Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is an
approach to teaching and learning in which the computer and computer-based
resources such as the Internet are used to present, reinforce and assess
material to be learned. It usually includes a substantial interactive element.
It also includes the search for and the investigation of applications in
language teaching and learning. Except for self-study software, CALL is
meant to supplement face-to-face language instruction, not
replace it. CALL has also been known by several other terms such as
technology-enhanced language learning, computer-assisted language instruction
(Davies) and computer-aided language learning but the field is the same.
Behavioristic CALL
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.
Communicative CALL
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, p. 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.
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.
Source:
