Computer-Assisted Language Learning and the Revolution in Computational Linguistics

1 Introduction

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is the field concerned with the use of computer tools in second language acquisition. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, this field has never been closely related to Computational Linguistics (CL). Until recently, the two fields were almost completely detached. Despite occasional attempts to apply techniques of Natural Language Processing (NLP) to the recognition of errors, NLP in CALL has long remained in a very small minority position while CALL was hardly if at all recognized as a part of CL. In this contribution, I intend to show how CL could remain largely irrelevant to CALL for such a long time and why there is a good prospect that this will change in the near future. Section 1 describes the situation of CL before the revolution. In section 2, the crisis leading to the revolution in CL is outlined. The revolution itself is the topic of section 3. The implications for the field are then sketched in section 4. Finally, section 5 summarizes the conclusions.

2 Computational Linguistics as Natural Language Understanding

CL is almost as old as the first working computer. In fact, at a time when computer science was still in its infancy, Weaver (1955 [1949]) had already proposed the use of computers for translation, thus initiating research in Machine Translation (MT). Weaver considered two approaches to MT, one based on linguistic analysis and the other on information theory. Neither of these could be implemented at the time of Weaver's proposal. Information theory had been more or less fully developed by Shannon (1948), but its application to MT required computational power of a magnitude that would not be available for several decades. Linguistic analysis appeared more promising, because it can be performed with considerably less computational power, but the theoretical elements necessary for its successful application were still missing. Thus much work in early CL was devoted to developing the basic mechanisms required for linguistic analysis.

One of the first types of knowledge to be developed concerns the computational properties of formalisms to be used in the description of languages. In response to this requirement, the theory of formal grammars was developed, mainly in the course of the 1950s. Noam Chomsky played an active role in systematizing and extending this knowledge and Chomsky (1963) provides an early, fairly comprehensive overview of the properties of grammars consisting of rewrite rules of the general type as in (1).

(1)

In this approach, a formal description of a language consists of a set of rules in which and in (1) are replaced by strings of symbols. When designed properly, such a system of rules is able to generate sentences. If we consider a language as a set of sentences, we can see the grammar as a definition of the language. Different types of grammar impose different conditions on and . Thus, if in all rules of a grammar is not shorter than , it can always be determined by a finite procedure whether a given sentence belongs to the grammar or not. For Context-Free Grammars (CFGs), in which in (1) is a single symbol in each rule, the structure can be represented as a tree diagram.

The next step on the road to linguistic analysis in CL was the development of parsers. A parser is an algorithm to determine for a given sentence x and a grammar G whether G can generate x and which structure(s) G assigns to x. Ground-breaking work in this area was done in the 1960s with the development of the chart parser (cf. Varile 1983 for an overview), Earley's (1970) efficient parser for CFGs, and the more powerful Augmented Transition Networks of Woods (1970).

With a grammar formalism and a number of parsing algorithms in place, the only missing link to successful linguistic analysis was the description of the relevant languages. As it turned out, however, this problem was more recalcitrant than the other two. Chomsky developed a theory of grammar using formal rules of the type in (1), but his theory is less congenial to CL than may appear at first sight. Chomskyan linguistics has often been considered as based on a concept of language as a set of sentences and some remarks by Chomsky (1957) can be taken to support this view. At least from the early 1960s onwards, however, Chomsky has consistently and explicitly rejected such a view in favour of language as a knowledge component in the speaker's mind. Chomsky (1988) gives an accessible explanation and justification of the assumptions underlying this general approach and the type of linguistic theory it leads to.

Given this approach to language, there is no convergence in goals between Chomskyan linguistics and CL. Whereas the former is interested in describing and explaining a human being's knowledge of language, the latter is interested in processing the products of language use on a computer. An example of this divergence is the reaction to the realization that transformational rules of the type used in Chomsky (1965) are excessively powerful. This excessive power appears both in language acquisition on the basis of input sentences and in language processing leading to the understanding of sentences and utterances. In Chomskyan linguistics it was not the processing complexity but only the learnability requirement of the grammar which drove the restriction of transformations. Chomsky's linguistic theory continued to involve movement operations defined over nodes in a tree structure. In analysis, this requires the 'undoing' of movement, which is a computationally complex operation. Processing complexity of grammars produced in the Chomskyan framework has remained a major problem for their computational implementation, but this does not and need not inconvenience Chomskyan linguists. From the perspective of Chomskyan linguistics, as language is a typically human property, it is quite plausible that the human mind is structured so as to facilitate processing of the type necessary for human language. A computer does not have this structure.

From the 1970s onwards, a number of alternative linguistic theories have been developed with the computational implementation in mind. At present, the most influential ones are Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG, cf. Bresnan 2001) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG, cf. Pollard/Sag 1994). They still use rewrite rules of type (1) to some extent, but their actual formal basis is the unification of feature structures. Feature structures can be seen as sets of attribute-value pairs describing individual nodes in a tree structure. The formal device of feature structures and the operations on them were developed in full only in the 1980s. An early overview is Shieber (1986). By applying operations such as unification to feature structures, movement of nodes in a tree can be dispensed with. This is important for CL, because operations of this type are much more computer-friendly than undoing movement.

Given this historical development, it is understandable why for a long time research in CL, a significant part of which was at least in name devoted to MT, largely coincided with research in natural language analysis, i.e. parsing techniques and formal linguistic description. Work on different applications (e.g. MT, dialogue systems, text summarization) did not lead to major divisions in the CL research community, because in all such applications analysis was considered as the logical first step. This attitude is reflected in Kay's (1973) proposal of a modular system of natural language understanding, the parts of which could be connected in different ways depending on the requirements of the application.

