Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction

by Mark Warschauer

Reprinted with permission of Logos International. Please cite as:
Warschauer M. (1996) “Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction”.
In Fotos S. (ed.) Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo: Logos International: 3-20.

We are grateful to Mark Warschauer for allowing us to reproduce this article at the ICT4LT site. The article has an important place in the history of CALL, which we cover in Section 2, Module 1.4 at the ICT4LT site, and it is especially relevant to the various attempts to document a CALL typology and phases of CALL, which we cover in Section 3, Module 1.4.

ICT4LT Editor’s Note: External links in this article are regularly checked by Graham Davies, Editor of the ICT4LT website. and amended where necessary. A number of notes containing updated information and internal links to other sections of the ICT4LT site have also been inserted.

Links checked 4 September 2010
Abstract

Until quite recently, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) was a topic of relevance mostly to those with a special interest in that area. Recently, though, computers have become so widespread in schools and homes and their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of language teachers must now begin to think about the implications of computers for language learning.

This article provides brief overview of how computers have been used and are being used for language teaching. It focuses not on a technical description of hardware and software, but rather on the pedagogical questions that teachers have considered in using computers in the classroom. For those who want more detailed information on particular applications, a typology of CALL programs (Appendix A) and a list of further CALL resources (Appendix B) is included at the end.
Three phases of CALL

Though CALL has developed gradually over the last 30 years, this development can be categorized in terms of three somewhat distinct phases which I will refer to as behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL (cf. Barson & Debski 1996). As we will see, the introduction of a new phase does not necessarily entail rejecting the programs and methods of a previous phase; rather the old is subsumed within the new. In addition, the phases do not gain prominence one fell swoop, but, like all innovations, gain acceptance slowly and unevenly. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Section 3, Module 1.4, where CALL typology and phases of CALL are discussed further.]
Behavioristic CALL

The first phase of CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and ’70s, was based on the then-dominant behaviorist theories of learning. Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice” (or, more pejoratively, as “drill and kill”).

Drill and practice courseware is based on the model of computer as tutor (Taylor 1980). In other words the computer serves as a vehicle for delivering instructional materials to the student. The rationale behind drill and practice was not totally spurious, which explains in part the fact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationale is as follows:

* 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

Based on these notions, a number of CALL tutoring systems were developed for the mainframe computers which were used at that time. One of the most sophisticated of these was the PLATO system, which ran on its own special PLATO hardware, including central computers and terminals. The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translations tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex 1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, behavioristic CALL was undermined by two important factors. First, behavioristic approaches to language learning had been rejected at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level. Secondly, the introduction of the microcomputer allowed a whole new range of possibilities. The stage was set for a new phase of CALL.
Communicative CALL

The second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teaching which became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approach felt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value.

One of the main advocates of this new approach was John Underwood, who in 1984 proposed a series of “Premises for ‘Communicative’ CALL” (Underwood 1984:52). According to Underwood, 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.

Another critic of behavioristic CALL, Vance Stevens, contends that all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivation and should foster interactivity – both learner-computer and learner-learner (Stevens 1989).

Several types of CALL programs were developed and used during this the phase of communicative CALL. First, there were a variety of programs to provide skill practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of these types of programs include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction, and language games (Healey & Johnson 1995b). In these programs, like the drill and practice programs mentioned above, the computer remains the “knower-of-the-right-answer” (Taylor & Perez 1989:3); thus this represents an extension of the computer as tutor model. But – in contrast to the drill and practice programs – the process of finding the right answer involves a fair amount of student choice, control, and interaction.

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used for communicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor & Perez 1989:63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather to stimulate students’ discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Software used for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may not have been specifically designed for language learners, programs such as Sim City, Sleuth, or Where in the World is San Diego? (Healey & Johnson 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves the computer as tool (Brierley & Kemble 1991; Taylor 1980) or, as sometimes called, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez 1989). In this role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language material at all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language. Examples of computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordancers.

Of course the distinction between these models is not absolute. A skill practice program can be used as a conversational stimulus, as can a paragraph written by a student on a word processor. Likewise, there are a number of drill and practice programs which could be used in a more communicative fashion – if, for example, students were assigned to work in pairs or small groups and then compare and discuss their answers (or, as Higgins 1988, students can even discuss what inadequacies they found in the computer program) In other words, the dividing line between behavioristic and communicative CALL does involves not only which software is used, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students.

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advance over its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators felt that CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning & Kenning 1990; Pusack & Otto 1990; Rüschoff 1993). Critics pointed out that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashion and thus “finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal rather than to central elements” of the language teaching process (Kenning & Kenning 1990: 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed with broader reassessments of the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfied with teaching compartmentalized skills or structures (even if taught in a communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teach in a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-based approaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop models which could help integrate the various aspects of the language learning process. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing the opportunities to do just that.
Steps toward integrative CALL: multimedia

Integrative approaches to CALL are based on two important technological developments of the last decade – multimedia computers and the Internet. Multimedia technology – exemplified today by the CD-ROM – allows a variety of media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be accessed on a single machine. What makes multimedia even more powerful is that it also entails hypermedia. That means that the multimedia resources are all linked together and that learners can navigate their own path simply by pointing and clicking a mouse. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Module 2.2, Introduction to multimedia CALL.]

