Over the last few decades, within the field of second language education, we have witnessed considerable interest in the research of Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL). A number of researchers have reviewed the history and developments of computers and technology from different perspectives (Warschauer, 1998; Salaberry, 2001; Zhou 2003; Bax, 2003). Warschauer (1998) divided the history into three major stages: behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. He further classified the approaches to CALL into structural, cognitive and sociocognitive orientations based on the changing nature of computers (Warschauer, 2000). Another representative example is a retrospective article that critically reviewed and analyzed all the papers published in the Modern Language Journal since 1916 (Salaberry, 2001). In this article, all the pedagogical and technological resources proposed during these decades were assessed. The author aimed to verify whether the advanced technologies have achieved an equal degree of pedagogical effectiveness and benefits in second language teaching as those did in the overall contexts of human interaction. It is a mirror which leads us to take a glance at the chronological and rapid developments of computers and technology in the past century.
In another illustrative review article which attempted to assess the potentials of technology in language education, Zhou (2003) proposed another avenue for us to witness the popularity of CALL in the past decades. For example, increased attention has been paid to the research of pre-service teacher education (Jones, 2002; Brent et al., 2002; Rilling et al., 2005). In particular, Rilling et al. (2005) drew attention to the integration of the theory and practice of CALL in four graduate-level language teaching courses, and aimed to demonstrate the processes and effectiveness of CALL in language teaching. They further suggested that CALL-related courses could facilitate the novice teachers to apply theories learned into classroom practices.
Definitions of CALL
As suggested by Levy, CALL is a multidisciplinary field. Therefore, the role of CALL in language education is somewhat jumbled and confusing. In Wtatt’s view (1987), computers are a potentially practical tool in a language classroom. CALL has become a widespread terminology in the field of second and foreign language education; for the purpose of research, an overall understanding of CALL should be reviewed. In essence, CALL is multidisciplinary facet that comprises a great number of ingredients. Thus, there is little agreement about the meanings of some terms in literature on CALL (Pusack, 1987). Among those terms, such as CAI, CBI, or CALL, are generic so they could be applied to all forms of educational computing not only for use in language education. In order to seek an overall picture of CALL, the jungle of the terms need to be cleared up. Several current and important terms concerning CALL are further provided and discussed below.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI)
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) could be seen as a generic term which may have different connotations. Firstly, CAI involves the use of the computer, usually by
means of a student-computer dialogue in which the student and the computer take turns providing information to each other, and in which that information affects the course of the interaction. It is also called computer-based instruction, computer-enhanced learning, or computer-assisted learning (Hope et al, 1984). The interactivity is also a noticeable feature of CAI as mentioned by Pusack (1987). In his view, CAI usually could be referred to as “interactive teaching program” which derived from traditional CAI with programmed learning concepts (p. 14).
Hypermedia/Multimedia
The emergence of hypermedia contributes a more vigorous resource to the content of CALL. It combines the merely fundamental elements of CALL, such as linear text, with a variety of functions, like animation, digital graphics and sounds.
According to Ashworth’s definition (1996), hypermedia usually refers to “electronic documents that can access and link together a rich collection of resources in various media” (p. 81). Multimedia are the combinations of sound, video, and other resources.
However, hypertext only refers to the linking of texts to text and graphics. It is noteworthy that though Ashworth indicated that hypermedia seems to be more inclusive than multimedia, he generally treats multimedia and hypermedia synonymously.
Databases and Concordancing
With the spread and availability of the Internet, a broad variety of electronic resources have been around in language education. Among these resources, a typical element is databases, which is “a collection of information typically stored on a computer and organized in such a way that it can be processed” (Beaudoin, 2004).
The most useful aspects of using databases in language education are the dynamic information processing capabilities. Furthermore, databases in CALL are commonly
used for three main purposes, including reference, management of large websites, and data processing (Beaudoin, 2004). Concordancing, on the other hand, refers to “a mean of accessing a corpus of text to show how any given word or phrase in the text is used in the immediate contexts in which it happens” (Flowerdew, 1996). For language teachers, Concordancing can be used as a linguistic informant, a source of input for teaching, and the input for materials development. To learners, concordancing is also helpful in error analysis, serendipity learning, and inductive reasoning (Flowerdew, 1996).
