Document Type : Original Research Paper


1 Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central Branch, Tehran, Iran

2 Faculty of Humanities, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

3 Faculty of Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabatabaei University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


Main Subjects

In this article, the insight of the foreign language faculties towards using information technologies in teaching languages online, have been investigated in four fields of teaching languages including: English, French, German and Farsi. Meanwhile the foreign language faculties’ perceptions towards the facilities provided at their work and their readiness to take part in the workshops of teaching languages online were studied descriptively. Different variables such as age, sex, educational rank and types of teaching (virtual online via face to face) were also considered thoroughly. 68 language faculties, from 7 different universities, answered the questionaires. The result showed that most of the language faculties were not aware of IT based devices or strategies of teaching their courses in virtual environments, and the necessary technological infrastructure and facilities for online language teaching is totally different at their work. It was cleared out that the majority numbers of foreign language faculties need to pass supplementary courses in almost all of the fields related to teaching languages electronically. However, the educational rank showed some positive effect on transition towards e- teaching, the higher the educational rank or teaching section, the more tendency towards using online strategies or devices, could be observed. Therefore, the researcher concluded that a well-planned, proactive IT-based training program for foreign language faculty is an essential prerequisite for further educational development in our country.

[1] Honebine P., Seven Goals for the Design of Constructivist Learning Environments, In Brent Wilson’s (Ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, 1996. [2] Crystal D., Language and the Internet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. [3] UNESCO-UIS., International Standard Classification of Education I S C E D 1997, Re-edition, Available at:, 2006. [4] Liu M., Moore Z., Graham L. and Lee S., A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning,A review of the literature from 1990-2000, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol.34,No.3, 2002,pp.250-272. [5] Westera W. and Sloep P.B., The future of education in cyberspace, in: Vandervert L.R., Shavinina L.V. and Cornell R.A., (Eds.), Cybereducation: The future of long distance learning, Larchmont, NY: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 2001. [6] American Council on Education, to touch the future: transforming the way teachers are taught: an action Agenda for College and University presidents, Available at: -ed-rpt.pdf, 1999. [7] Dagada R., The impact of the technology acceptance model (TAM) in determining the success or failure of computerintegrated education, in: Kommers P. and Richards G., (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, AACE, Chesapeake, 2005, pp.1125–1129. [8] Hagenson L., Castle D., The integration of technology into teaching by University College of education faculty, in: Crawford C., Willis DA., Carlsen R., Gibson I., McFerrin K., Price J. and Weber R (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education international conference, 2003. [9] Waxman H., Lin M. and Michko G.M., A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes, Available at:, 2003. [10] Gilbert S.W., Teaching, learning & technology, Change, Vol.27, No.2, 1995, pp.47-52. [11]Olcott D.J., Aligning distance education practice and academic policy: A framework for institutional change, Continuing Higher Education Review, Vol.60, No.1, 1996, pp.27-41. [12] Olcott D.J. and Wright S.J., An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary education, The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol.9, No.3, 1995, pp.5-17. [13] Nicholson S.A. and Bond N., Collaborative reflection and professional community building: An analysis of preservice teachers' use of an electronic discussion Board, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol.11, No.2, 2003, pp.259-79. [14] Taylor J.C., Distance education technologies: The fourth generation, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol.11, No.2, 1995, pp.1-7. [15] Canale M., on some dimensions of language proficiency, in: Oller J.W., (Ed.), Issues in Language Testing Research. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1983, pp.333-342. [16] Canale M. and Swain M., Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, 1980, pp.1-47. [17] Brierley B. and Kemble I., Computers as a tool in language teaching, New York, Ellis Horwood, 1991. [18] Higgins J., Language, learners and computers, London, Longman, 1988. [19] Underwood J., Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach, Rowley, MA, Newbury House, 1984, p.52. [20] Stevens V., A direction for CALL: from behavioristic to humanistic courseware, in: Pennington M., (Ed.), Teaching languages with computers: the state of the art, La Jolla, CA, 1989, pp.31-43. [21] Healey D. and Johnson N., A brief introduction to CALL, in: Healey D. and Johnson N., (Eds.), 1995 TESOL CALL Interest Section software list Alexandria, Vol.3,No.7, 1995. [22] Underwood J., on the edge: Intelligent CALL in the 1990s, Computers and the Humanities, Vol.23, 1989, pp.71-84. [23] Crook C.K., Deferring to resources: student collaborative talk kmediated by computer-based versus traditional notes, Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, Vol.18, 2002, pp.64-76. [24] Long M.H. and Crooks G., Three approaches to task-based syllabus design, TESOL Quarterly, Vol.26.No.1, 1992, pp.27-56. [25] Candlin C., towards task-based language learning, in: Candlin C. and Murphy D., (Eds.), Language Learning Tasks ,Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall International, 1987, pp.5-22. [26] Prabhu N., Second language pedagogy, Oxford, England, Oxford University Press, 1987. فروزان دهباشی شریف و همکاران 314 نشریه علمی پژوهشی فناوری آموزش، سال ششم، جلد 6 ،شماره 3 ،بهار 3313 [27] Flowerdew J., Content-based language instruction in a tertia ry setting, English for Specific Purposes, Vol.12, 1993, pp.121-138. [28] Snow M.A., Teaching language through content, in: Snow M.A., (Ed.), teaching English as a second or foreign language Boston, Newbury House, 1991, pp.315-328. [29] Kern R. and Warschauer M., Theory and practice of network-based language teaching, in: Warschauer M. and Kern R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp.1-19. [30] Bernhardt E.B. Second-language reading as a case study of reading scholarship in the 20th century, in: Kamil M.L., Pearson P.D. and Barr R., (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Vol.3, 2000,pp.791-811. [31] Leki1., Reciprocal themes in ESL reading and writing, in: Carson J.G. and Leki1., (Eds.), Reading in the composition classroom: Second language perspectives , Boston, Heinle & Heinle, 1993, pp.9-32. [32] Swales J.M., Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. [33] Crook C., Computers and the collaborative experience of learning, London, Routledge, 1996. [34] Gray S., Web-based Instructional Tools, Syllabus, 1998. [35] Gray S., Collaboration Tools, Syllabus, 1999. [36] Angelo J., New Lessons in Course management, University Business, Available at: cfm? , 2004, p.616. [37] Mason R., Globalising Education: Trends and Applications, Routledge, Available at: ncasync.html, 1998. [38] Moore M., Distant Education: A learner’s system, Lifelong Learning, Vol.2, 1989, pp.8–11.