Computer-assisted language learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:15, 21 February 2019

Revision as of 19:41, 10 March 2019

Line 3:

{{Redirect|English software|the video game publisher|English Software|}}

{{Use British English|date=November 2013}}

'''Computer-assisted language learning''' ('''CALL'''), British, or '''Computer-Aided Instruction''' ('''CAI''')/'''Computer-Aided Language Instruction''' ('''CALI'''), American,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Higgins|first=John|date=1983|title=Computer assisted language learning|url=|journal=Language Teaching|volume=16(|issue=2)|pages=102-114102–114|via=|doi=10.1017/S0261444800009988}}</ref> is briefly defined in a seminal work by Levy (1997: p.&nbsp;1) as "the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning".<ref name="levy1997">Levy M. (1997) ''CALL: context and conceptualisation'', Oxford: Oxford University Press.</ref> CALL embraces a wide range of [[information and communications technology]] applications and approaches to teaching and learning foreign languages, from the "traditional" drill-and-practice programs that characterised CALL in the 1960s and 1970s to more recent manifestations of CALL, e.g. as used in a [[virtual learning environment]] and Web-based [[distance learning]]. It also extends to the use of [[#Corpora and concordancers|corpora and concordancers]], interactive whiteboards,<ref name="schmidcutrim2009">Schmid Euline Cutrim (2009) ''Interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom: exploring new pedagogical opportunities'', Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.</ref> Computer-mediated communication (CMC),<ref name="lamyhampel">Lamy M.-N. & Hampel R. (2007) ''Online communication in language learning and teaching'', Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.</ref> [[#Virtual worlds|language learning in virtual worlds]], and [[Mobile-assisted language learning|mobile-assisted language learning (MALL)]].<ref name="shieldkukulska">Shield L. & Kukulska-Hulme A. (eds.) (2008) Special edition of ''ReCALL'' (20, 3) on ''Mobile Assisted Language Learning''.</ref>

The term CALI (computer-assisted language instruction) was in use before CALL, reflecting its origins as a subset of the general term CAI (computer-assisted instruction). CALI fell out of favour among language teachers, however, as it appeared to imply a teacher-centred approach (instructional), whereas language teachers are more inclined to prefer a student-centred approach, focusing on learning rather than instruction. CALL began to replace CALI in the early 1980s (Davies & Higgins 1982: p.&nbsp;3)<ref>Davies G. & Higgins J. (1982) ''Computers, language and language learning'', London: CILT.</ref> and it is now incorporated into the names of the growing number of [[#Professional associations|professional associations]] worldwide.

Line 35:

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>{{cite journal | last1 = Warschauer | first1 = M. | last2 = Healey | first2 = D. | year = 1998 | title = Computers and language learning: an overview | url = | journal = Language Teaching | volume = 31 | issue = 2| pages = 57–71 | doi=10.1017/s0261444800012970}}</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:

* Behavioristic CALL: conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and 1970s.

Line 59:

* 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 been achieved when CALL had reached a state of "normalisation" – e.g. when using CALL was as normal as using a pen.

See also Bax & Chambers (2006)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bax | first1 = S. | last2 = Chambers | first2 = A. | year = 2006 | title = Making CALL work: towards normalisation | url = | journal = System | volume = 34 | issue = 4| pages = 465–479 | doi = 10.1016/j.system.2006.08.001 }}</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.

==Flashcards==

Line 130:

[[Virtual worlds]] date back to the adventure games and simulations of the 1970s, for example [[Colossal Cave Adventure]], a text-only simulation in which the user communicated with the computer by typing commands at the keyboard. Language teachers discovered that it was possible to exploit these text-only programs by using them as the basis for discussion. Jones G. (1986) describes an experiment based on the Kingdom simulation, in which learners played roles as members of a council governing an imaginary kingdom. A single computer in the classroom was used to provide the stimulus for discussion, namely simulating events taking place in the kingdom: crop planting time, harvest time, unforeseen catastrophes, etc.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Jones | first1 = G | year = 1986 | title = Computer simulations in language teaching – the KINGDOM experiment | url = | journal = System | volume = 14 | issue = 2| pages = 179–186 | doi=10.1016/0346-251x(86)90007-2}}</ref>

The early adventure games and simulations led on to multi-user variants, which were known as [[MUDs]] (Multi-user domains). Like their predecessors, MUDs were text-only, with the difference that they were available to a wider online audience. MUDs then led on to [[MOO]]s (Multi-user domains object-oriented), which language teachers were able to exploit for teaching foreign languages and intercultural understanding: see Donaldson & Kötter (1999)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Donaldson | first1 = R.P. | last2 = Kötter | first2 = M. | year = 1999 | title = Language learning in cyberspace: teleporting the classroom into the target culture | url = | journal = CALICO Journal | volume = 16 | issue = 4| pages = 531–558 | doi = 10.1558/cj.v16i4.531-557 }}</ref> and (Shield 2003).<ref>Shield L. (2003) "MOO as a language learning tool". In Felix U. (ed.) ''Language learning online: towards best practice'', Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.</ref>

The next major breakthrough in the history of virtual worlds was the graphical user interface. [[Habitat (video game)|Lucasfilm's Habitat]] (1986), was one of the first virtual worlds that was graphically based, albeit only in a two-dimensional environment. Each participant was represented by a visual avatar who could interact with other avatars using text chat.

Line 170:

The question of the impact of CALL in language learning and teaching has been raised at regular intervals ever since computers first appeared in educational institutions (Davies & Hewer 2011: Section 3).<ref name=ict4ltmod11>Davies G. & Hewer S. (2011) Introduction to new technologies and how they can contribute to language learning and teaching. Module 1.1 in Davies G. (ed.) ''Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT)'', Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-1.htm</ref> Recent large-scale impact studies include the study edited by Fitzpatrick & Davies (2003)<ref>Fitzpatrick A. & Davies G. (eds.) (2003) ''The impact of Information and Communications Technologies on the teaching of foreign languages and on the role of teachers of foreign languages'', EC Directorate General of Education and Culture.</ref> and the EACEA (2009) study,<ref>Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) of the European Commission (2009) ''Study on the impact of ICT and new media on language learning'' [Online]: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/study_impact_ict_new_media_language_learning_en.php</ref> both of which were produced for the European Commission.

A distinction needs to be made between the impact and the effectiveness of CALL. Impact may be measured quantitatively and qualitatively in terms of the uptake and use of [[Information and communications technology|ICT]] in teaching foreign languages, issues of availability of hardware and software, budgetary considerations, Internet access, teachers’ and learners' attitudes to the use of CALL,<ref>{{cite journal|last=mahmoudi|first=elham|title=Attitude and student's performance in Computer Assisted English Language Learning (CALL) for Learning Vocabulary|journal=procediaProcedia socialSocial and behavioralBehavioral scienceScience|date=June 30, 2012|volume=66|pages=489–498|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042812052780|doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.293}}</ref> changes in the ways in which languages are learnt and taught, and paradigm shifts in teachers’ and learners’ roles. Effectiveness, on the other hand, usually focuses on assessing to what extent ICT is a more effective way of teaching foreign languages compared to using traditional methods – and this is more problematic as so many variables come into play. Worldwide, the picture of the impact of CALL is extremely varied. Most developed nations work comfortably with the new technologies, but developing nations are often beset with problems of costs and broadband connectivity. Evidence on the effectiveness of CALL – as with the impact of CALL – is extremely varied and many research questions still need to be addressed and answered. Hubbard (2002) presents the results of a CALL research survey that was sent to 120 CALL professionals from around the world asking them to articulate a CALL research question they would like to see answered. Some of the questions have been answered but many more remain open.<ref>Hubbard P. (2002) ''Survey of unanswered questions in Computer Assisted Language Learning: Effectiveness issues'' [Online]: http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/callsurvey/index.html</ref> Leakey (2011) offers an overview of current and past research in CALL and proposes a comprehensive model for evaluating the effectiveness of CALL platforms, programs and pedagogy.<ref>Leakey J. (2011) ''Evaluating Computer Assisted Language Learning: an integrated approach to effectiveness research in CALL'', Bern: Peter Lang.</ref>

A crucial issue is the extent to which the computer is perceived as taking over the teacher's role. Warschauer (1996: p.&nbsp;6) perceived the computer as playing an "intelligent" role, and claimed that a computer program "should ideally be able to understand a user's spoken input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also for 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)."<ref name=warschauer96/> Jones C. (1986), on the other hand, rejected the idea of the computer being "some kind of inferior teacher-substitute" and proposed a methodology that focused more on what teachers could do with computer programs rather than what computer programs could do on their own: "in other words, treating the computer as they would any other classroom aid".<ref name=jones86>{{cite journal | last1 = Jones | first1 = C | year = 1986 | title = It's not so much the program: more what you do with it: the importance of methodology in CALL | url = | journal = System | volume = 14 | issue = 2| pages = 171–178 | doi=10.1016/0346-251x(86)90006-0}}</ref> Warschauer's high expectations in 1996 have still not been fulfilled, and currently there is an increasing tendency for teachers to go down the route proposed by Jones, making use of a variety of new tools such as [[#Corpora and concordancers|corpora and concordancers]], interactive whiteboards<ref name= schmidcutrim2009/> and applications for online communication.<ref name= lamyhampel/>