System, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 21-32, 1983. Printed in Great Britain.

0346-251X/83/010021-12$03.00/0 Pergamon Press Ltd.

CREATING CAL COURSEWARE: SOME POSSIBILITIES

GLYN HOLMES

Department of French, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

One of the most serious problems facing computer-assisted learning is how to produce quality courseware in sufficient quantity. The aim of this article is to discuss some ways in which courseware can be produced. We consider authoring, or template, systems, freeform systems, and hybrid systems which unite features found in the other two. The possible advantages and drawbacks of each type of system are considered.

The most serious problem that has plagued all forms of educational technology is that of quality courseware in sufficient quantity. Language teachers are aware that the language

laboratory did not fulfil its promise, in part because satisfactory pedagogical materials were hard to find; indeed they still are. Many of us are now developing an active interest in the contribution of computers to language learning, but are finding ourselves asking the same old question: “Where do we get good courseware?”

The inescapable reality is that there is very little sound, substantial CAL courseware available to the language teacher. This is not to say that none exists: a number of programs have been implemented in institutions across North America and Europe, but often the materials can run on only one computer (usually a mainframe). Various groups are working to address the need for courseware, but in many cases we are still awaiting the final product.

At the same time, other groups or individuals are asking themselves how they might contribute by creating computer-assisted language learning materials of their own. This paper is an attempt to answer the question of how CAL courseware can be produced.

We shall consider three possible ways of producing courseware: (i) authoring, or template, systems, (ii) freeform systems, and (iii) hybrid systems. We shall define each of these systems, cite actual examples of programs created by colleagues in the language teaching profession (though the systems cited may not have been devised exclusively for language learning purposes) and examine the capabilities of each example from three different perspectives: the presentation of information to the user, including the types of exercise formats available; the analysis of student input; and the provision of feedback and/or help features to the student. In so doing, our major aim will be to describe the advantages and disadvantages offered by the three types of systems.

21

22 GLYN HOLMES

1. AUTHORING SYSTEMS

An authoring system, sometimes referred to as a template system, is one that can “isolate the user from the high technology”.’ It consists of ready-made computer programs that constitute precast formats into which the coursewriter/teacher can insert his own peda- gogical materials. No programming skills are required of the coursewriter; the system provides the coursewriter with a series of prompts to which he responds by providing the

stimulus, then the correct answer, then anticipated incorrect answers, then the comment for the correct answer, and so on. The system will then, upon command, mould that information into a computer-assisted learning lesson that the learner can interact with. The emphasis is always on ease of use. In the introduction to one such system we read, “Neither the teacher nor the learner needs to be familiar with anything more technical in relation to the computer than the ability to switch the machine on and the knowledge of which way round to insert a floppy disk into the disk drive-the package does the rest.“2

1.1. Teacher’s Toolkit Teacher’s Toolkit (Davies and Williams 1982) is an authoring system designed by Graham Davies at Ealing College (London, U.K.).3 A teacher of German, Davies’ authoring system is available in both Commodore PET and Apple II versions, for either tape or disk drive. Using this very system, Davies has created a series of German CAL lessons, Apfeldeutsch, which is commercially available (Dobbs 1981, Davies 1980).

1.1.1. Presentation. The Teacher’s Toolkit authoring system allows the coursewriter to present up to three pages of information to the user, within a 35 x 20 character matrix. The information presented could be either text-based exclusively, or include graphic characters, although this latter fact is not mentioned in the manual. The coursewriter is then allowed to formulate a number of questions for his future users, though the question must be formulated within eight, 35 character lines. This permits any single-input type of question format to be used.

It is interesting to note that Davies considers it “inadvisable to present page after page of screen information to the learner-better to refer him to a printed course”.4 The point is valid insofar as many early CAL programs contained voluminous amounts of textual material which was also available in a clearer print-form in a textbook. However, the comment could lead one into the erroneous belief that the computer is not a good conveyor of information-in any form.

1.1.2. Analysis. The analysis of learner input is, of course, a vital ingredient in any CAL lesson. The Teacher’s Toolkit has the capacity to differentiate not only between the correct and the incorrect answer, but can also detect up to eight specified alternate correct answers; hence if the student is expected to give the German for ‘the car’, the system can accommodate ‘das Auto’ as well as ‘der Wagen’. The system also includes a spelling analysis feature which can detect answers that have only one incorrect character. A further feature allows the coursewriter to decide whether spacing and capitalization should be taken into account in the analysis of the learner input. If the coursewriter so decides, ‘zugspiTze’ could be as acceptable as ‘Zugspitze’.

CREATING CAL

1.1.3. Feedback and help features. Feedback to the learner can be a simple right/wrong message or, if a minor typing error is made, the offending character can be highlighted in reverse video. If, however, the learner feels a need for supplementary information before he can successfully tackle the question, the coursewriter has the option of providing help notes which will be available to the student on demand. A further option available to the coursewriter is that of specifying that, from within the possible range of acceptable student responses, there is in fact a hierarchy, i.e. one answer is perhaps better than the others. If this is the case, the coursewriter can activate the “pattern-matching” help feature which displays the form of the “best” answer. Hence the student might see

****** ** ******

on the screen, and would be mildly reprimanded if he answered ‘Balzac’ instead of ‘Honore de Balzac’.

1.2. FLIP The FLIP (Foreign Language Instructional Package), developed at the University of Southern California by Ed Purcell, an Associate Professor of Russian, and Jeff Kelety, a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology, runs on an IBM Series/l minicomputer.5 The authoring system itself is part of a larger system that includes a student record management facility.

1.2.1. Presentation. The FLIP system has what is described as a ‘screen development facility’; this enables the coursewriter to provide any number of screens of information to the learner, in whatever visual configuration he may require. The coursewriter simply types the information onto the screen and the system stores the screen display internally. When the author visited USC, none of the German or Spanish lessons available at the time actually used the computer to convey information. In this respect, it is perhaps pertinent to recall Davies’ assertion regarding the superiority of the book as a means of conveying information.

This same screen development facility is used, however, for the creation of the exercises that the learner will work through. The exercise formats must be developed within the context of a single screen, though within that framework the coursewriter is free to create any display he wishes. Whenever an answer or an input is required from the learner, the coursewriter designates the area on the screen where the input is to be made by typing special “answer-field” characters. In a subsequent operation the correct input is then specified. Any number of learner inputs may be required within a specific screen display.

The author was able to see some interesting language exercises developed on this authoring system. Apart from the traditional multiple-choice and ‘fill-in-the-blank’ exercises, an intriguing crossword puzzle had been developed for students of Spanish, and German students were given photocopied pictures, some involving cartoon characters, to which they had to refer before answering questions on German linguistics and culture.6

1.2.2. Analysis. The analysis of the student input is done either using a character-by- character match, or a keyword method. In the first instance, single-word or multi-word inputs are treated in the same manner, and there is no provision for missed spaces or spelling

errors. Whilst these facts make the analysis relatively limited, the system can nevertheless

handle any number of student inputs on the same screen display. Hence the various inputs in the Spanish crossword exercise can, ostensibly, all be analyzed at the same time. A second analysis method is the keyword match. If the coursewriter specifies that, to be considered correct, an input must contain the strings ‘Columbus’, ‘1492’ and ‘Spain’,

the system will search for these words either in order, or, if so specified, in random order, and all other input will be ignored.

1.2.3. Feedback. The feedback to the student is relatively simple, though reports indicate it to be effective. With the character-by-character option, the system leaves the correct characters in the student input on the screen and replaces incorrect characters by slashes, which the learner can then correct. With the keyword approach, the computer informs the student that the necessary content has not been found in his answer, and the coursewriter can require the program to branch to a remedial frame.

1.3. COMET COMET (Computerized Modular Exercise Templates) is presently being developed at

the University of Western Ontario by Wolfram Burghardt, an Associate Professor of Spanish and Italian.’ Burghardt is developing the program for the Commodore PET with disk drive, though future development plans include conversion to other microcomputer

systems.

1.3.1. Presentation. COMET development does not include a provision for the straight- forward presentation of information. Burghardt conceives of his system as being

implemented only after the learner has been exposed to the basic information via media other than the computer. The computer will be used only for drill-and-practice purposes.

The authoring system comprises a series of templates, each of which relates to a specific type of language exercise format. In this respect COMET is more restrictive than the other two systems. On the other hand, Burghardt forsees a variety of different formats, thereby widening choice, and each template will allow for a number of “plug-in” branching and/or help features which make it possible to give the lessons created a great deal of variety. The templates being developed are as follows:

(i) Single-cue

The cue and comments would appear on the top portion of the screen, and the stimulus text on the lower portion, as shown in Figure 1.

scegli 1. te lo 2. ce lo 3. te ne

5. -E buono quest0 liquore? -Assaggia! ------ verso un PO’.

Figure 1.

CREATING CAL COURSEWARE: SOME POSSIBILITIES 25

Within this template the coursewriter can choose either the multiple choice, or the ‘fill-in-the-blank’ format.

(ii) Transformation

In this exercise the student must change the highlighted words according to (Figure 2).

the cue

ieri

2. Stamattina Mauro si sente male perche ieri sera

ha bevuto troppo.

Figure 2.

Upon successful completion of an input, the cursor jumps to the next word(s) to be changed.

(iii) Multicue

In this exercise the learner must first choose an appropriate infinitive (he runs down the list of possibilities by pressing the + key) and then inserts the correct form in the text (Figure 3).

andiamo non va. Scegli prima il verbo giusto

andare 3. -Gina, ------- alla partire mia festa quest0 week-end? salire -Mi dispiace, ma venerdi scendere sera ------- per Roma. tornare -E quando -------? venire -Domenica sera con I’ultimo

treno. 3 Figure 3.

26 GLYN HOLMES

(iv) Scrolling templates

Each of the above templates will have a corresponding version in which continuous text will scroll upwards and off the screen, as the exercise progresses.

(v) Softcloze scroll

This template is termed ‘soft’ because it will be dynamic, allowing the coursewriter to eliminate every nth word from a text, or every specified part of speech (all verbs, or all articles). The coursewriter will be required to tag all words in the text according to their grammatical function.

(vi) Construction set

As a preliminary exercise to free composition, the coursewriter can provide a series of semantic, grammatical and syntactic choices for the learner (Figure 4).

I va I I Ugo e Pia I vanno ~ da ’ Roma

Sandra , vtve I ‘” 1 ltalia I vivono I a I Vito Rossi I I I

Figure 4.

1.3.2. Analysis. Unlike Teacher’s Toolkit, COMET is designed specifically for use as a language learning tool, and as such can permit itself to be a little more specific in its analysis of input. Whilst the basic approach to analysis of input is still, like the other two systems, a character or string match, COMET can detect certain types of incorrect combinations of characters: one incorrect character, one character missing, one additional character, a double instead of a single character, a single instead of a double, or two characters transposed.

1.3.3. Feedback and help features. If the learner makes any of the errors indicated above, appropriate visual feedback is given: a space may be inserted, an incorrect character may ‘ripple’, a character may drop off the screen, or two characters may change place. If these errors do not occur, the system will roll back the student input until it reaches the last correct character. The student is then invited to complete the input.

Certain help features are to be made available to the coursewriter. In the single-cue template, if the coursewriter chooses a ‘fill-in-the-blank’ format, the system will allow the

CREATING CAL COURSEWARE: SOME POSSIBILITIES 27

student to choose a multiple-choice alternative. A second feature would allow the student to request a ‘shape-of-the-answer’ aid feature similar to the one contained in Teacher’s Toolkit. A final option available to the coursewriter is to allow the student a ‘letter-feed’ option, whereby he may request the correct answer, one character at a time.

A final feature (unique to COMET) which will be incorporated into the system, will be at the discretion of the student who may choose remedial or congratulatory feedback to be delivered in one of three social registers: formal, normal or familiar.

1.4. Conclusions What, then, may be concluded from our examination of the three authoring systems? Firstly, there are undeniable advantages. Pedagogical materials can be created without specialized knowledge of computers and programming languages, and this may encourage teachers to become involved, and perhaps thereby ensure that the materials created are appropriate and pedagogically sound. In addition, authoring systems allow for relatively rapid development of materials; hence, a great number of lessons can be written which may respond to a variety of methodology and subject requirements.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that authoring systems are restrictive. We have seen that some systems militate against the use of the computer as a conveyor of infor- mation, and that the coursewriter is always obliged to work within the parameters established by the author of the system. All three systems are noticeably limited in so far as the analysis of input is concerned. All adopt a ‘word-processing’ approach whereby input is analyzed, and feedback provided, without reference to any semantic or grammatical framework. The feedback can inform the student only which characters are incorrect, as opposed to specifying the semantic or grammatical rules that he may have infringed.

It may be legitimate to claim that materials created on authoring systems such as those described have a limited, though perhaps important role to play in the language curriculum. All are more or less intended for drill-and-practice purposes only-at USC the German and Spanish CAL materials replace homework in the introductory courses. Furthermore, given the limited capabilities of the systems, they may perhaps provoke a certain amount of boredom in the user if used too extensively.

