PERCEPTIONS OF EFL PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARDS CALL

Gülsüm ÖZEROL
ABSTRACT
In this study, perceptions of EFL primary school teachers towards Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) were investigated. A descriptive research study was conducted with EFL teachers working at different primary schools and using computers in their lessons in Adana and Hatay provinces in Turkey. 60 English teachers were selected as the participants of this study. Teachers were conducted a questionnaire to reveal their perceptions towards CALL. In addition a semi-structured interview was held with these teachers to support the results of the questionnaires and to gain further insights into the teachers’ perceptions. Questionnaires were analyzed by using SPSS 10.0 statistical program. Descriptive analysis was performed and frequencies and percentages were calculated. Interviews were analyzed qualitatively using content analysis. The results of this study revealed participant teachers’ perceived computer competence, perceived advantages, disadvantages and barriers of CALL, teachers’ general perceptions towards CALL, their implementations of CALL and lastly their future recommendations for effective use of CALL.
Keywords: Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), perceptions of EFL primary school teachers, recommendations for effective use of CALL

In houses, workplaces and also in schools, electronic technology has started to be used widely (Hirschbuhl & Bishop, 2002). Computer technology is one of the most important components of these electronic technologies. Computer technology has been common in educational contexts over recent years (Rilling, 2000). The use of computer technology in English Language Teaching (ELT) context has also been common since 1960s (Lee, 2000). Different terms have been used to define the integration of computers into ELT context, the most common one is Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Levy (1997, 1) defines CALL as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” and goes on to state that “it is used as the general term to cover all roles of the computer in language learning” (Levy, 1997, 81). As obvious from this definition, CALL is a broad term that includes all aspects of computer implementations into language classes. Levy (1997) further indicates the other terms used for defining the integration of computers into language teaching. These terms are CAI (Computer-Assisted Instruction), ICALL (Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning), CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) and TELL (Technology-Enhanced Language Learning). According to Levy (1997, 80) “each term suggests a particular focus which tries to encapsulate the use of the computer in language learning”. Therefore, it can be understood that the term CALL is a general term that comprises all of the terms mentioned above.

In recent years, the use of computers in schools and houses has been so widespread that “language teachers must now begin to think about the implications of computers for language learning” (Warshauer, 1996, 3). As mentioned by Higgins (1993, 1), the developments in computer technology have allowed teachers to be motivated “to reassess the computer and consider it a valuable part of daily foreign language learning”. In connection with this, today’s language teachers have also started to believe that they should use CALL in their lessons because, CALL has started to be a trend and it has a good prestige (Jones, 1999). This idea of teachers can not be generalized, but it is obvious that CALL has started to be used increasingly in schools because of several advantages. According to Rilling (2000), computers can assist ELT students and teachers in various ways. Students may use multimedia learning opportunities and Internet connections for searching and communicating with others.
Teachers can use computers for preparing lesson materials, keeping grades and for presenting their lessons more professionally. This application of the computers in the early stages of primary education is very important. Haughland (2000) states that the interaction of children with computers in their early lives is crucial for their being productive adults in an increasingly computer-oriented society. Most developing countries have initiated some programmes to integrate technology into their classes in recent years (Benzie, 1995 cited in Albirini, 2004). In Turkey, the Ministry of National Education (MNE) also initiated a development programme to improve the standards of education. As part of this programme, the curriculum of the primary schools has changed and student-centered education has gained great importance. The MNE has supported the integration of computers into the school curriculum and for this reason; a computer lab campaign named “Bilgisayarlı Eğitime Destek” (Supporting Computer Based Education) was started for each primary school in 2005. Information Technology classes have also been established in many primary schools to support Computer Aided Education. Consistent with these developments, perceptions of the teachers have gained a key role in CALL application process. According to Smith & Hanson (2000, 1), “technology in education begins and ends with teachers”. If teachers are not aware of using the technology and basically computers in the class atmosphere, the availability of these technologies may be useless. Computers are not everything, they are only vehicles to support teaching and learning environment in language classes and teachers are the drivers of these vehicles (Smith& Hanson, 2000). As the drivers of these vehicles, “teachers should become effective agents to be able to make use of technology in the classroom” (Albirini, 2004, 2) because the effective use of computers in language classes is important to make use of its benefits. Several studies have also demonstrated that “successful implementation of educational technologies depends largely on educators” (Kagima, 1998, cited in Albirini, 2004, 3). Jones (1999, 1) supports this view by stating that “effectiveness of CALL depends greatly on teachers”. Tied closely with this idea, perceptions of teachers in the effective integration of computers into ELT classes is important. As Asan (2003) indicated teachers’ computer knowledge and computer use effect their perceptions towards computers. Unless the perceptions of teachers are known, the needs and lacks of them may not be revealed in detail and
implementation of new technologies can not be successful. Briefly, it can be indicated that perceptions, knowledge, lacks, beliefs and suggestions of the teachers might shape the effective implementation and adaptation of the new technologies into classes. As the implementers of computers in language classes, understanding the teachers’ perceptions towards CALL and taking their recommendations for effective implementation of CALL might be a guide for the MNE or other relevant authorities. Therefore, this study focused on the perceptions of EFL primary school teachers towards CALL and also attempted to get their suggestions for the effective implementation of CALL in the future.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has gained great importance in recent years. As a result of this, computers have started to be used in English language classes to improve the quality of the English language teaching. The aim of this chapter is to give a short review of the literature on CALL focusing on six topics which include the history of CALL, computer competence of EFL teachers, changing roles of teachers, changing roles of students, advantages of CALL, disadvantages and barriers of CALL, perceptions and attitudes of teachers and finally the MNE and Computer Aided Education studies in Turkey.

History of CALL
The historical period of CALL started in the 1950s and 1960s. Warschauer (1996) indicated that the development of CALL can be categorized in three phases. These are Behaviouristic CALL, Communicative CALL and Integrative CALL.

Behaviouristic CALL
Behaviourism was the dominant theory between 1950s and 1960s and it effected the education between 1960s and 1970s. Well known behaviorists were Watson, Pavlov and Skinner. According to these behaviorists, learning was “a response to an external stimulus” (Duffy, Mc.Donald & Mizell, 2005, 14). Behaviouristic CALL was based on behaviouristic theory. The first example of behaviouristic CALL was “PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching) Project which was initiated at the University of Illlinois in 1960” (Levy, 1997, 15) and the role of it was to provide “the more mechanical types of vocabulary grammar drill, thereby freeing class time for more expressive activities” (Hart, 1981 cited in Levy, 1997, 16). The features of behaviouristic CALL are illustrated as:
•Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential to learning.
•A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine does not get bored with presenting the same material and since it can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback.
•A computer can present such material on an individualized basis, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class time for other activities.(Warschauer, 1996, 4)
During the period, several CALL programs were constituted by taking into consideration these features of behaviouristic CALL. These CALL programs mostly included “grammar and vocabulary tutorials, drill and practice programs, and language testing instruments” and also computers were seen as a tutor (Kern & Warschauer,2000, 6).
Audio Lingual Method was the method that was mostly based on the behaviorist belief. Most common exercises of this method were pattern practice and drills. Teaching and learning process included new vocabularies, structures presented through dialogues, which were learned through imitation and repetition. Drills were mostly based on patterns in dialogues. Apart from these, students' correct responses were positively reinforced. (Larsen & Freeman, 1986). Grammar-translation method also shared some views of behaviouristic theory, “according to which habit formation and imitation” were the basic elements of language learning (Tick, 2006, 5). First CALL software programs mostly focused on these teaching approaches and also enabled repetitive drills and practices. (Warschauer, 2004; Tick, 2006; Levy, 1997; Lee, 2000).

Communicative CALL
The second stage of CALL was communicative CALL which was conceived in the 1970s and early 1980s (Warshauer & Healey, 1998). “Communicative CALL corresponded to cognitive theories which stressed that learning was a process of discovery, expression, and development” (Warshauer & Healey, 1998, 57). Cognitivists perceived learning as a mental process rather than a stimuli-response process as behaviorists believed. Cognitivists also believed that learning and problem solving were the representators of mental process (Duffy, Mc.Donald & Mizell, 2005). Personal computers started to be commonly used in this period and so, individual work of students increased (Lee, 2000; Tick, 2006; Warshauer & Healey, 1998). The basic features of communicative CALL were listed by Underwood in 1984. Underwood (1984; cited in Warshauer, 1996) indicated that communicative CALL:
•focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;
•teaches grammar implicitly rather than explicitly;
•allows and encourages students to generate original utterances rather than just manipulate prefabricated language;
•does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor reward them with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;
•avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a variety of student responses;
•uses the target language exclusively and creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen; and
•will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well. (Underwood 1984; cited in Warshauer, 1996, 4)
In this phase, the importance of communication was appreciated in language teaching. Skill practice was important and computers were used for this reason. In connection with this, computer programmes were developed focusing on skill practice rather than repetition drill activities “with a greater degree of student choice, control and interaction” (Davies, 2003, 1). These kinds of software programmes enabled students to learn the language in a meaningful context and also allowed learners to construct their own knowledge (Warshauer & Meskill, 2000). Some examples of these kinds of technologies were “text-reconstruction software, concordancing software, and multimedia simulation software” (Warshauer & Meskill, 2000, 304).

