Computer-assisted language learning: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:12, 14 December 2020

Revision as of 22:13, 14 December 2020

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, 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=Procedia - Social and Behavioral ScienceSciences|date=30 June 2012|volume=66|pages=489–498|doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.293|doi-access=free}}</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 | 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/>