Computer Networks and Web-based CALL
Although the Internet or World Wide Web (WWW) has existed for nearly 30 years, only recently has its surge of mainstream popularity motivated researchers to acknowledge its educational value (Felix, 2003). This is particularly the case with the rapid technological advances in multimedia, hypermedia, web-based CALL applications and computer-mediated communications. With the advent of multimedia technology and the Internet, the role of computers in language education has been a remarkable issue confronting many researchers and language teachers all over the world. This can be vividly illustrated by the interesting metaphors being “Information Superhighway” and “Orchestra” cited in the introduction of the book edited by Felix (2003, p.8). The latter is more suitable to describe the Internet in that it goes through a process of performance with a specific goal to finish in the end.
To give one illustrative example, one form of CALL called “network-based language teaching (NBLT)”, has been shifted attention from the sole usage of computer itself to the connection of the computer and the Internet. In their edited book, Kern and Warschauer (2000) indicated that “NBLT is language teaching that involves the use of computers connected to one another in either local or global
networks” (p.1). Kern and Warschauer (2000) claimed that CALL could be superficially divided into pre-network CALL and NBLT, and these two stages could be roughly distinguished from each other in terms of “networking”. The most apparent distinction between traditional CALL and NBLT lies in the focus of the latter is the “human-to-human communication” rather than the applications of different kinds of programs. Chapelle (2000) echoed Kern and Warschauer’s view and suggested that NBLT could be seen as one type of broad CALL. Similarly, a computer network, based on Hoffman’s (1996) definition, is “a linkage of two or more workstation of software, data and peripheral devices” (p. 56). It is also a comprehensive term to include the Internet, World Wide Web, e-mail, asynchronous and synchronous communication, virtual reality, and the list goes on and on.
With reference to language learning situations, both teachers and students intend to meet an ultimate goal of learning. On-line learning is also another instance of people’s endeavor to promote the more effective learning outcomes. Nevertheless, people are generally conscious that they are using something related to the Internet, but they are not necessarily able to define what online language learning is. Felix (2003) attempted to solve this problem in the way of providing a global view of online language learning instead of giving a specific definition. According to Felix, it is generally said online language learning could be classified into two major forms:
one is operated as “virtual classroom” in which technology plays the roles of both tutor and tool; the other form is extra activities for class in which technology mainly acts as a communicative tool.
The rapid growth of the Internet and other forms of technology also contributed to the development of Computer-mediated Communication (CMC). Murray regarded Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) as “the process by which people create,
exchange, and perceive information using networked telecommunications systems (or non-networked computers) that facilitate encoding, transmitting, and decoding messages” (1997, p.1). Also, Warschauer (1997) pointed out five distinguishing characteristics regarding CMC, including text and computer-based interaction, many-to-many communication, time and space independence, long distance exchanges, and hypermedia links. In terms of these features, CMC seems to be a promising and comprehensive medium for language learning.
The Roles of CALL in Language Teaching and Learning
To have a better understanding of computer use in language education, it is necessary to make a distinction between the medium itself, that is, the computer, and the approach or methodology (Wyatt, 1987). Many people are familiar with the term, CALL, but the role of computers needs more elaboration in the area of CALL. There is considerable disagreement among researchers about the roles of computer play in language learning. For the most of part, a computer is regarded as a tool for language teaching and learning and is greatly applied into different language tasks.
Wyatt (1987) argued that a computer could be a more promising element of a wide range of approaches than a limited type of methodology. Levy (1997) adopted Taylor’s framework (see Taylor 1980) in which computer plays the roles of tutor, tool, and tutee. The distinction between the tutor and tool is that tutor assumes the ability to
“evaluate” student’s input. In contrast to tutor, the computer is taught and tutored by teachers and learners. Levy also compares two triangular models of CALL: the Ahmad-model consisting of the learner, language and computer, and Farrington’s
‘triangular model involving the participation of the teacher, class and computer. In Levy’s viewpoints, Ahmad’s model emphasizes the role of the computer as a tutor or a ‘helpful teacher’, while Farrington’s model regards the computer as a tool rather
than a tutor with a less dominant role assigned to the computer. The teacher’s role in Farrington’s model becomes more significant. Meskill (1999) claimed that the efficacy and values of computers would be enhanced if it is successfully integrated into classroom tasks. The cognitive participation and active engagement of learners is a key to the expediency of technological innovations, or the machine itself could not assume the powerful and subservient role in language learning alone.
For many researchers or language teachers, courseware development of CALL is a fundamental issue regarding the role of computer. Generally speaking, there are four categories for the distinction of CALL materials in education which are drills, tutorials, simulations, and management (Pusack, 1987). The material production is closely related to the role of language teachers; however, the roles of CALL have suffered from much criticism. On the one hand, language teachers are expected to participate in the materials development; meanwhile, there is no generally accepted framework by which to guide their work (Levy, 1997).
With regard to the teacher-made instructional materials, it has been pointed out that one of the most serious problems for language teachers in Taiwan is the development of materials. Teachers do not seem to have enough time and support to learn additional technical skills for producing their own materials even though they would like to do so (Kin & Lee, 2003). In their view, they can learn the practical instructional technology skills only through effective workshops and demonstrations so that they can turn their current materials into dynamic forms.
The Advantages and Limitations of CALL
The merits of computers and technology have been indicated in the previous literature. For one thing, the value of technology has been recognized at least as effective as human teachers by many researchers. This point is supported by the
review article written by Zhao (2003). From this perspective, we can realize why there is a rise in the numbers of first and second language studies conducted on the use of computers and technology for language teaching and learning.
However, this idea that computer and technology may enhance teaching quality has also created “mixed feelings” and aroused a variety of reactions. Computers on one hand have drawn a lot of attention and interests from teacher community, but they make teachers worry about the dominate role of technology. If the computer has rapidly and markedly come into the teaching discipline as an educational aid, many educators and researchers are curious about the overtly attractive characteristics of CALL. For example, Kenning & Kenning (1983) claimed that the most distinguishing feature of the computer compared with other pieces of equipment in education like tape recorder is its “interactive capacity” (p. 2). More specifically, computers are able to analyze and correct students’ responses which cannot be done by books or other tools.
As far as learners are concerned, the computer also plays the role of partner, or reference book, offering privacy and amusement. For teachers, it helps them make better use of time and classroom activities (Kenning & Kenning, 1983). Colpaert &
Decoo (1999) indicated that two important factors need to be taken into account with regard to the swell of CALL; in other words, the rapid advancement of technological innovations and the public reactions to the fever of CALL. We have found that CALL has been accepted, justified, and even promoted over the years; as a result, more and more products of CALL are available though the commercial success is per se not a valid indication of quality.
It is a commonly held view that the elements of CALL seem to be very promising for language teaching and learning. CALL has its own attractive nature, but
there are also some drawbacks of CALL if we take a closer look at the existing applications in educational contexts. Lacking a theoretical or conceptual framework to direct researcher is one of the major problems among CALL research, which is indicated by Levy (1997). We can also analyze this negative aspect from the perspectives of both teachers and learners. Firstly, teachers are generally discouraged by the limitations of the available authoring tools in spite of that they are aware of the attractiveness generated by CALL (Levy, 1997; Felix, 2003). However, if teachers intend to create their own CALL materials, it will be too time-consuming not to mention the ability to deal with the unexpected problems from predetermined fashion of the computer (Kenning & Kenning, 1983). In practice, unfortunately, whether to use computers or not in a language courses is largely determined by the availability of technical equipment and financial funding.
From the perspectives of learners, they may be discouraged by the technical problems during the computerized courses, because most of the problems cannot be solved immediately. As a result, learners may not pay full attention to the learning process (Kenning & Kenning, 1983).
Teachers’ Beliefs about the Use of CALL
It is important to realize that the human teachers can not be completely replaced by the computer. Nevertheless, teachers’ roles in CALL, like other general language teaching fields, are usually neglected (Liou, 2004). In some sense, teachers can enhance themselves professionally through reflective practice and active research with the aid of computers. To this point, the question that how the teachers or the practitioners react to the computer still remains unanswered. The wide acceptance of CALL, or certain types of CALL materials among the public does not imply that most teachers are genuinely willing to apply CALL-related resources in their language
teaching processes (Colpaert & Decoo, 1999). Generally speaking, though there has been an abundance of implications derived from the research in such diverse areas as educational psychology and psycholinguistics, the prominent concerns for many teachers are about the dramatic variations and change of technology. (Curtin &
Shinall, 1987).
In the literature regarding teachers’ reaction to the use of computer, Colpaert and Decoo (1999) pointed out three proactive reasons to explain this much-debated phenomenon; that is, why the claimed popularity of CALL in education cannot truly reflect teachers’ applications in their teaching process? Firstly, the training provided for language teachers is not enough to assist them to deal with their students. The second reason is from the impediment of the executive and personal schedules.
Without sufficient finance to accommodate and update equipments is another important factor for this problem. On one hand, Levy (1999) illustrated the
“vividness” effect, as characterized by Taylor and Thomson (1982, cited in Levy, 1999), and further suggested that the superficial appearance of a program or learning contexts do not sufficiently support the justification of a design and the good understanding of learning. As Levy stated, the task and the learners’ engagement matter more than the multimedia devices. On the other hand, some researchers contended that language teachers should be responsible for the access to computer and technology in the teaching community. As a language teacher, Pennington (2003) suggested that it is necessary to become “directly involved in resolving computer issues and deciding the best ways to make use of computer potentials for our own population of students” (p. 306). In Liou’s (2004) three-year project, she constructed an online environment for teachers to use, and she analyzed how language teachers adopt technology into their teaching process. She believed that a virtual teacher
learning world could enhance student-teachers’ beliefs to be real teachers. Very often, language teachers are encouraged or even forced to keep up with the burgeoning technological movement. However, just reading about CALL without any sufficient contact does not equip the practitioners with the confidence and ability to use the technology (Curtin & Shinall, 1987). Before we accept that the computer and technology are the magical and effective remedy for language teaching and learning, it is necessary to examine what kind of factors that may facilitate or impede teaches to use computers in education, how the teachers perceive CALL, and to what extent they believe in the power of CALL.
The Factors for Adopting or Refusing CALL
Understanding the underlying factors that may be the obstacle for teachers to use computers in the classroom can help both researchers and practitioners gain insights into how to make appropriate use of computers. Many researchers have concerned about the disparity between the actual and expected use of computer and technology.
As a result, many studies attempted to explore the potential factors that may affect the teachers or administrators to choose CALL as a form of teaching tool during the decision-making or implementation process (Braak, 2001; Debski, 2000; Egbert, Paulus, & Nakmichi, 2002; Ertmer et al. 1999; Knezek et al. 1996; Lam, 2000;
Marcinkiewicz, 1994; Yildirim, 2000; Brent et al. 2002).
Based on the findings from previous studies, a wide range of factors for adopting or refusing CALL have already been identified. For instance, Ertmer et al. (1999) suggested that the underlying reasons for whether or not to use computers range from
“internal” to “external” barriers. According to these researchers, internal barriers refer to teachers’ beliefs about teaching, computers, classroom practices, and unwillingness to change, all of which are intrinsic to teachers themselves. By contrast, external
barriers are extrinsic and flexible to change. These include the barriers such as lack of
barriers are extrinsic and flexible to change. These include the barriers such as lack of