The History of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

History
CALL’s origins and development trace back to the 1960s (Delcloque 2000). Since the early days CALL has developed into a symbiotic relationship between the development of technology and pedagogy.
He divided the development of CALL into three phases: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL and Integrative CALL (Multimedia and the Internet).[1] Bax (2003) perceived the three phases as Restricted, Open and Integrated - and there have been several other attempts to categorize the history of CALL: see the ICT4LT website (Section 3 of Module 1.4)].
Because repeated exposure to material was considered to be beneficial or even essential, computers were considered ideal for this aspect of learning as the machines did not get bored or impatient with learners and the computer could present material to the student as his/her own pace and even adapt the drills to the level of the student. Hence, CALL programs of this era presented a stimulus to which the learner provided a response. At first, both could be done only through text. The computer would analyze errors and give feedback. 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, to a large part behavioristic approaches to language learning have been rejected and the increasing sophistication of computer technology has lead CALL to other possibilities.
Communicative CALL is based on the communicative approach that became prominent in the late 1970s and 1980’s. In the communicative approach, the focus is on using the language rather than analysis of the language, teaching grammar implicitly. It also allowed for originality and flexibility in student output of language. It also correlates with the arrival of the PC, making computing much widely available resulting in a boom in the development of software for language learning. The first CALL software in this phase still provided skill practice but not in a drill format, for example, paced reading, text reconstruction and language games but computer remained the tutor. In this phase, however, computers provided context for students to use the language, such as asking for directions to a place. It also allowed for programs not designed for language learning, such as Sim City, Sleuth and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? to be used for language learning. However, criticisms of this approach include using the computer in an ad hoc and disconnected manner for more marginal rather than the central aims of language teaching. It usually taught skills such as reading and listening in a compartmentalized way, even if not in a drill fashion.
Integrative/explorative CALL, starting from the 1990s, tries to address these criticisms by integrating the teaching of language skills into tasks or projects to provide direction and coherence. It also coincides with the development of multimedia technology (providing text, graphics, sound and animation) as well as computer-mediated communication. CALL in this period saw a definitive shift of use of computer for drill and tutorial purposes (computer as a finite authoritative base for a specific task) to a medium for extending education beyond the classroom and reorganizing instruction. Multimedia CALL started with interactive laser videodiscs such as “Montevidisco” (Schneider & Bennion 1984) and “A la rencontre de Philippe” (Fuerstenberg 1993), all of which were simulations of situations where the learner played a key role. These programs later were transferred to CD-ROMs, and new RPGs such as Who is Oscar Lake? made their appearance in a range of different languages.
In multimedia programs, listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Students also control the pace and the path of the interaction. Interaction is in the foreground but many CALL programs also provide links to explanations simultaneously. An example of this is Dustin’s simulation of a foreign student’s arrival in the USA. Programs like this led also to what is called explorative CALL.
More recent research in CALL has favored a learner-centered explorative approach, where students are encouraged to try different possible solutions to a problem, for example the use of concordance programs. This approach is also described as data-driven learning (DDL), a term coined by Tim Johns. See Module 2.4 at the ICT4LT site, Using concordance programs in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom.
Current and Past Language Educational Programs

* Rosetta Stone (software) is a family of language software consisting of over 29 languages. They also provide support for the creation of custom software for "orphaned" or "threatened" languages.
* Rocket Languages (software) is a family of softwares consisting of 9 languages, including sign language.

CALL and computational linguistics
CALL and computational linguistics are separate but somewhat interdependent fields of study. The basic goal of computational linguistics is to “teach” computers to generate and comprehend grammatically-acceptable sentences… for purposes of translation and direct communication with computers where the computer understands and generates natural language. Computational linguistics takes the principles of
A very simple example of computers understanding natural language in relation to second language learning is vocabulary drill exercises. The computer prompts the learner with a word on either the L1 or target language and the student responds with the corresponding word.
On a superficial level, the core issue for humans and computers using language is the same; finding the best match between a given speech sound and its corresponding word string, then generating the correct and appropriate response. However, humans and machines process speech in fundamentally different ways. Humans use complex cognitive processes, taking into account variables such as social situations and rules while speech for a computer is simply a series of digital values to generate and parse language.[2] For this reason, those involved in CALL from a computational linguistics perspective tend to be more optimistic about a computer’s ability to do error analysis and other pedagogical tasks than those who come into CALL via language teaching.[3]
The term Human Language Technologies is often used to describe some aspects of computational linguistics, having replaced the former term Language Engineering. There has been an upsurge of work in this area in recent years, especially with regard to machine translation and speech synthesis and speech analysis. The professional associations EUROCALL (Europe) and CALICO (USA) have special interest groups (SIGs), respectively devoted to Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Intelligent CALL (ICALL). See Module 3.5 at the ICT4LT website for further information.
Theoretical basis for CALL instruction design
Computers have become so widespread in schools and homes and their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of language teachers now think about the implications. Technology can bring about changes in the teaching methodologies of foreign language beyond simply automating fill-in-the-gap exercises.[4] The use of the computer in and of itself does not constitute a teaching method, but rather the computer forces pedagogy to develop in new ways that exploit the computer's benefits and that work around its limitations.[1] To exploit the computers’ potential, we need language teaching specialists who can promote a complementary relationship between computer technology and appropriate pedagogic programs.[4]
A number of pedagogical approaches have developed in the computer age, including the communicative and integrative/experimentative approaches outlined above in the History of CALL. Others include constructivism, whole language theory and sociocultural theory although they are not exclusively theories of language learning. With constructivism, students are active participants in a task in which they “construct” new knowledge based on experience in order to incorporate new ideas into their already-established schema of knowledge. Whole language theory postulates that language learning (either native or second language) moves from the whole to the part; rather than building sub-skills like grammar to lead toward higher abilities like reading comprehension, whole language insists the opposite is the way we really learn to use language. Students learn grammar and other sub-skills by making intelligent guesses bases on the input they have experienced. It also promotes that the four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) are interrelated.[5] Sociocultural theory states that learning is a process of becoming part of a desired community and learning that community's rules of behavior.[6]
What most of these approaches have in common is taking the central focus away from the teacher as a conveyor of knowledge to giving students learning experiences that are as realistic as possible, and where they play a central role. Also, these approaches tend to emphasize fluency over accuracy to allow students to take risks in using more student-centered activities, and to cooperate, rather than compete.[4] The computer provides opportunity for students to be less dependent on a teacher and have more freedom to experiment on their own with natural language in natural or semi-natural settings.
Role changing in teachers and students
Teachers
Although the integration of CALL into a foreign language program can lead to great anxiety among language teachers,[7] researchers consistently claim that CALL changes, sometimes radically, the role of the teacher but does not eliminate the need for a teacher altogether. Instead of handing down knowledge to students and being the center of students’ attention, teachers become guides as they construct the activities students are to do and help them as students complete the assigned tasks. In other words, instead of being directly involved in students’ construction of the language, the teacher interacts with students primarily to facilitate difficulties in using the target language (grammar, vocabulary, etc.) that arise when interacting with the computer and/or other people.[4][5]
Elimination of a strong teacher presence has been shown to lead to larger quantity and better quality of communication such as more fluidity, more use of complex sentences and more sharing of students’ personal selves.[5] However, teacher presence is still very important to students when doing CALL activities. Teachers should be familiar enough with the resources to be used to anticipate technical problems and limitations.[4] Students need the reassuring and motivating presence of a teacher in CALL environments. Not only are they needed during the initial learning curve, they are needed to conduct review sessions to reinforce what was learned. Encouraging students to participate and offering praise are deemed important by students. Most students report preferring to do work in a lab with a teacher’s or tutor’s presence rather than completely on their own..[5] The student too are able to enjoy various opportunities which are not enjoyed before invention of computer, there are opportunities for slow learners to still learn what is not clear to him in the school lesson if the computer based system is applied.
Students
Students, too, need to adjust their expectations, of their participation in the class in order to use CALL effectively. Rather than passively absorbing information, learners must negotiate meaning and assimilate new information through interaction and collaboration with someone other than the teacher, be that person a classmate or someone outside of the classroom entirely. Learners must also learn to interpret new information and experiences on their own terms. However, because the use of technology redistributes teachers’ and classmates’ attentions, less-able students can become more active participants in the class because class interaction is not limited to that directed by the teacher.[5] Moreover more shy students can feel free in their own students'-centered environment. This will raise their self-esteem and their knowledge will be improving. If students are performing collaborative project they will do their best to perform it within set time limits.

