi:10

* CoE-m

ac.uk

‘‘when computers . . . are used every day by language students and teachers as an inte-

gral part of every lesson, like a pen or a book . . . without fear or inhibition, and equally

51X/$ - see front matter � 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

.1016/j.system.2006.08.001

rresponding author.ail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A. Chambers), s.bax@canterbury.

(S. Bax).

mailto:[email protected]




466 A. Chambers, S. Bax / System 34 (2006) 465–479

without an exaggerated respect for what they can do. They will not be the centre of any

lesson, but they will play a part in almost all. They will be completely integrated into all

other aspects of classroom life, alongside coursebooks, teachers and notepads. They will

go almost unnoticed.’’ (Bax, 2003, p. 23)

In this analysis, only when CALL is normalised will teachers and learners reap itsfull benefits. Only when the technology is normalised, and therefore as invisible andnatural as whiteboards and pens, will it have found its proper place in languageeducation.

The concept of normalisation is valuable to the language teaching profession for a num-ber of reasons. Firstly, it allows us to connect with the wider literature on educationalchange (typified by Fullan’s work, e.g., 1982, 2005). since it is logical that CALL researchand thinking should draw on that research. The concept of normalisation allows us to dothis since it treats CALL as one innovation among many in education, rather than seeing itas somehow unique.

A second advantage of the concept of normalisation is that it connects us with thewider research on innovation and change. Research into how human beings deal withinnovations and how these operate and become integrated into daily life, typified bythe work of Rogers (1995, e.g.), is surely of value to language teaching professionalsseeking to use computers. It is undoubtedly of value for us to connect our work withthat kind of wider analysis and discussion of innovation, since a glance at Rogers’ workshows at once many parallels and insights which could help us to make CALL moreeffective. The idea of normalisation is therefore useful to language education in that itdraws on insights from that wider literature on how human beings deal with changein general.

The third advantage of the concept, deriving from the first two, is that it offers CALLpractitioners a clear aim and therefore a clear agenda. In this light, our aim as CALL prac-titioners is to achieve such a seamless linkage between the computer and our teaching thatthe computer becomes as unremarkable in our daily practice as the pen and book. As Baxnoted in the quotation above, this will probably mean that computers will be at the centreof no lessons, but will play a part in almost all. This in turn gives us an agenda for researchand development, namely to find ways of moving towards that normalised state.

1. How to achieve normalisation?

In order to achieve normalisation in any educational context numerous factors inevita-bly need to be considered. These factors differ from context to context, of course, butmight include improvements in the size, design and location of the technology, in otherphysical aspects of the educational setting, in timetabling and so on.

However, in the majority of contexts the most important and problematic factors pre-venting normalisation are probably social and human. We agree with Warschauer when henotes, in discussing a project in Egypt, that successful educational reform programmestend to emphasise human and social aspects rather than issues related to equipment(Warschauer, 2003, p. 303). However, even this kind of focus on human and social aspectsmay in itself be insufficient. A centrepiece of Bax’s argument concerning normalisation(following for example Motteram, 1999) is that not only do we need to consider each rel-evant factor, but that we also need a better understanding of how exactly all of these fac-

A. Chambers, S. Bax / System 34 (2006) 465–479 467

tors interact and operate in real pedagogical contexts, so as to throw light on the ways inwhich different aspects, technological, administrative, social and others, interact topromote or impede the normalisation of CALL. This implies a programme of appropriateresearch.

2. How to research normalisation?

What should such research be like? Ideally it will be broadly based, and not overly‘technocentric’, not focused on technology too exclusively, since, as Huh and Hu (2005)rightly note, such studies are of limited use to researchers and practitioners. If researchof this type avoids such pitfalls, offering a broad and balanced analysis of the various fac-tors and their interaction, it could have a local impact, in that it could lead to the betteruse of CALL in the research settings themselves. It could also have a wider impact, in thatit could illuminate the ways in which these factors could be managed in other contexts. Itcould thus potentially contribute also to the wider research into the ‘diffusion of innova-tions’ (Rogers, 1995).