Integrative CALL
The third stage, integrative CALL, emerged with the developments of multimedia computers and the Internet (Warshauer, 1996). In this phase, sociocognitive view took the place of cognitive view and teachers started to support this view “that emphasizes real language use in a meaningful, authentic context” (Lee, 2000, 2). Four language learning skills (listening, speaking, writing, and reading) and also technology were integrated into language teaching with the help of integrative CALL (Warshauer & Healey, 1998). This period also included the developments of hardware and the development of computer software programmes (Chartrand, 2004). As Warshauer & Healey (1998) stated integrative approaches such as task-based, projectbased,and content-based started to be actively used in language teaching environments.
Furthermore, the use of these approaches provided authentic learning environments in this period of CALL (Tick, 2006).Multimedia and the Internet were basic elements of this phase of CALL. CDROMs were most widely known examples of multimedia technology (Warshauer,1996). According to Davies (2003, 1), the basic advantages of multimedia packages were enabling “reading, writing, speaking and listening to be combined in a single activity with the learner exercising a high degree of control over the path that he/she follows through the learning materials”. With these kinds of CD-ROMs and DVDs four language skills were easily integrated into language classes and an authentic environment was created (Tick, 2006).
Internet and World Wide Web also provided important sources and materials into English language teaching environment. Warshauer & Meskill (2000, 4) give examples of how Internet can be used in various ways in language teaching. One of them is “online activities to foster increased opportunities for interaction within a single class”. Another example is “outside-of-class discussions” that can be performed with “e-mail or conferencing systems” (Warshauer & Meskill, 4). Kern & Warshauer (2000,8) also list the World Wide Web resources for language learning. Some examples include its providing students plenty of “authentic materials (e.g., newspaper and magazine articles, radio broadcasts, short videos, movie reviews, book excerpts)” that may take students’ interest, enabling students’ easy access to millions of online documents and also to publish their own created materials and share them with others.
By the help of the new developments as multimedia and the Internet, the integration of computers into language teaching may reach high standards. As Bax (2003, 24) indicated if language students and teachers start to use computers everyday “as an integral part of every lesson, like a pen or a book”, CALL will be able to be integrated into language classes effectively.

Computer Competence of EFL Teachers
The term computer competence and computer competency are used interchangeably in the research field. The term computer competency was defined by Lee (2001, 4) as “basic knowledge of how to operate a computer and what the computer can do, familiarity with some computer terminology and some knowledge of dealing with commonly encountered problems”. Albirini (2004, 44) further indicates that the term computer competence is not only related to teachers’ computer knowledge but also “the skills and experience necessary for putting them into use”.
Many researchers stated the importance of computer competency of teachers in the implementation period of computers into class atmosphere. Teachers should have the necessary computer knowledge and skills to be able to teach their classes with computers (Pelgrum, 2001; Lai & Kritsonis, 2006; Wang, 2006). Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi (2002, 113) supports this idea by stating that teachers “who have more experience in teaching and in technology use, especially in practice, are more likely to integrate technology in their classrooms”. According to these ideas, it can be concluded that computer competent and experienced teachers are better implementers of computers in their lessons. Hertz (1987, 183; as cited in Levy, 1997) defines four levels of computer competence for language teachers. These levels are as follows:
Level 1: the computer using teacher;
Level 2: the non-programming author of courseware content
Level 3: the user of authoring systems;
Level 4: the teacher programmer. (Hertz, 1987, 183; as cited in Levy, 1997, 106)
In other studies it was concluded that computer competence and use of computers are related with each other (Berner, 2003; Isleem, 2003). Some studies also revealed that positive and negative attitudes of teachers towards computer use can be related to the teachers’ computer competence. Summers (1990) points out that the basic reason of the negative perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards computer use is related to their lack of computer competence. In another study Sa’ari, Luan & Roslan (2005) conclude that teachers having moderate competence level have also positive attitudes towards information technology. In this continuously developing technology age, teachers’ using computers effectively has great importance. Duffy, McDonald & Mizell (2005, 400) underline this importance by stating that “using a computer will
become as essential as reading” and they additionally indicate that teachers will try to improve their computer competence level in order to use the new technology in a proper and effective way.