Hypermedia provides a number of advantages for language learning. First of all, a more authentic learning environment is created, since listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Secondly, skills are easily integrated, since the variety of media make it natural to combine reading, writing, speaking and listening in a single activity. Third, students have great control over their learning, since they can not only go at their own pace but even on their own individual path, going forward and backwards to different parts of the program, honing in on particular aspects and skipping other aspects altogether. Finally, a major advantage of hypermedia is that it facilitates a principle focus on the content, without sacrificing a secondary focus on language form or learning strategies. For example, while the main lesson is in the foreground, students can have access to a variety of background links which will allow them rapid access to grammatical explanations or exercises, vocabulary glosses, pronunciation information, or questions or prompts which encourage them to adopt an appropriate learning strategy.

An example of how hypermedia can be used for language learning is the program Dustin which is being developed by the Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University (Schank & Cleary 1995). The program is a simulation of a student arriving at a U.S. airport. The student must go through customs, find transportation to the city, and check in at a hotel. The language learner using the program assumes the role of the arriving student by interacting with simulated people who appear in video clips and responding to what they say by typing in responses. If the responses are correct, the student is sent off to do other things, such as meeting a roommate. If the responses are incorrect, the program takes remedial action by showing examples or breaking down the task into smaller parts. At any time the student can control the situation by asking what to do, asking what to say, asking to hear again what was just said, requesting for a translation, or controlling the level of difficulty of the lesson.

Yet in spite of the apparent advantages of hypermedia for language learning, multimedia software has so far failed to make a major impact. Several major problems have surfaced in regarding to exploiting multimedia for language teaching.

First, there is the question of quality of available programs. While teachers themselves can conceivably develop their own multimedia programs using authoring software such as Hypercard (for the Macintosh) or ToolBook (for the PC), the fact is that most classroom teachers lack the training or the time to make even simple programs, let alone more complex and sophisticated ones such as Dustin. This has left the field to commercial developers, who often fail to base their programs on sound pedagogical principles. In addition, the cost involved in developing quality programs can put them out of the market of most English teaching programs.

Beyond these lies perhaps a more fundamental problem. Today’s computer programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. A program like Dustin should ideally be able to understand a user’s spoken input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also or appropriateness. It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options (e.g. repeating, paraphrasing, slowing down, correcting, or directing the student to background explanations).

Computer programs with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Artificial Intelligence (AI) of a more modest degree does exist, but few funds are available to apply AI research to the language classroom. Thus while Intelligent CALL (Underwood 1989) may be the next and ultimate usage of computers for language learning, that phase is clearly a long way down the road. [IC4LT Editor's Note: See Module 3.5, Human Language Technologies.]

Multimedia technology as it currently exists thus only partially contributes to integrative CALL. Using multimedia may involve an integration of skills (e.g. listening with reading), but it too seldom involves a more important type of integration – integrating meaningful and authentic communication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. Fortunately, though, another technological breakthrough is helping make that possible – electronic communication and the Internet.
Steps toward integrative CALL: the Internet

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), which has existed in primitive form since the 1960s but has only became wide-spread in the last five years, is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impact on language teaching. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Section 14, Module 1.5, for more information on CMC.] For the first time, language learners can communicate directly, inexpensively, and conveniently with other learners or speakers of the target language 24 hours a day, from school, work, or home. This communication can be asynchronous (not simultaneous) through tools such as electronic mail (email), which allows each participant to compose messages at their time and pace, or in can be synchronous (synchronous, “real time”), using programs such as MOOs, which allow people all around the world to have a simultaneous conversation by typing at their keyboards. It also allows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowing a teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class, a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of people.

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Module 1.5 and Module 2.3 for further information on using the Internet in the teaching of Modern Foreign Languages.]

Computer Mediated Communication allows users to share not only brief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents – thus facilitating collaborative writing – and also graphics, sounds, and video. Using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can search through millions of files around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles, radio broadcasts, short videos, movie reviews, book excerpts) exactly tailored to their own personal interests. They can also use the Web to publish their texts or multimedia materials to share with partner classes or with the general public.

It is not hard to see how computer-mediated communication and the Internet can facilitate an integrative approach to using technology. The following example illustrates well how the Internet can be used to help create an environment where authentic and creative communication is integrated into all aspects of the course.

Students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz Mexico don’t just study general examples and write homework for the teacher; instead they use the Internet to actually become scientific writers (Bowers 1995; Bowers 1996). First, the students search the World Wide Web to find articles in their exact area of specialty and then carefully read and study those specific articles. They then write their own drafts online; the teacher critiques the drafts online and creates electronic links to his own comments and to pages of appropriate linguistic and technical explanation, so that students can find additional background help at the click of a mouse. Next, using this assistance, the students prepare and publish their own articles on the World Wide Web, together with reply forms to solicit opinions from readers. They advertise their Web articles on appropriate Internet sites (e.g. scientific newsgroups) so that interested scientists around the world will know about their articles and will be able to read and comment on them. When they receive their comments (by email) they can take those into account in editing their articles for republication on the Web or for submission to scientific journals.

The above example illustrates an integrative approach to using technology in a course based on reading and writing. This perhaps is the most common use of the Internet to date, since it is still predominantly a text-based medium. This will undoubtedly change in the future, not only due to the transmission of audio-visual material (video clips, sound files) World Wide Web, but also due to the growing use of the Internet to carry out real-time audio- and audio-visual chatting (this is already possible with tools such as NetPhone and CU-SeeME, but is not yet widespread).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to wait for further technological developments in order to use the Internet in a multi-skills class. The following example shows how the Internet, combined with other technologies, was used to help create an integrated communicative environment for EFL students in Bulgaria – students who until recent years had little contact with the English-speaking world and were taught through a “discrete topic and skill orientation” (Meskill & Rangelova 1995). These Bulgarian students now benefit from a high-tech/low-tech combination to implement an integrated skills approach in which a variety of language skills are practiced at the same time with the goal of fostering communicative competence. Their course is based on a collaborative, interpreted study of contemporary American short stories, assisted by three technological tools:

* Email communication. The Bulgarian students correspond by email with an American class of TESOL graduate students to explore in detail the nuances of American culture which are expressed in the stories, and also to ask questions about idioms, vocabulary, and grammar. The American students, who are training to be teachers, benefit from the concrete experience of handling students’ linguistic and cultural questions .
* Concordancing. The Bulgarian students further test out their hypotheses regarding the lexical and grammatical meanings of expressions they find in the stories by using concordancing software to search for other uses of these expressions in a variety of English language corpora stored on CD-ROM.
* Audio tape. Selected scenes from the stories – dialogues, monologues, and descriptions – were recorded by the American students and provide both listening practice (inside and outside of class) and also additional background materials to help the Bulgarians construct their interpretation of the stories.