A particular focus of such a research agenda should be the context in which it takesplace. As Egbert rightly says, ‘‘CALL research currently does not address . . . differencesin context well’’ (Egbert, 2005, p. 4). Huh and Hu agree that the profession could benefitfrom more description of the learners, settings, and events in [CALL] contexts (Huh andHu, 2005, p. 17). This aligns with Timucxin’s recent complaint that

‘‘there is a gap between the available literature on the use of computers and technology

for teaching purposes and experience of the actual implementation process in EFL con-

texts’’ (Timucxin, 2006, p. 262).

This focus on particular contexts should include attention to the sociocultural dimen-sion. As Warschauerpoints out (2005), sociocultural theory offers many interesting ave-nues into CALL research. It requires us to appreciate the fact that normalisation ofCALL requires a fuller understanding of the social and cultural aspects which underlieits operation. This again represents a call for more research in a qualitative or even ethno-graphic mode, attempting to take full account of sociocultural factors.

3. Aim of this research

The research project described in this article worked towards the goals described above.Its aim was to understand, through in-depth qualitative investigation, two particular con-texts, examining the ways in which CALL is currently used at two institutions and tounderstand the reasons why it is not used more extensively. To put it another way, wesought to identify the contextual and other factors impacting on the ‘normalisation’ ofCALL, positively or negatively, and to identify through this analysis productive ways ofmoving towards normalisation in future.

In the original research on which this article is based (Chambers, 2000) a series ofrecommendations were offered aiming to improve the current practice of CALL withinthese two institutions. These pointed out central differences between the two sites. How-ever, in this article, for reasons of focus and of space, we emphasise instead the com-monalities, and also the wider issues raised, aiming to offer insights into the


implications of this research for the normalisation of CALL in similar institutionalsettings.

We consider that the product of this research, namely the findings themselves, may be ofvalue to the wider effort to achieve normalisation, but we hope that our discussion of theprocess of the research will also assist other practitioners aiming to move towards the nor-malisation of CALL in their own settings.

4. Research approach

The research took place at two institutions based in the South-East of England at whichone of the researchers (Chambers) was working. The research approach was qualitative,through participant observation and other means, and broadly ethnographic in style,though a full-scale ethnography was impossible owing to the short time frame and theimpossibility of our acting as full participants in both contexts. In this sense it adopts aposition similar to that argued by Holliday (1997), in that whilst it was not a full ethnog-raphy it is nonetheless ethnographic in orientation. This is because it adheres to the follow-ing two criteria:

– it is conducted in an interpretive, qualitative manner ‘‘where significant features of theculture are allowed to emerge’’ (Holliday, 1997, p. 213);

– there is no claim to objectivity. ‘‘The scientific rigour and system are in the discipline ofresearcher procedure which comprises tight rules concerning how the researcher relatesto and writes about the research environment’’ (Holliday, 1997, p. 213).

The research was therefore ethnographic to this extent; it set out initially to elicit ‘emic’perspectives (Holliday, 1997), meaning perspectives deriving from the participants them-selves rather than from the researchers – although, as we have noted, one of us was aninsider also.

The data collected in the study included observations of classes, informal conversations,field notes and other documents, and interviews with a range of teachers and with all otherstakeholders who might potentially shed light on the current practice of CALL at theinstitution.

5. Research settings

Site 1: Site 1 was a university Language Centre located 5 min from the main campus
and computer rooms, most of which had Internet connections. There was a Help deskon campus, and a 1 h CALL class option was held weekly. All teachers had over 10years’ experience, had some knowledge of computer applications and all except onehad some type of CALL experience. CALL in this setting used mainly web-based activ-ities, CD-ROMs and a few older pieces of software such as Storyboard.Site 2: The second site was a government funded college. The computer laboratory(called the Multimedia learning centre or MMLC) was located in the same buildingas the classrooms. At the time of the research, CALL was offered in the form of aself-access option once a week in which students could choose to use the MMLC under


the guidance of tutors. All teachers had used some CALL software in the past, and usedmainly web-based activities and CD-ROMs.

6. Interviews

As noted above, the data derived from a variety of sources. However, we have chosenhere to privilege data deriving from the voices of the participants themselves, because find-ings from these data are the most illuminating. It should be noted, however, that the find-ings we report are representative of the data as a whole (as can be seen by reference toChambers, 2000).

