The Use of Computer-Mediated Tasks among ESL TeacherTrainees

MisrahHamisah MohamedFaculty of Languages and Linguistics

Universiti Sultan ZainalAbidinmisrahhamisah@unisza.edu.my

ABSTRACT

The use of ICT especially computer and the Internet match the

task based learning framework where students and teachers can

benefit from having direct access to real audiences synchronously

or asynchronously. This leads to positive perceptions and

attitudes toward technology use in language teaching among

educators especially in cultivating language tasks in learning and

teaching. However, most of the educators are more concern of their

own knowledge of the technology use. This has brought so many

issues about how computer-mediated tasks have been practiced among

teacher trainees during their teaching practicum. Therefore, this

article reports on the implementation of technology-mediated tasks

in teaching English as Second Language (ESL) among teacher

trainees pursuing a diploma in TESL from a local university in

Malaysia. A total of 57 teacher trainees were involved in a survey

and group interviews. The data collected were analysed using SPSS

version 17. Descriptive statistical analysis showed that majority

of the teacher trainees have positive perceptions toward the use

of computer-mediated tasks and the thematic analysis revealed a

contradictory result where the level of use of computer-mediated

tasks among teacher trainees is low. Finally, the data obtained

has brought in a new issue for future study related to the level

of exposure of computer-mediated tasks among future teachers.

Keywords: Task based language teaching (TBLT), information and

communication technology (ICT), computer-mediated tasks, computer-

assisted language learning (CALL), teaching English as second

language (TESL)

1.INTRODUCTION

Task based language teaching (TBLT) or task based instruction

has been implemented in language learning to promote meaningful

use of the target language and develop communicative competence

(Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2004). It is now moving away from a

traditional approach to a communicative approach in which it

focuses more on the students’ engagement in authentic interaction

with others rather than the study of the language itself. However,

literature shows that most studies on TBLT have been conducted

mainly in face-to-face traditional classroom settings (Chapelle,

2003; Ellis, 2003; Thomas &Reinders, 2012). This is in contrast

with today’s ever evolving world of advanced technology where

students are increasingly exposed to web-based learning

environments. Therefore, the use of technology is seen crucial in

providing technology-mediated contexts in TBLT (Ellis, 2003).

Looking at various technology tools, computer technology seem

to match perfectly the current trends and needs for language

education. An example of how it fulfills these needs is presented

by Butler-Pascoe and Wiburg (2003). They explain that computer,

which have become the main medium for information and

communication technology (ICT), match the task based learning

framework where students and teachers can benefit from having

direct access to real audiences synchronously or asynchronously,

getting involved in problem-solving activities, and being in

contact with authentic language. In addition, they claimed that

the use of computer and the Internet facilitate interaction and

present language in an enhanced manner making it different from

the language traditionally presented in textbooks. These factors

have brought a new side of teaching approach among teachers.

However, the issues of teachers’ adoption and integration of

technology in language teaching have never ended (Davis, Preston

&Sahin, 2009).

Even though teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the

computer technology usein language teaching are apparently

positive in a way that they agree this technology is a valuable

tool to foster language learning and teaching, most of them are

more concern of their own knowledge of its use and flexibility and

capability as a tool in language teaching (Aydin, 2012;

MarliaPuteh, 2002).The lack of knowledge and doubts these teachers

have towards the use of computer technology in cultivating tasks

in their teaching have formed some issues related to the level of

practice among them during their teaching practicum. Due to this

reason, the researcher found that there is a need to see how

teacher trainees perceive the use of computer-mediated tasks

during their college years. The way they perceive the use of

computer-mediated tasks in language teaching may have influenced

the level of use of computer-mediated tasks in their own teaching.

Thus, current study aims to investigate the perceptions of

teacher trainees towards the implementation of computer-mediated

tasks in ESL classrooms and their level of use of computer-

mediated tasks during their teaching practicum. Following the

introduction, a literature review will cover the studies on TBLT,

ICT and computer-mediated tasks among English teachers. The

methods used in this study will be described in section three.

Results and discussion will be elaborated in section four and five

respectively. Finally, the conclusion will evaluate the

significance of the findings in section six and highlight its

implication to the field of education.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Task Based Language Teaching

TBLT constitutes a strong version of communicative language

teaching as tasks can function as a useful device for planning a

communicative curriculum, particularly in the contexts where there

are very few opportunities for more authentic communicative

experiences (Ellis, 2003). Willis and Willis(2007)state two

approaches that can expose the students with the real

communicative experiences; (1) form-based approaches and (2)

meaning-based approaches.

Both approaches of TBLT can be organized in one ‘task cycle’

consisting of three broad phases: (1) pre-task, (2) task and (3)

post-task (Skehan, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2007). The form-based or

form-focused approach begins by teacher isolating one or two

specific forms, specific grammatical structures or functional

realizations and identifying these as the target forms. Students

will go on to practice that form under careful teacher control and

they will finally be offered the opportunity to produce the target

form(s) in a communicative activity (Willis & Willis, 2007). By

implementing this approach, students are expected to produce the

form(s) that they have learnt with an acceptable level of

accuracy.

Another approach, which is the meaning-based approach, is

believed to be more effective to encourage students to use the

language as much as possible because teacher usually does not

attempt to control the learner’s language even if this means that

some of the language produced by the students is inaccurate.

However, teacher will participate in the interaction by helping

students to shape and clarify what they want to say and the

success of this stage is judged on whether or not students have

communicated successfully. In the final phase of this approach,

Ellis (2003)mentions that “students perform consciousness-raising

and practice activities directed at specific linguistic features

that occurred in the input of the task and/or in transcripts of

fluent speakers doing the task” (p.33).

Based on the above, a task-based lesson in a classroom,

therefore, involves not only a single task, but a sequence of

tasks. The tasks, however has no single definition but most

studies agree that the main feature is expressing meaning (Ellis,

2003; McDonough &Chaikitmongkol, 2007; Nunan, 2004; Richards &

Rodgers, 2001). Bygate, Skehan& Swain (2001)also claim that task

is an activity that requires the students to achieve an objective

through the use of language with the emphasis of meaning. In

addition, Nunan maintains the task as “a piece of classroom work

which involves students in comprehending, manipulating, producing

or interacting in the target language while their attention is

principally focused on meaning rather than form” (as cited in

Ellis, 2003, p. 4).

In a language lesson, Bygate (1999)suggests that tasks are

needed to improve students’ fluency, accuracy, and complexity in

communication. In addition, accomplishing open ended tasks can

also give students an opportunity to be autonomous in their

learning of the target language (Nunan, 1989). In line with his

suggestion, the implementation of TBLT in a classroom seems to be

significant and accommodating. Interestingly, its collaborative,

interactional nature and its motivational potential that have been

reported by teachers in the studies carried out by

TabatabaeiandHadi, (2011) and Jeon and Hahn (2006) give more

reasons for it to be implemented in the language teaching and

learning. However, TBLT has been implemented traditionally in a

way that it only involves a face-to-face interaction within a

single classroom. Therefore, the incorporation of ICT in TBLT

would be an extra advantage since students are currently well-

exposed to web-based environment.

2.2 Computer Technology and the Internet in Language Teaching

Information and communication technology (ICT) in language

education is now perceived as a promising language learning tool

due to its versatility and adaptability. It provides the basic

technology for assisting language teaching and learning to acquire

important communication skills especially in English language

(Hassanzadeh, Gholami, Allahyar&Noordin, 2012). ICT is defined as

a “diverse set of technological tools and resources used to

communicate, and to create, disseminate, store, and manage

information” (Ghasemi&Hashemi, 2011). These technologies include

computers, the Internet, broadcasting technologies like radio and

television, and telephony.

Among all of the above technologies, the introduction of

computer technology in language education and its inbuilt

companion, namely, the Internet has been described to be the most

potential tool in language learning. This is best illustrated by

Warschauer and Healey (1998)who stated that the computer software

is no longer purely an object of technology, rather a medium

forcommunication and negotiation of meaning. It is a powerful tool

for creating opportunities for authentic and meaningful

interaction both within and outside the classroom. Not only that,

Chapelle (2003) states that computers represent a great potential

for the facilitation of language input because of the ability to

integrate multimedia material such as videos, images and text

simultaneously into one single screen. These positive aspects of

computer are complemented by the existence of the Internet which

gives a wider range of opportunity for more authentic and

meaningful interaction.

