CALL in a
Language Learning Environment
Debra Hoven
Abstract
Learner-centered methodology attempts to transfer the
responsibility of learning away from the teacher and back to the learner.
However, for students there is a fine line between being expected to have
control over their own learning and actually feeling that they have it. This
paper discusses the need to integrate learning strategies and CALL into a
language learning environment in order to help students develop control over
their learning, both within the classroom and in the self-access mode. A model
for such an environment is outlined, including a discussion of the role of CALL
in the language program and the role of the learner.
How can
Computer Aided Learning fit into a Language Learning
Program?
...it can be argued that packages, with their assumptions about the order in which tasks are to be undertaken and the time which should be spent, are taking decisions that should be made by the teacher and the student, particularly the student.
(Higgins & Johns, 1984:86)
The lack of enthusiasm amongst language teachers for the new technology may also be due to the disappointing results achieved with technical aids so far. The language laboratory does not have a good track record, and many teachers are skeptical about new gadgets like the videocassette recorder. This is a pity, as technical aids can be of immense value in the classroom, providing of course that the teacher knows how to use them properly and how to integrate them into a teaching programme.
(Davies & Higgins, 1985:1 - 2)
The two quotes above seem to epitomize some of the problems with CALL and some of the points to bear in mind when designing any CALL activities. The key point that Higgins and Johns make is that students should have the major part of control over the timing and direction of their learning activities. When we substitute "computer" for "videocassette recorder" in the second quote, the points we are being reminded of are that technology in learning is only useful insofar as it is handled competently by teachers and it is integrated into the teaching program as a whole. In order to examine why this should be the case and how these points can be fully realized in a language learning program, I will outline my position on language learning theory, and propose a model for the integration of CALL in a language learning program, or language learning environment as I will call it.
What does Learner-centered language methodology mean?
Learner-centered language learning incorporates some elements of both humanistic methodology and cognitive learning theories. The necessary involvement of the whole person in the language learning process is a critical element from humanism. On the cognitivist side of the coin is the principle that learners learn language through progressive modification of their interlanguages brought about through a process of hypothesis testing, confirmation/disconfirmation and subsequent modification.
As part of this process, learners take an active role, cognitively interpreting new experience in terms of previous experience and models they have built up. This combination of the theories of both humanism and cognitivism then entails that if learners are provided with the opportunities to use language and learning strategies in the second language, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop these strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language. In a learner-centered approach, such development can take place through a series of steps in which teachers play a progressively diminishing role as the involvement and investment of the learner progressively increases. There is a danger, of course, in expecting students to take control of their own learning without adequate preparation and practice. As Robinson (1991:158) so succinctly puts it:
Clearly, being put in charge and being in control are not synonymous. In CALL, student control of the process is often akin to being put in charge of one's learning without having developed the competencies to be in control (i.e., to succeed at the language task). Such premature and unguided student control should be avoided until the learner has developed the language competencies to succeed.
Learners can best develop the necessary skills and processes to be able to take competent control of their own learning in a language learning environment - where all activities are inter-related in having as their main aim the development of informed learner autonomy In such an environment, through constant practice, learners become more autonomous and self-directing in their attitudes and approaches to their own learning, enabling teachers to devote their time and attention to further enhancement of the materials available to learners as resources and to counselling and advising students when the need arises.
Communicative
Language Teaching to Humanism
Recently, a considerable number of research studies
have been published on the kinds of tasks (Long and Sato, 1983), groupings
(Long and Porter, 1984; Pica and Doughty,1985; Pica, 1988; Long, 1989), organization
(Gass and Varonis, 1985;
Wong-Fillmore, 1985; Ellis, 1985), stimulus (Crawford, 1989; Temple, 1989; Hoven, 1991), and preparation (Crawford, 1990; Nunan, 1990; Di Pietro, 1987) which produce the the
best kind of interaction, communication, and negotiation of meaning among
learners. Some of the predominant factors effecting the changes in approach and
methodology have been a stronger focus on the learner as an individual (Stevick, 1976, 1981; Ellis, 1985; Skehan,
1989), consideration of differences in learning styles (Wenden
and Rubin, 1987; Willing, 1989; Oxford, 1990) and the various manifestations of
humanism (Gattegno, 1972; Curran, 1976; Lozanov, 1979; Asher, 1981; Crawford and Trojer, 1983; Underhill, 1989). Thus a shift in emphasis
has occurred from the teaching of language to the helping of learners as
individuals to learn a language.
This learner-centeredness in the classroom and the
curriculum has added a new dimension to communicative language teaching.
Learners are no longer seen as subjects of a process or vessels to be filled,
but rather as active participants in the learning process, in both the design
and implementation stages. Learners are consulted on their perceived needs and
weaknesses, and various questionnaires and observation and monitoring
techniques have been developed to keep in touch with learners' progress and
achievement, as well as their reactions. Humanistic approaches address the affective
side of learning and the interpersonal aspects of the language classroom, emphasizing
feelings, social relations, responsibility, intellect and self-actualization (Stevick, 1990:23-4). This view of the learner entails
mutual responsibility between learners and teachers in the learning process.
While teachers take more cognizance of the learner as a whole person, including
both affective and cognitive aspects, learners are expected to respond by
attempting to realise their full potential, including
taking responsibility for their own learning, contributing to decision-making,
negotiating contexts and resources more congenial to their own learning styles,
developing autonomy, and investing all their resources. Intellectually, this
approach sounds appealing. However, student reaction can vary from instant
cooperation and acceptance, which is not necessarily compatible with all the
principles of humanism mentioned above, to scorn and
complete rejection. Implementation of this approach therefore requires a great
deal of care, patience
and perspicacity on the part of the teacher while learners are helped to see
the benefits of cooperating with such an approach, and convinced of the value. Teachers must also be prepared to deal
with initial learner antagonism and active non-cooperation by devising methods
of sensitizing them to the advantages and accustoming them to the appropriate
techniques (Moskowitz, 1978; Hallgarten,
1988; Crawford & Hoven, 1988).
A
humanistic cognitivist perspective
Hutchinson and Waters (1987: 128 - 130) provide a
list of principles necessary to learner-centered methodology which seem to
reflect the necessary conditions of a humanistic cognitivist
perspective on the language learning/teaching process. These principles include
viewing language learning as an active, decision-making process in which
learners build developmentally on existing knowledge. In this process, the
learners' interest, emotions, and conceptual/cognitive capacities are all
activated in addition to their linguistic capacities. In contrast to previous
views of language learning,
A learner-centered approach therefore relies heavily
on humanistic, and to a lesser extent, cognitive approaches to language
learning. The humanistic methodology which perhaps most closely approximates my
own intuitions and experience about how languages are learnt is the Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) approach. Though a certain rigidity in classroom technique (Stern, 1983) is
evident in the European manifestation of SGAV, a more flexible approach in interpretation
is taken in
Apart from its derivation, other attractive features
of SGAV include its position on the nature of language learning. This is
principally that the whole language, including the paralinguistic, kinesthetic,
and sociocultural features should be learnt by the
whole person, which means including the activation of not just the cognitive
domain but also the affective. Thus, interactive language activities are
stressed in the SGAV approach (Lian and Joy, 1981) as
being a means by which learners can be exposed to and interact with language
through the activation of various channels of perception (audio, visual, kinesic). Learners then restructure their existing language
systems as they "seek to integrate newly perceived information"
(Crawford and Clemens, 1985: 32). This integration means that learners evolve
individual linguistic and paralinguistic systems, or interlanguages,
which are composite but coherent for those learners, while differing from the
original input.
Because learners are so involved in constructing
their own meaning from the language around them, the next logical step is to
assist learners in developing autonomy and self-direction. This is also
consistent with one of the characteristics of humanistic approaches in
encouraging learners to take responsibility for their own learning. In order to
achieve this, SGAV techniques frequently focus on recycling of input in
alternative situations, to encourage inductive reasoning about the way the
grammar and other features of the language operate. For this reason, SGAV
activities typically involve the use of authentic audio, visual and interactive
drama materials, to facilitate a focus on the whole language including
linguistic, paralinguistic and prosodic features by engaging various channels
of perception. Thus, through a combination of multi-channeled perception, focus
on analysis of the features of whole language, and hypothesis testing,
confirmation/disconfirmation and modification, learners are able to develop
less teacher-dependent or more autonomous approaches to their own language
learning.
Learner-centered methodology
and CALL
For a learner-centered language learning environment
to develop, the methodological principles as discussed above need to form the
framework while resources provide the means. These resources include people
such as teachers, other staff and friends, print resources, and non-print
resources such as cassette, video, videodisc, and computer equipment. Various
writers have provided lists and categories of the advantages of computers over
other media (Wyatt, 1988: 89 - 90; Weible, 1988: 74),
all of which include the individualization of instruction, a very humanistic
characteristic. There does seem to be a difference of opinion, however, over
the extent to which computers can encourage collaborative learning (Wyatt,
ibid.) and provide flexible learning paths (Weible,
ibid.). As technology advances further, fewer of these differences will be
voiced because technology is already outstripping its critics. The level of
interactivity that was not possible in 1988 is now fairly freely available in
the form of interactive video and digitised audio
(IDA - Lian, 1985, 1987). Indeed, Lian's
list of five categories for the role of computers in language learning: as a
teacher and/or manager of learning, as a resource, as a tool, as an instrument
for communication, and as a manager of users (in a computer network sense,
rather than the more traditional sense of programmed learning) provides an
exciting insight into some of the possibilities available these days.
CELL or
CALL?
As with some other disciplines, particularly in the
sciences, there is a proliferation of acronyms and terms in the literature
referring to the use of computers in learning, and thus there are bound to be
some acronyms which different people use to refer to different things. CELL
(Computer Enhanced Language Learning) is the acronym used here as it seems best
to reflect the trend toward more learner-centered approaches, and most closely
to resemble the model proposed here for the role of computers in the language
learning process. As Lian (1991) describes it :
Computer-Enhanced
language Learning is simply language-learning made better through the use of
computers. No judgment is made as to the kind of programs or materials used. On
the other hand, Computer-Aided (or Assisted) Learning appears, these days at
least, to imply interaction between learners and programs conceived primarily
as lessons.
Computer Enhanced Language Learning embodies the
principle of taking the weight of responsibility for learning away from the
teacher and allocating it to the learner. Emphasis is also placed on the
"enhancement" role of computers in the learning process. The use of
this term implies that computers actually improve the way learners can learn by
providing them with a degree of autonomy, the facility for self-direction, and
the power to control such things as the speed, rate, timing (convenience),
order and choice of topics in the learning process. This view is consistent
with the outcome of the discussions of the 1988 joint FIPLV/EUROCENTRES seminar
(1991). The group of experts present reported on computers in language learning
as they relate to motivation, group and individual learning, types and
techniques of learning, implications for teacher initial and in-service
training and research and development.
Broadly speaking, the major advantages for computers
were seen to be in the freedom they provide for learners to work at their own
pace and level and in the immediate and personalized feedback that they could
supply. In terms of group dynamics, computers enable learners to pool their
knowledge in more effective ways and enhance the kind of peer correction and
language repair work done. Humanist principles were most evident in the
discussion of types and techniques of learning, where CELL "brings the real
world into the classroom", "makes learning more relevant",
"develops the learners' sense of responsibility", "develops
non-linear learning", "develops co-operative learning",
"helps reduce the need for a meta-language", and "changes the
role of the teacher" (ibid. pp. 14 - 16).
It can be seen therefore that CELL has come a long
way since Pressey's apparatus (1926) offered learners
a piece of candy as positive reinforcement for reaching a certain pre-set
threshold. However, serious consideration must be given to the place of
computers in language classrooms and programs, and the role they are to play in
relation to the roles of teachers and learners.
Computers in classrooms can and should have a very
different role to play than the technology of many of the language laboratories
of the past. By taking on board more humanistic principles and shedding the
rigidity of behaviourist approaches and associated
programmed learning, the range of scenarios for the use of computers in langauge learning is greatly expanded. Thus, in sharp
contrast to the criticisms leveled at language laboratories both with and
without computer technology, in a more humanistic CELL environment, students
can choose to either correct themselves or be corrected by the computer, the
teacher, or peers; utterances need not be fabricated, though they must still be
pre-recorded for computer retrieval (Lian, 1984);
communication is possible either between two or more learners at the same
terminal or in an interactive sense between learner and video and/or audio
(Doughty,1991; Chang and Smith, 1991); learners can actively participate in the
delivery of the lessons (Meskill, 1991; Rowe, 1991),
their interpretation of meaning during the activity, and the choices they make,
and flexibility is a matter determined mainly by the foresight of the designers
of the learning packages (Bright, Verano and Cubero, 1991; Garrigues, 1991).
The problem of the high cost of hardware and
peripherals remains, however. To some extent this difficulty can be
circumvented by providing teachers with the training necessary to develop their
own materials for their own contexts and with their own budgets in mind. This
makes it crucial to expand on the number and breadth of teacher in- and
pre-service training courses in CELL and CELL design. These days
students are usually more conversant with computer technology than teachers,
with courses available in keyboarding skills and information technology in
schools and their exposure to technology outside of the classroom. Teachers on
the other hand need training to gain the requisite familiarity with and access
to the technology. Without this experience, they cannot be expected to become
whizzes at programming or to create software that incites their students to
paroxysms of experiential frenzy.
Another approach to the problem of cost is to see to
what extent the expense is only perceived, and what lower-cost alternatives can
be arranged. Educational institutions that cannot afford state-of-the-art
technology can often find much cheaper and similarly satisfying solutions in
"older" technology. Factors that should be considered in this case
are: flexibility of the equipment (can it be used by other groups of learners
for other purposes); compatibility with existing equipment and planned purchases;
capacity for being upgraded or expanded; and usefulness to the maximum number
of teachers and learners. With these considerations, institutions will not find
themselves paying out large amounts of money for the latest technology, which
within a year or two has become much cheaper and more readily available - or
even worse, obsolete.
The guiding principle in the integration of
technology into language learning should be useability
within the framework of sound pedagogy. Increasingly, computers are being seen
as tools in the language teaching/learning process - tools for teachers to use
in their teaching, and equally tools for learners to use when they have
something specific they wish to work on by themselves, at their own rate. This
brings us back to the questions of how technology can be integrated into a
language learning programme, and how courseware
should be designed in order to best suit the place technology has in the programme. The various forms of computerized technology
should be seen as resources in the learning process, in much the same way as
books, but with the added interactive or cooperative learning dimension (see
Fig. 1).
A model of a CELL learning environment
• create
a total learning environment
- task-based
&/or process-based syllabus
- focus on:
learning strategies
(learning how to learn)
language functions / purposes
language structures
paralinguistic features
(socio-cultural)
autonomy / self-direction
• all activities focus on the development of control &
responsibility for own learning
• cultivate
learner self-direction & autonomy
• provide
access to facilities for multi-channeled perception / production
• cultivate
self- & peer feedback & evaluation techniques
(to
improve self-confidence & group cohesion)
• integrate
CELL into environment by designing activities incorporating self- exploration &
self-discovery of problems & errors
• provide
a range of print and non-print based resources, including student- and teacher-produced materials and
well as those commercially available.
Figure 1
Computers could not, and
indeed should not take the place of teachers, but their use should be exploited
in ways most suitable to their capabilities and limitations. Earlier learning
packages that were designed along the lines of grammar translation books and audiolingual tapes with their "assumptions about the
order in which tasks are to be undertaken and the time which should be
spent" (Higgins and Johns, 1984: 86) should be replaced by programs and
courseware that take more cognizance of the advantages of computers over other
media. This means that current and future packages should be concentrating on
providing learners with more control over their rate of progress, order of
activities, topics to choose, and skills to be practiced.
Teachers will then be free to be more active role in
an advisory or consultative role, with learners only coming to teachers when
they the need the kind of help which cannot be provided by the system or when
they come across something which they cannot solve by themselves. In this way,
learner autonomy can develop, leading to increased transference of skills
learnt or practiced in the classroom or computer laboratory to the world
outside the classroom. Thus, continuing and self-directed learning can be
promoted through practice in the classroom by fostering skills such as
problem-solving and developing thinking processes such as inferencing
and predicting.
In conclusion, the development of an integrated CELL learning environment requires consideration of the three participants in the learning process: teachers, learners, and the technology. Teachers need training not only in the design and use of CELL materials, but also in appropriate use of technology. For learners, training and practice in the use learning strategies needs to be provided to develop the skills and processes applicable to on-going learning, culminating in learners being able to take control of their own learning. Finally, the role of the technology should be as a resource in an existing methodological framework. As such, software and courseware should incorporate the development of the same skills, processes and strategies as other parts of the learning environment, while exploiting the technology in the most appropriate way.
References
Asher, J. J. (1981). 'Comprehension
training: The evidence from laboratory and classroom studies.' In H. Winitz (ed.) The
Comprehension Approach to Foreign Language Instruction.
Bright, D. E., M. Verano, and R. A. Cubero (1991).
From Theory to Practice: A Model for an Interactive Videodisc Lesson. Interactive Videodisc: The "Why"
and the "How". Bush, M. D., A. Slaton, M. Verano
and M E. Slayden (eds.)CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Chang, K-Y.
R. and W. F. Smith (1991). CALL/IVD Workstations:
Towards a Rationale for their Use in Cooperative Learning Environments. Interactive Videodisc: The "Why"
and the "How". Bush, M. D., A. Slaton, M. Verano
and M E. Slayden (eds.)CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Crawford, J. & J. Clemens. 1985. Lifelines - Can an integrated audiovisual course meet student needs in the on-arrival programme. Revue de Phonétique Apliquée, 73-74-75, 27-36.
, J. & L. Trojer. 1983. An introduction to the structuro global audio visual approach to language learning. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 20-29.
, J. C. 1989. Contextualised language practice through activity sequences. SGAV Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, 31 - 38.
, J. C. 1990. How authentic is the language in our classrooms? Prospect, Vol. 6, No. 1, 47-54.
Curran, C. A.
(1976) Counseling-Learning in Second
Languages.
Davies, Graham and John Higgins (1985). using computers in language learning: a teacher's guide.Information Guide 22 London: Centre for Informatioin on Language Teaching and Research.
Di Pietro, R. J. 1987. Strategic Interaction.
Discussions of the joint FIPLV/EUROCENTRES seminar, 1988. Published 1991.
Doughty, C (1991). Theoretical
Motivations for IVD Software Research and Development. Interactive Videodisc: The "Why"
and the "How". Bush, M. D., A. Slaton, M. Verano
and M E. Slayden (eds.)CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition.
Gattegno,
Caleb (1972). Teaching
Foreign Languages in Schools: The
Garrigues, M. (1991). Teaching and Learning Languages with Interactive Videodisc. Interactive Videodisc: The "Why"
and the "How". Bush, M. D., A. Slaton, M. Verano
and M E. Slayden (eds.)CALICO
Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Hallgarten,
K. 1988. Student autonomy - learner training and
self-directed learning. In S. Nicholls and E. Hoadley-Maidment
(eds.). Current Issues in Teaching English as a Second Language to Adults.
Higgins, John and Tim Johns (1984). Computers in Language Learning.London: Collins ELT.
Hoven, D.
and J. C. Crawford (1988) Task-based
Syllabus Design: From Theory to Practice. Paper presented at ALAA
Conference,
, D. 1991. Towards a Cognitive Taxonomy of Listening Comprehension Tasks. SGAV Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1 - 14.
Hutchinson, T. & A. Waters.
1987. English for Specific Purposes.
Lian, A-P. (1984) Aspects of Answer-Evaluation in Traditional
Computer-Assisted Language Learning. R. M. Russell (ed.): Proceedings of the 2nd CALITE Congress
, A-P. & B. K. Joy. 1981. Verbo-tonalism, research and language learning. SGAV Newsletter, 4, 7.
, A-P. (1985). An Experimental Computer-Assisted Listening Comprehension System. Revue de Phonétique Apliquée, 82 - 84: 167 - 184.
, A-P., L. Thornquist and L. Thornquist (1987). Computer-based Technology in Language Learning: Beyond the Walls of the Traditional Classroom. Journal of Educational Techniques and Technologies, Vol. 20, No. 2: 24 - 31.
,
A-P. (1991). Applications of Digitised
Audio Technology in Language Learning. Essays in Honour
of K. V. Sinclair. Townsville:
Long, M. H., and
C. J. Sato.
1983. Classroom foreigner-talk discourse: forms and functions of teachers'
questions. In H. W. Selinger & M. H. Long (eds.). Classroom-Oriented
Research in Second Language Acquisition.
Long, M. H., and
P. A. Porter.
1985. Group work, interlanguage talk, and second
language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,
Vol. 19, No. 2, 207-228.
Long, D. R. (1989). 'Second Language Listening Comprehension: A Schema-Theoretic Perspective.' The Modern Language Journal 73:i: 32-40.
Lozanov, G. (1979) Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy.
Meskill,
C. J. (1991). A Systematic Approach to the Design of
Videodisc Courseware. Interactive
Videodisc: The "Why" and the "How". Bush, M. D., A.
Slaton, M. Verano and M E. Slayden
(eds.)CALICO Monograph Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Moskowitz,
G.1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign
Language Classroom.
Nunan, D.
(1990). An empirically based methodology for the nineties.
In
Pica, T. &
Doughty, C. (1985). 'Input and interaction in the communicative language
classroom: A comparison of teacher-fronted and group activities.' In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.) Input and Second Language Acquisition.
, T. 1988. Negotiated interaction as an outcome of NS-NNS interaction. Language Learning, 37, 471 - 93.
Pressey, S. L. (1926) A simple apparatus which gives tests and scores-and teaches. School and Society, 23 (586):373 - 376.
Robinson, G. L. 1991. Effective Feedback Strategies in CALL. in
P. Dunkel (ed.) Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Testing.
Rowe, A. A. (1991). Language Discovery Environments. Interactive Videodisc: The "Why" and the "How".
Bush, M. D., A. Slaton, M. Verano and M E. Slayden (eds.)CALICO Monograph
Series, Vol. 2, Spring.
Skehan, P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language
Learning.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of
Language Teaching.
Stevick,
E. W. (1976). Memory,
Meaning and Method.
,
E. W. 1981. Teaching
and Learning Languages.
,
E. W. 1990. Humanism in
Language Teaching.
Underhill, A. 1989. Process in humanistic education. ELT Journal, Vol. 43/4, 250-260.
Weible, D. M. (1988). Towards a Media-Specific Methodology for CALL. In W. F.
Smith (ed.) Modern Media in Foreign
Language Education: Theory
and Implementation.
Wenden, A., and J. Rubin. 1987. Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Wong-Fillmore, L. W. 1985. Second
language learning in children: A proposed model. Issues in English Language Development.
Wyatt, D. H.
(1988). Applying Pedagogical Principles to Call
Courseware Principles. In W. F. Smith (ed.) Modern Media in Foreign Language Education: Theory and Implementation.