An important part of the study was to gather the views of stakeholders without imposingour own views. To this end the interviews were conducted following an open format sche-dule adapted from Maykut and Morehouse (1994), and addressed teachers’ perceptions,attitudes and knowledge of CALL, location, access and layout, resources, teacher develop-ment, management and the future of CALL, as well as the current use of computers at theinstitution, whilst allowing as much scope as possible for other issues of importance tostakeholders to emerge. Open interviews, taking around an hour each, were conducted withnine teachers and the Director of Studies at the site of Case study 1, and five teachers, theDirector of Studies, the Resource centre co-ordinator and the college principal at Site 2.The institution and teachers were assured of anonymity and for this reason teachers in Site1 are referred to as A, B, C etcetera on, while in Site 2 they are referred to as 1, 2, 3 etcetera.

7. Findings

Since from the outset we noted that CALL was not part of ‘normal’ everyday practicein either institution, and was still ‘‘contributing to the marginal rather than the central ele-ments’’ of the pedagogy (Kenning and Kenning, 1990, p. 90), the aim of our research wasto find out why this was so, in line with the research agenda outlined in our opening pages.

We will now present the main findings of the research, and will indicate the main factorswhich seemed to be impeding normalisation. These are highlighted for easy reference. Wehave clustered the issues into four groups, as follows:

A. Logistics

B. Stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge and abilities

C. Syllabus and software integration

D. Training, development and support

We will then offer some general observations on the wider implications of this researchfor our understanding of normalisation.

7.1. Logistics

7.1.1. Location and access

In Site 1 the computer laboratories were a 5-min walk from the college. This distance,though small, was perceived as contributing to the failure to integrate CALL fully as it was


‘a bit of a faff [problem] going all the way over there’ (teacher B). Another problem, com-mon to many institutions around the world, was that of gaining access to the computerrooms. In Site 1, the Director of Studies (DOS) and teacher A claimed that the systemof booking out the rooms was ‘a very complicated process’ (the DOS) and that the roomswere also in demand from other departments. Similarly, teachers in Site 2 mentioned howdifficult it was to book out the MMLC as it was also used for examination classes, tuto-rials and staff training. Teacher 4 said that as the room was always booked she had givenup trying.

In such cases, as Lynch (1991, p. 4) points out, ‘work is built around the computerinstead of arising from the needs of language’ or indeed as in the case of this teacher,results in their giving up altogether. This reinforces the point made by Levy (1997, p.201) who concludes that institutions often attend to the ‘logical problems’ (i.e. what workwill be done on the computer) but fail to pay attention to the ‘physical problems’ (i.e. loca-tion and access) and that this ‘prevents the effective integration of CALL work into thebroader curriculum’ (Levy, 1997, p. 201).We can express this as follows:

Issue 1: For normalisation to take place, CALL facilities will ideally not be separated

from ‘normal’ teaching space.

7.1.2. Layout

As well as the questions of location and access, findings from Site 1 showed that thelayout of the centre was not well suited to classroom activities:

You want to be able to talk while they are working on the computer but you can’t see

their faces and they can’t see yours. . . . you can’t see what they are doing. It’s very dif-

ficult to manage the class. (Teacher 1)

The layout of the rooms in each site differed considerably. Whereas the room layout inSite 1 (see Fig. 1) is similar to most classrooms, that in Site 2 (Fig. 2) is more similar to aself-access centre. This second layout did not discourage computer use, but nonethelessappeared to encourage more of the ‘computer as tutor’ type of CALL (Warschauer,1996) than to allow for more integrated uses. This may therefore be another central issueimpeding normalisation:

Issue 2: For normalisation to occur, the classroom will ideally be organised so as to allow

for an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL activities.

7.1.3. Lack of time

Teachers at both sites reported lack of time for preparation as a major factor preventingcomputer use in their teaching, mirroring Jones’ point that:

‘‘what really prevents teachers from following an interest in CALL is lack of time, since

they tend to be sufficiently burdened already by their conventional administrative and

classroom duties’’ (Jones, 2001, p. 365)

However, since this was linked with a host of other factors, it would be simplistic toidentify lack of time alone as a central problem. We can express this in general terms asa key issue here, to be taken up further below:

Whiteboard Whiteboard

P P

P

Whiteboard

Student

Teacher

Computer

Computers in use

PrinterP

a b

c

Fig. 1. Case study 1: lesson observation and room layout.


Issue 3: For teachers to ‘normalise’ computer use within their daily practice, they mayneed additional time for preparation and planning.

We can turn now to ‘conceptual’ and ‘knowledge’ issues which represented obstacles tonormalisation.

c

c

c

c

c

T

T

c

c

c

c

c

T

c

c

S

P

C

Videos Songs Tapes Books

Exam Practice

CD-ROMS and videos

List of web sites

Students

Teachers

C-Computers T-Televisions S-Scanner P-Printer

Multimedia Learning centre Site 2

Fig. 2. Multimedia Learning centre Site 2.


7.2. Stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge and abilities

7.2.1. Worries, expectations and misunderstandings

Although most teachers were fairly competent computer users, some were apprehensiveabout using computers, feeling that students might know more about technology than theydid, causing them to ‘lose face’ (DOS, Site 2).

Other teachers appeared confused by the very notion of a ‘CALL’ lesson. For example,teacher F argued against using computers in EFL teaching, since it was not ‘learning Eng-lish’ but ‘learning about computers’. Other noteworthy misconceptions included the viewthat CALL necessarily means placing students in front of computers for entire lessons withno role for the teacher. These findings suggest that an obstacle to normalisation could bethe conceptual base which teachers bring into class with them, which we take up furtherbelow (Issue 5).

Concerning students’ perceptions, it was noted that there could be some resistance fromstudents to computer assisted lessons, for reasons articulated by Teacher F:

‘What do you come to England for if the end result is that you interact with the com-

puter? What am I paying for here that I can’t get in my country? I’m paying to have a

native speaker who talks to me, who interacts with me.’

These conceptions on the part of teachers and students about what CALL is, and whatthe role of the computer could be, could all be obstacles to normalisation. However,besides teachers’ conceptions and worries, it was clear that the perception of CALL inthe minds of management was also a significant obstacle. The principal in Site 2, for exam-


ple, was reluctant to ask teachers to do CALL and compared the use of computers to thelanguage laboratory, believing that it was ‘just another phase’ that would disappear in afew years:

We had all of this with the language laboratory. People saying ‘wow, this is the thing

that will revolutionise English teaching’ but it didn’t. That’s how I see the computer, so

I don’t see why it’s necessary to make teachers do CALL. (Informal conversation)

It is clear that if management holds such views, it will be a serious obstacle to successfulnormalisation.

We can summarise as follows:Issue 4: For normalisation to take place, teachers and managers need to have enough

knowledge of and ability with computers to feel confident in using them.

Issue 5: Normalisation requires that conceptions on the part of different stakeholders,including teachers and management, concerning the role of computers in language learning

be of a type conducive to integration and normalisation.

7.2.2. Monitoring and evaluation

Another thing that emerged from interviews with teachers and the DOS in both casestudies was the absence of any evaluation of current practice. In Site 2 there was some evi-dence of evaluation, but this was limited to evaluation of hardware and software, with aseries of recommendations on what types of equipment were needed to improve currentpractice. Relatively neglected was evaluation of pedagogical dimensions.

This emphasis in the evaluation process on the physical aspects was mirrored by the factthat recommendations for purchasing new equipment focussed heavily on hardware andsoftware, and such recommendations came exclusively from the computer ‘experts’. Otherteachers said they had not been consulted. In both of these areas, therefore, the underlyingassumption seemed to be that problems in CALL could be solved by the purchase of morehardware and software.

This belief that the technology is the sole or main determinant in successful teaching istypical of the ‘technical fallacy’ described by Bax (2000, p. 3), and may result in equipmentbeing ‘misused’ or ‘underused’ because of teachers’ over-reliance on the technology (Hea-ley (1998, p. 2). Furthermore, this keeps CALL in the ‘domain’ of the CALL experts, act-ing as an obstacle to normalisation (see Levy, 1997, p. 3).