These activities are supplemented by a range of other classroom activities, such as in-class discussions and dialogue journals, which assist the students in developing their responses to the stories’ plots, themes, and characters – responses which can be further discussed with their email partners in the US.
Conclusion

The history of CALL suggests that the computer can serve a variety of uses for language teaching. It can be a tutor which offers language drills or skill practice; a stimulus for discussion and interaction; or a tool for writing and research. With the advent of the Internet, it can also be a medium of global communication and a source of limitless authentic materials.

But as pointed out by Garrett (1991), “the use of the computer does not constitute a method”. Rather, it is a “medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (p. 75). The effectiveness of CALL cannot reside in the medium itself but only in how it is put to use.

As with the audio language lab “revolution” of 40 years ago, those who expect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensive and elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computer technology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly find ways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunities of their students.
Appendix A:
A typology of CALL programs and applications
Computer as tutor
Grammar

CALL Programs designed for teaching grammar include drill and practice on a single topic (Irregular Verbs, Definite and Indefinite Articles), drills on a variety of topics (Advanced Grammar Series, English Grammar Computerized I and II), games (Code Breaker, Jr. High Grade Builder), and programs for test preparation (50 TOEFL SWE Grammar Tests) Grammar units are also included in a number of comprehensive multimedia packages (Dynamic English, Learn to Speak English Series).
Listening

This category includes programs which are specifically designed to promote second-language listening (Listen!), multi-skill drill and practice programs (TOEFL Mastery), multimedia programs for second language learners (Accelerated English, Rosetta Stone), and multimedia programs for children or the general public (Aesop’s Fables, The Animals).
Pronunciation

Pronunciation programs (Sounds American, Conversations) generally allow students to record and playback their own voice and compare it to a model. Several comprehensive multimedia programs (Firsthand Access, The Lost Secret) include similar features.
Reading

This category includes reading programs designed for ESL learners (Reading Adventure 1 – ESL) and tutorials designed for children or the general public (MacReader, Reading Critically, Steps to Comprehension). and games (HangWord). Also included are more general educational programs which can assist reading (Navajo Vacation, The Night Before Christmas) and text reconstruction programs (see below).
Text reconstruction

Text reconstruction programs allow students to manipulate letters, words, sentences, or paragraphs in order to put texts together. They are usually inexpensive and can be used to support reading, writing, or discussion activities. Popular examples include Eclipse, Gapmaster, Super Cloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Section 8, Module 1.4, headed Text manipulation.]
Vocabulary

This category includes drill and practice programs (Synonyms), multimedia tutorials (English Vocabulary), and games (Hangman, Scrabble). Also useful are several reference and searching tools (such as concordancers) which will be described in the Computer as Tool section below.
Writing

Most software for supporting writing falls under the Computer as Tool category (see below). Exceptions include tutorials such as Sentence Combining, SentenceMaker, and Typing Tutor.
Comprehensive

A number of comprehensive multimedia programs are designed to teach ESL students a variety of skills. They range in price but many are quite expensive. Among the better known are Dynamic English, Ellis Mastery, English Discoveries, Rosetta Stone.
Computer as stimulus

The computer as stimulus category includes software which is used not so much as a tutorial in itself but to generate analysis, critical thinking, discussion, and writing. Of course a number of the above-mentioned programs (e.g. The Animals, Navajo Vacation, Night Before Christmas) can be used as a stimulus. Especially effective for a stimulus are programs which include simulations. Examples of this latter group include London Adventure, Oregon Trail, Sim City, Sleuth, Crimelab, Amazon Trail, Cross Country Canada/USA, and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?
Computer as Tool
Word processing

The most common use of computer as tool, and probably the most common use overall of the computer for language learning, is word processing. High quality programs like Microsoft Word can be useful for certain academic or business settings (Healey & Johnson 1995a). Programs such as ClarisWorks and Microsoft Works are cheaper and simpler to learn and still have useful features. SimpleText and TeachText are simpler yet and may be sufficient for many learners.
Grammar checkers

Grammar checkers (e.g. Grammatik) are designed for native speakers and they typically point to problems believed typical of native speaker writing (e.g. too much use of passives). They are usually very confusing to language learners and are not recommended for an ESL/EFL context. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Section 6.1, Module 1.3, headed Spellcheckers, grammar checkers and style checkers.]
Concordancers

Concordancing software searches through huge files of texts (called corpora, which is the plural of corpus) in order to find all the uses of a particular word (or collocation). While very confusing for beginners, concordancers can be a wonderful tool for advanced students of language, linguistics, or literature.

The best concordancer for language students and teachers is Oxford’s MicroConcord. The program includes as an optional extra several large (total 1,000,000 words) taken from British newspapers. Or this program, and other concordancers as well, can be used with any other text files available in electronic form.