2. FREEFORM SYSTEMS

A freeform system is one in which each computer-assisted learning lesson is programmed independently. This obviously requires a specialized knowledge of a computer language. No constraints are imposed upon the precise form of the lesson except those imposed by the limitations of the computer, the computer language, and the imagination of the coursewriter.

2.1. CLEF The CLEF project, in which the author is a principal investigator, is perhaps the best example of a language-based freeform system, and has been described in some detail elsewhere (Holmes and Kidd 1982, Kidd and Holmes 1982, Holmes 1983). The CLEF

28 GLYN HOLMES

project united language teachers at the University of Western Ontario and the London Board of Education, then colleagues at the Universities of Guelph and Calgary. Intent on researching the potential of the colour microcomputer as a tool in language learning, the project members-all language teachers except for one computer programmer who did not attend the coursewriting meetings-isolated 62 major grammatical points found in all elementary French courses. Considering each grammatical point on its own merits, the group then wrote a series of computer lessons, each containing (i) a review of the grammar point in question, and (ii) a graded series of exercises. Our computer programmer was then asked to program what we had devised.

2.1.1. Presentation. We discovered that the colour microcomputer can be an excellent conveyor of information. The medium offers an array of technical capabilities that clearly distinguishes it from any other medium such as the book, film, or even a teacher. By combining capabilities such as colour, simulated movement, independent screen management, cursor control, blinking and timing, it is possible to exploit what is, in fact, a unique medium. Information can be conveyed in a dynamic visual manner, much more likely to stimulate learner motivation than a static and/or text-based manner. It was realized, for example, that syntactic points, such as the formation of the interrogative by inversion of the subject and verb, could be shown dynamically on the screen, e.g.

r-1 Ills vont au cinema -- 1

The actual inversion, followed by the appropriate change in capitalization, and addition of the hyphen, is relatively easy to visualize on the computer screen.

An abstract concept, such as that of tense, can also be visually presented on the computer screen. A face can be drawn on the screen beside the text ‘je vais chanter’. Mouth movement can be simulated as musical notes emanate from the mouth to illustrate ‘je chante’. A return to the original illustration demonstrates ‘j’ai chante’.

The distinction between the use of the passe compose and the imparfait is a constant thorn in the side of anglophone learners of French. Our CLEF lesson shows a person in bed, and an alarm clock on the table beside the bed. The textual message is ‘Paul dormait profondement’. The clock is then made to jump up and down, and the message then is expanded to include ‘quand le reveil a sonne’. In this way we can visualize a state in the past, and a specific action that occurred in the past.

In a freeform system, it is possible to devise similarly original exercise formats, the only main limitation being the imagination of the coursewriter. Even within the context of specific types of exercises it is possible, from one exercise to the other, to make slight variations in presentation which are likely to retain the student’s motivation: a subtle variation of colours, the positioning on the screen of the elements in the stimulus, the ways in which the student is required to manipulate the stimuli, or the ways in which the stimulus is formed. In one exercise on numbers, for example, the student is required to solve certain mathematical problems. When the student correctly answers ‘dix’ to the

CREATING CAL COURSEWARE: SOME POSSIBILITIES 29

stimulus ‘six + qua&e’, the original stimulus disappears, whilst ‘dix’ moves to the left of the screen to begin a new stimulus, ‘dix * cinq = .’

2.1.2. Analysis. Since, in the CLEF project, we wrote and programmed each lesson independently, we were able to tailor the analysis to fit each specific point. Our first program relied heavily on the use of specific, anticipated errors to analyze the input, though it quickly became apparent that there were so many possibilities for error that this approach was not overly efficient.

We therefore began devising a number of strategies which could analyze certain types of learner inputs more effectively. (Harley et al. 1981). We devised several routines as we progressed: a typing error analysis which could detect up to two incorrect characters, including spaces or non-alphabetic characters; a routine to correct forgotten capitals; and one to correct missed accents. With verbs we felt that we had to independently analyze stems and endings or, when such was appropriate, combine a check of specific anticipated errors with the stem/ending check. We found that the same type of analysis was possible with the lesson on the formation of adjectives, provided that the feedback comments were altered accordingly. For the lesson on the possessive construction we felt that we should firstly scan the student input for the correct nouns (for example the student was expected to translate ‘the teacher’s book’ as ‘le livre du professeur’) before analyzing the articles and possessive. Some types of multi-word inputs proved even more problematical, and we found ourselves creating analysis routines that could detect misplaced hyphens, con- junctions, spacing and typing errors, and incorrect words. When required, more than one type of error could be detected at the same time.

