Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot. |
m date format audit, minor formatting |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Learning technique}}
{{Use dmy dates|date
{{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
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. 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 14:
A combination of face-to-face teaching and CALL is usually referred to as [[blended learning]]. Blended learning is designed to increase learning potential and is more commonly found than pure CALL (Pegrum 2009: p. 27).<ref>Pegrum M. (2009) ''From blogs to bombs: The future of digital technologies in education'', Perth: University of Western Australia Press.</ref>
See Davies ''et al.'' (2011: Section 1.1, ''What is CALL?'').<ref name=davieswalkeretal>Davies G., Walker R., Rendall H. & Hewer S. (2011) Introduction to Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Module 1.4 in Davies G. (ed.) ''Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT)'', Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-4.htm</ref> See also Levy & Hubbard (2005), who raise the question ''Why call CALL "CALL"?''<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Levy | first1 = M. | last2 = Hubbard | first2 = P. | year = 2005 | title = Why call CALL "CALL"?
==History==
CALL dates back to the 1960s, when it was first introduced on university mainframe computers. The PLATO project, initiated at the University of Illinois in 1960, is an important landmark in the early development of CALL (Marty 1981).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marty | first1 = F | year = 1981 | title = Reflections on the use of computers in second language acquisition
Dozens of CALL programs are currently available on the internet, at prices ranging from free to expensive,<ref>{{cite web|title=Reviews of Language Courses|url=http://Lang1234.com|publisher=Lang1234|accessdate=12
There have been several attempts to document the history of CALL. Sanders (1995) covers the period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, focusing on CALL in North America.<ref>Sanders R. (ed.) (1995) ''Thirty years of computer-assisted language instruction'', Festschrift for John R. Russell, ''CALICO Journal'' Special Issue, 12, 4.</ref> Delcloque (2000) documents the history of CALL worldwide, from its beginnings in the 1960s to the dawning of the new millennium.<ref>Delcloque P. (2000) ''History of CALL'' [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdf</ref> Davies (2005) takes a look back at CALL's past and attempts to predict where it is going.<ref>Davies G. (2005) ''Computer Assisted Language Learning: Where are we now and where are we going?'' [ Online]: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/docs/UCALL_Keynote.htm</ref> Hubbard (2009) offers a compilation of 74 key articles and book excerpts, originally published in the years 1988-2007, that give a comprehensive overview of the wide range of leading ideas and research results that have exerted an influence on the development of CALL or that show promise in doing so in the future.<ref>Hubbard P. (2009) (ed.) ''Computer-assisted language learning'', Volumes I-IV, Routledge: London and New York: http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/callcc/</ref> A published review of Hubbard's collection can be found in ''Language Learning & Technology'' 14, 3 (2010).<ref>''Language Learning & Technology'' (2010) 14, 3, pp. 14-18 [Online]: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2010/index.html</ref>
Butler-Pascoe (2011) looks at the history of CALL from a different point of view, namely the evolution of CALL in the dual fields of educational technology and second/foreign language acquisition and the paradigm shifts experienced along the way.<ref>Butler-Pascoe M. E. (2011) "The history of CALL: the intertwining paths of technology and second/foreign language teaching", ''International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT)'' 1, 1:
See also Davies et al. (2011: Section 2, ''History of CALL'').<ref name=davieswalkeretal/>
Line 34:
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
* Behavioristic CALL: conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and 1970s.
Line 52:
* Integrative CALL: 2000 onwards.
Bax (2003)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bax | first1 = S | year = 2003 | title = CALL – past, present and future
* Restricted CALL – mainly behaviouristic: 1960s to 1980s.
Line 58:
* 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
==Flashcards==
Line 79:
CALL inherently supports [[learner autonomy]], the final of the eight conditions that Egbert et al. (2007) cite as "Conditions for Optimal Language Learning Environments". Learner autonomy places the learner firmly in control so that he or she "decides on learning goals" (Egbert et al., 2007, p. 8).<ref>Egbert J., Chao C.-C., & Hanson-Smith E. (2007) Introduction: Foundations for Teaching and Learning. In Egbert J. & E. Hanson-Smith (eds.) '' CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues '' (2nd edition). Alexandria, VA: TESOL. (pp. 1-14).</ref>
It is all too easy when designing CALL software to take the comfortable route and produce a set of multiple-choice and gap-filling exercises, using a simple authoring tool (Bangs 2011),<ref>Bangs P. (2011) Introduction to CALL authoring programs. Module 2.5 in Davies G. (ed.) ''Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT)'', Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod2-5.htm</ref> but CALL is much more than this; Stepp-Greany (2002), for example, describes the creation and management of an environment incorporating a [[Constructivism (learning theory)|constructivist]] and [[whole language]] philosophy. According to constructivist theory, learners are active participants in tasks in which they "construct" new knowledge derived from their prior experience. Learners also assume responsibility for their learning, and the teacher is a facilitator rather than a purveyor of knowledge. Whole language theory embraces constructivism and postulates that language learning moves from the whole to the part, rather than building sub-skills to lead towards the higher abilities of comprehension, speaking, and writing. It also emphasises that comprehending, speaking, reading, and writing skills are interrelated, reinforcing each other in complex ways. Language acquisition is, therefore, an active process in which the learner focuses on cues and meaning and makes intelligent guesses. Additional demands are placed upon teachers working in a technological environment incorporating constructivist and whole language theories. The development of
==Multimedia==
Language teachers have been avid users of technology for a very long time. Gramophone records were among the first technological aids to be used by language teachers in order to present students with recordings of native
During the 1970s and 1980s standard microcomputers were incapable of producing sound and they had poor graphics capability. This represented a step backwards for language teachers, who by this time had become accustomed to using a range of different media in the foreign language classroom. The arrival of the multimedia computer in the early 1990s was therefore a major breakthrough as it enabled text, images, sound and video to be combined in one device and the integration of the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing (Davies 2011: Section 1).<ref name=daviesmodmm>Davies G. (2011) Introduction to multimedia CALL. Module 2.2 in Davies G. (ed.) ''Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers'' (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod2-2.htm</ref>
Line 91:
Following the arrival of multimedia CALL, multimedia language centres began to appear in educational institutions. While multimedia facilities offer many opportunities for language learning with the integration of text, images, sound and video, these opportunities have often not been fully utilised. One of the main promises of CALL is the ability to individualise learning but, as with the language labs that were introduced into educational institutions in the 1960s and 1970s, the use of the facilities of multimedia centres has often devolved into rows of students all doing the same drills (Davies 2010: Section 3.1).<ref name=daviesmodmm/> There is therefore a danger that multimedia centres may go the same way as the language labs. Following a boom period in the 1970s, language labs went rapidly into decline. Davies (1997: p. 28) lays the blame mainly on the failure to train teachers to use language labs, both in terms of operation and in terms of developing new methodologies, but there were other factors such as poor reliability, lack of materials and a lack of good ideas.<ref name=davieslessons>Davies G. (1997) "Lessons from the past, lessons for the future: 20 years of CALL". In Korsvold A-K. & Rüschoff B. (eds.) ''New technologies in language learning and teaching'', Strasbourg: Council of Europe, p. 28. Also on the Web in a revised edition (2009): http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101116042609/http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm |date=16 November 2010 }}</ref>
Managing a multimedia language centre requires not only staff who have a knowledge of foreign languages and language teaching methodology but also staff with technical know-how and budget management ability, as well as the ability to combine all these into creative ways of taking advantage of what the technology can offer. A centre manager usually needs assistants for technical support, for managing resources and even the tutoring of students. Multimedia centres lend themselves to self-study and potentially self-directed learning, but this is often misunderstood. The simple existence of a multimedia centre does not automatically lead to students learning independently. Significant investment of time is essential for materials development and creating an atmosphere conducive to self-study. Unfortunately, administrators often have the mistaken belief that buying hardware by itself will meet the needs of the centre, allocating 90% of its budget to hardware and virtually ignoring software and staff training needs (Davies et al. 2011: ''Foreword'').<ref name=daviesmmlc>Davies G., Hamilton R., Weidmann B., Gabel S., Legenhausen L., Meus V. & Myers S. (2011) Managing a multimedia language centre. Module 3.1 in Davies G. (ed.) ''Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT)'', Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod3-1.htm</ref> [[Self access language learning centers|Self-access language learning centres]] or independent learning centres have emerged partially independently and partially in response to these issues. In self-access learning, the focus is on developing learner autonomy through varying degrees of self-directed learning, as opposed to (or as a complement to) classroom learning. In many centres learners access materials and manage their learning independently, but they also have access to staff for help. Many self-access centres are heavy users of technology and an increasing number of them are now offering online self-access learning opportunities. Some centres have developed novel ways of supporting language learning outside the context of the language classroom (also called 'language support') by developing software to monitor students' self-directed learning and by offering online support from teachers. Centre managers and support staff may need to have new roles defined for them to support