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Module 2.4, Using concordance programs in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom.]
Collaborative writing

A number of tools exist to help students work on their writing collaboratively on computers linked in a local area network. The most popular among language teachers is Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment, which includes modules for real-time discussion, word processing, electronic mail, and brainstorming, as well as citation software and a dictionary. Other programs with some similar features are Aspects and MacCollaborator.
Reference

There are numerous CD versions of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Two which have highly recommended (Healey & Johnson 1995a) for language learners are the encyclopedia ENCARTA and the Longman Dictionary of American English.
Internet

The three most popular uses of the Internet for language teaching are electronic mail (email), the World Wide Web, and MOOs. Numerous programs exist for using electronic mail. The Eudora program has several nice features, including “point-and-click” word processing capacity, easy attachment of formatted files, and ability to include foreign characters and alphabets. The free version (Eudora Light) is suitable for most purposes; there is also a more powerful commercial version (Eudora Pro).

Eudora requires a direct connection to the Internet. Additional programs which run through the unix system and do not require a direct Internet connection are Pine and Elm.

To access the World Wide Web, one needs a special program called a browser. By far the most popular browser among educators is Netscape, which until now has been free to teachers and students. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: Internet Explorer is now the most widely used browser.]

MOOs (“Multiple-user-domains Object Oriented”) allow for real time communication, simulation, and role playing among participants throughout the world, and a special MOO has been set up for ESL teachers and students (schmOOze University homepage 1995). The use of MOOs is greatly facilitated if one uses a special client software program such as TinyFugue (for Unix), MUDDweller (for Mac), or MUDwin (for Windows). [ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Section 14.2, Module 1.5 for further information on MOOs and their latest manifestation, MUVEs.]
Authoring

Authoring allows teachers to tailor software programs either by inserting new texts or by modifying the activities. Authoring runs on a spectrum from set programs which allow slight modification (e.g. inclusion of new texts) to complex authoring systems.

Many of the programs listed earlier (e.g. MacReader, Eclipse, Gapmaster, Super Cloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up) allow teachers to insert their own texts and thus make the programs more relevant to their own lessons (and greatly extend their shelf life too). By allowing the students themselves to develop and insert the texts, the programs can be made even more communicative and interactive.

On the other end of the spectrum, authoring systems allow teachers to design their own multimedia courseware. These can take a lot of time and effort to master, and are most often used by true enthusiasts. Some are specifically designed for language teachers (CALIS, DASHER), others for educators (Digital Chiseler) and others for the general public (Hypercard, Hyperstudio, Supercard, ToolBook, Macromind Director).

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See Module 2.5, Introduction to CALL authoring programs.]
Appendix B:
Additional CALL resources
Selected books

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See also the CALL bibliography in the ICT4LT Resource Centre.]

Athelstan (1995) Technology and Language Learning Yearbook Vol 6, Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Dunkel P. (ed.) (1991) Computer-assisted language learning and testing: research issues and practice, New York, NY: Newbury House.

Hardisty D. & Windeatt S. (1989) CALL, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Healey D. (1995) Something to do on Tuesday, Houston: Athelstan.

Healey D. & Johnson N. (eds.) (1995) 1995 TESOL CALL interest section software list, Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Higgins J. (1988) Language, learners and computers, London: Longman.

Jones C. & Fortescue S. (1987) Using computers in the language classroom. London: Longman.

Kenning M.-M. & Kenning M. J. (1990) Computers and language learning: Current theory and practice. New York: Ellis Horwood.

Pennington M. (ed.) (1989) Teaching languages with computers: the state of the art. La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Schank R.C. & Cleary C. (1995) Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor M.B. & Perez L.M. (1989) Something to do on Monday, La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Thompson J & Parsons J. (1995) ReCALL Software Guide No. 4, Hull, UK: CTI Centre for Modern Languages (CTICML), University of Hull. [ICT4LT Editor's Note: The CTICML has now closed down.]

Tribble C. & Jones G. (1990) Concordances in the classroom, Harlow: Longman.

Warschauer M. (1995a) Email for English teaching, Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Warschauer M. (ed.) (1995b) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Warschauer M. (ed.) (1996) Virtual connections: online activities and projects for networking language learners, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Journals

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See also the CALL bibliography in the ICT4LT Resource Centre.]

CALICO Journal: Published by CALICO, the US-based professional association.

Computer Assisted English Language Learning Journal (CAELL Journal): a journal for ESL teachers. Now defunct. Formerly published by ISTE, University of Orgeon. For back issues contact ISTE.

Computer Assisted Language Learning: Formerly published by Swets & Zeitlinger and now taken over by Taylor & Francis: http://www.tandf.co.uk

ON-CALL: In January 1999 the ON-CALL journal became available only online and in May 1999 merged with CALL-EJ. The joint journal, CALL-EJ, is now available at http://callej.org/. ON-CALL is no longer available online.

ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, now published by Cambridge University Press. Members and guests log in at http://www.journals.cup.org. Back numbers are available at: http://www.eurocall-languages.org/recall/index.html

SYSTEM: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, Elsevier:

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/335/description

TESL-EJ:
http://www.tesl-ej.org (English)
http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ (Japanese)
Electronic mail lists

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: Many of the original list of electronic mail lists that appeared in the original version of this article have now closed. The modern trend is to use blogs or wikis as alternatives. See Section 12, Module 1.5, headed Discussion lists, blogs, wikis, social networking, and see the ICT4LT website blog at http://ictforlanguageteachers.blogspot.com]

EST-L (Teachers of English for Science & Technology)
listserv@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
(Send message subscribe est-l yourfirstname yourlastname)

JALTCALL (Japan Association for Language Teaching CALL)
majordomo@clc.hyper.chubu.ac.jp
(Send message subscribe jaltcall)

LLTI (Language Learning and Technology International)
listserv@dartmouth.edu
(Send message subscribe llti yourfirstname yourlastname)

NETEACH-L (Using the Internet for teaching ESL)
listserv@thecity.sfsu.edu
(Send message subscribe neteach-l yourfirstname yourlastname)

TESL-L (Teachers of English as a Second Language)
TESLCA-L (Computer-Assisted sub-branch of TESL-L)
listserv@cunyvm.cuny.edu
(Send message subscribe tesl-l yourfirstname yourlastname)

International Student Email Discussion Lists
Nine lists for ESL/EFL college and university students
announce-sl@latrobe.edu.au
(For information send a blank email message)
Professional associations

[ICT4LT Editor's Note: See also under the heading Professional associations in the ICT4LT Resource Centre.]

AACE (Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education): http://www.aace.org

CALICO: http://www.calico.org

EUROCALL: http://www.eurocall-languages.org

ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education): http://www.iste.org

JALT CALL N-SIG (Japan Association for Language Teaching CALL National Special Interest Group)

IATEFL: Learning Technologies SIG – formerly known as the Computer SIG and formerly known as MUESLI (Micro Users in ESL Institutions): http://www.iatefl.org

TESOL CALL Interest Section: http://www.tesol.org
References

Ahmad K., Corbett G., Rogers M., & Sussex R. (1985) Computers, language learning and language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barson J. & Debski R. (1996) “Calling back CALL: technology in the service of foreign language learning based on creativity, contingency, and goal-oriented activity”. In Warschauer M. (ed.) Telecollaboration in foreign language learning, Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center: 49-68.

Bowers R. (1995) “WWW-Based Instruction for EST”. In Orr T. (ed.) English for science and technology: profiles and perspectives, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan: Center for Language Research, University of Aizu: 5-8.

Bowers R. (1996) “Web publishing for students of EST”. In Warschauer (ed.) Virtual connections: online activities and projects for networking language learners, Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawai Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Brierley B. & Kemble I. (1991) Computers as a tool in language teaching, New York: Ellis Horwood.

Garrett N. (1991) “Technology in the service of language learning: trends and issues”, Modern Language Journal 75, 1: 74-101.

Healey D. & Johnson N. (eds.) (1995a) 1995 TESOL CALL interest section software list. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Healey D. & Johnson N. (1995b) “A brief introduction to CALL”. In Healey D. & Johnson N. (eds.) 1995 TESOL CALL interest section software list Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications: iii-vii.

Higgins J. (1988) Language, learners and computers, London: Longman.

Kenning M-M. & Kenning M. J. (1990) Computers and language learning: current theory and practice, New York: Ellis Horwood.

Meskill C. & Rangelova K. (1995) “US language through literature: a transatlantic research project”. In Warschauer M. (ed.) Virtual connections: online activities and projects for networking language learners, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Pusack J. & Otto S. (1990) “Applying instructional technologies”, Foreign Language Annals 23, 5: 409-417.

Rüschoff B. (1993) “Language learning and information technology: state of the art”, CALICO Journal 10, 3: 5-17.

Schank R. & Cleary C. (1995) Engines for education, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

schMOOze University homepage: http://schmooze.hunter.cuny.edu:8888/

Stevens V. (ed.) (1989) “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: Athelstan: 31-43.

Taylor M. & Perez L. (1989) Something to do on Monday, La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Taylor R. (1980) The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee, New York: Teachers College Press.

Underwood J. (1984) Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Underwood J. (1989) “On the edge: Intelligent CALL in the 1990s”, Computers and the Humanities 23: 71-84.
© Mark Warschauer 1996

This article taken from: adilajefiza.wordpress.com 

The Application Of Instructional Technology To Language Learning

JAMES E. ALATIS

Abstract:
Beginning with the concern of those who view “computer revolution” as a threat to the present system of education, the paper suggests that technology can be destructive only if it fails to function in response to the “humanistic” objective of educational programs. This objective is examined in relation to language instruction, and the ultimate function of language study is defined as an attempt “to achieve an understanding, as complete as possible, between people of different linguistic background.” It is then suggested that because of its great potential for improving and facilitating the earner’s progress, modern-language-teaching technology can help us fulfill our humanistic mission more efficiently. To achieve this end, it is first necessary to change the negative reaction by students and teachers which started with the introduction of language lab. For this purpose, an attempt is made to dispel some of the “myths” that arose in the course of the first wave of language-teaching-technology.

I am very pleased to have been given this opportunity to write about the “Application of Instructional Technology to Language Learning.” I am sure that you are all aware of the wide-spread myth that educators in general, and humanistically oriented teachers in particular, regard new technologies as a threat to the status quo and, therefore, an abominable intrusion to be fought at every turn. As a humanist, I especially welcome this opportunity to comment on the issue and emphasize that the myth referred to is sheer nonsense.

In a chapter called “The Decline of the Professions,” Christopher Evans claimed in his book, The Micro Millenium, that computers would make available to everyone the knowledge laboriously acquired and jealously guarded by the traditional professions such as medicine, law and teaching, which would therefore gradually wither away or lose importance.1 This prophecy was made in 1979. Now that computer terminals have found their way into people’s homes, such predictions are heard more often and with no less alarming tone. We are told that the training classroom of the year 2000 will do without textbooks and all-knowing instructors. We hear that the inevitable infusion of “high technology” devices into our educational system will “kill off” some of the educators, and that the “computer revolution” will make the classroom obsolete. We are encouraged to believe that parents may decide that buying their own equipment to provide self-instruction for their children may make more sense than sending them to school. In short, there are those who are fearful that the so called “electronics culture” has sounded the last ding-dong of doom for the entire system of traditional education which is the product of the book-oriented world of the print culture. Undoubtedly, an electronic revolution of a kind is in the making. There is ample reason to believe that computers will soon affect our lives through the labor force, the education system, our families, and society at large. This belief has become so commonplace that it may safely be characterized as a cliché. Harlan Cleveland in a talk, “information as a Resource,” given at the meeting of the Board of Directors of Global Perspectives, New York, August 30, 1982, said:

In a remarkably short span of about ten years the once prescient notion that industrial society was being transformed in a “post-industrial,” “information,” or “knowledge” society has itself become cliché. The belief that “computers are the wave of the future” has spread wide and deep. The convergence of computers and telecommunications seems to require converging cliches: “communications” or “telematics” (from the French “telematique”) are currently leading contenders for the industry that contains both IBM and A.T.&T.

We are already well past the jaw-dropping, gee-whiz stage of technological wonder, and have internalized, even if most of us do not really understand, the prospect of trillions of transactions in nanoseconds of time.

9

But we have not yet gotten very far in learning how to think, to theorize about the implications of the information society’s technical wizardry for the way we live, work, and plan. The hardware can come up with the answer in seconds and communicate it around the world in minutes. But what was the question?2

The kind of changes I personally foresee in our educational system provide an occasion for rejoicing rather than cause for panic. I would like to support my view by the words of Donald L. Bitzer, inventor of the Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operation (PLATO) computer system, who believes that the application of computers will make the demand for teachers greater, not lesser. “If I were a teacher,” he says, “I would be terribly excited about the future.”3 I suggest that the concern of those who view technology as a threat to the present system of education is an expression of mental blindness to the role and the purpose of education in our highly advanced and complex society.

To begin with, such reactions against sudden cultural and technological changes as I have mentioned are not rare in the history of mankind. It has been pointed out that in Plato’s Phaedrus Socrates feared that writing would destroy memory and wisdom by enabling people to compile quantities of lifeless information.4 And Yale’s President Giamatti, as a Renaissance scholar, cited similar apprehensions that underlay denunciations of printing when it began to spread in the 16th century.5 To get back to cases of our own time, however, high-flown claims for the value of teaching machines in the 1960′s, and ideal access technology and language laboratories in the 1970′s, are good examples of false prophecy and consequent disappointment.

This is not to underestimate the impact of the new technological developments upon educational practice. Rather, I want to emphasize the well-known fact that computers have little tolerance or ambiguity of perception of metaphor. Thus as long as such human factors as insight, intuition, and imagination remain indispensable to man’s life, humanistic teaching will play a basic role in educational programs. How can it be otherwise? At best, computers will help us transmit more information to people with greater efficiency that ever before. But why do we transmit information to people at all? If I may digress for a moment, let me return to the talk by Cleveland for some definitions. He used T.S. Eliot as a starting point. In The Rock, Eliot creates a hierarchy in the following question:

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?6

Cleveland defines the terms “information,” “knowledge,” and “wisdom” this way:

…information is the core, the sum total of all the facts and ideas, accessible or not, that are available to be known by somebody at a given moment in time…now. Knowledge is the result of somebody applying the refiner’s fire to the mass of facts and ideas, selecting and organizing what is useful-to somebody. …wisdom is integrated knowledge — information made super-useful by creating theory rooted in disciplined knowledge but crossing disciplinary barriers to weave into an integrated whole something more than the sum of the parts — to “get it all together.”7

Another version of the T.S. Eliot hierarchy goes like this:

…The difference is one of order of complexity. Information is horizontal, knowledge is structured and hierarchical, wisdom is organismic and flexible. Any diligent student can, with the help of a computerized system, acquire vast amounts of information; for instance the population of every township in the United States. But the data are pretty useless because they are stretched out at one level. (Information is horizontal.) For the data to be useful — to come to life, as it were — they have to be linked to another rung or category of data. The result is knowledge. (Knowledge is structured and hierarchical.) Every teacher knows how difficult it is to pass knowledge, as distinct from information, to students; hence we give objective tests to determine how much information, rather than knowledge, they have acquired. As for imparting the wisdom, it…has to do with personal chemistry and slow osmosis.8

The minute this ultimate question “why transmit information at all” is asked, the function of instructional technology, however advanced, stops, and the crucial mission of educators begins. It is essential in the context to distinguish between “training,” which provides specific skills, from the much broader function of “education,” which is to make of people responsible and fully-integrated personalities, conscious of their unique and privileged task in society. We have to remind ourselves that learning is not merely storing a series of facts or developing specific skills. Above all, it is a responsibility for the integrity of what we are as ethical creatures. Professional ability is not just knowing how to do a job. It means demonstrating in one’s everyday work a total commitment to one’s skill. If we can ever think o a time when American society would no longer need responsible and committed individuals, but only cartoon-like figures and aborted personalities, that would be the time then computers could make humanistic teaching truly redundant.

Those who view computer technologies as an alien intrusion ignore this humanistic task of education. Confusion the means with the end, they consider job security. Indeed, technology can be destructive if it fails to function in response to a specific and clearly defined objective, or if its application is not based on genuine needs. In his address delivered before the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Annual Meeting, Mayor Charles Royer provided a glaring example of this.

I remember talking with a former Peace Corps volunteer about his experiences in Africa. I asked him if the Peace Corps and other foreign-aid programs had much impact on the economy there. He nodded. “Yes,”

10

he said, “We totally ruined their agricultural economy.” I was shocked. I asked him how we had managed to do that. “By selling them tractors. They couldn’t afford them to begin with, and there was no one to service them when they broke and no spare parts. They went into debt to but those tractors when what really would have helped was a good steel plow.” My young friend had lived with the people he was talking about and spoke their language. He had a keen sense of the tools that were needed to build that country. They badly need this kind of knowledge in the idle steel mills of Youngstown and Gary.9

How many of us know of similar horror stories about language labs in developing countries? Tropical Africa and Asia are littered with the wreckage of unused and unusable give-away language labs, and administrators’ present from North to South, or West to East, giving pride to the donor, but useless to the recipient. Similar disasters are likely to occur in instructional situations in which technological applications are isolated from the mainstream of the educational program or used for irrelevant purposes. Purchasing equipment in response to a “technology push” and not on the basis of an “education pull” is a destructive practice that turns technology into a hostile intruder. If I may use an analogy. When you transplant a kidney, the body reacts. The stresses as the body tries to reject the alien organ are so critical that for a time it is life fighting against death. I would suggest that technology invites such a reaction where its application has little or no relationship to what is actually needed.

What is, then, the specific humanistic objective of language instruction and how can modern technological developments help us achieve it? To define this objective in relation to present-day American society, we have to make a quick reference to the alarming nature of the cross-cultural problems which continue to abound both inside and outside America. Let us first consider this point within the framework of our own society. You are all very well aware of the statistics and data concerning the entry of immigrants, refugees, documented and “undocumented” aliens to our shores. According to recent findings, a flood of immigrants is bringing well over one million newcomers a year into the United States – the highest level since the mass migration of Europeans at the turn of the century. By some estimates, El Salvador alone has generated as many as 500,000 U.S. bound refugees since 1980. America today is accepting twice as many immigrants as all other nations combined. “If immigration is continued at a high level,” warns Senator Alan Simpson, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee of Immigration, “and a substantial portion do not assimilate, they may create some of the same social and economic problems that exist in the countries from which they come.”10

Nor is the international aspect of the situation any less alarming. If it is true that one out of eight manufacturing jobs is dependent on exports, and that one of every three American acres is planted for agricultural export, then it is evident that our tie with other countries is not just an adjunct but an essential condition of our survival as an affluent society. Indeed, if we want to maintain our position of leadership in the world, we must make ourselves capable of responding effectively to the need for a spirit of kinship – of a common humanity – with other peoples. The only key to the achievement of this goal lies in strengthening our ability to communicate with other nations. If we fail to do this, we must be prepared to face the kind of consequence against which the ominous words of former U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim warned us: “Many civilizations in history have collapsed at the very height of their achievement because they were unable to analyze their basic problems, to change direction and to adjust to the new situation which faced them.”11

Thus, nothing less that our survival as a great nation demands that we, as committed educators, should use our most powerful weapon — humanistic teaching — as effectively as we can to help create a sense of unity among men, which is an indispensable condition of peace and general prosperity. It is precisely in this connection that language instruction can truly fulfill its most creative role. To make this point clear, let me remind you of my position as a committed language educator. I subscribe to a philosophy of language teaching which emphasizes the humanistic basis of the language profession. It defines the ultimate function of language study as an attempt “to achieve an understanding, as complete as possible, between people of different linguistic backgrounds.”12 I strongly support the notion that learning a foreign language is a “liberalizing” experience because it serves to free one from the shackles, the restraints, and barriers imposed by such limitations as confinement to a single language. Indeed, I have always insisted that even the study of language as language is a humanistic study; that is, all the uses and manifestations of language and linguistic communication, in all their philosophic, social, geographic, and ethnic splendor, are the basis of a humanistic discipline.

Seen in this light, language study assumes a function that extends beyond academic objectives to social and international considerations. It can be charged with the task of contributing to the improvement of the human condition – indeed, even to the survival of mankind.

To achieve this end, it is clear that we might explore all possibilities that might help us do our job more efficiently. One such possibility is offered by modern language teaching technology which appears to have great potential for improving and facilitating the learner’s progress. Specialists inform us that marvelous new opportunities concerning language teaching technology are forthcoming, as a result of recent developments in audio, video and computer techniques. However, to use the new aids and equipment to best advantage, and toward the most direct realization of our educational goal, we mush first try to learn the lessons from the first wave of language teaching technology that started with the introduction of the language lab. The results of empirical research concerning language laboratories have left little doubt that many people were disappointed. Educators have a major responsibility to change this attitude which seems to be widespread among students as well as teachers – by explaining to them what exactly went wrong. It seems appropriate to refer in this regard to Peter Strevens, who in his attempt to dispel some of the “myths” that arose in the course of the first wave of language teaching technology, states:

Much of the negative reaction by

11

students towards language labs is caused by the unfortunate quality of dull solemnity which most language lab tapes possess. Lack of wit and humor makes learning tedious, boring and unproductive. It is worth noting that one component of the new technology, namely computer programming, takes wit and humor for granted. Programs are very often written with humor, irony, and an awareness of the user as an intelligent human being. These are characteristics that we must bring into the new language teaching technology, so that we never again produce the reaction on the part of students learning languages through the use of technology: “This is boring; I can only stand twenty minutes of it, and anyway I’m thinking of something much more interesting.” Such a reaction reflects, in the last resort, against us, as teachers.13

Fortunately, since the time when the language lab was introduced, our understanding of what actually takes place when people learn and teach a foreign language has been enhanced considerably. We are now in a position to recognize and evaluate instantly the potentials as well as the limitations of a given teaching method or technique. This protects us against some of the possible negative impacts that modern instructional technology may have upon the language teaching process. To give but one example, it has been pointed out that “The computer offers many advantages of individualized instruction: it has infinite patience and often an attractive ‘personality’…it can diagnose, test and retest a pupil’s weaknesses; it allows branching to deal with individual errors, which the tape recorder cannot do; it gives the pupil a sense of being in control without needing to feel embarrassed at his own weaknesses.”14

Undoubtedly, these are some of the optimal conditions for second language acquisition which our era of student-centered learning values most. At the same time, we should not ignore the observation that learning by means of a computer-assisted instructional program may only favor students who have what in psychology is referred to as “sensing type” personality; that is, those who have the ability to concentrate quietly, are able to pay attention to details, have an affinity for memorizing facts, and can stay with a single task until completed.15 If this observation is correct, then for the learner who craves the presence of other people and is deeply concerned with other people, the inanimate computer will fail to satisfy his preference, or conform to his learning style.16 Thus we have to keep in mind that computer-assisted instruction cannot solve all of the problems facing language study.

To conclude: All the signs are that a new surge in language teaching technology is forthcoming. In order for us to employ the new aids and equipment in a deliberate and effective way, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that language learning embraces a very wide range of variables, and that no single method can possibly be equally appropriate in all circumstances. We must remember that modern technological advances will “revolutionize” our profession only in the sense that they will enable us to achieve our educational objective more efficiently.

Some years ago Julian Dakin left us with an injunction regarding the use of the language laboratory, which is equally applicable today with regard to the new technology. If we substitute “the new technology” for “the laboratory” throughout hi concluding passage, we get the following insightful conclusion:

The effective use of the new technology thus depends on a balance of expedients, a combination of ingenuity and a capacity for taking pains. The new technology is not likely to mean less work for the teacher but more. And he can seldom escape from the uncertainty that things might not be better done in another way or through another means. Just because the new technology is costly and time-consuming, we are forced to ask what it can do that we cannot do so well. To the extent that we can answer this question one way or the other, we are discovering something about the conditions that promote learning. To the extent that we cannot, we must admit that we are still in the dark about the nature of language learning and of the learner. Wittgenstein characterizes the learner’s task in these words: To imagine a language means to imagine a form of life.

Somehow, on the basis of what we present to him, the learner has to imagine our language, its rules and irregularities, the form of life which it reflects and engenders. And if we are to understand his mistakes and difficulties, or to make the best uses of the resources at our command, we have to imagine him, a strange from of life in himself, with his own language, reflecting his own manner of becoming.17

To conclude, I find it appropriate once more to quote from Peter Strevens’ paper on this subject in which he draws the following conclusion:

The time is clearly ripe for a new surge in language teaching technology. Marvelous new opportunities exist, as a consequence of recent developments in audio, video and computer techniques…If the language teaching profession has learned the lessons from the first wave of language teaching technology and if it is aware of recent advances in the understanding of language learning and language teaching, then the new aids and equipment can be employed in a deliberate and effective way — not simply using equipment for its own sake, but seeking its place in a particular program of language teaching fitting it into a particular syllabus, selecting the most appropriate methodologies, giving teachers the necessary training. And perhaps teachers now understand enough about effective language and teaching to specify their main parameters:

i) a sufficient quantity of organized instruction;

ii) willingness to learn on the part of the student;

iii) professionally trained teachers who cherish their students;

iv) and finally,…the use of appropriate technology in the most effective, interactive and challenging ways.18

12

Our single most important bulwark against unfavorable technological intrusion is our acute awareness of the humanistic task of our profession. It is not enough to know how to teach language. We must also constantly remember why we are teaching it. With this awareness, let us hope that the new wave of instructional technology will successfully take us through to the twenty-first century and beyond. Thank you for letting me share these thoughts with you.

REFERENCES

1See Norman F. Davis, “Foreign/Second Language Education and Technology in the Future,” NALLD Journal, Vol. 16, Number 4/3, p. 12.

Harlan Cleveland, “Information as a Resource,” a talk given at the meeting of the Board of Directors of Global Perspectives, New York, August 30, 1982.

3Donald L. Bitzer, in Instructional Innovator, Vol. 27, No. S, p. 15.

4See ACLS Newsletter, Vol. XXXIII, p. 11.

5Ibid.

6Quoted by Harlan Cleveland in “Information as a Resource.”

7Harland Cleveland, “Information as a Resource.”

8Ibid.

9Foreign Language Annals, 14, No. 2, 1981, p. 124.

10All this information is based on the data that appeared in U.S. News and World Report, April 12, 1982, pp. 47-50.

11Cited by Joseph Lurie in America…Globally Blind, Deaf and Dumb, a document made available at the AAC Conference on International Aspects of Undergraduate Education: Baltimore, February, 1981, p.7.

12Charles C. Fries, “American Linguistics and the Teaching of English,” Language Learning, VI: 1-2 (1955): p. 10.

13Peter Strevens, “Old Myths, New Technologies and the Better Management of Learning,” a paper delivered to the First International Conference on Foreign Language Education and Technology, Tokyo, 20 August 1981.

14Norman F. Davis, “Foreign/Second Language Education and Technology in the Future,” NALLD Journal, Vol. 16, Number 4/3, p. 11.

15Jeffrey L. Hoffman and Keith Waters, “Some Effects of Student Personality on Success with Computer-Assisted Instruction,” Educational Technology, March 1982, p. 21.

16George Hopmeier Electronic Education, Vol. 1, No.1, p. 16.

17Julian Dakin, The Language Laboratory and Language Learning, Longman, 1973, pp. 171-172.

18Peter Strevens, “Old Myths, New Technologies and the Better Management of Learning,” p. 15.

This article taken from: adilajefiza.wordpress.com