Use of CALL for the four skills
A number of studies have been done concerning how the use of CALL affects the development of language learners’ four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Most report significant gains in reading and listening and most CALL programs are geared toward these receptive skills because of the current state of computer technology. However, most reading and listening software is based on drills.[4] Gains in writing skills have not been as impressive as computers cannot assess this well.[5]
However, using current CALL technology, even with its current limitations, for the development of speaking abilities has gained much attention. There has been some success in using CALL, in particular computer-mediated communication, to help speaking skills closely linked to “communicative competence” (ability to engage in meaningful conversation in the target language) and provide controlled interactive speaking practice outside the classroom.[8] Using chat has been shown to help students routinize certain often-used expressions to promote the development of automatic structure that help develop speaking skills. This is true even if the chat is purely textual. The use of videoconferencing give not only immediacy when communicating with a real person but also visual cues, such as facial expressions, making such communication more authentic.[5]
However, when it comes to using the computer not as a medium of communication (with other people) but as something to interact with verbally in a direct manner, the current computer technology’s limitations are at their clearest. Right now, there are two fairly successful applications of automatic speech recognition (ASR) (or speech processing technology) where the computer “understands” the spoken words of the learner. The first is pronunciation training. Learners read sentences on the screen and the computer gives feedback as to the accuracy of the utterance, usually in the form of visual sound waves.[8] The second is software where the learner speaks commands for the computer to do. However, speakers in these programs are limited to predetermined texts so that the computer will “understand” them.[4]
Multimedia language centers
During the 1960s, language laboratories with cassette players and headphones were introduced into educational institutions. The use of this kind of center grew rapidly in the late 1960s and 1970s, but then went rapidly out of fashion."[9] Later, “digital language labs” were introduced, still following the traditional language format, such as teacher monitoring. What made them new was that they incorporated new technologies such as video. The term multimedia was originally used to describe sets of learning materials which included a book, audiocassettes and/or videocassettes. However, with the advent of computer-based materials, such packages tend to be called multiple media or mixed media - although there is not absolute consensus on this point. Nowadays multimedia refers to computer-based materials that can perform more varied tasks then the purely-audio mixed-media. Not only can such play pre-recorded audio and video material, it can create new audio and video recordings. It also has the capability of integrating the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as well as giving immediate, if limited, feedback to the student. However, like its predecessors, multimedia centers run the risk of being underutilized due to poor management.[10]
While multimedia computer-based materials can be used directly in the classroom, because of costs, such resources are usually found in a multimedia language center, fulfilling the role of the previous cassette-based and digital language laboratories. However, managing such a center requires knowledge of a wide range of equipment and the increasing expectations of such equipment from administrators, language teachers and students. Administrators often have the mistaken belief that buying hardware by itself will meet the needs of the center (often devoting 90% of a center’s budget to such and ignoring software and training needs) and will cut down on the number of teaching staff needed.[11]
While multimedia offers many opportunities for language learning with the availability of text, images, sound and video as well as interactive activities, the problem is that these opportunities have not been taken advantage of well. Most multimedia computer programs tend to be strong on presentation but weak as far as pedagogy and even interaction. One of the main promises of CALL is the ability to individualize learning, but like with past language laboratories, use of the facilities in many cases have devolved into rows of students all doing the same drills. The only advantage to the multimedia in these cases has been better sound and color images. Most modern language learning theories stress the importance of teacher guidance rather than control, giving students control over what they do, how fast they do it and even the ability to find and correct their own mistakes.[11]
Managing a multimedia language center properly requires not only knowledge of foreign languages and language teaching methodology, it also requires a certain amount of 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. Often a center manager needs assistants for technical problems, for managing resources and even the tutoring of students. Multimedia centers lend themselves to self-study, and potentially self-directed learning, but such is often misunderstood. The simple existence of computers in a laboratory does not automatically lead to students learning independently. Significant investment of time is essential for materials development and creating an atmosphere conducive to such.
Self access language learning centers 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 most centres, learners access materials and manage their learning independently, but 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 (cf.[12])
Center managers and support staff need to have new roles defined for them to support students’ efforts at self-directed learning. In fact, a new job description has emerged recently, that of a “language advisor”.[13]

References

1. ^ a b c d e f "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction". Warschauer Mark. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
2. ^ Language Learning and Technology. 2. pp. 45–60.
3. ^ "CALL (computer assisted language learning) Guide to Good Practice 3". Davies Graham. http://www.yarasystem.ir/index.html?www.llas.ac.uk&resources&goodpracticeaspx&resourceid=61. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Computer-assisted language learning: Increase of freedom of submission to machines?" (Domingo Noemi). http://www.terra.es/personal/nostat. Retrieved 2007-12-10.
5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Stepp-Greany, Jonita (January 2002). "Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium". Language Learning and Technology.
6. ^ Mitchell, R; F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
7. ^ a b c Thelmadatter, Leigh (July/Sept 2007). "The Computers Are Coming … Are Here!". TESOL Greece Newsletter 95.
8. ^ a b c d e Ehsani, Farzad; Eva Knodt (July 1998). "Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm". Language Learning and Technology 2 (1): 45–60.
9. ^ "ICT4LT Module 1.1". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
10. ^ "Introduction to multimedia CALL". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
11. ^ a b "Managing a multimedia language centre". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
12. ^ Reinders, Hayo (July 2007). "Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system". System 35 (1): 93–111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.10.009. http://www.innovationinteaching.org.
13. ^ [1]
14. ^ a b Traynor, Patrick (July 2003). "Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners". Journal of Instructional Psychology.
15. ^ a b Ravichandran, T (2000). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the perspective of the interactive approach: Advantages and apprehensions.
16. ^ a b Bollin, G.G. (Mar/Apr 2003). "The Realities of Middle School for Mexican Children". The Clearing House 76 (4): 198. doi:10.1080/00098650309602002



from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia