APPROACHES AND PROCESSES IN CTE

The central point in CALL Teacher Education literature, as it posits the non-immediate transferability of technical skills to language education. The relationship between technology and language pedagogy, which is not always easy nor linear is the key to understanding the concept, which is central to the literature on technologies for languages, of integration. In turn, integration is the key to comprehend CALL as an ambit of research and as a subject of instruction. Integration as a goal is simple to define: it is a condition in which technologies play an active, ordinary and original role in language pedagogy.

1.         Active, for technology-enhanced tasks are not experimentations, but rather, useful activities for language learning.

2.         Ordinary, because the technology is naturally used in everyday practice.

3.         Original, because technologies are not utilised to replicate activities which might be carried out also without them, but for activities that need their potential.

Integration should not be confused with the various options presented in the previous chapter; those are, precisely, options and possibilities: integration is a process and, above all, one that involves more or less deep modifications to the language curriculum. In other words, integration does not mean carrying out a CALL activity, elaborate and efficient as it may be, but rather, it means designing and implementing a curriculum in which CALL activities have a clear role and offer very precise linguistic advantages. In short, integration is a question concerning language teaching as well as technology; so that it is evident that CALL Teacher Education has a strong linguistic component.

A.    The Notion of Integration in CALL Research

Generally speaking, the notion of integration indicates “the idea of elements combining to form an efficient whole” (Levy & Stockwell, 2006: 228).In this sense we should not speak of technology being applied to language teaching, as change is not additive, but rather, transformative. On this topic, Levy and Stockwell speak of ecological change, i.e. a change that alters language teaching (see further). In the literature on CALL, integration means the use of technologies in the didactic practice, but in keeping with an acknowledged added value that they bring to language learning (Stoks, 1993). According to Ertmer (1999: 50, quoted in Wong & Benson, 2006) integration is “the degree to which technology is used to facilitate teaching and learning”; a definition in line with that proposed by Mangenot (2000: 40, our translation): “integration is when a digital tool effectively serves learning”.

At a theoretical level, Levy (1997) inserts his analysis of integration within a more ample reflection on the tutor-tool model proposed by him to describe the use of technologies. In his model, the computer as tutor has control over learning, whereas the computer as a tool has a non-directive role. At a more operative level, McCarthy (1996) shows a case of success in the integration of technologies within a specific ambit, i.e. French grammar; integration, in this case, consists in the use of technologies to provide supplementary lab activities, outside school hours.

In Levy and Stockwell’s book, however, the concept of integration seems, at a certain point, to merge with that of normalisation; a fact which might be read as a signal of the waning importance of the notion of integration within CALL research. Ironically, this happens the moment technologies actually become integrated within language teaching. In other words, the moment CALL researchers, many of whom are language teachers, manage to fruitfully use technology for original and useful language tasks which become part of their curricula, integration ceases to be a

Table 3.1. Integration from three different perspectives (from Levy & Stockwell, 2006)

Perspective	Involves
Teacher’s	A change in the curriculum
Learner’s	Importance of continuity among the technologies used in the various courses
Institution’s	Choices and investments

concern for them and it gradually disappears from the horizon. This is also a signal that the technology is (or can aspire to be) no longer an area of interest, but rather a part of language teaching.

This passage has a series of implications. In the literature on CALL, integration will tend to overlap with the more recent (and radical) notion of normalisation (Bax, 2003). In the literature on CALL teacher education, instead, there is a double evolution: on one side the notion maintains all its importance and driving force for example, Hong (2010) defines integration as “the final aim of the teaching of technologies”; on the other hand, this concept will evolve into the more pedagogical one of (Language Teaching) reconstruction,⁷ by which we mean the modifications in the didactic system which are involved by the integration of technologies.

            The Complexity of Integration

Integration is a complex phenomenon, to which different factors contribute. McCarthy (1999), in his work bearing the significant title Integration: the sine qua non of CALL, provides an admittedly incomplete list of these. It is noteworthy that, in the wider field of Second language Teacher Education, Jourdenais concludes that “teaching must be explored within the complexity of its social, intrapersonal, and interpersonal contexts” (2009: 648). Levy and Stockwell (2006) quote other factors, such as, for instance, the diffusion of technologies outside school environments (a position which also illustrates the evolution of the concept of normalisation). In Torsani (2015), I suggested the importance of teachers’ motivation, a not uncommon stance (e.g. Reinders, 2009); in my research I argued that, paradoxically, even an environment which is relatively poor in technologies can be exploited the better to integrate technologies and teaching methods. Here to follow, we provide a tentative list of factors which may influence the integration of technologies.

Macro-economic and social factors. The diffusion of technologies is historically influenced by, and in its turn has an influence upon, macro-economic and social factors: suffice it to think of the diffusion of broad-band connection, and of how it favoured the birth of social web and of interactive on-line pedagogy.

Geopolitical factors. A country’s policies will determine its investments in education and, furthermore, they sometimes determine the professional standards to which teachers should conform.The European Community has launched in the last decades a vast programme for the development of the CLIL methodology. Because training is directed at in-service teachers and it is delivered on a regional scale,¹⁰ the Italian Ministry requires of the supplying institution that part of the course be delivered online.

Institutional factors. At a lower level, integration depends also on the choices made by a given educational institution. The most obvious case is that of investments in technologies (such as installing a lab, adopting projectors and/or interactive boards, purchasing software).

Language teaching. This is a large group of factors, articulated on different levels. A first set of factors is related to technical requirements: a teaching method, for instance, may require more or less in terms of technology. For example, the Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993) makes use of exercises that are simple from a technical point of view and which can be delivered online: integration is, in this case, technically quite straightforward; on the contrary, a task-based approach focusing on interaction among learners requires different efforts in terms of technology and organisation.

Table 3.2. Some of the factors that influence the integration of technologies

Social-economic  • Diffusion of technologies in society;
Factors	• Technological infrastructure;
Geopolitical  factors	•    Government support to actions on technologies; •    Demography; •    Level of access to and availability of digital services (e.g. censorship);
Institutional  factors	•    Presence and type of equipment inside an institution; •    Teacher training; •    Presence of specialised staff; •    Conventions and connections with institutions dealing with technological development (e.g. universities); •    Adhesion to specific Ministry programmes;
Linguistic  factors	•    Language teaching method; •    Curriculum and syllabus; •    Linguistic skills; •    Linguistic level; •    Language features;
Logistic and contextual  factors	•                   Technical availability (also outside the institution); •                   Learning context (e.g. evening lessons); • Available time;
Human factors	•    Teacher’s I.T. competency; •    Learners’ I.T. competency; •    Motivation;

Logistic and contextual factors. Technical availability is a central factor. The lack of equipment in a school, for instance, will make the realisation of certain activities impossible or difficult (for example, the lack of a lab makes it impossible to organise distance cooperation sessions). Furthermore, the lack of equipment may drive teachers to provide autonomously, for example by opening a web-space and installing a Virtual Learning Environment.

Human factors. Human factors refer to both teachers and learners. A teacher who does not feel at ease with technologies will be less inclined to use them and, even if she or he does so, will need support. Also the learners and their I.T. skills bear remarkable weight: the typical case is that of very young learners who have greater skills than their teachers, with the result that the latter may be afraid of losing control.

Integration is, in short, a complex phenomenon which escapes attempts at formalising. This characteristic has strong repercussions in the didactic environment, since, just because of its very articulate nature, a remarkable role in this field is often played by experiential and reflective practice, such as situated learning, learning for projects and reflexive learning. It is, therefore, experience that makes teachers capable of managing such complexity.