1.3 Compare the advantages and disadvantages of CALL discussed in (reading 1.1) and in the 2000s and make a comment on the differences.
Ahmad
et al (1985) cite advantages and disadvantages of CALL related to the computer (network, etc) as a digital repository, an electronic library of mostly text but also emerging graphics and sound, offering flexibility of time - but not portability, either physically or between system platforms - efficient for testing within a defined range of anticipated answers, but unable to respond to imperfect or unexpected responses. The technology was expensive, both in terms of programming and development hours, and the physical machines themselves, and were typically allocated a dedicated room or lab. Warschauer and Meskill (2000) frame the same discussion in terms (the by-then available) communication aspects of the Internet, and wider-area network, which provided more authentic engagement between learners, greater 'power' for the learner. Systems and software were significantly cheaper, and far more portable - in both platform and physical device - than earlier solutions.
A summary of the readings, and key passages...
Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, and Sussex (1985) use a reference to emerging technology in this document that immediately frames its age, “indicating a position on [the screen] using the so-called ‘mouse’” – so, clearly, the inclusion of this article in the course readings is for historic back-reference and comparison with younger literature. "In recent years..." (p. 1) - this document was published in 1985, so 'recent years' needs to be measured in context.
Computers "have become much more powerful, yet smaller in size, more adaptable, more flexible, and easier to use" (p. 1) – the authors have accurately predicted the trend of technology form factor and provided a principle that holds today.
Today - 'digital literacy' is preferred, as 'computer literacy' (p. 1) is almost a redundant term.
"All the linguistic material and instructions for its presentation must be specified by the teacher. It is the teacher, then, who can make the computer assume various roles" (p. 2). Not any more - the student is the consumer, and can choose from a range of content available, often including that not provided by the teacher or institute
A key point - CALL works best when integrated with normal classroom teaching patterns (p. 5).
A key point - the computer can handle mundane drill and revision tasks, therefore making more time available for creative and imaginative teaching and interaction between the teacher and learner (p. 5).
"...learning with a computer is rated highly by students" (p. 6). Although in my eLearning experience this trend is rapidly reversing, as too much poor computer instruction has been used in the past decades
Key point: "Adapting and devising computer games for language-teaching purposes deserves more effort than has been devoted to it to date" (p. 6).
The text discusses the disadvantages of the use of technology for language learning as the need for 'investment of money' (p. 308), 'investment of time' (pp. 308-309), and the 'uncertainty of results' (p. 309), however these are hardly limited to the use of technology for language learning - they are features of the computers-in-education landscape in general.
The quality of 'educational content' as a genre leaves much to be desired as it is typically developed by enthusiastic educators who lack the necessary design background or specific pedagogical knowledge. (p. 7)
"While the computer is able to accommodate a substantial range of learning styles, it is certainly not a complete substitute for a teacher" (p. 7). Although education managers and politicians believe otherwise, and have attempted to use computer-based learning to replace human teachers, who can be 'expensive' in comparison.
"The development of CALL programs requires knowledge of three fields: competence in the target subject area, pedagogical skill, and computing expertise" (p. 8). This applies to all computer-based learning, including eLearning, and is a critical locus of tension in modern teaching.
"For the teacher... to go it alone in the development of CALL programs, there is always the possibility of learning a programming language... such as BASIC" (p. 8) – highlighting once again the age of this document.
"... author languages, which enable teachers to produce CALL materials more quickly and easily than would be possible with an ordinary programming language" (p. 9). A space adequately filled today by Moodle, Blackboard, and other LMS products.
"...teachers often do not try to use the computer, and, when they do, there may be incredulous (and defensive) colleagues who are suspicious of new users for equipment which may already be heavily used" (p. 9). A factor still prevalent today, at least in my workplace (an academic institution).
In
Technology and Second Language Teaching, Warschauer & Meskill (2000) identify a shift to communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1980s and ‘90s that focused on “authentic, meaningful interaction” (p. 304) using either:
-
Cognitive approaches – “based on the view that learning a language is an individual psycholinguistic act [based on] innate cognitive knowledge in interaction with comprehensible, meaningful language" (p. 304). This is supported by technologies that provide the learner with opportunity to use SL meaningfully and to construct their own understanding of the SL. Examples include missing word, scrambled words or letters, concordancing exercises.
-
Sociocognitive approaches – which “emphasize the social aspect of language acquisition ... a process of socialization into particular discourse communities" (p. 305). The learner engages in authentic social interaction as practice for interaction outside of the classroom. Typical examples are authentic collaborative task-based projects with embedded content and language learning. The Internet is an appropriate vehicle for P2P sociocognitive approaches including synchronous (desktop/personal VC, live shared-writing exercises) and asynchronous (discussion boards, email projects) learning. Accessing web pages "in language education supports a sociocognitive approach by helping immerse students in discourses that extend well beyond the classroom, their immediate communities, and their language textbook" (p. 307) which provides greater SL cultural exposure than just the experience of the instructor or the courseware.
'Single-class' electronic communication is seen as beneficial to language learning (p. 306) in that it promotes equal participation, allows students to better respond to input of others and therefore improve their own input, employs language that is "lexically and syntactically more complex than oral talk" (p. 306), and gives learners greater practice in using the SL.
"Computer-mediated communication between long-distance partners offers ... the opportunity for target language practice in situations where such practice might otherwise be difficult [which is] especially important in foreign language instruction where students might have few other opportunities for authentic target language use" (p. 306). Computer-Mediated Communication for Long-Distance Exchange typically employs email or web-based VC and is effective when used for "purposeful investigation rather than just electronic chat" (p. 306). Example investigations include exploring each other's culture, and collaborative publication.
"The world of online communication is a vast new medium, comparable in some ways to books, print, or libraries" (p. 307), although to use only these analogies may be detrimental, as it also includes real relationships and interaction, and a location in which we create additional or alternate self-identities.
The authors contend that SL learning was centred on writing essays and reading articles, however as SL teachers we now also need to "to write e-mail messages and conduct research on the WWW [as] an approach that emphasizes the importance of new information technologies as a legitimate medium of communication in their own right rather than simply as teach tools" (p. 308). This seems predicated on the assumption that SL learners are not otherwise already digitally literate in their native-language, which would seem both an arrogant and erroneous assumption. This US-centric perspective is fortunately fading, especially given - contrary to popular US opinion - the US did not develop the WWW.
"By using new technologies in the language classroom, we can better prepare students for the kinds of international cross-cultural interactions that are increasingly required for success in academic, vocational, or personal life" (p, 308).
The text discusses the disadvantages of the use of technology for language learning as the need for 'investment of money' (p. 308), 'investment of time' (pp. 308-309), and the 'uncertainty of results' (p. 309), however these are hardly limited to the use of technology for language learning - they are features of the computers-in-education landscape in general.
Findings of case studies into the use of technology in language learning:
(Case study #1)
- learners write more by computer than with pen and paper
- learners are more attentive to what they read/write when it is part of "meaningful communication" (p. 312)
- "computer-based collaborative activities encourage a great deal of listening, speaking, reading and writing [which assists learners to] integrate issues of language and culture" (p. 312)
(Case study #2)
- learners "responded very positively to both the content and methods" (p. 314) of technology-enhanced classes, however half believed that the course had not "contributed a great deal to the improvement of their English skills" (p. 314).
- staff felt that this belief resulted from learner's pre-existing beliefs about language learning, and argued that "the use of technology [was] highly advantageous" (p. 314) for digital communication and research skills.
Digital technology enables learners and teachers to engage through differences in language, location and time to equip learners to "engage in the types of online communication and research that will be paramount for success in their academic and professional pursuits" (p. 316). The key is "not in hardware or sofware but in 'humanware' - our human capacity [to deliver] effective educational activity" (p. 316).
References
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., Rogers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Introduction. In Computers, language learning and language teaching (pp. 1–11). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
Warschauer, M., & Meskill, C. (2000). Technology and second language teaching. In J. Rosenthal (Ed.), Handbook of undergraduate second language education (pp. 303–318). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
