Paper Name : English Language Teaching-II
Name : Amita C. Jani
Roll No. : 10
Semester : IV
Topic : Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Date : 22/10/2011
Submitted to : Dr.Dilip Barad
Department of English,
Bhavnagar University.
In ELT Community, to go beyond the obvious fact that, teachers needs to innovate and refresh their knowledge. It is true that effective teaching and learning depend on teacher learning, but many questions remain unanswered. For example :
- How to plan for effective continuous professional development?
- How do we make sure academic learning and research directly affect professional practice?
- How do we address the changing situations of teachers in the ELT field, from the perspective of innovation and professional development?
Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is an approach to teaching and learning in which the computer and computer-based resources, such as Internet, are used to present, reinforce and assess. It also includes the search for and the investigation of applications in language teaching and learning. CALL has also been known by several other terms such as technology-enhanced language learning.
The use of computers has become popular and has used in homes, offices, and schools because of their user-friendly software and the rapid reduction in their prices in the last decade. In the 21st century, everyone is required to use computers one or another way.
In many countries, audio language labs are gradually being replaced by computer centers with internet connections and university local area networks. With introduction of computer-assisted learning (CAL) people wants to enhance their teaching and learning system.
With the use of computers in language teaching and learning, teachers and researchers have been testing and developing ways to implement computers in their teaching context since the 1960s, when computers were first introduced as part of language teaching. However, many language teachers continue to be uncertain about the manner in which they can effectively use computers in the educational context. Since we are at the transition stage where we are moving from simply “using computers” to “using computers effectively” in our classroom, let us discuss what language teachers can do to assist the development of learners’ language acquisition using computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in our current teaching context.
Warshauer (1996) categorized the development of CALL into three main phases as
- Behavioristic CALL
- Communicative CALL and
- Integrative CALL
which were the result of advancements in computer technology and changes in outlook toward language teaching.
“Behavioristic CALL” was implemented in the 1960s and ’70s and was based on the behaviorist theories of learning, which included drill and practice. At this juncture, the use of computers and software in language teaching was, as Taylor (1980) describes, the “computer as a tutor.” One of the best known systems of its type was the PLATO system that included central computers and terminals and performed tasks such as vocabulary drills, grammar explanations and drills, and translation tests.
The next phase, i.e., the “Communicative CALL,” introduced in the 1970s and ’80s was the result of a communicative approach, which was one of the mainstream methods in second/foreign language teaching at that time. Since this approach emphasized the process of communication and highlighted the use of the target language in real settings, the programs that appeared in this period featured practice in a non-drill format. Software that had not been specifically designed for CALL was also employed for writing practice. This type of application in CALL is the so-called “computer as a tool” (Brieley & Kemble, 1991).
Currently, we are at the “Integrative CALL” stage, which is a result of the expansion of technological advancements such as multimedia technology and the Internet. These two innovations allow the learners to access a more authentic learning environment. As we know, multimedia enables one to integrate four skills, and the Internet provides opportunities to interact in an English language environment 24 hours a day. Although the scope of CALL has widened in the last 40 years, it is not yet a perfect solution for teaching/learning all aspects of a language. The quality of programs has not yet reached the level of assessing the users’ natural spoken language or the appropriateness of use in the context of the situation.
Development of CALL in literacy:
Since computers and software have not yet met the requirements in our educational context, however, we should think about what the teachers can do to assist language learning using the equipment currently available? The use of computers in the context of foreign language teaching continues to offer a great deal of potential to support students’ literacy needs inside and outside the classroom. If we use computers in more interactive ways, they could be of great assistance in developing the learners’ language acquisition.
One potential use of computers in the classroom might be their use as a tool for monitoring. Since there are approximately 40 students in each classroom in Japanese schools and universities, it is difficult to monitor each student in a large classroom. First, the teacher could display a text using a projector and use it for the purpose of modeling or demonstrating. The students could then be asked to answer some comprehension questions and send their answers to the teacher’s computer. In this manner, computers could be introduced as a tool to confirm the learners’ understanding of a text. If software capable of assessing learners’ literacy skills were developed, it would significantly assist teachers in conducting their classes.
The other potential use of computers might be in teaching students of different proficiency levels in the same classroom. Software such as that used for the “Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL)” computer-based test modifies questions according to the test-taker’s responses. By implementing this type of software, students of a more advanced level could study further, while learners who require more support could stay and practice at the same level or study easier materials.
Computers can also be used as an exercise tool in the classroom or as a self-study tool before and after the class or at home. Each student can use a computer for drilling activities anytime and anywhere, at his/her own pace, without the teacher’s supervision. Students who have difficulty attending school due to geographical reasons or adult learners who do not have sufficient time to attend lessons might benefit from the use of computers and software. With regard to further literacy development, students could use computers for studying unfamiliar words, highlighting important words in a passage, and drawing arrows to show lexical chains in the text to recognize how the latter achieves its coherence. Still and moving pictures might also be used to assist the learners’ reading comprehension. Further, Japanese students living in non-English speaking environments would benefit greatly from the Internet, which provides opportunities to access materials written in English, since these students might have difficulty accessing authentic English texts.
Although computers have considerable potential in language teaching, the teacher’s role in the classroom continues to be very important since technology has not yet reached a level where it can be relied upon solely. Therefore, it would be better to implement software as a supplementary teaching tool along with the teacher’s input.
The role of computers in language teaching has significantly changed in the past 40 years from merely “drill and exercises” to a somewhat “authentic communication” tool. This leads to the question of - what the next generation of CALL will be? Underwood (1989) termed it as “intelligent CALL,” which involves the use of computers and programs with a certain level of intelligence. However, it might take a long time for “intelligent CALL” to be put into practice.
As pointed out by Warschauer (1996), “The effectiveness of CALL cannot reside in the medium itself but only in how it is put to use” (p. 6). Thus, my fellow teachers ask not what computers can do for language teaching; instead, ask what you can do for language teaching using computers.
Chapelle (1997) proposes two basic questions to guide the evaluation of CALL activities, and which can be useful in our practice. They are:
- What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL activity?
- How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning?
Example:
- Using technology is exciting for the learner. English language learners like to use and take part in activities that are familiar to them. More often than not, the learner is already using technology or is eager to learn. The technology represents a ‘fun’ and ‘interesting’ activity.
- Because blogs are a form of publishing, the learner will be ‘published.’ The idea that a learner can publish their thoughts and ideas for the world to see is an exciting opportunity for the learner and the teacher.
- It creates a forum for the learner to be an individual.
- Teacher feedback can be given instantly in the form of comments or as a response to what the learner has written. When the teacher posts a comment to an entry, the learner can read the comment instantly and even reply to the teachers posting. Learners of English need a lot of feedback and encouragement, and blogging would be an easy way to give them that ‘instant’ feedback they need.
- Gives the learner confidence and pride in their work.
- The teacher, as administrator, has control over the content of the blog.
- Makes the learner more prepared for future educational and professional opportunities. While aiding with their English, the teacher is also assisting the learner to obtain new skills that will be very important in future educational and professional opportunities. In most, if not all ELT classes, there are learners with varying levels of English.; Blogging allows for differentiation.
- Allows for flexibility in the schedule of the learner and teacher.
- Blogs can simply add much-needed variety for the learners in the ELT classroom. Blogs are a great tool in the ELT teachers’ repertoire.
- Connection options.
- Some learners and teachers lack typing skills. Some learners do not know how to type. Some students may not even want to learn. Ask the learner to have a try and if he or she is still have too much trouble, then more scaffolding from the teacher or assistance from a student stronger with typing skills.
- Some learners are ‘technophobes.’
In conclusion, the benefits of blogging far outweigh the pitfalls. Ease of use and clean appearance are making the blog a major force on the Internet. Therefore, not just the teachers teaching English language learners but any teacher need to stay up-to-date with educational trends and should stay abreast with emergent technology that will drive this information age for years to come. Technology and education should go hand-in-hand and should not be separated because undoubtedly the learner will always use technology. Blogs are a great tool to achieve many goals for English language learners and, in the long term, what all teachers desire, authentic learning. With or without blogs, teachers of English language learners need to remember the goal of what they are doing. Educating is the number one priority.
