Computer-assisted language learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:59, 11 June 2013

Revision as of 09:55, 22 June 2013

Line 28:

==Typology and phases==

During the 1980s and 1990s, several attempts were made to establish a CALL typology. A wide range of different types of CALL programs was identified by Davies & Higgins (1985),<ref>Davies G. & Higgins J. (1985) ''Using computers in language learning: a teacher's guide'', London: CILT.</ref> Jones & Fortescue (1987),<ref>Jones C. & Fortescue S. (1987) ''Using computers in the language classroom'', Harlow: Longman.</ref> Hardisty & Windeatt (1989)<ref>Hardisty D. & Windeatt S. (1989) ''CALL'', Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> and Levy (1997: pp.&nbsp;118ff.).<ref name=levy1997/> These included gap-filling and Cloze programs, multiple-choice programs, free-format (text-entry) programs, adventures and simulations, action mazes, sentence-reordering programs, exploratory programs - andprograms—and "total Cloze", a type of program in which the learner has to reconstruct a whole text. Most of these early programs still exist in modernised versions.

Since the 1990s, it has become increasingly difficult to categorise CALL as it now extends to the use of [[blogs]], [[wikis]], [[social networking]], [[podcasting]], [[Web 2.0]] applications, [[#Virtual worlds|language learning in virtual worlds]] and [[interactive whiteboards]] (Davies et al. 2010: Section 3.7).<ref name=davieswalkeretal/>

Warschauer (1996)<ref name=warschauer96>Warschauer M. (1996) "Computer-assisted language learning: an introduction". In Fotos S. (ed.) ''Multimedia language teaching'', Tokyo: Logos International [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm</ref> and Warschauer & Healey (1998)<ref>Warschauer M. & Healey D. (1998) "Computers and language learning: an overview", ''Language Teaching'' 31: 57-71.</ref> took a different approach. Rather than focusing on the typology of CALL, they identified three historical phases of CALL, classified according to their underlying pedagogical and methodological approaches:

Line 38:

* Integrative CALL: embracing Multimedia and the Internet: 1990s.

Most CALL programs in Warschauer & Healey's first phase, Behavioristic CALL (1960s to 1970s), consisted of drill-and-practice materials in which the computer presented a stimulus and the learner provided a response. At first, both could be done only through text. The computer would analyse students' input and give feedback, and more sophisticated programs would react to students' mistakes by branching to help screens and remedial activities. While such programs and their underlying pedagogy still exist today, behavioristicbehaviouristic approaches to language learning have been rejected by most language teachers, and the increasing sophistication of computer technology has led CALL to other possibilities.

The second phase described by Warschauer & Healey, Communicative CALL, is based on the [[communicative approach]] that became prominent in the late 1970s and 1980s (Underwood 1984).<ref>Underwood J. (1984) ''Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach'', Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.</ref> In the communicative approach the focus is on using the language rather than analysis of the language, and grammar is taught implicitly rather than explicitly. It also allows for originality and flexibility in student output of language. The communicative approach coincided with the arrival of the PC, which made computing much more widely available and resulted in a boom in the development of software for language learning. The first CALL software in this phase continued to provide skill practice but not in a drill format, forformat—for example: paced reading, text reconstruction and language games, butgames—but the computer remained the tutor. In this phase, computers provided context for students to use the language, such as asking for directions to a place, and programs not designed for language learning such as [[Sim City]], ''Sleuth'' and [[Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?]] were used for language learning. Criticisms of this approach include using the computer in an ad hoc and disconnected manner for more marginal aims rather than the central aims of language teaching.

The third phase of CALL described by Warschauer & Healey, Integrative CALL, starting from the 1990s, tried to address criticisms of the communicative approach by integrating the teaching of language skills into tasks or projects to provide direction and coherence. It also coincided with the development of multimedia technology (providing text, graphics, sound and animation) as well as Computer-mediated communication (CMC). CALL in this period saw a definitive shift offrom the use of the computer for drill and tutorial purposes (the computer as a finite, authoritative base for a specific task) to a medium for extending education beyond the classroom. Multimedia CALL started with interactive laser videodiscs such as ''Montevidisco'' (Schneider & Bennion 1984)<ref>Schneider E.W. & Bennion J.L. (1984) "Veni, vidi, vici, via videodisc: a simulator for instructional courseware". In Wyatt D.H. (ed.) ''Computer-assisted language instruction'', Oxford: Pergamon.</ref> and ''A la rencontre de Philippe'' (Fuerstenberg 1993),<ref>Fuerstenberg G. (1993) ''A la rencontre de Philippe'': Videodisc, Software, Teacher's Manual and Student Activities Workbook: Yale University Press [Online]: http://web.mit.edu/fll/www/projects/Philippe.html</ref> both of which were simulations of situations where the learner played a key role. These programs later were transferred to CD-ROMs, and new [[role-playing games]] (RPGs) such as ''Who is Oscar Lake?'' made their appearance in a range of different languages.

In a later publication Warschauer changed the name of the first phase of CALL from Behavioristic CALL to Structural CALL and also revised the dates of the three phases (Warschauer 2000):<ref>Warschauer M. (2000) ‘"CALL for the 21st Century", IATEFL and ESADE Conference, 2 July 2000, Barcelona, Spain.</ref>

Line 54:

* Restricted CALL - mainly behaviouristic: 1960s to 1980s.

* Open CALL - i.e. open in terms of feedback given to students, software types and the role of the teacher, and including simulations and games: 1980s to 2003 (i.e. the date of Bax's article).

* Integrated CALL - still to be achieved. Bax argued that at the time of writing language teachers were still in the Open CALL phase, as true integration could only be said to have bebeen achieved when using CALL had reached a state of "normalisation" – e.g. when itusing CALL was as normal as using a pen.

See also Bax & Chambers (2006)<ref>Bax S. & Chambers A. (2006) "Making CALL work: towards normalisation", ''System'' 34, 4: 465-479.</ref> and Bax (2011),<ref>Bax S. (2011) "Normalisation revisited: the effective use of technology in language education", ''International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT)'' 1, 2: 1-15: http://www.igi-global.com/ijcallt</ref> in which the topic of "normalisation" is revisited.