COMPUTER ASSISTED LEARNING LANGUAGE

A.      Definition about CALL (Computer Assisted Learning Language)

Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is an approach to language teaching and learning in which computer technology is used as an aid to the presentation, reinforcement and assessment of material to be learned, usually including a substantial interactive element. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) studies the role and the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in second/foreign language learning and teaching. It includes a wide range of activities spanning materials and course ware development, pedagogical practice and research.

Computer Assisted Language Learning (hence the acronym CALL), as a field for research and practice, has rather a wide action range and, consequently, offers various perspectives for analysis. It is a natural consequence of such variety that it is quite hard to establish a univocal and shared definition of this subject: indeed the manifold, more or less explicit, proposed definitions seem to refer to rather broad facts, whose individual features are elusive. There are two usually quoted definitions. The first is the one proposed by Levy, according to whom CALL is understood to be “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (Levy, 1997: 1). The other, rather wide-spread definition is that proposed by Beatty, who considers CALL “any process in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language” (2010: 1).

CALL as a study branch deals with the particular relationship which makes technologies an original, not a neutral, element in the relationship between the individual and language learning. Technology, then, is something which offers an added value. It is not neutral, in that the tool chosen for usage will influence the activity (thence the learning), and it is original in that such an influence depends on the tool’s affordances. This statement seems to deny the idea that CALL may be reduced to the mere application of technologies to teaching.

B.       Historical Development of CALL

Although there is no monographic work on the history of CALL, nearly all wide-range studies on technologies devote one section to this subject, almost as though to suggest that writing its own history might help CALL to define itself with more certainty and quite surprisingly, the various proposed histories often differ as to manners and contents.

Beatty (2010) carries out a work of archaeology aimed at collecting that which can be saved from the rapid obsolescence typical of this domain (a Leitmotiv of his whole book). Chapelle (2001) writes that which is perhaps the most linguistic of all histories, where for each technological innovation she traces parallels with the research and language-teaching practice of the same period.   To these extended histories one should associate what Decloque (2000) calls “interpretive histories”. These are synthetic and schematic accounts, the aim of which is to define broad categories around which to set the study field. These categories are historical/language-didactic stages (as in Warschauer & Healey, 1998), approaches to the use of technologies (as in Bax, 2003) or historical/technological stages (as in Davies et al., 2012). The best-known and most quoted among these is the first one (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, second edition of a similar history proposed by Warschauer in 1996), identifying three historical phases:

1.      Behaviorist (structuralize) phase. It indicates the period ranging approximately from the 50s to the 70s. It is characterized by behaviorist and structural approaches in Language Teaching, making ample use of drill-type language exercises focused on language structures and grammatical accuracy. Such exercises are very easy to design from a technical point of view.

2.       Communicative phase. It refers to the period from the 70s to the 90s. It is characterized by communicative approaches in Language Teaching and by a range of heterogeneous informatics applications.

3.      Integrative phase. It refers to the period from the 90s onward. CALL is still characterized by communicative approaches, but these are more oriented towards the social and pragmatic aspects of language, as in the task-based approach, allowing the integration of the various linguistic abilities. Furthermore, they increasingly integrate technologies with language learning. In this approach the Internet and multimedia play an important role.

C.      CALL Today

Defining the state of the art in technologies for second language teaching is on the whole an easy task, for the broad lines of research are clear enough; what they reveal, however, is a domain which is quite different from what one might expect. A point of departure can be spotted in the widespread circulation of Internet technologies and their relationship, already mentioned above, with constructivist and socio-constructivist theories (Thomas et al., 2013).  Since technology developments are quite well-known, suffice it here to summarize some crucial passages:

1.    Second half of the 90s – Diffusion of the Internet: during this stage, connectivity is limited both in power and number of users; connection is irregular and limited in time.

2.    Early 2000s – Diffusion of wide-band connectivity: connection with computers to the net is continued; eclectic development of applications (Ajax framework) which, merging the diverse potentialities of the various languages, allows the realization of rich and viable net applications; birth and diffusion of social networks.

3.    Early 2010s – Diffusion of mobile devices (smartphones) – connection is continuous and mobile; reinforcement of social networks (visited through mobile devices); “apps” development, applications having but few functions and oriented towards a specific usage (Stockwell, 2013), in particular for the realization of multi-media contents, which can be shared also through social networks.

TECHNOLOGY AND LANGUAGE TEACHING A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

A.      Technology and language teaching a theoretical perspective

Levy and Beatty’s definitions and Garrett’s pattern, which were introduced in the previous chapter, are simple, and provide a clear image of this domain, in which CALL appears as an autonomous subject, born of the meeting between technology and language pedagogy. It is easy to guess that the relationship between technology and language learning is a fundamental topic in CALL research (Stockwell, 2007), for it sets the grounds for the integration between those two elements. However, such a relationship is not, upon a closer examination, as simple and linear as it might at first seem. The analysis of the historical development of CALL presented previously, tends to show how what is really interesting, in this case, are not the power relations, but rather, the emerging of the need for technologies to offer, if they want to avoid being marginalised, an added value to language learning. Two perspectives can be gleaned from this passage: in the first one technology is explored in an attempt to discover any potential advantages it may bring, whereas in the second one tools are chosen on the basis of preset pedagogical and linguistic principles. These two perspectives are illustrated in the following paragraphs.

1)      Primacy of linguistics

The first nucleus of reflections is centred upon the primacy of language pedagogy. In this perspective it is language learning that takes on the leading role to provide theoretic/scientific grounds for CALL activities, which originate from, and depend on, certain language-teaching principles, on the basis of which they are assessed. Some examples of this attitude are proposed here; although they do not exhaust the range of possible reactions, they are significant of this approach.

Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999, 2007), for example, explicitly denounce a technology-driven shift of CALL, and they propose a reference framework based on Language Teaching Research as a guide to the sector, which will be further analysed later on. The article has a linguistic approach, like other works by the same author, for example The Relationship between Second Language Acquisition Theory and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (2009), in which a hypothesis is built on the possible implications of different language-learning theories on CALL designing. This contribution is anyhow of great interest here, as it offers a clear example of how it is possible to trace a continuous line from applied linguistics to technology enhanced language education.

An author who puts language pedagogy to the fore, in this case regardless of a specific language-teaching method, is Colpaert (2006). This scholar elaborates a framework, articulated in a series of points, defining what he calls “[linguistic] pedagogy-driven design”. This work provides an overview of possible approaches to technology: (a) a technology-driven approach, in which the pedagogic component is a direct consequence of the tool’s features (which are what really matters); (b) an attribute-based approach, which focuses on the research for the best tools in view of a goal (c) an approach based on the accordance of tools, in which questions are asked about the potential of technologies for language learning and, finally, (d) the Language Pedagogy approach.

The latter, as Colpaert pointed out, is far stricter than the others, as it starts from a description of linguistic goals, and only in a second stage does it consider technologies. The difference with the other three approaches is, therefore, clear: they all somehow start from technology to reach language pedagogy, whereas the pedagogy-driven approach starts from language to reach technology. As explained above, the approach is defined by points. Point five, for example, is devoted to “defining linguistic/didactic functionalities”, i.e. groups/categories of functions of a given software application which may be used to fulfil a certain part of didactic requirements; these being tools (printing, sending, reproducing etc.); monitoring (learner-requested help); mentoring (help and support without the subject’s request, e.g. monitoring); tutoring (direct interventions on learning, e.g. adapting contents); teaching (one-way acts, e.g. pre-recorded lessons). It is interesting to note the proposed separation between concept-designing (describing what is needed) and practical realisation, this being a position not far from that expressed by Salaberry (2001: 50)

2)      Symbosis between linguitics and technology

If a consistent part of the scientific community maintains, more or less explicitly, the primate of language pedagogy11 and forcefully manages to contain any technology-driven tendency (as is the case of Colpaert and Salaberry), with the growing diffusion of technologies, the evolution of this sector and its progressive integration into language teaching, the profile of such a perspective has gradually become less clear-cut. According to some authors, this one-direction perspective (which is a rigid one, as Colpaert admits) may prevent imagining new possible uses for technology. The relationship between the two, he concludes, is not (or should not be) one of subordination, but rather, of symbiosis (ibid.).A similar position, during those same years, is that of Garrett (2009, see infra 1.4), who aims at redefining the relationship among theory, pedagogy and technologies with respect to the way she herself had postulated it in 1991.

The author examines both poles of the linguistic dimension of CALL, i.e. theory and practice, and points out the reasons for which neither of them, if individually considered, can become a guide for this sector. The period during which Language Pedagogy governed this domain was that which considered CALL as a mere tool for transmitting its patterns, whilst practice and research have proven that every technology that was introduced has led learners to do new and unexpected things, shedding light on new aspects of language learning. Furthermore, research on language teaching has not always been able to foresee the advantages of technologies and, consequently, it has not always designed, and still does not always design, tasks able to fully exploit the potentials of technologies: this is the case of multimedia. Technology, in fact, facilitates the integration of the various channels (visual, auditory etc.) which in Language teaching are, instead, often considered separately.

Finally, computer-mediated interaction used to be considered as a fake form of communication. However, while on the one hand recent discoveries have proven that writing in synchronous environments activates the same mechanisms as speaking, on the other it is necessary, today, to admit the fact that these systems are real communication environments.

B.       Linguistics frameworks for call

Many researches focus on specific aspects of linguistic appropriation: Lai and Zhao (2006), for instance, relate chat rooms to the noticing hypothesis. 14 Other studies put technology and linguistic appropriation into an indirect relationship, analysing how technologies are able to support phenomena and practices, which, in language pedagogy research, are considered responsible for language learning: Aydın and Yıldız (2014), for example, establish a connection between “wiki” and the promotion of cooperative writing. A linguistic reference framework, instead, is set on a more general level and its aim, as for instance in the case of the volume by Egbert and Hanson Smith (1999), is that of defining a linguistic foundation within which to work with technologies. Not all the works quoted form complete theoretical frameworks, some are only paradigmatic as to a certain approach; but they are, anyhow, useful to understand how such an approach interprets Computer Assisted Language Learning.

Underwood’s work (1984) illustrates the possible uses of technologies for language teaching within a communicative approach, as opposed to what the author defines as wrong-try again model, i.e. that which Warschauer and Healey (1998, see §1.2) define as behaviouristic phase of CALL.Hubbard’s framework (1988, later resumed in Hubbard, 1992 and 1996), with a strong imprint of language pedagogy is expressly devoted to courseware evaluation. The framework resumes, in an openly free manner, Richards and Rodgers’ model (1982, 2001) for a description of the various language teaching methods, which are analysed in terms of approach, design and procedure.

Above all, these theoretical and linguistic reference frameworks are important tools within the ambit of CALL Teacher Education, for they form a bridge between teachers’ previous knowledge, relating to language pedagogy proper, and technologies; in other words, they provide the sector with the necessary scientific coordinates for it to have its dignity as an ambit of research and autonomous practice.

1)      CALL Options For Language Education

This chapter deals with the introduction of CALL according to the perspective which is most familiar to teachers. learning and language pedagogy; with this paragraph. As the main aim of CALL teacher training is the integration of technologies into language pedagogy (Hong, 2010; Torsani, 2015).

2)      Beyond the Skill-Based Model

Thorne and Smith (2011), who list four different ways in which technologies may offer support to language pedagogy. which remains nonetheless extant; these aspects are:

1.    Increasing input access (and practice) in Second Language;

2.    Broadening opportunities for personal expression;

3.    Extending possibilities for interaction with other people;

4.    Activities within social networks;

3)      Option I: Increasing Input Access in Second Language

The individuation of the possible applications of technologies to the various linguistic skills is, we have seen, a classical analysis in CALL research; on this subject there is a rich and specialist literature in which the potentials of a given technology in a specific field are, as a rule, described. Ducate and Lomicka (2009), for instance, use podcasting (together with blogging) to enhance learners’ pronunciation: in their experiment students had to record themselves and post their recordings in a blog.

Since the linguistic/ICT lab is no longer the only place where technologies are used, the CALL ambit is, as a rule, fairly accessible from a technological viewpoint, since it often uses tools (both hardware and softweare) which are quite widespread (e.g. tablets or audio editing software); and this is even more true as concerns network services for which a browser and an Internet connection are usually sufficient. For Example : Grammar is perhaps the oldest field of technology applications for language pedagogy. Since grammar is the most formal (and the most easily formalised) among linguistic skills, research has dealt with enriching software applications with elements of Artificial Intelligence, for instance through Natural Language Processing.

A significant contribution to CALL in this area comes from Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing (NLP), especially in the field of syntax (Narbonne, 2003). For instance, Heift (2010) describes a platform, E-tutor, which analyses learners’ syntax and morphology.

C.       CONCLUSIONS

Approaches In The Relationship Between Linguistic and Technology

The reflection on the relationship between linguistics and technology throws new light on the evolution of this sector, and it also suggests interpretations for the historic development of CALL Teacher Education.

The figure resumes the historic evolution of the various approaches to this subject (see §1.2) through a description of the relationship between technology and language pedagogy. During stage a (structural stage) technology and Teacher Education overlapped, whilst stages b and c respectively represent the distancing between technologies and Teacher Education and the subsequent subordination of technologies to Teacher Education (CALL crisis); finally, stage d (CALL reintegration) shows how the focus of research is not so much the application of the praxis of CALL Teacher Education, as the intersection between the two, declined as integration and normalization respectively.

It is, then, possible to distinguish two different approaches which dominate research and practice: type I approach, in which technology and Language Education are not in a relationship of interdependence, as theorised by Stockwell (2007), and type II approach, in which they are.

This distinction may be useful for CALL Teacher Education, for type I approaches may imply a training focusing mostly on the technical/procedural aspect (i.e. how to use a piece of software), whereas type II approaches imply a Teacher Education focusing on the relationship between technologies and language pedagogy. In fact, in type I approaches, language is never influenced by technology: either the two overlap (stage a), or they are independent of one another (stage b), or language teaching contains technology (stage c): the result being that Language Teaching knowledge is an element external to CALL. In other words, there is no such thing as a CALL language pedagogy differing from language pedagogy in general; technologies are applied and the training for them is only technical/procedural; that is, it consists in illustrating programmed and their functioning. We shall see that when technologies and language learning are integrated CALL has, instead, a very different physiognomy. In Chapter 5 standards for technologies will be presented; among these competences TESOL standards. TESOL standards show a strong integration between the technical and the language-teaching aspect, and they are ideally connected with that trend of research which claims the existence of this sector in virtue of the interdependence of technology and language teaching.