Both questions are complex and a reliable answer to these would involve discourse analysis, which is not the field of teachers. However, they show us some aspects we need to consider.
In some CD-ROM programmes and Internet activities, what learners do most is click the mouse, or engage in other activities in which very little language is produced. And when there is language production, does it promote learners dual concern for communicating meaning using suitable form? Does it elicit repetition or expansion of previous language? We also need to consider the question of input. How can we control input and provide optimal comprehensible input in activities on the Internet?
Fox (1998) suggests attention to three basic elements in successful Internet activities: integration in the course, e.g. a pen-pal project alongside a writing course; development of computer competence by teachers and students alike; and active teacher involvement in guiding and supporting students to avoid frustration.
Warschauer (1997) proposes five guidelines to help teachers implement computer network-based activities into the second language classroom. They are general guidelines that can also be used in an EFL context:
- Consider carefully your goals: It must be clear to the teacher why this tool would be more successful than a traditional one. Reasons for using the Internet range from increased motivation to learning computer skills, but we should not ask students to do something on the computer that a book could do just as well.
- Think integration: Simply asking students to have a computer pen pal will not ensure a significant educational outcome. Teachers must be more involved in the activities and integrate them into the overall design and goals of the course.
- Don’t underestimate the complexity: A number of students may lack basic prerequisites for using the Internet, and it might be very time consuming to train these students. Apart from this, technical practicalities such as having computers available, hardware and software malfunction and excessively long waiting time to access web pages., may all hinder the use of the Internet in class.
- Provide necessary support: We should not stop trying to use the Internet due to the problems we mentioned above, but provide support in the form of hand-outs, training sessions, and set up simple log-on procedures, encourage students to work in pairs or groups and help each other, and being available to help students when they are carrying out their Internet tasks.
- Involve students in decisions: Because of the complexities and difficulties mentioned, the teacher must be aware of the impact of these activities, consulting them through class discussions and surveys. This does not mean a passive role for the teacher, who should co-ordinate activities, focus students’ attention on linguistic aspects of texts and assist students in developing learning strategies.
There may also be some confusion about what exactly CALL represents.
Alvarez (2011) refutes the assumption that CALL is referring to computers alone and not the study of the linguistic connections regarding “all social phenomena inherent in their use for pedagogical purposes” nor research involved in such connections. In doing so, his suggestion that this CALL would become “extinct” through normalization loses me. As an example, he compares it to the idea that since we all know atoms exists those atomic physicists should also become redundant. I know what Alvarez is trying to suggest–that the study of how computers or more broadly, technology, assists language learning should not be ended simply because technology is widely used.
Bax, however, seems to be largely referring to a more practical, classroom end in his discussion of normalization than the ‘meta’ study of it: teachers and students find what we consider technology (computers, mobile devices, etc.) so normal in the classroom that it’s no longer represented to students nor taught in training programs as a special side of language learning (i.e. in teacher training courses here, CALL continues to predominantly represent a small module about using computer software in language labs). This also suggests that when training new teachers, the training itself integrates technology into it without “divorcing it from the course.” (Jones, 2012) It implies nothing about research into how computers, pens, course books, music, my dog or anything else affects language learning.
In the end, is it really computer-assisted language learning now? Should we, as educators, suggest to students who have computers and other technologies interwoven in their daily lives that language learning through a computer is a special option in and outside the class? Would that not now be received by a resounding ‘Duh!’? Maybe it’s not normalization that we should be debating per se, but the term, CALL, itself. How about moving to the more encompassing, Educational Technology (though one might argue that this or TELL are just syntactically different), which would entail the study and incorporation of any new technology into language learning. May be separating out various techs into their own titles, like mLearning, would be less problematic, until they too are considered outdated? Maybe that would get confusing (Levy & Hubbard, 2005:148). Hey, perhaps no label at all? Or maybe it’s all moot since every language learning context is different and we all need to accept CALL because it appeals to the lowest common denominator?
Concluding, although we certainly do not think technology should take over the language classroom, we believe the Internet shows great potential for use in ELT. Therefore, we ought to endeavour to make informed choices about how the Internet can be successfully integrated into our teaching, being open to analysing the results of such experiments.