==Internet==
Line 127:
==Virtual worlds==
[[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
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
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 139:
To what extent Second Life and other virtual worlds will become established as important tools for teachers of foreign languages remains to be seen. It has been argued by Dudeney (2010) in his ''That's Life'' blog that Second Life is "too demanding and too unreliable for most educators". The subsequent discussion shows that this view is shared by many teachers, but many others completely disagree.<ref>Second Life – The Long Goodbye: http://slife.dudeney.com/?p=446</ref>
Regardless of the pros and cons of Second Life, language
==Human language technologies==
Line 159:
Parsing is also used in CALL programs to analyse the learner's input and diagnose errors. Davies (2002)<ref>Davies G. (2002) Article on CALL in the ''Good Practice Guide'' at the website of the Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS), University of Southampton [Online]: http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/61</ref> writes:
"Discrete error analysis and feedback were a common feature of traditional CALL, and the more sophisticated programs would attempt to analyse the learner's response, pinpoint errors, and branch to help and remedial activities. ... Error analysis in CALL is, however, a matter of controversy. Practitioners who come into CALL via the disciplines of [[computational linguistics]], e.g. Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Human Language Technologies (HLT), tend to be more optimistic about the potential of error analysis by computer than those who come into CALL via language teaching. [...] An alternative approach is the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques to parse the learner's response – so-called ''intelligent CALL'' (ICALL) – but there is a gulf between those who favour the use of AI to develop CALL programs (Matthews 1994)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Matthews | first1 = C | year = 1994 | title = Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning as cognitive science: the choice of syntactic frameworks for language tutoring
Underwood (1989)<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Underwood | first1 = J | year = 1989 | title = On the edge: Intelligent CALL in the 1990s
Research into speech synthesis, speech recognition and parsing and how these areas of NLP can be used in CALL are the main focus of the NLP Special Interest Group<ref>EUROCALL NLP Special Interest Group: http://siglp.eurocall-languages.org/</ref> within the [[European Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning|EUROCALL]] professional association and the ICALL Special Interest Group<ref>CALICO ICALL Special Interest Group: http://purl.org/calico/icall{{Dead link|date=November 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> within the [[CALICO (consortium)|CALICO]] professional association. The EUROCALL NLP SIG also maintains a Ning.<ref>EUROCALL NLP Special Interest Group Ning: http://nlpsig.ning.com/ {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110714184147/http://nlpsig.ning.com/ |date=14 July 2011 }}</ref>
Line 169:
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,
A crucial issue is the extent to which the computer is perceived as taking over the teacher's role. Warschauer (1996: p. 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
Since the advent of the Web there has been an explosion in online learning, but to what extent it is effective is open to criticism. Felix (2003) takes a critical look at popular myths attached to online learning from three perspectives, namely administrators, teachers and students. She concludes: "That costs can be saved in this ambitious enterprise is clearly a myth, as are expectations of saving time or replacing staff with machines."<ref>Felix U. (2003) "Teaching languages online: deconstructing the myths", ''Australian Journal of Educational Technology'' 19, 1:
As for the effectiveness of CALL in promoting the four skills, Felix (2008) claims that there is "enough data in CALL to suggest positive effects on spelling, reading and writing", but more research is needed in order to determine its effectiveness in other areas, especially speaking online. She claims that students' perceptions of CALL are positive, but she qualifies this claim by stating that the technologies need to be stable and well supported, drawing attention to concerns that technical problems may interfere with the learning process. She also points out that older students may not feel comfortable with computers and younger students may not possess the necessary metaskills for coping effectively in the challenging new environments. Training in computer literacy for both students and teachers is essential, and time constraints may pose additional problems. In order to achieve meaningful results she recommends "time-series analysis in which the same group of students is involved in experimental and control treatment for a certain amount of time and then switched – more than once if possible".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Felix | first1 = U | year = 2008 | title = The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: what have we learned in two decades of research?
Types of technology training in CALL for language teaching professionals certainly vary. Within second language teacher education programs, namely pre-service course work, we can find "online courses along with face-to-face courses", computer technology incorporated into a more general second language education course, "technology workshops","a series of courses offered throughout the teacher education programs, and even courses specifically designed for a CALL certificate and a CALL graduate degree"<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hong | first1 = K. H. | year = 2010 | title = CALL teacher education as an impetus for 12 teachers in integrating technology
There is a rapidly growing interest in resources about the use of technology to deliver CALL. Journals that have issues that "deal with how teacher education programs help prepare language teachers to use technology in their own classrooms" include ''Language Learning and Technology'' (2002), ''Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching'' (2009) and the TESOL international professional association's publication of technology standards for TESOL includes a chapter on preparation of teacher candidates in technology use, as well as the upgrading of teacher educators to be able to provide such instruction. Both CALICO and EUROCALL have special interest groups for teacher education in CALL.<ref>Murray, D. E. (2013) A Case for Online English Language Teacher Education. The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. http://www.tirfonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TIRF_OLTE_One-PageSpread_2013{{Dead link|date=November 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
| |||