O n f e r e n c e

Short paper 
Introduction 
Trials, challenges, constraints and opportunities are perhaps some of the words included 
in the lexical inventory of those who undertake computer-assisted language learning 
practices nowadays. This paper addresses a group of CALL agents: those 
teachers
who 
play three main roles and wear a distinctive 
hat
: the designer, the researcher and the 
anti-hype teachers. We have chosen the metaphor of wearing a hat, mainly because we 
believe there is a strong association to the role and responsibilities a teacher must 
assume in different moments of the CALL process. Very often, these hats have to be 
worn unexpectedly with little or no pedagogical or procedural preparation; at times, 
wearing these hats also involves following an imposed practice, nurtured without 
considering teachers’ beliefs, n
eeds, and adaptability conditions to new CALL initiatives. 
However, there are instances in which CALL projects have a smooth genesis and 
development, which teachers engage in and enjoy, while keeping a synergistic structure 
that balances several components: the agents, the infrastructure available, the 
theoretical and practical considerations underpinning the given practice, and the end-
user audience: the learners. 
The above premises lead us to characterize three groups of teachers. On the one hand, 
some teachers, driven by intuition, personal and professional motivations, believe that 
CALL is a kaleidoscope, in that it allows for a multiplicity of learning and research 
opportunities, easily customized to meet the needs of most educational contexts. These 
teachers view the classroom as a laboratory of ideas, and believe that language learning 
can occur with the help of computer-mediated scaffolds. These teachers can either take 
the role of designers or researchers, according to the circumstances, and can easily find 
a route to replicate successful findings in future products.
On the other hand, other teachers have undertaken CALL projects in a hasty manner, 
mostly due to institutional changes in curricula, not always driven by sufficient vision, 
planning, or decision-making. Consequently, they have been engaged in CALL in an 
“adjustment” mode in order to comply with what is required in their institutions. These 
teachers may go through several transitions in their quest to understand the reasons 
beneath the meaning, essence and purpose of CALL. Therefore, reluctance, fear, and 
apprehension often drive their sense and capability to follow what has been requested. 
Surprisingly, however, they are fighting the battle between doing something which they 
do not believe could be a learning and teaching gain, but must do anyway and doing 
something which they feel unprepared to do but believe could work. These individuals do 
not openly recognize and/or share their needs with their colleagues or supervisors, 
mainly because they seem to be afraid of change, both in their teaching and professional 
paradigm.

---

-126- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
These belong to the anti-hype category. The last group of teachers find in CALL a comfort 
zone to develop language learning practices. They adopt a rather passive attitude toward 
the CALL pedagogies, because they are rarely concerned about feasibility aspects and 
expected outcomes needed to implement tools to assist language learning. To any 
traditional stakeholder, they would be “good” assets to teams because they do wha
t is 
required without questioning the purpose. However, they represent the highest threat (in 
our eyes) because they tend to produce weak research/pedagogical project designs 
(Cuesta, 2014) due to the insufficiency in depth and analysis of the factors and 
conditions that favor due to their lack of analysis of factors that favor language learning 
and instruction.