For more information on Instructional Design of Computer-Assisted Language Learning, please refer to the wiki entry: Computers and Instructional Design in Foreign Languages(edited by Carol Chuu, March 2010)
Computer-assisted language learning, or CALL, refers to the search for and use of computer-related technologies to enhance and fortify language learning and instruction. As new digital technologies are developed, 21st century CALL is increasingly utilized as a relevant tool for effective language instruction.
Contents[hide] |
History of CALL
Named “one of the most conspicuous technological devices for L2 instruction” (Salaberry, 2001, p.42), the language laboratory, consisting of audio devices set up to provide multi-faceted opportunities for students to hear and try language, spread instantly throughout the United Sates in the 1960s and 1970s, garnering much support for audiolingualism. In 1960, PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations) was developed by Don Blitzer, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Illinois. PLATO-based materials were developed for a number of different languages during the 1960s and primarily focused on vocabulary and grammar drill exercises. During this era technology provided a strong framework for behaviourist-centred methodology. Lorge (1964) praised language labs as places where, “imitative practice could be recorded, judged, erased, re-recorded, to the point of learning” (in Salaberry, 2001, p.43). In 1971, the TICCIT (Time-Shared, Computer Controlled Information Television) was developed at Brigham Young University and combined the use of television and computers for teaching ESL, French, Spanish, and Italian classes. Both PLATO and TICCIT served as models for subsequent computer-assisted language learning programs, particularly as microcomputers and new programming languages became more available in the 1980s. In time, however, studies which showed that laboratory students consistently outperformed non-laboratory students in communicative competence tasks were contested due to reported deficiencies in the theory (see Salaberry, 2001), and were further discounted on the basis that (often poorly) pre-recorded tapes were not able to respond or interact with students; thus inhibiting rather than enhancing student performance.
Coinciding with Krashen’s (1982) research on language acquisition as a natural, communicative process, a number of federally- and privately-funded CALL projects, primarily in the university setting, were initiated and evaluated. In the last three decades, much research in the field of second language acquisition has been developed on the use of various digital technologies to promote communicative competence and grammatical expertise. Perhaps the most widely researched is the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC), such as chat rooms and instant messaging, to assist in language skill development. In the early 1990s, CMC L2 research began to surface, with many studies exploring the possibilities and advantages of CMC (Payne & Ross, 2005). Researchers noted that the language generated in chat room environments bore a strong resemblance to the type of language generated in oral conversation (Payne & Ross, 2005). This observation has prompted more recent studies of the effects of CMC on oral proficiency, many of which have reported positive results in several areas of language acquisition, especially in language production, a key component of communicative competence.
Since the 1990s, the advent of mobile technology has allowed greater diversity of and accessibility to CALL-related applications to instructors and students in both post-secondary and K-12 settings. Concurrently, a recent pedagogical emphasis on communication-based language learning has opened new opportunities for CALL to be implemented in 21st century language classrooms.
Applications of CALL
A number of technology-based devices and applications for language instruction and learning can be considered CALL related. Examples of CALL-related technologies include computers, CD-ROMs, the Internet, World Wide Web, and various other computer-based applications. All of these technologies can serve either alone or in various combinations as tools for language instruction.- Oral Proficiency and Anxiety
One of the ways in which CALL has been successfully utilized in the field is as a tool to enhance oral as well as written proficiency in a foreign language. Warschauer (1996), for example, found that during electronic discussions, greater equality of participation existed, as well as more thoughtful and sophisticated use of language. Warschauer also noted an increase in motivation as well as a decrease in anxiety among students who participated in the study. Abrams (2003) further explored the commonly accepted hypothesis that synchronous CMC has a positive effect on oral proficiency, while simultaneously examining the effects of asynchronous CMC versus synchronous CMC on oral proficiency. Abrams found that synchronous CMC had a significantly positive effect on the amount of language output, much as previous studies such as Warschauer (1996). In 2008, Satar and Özdener further investigated the effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety among secondary school EFL learners. Satar and Özdener found that after four weeks of CMC sessions, student oral proficiency increased significantly, and that anxiety levels decreased among students who participated in a text-based chat forum.
- Language Revitalization
As Reyhner (1999) suggests, in order to for a language to survive, it must be “viable in a modern, technological society” (p. xiii). In Hawai’i, where Hawaiian language immersion schools have existed since the 1980s, one of the most important features of language revitalization efforts is the use of computers and digital media to connect community members state-wide (Warschauer & Donaghy, 1997). Starting with the translation of the immersion schools’ Apple Macintosh OS into Hawaiian, language teachers and researchers at the University of Hawai’i, Hilo were responsible for the translation of popular educational computer programs, the coining of new Hawaiian terms for computer- themed vocabulary, and the creation of the movement’s most influential tool, the Leokï BBS, a learning management system that allows students and community members to communicate via email, synchronous chat, and discussion forum (Warschauer &Donaghy, 1997, p. 354-355). Students of all ages are now able to connect with the Hawaiian community at large, therefore extending their language use beyond the walls of the classroom and allowing for a more natural, conversational learning environment. The Leokï system is still in place today, and, at the time of writing, is available for download free from the University of Hawaii Hilo’s College of Hawaiian Language website.