The data suggested to us that in these institutions it might in future be more pro-ductive if teachers made more effective use of what the centre already had. In otherwords, teacher development might be more effective than simply assuming that thesolution was to focus on buying more technology. To borrow from Tudor’s terminol-ogy (2003), these institutions could aim for ‘ecological’ solutions rather than ‘techno-logical’ ones.

Issue 6: If CALL is to be normalised, teachers and managers need to avoid the ‘techni-

cal fallacy’, namely the view that the main determinant of success or failure is the hardware

and software, or any other single factor. They will be aware that the success of CALL in

their classrooms depends on several interconnected factors, all of which may need to be

considered.

We can now turn to look at our third set of issues, relating to integration.


7.3. Syllabus and software integration

7.3.1. Syllabus integration

CALL was not obligatory for teachers or students in either institution. The DOS in Site1 was reluctant to make CALL compulsory as most teachers would reportedly be unhappyif ‘forced’ to include CALL. However, Teachers C, G, and I said that this would not be aproblem for them. In Site 2 only one teacher was positive about CALL being timetabledinto current teaching practice. This could be because she was a younger teacher, keen todevelop, and felt that this would push her into doing more CALL preparation for her les-sons. Nevertheless, she believed a policy such as this would meet with a lot of resistance.She explained:

I am not ‘ageist’ but for many older teachers the computer isn’t part of their life and

they may resent having to do that. From their point of view they’ve been teaching that

way all their life. Why should they change?

This is related of course to attitudes, as discussed above. In our view the fact that, incommon with many institutions, CALL teaching at Site 1 was restricted to a ‘CALLoption’ in itself assumes and implies that computers are somehow ‘alien’ to normal teach-ing processes, and this timetabling decision is therefore likely to impede normalisation. Itcertainly appeared to us from the data that separating CALL from other lessons didindeed promote a limiting perception of the value of CALL in the minds of teachersand learners. So long as CALL is treated as something ‘abnormal’ it will not be fullyeffective.

This leads us to the view that without the integration of CALL fully into the syllabus,so that each teacher comes to accept it as part of normal everyday teaching and learning,CALL may never become normalised. This issue has been considered before (see e.g.McCarthy, 2001; Gillespie and McKee, 1999) but in our view it needs more attentionand we will therefore consider its implications in greater detail in our concluding remarksbelow. For the moment, we can summarise it as follows:

Issue 7: Successful normalisation of CALL requires that it be properly integrated into the

syllabus, and support provided for teachers who may be uneasy about their new roles.

7.3.2. Software integration: the internet and CD-ROMs

All teachers except one saw the potential advantages of using the internet in classes andfelt students enjoyed it. In practice, however, the observation data showed that only threeteachers of the fourteen appeared to be making use of the computer as a teaching tool, andthese were all teachers from Site 1. This is partly owing to the conceptual and knowledgeissues raised above: in Site 2, most teachers interviewed felt they did not have sufficientknowledge of CALL activities, especially the Internet, and they felt that they did not havesufficient knowledge to ‘construct a class’ (teacher 4). However, it is also connected with adifferent issue, namely the extent to which the software itself could ‘fit’ the pedagogicalaspects of the lesson.

This can be illustrated by the negative views of teachers towards CD-ROMs. Themajority of teachers maintained that students became quickly bored when they were used.One reason for this was a ‘conceptual’ one – namely the view that CD-ROMs could beused as a substitute for a whole lesson or were at best a disconnected activity used for whatteacher I called ‘a relaxing period’. For example, Teacher 1 in Site 2 criticised the way


computers are used at her institution and explained why students might not be finding theCD-ROMs useful:

‘Well, it is ‘these are the CALL programs off you go’. The potential is greater than

that. . . you know ‘mouse potato’ methodology. ‘Go and plug yourself in and away

you go’. No wonder they get bored!’

This remark illustrated what in our view was the root of the problem – the lack of inte-gration between syllabus aims and computing tools, partly caused by shortcomings inavailable software. Since the CD-ROMs offered a ‘closed’ programme unrelated to the restof what teachers and student were teaching and learning, they did not perceive it as par-ticularly valuable and lost interest (cf. Sharma, 1999, p. 2).

