Article about call 3

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 of Module 1.4 at the ICT4LT site, and it is especially relevant to the various attempts to document a CALL typology, which we cover in Section 3 of 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 13 December 2009

---

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 phases of CALL and CALL typology 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.