2.1.3. Feedback. Given the potential specificity of the analysis in a freeform system, the feedback to the student can be equally pertinent. We could inform the student if he had made an error in a stem, or an ending, or had made a typing error, or had not put the feminine ending on an adjective, or had not used the correct infinitive. If, in the exercise on the possessive construction, the student had not inserted the correct noun, we could provide him with that information. Of course we were not limited to providing textual feedback. In exercises involving syntactic points, it was possible to key the remedial feedback to the visually oriented approach adopted in the grammar presentation; incorrectly positoned adjectives could be moved on the screen to their correct place in the sentence.

Positive reinforcement could be given that was not repetitively similar. In multiple-choice exercises, a correct choice of noun from a list could result in the noun changing colour (red for feminine, blue for masculine), or in a noun disappearing from the list, or in a correct answer being visually united with the stimulus (‘tot’ would join ‘de bonne heure’ in the exercise on time). In short, the feedback could be as varied and as dynamic as the presentation of information.

As regards help features, the CLEF project has devised a number which assist in making the lessons more user-friendly. It became obvious at a relatively early stage that students might become disenchanted with a lockstep system, in which they were forced to continue through to the bitter end. For this reason a ‘quit’ feature was included, whereby the learner could return to the menu at any point. A second feature allowed the learner to

30 GLYN HOLMES

request a grammar review frame in the course of an exercise. A third feature enabled him to request the translation of an unfamiliar word in an exercise.

2.2. Conclusions

The CLEF lessons provide a fair insight into the type of advantages offered by a freeform system. The vast potential of the computer medium as a conveyor of information can be exploited, and our experience would lead us to contest the notion that the computer is not as effective as the book as a means to convey information. Indeed, it may be one of the better media available for that purpose.

The analysis of student input, and related feedback, can be made more specific, and therefore perhaps more useful than in an authoring system. Though a freeform system still analyzes characters and strings of characters, these operations can be placed by the coursewriter in specific semantic and/or grammatical frameworks which can provide the student with insights into the type of errors that he has made.

It is because of their potential usefulness as conveyors of information and, given the possibility for variety in approaches, their values as motivational tools, that materials created via freeform systems can perhaps have a more extensive application in the language curriculum.

Yet the picture is not entirely rosy; in fact the future for freeform systems, at least as implemented in the CLEF project, is even gloomy. The advantages described cannot be fully realized without an enormous cost in time and, therefore, money. Many excellent computer-assisted learning projects have died for lack of funds; quite simply they represented too great a cost for the return. Such has been the case with the CLEF project in its first three years. The CLEF project, in order to continue, has had to turn to another course- writing system which combines the two so far described: the hybrid system.

3. HYBRID SYSTEMS

A hybrid system may be defined as a combination of an authoring system and a freeform system; specifically, a system in which some of the computer lesson is executed by means of pre-cast programs, and part of which requires original computer programming. A significant number of computer-assisted learning lessons are being created by this method.

3.1. CLEF-Mark II

At the University of Western Ontario we have realized that future development of materials will be very much geared to our ability to minimize development time. The first three years of our existence were blessed with sufficient funding for us to conduct research into the potential of the colour microcomputer medium. Henceforth our operation must be

streamlined.

In fact it did not require a great deal of imagination on our part to realize that many of the programming routines that we created were usable in a number of lessons: the spelling error routines, for example, were of course used in many exercises, and the help features

CREATING CAL COURSEWARE: SOME POSSIBILITIES 31

were a standard ingredient in every exercise. It thus became our aim to devise a series of routines (relating to exercise formats, analysis of input, feedback strategies, help features) which could be standardized and modularized so as to make these aspects of programming a CAL lesson that much easier, and therefore less time consuming. Minor differences between one lesson and the next were sacrificed for the sake of standardization and increased efficiency.

At the same time, we had established the need for original programming in certain parts of the CAL lesson, unless we were willing to sacrifice those aspects-which of course we were not. In essence, this meant that the CLEF lessons would require totally original programming for the grammar explanation, whereas many of the grammar exercises would contain programming routines that were usable in other lessons. We are currently engaged in this process.

3.2. Other hybrid systems The French computer-assisted learning materials being produced by the prodigious materials developer, Fernand Marty, at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, are based on a similar hybrid approach (Marty 1981, 1982). Using the PLATO system, Marty has created an enormous amount of quality CAL materials for which he has had need of a programmer’s services, particularly for such tasks as plotting maps and linking the computer with other peripheral equipment such as an audio device and a random- access slide projector. On the other hand, the PLATO programmers themselves have written, amongst other things, a multi-word input analysis routine that Marty uses consistently throughout his lessons (Marty 1981). In short, Marty recognizes the need for original programming for certain applications, as well as the feasibility of certain standardized computer routines.

At the University of Southern California, Purcell and Kelety have come to similar con- clusions in their new authoring system, ISAAC. To quote Kelety, “Designed with both the non-programmer and programmer in mind, ISAAC permits those unfamiliar with computing to create highly sophisticated courseware (including graphics) with only a few hours training. For those who have a computing background, ISAAC provides a rich environment for developing additional dynamic presentations. The latter is due to ISAAC’s use of a subroutine library which may be written in any of the standard computing languages supported by the IBM Series/l .“8 In sum, the original USC authoring system, FLIP, has been enhanced by the possibility of creating original programs. It is in this way that the USC CAL facility is seeking to combine the need to exploit the true potential of the computer with the need to create quality CAL lessons in the shortest possible time-span.

4. IMPLICATIONS

We have noted that the greatest problem of computer-assisted learning is that of creating a sufficient amount of quality learning materials in the shortest time possible. This is a particularly acute problem in a field where materials developers are continually plagued by the rapid pace of hardware development. The materials developers can never keep pace with the computer manufacturing industry.

32 GLYN HOLMES

The choices of the materials developer are threefold: (i) use an authoring system which will allow for relatively rapid creation of materials which may sacrifice originality and perhaps motivational impact for the sake of expediency, (ii) choose a freeform system which can exploit the computer medium to the full, but may be prohibitively costly, or (iii) opt for a middle-of-the-road approach which, this author believes, may resolve the dichotomy.

NOTES

’ FOGG, Mark Richard, Ergonomic input-Advanced methods for improving interaction between man and machine, paper given at the Foreign Language Instructional Technology conference, Defense Language Institute, Presidio of Monterey, CA, 21-24 September, 1982.

’ LAST, Rex 1981. TEUTMunual, p. 3. Driffield, Yorkshire: Hutton Press.

3 Information can be obtained on this package by writing Wida Software, 2 Nicholas Gardens, London WS 5HY, U.K. Telephone (01) 567-6941, (062) 882-5206.

’ DAVIES, Graham and Williams, Tony (1982) Teacher’s Toolkit, p. 9. London: Wida Software.

5 Information on this package can be obtained from Professor Ed Purcell, Associate Professor, Department of Slavic Languages, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 9ooO7, U.S.A. Telephone (213) 743-8840, (213) 743-2878.

h The author is indebted to Ruth Cortes, a graduate student of Spanish, and Kenneth Sherman, a graduate student of German, for demonstrating their excellent materials.

’ Information may be obtained by writing Professor Wolfram Burghardt, Associate Professor, Department of Spanish and Italian, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7.

s KELETY, Jeffery G., ISAAC: A CA1 Environment for the Series/l, paper submitted to the University of Southern California, October 1981. Copies may be obtained by writing to Professor Purcell at the above address.

REFERENCES

DAVIES, Graham (1980) New technologies for linguists. ComputerAge August, 23-26.

DAVIES, Graham and Williams, Tony (1982) Teacher’s Toolkit. London: Wida Software.

DOBBS, High (1981) Sprechen Sie Apfeldeutsch? Practical Computing November, pp. 101-104.

HARLEY, Rick, Heller, Helen and Holmes, Glyn (1981) Input analysis and feedback in a CAL system for languages. In: Proceedings ofthe ADCISconference Atlanta, March 1981, pp. 158-161.

HOLMES, Glyn (1983) La Visualisation de la grammaire franqaise B I’ordinateur. Murche Romane. To be published.

HOLMES, Glyn and Kidd, Marilyn (1982) The CLEF project: Learning French on colour micros. In: Proceedings of the ADCIS Conference Vancouver, June 1982, pp. 245-251.

KIDD, Marilyn and Holmes, Glyn (1982) Courseware design: Exploiting the colour micro. Computerx und Education, 6: 299-303.

MARTY, Fernand (1981) Reflections on the use of computers in second language acquisition. System, 9: 85-98.

MARTY, Fernand (1982) Reflections on the use of computers in second language acquisition. System, 10: l-l I.