Furthermore, it is agreeable by many that teaching via

computer or computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has many

advantages. For example, it can be used to support teachers who

lack adequate skills and content knowledge to improve the quality

of their teaching. Meanwhile, teachers who are hesitant to sit in

classrooms or feel they are too old for the formal education

system would find the interactive and asynchronous nature of

computer and the Internet helpful for their professional

development. This mode of teaching also enables teachers to

transmit more information to a larger number of students in a

shorter time. In addition, CALL can also provide stimulating

visual aids as a valuable strategy to support understanding in the

new language.

For language learning purposes, ICT is a useful tool for

students’ own social, cultural, and linguistic exploration. By

using new technologies such as computer in the language classroom,

we can better prepare students for real-life exposure to the

cultures of other people and countries where the target language

is spoken. It enables students to access and search for

information worldwide and at the same time facilitates their

interaction and communication with native speakers and other

communities by enabling them to use language for real purposes and

in real contexts. This occurs particularly when students are using

email, blogs and video conferencing. Not only that, Ghasemi and

Hashemi (2011)claim that computer and the Internet can support and

integrate literacy skills. This is due to the fact that computer

can help to enhance interactive teaching and learning styles and

provide many opportunities for creativity. It also offers a

powerful way of enabling students to be fully engaged in their own

language learning process.

Li's (2012)study on The Influence of Computer Applied Learning Environment

(CALE) on EFL or ESL Education reported that the program which was

conducted with the assistance of computer application has been

effective in intriguing students’ interests in language learning

and greatly enhanced their self-esteem. Moreover, the study also

found that when students take more control over their goals of

learning and achieved favourable results of their own decisions,

their awareness of setting a definite goal at the beginning of a

learning process increases. This study reveals that the

incorporation of technology especially computer technology in

language teaching has a positive impact on students’ performance.

Similarly, in another study that seeks to explore the

behaviour and attitudes that students display when switching from

a traditional communicative type of language instruction to the

one based on computer technology and the use of the Internet,

Galvis (2011)illustrates a positive outcome. The findings

indicate that the students were not only willing to simply use

such tools, but also to use them when English served as a means

for communication. This has become evidence that students like the

idea of using a new technology as their medium of learning. For

that reason, having computer-mediated tasks in language teaching

seems to be crucial for students’ achievement in the target

language.

2.3 Limited Studies on Computer-Mediated Tasks in LanguageTeaching

The increasing prominence of TBLT in languageeducation over

the past 15 years has occurred at the same time asthe emergence of

digital technologies or ICT. Like TBLT, digital technologieshave

been considered as ‘innovative’ and ‘transformative’,particularly

in the sphere of educational practice and classroommethodology

(Thomas, 2009).Derived from this, it is said that TBLT can no

longer proceed without greater considerationof computer-mediated

tasks.Given such a context, it is important that when confronted

withchoices about the future direction of computer-mediated

tasks,teachers make choices that are based on the practicality and

the possibility. According to Thomas and Reinders (2012), teachers

are faced with increasingly complexdecisions about the tasks they

are expected to use in current networked classrooms. The landscape

of technology is constantlychanging, and it is important that as

language-teaching professionalswith particular interests in

technology, teachers should take into considerationthe

methodological developments which are available and toexplore them

through teachers’ lenses.

Designing and implementing any real communicative tasks

through the use of ICT especially computer technology helps to

provide students with a more communicative way of learning through

authentic interaction in the target language. Furthermore, it also

offers students with autonomous learning which enables them to

take charge of their own learning (Ellis, 2003; Nunan, 2005;

Richards, & Rodgers, 2001). In other words, students are able to

take all the decisions concerning their learning. By using

computer and the Internet, students are provided with greater

freedom and flexibility to learn at their own pace and

convenience, whether within the context of a language course or

beyond it. This in a way provides evidence that computer-mediated

tasks could be an effective tool in teaching ESL.