The Advantages of CALL
Implementation of computer technology into EFL/ESL context offers many advantages both for teachers and students. Motivation has been indicated as one of the most common advantages of CALL. According to Lee (2000), students are motivated with fun and games in a CALL class. Warschauer and Healey (1998, 60) have used the term “fun factor” as a benefit of computers in language atmosphere. This “fun factor” is the key element of students’ motivation. Galavis (1998) has also indicated some advantages of the use of computers. He claims that the use of computers motivates students and helps students’ learning. The effective use of computers as a facilitator in the second language learning atmosphere and the well designed computer assisted activities and lessons are the basic elements of language learners’ motivation (Levy, 1997; Warschauer and Healey, 1998). Kremenska (2007, 1) supports this view by stating that “the availability of technology does not constitute by itself language learning” and the implementation of the technology by EFL teachers is very important for creating autonomous and well motivated learners.
In connection with the motivation, computer technology may also increase language learners’ achievement level (Panourgia, 2000). Lee (2000, 1) further express that CALL can “enhance student achievement” by improving their “linguistic skills”,“positively affecting their learning attitude” and enabling them being more selfconfident learners. Additionally, computers in language classes may also improve the language acquisition of the language learners (Galavis, 1998).
While motivating students and improving their learning achievement, CALL activities and programs can reduce learner anxiety (Chapelle, 2001; Levy, 1997; Siskin,1999), give them a chance for studying at their own pace (Lee, 2000; Siskin, 1999) and enable the language learners to be autonomous and independent learners (Galavis, 1998; Warschauer and Healey, 1998; Gustavsson, 1999; Lai & Kritsonis, 2006). According to Siskin (1999) computers can be helpful review tools for students learning more slowly and also helpful data and exercise tools for students who learn fast. Lee (2000, 3) further points out that “shy and inhibited students can be greatly benefited by individualized, student-centered, collaborative learning”. Halpert (1999) has stated that students are more eager to join the activity if this activity includes working with computers. As implied from this statement, it can be concluded that students want to be more active in computer-based activities.
In addition to these; some CALL software enable feedback to be given to the students with multimodel practices (Warschauer and Healey, 1998). These features of CALL give more time to the teachers for observing their learners and using their time effectively in the teaching and learning process. In a similar vein, Levy (1997) indicates that the implementation of CALL software programs into language teaching environment makes teachers’ works easier. Lai and Kritsonis (2006) supports this view by stating that computer technology allows teachers more time to focus on the more difficult aspects of the language learning such as “pronounciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing and presentation” (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006, 2). In addition to these; “by letting students work with the computer the teacher gets more time to help the rest of the class” (Gustavsson cited in Rejstrand, 2000, 8). Computers help both English language teachers and students access to limitless authentic materials and people around the world via the Internet (Galavis, 1998). As Levy (1997, 95) states, “collections of materials or archives can be stored conveniently at local sites for worldwide access” and these materials can be of “a textual, audio, and visual kind, or a subset therein”. Students and teachers can access these materials either at school or at home by connecting to the Internet at any time of the day (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006). By the help of authentic materials and CALL programs including audio and video files students can be exposed to the voice and culture of the natural environment of native speakers (Chapelle, 2001; Debski & Gruba, 1999, Lee, 2000).
Computer implementation into language context with these different kinds of available resources brings variety and enables “exploratory language learning with large amounts of language data” (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, 58). According to Lee (2000), by using the Internet, EFL students can communicate with people and be in a “greater interaction” and also their “global understanding” improve. One of the examples of this kind of interaction can be electronic pen friends. Lee (2000) further states that two EFL classes from different places of the world can communicate via e-mails with some of the websites arranging this cooperation. Some of the other online communication tools are “bulletin boards, newsgroups (such as on "USENET"), and web-based conferencing systems” (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, 66). All of these tools can be helpful both for EFL teachers and students. Teachers may communicate with other teachers and share their teaching ideas or experiences, and students can interact with some other students and communicate with them.