In essence this means that software which is ‘authorable’, so that the teacher canadapt and modify its content to allow a better fit with the syllabus, is likely to be moreeffective. This is to put the pedagogy before the technology, in the sense that instead oflearners having to do to ‘closed’ ‘ready-made’ activities which may not in fact meet theirneeds (giving technology priority), they could with authorable software do activities tai-lored for them by the teacher (giving priority to learning needs). This can be summarisedas follows:

Issue 8: Progress towards normalisation may be enhanced by the use of ‘authorable’

CALL materials which allow teachers to tailor the CALL activities better to fit the existing

syllabus aims, as opposed to the use of imported ‘closed’ materials.We now turn to our fourth set of issues, relating to training and development.

7.4. Training, development and support

7.4.1. Teacher development

According to Eastment (1999), lack of training is one reason why the Internet is notextensively used in current practice. Most teachers interviewed said they would like somesort of teacher development in CALL, but workshops were not perceived as the wholeanswer. As Teacher G saw it:

I did a number of teacher development sessions. People were generally enthusiastic and

they came along . . . I would say only one eighth did something.

In Site 2, all the teachers mentioned that they were eager for more teacher developmenton CALL but did not have much time. The DOS confirmed this and indicated that he wasreluctant to run sessions, as there would not be ‘much interest for a long course’. This indi-cated a certain reluctance for training sessions.

One reason for this may be that, as McKenzie (1999, p. 1) notes, workshops and train-ing courses are often ‘designed by technology enthusiasts’ who have ‘little empathy for thereluctants’. Our findings suggest also that teacher development might be more productiveif it is carried out in collaborative mode, as opposed to top-down ‘training’ mode.

Issue 9: If CALL is to be normalised, teacher training and development may best be

offered in collaborative mode rather than in ‘top-down’ expert-to-novice mode.

One way of doing this is to see development not in terms of training workshops but asan ongoing process, possibly through the formation of teams of ‘experts’ working with‘non-experts’. This is also recommended by Guile (1998) who claims that the developmentof support teams in the ACOT project (Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow) helped to


encourage professional growth, ‘‘focussed on the development of new learning processesthat [teachers] can use in their classrooms’’ (Guile, 1998, p. 27).

However, it is important to note again that an emphasis on training and developmentwithout any attempt to deal with the many other factors identified in our research willalmost certainly not lead to normalisation in itself.

7.4.2. Dealing with technical problems

In both case studies teachers complained about the unreliability of the technology. InSite 1 four teachers had had problems with the technology and felt that students wouldhold the teacher responsible (e.g. Teacher B). Teacher G, however, who had more experi-ence of computers and CALL, seemed less anxious about the technology failing him, andfelt that teachers should go into the lessons expecting problems, and that they could solvethem if they had ‘‘a keenness to solve problems and a willingness to solve them by non-technical means [for example] by moving the students’’.

Fear of the technology ‘going wrong’ was also evident in Site 2. All the teachers inter-viewed talked of the computer crashing, freezing or being slow. Teachers 1 and 2 men-tioned the need to have a lesson in reserve in case something went wrong (cf. Eastment,1999, p. 45 on the ‘wise teacher’ having a ‘back up activity’). For teachers these are not‘minor problems’ in the way suggested by, for example, Jarvis (1997, p. 49). The data inour study showed that this was a significant factor in deterring teachers from CALL.

Issue 10: Successful normalisation requires that teachers’ concerns about technical fail-ures, and their lack of skills to deal with such failures, be addressed and overcome by means

of reliable support and encouragement.

Although the available technical support seemed adequate for more technically profi-cient teachers it was not sufficient for all. As can be seen from a number of commentsmade by teachers above (e.g. in Section 7.2.1), it was clear that pedagogical support wouldalso be helpful:

Issue 11: Technical assistance is important, but is insufficient on its own in supporting

teachers towards fully normalising technology in their teaching. Teachers need pedagogicalsupport also.

8. Conclusion: how can CALL become normalised and therefore fully effective?

In these two settings our research has identified a number of factors, which we discussedunder these headings:

A. LogisticsB. Stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge and abilities


D. Training, development and support.

We reported in some detail on how aspects of each setting under each heading may beimpeding normalisation, and the eleven major findings shared by the two sites were thenidentified (and have been collected together for reference in Appendix A). Where relevant,we indicated where this research relates to findings from other contexts, but our researchalso offers new insights into a number of factors, which come through most vividly in theparticipants’ own voices.