In considering the future of computer-mediated tasks, previous

research on both TBLT and CALL together appears to have been

rather limited. At first glance, this seems ratherabnormal, as

there is an obvious link between learning technologiesand the use

of tasks. Indeed, Levy and Stockwell (2006)identified ‘task’ as

the seventh most frequently used keyword identifier in theircorpus

of major CALL research between 1999 and 2005. This suggests how

technology is powerful in providing significant opportunities for

students to engage in exactlythe kinds of authentic task-based

activities. Even so, studies that explored the pedagogical

challenges accompanying the integration of computer-mediated tasks

in Asian contextsare likely to occur, and this is surely one rich

vein of research to be pursued. Of all the challenges, the ones

related to teachers’ attitudes and their use of computer-mediated

tasks found to be crucial since teaching activities carried out in

classroom are usually depending pretty much on their knowledge and

familiarity of a particular methodology.

In line with the above, this study aims to investigate the

perceptions of teacher trainees towards the implementation of

computer-mediated tasks in ESL classrooms and their level of use

of computer-mediated tasks during their teaching practicum. To

help meet this aim, two research questions were addressed;

1. How do teacher trainees perceive the use of computer-

mediated tasks in their ESL classrooms?

2. What is the level of use of computer-mediated tasks among

teacher trainees during their teaching practicum?

3. METHODOLOGY

This study employed quantitative research method through a

semi-structured interview and online questionnaires. Data were all

collected from 57teacher trainees of the Faculty of Languages and

Communication of Sultan ZainalAbidin University (UniSZA) located

in Terengganu, Malaysia in 2013.All of them were doing a Diploma

TESL course and currently in their third year of study. In terms

of their age, they were quite a homogeneous group, ranging from 20

to 21 years old.

The instruments used in this study were adapted from Jeon and

Hahn (2006)and Tabatabaei and Hadi (2011). In terms of its

reliability, the most common indicator of internal consistency was

used which was Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and was reported

of .89. Since the result was higher than .7, the scale of the

items was considered to have good internal consistency (DeVellis,

2003). The instrument was created as online questionnaire with

four sections; Part A: Demographic Information, Part B:

Understanding of Tasks and TBLT, Part C: Attitudes toward the Use

of Computer Technology in ESL Classroom and Part D: Views on the

Implementation of Computer-mediated Tasks in Classrooms. The

questionnaire was to gather data related to teacher trainees’views

on the implementation of computer-mediated tasks in ESL

classrooms. The survey was conducted from April 14, 2013 and was

done in a computer laboratory in UniSZA. The teacher trainees were

given 15 to 20 minutes to complete the survey. All 57 respondents

completely answered the online questionnaire.

As for the group interviews, the questionswere formulated

beforehand, to gather data related to teacher trainees’ level of

use of computer-mediated tasks in their ESL classrooms. This

interview was conducted in a class, right after these teacher

trainees went through their teaching practicum. There were ten to

11 members in every group and each group spent approximately an

hour with the interviewer to answer the first threequestions.

Other questions were asked when the interviewer needed some

clarification for the answers given by the group members.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Addressing the First Research Question

In addressing the first research question, a quantitative

analysis was carried out using SPSS version 17. Looking at teacher

trainees’ understanding of task and TBLT, it was found that the

vast majority of respondents understood that task has a

communicative purpose (57.9%), a primary focus on meaning (57.9%),

and a clearly defined outcome (71.9%). Most of the teacher

trainees (72%) considered task as a kind of activity in which the

target language is used by the learner. This implies that most of

the teacher trainees generally agree with the definition of task

as discussed in the literature review section. In addition, a

clear majority of teacher trainees (71.9%) reported that they

believed in the relevance between task-based instruction and

communicative language teaching. The findings also suggest that

most teacher trainees (73.7%) held a conviction for student-

centeredness, and that more than half of the teacher trainees

(77.3%) recognized three different stages including pre-task, task

implementation, and post-task.

In terms of teacher trainees’ attitudes toward the use of

computer technology in ESL classrooms, findings showed that most

of the teacher trainees agreed that computer technology is a

valuable tool for teachers (89.5%) and it helps them to teach in

more effective ways (92.9%). Most of them believed that computer

technology will change the way they teach (89.5%) and eventually

will change the way students learn in classes (94.8%). On top of

that, teacher trainees were also agreed that computer technology

may help students understand concepts in more effective ways

(88.5%), thus helps students learn because it allows them to

express their thinking in better and different ways (91.3%). In

terms of excitement, it was found that 89.5% of the teacher

trainees were excited to use computer technology as a teaching

tool. Due to this reason, of all teacher trainees, only 22.8% of

them felt that the use of computer technology stress them out.