The Disadvantages and Barriers of CALL
Despite many advantages of CALL, there are also some disadvantages and barriers of it. These disadvantages and barriers are mostly “economical, educational and technical” (Braul, 2006). High costs and lack of hardware and software, the quality of these software, limited access of the teachers to the computers, lack of teacher competence and training, lack of time for teachers and acceptance of the new technology are some of these disadvantages and barriers.

One of the barriers that teachers encounter while adopting computers into their teaching situation is the lack of hardware and software (Chiero, 1997; Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1990). Once a new technology is implemented into the teaching and learning process, it helps the quality of education improve effectively throughout its application period. Although the new technologies bring educational advantages over time, “there are definite startup expenses related to implementing new technologies in ducation” (Warschauer & Meskill, 2000, 12). For decades, as a startup expense, setting up a CALL lab and buying the hardware and software of the lab has required high costs. Dunkel (1987) has indicated that the cost of hardware and computer equipments have started to decrease in the competitive environment of the computer companies in recent years. Even in this competitive situation, setting up a CALL lab has been really difficult for some schools, companies and also for poor families for many years. Lai & Kritsonis (2006, 3) have supported this view by stating that “low budget schools and low income students usually cannot afford a computer”. In a recent study, Coghland (2004, 3) has also stated that “many teachers do not have the equipment to implement technology into their instruction”. The reason for this is the lack of the hardware in many schools. Chen (1996, 1) has indicated that even Taiwan, “one of the world’s technology manufacturing centers has been slow to adopt computers in its schools”. As implied from these examples, the continuously decreasing cost of hardware has not been enough for some schools and families to adopt computers.

While describing the four barriers, “lack of tools, time, training, and support”,Coghlan (2004, 14) has indicated that although schools have more computer tools in recent years, teachers have still limited access problems. Similarly in his study Hasselbring (1991) have discovered that teachers have computer access problems in school environment for improving their teaching and productivity. Additionally, some schools have mostly purchase new tools that match with the old ones so, these tools can not be used effectively in teaching and learning atmosphere.

The poor quality of some hardware and software has also been stated as one of the disadvantages of CALL. Hardware and software are the basic elements of computers and poor quality of them may cause problems for effective computer use in language teaching atmosphere (Lee, 2000). The quality of these hardware and software has not been standardized according to their acceptability and effectiveness (Ariew & Frommer,1990). As a support of this view, Lai and Kritsonis (2006, 4) have indicated that “the software of computer assisted language learning programs is still imperfect”. One lack of the software, even the current ones, is not being able to focus on the development of four skills equally. Most of the software “mainly deals with reading, listening, and writing skills” (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006, 4). Although some speaking programs exist,these available speaking programs are not adequate totally to improve students’speaking skill (Lai & Kritsonis, 2006).

Lack of time is another barrier that prevents teachers from implementing CALL. (Coghland, 2004; Chiero, 1997; Lohman, 2000; Sandholtz, et al., 1990) According to Warschauer and Meskill (2000), CALL implementation has brought some advantages in the long term in terms of saving time and money but, in the short-term, training,planning and implementing sessions are time consuming for the teachers. Ariew and Frommer (1990, 186) have also pointed out that teachers find preparing CALL lessons as “a time-consuming endeavor for which there are few professional rewards and for which released time is rarely available”.
Teachers’ lack of computer competence and lack of training are other mostly stated barriers of CALL implementation. Many researchers have indicated that teachers need to know how to use technology in their lessons, how to integrate computers into their lessons and suggested that they need to get training sessions to improve their computer competence (Ariew& Frommer, 1990; Chen, 1996; Coghland, 2004; Dupagne & Krendl, 1992; Ely, 1990 Hasselbring, (1991) Lai & Kritsonis, 2006; Schwab & Foa,2001).
The other barrier is the acceptance of the new technology by the teachers and administrators. While listing the disadvantages of CALL, Galavis (1998, 27) has stated that “many students and teachers reject a change from the traditional classes”. Because of this strict tiedness to the traditional teaching models, teachers, having this kind of point of view, cannot accept the new technologies easily. Similarly, Ariew and Frommer (1990, 186) have pointed out that teachers “may have to change their approach” if they want to use CALL effectively in their classes. For effective use and the maintenance of it, support of the administrators is really important (Dupagne &Krendl, 1992).
From Galavis’ (1998) point of view, misbehaviors of some students in CALL labs, students’ getting accustomed to be autonomous learners, technical problems of the computers at class time, computers’ not providing real communication situations can be stated as some of the other disadvantages of CALL.