Classroom Considerations with CALL
Adapted from Herrell & Jordan’s (2008) suggestions on multimedia presentations, the following list outlines recommendations for implementing technology and multimedia in a CALL classroom:- Model technology and media use
- Introduce technology and media slowly
- Add new technology and media as appropriate
- Allow time for practice
- Create working partners
- Create a technology or media assignment
Additional considerations for a CALL instructor, as outlined by Hirschheim, Whitehall, & Smithson (1990), include: how the technology relates to one’s teaching philosophy, what the role of the computer should be, what hardware/software should be involved, what the role of the instructor should be, what the role of the student should be, and what additional materials are needed. Curtain and Dahlberg (2004), for example, recommend using computers to create menus, greeting cards, posters, stories, school newspapers, travel brochures, picture dictionaries, electronic portfolios, WebQuests, and PowerPoint presentations.
In the digital age, communication is a multi-faceted notion; from mobile communications to instant messaging and video messaging, to communicate in the 21st century developed world is to embrace digital technology. In order to assist students in working toward and achieving communicative competence in a foreign language, educators must offer authentic learning environments in which to practice and acquire the skills required for effective communication. According to Thorne and Payne (2005), “Internet-mediated communication is now a high-stakes environment in its own right” (p. 372), and social networking sites and blogs present new opportunities and motivation for writing in both first and second languages (Godwin-Jones, 2008).
The Future of CALL
When learning a second language, learners must experience, practice and play with the target language in as realistic a context as possible, without the added anxiety of being evaluated. Emerging digital technologies provide language educators with tools that allow learners to experience and play on their own time or in a guided practice situation.- AI & Chatbots
- GALL & MALL
Benefits of CALL
Frommer (1998) notes that computers, when used appropriately, can provide meaningful contexts for language learning as well as the background information that learners need for understanding the cultural framework in which the target language is used (p. 211). Frommer also recommends the use of computers in language instruction because:
- The computer is multisensory (p. 212)
- The computer can be programmed to allow users to control both the conditions of viewing and what is viewed (p. 212)
- The computer is multidimensional and extensible (p. 213)
- When students use computers to connect to the Internet and the World Wide Web, they can gain access to a multitude of authentic texts created by and for native speakers, engaged in e-mail conversations, and learn about various aspects of culture as well (p. 214)
- The computer… offers students an interactive learning experience (p. 214)
Frommer (1998) reiterates that CALL benefits learners by:
- Exposing students to larger quantities of text, images, and authentic materials;
- Increasing time on task in an efficient way; and
- Allowing students to assume responsibility for their own learning
Cubillos (1998) reiterates similar benefits by describing how CALL can: 1) facilitate vocabulary learning; 2) increase students’ awareness of language structure through more sophisticated error-feedback programs; 3) support reading and writing development; 4) help teachers keep track of students’ processing of language; facilitate students’ exploration of the target culture; and 6) enhance motivation. Cubillos points out that because some computer-based language resources are more effective for instructional purposes than others, evaluation of the resource and its pedagogical purpose should serve as a primary step prior to using any CALL resource. Overall, however, CALL-related applications have the potential to dramatically transfer the language teaching profession by offering learners new experiences for language development.
Online Resources on CALL
A Web Resource for CALL Lab ManagersEuropean Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning
The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium
Sussex language Institute Virtual CALL Library
Information and Communication Technology for Language Teachers
Multimedia Language lab: Computer-Assisted Language Learning Resources
University of Hawaii Hilo’s College of Hawaiian Language
References
Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal 87(2), pp. 157-167.Chinnery, G. (2006). Going to the MALL: Mobile-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), pp. 9-16.
Chinnery, G. (2008). You’ve got some GALL: Google-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), pp. 3-11.
Cubillos, J. H. (1998). Technology: A step forward in the teaching of foreign languages? In J. Harper, M. Lively, & M. Williams (Eds.), The coming of age of the profession: Issues and emerging ideas for the teaching of foreign languages (pp. 199-223). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Curtain, H. & Dahlberg, C. (2004). Languages and children, making the match: New languages for young learners, grades K-8 (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Freyer, L. & Carpenter, R. (2006). Bots as language learning tools. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), pp. 8-14.
Frommer, J.G. (1998). Cognition, context, and computers: Factors in effective foreign language teaching. In J. A. Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology and foreign language education. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Direction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting and assessing writing online. Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), pp. 7-13.
Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Herrell, A.L., & Jordan, M. (2008). Fifty strategies for teaching English language learners. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Hirschheim, R.A., Whitehouse, D., & Smithson, S. (1990). Microcomputers and the humanities: Survey and recommendations. Chichester: Ellis Horwood, Ltd.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Pergamon Press.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Payne, J. S. & Ross, B. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and oral proficiency development. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), pp. 35-54.
Reyhner, J. (1999). Presented at the Annual Stabilizing Indigenous Languages Symposium: Some basics of indigenous language revitalization. Retrieved from http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/RIL_Intro.html
Salaberry, M.R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), pp. 39-56.
Satar, H. M. & Özdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), pp. 595-613.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century–Crofts.
Thorne, S. & Payne, S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), pp. 371-397.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), pp. 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (2001). Language, identity and the Internet. Mots Pluriels 19. Retrieved from http://motspluriels.arts.uwa.edu.au/MP1901mw.html
Warschauer, M. & Donaghy, K. (1997). Leokï: A powerful voice of Hawaiian language revitalization. Computer Assisted Language Learning 10(4), pp.349-361.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar