Contemporary Issues of CALL in TESOLBy Stephanie Colbert

History of CALL Using computers in language learning is, contrary to popular opinion, not a new

phenomenon. It dates back to the early 1960s, although it was confined in those days mainly to universities with prestigious computer science departments. By the early 1980s, however, CALL was used in a large number of schools in the UK, Europe USA, Canada and Australia.

Timeline: 1960s: CALL begins, but only on big mainframe computers. 1976: CALL continues on "minicomputer“ (which was about the size of two

vending machines). Late 1970s: Enter the “microcomputer”. CALL becomes more widely accessible

but still quite limited due to the cost of the microcomputer. 1980s: Developments in the microcomputer mean it is more readily available.

CALL begins to reach the masses. 1990s: Advent of the Web, which becomes publicly available in 1993. 1998: First WorldCALL conference in Melbourne, Australia (1998). 2000: Broadband becomes more widely available, opening up new possibilities

for delivering audio and video materials via the Web. Blogs and podcasts appear.

Types of CALL used in the classroom today

Blogs, wikis, social networking

PodcastingDistance

Learning, Virtual Learning Environments

Interactive whiteboards

Most significant development in CALL over the past 50 years?

The Internet, of course!!!

Phases of CallWarschauer (1996) distinguishes three distinct

phases during the development of CALL:◦ Behaviouristic: The computer as tutor, serving mainly

as a vehicle for delivering instructional materials to the learner.

◦ Communicative: The computer is used for skill practice, but in a non-drill format and with a greater degree of student choice, control and interaction. This phase also includes (a) using the computer to stimulate discussion, writing or critical thinking, and (b) using the computer as a tool or workhorse - examples include word-processors, spelling and grammar checkers ect.

◦ Integrative: This phase is marked by the introduction of two important innovations:(a) Multimedia(b) The Internet

Bax (2003) outlines three very similar phases but named differently:

Restricted CALL Open CALL Integrated CALL

Journals for CALLCALICO Journal (The Computer Assisted Language

Instruction Consortium), USA.CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning),

Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Oxfordshire: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

CALL-EJ: The CALL Electronic Journal - an international journal that welcomes contributions from around the world: http://callej.org/.

CALL Review, Journal of the IATEFL Learning Technologies SIG: http://ltsig.org.uk

IALLT Journal (International Association for Language Learning Technology)

Language Learning and Technology - http://llt.msu.edu

Key Authors/TheoristsGraham DaviesMark WarschauerMichael Levy

CALL and English Language LearningBBC Learning English

◦http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/

◦Pronunciation – sounds of English◦BBC LE China – for beginners. Click

on ELT Skill pronounciation from drop down ‘I want to learn about’ box. Choose ‘hut and heart’.

◦English slang: the good egg

Do you have any questions about CALL?

Anything I might be able to answer for you in my seminar tomorrow? (after all, the purpose of this is your learning!)

YesterdayDefinition of CALLHistory and development of CALLPhases of CALLKey theorists in the area

TODAY Contemporary issues in CALL

Disadvantages and barriers to implementation Evidence

Advantages and support for implementation Evidence

Practical example of CALL in the language classroom.

Contemporary Issues in CALL: Disadvantages and barriers to implementationICT skills of students and

teachers limit the benefit of CALL (Park & Son, 2009).

Inequity associated with the cost of ICT (Lee, 2000).

Inflexible curricula often does not allow full implementation CALL (Lam, 2000; Park & Son, 2009).

Evidence: Technological knowledge and access

Lacking basic ICT skills would severely limit the benefit CALL for ELL students (Park & Son, 2009).

Often teachers lack the skills required to teach their students of the ICT available in their classroom and it goes unused. Training for teachers is costly and time consuming (Park & Son, 2009).

Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi (2002 in park & Son) make the argument that since teachers often teach in the same manner in which they were taught, teachers’ own experiences with technology is often a critical factor in determining CALL implementation in the classroom.

Class opinion: Technological knowledge and access

This argument was made by Park & Son (2009) but I do not agree. If students lack basic ICT skills then their is no better time to learn than in the language classroom. ICT skills are a necessity for full functioning in the modern economy and if students lack skills and confidence in this area then ICT use should be encouraged to improve these skills, not ignored because it is too difficult.

Class opinions or experiences?

Evidence: Cost and EquityA disadvantage of the increased use of computer

technology in the classroom is increased cost of education and the potential harm to the equity of the system. Low-budget schools and low-income families would be at a disadvantage in the technological era (Lee, 2000).

However, the proliferation of computer technology has seen a significant drop in the price and an improvement in accessibility to people from all socioeconomic backgrounds. If the price continues to drop access will continue to increase but a divide between high and low socioeconomic groups will still exist in education.

Evidence: Inflexible Curriculum

A study by Park & Son (2009) found that ‘inflexible curriculum’ was a common external barriers to the integration of CALL in the language classroom given by teachers.

The teachers in the study sighted an often rigid, textbook-based English curriculum as not being conducive to the integration of new technology (Park & Son, 2009). Many were supportive of the use of ICT in the English classroom and desired to increase its use but could not do so without compromising students’ results in exams.

Does anyone in the class have previous experience feeling restricted as a teacher by rigid curriculum?

Advantages of CALL and support for its implementation Increasing need for students to have Information

Communication Technology (ICT) skills for employment (Marquez-Chisholm and Beckett, 2002).

Improvement in English proficiency achievement (Lai & Kristsonis, 2006; Park & Son, 2009), particularly in speaking, an area that many ELLs find very difficult (Eskenazi, 1999).

Create valuable collaborative learning environments and enable students to move through the various stages of SLA at their own pace(Kung from Lai and Kris 2006).

Increase student motivation in English learning (Chapelle, 2009).

Increase the availability of authentic materials for study (Park & Son, 2009).

Boost student confidence (Almekhlafi, 2006). Enable self-paced learning through individualised learning

environments (Marquez-Chisholm and Beckett, 2002). Improvement in cultural understanding of students (Park &

Son, 2009).

Evidence: Increasing need for ICT skills in the modern economyIncreasingly technological based job market –

over 50% of all jobs require competency in information technology (Marquez-Chisholm and Beckett, 2002).

Therefore, to provide English Language Learners (ELLs) with the best opportunities for success in the job market they must become technologically literate. Many ELLs are from low-income homes and therefore computer ownership is often also low. Many ELLs have no access to computer technology at home, so schools are often the only avenue for these students to gain technological literacy.

Evidence: Pronunciation improvement and CALLTotal immersion in the country of

the target language is obviously the most beneficial thing a language learner can do to improve their speaking capabilities. However, this is not always feasible.

There is a plethora of research that supports the benefits of computer-assisted learning on language proficiency,(Lai & Kristsonis, 2006; Park & Son, 2009), particularly in areas of speaking (Tanner & Landon, 2009; Eskenazi, 1999).

Evidence: Improvement in pronunciation and comprehensibility

A study by Tanner & Landon (2009) analysed the performance of 75 ESL learners divided into control and treatment groups.

The treatment group was exposed to additional self-directed computer-assisted speaking practice for 11 weeks.

Speech perception and production samples were analysed and compared with baseline data.

Learners exposed to the computer-assisted practise improved in aspects of their pronunciation (pausing, word stress, and intonation), and comprehensibility at a greater rate than the control group. Results from the statistical tests revealed that the treatment had a significant effect on learners' speaking abilities even though the time spent practising in a self-directed environment was quite limited.

Using CALL in the classroom: Wikispaces

Our wiki – Contemporary Issues in TESOL http://contemporaryissuesintesol.wikispaces.com/

Evaluating CALL resources: Our Wiki 1. Language learning potential: The degree of opportunity present

for beneficial focus on form

2. Learner fit: The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics.

3. Meaning focus: The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward the meaning of the language.

4. Authenticity: The degree of correspondence between the learning activity and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom.

5. Positive Impact: The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who participate in it.

6. Practicality: The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL activity.

(Hubbard, 2006 , p6)

Using CALL in the classroom: Interactive Whiteboards (IWB)

No. 1 tip: use appropriate search techniques when looking for material on the Internet.

Don’t overuse PowerPoint: it is extremely time consuming and can get dull for the students very quickly.

Never underestimate the CD-ROMs given with textbooks. These days they often have amazing interactive games and activities made especially for IWBs. In electronic textbooks, the PDF will often have hyperlinks to the appropriate activity elsewhere on the CD or on the internet.

References Almekhlafi, A. (2006). The effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning

(CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) school students’ achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 121-142.

Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Supp. 1), 741-753.

Egbert, J., Paulus, T. & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Retrieved January 18, 2011 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/default.html

Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using a computer in foreign language pronunciation training: what advantages? CALICO Journal, 16(3), 447-468.

Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. Chapter 13 from L. Ducate and N. Arnold (eds) 2006. Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching. San Marcos: CALICO.

Kung, S. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning. CALL-Electronic Journal, 3(2). Retrieved January 17, 2011 from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/3-2/sckung.html

References continued Lai, C. & Kristsonis, W. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer

technology in second language acquisition. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research, 3(1). Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Cheng-Chieh%20Lai%20The%20Advantages%20and%20Disadvantages%20of%20Computer%20Technology.pdf

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.

Lee, K. (2000). English Teachers' Barriers to the Use of Computer-assisted Language Learning. The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html

Marquez-Chisholm, I. & Beckett, C. (2002). Integration for ESL Success: TESOL Standards, Multiple Intelligences and Technology: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2002 (pp. 601-605). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved January 16, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/10575.

Park, C. & Son, J. (2009). Implementing Computer-Assisted Language Learning in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80-101.

Tanner, M. & Landon, M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 51-65.