49.1% of them reported that computer technology did not usually

create technical problems that may affect their teaching. Besides

the positive attitudes reported by the respondents, there were

some of them who agreed that the idea of using computer technology

in teaching and learning made them skeptical (21%). Some of them

also thought that computer technology was not conducive to

student's learning because it was not easy to use (36.8%) and that

its use in teaching and learning scared them (28%). Even though

there were still few of them who have different view of the use of

computer technology, many of them felt comfortable using computer

technology as a tool in teaching (77.2%).

Parallel with the teacher trainees’ understanding of TBLT and

positive attitudes toward the use of computer technology in

language teaching, majority of them claimed that they were

interested in implementing computer-mediated tasks in the

classroom (71.8%) (see Table 1). They agreed that computer-

mediated tasks provide a relaxed atmosphere to promote the target

language use (71.9%), activate students’ needs and interests

(77.2%) and pursue the development of integrated skills in the

classroom (71.9%). As a result of these, many of the respondents

disagreed that computer-mediated tasks give much psychological

burden to them (47.3%). In addition, more than half of them did

not agree that they need much preparation time (50.8%). In fact,

they agreed that computer-mediated tasks are proper for

controlling classroom arrangements (56.1%). They also agreed that

materials for computer-mediated tasks should be meaningful and

purposeful based on the real world context (78.9%).

Table 1 Teacher Trainees’ Views on the Implementation of Computer-

Mediated Tasks in ESL Classrooms (N= 63)

Questionnaire Items

Strongl

y

Agree/

Agree

(%)

Neutral

(%)

Strongl

y

Disagre

e/

Disagre

e (%)

M SD

1. I am interested in

implementing computer-mediated

tasks in the classroom.71.8 24.5 3.7 2.52 .62

2. Computer-mediated tasks

provide a relaxed atmosphere

to promote the target language

71.9 22.8 5.3 2.44 .56

use.3. Computer-mediated tasks

activate students’ interests.77.2 19.3 3.5 2.54 .62

4. Computer-mediated tasks

enhance the development of

integrated skills in the

classroom.

71.9 24.5 3.6 2.48 .59

5. Computer-mediated tasks give

much psychological burden to

teacher as a facilitator.29.9 22.8 47.3 1.99 .80

6. Computer -mediated tasks

require much preparation time

compared to other approaches.17.6 31.6 50.8 2.06 .76

7. Computer-mediated tasks are

proper for controlling

classroom arrangements.56.1 33.3 10.6 2.18 .71

8. Materials for computer -

mediated tasks should be

meaningful and purposeful

based on the real world

context.

78.9 17.5 3.6 2.58 .61

4.2 Addressing the Second Research Question

In addressing the second research question, a qualitative

analysis was carried out using Atlas.tiversion 7. The data were

analysed based on both qualitative and quantitative output. There

were three main items prepared for the group interviews;

(1) Did you use computer-mediated tasks for your English

lesson? Why?

(2) In a scale of 1 to 5, how frequent do you usecomputer-

mediated tasks to teach English? Why? 1; never, 2; once, 3;

2 to 5 times, 4; 6 to 10 times and 5; always

(3) What do think about using computer-mediated tasks in a

language teaching?

In response to item one and two, there were29 students who

claimed that they did not use computer-mediated tasks while

teaching, while the rest used it during English lesson. However,

those teacher trainees who agreed they had used computer-mediated

tasks while teaching did not implement the approach every time

they had class. Instead, 22 of them used it only oncewhile the

other 6 used it two to five times throughout the whole three

months of training (see Table 2). Adapting the mean interpretation

score by Oxford (1990), these data wereanalysed to determine the

frequency of use of computer-mediated tasks. The groups of

frequency levels are given below:

High : 4.5 to 5.0 (always used) and 3.5 to 4.4 (usually

used);

Medium : 2.5 to 3.4 (sometimes used); and

Low : 1.5 to 2.4 (usually not used) and 1.0 to 1.4

(never used).

Based on the mean presented in the table two, it was found

that the level of use of computer-mediated tasks among teacher

trainees was low which ranged from 1.5 to 2.4.