Furthermore, the research highlights the fact that each factor is not isolated; ourresearch has demonstrated the ways in which the various factors interact and relate toone another, and how in working towards normalisation it is therefore important toaddress more than one factor at a time, taking account of the ‘ecological complexity’ ofthe whole context in each case. Since, as is clear from our findings, each factor links witheach other factor in complex ways, this research does not support the use of ‘technological’‘one-shot’ solutions (cf. Tudor, 2003).

Besides the local value of this research, moreover, our findings also offer wider insightsinto what could be done to make CALL normalised at these and other institutions. If askedto identify one crucial factor, we would emphasise syllabus integration. This for us meansthe need to integrate CALL into the syllabus in such a way that teachers are expected, asoften as the facilities allow, to use computers in their teaching. This implies that manage-ment needs to timetable every teacher to use the computers regularly. This need not beexpressed in a coercive way, but should be an expectation. In our view, if that expectationis not there, teachers will simply not move towards integrating CALL into their work.

As a quid pro quo, however, management need to ensure that the other elements are alsooperative. In particular teachers need to have sympathetic support, both technical andpedagogical; they need the opportunity for sympathetic development, probably in collab-orative mode; they need computing facilities to be accessible and organised in ways con-ducive to the easy integration of computer activities with non-computer activities; theyneed the software to be authorable as far as possible so that teachers can fit the softwareto their students’ particular needs. Since time has been identified above as a significant fac-tor impeding teachers in their use of new technologies, this factor must also be borne inmind by administrators and managers in their planning (Issue 3).

In summary, we have therefore identified through the research study the central factorswhich we consider to be essential for normalisation to occur. We suggest that the elevenissues we have presented could offer a valuable checklist of elements which teachers andplanners could consider when attempting to make CALL more effective.

In addition, our study demonstrates ways in which research of this kind can have a localimpact. We consider it of value for teachers and other stakeholders, where possible, tocarry out small-scale qualitative research similar to ours into their own settings, as away of discovering which factors could be impeding normalisation, and how those factorsmay relate to each other (cf. Bax, in press).

Such local research can also have a wider relevance. We suggest that by relating each ofthe findings to other literature on CALL in language education we have shown how suchresearch can assist in the wider endeavour of understanding how normalisation can beachieved in language education generally. It can therefore contribute towards our commonaim – to achieve a seamless and normalised use of CALL for the benefit of our learners.

1. Issues significant in the normalisation of CALL

A. Logistics
Issue 1: For normalisation to take place, CALL facilities will ideally not be separatedfrom ‘normal’ teaching space.Issue 2: For normalisation to occur, the classroom will ideally be organised so as toallow for an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL activities.


Issue 3: For teachers to ‘normalise’ computer use within their daily practice, theymay need additional time for preparation and planning.

B. Stakeholders’ conceptions, knowledge and abilities
Issue 4: For normalisation to take place, teachers and managers need to haveenough knowledge of and ability with computers to feel confident in using them.Issue 5: Normalisation requires that conceptions on the part of different stakehold-ers, including teachers and management, concerning the role of computers in lan-guage learning be of a type conducive to integration and normalisation.Issue 6: If CALL is to be normalised, teachers and managers need to avoid the ‘tech-nical fallacy’, namely the view that the main determinant of success or failure is thehardware and software, or any other single factor. They will be aware that the suc-cess of CALL in their classrooms depends on several interconnected factors, all ofwhich may need to be considered.
Issue 7: Successful normalisation of CALL requires that it be properly integratedinto the syllabus, and support provided for teachers who may be uneasy about theirnew roles.Issue 8: Progress towards normalisation may be enhanced by the use of ‘authorable’CALL materials which allow teachers to tailor the CALL activities better to fit theexisting syllabus aims, as opposed to the use of imported ‘closed’ materials.
D. Training, development and support
Issue 9: If CALL is to be normalised, teacher training and development may best beoffered in collaborative mode rather than in ‘top-down’ expert-to-novice mode.Issue 10: Successful normalisation requires that teachers’ concerns about technicalfailures, and their lack of skills to deal with such failures, be addressed and overcomeby means of reliable support and encouragement.Issue 11: Technical assistance is important, but is insufficient on its own in support-ing teachers towards fully normalising technology in their teaching. Teachers needpedagogical support also.
References

Bax, S., 2000. Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language learning. In: Field, K. (Ed.), Issuesin Modern Foreign Language Teaching. Routledge, pp. 208–219.

Bax, S., 2003. CALL – past, present and future. System 31 (1), 13–28.Bax, S., in press. How can we make CALL more effective? Towards normalisation. In: Proceedings of

the IATEFL SIG Conference: Learning Technologies in the Language Classroom: A step closer tothe future, University of Cyprus, 26–28 May, 2006.

Chambers, A., 2000. Current Practice in CALL: Teachers’ attitudes and other factors that limit the potential ofCALL’. MA dissertation, Canterbury Christ Church University College.

Eastment, D., 1999. The Internet and ELT. Summertown Publishing, Oxford.Egbert, J., 2005. Conducting Research on CALL. In: Egbert, J., Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research perspectives on

CALL Mahwah. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, pp. 3–8.Fullan, M., 1982. The Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press, New York.Fullan, M. (Ed.), 2005. Fundamental change: International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer-Verlag,

New York.Gillespie, J., McKee, J., 1999. Does it Fit, and Does it Make Any Difference. Integrating CALL into the

Curriculum. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12 (5), 441–455.Guile, D., 1998. Perspectives on Education Policy. Institute of Education University of London 1998, London.Healey, J.M., 1998. Failure to Connect. Simon and Schuster, New York.


Holliday, A., 1997. Six lessons: cultural continuity in communicative language teaching. Language TeachingResearch 1 (3), 212–238.

Huh, K., Hu, W., 2005. Criteria for effective CALL research. In: Egbert, J., Petrie, G. (Eds.), ResearchPerspectives on CALL Mahwah. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, pp. 9–21.

Jarvis, H., 1997. Using the World Wide Web for an authentic learning experience. The Modern English Teachervol. 6 (4), 45–49.

Jones, J., 2001. CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT Journal (55/4), 360–367.Kenning, M.M., Kenning, M.J., 1990. Computers and language learning: current theory and practice. Ellis

Horwood, New York.Levy, M., 1997. Computer-assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualisation. Oxford University Press,

New York.Lynch, W., 1991. Planning for Language: Teaching and learning with computers, National Council for

Educational Technology (NCET), Coventry.Maykut, P., Morehouse, R., 1994. Beginning Qualitative Research Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.McCarthy, B., 2001. Integration: The Sine Qua non of CALL’ CALL-EJ Online, vol. 1, No. 2, September 1999.McKenzie, J. 1999. How teachers learn technology best. http://www.fno.org/sum99/reluctant.html.Motteram, G., 1999. Changing the research paradigm: qualitative research methodology and the CALL

classroom. In: Debski, R., Levy, M. (Eds.), WorldCALL: Global Perspectives on Computer-assistedLanguage Learning. Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.

Murray, L., Barnes, A., 1998. Beyond the ‘‘wow’’ factor – evaluating multimedia language learning software froma pedagogical viewpoint. System 26, 249–259.

Rogers, E., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, fourth ed. Free Press.Sharma, P., 1999. Integrating CDROM into language teaching courses’. Iatefl Issues (150), 2–3.Timucxin, M., 2006. Implementing CALL in an EFL context. ELT Journal Volume 60/3 (July), 262–271.Tudor, I., 2003. Learning to live with complexity: towards an ecological perspective on language teaching. System

31, 1–12.Warschauer, M., 1996. Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In: Fotos, S. (Ed.), Multimedia

Language Teaching. Logos, Tokyo, pp. 3–20.Warschauer, M., 2003. Dissecting the ‘‘Digital Divide’’: A Site in Egypt’. The Information Society 19, 297–304.Warschauer, M., 2005. Sociocultural Perspectives on CALL. In: Egbert, J., Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research

perspectives on CALL Mahwah. Laurence Erlbaum, Associates, NJ, pp. 41–51.

http://www.fno.org/sum99/reluctant.html

making call work: towards normalisation

Documents