Perceptions and Attitudes of Teachers towards CALL and Other Technologies
Perceptions and attitudes are the terms that are generally considered as interrelated that is they are in relation to each other. According to Brown (1994, 168), “perception involves the filtering of information even before it is stored in memory, resulting in a selective form of consciousness”. Brown (1994, 168) goes on to point out that “attitudes form a part of one’s perception of self, of others, and of the culture in which one is living”. In short, it can be concluded from Brown’s (1994) definitions that our attitudes mostly form our perceptions towards something. An awareness of the attitudes and perceptions of EFL teachers in the implementation period of CALL is really important. As Woodrow (1991, cited in Shamoail 2004, 149) states “if teachers regard computers negatively or with suspicion, or believe that a new program (as it is being introduced) will not work successfully, the educational utilization of computers will be limited”. According to Koohang (1989) and Selwyn (1997), teachers’ attitudes toward computers are the basic factors in terms of computer technology’s initial acceptance and its forthcoming use (cited in Albirini, 2004). With regard to teachers’ perception of computer, Asan (2003, 154) claims that “teacher perceptions of computer and technology are closely related to their computer knowledge and computer use”. Parr (cited in Ward & Cope, 2002) also maintains the importance of being aware of teachers’ perception for integrating learning technologies into class atmosphere successfully. Ward & Cope’s (2002) study, which was conducted to reveal the percept ions of experienced high school teachers towards learning technologies, concluded that teachers with “limited development” and “inappropriate perceptions” can not integrate learning technologies into their classes to improve the quality of the learning. In addition, participant teachers’ training needs were revealed based on the professional development to integrate technologies into their lessons.

In Turkish context, Hızal (1989, 6 cited in Usun 2000, 138) indicates that integration of computers into educational context is a new project and the success of which is based on the positive attitudes and perceptions of teachers towards new developments. Usun (2000) supports this view by indicating the importance of teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and suggestions towards computers and Computer Assisted Language.

A growing body of research focused on attitudes or perceptions of teachers towards CALL or other kinds of computer implementations. One example is Albirini’s (2004) study which was conducted in Syria focusing on the attitudes of EFL teachers towards Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). According to this study, teachers’ attitudes and perceptions towards computers were positive and positive perceptions and attitudes towards ICT were related to each other and they can not be separated from the plans of technology implementation and this study also revealed the insufficiency of computer resources and teachers’ lack of computer competence.
Teachers’ perceived barriers based on computer use were also revealed in this study.There was a mismatch between ICT and the existing curricula and the class-time frame, computers’ being insufficient in schools and teachers’ low level of access to school computers. Tied closely with the study of Albirini, Abu Samak (2006) attempted to reveal attitudes of Jordanian English Language Teachers towards ICT in his study.Results of this study showed that Jordanian EFL teachers had positive attitudes and positive cultural perceptions towards ICT.

Braul (2006) also conducted a study seeking to determine perceptions and future recommendations of nineteen ESL instructors’ towards CALL. Findings of this study showed that participant teachers mostly use CALL programs in their lessons and perceive them as useful, but they also indicated that they encounter with some barriers while trying to implement CALL. The most frequent barriers of these teachers were lack of CALL development time, unfamiliarity with CALL software, unfamiliarity with general software and not being certain about whether CALL is useful or not.
Participants of this study offered also recommendations for future of CALL such as “additional CALL development time”, “pedagogical and technical support” (Braul,2006, 153) and creation of an encouraging CALL environment. In general, more than half of the participants’ (52%) of Braul’s (2006) study perceived CALL as valuable for English language teaching. In another study, Suh (2004, 1046), trying to define the needs of Korean teachers for technology training, found the most of the participants’ perception of CALL as computers’ supplying “good information” and “motivation”. To determine the current situation of CALL in four different universities in Saudi Arabia, Al-Kahtani (2001) also conducted a study. In this study, EFL departments’ educators were selected as the participants. The findings of this study showed that these four universities’ technological equipments were limited or out of date, the access of the both educators and students to these materials were inadequate, there was limited support of the universities for teachers’ using CALL, word processing, e-mail, and the World Wide Web were mostly used CALL resources but anyway, most of the participants’ attitudes were positive towards CALL. In another study, Wigans, Bender & Maushak (1999) investigated Iowa high school teachers’ and students’ perceptions towards technology integration in terms of revealing the current situation in this school.