Table 2 Level of Use of Computer-Mediated Tasks among TeacherTrainees (N = 63)

Frequenc

y

Percenta

geM SD

1 Never 29 50.8

1.65 0.7442 Once 22 38.6

3 Two to five

times6 10.6

4 Six to ten 0 0.0

times5 Always 0 0.0

Total 57 100

The low level of use of computer-mediated tasks among teacher

trainees was quite surprising as it was a total opposite ofhow

they perceivedthe use of computer-mediated tasks in ESL classroom.

Thus, data collected from item three gave an interesting, yet

significant overview about the reasons why these teacher trainees

decided to use or not to use computer-mediated tasks in their

lessons. Based on a thematic analysis,it was found that most of

the answers revolved around three main reasons; facilities,

knowledge and time factor.

In terms of facilities, 45 teacher traineesclaimed that they

rarely used computer-mediated tasks during English lesson due to

the lack of facilities, involvingthe computer laboratory, the

computers and the Internet connection. Besides having “only one

computer laboratory”, the teacher trainees stated that they could not

implement computer-mediated tasks during the lesson because the

laboratory did not have enough computers for each student.

According to them, “sharing computerwas not a good idea because good students

would take charge of everything”, leaving those who were slow doing

nothing at all. Some of the teacher trainees also agreed that

sharing computer gave them difficult time to handle the class

since their “students tend to do their own work” and“did not listen”to

themfor“they were too occupied with their own computers”. Theworst part was

when these teacher trainees tried to give tasks online and found

that “there was no Internet connection”. Thus, they preferred not to use

computer-mediated tasks during their lessons.

Another leading factor that was revealed by teacher trainees

is the lack of knowledge about how they could prepare computer-

mediated tasks for their lessons. Among all of the teacher

trainees, 31 of them claimed that they “did not learn how to come out with

a lesson that requires students to use a computer”. They also mentioned that

they “had never been taught of how to do it, not explicitly”. Due to these

reasons, one of the teacher trainees expressed his feeling by

stating that they ‘should have been exposed not only to computer-mediated tasks,

but also to how it can be prepared for a lesson”.

Besides the lack of facilities and knowledge, 42 teacher

trainees also mentioned that they had difficulties implementing

computer-mediated tasks due to time constrain. “The 30-minute lesson

was too short” and “going to the laboratory took a lot of time” were among the

various reasons expressed by these teacher trainees. Furthermore,

the nature of the school system which was “too exam-oriented” had made

it more difficult for these teacher trainees to provide computer-

mediated tasks for the students. This is due to the fact that they

had been asked to teach the students how to tackle examination

questionsrather than giving them tasks that can develop their

knowledge in the target language. This situation limits their time

to get the students engaged in the computer-mediated tasks for the

purpose of teaching the language. As a result, some of the teacher

trainees decided to implement a face-to-face TBLT in their

classroom so that they will have more time to focus on the

examination preparation.

5. DISCUSSION

The findings of items in Part B of the survey showed that

teacher trainees had a comparatively clear understanding of the

linguistic features and the pedagogical benefits of task. More

importantly, it is believed that teacher trainees convey a

considerable amount of practical understanding about the key

concepts of TBLT. This could result from the fact that the current

approach learned by these teacher trainees is toward the

application of task-based learning and activity-oriented language

which aimed at improving students’ communicative competence.

On the other hand, the findings of items in Part C showed that

majority of the teacher trainees have positive attitudes toward

the integration of technology tools in their classroom teaching.

This could be due to the use of technology that support and

integrate literacy skills, as pointed by Ghasemi and Hashemi

(2011)which helpthese teacher trainees to teach in more effective

ways.Even so, there were some teacher trainees who believed that

the integration of technology was not conducive to student's

learning because it was not easy to use and that its use scared

them. This could result from the lack of exposure of the

technology integration in language teaching, as claimed by some of

the teacher trainees during the interview session. Due to that

reason, lecturers should be responsible of presenting this new

learning environment so that the futureteachers will not be left

behind.

The findings of items in Part D of the survey indicated that

the teacher trainees’ understanding of TBLT and positive attitudes

toward the use of technology in language teaching somehow

influence their views on the implementation of computer-mediated

tasks in language teaching. This may result from the fact that

most of them realised the need to be flexible and dynamic in

controlling the language learning environment, because the nature

of language learning substantially demands students’ active

participation in language use activities.

From the above findings, it is quite obvious that teacher

trainees have positive perceptions toward the use of computer-

mediated tasks in language teaching. However, surprisingly, the

qualitative findings from the group interviews showed that the

teacher trainees had low level of use of computer-mediated tasks

during their teaching practicum as indicated by Oxford(1990).Even

though computer-mediated tasks can be genuinely used to help these

teacher trainees in negotiating and communicating

meaning(Warschauer& Healey, 1998), there is no guarantee that it

can be implemented in language teaching especially when the school

system and the teachers themselves are not ready for any

transformation. Moreover, the limited number of computers provided

in each school has made computer-mediated tasks even difficult to

help these teacher trainees to facilitate the language input

simultaneously, for each student.

Despite this unexpected result, it is not surprising that

these teacher trainees claimed they did not have enough knowledge

about computer-mediated tasks. The fact that there were some

lecturers who did not frequently use computer-mediated tasks

during their lectures revealed that there is a possibility that

the level of exposure these teacher trainees gained from the

beginning were quite limited. As stated earlier, these teacher

trainees had to face with complexdecisions about the tasks they

are expected to use in the web-based environment (Thomas

&Reinders, 2012). Therefore, lacking of exposure in the use of

computer-mediated tasks may keep these teacher trainees behind

their time. In light of this, it is first of all necessary for

teacher trainees to be given proper exposure of the computer-

mediated tasks so that they understand its basic principles, as

well as its techniques. By doing so, these teacher trainees may be

able to overcome the issues related to time constrain as they

could prepare effective computer-mediated tasks that suit the time

frame of each lesson. Besides, they may also do well in their

future undertakings, considering that they are no longer lack of

the knowledge of computer-mediated task.

6. CONCLUSION

Findings from qualitative data of current study might have

shown a real situation among teachers in schools. This should not

be taken lightly as it implies many weaknessesin certain schools

and their system that affect teachers’ teaching performance in

general. The lack of facilities and time should not be the factors

for teachers holding back the use of computer-mediated tasks in

language teaching. Thus, the school administration should be aware

of the necessity of these technologies and workinginto providing

excellent and conducive teaching and learning environment. In

addition, the teachers should also be given a wider opportunity to

play their part as a facilitator rather than a ‘spoon feeder’ so

that they no longer have to teach their students how to excel in

the examination, but how they can live the outside world knowing

how to use the language, especially with the latest technology in

hand.

Thus,it is necessary for teachers to be given the opportunity

to acquire knowledge about computer-mediated tasksas early as

their first year in the college. This might be important for them

to be able to overcome potential obstacles that they may come

across in a computer-mediated task based classroom. At the same

time, teachers must not only be trained in certain computer

software that they are not familiar with, butalso how to go about

using those technologies into their task-based instruction.

Therefore, lecturers should also start employing certain

strategies to promote computer-mediated tasks among their teacher

trainees so that they are able to apply those strategies when they

become teachers.

If all factors that impede the use of computer-mediated tasks

can be overcome, there might be a huge possibility for students to

acquire their second or foreign language in an authentic language

learning environment. Therefore, teachers need to do a total

adjustment in their teaching process to suit this new web-based

environment.However, they should not expect that the presence of

new technologies will greatly help students’ learning; however,

they can be assured that technology, if integrated into effective

teaching and learning practices will enforce students’ learning

motivation. The most important aspect of all is that it can

support teaching and learning in a number of ways.

Since current study reveals how the level of exposure is

essential in determining the readiness and willingness of teacher

trainees to implement computer-mediated tasks, thisshould provide

a foundation for future research in this combined field.

Despite the positive views and attitudes of teachertrainees towards the use of computer-mediated tasks in

the ESL classroom, it is necessary for these trainees tobe given the opportunity to acquire knowledge about

computer-mediated tasks related to planning,implementing, and assessing. This might be important fortheir ability to overcome potential obstacles that theycome across in a classroom featuring computer-mediatedtasks. At the same time, these teacher trainees must betrained in certain computer software with which they arenot familiar, and must learn how to go about using those

technologies in their task-based instruction. Inaddition, lecturers should also employ certain strategiesto promote the use of computer-mediated tasks amongsttheir student teachers. This will help them to gain

motivation to create a positive environment for exploringnew ways of teaching.

