Instructional Design for
Multimedia: Towards a Learner-Centred CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language
Learning) Model
Introduction
Designers and users of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) software have long been aware of the difficulties inherent in trying to design the means whereby a machine can provide an effective environment for a learner to learn language, when language is such an essentially human tool of communication (Halliday, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978). This paper proposes that an ideal model for multimedia instructional design for language learning needs to derive from principles similar to those being employed in mainstream language teaching and learning models. This sociocultural model is based on a Hallidayan conceptualisation of the nature of language as being contextually embedded, and a Vygotskian conceptualisation of the relationship between mind, language, communication and culture.
In such a model, the emphasis is placed on learner- and learning-centredness with the major role for computers in the process of learning emerging as that of resource and tool. In this role computers need to be located within the broader context of a CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) environment, to create a nexus between sound pedagogy and emerging technologies. Also within this model, learners need the skills, information, and inclination to take fullest advantage of their central role in the learning process. We will now examine the features of these central components of a learner-centred CELL model: the nature of the role of the technology, the interaction of learners with this, and the principles of the learning model.
The nature of CELL
The term CELL, rather than CALL (Computer-Assisted/Aided Language Learning) is used in this discussion to stress that the use of computers envisaged in a language learning environment is to enhance the learning and not merely aid or assist in the process. In other words, language learning could and does occur anyway, regardless of the presence of computers, but the incorporation of computers is intended to improve, expand, or enhance the learning in some way. According to this definition then, the model for multimedia CELL software described in this work is designed to enhance learning in the area of listening and viewing comprehension, by incorporating current understandings of second language learning, human-computer interaction and interface design, sociocultural perspectives on language learning, listening comprehension theory, learning styles, and learning strategies.
The view of the role of computers in learning as embodied in other terms such as CAL (Computer Assisted Learning), CBL (Computer Based Learning), CBI (Computer Based Instruction), CBE (Computer Based Education), CAI (Computer Assisted/Aided Instruction - Otto, 1980), CML (Computer Managed Learning), and CMI (Computer Managed Instruction - Otto, 1980) is mainly computer as ‘structurer’ of the learning process. In other words, the pedagogy embodied in the software tends to be 'machine-driven', rather than learner-driven (Garrett 1987: 170), or, more appropriately learning-driven (Kumaravadivelu, 1993).
On the other hand, as Lian describes it:
Computer-Enhanced language Learning is simply language-learning made better through the use of computers. No judgement 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.
(Lian, 1991: 8)
In the instructional design model proposed here, this definition of Lian’s has been expanded to incorporate what might be termed a CALL or computer-aided component through the addition of a Lesson Sequences layer to the package. However, this author feels that this addition does make the learning better, by providing an access point to more exploratory uses of the software for those learners who are not yet at a point in the development of their learning skills to benefit from the more self-directed, exploratory components. Thus, rather than detracting from the enhancement factor, this addition provides a ‘value-added’ factor.
Instructional design for a language learning environment incorporating computers has a large body of information and research to draw on, from a range of disciples as diverse as cognitive science, psychology, and human-computer interface design, as well as other areas of applied linguistics. When multimedia capabilities are added to this environment, it is important for us as language teachers and researchers to remember that research into the processes of interaction, reading, listening, and viewing using other media forms a sound basis for our research into, and applications of, this newer form of media. Our efforts in designing and developing learning materials for our students using computers therefore need to be founded on similar principles to those employed in instructional design based on other media.
This discussion will be essentially exploratory in nature, leading to five principles forming the infrastructure on which a learner-centred CELL model is based. These principles embody the possibilities and pragmatics of developing an instructional design model for a second language learning software package that incorporates interaction and negotiation of meaning under strategic control of the learner.
Sociocultural perspectives on language learning strategies
In sociocultural theory as conceptualised by Lev S. Vygotsky and colleagues, “higher forms of mental activity are always, and everywhere, mediated by symbolic means” (Lantolf, 1994: 418). By mediation, whether physical or symbolic, is meant the employment of some catalyst which allows connections to be made between humans and their own (internal) mental world, or the (external) physical world. In Vygotskian terms, the most important symbolic tool for this mediation process is language, which can be used to organise, plan, and maintain the environment both internal and external to the individual. A critical feature of the use of language for internal mediation is what is termed “inner” or “private, speech”, or those utterances of an individual which are not other-directed, but rather used to organise one’s own mental processes and activity. Private speech represents a bridge in, or mediates, the process of internalisation of cultural norms and patterns of activity, firstly from modelling of others, subsequently to appropriation, and finally to independent self-mediated processing.
Communication strategies and social strategies, often excluded from language learning strategies by researchers within the interlanguage and psycholinguistic paradigms, can be incorporated within this framework as sets of language learning strategies. In other words, communication strategies, for example, are used to communicate, while at the same time improving communication. That is, the mediation process of employing communication and social strategies to communicate improves both the communication and the learning. This change is, ‘therefore, a social process and sociocultural mediation is the central means through which change occurs’ (Jacob, 1992: 323). Unlike in cognitive and social psychological theories, where strategies in language learning are seen to be relatively static, and generalisable from tasks and contexts, sociocultural theory focuses on the influence of language tasks and contexts in bringing about the dynamic emergence of strategic approaches in individual learners.
Education or awareness-raising in the use of more desirable or effective strategies is then achieved through the mediation of situated activities that allow learners to model, appropriate, and achieve self-mediated processing, rather than by direct instruction. However, as Gillette (1990) reminds us, the implementation of these strategies in the classroom culture need to be directed towards language learning goals. As learners’ goals can often differ from those of their teachers, we also need to consider another sociocultural component, activity theory (Leontiev, 1981) for its focus on the influence of the sociocultural settings of activities on the strategic operations of individuals with their communities.
In their 1994 study, Donato and McCormick stress the importance in sociocultural research of the genesis of phenomenon in ‘culturally-specific situated activity’ and the study of its process of change (1994: 454). On the basis of their findings, Donato and McCormick (1994) claim further that language learning strategies are situated in the higher levels of mental processing, which are not uniformly developed. This again reinforces the point made by Gillette above, that because the one strategy may be employed with several (and possibly conflicting) goals in mind, it is important to focus on constructing strategic tasks which provide the context for higher level mental processes – the metacognitive and higher cognitive strategies of researchers in other paradigms – and foster the use of these.
A Modified Learning
Strategies Taxonomy
In the model advocated here an additional level is added to the direct/indirect classification proposed by Oxford (1990), to produce three layers reflecting a classification of those strategies that are totally internal to the learner, those that are involved in processing language, and those that are implicated in the interactional negotiation and creation of meaning.
Picture, for example, a set of three
concentric circles. The innermost core comprises
those strategies that could be regarded as being Internal to the learner, or Indirect in
This Interactional layer, therefore, bridges the gap
between strategies which have to do with the management of language learning
(Metacognitive/Metalinguistic and Affective), as against those which have to do
with language processing (Cognitive and Memory). That is, Social, Compensation,
and Paralinguistic strategies have to do with the interpersonal, inter- or
intra-textual and interactional aspects of language use. Paralinguistic
strategies have been added to take account of the fact that, because of certain
individual differences, such as mode preference, some learners use gesture,
expression, and intonation as creative strategies in communication, and not
merely to compensate for communication difficulties which
This reclassification therefore complements
In a CELL context, in order for a software package or program to foster in learners the development of higher mental processes, it must provide an environment which makes available a range of strategic tasks, while also providing information on the purposes of these tasks, to encourage self-reflection in learners and new strategic orientations in their actions. Ideally, learners using such a package should be able to choose their own tasks on the basis of information provided, and, on the basis of their own language learning (and other) goals in using the materials. In other words, the choices they make mediate their interaction with the materials. They should thereby be able to identify for themselves those areas in which they need more practice, as did the learners in Donato and McCormick’s study mentioned above. This perspective on strategy development allows learners to take an ‘active task approach’, identified by Naiman and his colleagues (1978) as one of the characteristics of a good language learner.
This is also realisable in a CELL package ‘designed to move students beyond thoughtful consumption to reflective construction of language learning strategies’ (Donato & McCormick, 1994: 463). The actual tasks within the package then need to be designed to incorporate a range of language learning strategies as identified in taxonomies such as that found in Figure 1 below, including awareness-raising in aspects of paralinguistic features and a distribution across higher and lower level strategies. With such information, some necessary experimentation, and self-reflection, students make their selections or choices of tasks to complete, on the basis of self-perceived need. Records progressively updated on learners’ choices of tasks would provide both learners and teachers with ‘concrete evidence of strategy use’ as mentioned by Donato and McCormick (1994) above.
Figure
1
Taxonomy of Listening Comprehension
Task Types in terms of Task Demands (ascending level of cognitive demand).
|
Cognitive
Processing Level |
Task
Type (defined in terms of response demands) |
|
Knowledge 'The psychological
processes of remembering' (Bloom et al, 1981) Recall of: specifics &
universals, methods & processes Knowledge of specifics
(terminology & specific facts) - emphasis on ‘symbols with
concrete referents’ |
• doing (indicate, react) • responding to commands,
instructions and directions (e.g. by making or doing something) • modelling (imitation) • answering (i.e. either
yes/no answers to simple questions on specific information in a text or
providing specific information in response to basic information [wh-] questions) • identifying gender of
speakers in an audio-only conversation • identifying changes of
topic and boundaries between topics |
|
Comprehension Translate, illustrate,
extrapolate, estimate, predict, identify / distinguish, interpret 'without
necessarily relating it to other material or seeing its fullest
implications.' (Bloom et al, 1981) |
• transferring (from one
medium to another) • duplicating (i.e.
transcribing, translating, dictation ( • rephrasing utterance
(e.g. in a different register) • sequencing
pictures/diagrams according to verbal narration • matching sets of
input/text in different media /channels (e.g. picture appropriate to verbal
description) • matching,
distinguishing between sets of different information (e.g. diagrams to some
form of verbal description/narration or specifics with generalisation, etc. ) • inferring the
characteristics of participants in a text • inferring the
relationship between speakers in a conversation • reordering utterances in
a text to match with a verbal text |
|
Application 'Use of abstractions in particular
& concrete situations' (Bloom et al, 1981) i.e. remember & apply |
• scanning (listening for
specific information, with some inferencing required) • reconstructing dialogue
from transcript containing missing lines • guided note taking • predicting (end of story, trends from given data & conditions
etc.) • jigsaw (patchwork)
listening • inferring meanings (that
are not explicitly stated in the text) • listening for main points |
|
Analysis Breakdown of communication
into its constituent parts, elements, relationships & organisational
principles |
• note taking } • outlining }
('condensing' Richards 1983) • inferring gist • identifying various
language functions exhibited by a text or parts therefore (e.g. cause &
effect) |
|
Synthesis Putting together analysed
elements & parts to form a novel whole |
• summarising • modelling (modifying
model to novel situation) • extending, elaborating • inferring attitudes in
extended discourse |
|
Evaluation Judgement + criteria Opinion + justification -
in terms of internal / external evidence |
• deciding fact vs opinion • evaluating conflicting
evidence • evaluating illocutionary
effectiveness of a text &/or utterance • evaluating appropriacy of
register or genre of a text • making judgements from
internal evidence in a text (& justifying them) • inferring/developing
criteria from information/ examples in a text |
|
**Appreciation Intellectual &
aesthetic appreciation of parts, elements, organisation &/or creative
expression of a text |
• identifying/empathising
with participants in a text & expressing, appreciating, or hypothesising
about their point of view/role etc. • expressing appreciation
of stylistic aspects of a text, including co-verbal features • extending a text using
one’s own variations of the text’s stylistics/creativity (e.g. in another
medium) |
** For the purposes of
completeness, this level, Appreciation, has been added to the taxonomy, as it
does demand considerable cognitive processing. However, this creative,
aesthetic element of cognitive processing is highly subjective, and intuitive. As examination of this involves the affective domain, as well as
other less tangible elements of the human psyche, detailed discussion of this
lies outside of the scope of this work.
The role of negotiation in a sociocultural CELL model
Yet another component of a sociocultural model is Vygotsky’s conception of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which describes the dynamically negotiated range of a novice’s capacity for learning new material, with the assistance of an expert in the field. This concept is particularly relevant for CELL, for the graduated, contingent (offered only when needed), and dialogic, or negotiated interaction between the expert and the novice (Donato & McCormick, 1994: 468).
Implications of these findings for feedback in the CELL package under development here are supportive of the notion of self-managed access to the help and feedback facilities, and a ‘layered’ construction of these. By this is meant that individual learners (the novices) determine when they want to have access to any of a range of help facilities available, but that these facilities are designed as successive layers, the deeper and more extensive or explicit help only being accessible from the layer above.
As a final note towards the sociocultural framework for the development of this CELL listening and viewing comprehension model, the concept of interactivity as employed in this paradigm should be mentioned. Platt and Brooks (1994: 499), for example, in their study of the validity of the term ‘acquisition-rich environment’ stress that, as this term derives from the conduit metaphor incorporating language input and output, it ‘obscures the fact that comprehending is a function of individuals, not of spoken or printed input’ (1994: 499). In other words, the learner’s interaction with, and dynamic creation of, the language is just as important as the language itself.
In their study of on- and off-task language of learners participating in problem-solving tasks, they found that learners ‘created or constructed a context through their use of the target language to solve a problem’ (1994: 504). For the purposes of an instructional design framework within the sociocultural paradigm, this concept of learners creating and constructing meaning implies that learner choice and self-management of activity is critical, both in the tasks to be done, and in the navigation through the feedback and help facilities.
Where then, does the plethora of language learning strategy studies from interlanguage, psycholinguistic, and pedagogic perspectives fit into a sociocultural view? The verification of the existence of strategies, their identification, and the compilation of lists and taxonomies are necessary and useful to any investigation of techniques or programs to improve learners’ learning. Socioculturalists, therefore, rather than aiming for the development of higher level or more effective strategies by means of explicit instruction, emphasise the provision of a dynamic strategic environment in which strategies become explicit to learners as their awareness of their use of them becomes clearer. With increasing awareness of their goals and the strategies they use to achieve these, learners employ strategies with progressively more precision.
Principles behind the model
In his model for the role of CALL, Mohan (1992) sees the most productive use of computers as their capacity to make a ‘series of cognitive tasks available to the user’. However, Mohan qualifies this statement by adding that ‘how demanding and difficult these tasks are will depend on the match between the program and the user, among other things’ (1992: 123). In the model proposed here, the issue of the match between the program and the user raised by Mohan, is resolved by incorporating into the design, principles of awareness-raising in learning strategies, particularly those strategies shown in the literature to be important for language learning management and the development of learner autonomy.
As mentioned earlier, the instructional design of software can be technology-driven, pedagogy- or teacher-driven, or learner-driven. The development of an integrated CELL learning environment requires consideration of these 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 within a learner-centred framework. For learners, awareness-raising and practice in the use of 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 (see Figure 2). 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.
Figure 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-channelled perception/production
• cultivate self- & peer-
feedback & evaluation techniques (to improve self-confidence & group
cohesion)
• integrate CELL into the
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.
From the preceding discussion, we are now in a position to infer the following five principles as being intrinsic to a learner- or learning-centred model of multimedia instructional design:
1. that interaction and negotiation are important features of communication, and therefore of second language learning (Doughty, 1987);
2. that computers with appropriately-designed software can play a mediating role between second language learners and their sociocultural context (Jonassen, 1992);
3. that software can be designed to facilitate second language learners’ interaction with the computer, and negotiation of meaning from texts in this context (Meskill, 1992; Bickell & Truscello, 1996); and
4. that the essential characteristic of such software is that it enables learners to take control of both the content of the learning material, and their approach to making meaning from it (Robinson, 1991; Stevens, 1992); while recognising
5. that not all second language learners, especially in the initial stages of their learning, want, or are able, to take control (Candy, 1987; Robinson, 1991).
In the design of a multimedia CELL package, therefore, we need to focus on language in use: how meaning is extracted, negotiated, and maintained in interactions between learners, contexts, and texts, whether these texts are spoken, written, monologues, conversations, visual or graphic representations, or conveyed by means of a computer. In fact, in a sociocultural perspective on strategic language learning, computers are recognised as a mediation tool for transforming ‘natural, spontaneous impulses into higher mental processes, including strategic orientations to problem solving’ (Donato & McCormick, 1994: 456).
When CELL is used in a self-access or private practice context, it is the learner’s interaction with, and therefore management of, the learning environment that determines the learner-centred or humanistic nature of language learning. The incorporation of the development of learning strategies, including those implicated in the exploitation of paralinguistic features of language as well as metacognitive and cognitive strategies, into the CELL program is therefore critical in the provision of a learner-centred CELL environment which helps learners gain more control over their own learning.
The multimedia
perspective
As mentioned earlier, much of the research into the uses and effectiveness of other forms of media can also be applied to multimedia application in CELL. In terms of the changing complexion of the role of listening in mainstream language education, Rost makes the following comment:
One of the most important
concepts associated with verbal interaction is that of understanding. To what
extent can we say that the interlocutors in any interaction understand each
other? To what extent do they ‘comprehend’ through the words that an
interlocutor uses and to what extent do they ‘interpret’ ideas that are related
to the words that an interlocutor uses? Is understanding a
mental phenomenon recoverable through the mind of the hearer or is it a social
phenomenon recoverable through examination of subsequent behaviour by the
listener?
(Rost, 1990: 1 - my emphasis)
Increasingly, investigations are attempting to establish the role of the learner as being that of an active interpreter and negotiator of the meaning of messages, as illustrated in the quote from Rost (1990) above and the earlier discussion of the sociocultural perspective. Research energy is turning away from ‘mental phenomenon’ models towards ‘social phenomenon’ models. As Rubin (1994: 199) summarises it, the on-going dialogue among researchers about the nature of learners’ interaction with oral input revolves around five major factors: 1) text characteristics; 2) interlocutor characteristics; 3) task characteristics; 4) listener characteristics; and 5) process characteristics (see also Hoven, 1991).
In addition, technological advances have made available to teachers and learners certain forms of visual media such as television, and video in its various forms, to expand listening comprehension to encompass viewing comprehension. It is therefore essential to include an understanding of the impact of viewing comprehension on listening, and listening tasks. As Kellerman (1992) and Hurley (1992) have found, the complementarity of the visual channel with the auditory is critical.
In our consideration of the role of multimedia in CELL, the complementarity of the visual channel with the auditory is critical. This is particularly the case in our current context in which video and other multimedia resources are becoming increasingly prevalent in both L2 classrooms (Kornum, 1990; Bisson, 1991; Linquist et al., 1991) and individual L2 learning contexts (Staddon, 1990; Brett, 1995; Felix, 1995; Kennedy et al. 1995; Liou, 1995). Areas of study include the importance of visual context (Secules et al., 1992; Hanley et al., 1995), the role of non-verbal aspects of communicative competence (Neu, 1990; Kellerman et al, 1990; Meyer, 1990), cross-cultural effects of non-verbal communication (Hurley, 1992), messages conveyed through the visual channel (Kellerman, 1992; Neu, 1990; Herron & Seay, 1991), strategies used with audiovisual material (Mueller, 1980; Wolff, 1987; Vogely, 1995), and skills developed through the use of computer-assisted multimedia (Dalgish, 1987; Meskill, 1991; Linquist et al, 1991; Brett, 1995; Hoven & Farquhar, 1996).
Thus, the argument is made here that not only should the visual channel be incorporated into learning materials in the CELL environment, but that explicit efforts need to be made to provide learners with information on the kinesic aspects of messages, and how to access these. Such efforts need to include information on how kinesic messages are conveyed in the particular language being studied, or materials being used, as well as raising learners’ awareness of the importance of kinesics, particularly language- or culture-specific kinesic realisations of messages at all levels: phonological, semantic, discourse, and interactional.
In the context of CELL, particularly with the inclusion of multimedia, it is also necessary to reflect upon the nature of the role of the computer: as interlocutor, as an expert teacher, or as a mediator of the learning. As Jonassen comments:
Technologies do not
directly mediate learning. That is, people do not learn from computers, books,
videos, or the other devices that were developed to transmit information.
Rather, learning is mediated by thinking (mental processes). Thinking is
activated by learning activities, and learning activities are mediated by
instructional interventions, including technologies. Learning requires thinking
by the learner. In order to more directly affect the process, therefore, we
should concern ourselves less with the design of technologies of transmission
and more with how learners are required to think in completing different tasks.
(Jonassen, 1992: 2)
This is therefore the new focus – to develop a framework of listening and viewing comprehension tasks, or ‘learning activities’ in Jonassen’s terms, that activate thinking, and subsequently to locate these within a learning environment mediated by technology. In the context of CELL, we also need to consider the possibility that characteristics of the computer software, help, and feedback mechanisms may be classified as ‘interlocutor characteristics’ when there is a level of interactivity between learners and these facilities. This is an intriguing area for further research elsewhere.
For Chapelle, the computer clearly has a role to play as an interactor in a language learning context:
CALL texts are produced in any language learning context where the computer takes an interactive role. Such contexts may be comprised of learners working individually with a computer, of learners working in pairs or larger groups with a computer or multiple connected computers, or of learners working with teachers or other experts. In each of these cases, the participants - one of which is the computer - contribute to an emerging text which is affected by the nature of the context and which both affects and provides evidence for the quality of the learning experiences.
(Chapelle, 1994: 38 – my emphasis)
However, as Jonassen (above) stresses, it is not the computer technology itself which plays this role, but rather the software facilities, or the pedagogy embodied in the software that allows the computer to take this interactive role. More specifically, the instructional design of the learning activities, the content of the learning material, the design of the interface, and the various help and feedback facilities, are the features of the computer that allow it to play the role of mediator of learning. This mediator role includes that of mentor, as discussed earlier, in the learner’s learning progression through the Zone of Proximal Development.
The strategic development of learners’ mental thought processes or thinking skills must therefore also be included. This incorporation of thought process development, as well as of the cultivation in learners of strategies to enhance their control and management of their own learning is being proposed here as the major distinguishing factor between computer-assisted or -aided language learning (CALL) software and computer-enhanced (CELL) software.
Issues of learner control
Allocation of control of navigation, choice of content, and choice of learning approach to learners have been identified as the critical features in improving the management of flow of control through a multimedia CELL package (Hoven, 1997). This issue of allocation of control hinges on an understanding of the influence of individual learner differences on approaches chosen and paths taken and the language learning strategies that contribute towards successful interaction and communication.
As mentioned earlier, the variety of modes of access in the CELL instructional design model proposed here, the incorporation of learning strategies into listening and viewing tasks, together with the information provided to learners about strategies, and the taxonomy of listening and viewing comprehension tasks (Figure 1), all contribute to facilitating learners’ informed control over the materials.
Intimately related to the issue of control is the development of self-direction and learner autonomy in general learning (Candy, 1987), ESL/EFL (Dickenson, 1987; 1995; Wenden, 1991; Nakhoul, 1993), foreign language learning (Holec, 1979; 1987), and CALL (Robinson, 1991; Stevens, 1984; 1992). Many learners are not ready, willing, or well enough informed to take control of their own learning. A learner-centred CELL model therefore needs to take this into account.
Conclusion: The place of CELL in a language learning programme
Thus, increasingly, computers have come to be seen more 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 pace. This brings us back to the questions of how technology can be integrated into a language learning programme, and how software should be designed in order best to suit the place technology has in the teaching and learning programme. As we have discussed here, computerised technology should be seen as a range of resources in the learning process, in much the same way as books, but with the added interactive or cooperative learning dimension.
Because human communication is an essentially human activity, computers merely provide a private means of practice of certain aspects of language and communication. Computers therefore 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. It is therefore inappropriate for teachers to make the mistake of allocating to computers roles or tasks that could be better implemented using other media or in face-to-face arrangements with other students or with teachers. 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) can now be replaced by software packages that take more cognisance of the advantages of computers over other media.
References
Bloom,
B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl, D. R. 1956.Taxonomy of Educational Objectives -
Handbook 1 Cognitive Domain.
Bickel, B. & Truscello, D. 1996. New Opportunities for Learning: Styles and Strategies for Computers. Tesol Journal 6: 1: 15 - 19.
Bisson, L. 1991. The Making of What Happened to Luis?: Developing Interactive Video for ESL. CÆLL Journal 2: 4: 8 - 10.
Brett, P. 1995. Multimedia for listening comprehension: the design of a multimedia-based resource for developing listening skills. System 23: 1: 77 - 85.
Candy, P. 1987. Evolution, Revolution or Devolution: Increasing
Learner-Control in the Instructional Setting. In Boud, D. & Griffin, V.
(Eds.) Appreciating Adults Learning: From
the Learners’ Perspective.
Chapelle, C. A. 1994. CALL activities: Are they all the same? System 22: 1: 33 - 45.
Dalgish, G. M. 1987. Some Uses of Computers in Teaching English as a
Second Language: The Issue of Control. In Blanchard, J. S.
& Mason, G. E. The Computer in
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning.
Donato, R. & McCormick, D. 1994. A Sociocultural Perspective on Language Learning Strategies: The Role of Mediation. The Modern Language Journal 78: 4: 453 - 464.
Doughty, C. 1987. Relating second-language
acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In Smith, W. F.
(Ed.) Modern Media in Foreign Language
Education: Theory and
Implemeantation.
Felix, U. 1995. Theater Interaktiv: multimedia integration of language and literature. On-CALL 9: 3: 12 - 16.
Garrett, N. 1987. A Psycholonguistic Perspective on Grammar and CALL. In
Smith, W. F. (Ed.) Modern Media in Foreign
Language Education: Theory
and Implemeantation.
Gillette, B. K. 1990. Beyond
Learning Strategies: A Whole-Person Approach to Language Learning.Diss.,
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Spoken
and written language.
Hanley, J. E. B., Herron, C. A. & Cole, S. P. 1995. Using Video as an Advance Organizer to a Written Passage in the FLES Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 79: 1: 57 - 66.
Herron, C. & Seay,
Higgins, J. and Johns, T. 1984. Computers in Language Learning.London: Collins ELT.
Holec,
H. 1979. Autonomy and
Foreign Language Learning.
Holec, H. 1987. The Learner as Manager: Managing Learning or
Managing to Learn. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.) Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Hoven, D. 1991. Towards a Cognitive Taxonomy of Listening Comprehension Tasks. SGAV Review, 9: 2: 1 - 14.
Hoven D. & Farquhar, M. 1996. On Messages and Media, Clocks and Cannibal
Chiefs. In Farquhar, M. & McKay, P. (eds.)
Hoven, D. 1997. Improving the
management of flow of control in computer assisted listening comprehension
activities for foreign and second language learners. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation,
Hurley, D. S. 1992. Issues in Teaching Pragmatics, Prosody, and Non-Verbal Communication. Applied Linguistics 13: 3: 259 - 281.
Jacob, E. 1992. Culture, Context, and Cognition. In LeCompte, M. D.,
Millroy, W. L., & Preissle, J. (Eds.) The
Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education.
Jonassen, D. 1992. What are Cognitive Tools? In Kommers, P. A. M. et
al (Eds.) Cognitive Tools for Learning.
Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T., Bongaerts, T. &
Poulisse, N. 1990. System and
Hierarchy in L2 Compensatory Strategies. In Scarcella, R. Andersen, E.
S. & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.) Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
Kellerman, S. 1992. ‘I See What You Mean’: The Role of Kinesic Behaviour in Listening and Implications for Foreign and Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics 13: 3: 239 - 258.
Kennedy, C., Tiziana, M. & Visocnik Murray, S. 1995. Italia
oggi: a multimedia window on contemporary
Kornum, L. 1990. Interactive Video in
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. The Name of the Task and the Task of Naming: Methodological Aspects
of Task-based Pedagogy. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M.
(Eds.) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context:
Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon,
Lantolf, J. P. 1994. Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. The Modern Language Journal 78: 4: 418 - 420.
Leontiev, A. N. 1981. The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology, An Introduction. In Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology.
Lian, A. 1991. What is CALL Software? On-CALL 5: 4: 2 - 8.
Linquist, K., Rowekamp, J., & Stenson, N. 1991. Learner-Controlled Listening Materials Using A Commercial Videodisc. CÆLL Journal 2: 4: 3 - 7.
Liou, H-C. 1995.
Evaluation of Interactive Videodisc Courseware: Effects of Strategy Training
and Collaborative Learning. In Borchardt, F. L. & Johnson, E. M. T. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Computer assisted
Language Instruction Consortium 1995 Annual Symposium “Computers and
Collaboarive Learning.
Meskill, C. 1991. Multimedia and Language Learning: Assessing Goals and System Attributes. CÆLL Journal 2: 2: 11 - 14.
Meskill,
C. 1992. CALL: Individual versus Negotiated Task Processing. Paper presented at
the CALICO Symposium: Outreach ‘92,
Mohan, B. 1992. Models of the Role of the Computer in Second Language Development.
In Pennington, M. C. & Stevens, V. (Eds.) Computers in Applied Linguistics: An International Perspective.
Meyer, L. 1990. It Was No Trouble: Achieving Communicative
Competence in a Second Language. In Scarcella, R. Andersen, E. S. &
Krashen, S. D. (Eds.) Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
Mueller, G. 1980. Visual Contextual Cues and Listening Comprehension: An Experiment. Modern Language Journal 64: 335 - 340.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H. &
Todesco, A. 1978. The Good Language Learner.
Research in Education Series/7,
Nakhoul, L. 1993. Letting go: preparing teachers and students for
learner independence. In Edge, J. & Richards, K. (Eds.) Teachers Develop Teachers Research: papers
on classroom research and teacher development.
Neu, J. 1990. Assessing the Role of Non-Verbal Communication in the
Acquisition of Communicative Competence in L2. In Scarcella, R. Andersen, E. S.
& Krashen, S. D. (Eds.) Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom.
Nunan, D. 1993. Task-based Syllabus Design: Selecting, Grading and
Sequencing Tasks. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.) Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating
Theory and Practice.
Otto, F. 1980. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in language teaching and learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics: 58 - 69.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. 1993. Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Second
Language Instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. M. (Eds.) Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating
Theory and Practice.
Platt, E. & Brookes, F. B. 1994. The “Acquisition-Rich Environment” Revisited. The Modern Language Journal 78: 4: 497 - 511.
Robinson, G. L. 1991. Effective Feedback
Strategies in CALL. In Dunkel, P. (Ed.) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Testing.
Rost, M. 1990. Listening
in Language Learning.
Rubin, J. 1994. A Review of Second Language Listening Comprehension Research. The Modern Language Journal 78: 2: 199 - 221.
Staddon, S. 1990. Interactive video and language learning - the Expodisc Spanish experience. On-CALL 5: 1: 2 - 4.
Stevens, V. 1984. Implications of research and theory concerning the influence of control on the effectiveness of CALL. CALICO Journal 2: 1: 28 - 33, 48.
Stevens, V. 1992.
Humanism and CALL: A Coming of Age. In Pennington, M. C. & Stevens, V.
(Eds.) Computers in Applied Linguistics:
An International Perspective.
Vogely, A. 1995. Perceived Strategy Use During Performance on Three Authentic Listening Comprehension Tasks. The Modern Language Journal 79: 1: 41 - 56.
Vygotsky,
L. S. 1978. Mind in
society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.
& Trans.).
Wenden,
A. 1991. Learner
Strategies for Learner Autonomy.
Wolff, D. 1987. Some Assumptions about Second Language Text Comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9: 307 - 326.