The results gave detailed information both about teachers and students in these schools.Most of the teachers (80%) and students (87%) had their own computers at home.Teachers were using computers mostly for word processor and the Internet. Both students and teachers were also using presentation programmes. Many teachers indicated the role of technology in their classes as a tool not as the base of the lessons or not replacers of the teachers. In addition, participant teachers reported the reasons of their motivation for integrating technology. The most frequently stated reasons were teachers’ enthusiasm, increasing students’ enthusiasm and the importance of technology skills for students’ higher education. Another finding of this study was encountered barriers of participant teachers. These barriers were “inadequate technology training,inadequate access to technology, lack of time for teachers to learn technology and use it in the classroom, and lack of vision by school leaders” (Wigans, Bender & Maushak, 1999, 27). Zheng’s (2003) study also focused on perceptions of teachers towards instructional technology to shed a light on the development of in-service training programs. The analysis of this study revealed three points. They were “(1) the varying levels of expertise in using computers; (2) infrastructure problems; and (3) teacher training in technology” (Zheng, 2003, 2). As a conclusion, it was claimed that these points should be taken into consideration before designing technology training programmes.

Some of the other studies focused on the perceptions of teachers towards only a specific software programme. For example; Shamoail (2004) conducted a study based on the application of a software program (blackboard) into the curriculum and tried to reveal the perceptions of teachers related to this application. Results showed that “time;access; workload; professional development; technical assistance and support; and leadership support” (Shamoail, 2004, 150) were the basic factors stated by teachers.Participant teachers of this study thought that these factors affect the implementation of technology into the classes.
There are also some studies conducted in Turkey based on attitudes and perceptions of teachers towards CALL. Tuzcuoglu (2000) conducted a study at Osmangazi University focusing on teachers’ attitudes towards using computers in classes. The results of this study show that English teachers at Osmangazi University are aware of the term CALL and they have positive attitudes towards using computers in English classes, but they also point out that they should learn much more about CALL. To do so, the teachers believe that they need training programs about how to implement computers into their teaching process. They also assert that computers improve students’ language abilities and they should be used in classes (Tuzcuoğlu, 2000). Another study conducted by Ozsoy (2004) investigated teachers’ and students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the use of computers and CALL at the Preparatory School of Celal Bayar University. There was no difference between the attitudes of teachers and students towards the use of computers and CALL attitudes of both groups were generally positive. Another result of this study was the training needs of teachers and students for effective implementation of CALL. To bring additional light to the nature of the technology in education, Asan (2003) investigated 252 elementary school teachers’ technology awareness in Trabzon/Turkey. The findings of this study demonstrated that “gender, years of teaching, and school statuses have a significant relationship to familiarity with computer technologies in Turkey” (Asan, 2003, 153).

REFERENCES
Abu Samak, Z. T. (2006), “An Exploration of Jordanian English Language Teachers' Attitudes, Skills, and Access as Indicator of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Integration in Jordan”, Ph. D. Dissertation, Florida State University, Florida. Retrieved May 6, 2008,
From http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11142006-053057/

Akturk, K. (2006), MEB Teknoloji Kullanımı. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://digm.meb.gov.tr/uaorgutler/OECD/keit_akturk.ppt

Aliamat, O. A. (2006), Language Teachers' Perceptions about CALL in Brunei arussalam. A Call Questionnaire, Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/studentquestionnaires/English_CALL_ Questionnaire.html

Albirini, A. (2004), “An Exploration of the Factors Associated with the Attitudes of High School EFL Teachers in Syria Toward Information and ommunication Technology”, Ph. D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio.

Al-Kahtani, S. (2001), “Computer assisted language learning in EFL instruction at selected Arabian Universities: Profiles of faculty”, Ph. D. Dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

Ariew, R., & Frommer, J.G. (1987), “Interaction in the computer age.” In W.M. Rivers (Ed.), Interactive language teaching, (pp. 177–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Asan, A. (2003), “Computer Technology Awareness by Elementary School Teachers: A Case Study from Turkey,” Journal of Information Technology Education, Vol. 2, 153-164.

Baker, T. L. (1994), Doing Social Research (Second ed.), New York: MC Graw Hill Inc.