If all factors that impede the use of computer-mediatedtasks can be overcome, a large possibility might existfor students to acquire a second or foreign language inan authentic language learning environment. Therefore,

both lecturers and teacher trainees should significantlyadjust their teaching process to suit this new web-basedenvironment. This is simply because the use of computer-mediated tasks can support teaching and learning in anumber of ways. One of them is teachers can be assuredthat technology integrated into effective teaching andlearning practices will foster students’ motivation tolearn. The ability to prepare an authentic language

learning environment through the use of computer-mediatedtask will also give students a wide opportunity to

communicate using the target language successfully. Atthe same time, teachers will be able to prepare

themselves for future challenges that may require them toknow more than just computers.

This study, even though it looked into the level of useof computer-mediated tasks among teacher trainees, thereis no guarantee that these future teachers are ready toimplement the use of computer-mediated tasks in their

classrooms. Furthermore, current study did not look intothe level of exposure the lecturers had given them

through out their study years. Therefore, it would befruitful for future research in the field of ICT in

language education to investigate the correlation betweenfuture teachers’ level of exposure to computer-mediatedtasks and their readiness and willingness to implement

these tasks in their own classrooms.

REFERENCES

Aydin, S. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions about the use of computersin EFL teaching and learning: the case of Turkey. Computer Assisted Language Learning, (March), 1–20. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.654495

Butler-Pascoe, M. E. &Wiburg, K. (2003).Technology and teaching English language students. New York: Allyn& Bacon.

Bygate, M. (1999).Task as context for the framing, reframing, and unframing of Language.System, 27(1), 33–48.

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & S. M. (2001).Researching pedagogic task (eds.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Davis, N., Preston, C. &Sahin, I. (2009).Training teachers to use new technologies impacts multiple ecologies: Evidence from a national initiative.British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 861–878. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Galvis, H. . (2011). Transforming traditional communicative language instruction into computer technology based instruction: experiences, challenges and considerations. RevistaFolios, 34, 93–102. Retrieved from http://www.pedagogica.edu.co/

Ghasemi, B., &Hashemi, M. (2011). ICT: Newwave in English languagelearning/teaching. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3098–3102. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.252

Hassanzadeh, V., Gholami, R., Allahyar, N., &Noordin, N. (2012).Motivation and Personality Traits of TESL Postgraduate Students towards the Use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Second Language Teaching.English Language Teaching, 5(4), 74–86. doi:10.5539/elt.v5n4p74

Jeon, I., & Hahn, J. (2006).Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions oftask-based language teaching: A case study of Korean secondary school classroom practice.Asian EFL Journal, 123–143. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com/March_06.pdf#page=123

Levy, M., &Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language Learning. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Li, R. (2012). The Influence of Computer Applied Learning Environment on EFL or ESL Education. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 187–191. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.1.187-191

MarliaPuteh. (2002). Language Teaching Via the Internet Perceptionof Lecturers, Marlia (2002).pdf. Journal Teknikal Dan KajianSosial.

McDonough, K. &Chaikitmongkol, W. (2007).Teachers’ and students’ reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand.TESOL Quarterly, 41, 107–132.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2005). Important tasks of English education: Asia-wide and beyond. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 5–8. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/September_2005_EBook_editions.pdf

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001).Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Focus on form, tasks, and technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 391–411.

Tabatabaei, O., &Hadi, A. (2011). Iranian EFL Teachers ’ Perceptions of Task-Based Language Pedagogy, 1(2), 1–9. doi:10.3968/j.hess.1927024020110102.1566

Thomas, M. (2009).Handbook of research on web 2.0 and second language learning. Hershey, PA & New York: IGI Global.

Thomas, M., &Reinders, H. (2012). Task-based language learning andteaching with technology. ReCALL, 24, 108-11, 108–112. doi:10.1017/S0958344011000310

Warschauer, M. & Healey, D. (1998). Computer and language learning: an overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.

Willis, D. & Willis, J. (2007).Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.