If major divisions in the CL research community could not be identified on the basis of different applications, one might wonder whether there was any other source of major divisions. Most of the discussions in CL turned on issues such as the choice of linguistic theory, formalism, and parsing strategy. Although in the perception of people working in the field, different positions on these issues led to a division into competing currents of research, they should not be confused with major divisions in the field. All of these currents were basically geared towards the same task and their success could be compared directly. This contrasts with the situation in theoretical linguistics as described in ten Hacken (1997), where Chomskyan linguistics and LFG propose different, competing research programmes, whose results are often incompatible in a way that defies an evaluative comparison.

In this context it is interesting to see that in the perception of many computational linguists, work in CL was not essentially different from work in theoretical linguistics. Thus Thompson (1983) states that theoretical linguistics aims to characterize a language and CL proper aims to do so computationally. These were especially anti-Chomskyan linguists interested in grammar and language processing. Rather than concentrating on MT for its own merits, they were working on natural-language understanding (NLU). Concrete applications, among which MT was prominent, served on the one hand as a test of whether the goal of NLU, i.e. making a computer understand human language, had been achieved and on the other hand to convince funding sources of the practical use of their enterprise.

At this stage there was little interest in CALL among CL-practitioners, which can be explained by the orientation to NLU. Whereas the translation into another language reflects the degree of understanding of a sentence achieved by the computer fairly directly, the relationship between NLU and CALL is much more complex. Conversely CALL could not readily incorporate results obtained in CL. Work in NLU starts from the assumption that the sentences to be analysed are grammatical. Much of the analysis in CALL is actually concerned with establishing whether sentences are grammatical and appropriate and, if not, how they can be corrected. Advances in NLU were thus largely irrelevant to CALL.

The use of the computer in CALL in this period, as described by Levi (1997) in his historical overview, was determined to a considerable extent by general-purpose computing and text editing. Two types of application illustrating typical techniques are the vocabulary trainer and the generator of cloze tests. A vocabulary trainer is a system for the management of a bilingual vocabulary list. It presents a word in one language and prompts the user to enter the corresponding word in the other language. It checks whether the word entered is correct, gives the appropriate feedback, and stores the result. The order of presentation can be randomized and made to take into account the user's progress in vocabulary acquisition. Nesselhauf/Tschichold (2002) give an evaluative overview of a number of commercially available products of this type. The techniques involved are restricted to general pattern matching and database management, without any specifically linguistic components.

A cloze test is a sequence of sentences with spaces for the language learner to fill in. Examples are exercises for the endings of articles and adjectives in German or the translation of ambiguous words in context. Their generation on the basis of a full text can be done by an authoring tool which prompts the teacher to import a text, indicate the words or parts of words to be deleted, and if necessary add a question or hint for the learner as to the word to be entered. The test can then be taken and corrected electronically. Interface design and pattern matching are again the basic techniques used.

Steps toward Integrative CALL: The Internet

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which has existed in primitive formsince the 1960s but has only became wide-spread in the last five years,is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impacton language teaching. For the first time, language learners can communicatedirectly, inexpensively, and conveniently with other learners or speakersof the target language 24 hours a day, from school, work, or home. Thiscommunication can be asynchronous (not simultaneous) through tools suchas electronic mail (e-mail), which allows each participant to compose messagesat their time and pace, or in can be synchronous (synchronous, "real time"),using programs such as MOOs, which allow people all around the world tohave a simultaneous conversation by typing at their keyboards. It alsoallows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowinga teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class,a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousandsof people.

Computer-mediated communication allows users to share not onlybrief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents--thusfacilitating collaborative writing--and also graphics, sounds, and video.Using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can search through millions offiles around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials(e.g., newspaper and magazine articles, radio broadcasts, short videos,movie reviews, book excerpts) exactly tailored to their own personal interests.They can also use the Web to publish their texts or multimedia materialsto share with partner classes or with the general public.

It is not hard to see how computer-mediated communication andthe Internet can facilitate an integrative approach to using technology.The following example illustrates well how the Internet can be used tohelp create an environment where authentic and creative communication isintegrated into all aspects of the course.

Students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz Mexico don'tjust study general examples and write homework for the teacher; insteadthey use the Internet to actually become scientific writers (Bowers, 1995;Bowers, in press). First, the students search the World Wide Web to findarticles in their exact area of specialty and then carefully read and studythose specific articles. They then write their own drafts online; the teachercritiques the drafts online and creates electronic links to his own commentsand to pages of appropriate linguistic and technical explanation, so thatstudents can find additional background help at the click of a mouse. Next,using this assistance, the students prepare and publish their own articleson the World Wide Web, together with reply forms to solicit opinions fromreaders. They advertise their Web articles on appropriate Internet sites(e.g., scientific newsgroups) so that interested scientists around theworld will know about their articles and will be able to read and commenton them. When they receive their comments (by e-mail) they can take thoseinto account in editing their articles for republication on the Web orfor submission to scientific journals.

The above example illustrates an integrative approach to usingtechnology in a course based on reading and writing. This perhaps is themost common use of the Internet to date, since it is still predominantlya text-based medium. This will undoubtedly change in the future, not onlydue to the transmission of audio-visual material (video clips, sound files)World Wide Web, but also due to the growing use of the Internet to carryout real-time audio- and audio-visual chatting (this is already possiblewith tools such asNetPhone and CU-SeeME, but is not yetwidespread).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to wait for further technologicaldevelopments in order to use the Internet in a multi-skills class. Thefollowing example shows how the Internet, combined with other technologies,was used to help create an integrated communicative environment for EFLstudents in Bulgaria--students who until recent years had little contactwith the English-speaking world and were taught through a "discrete topicand skill orientation" (Meskill & Rangelova, in press, n.p.). TheseBulgarian students now benefit from a high-tech/low-tech combination toimplement an integrated skills approach in which a variety of languageskills are practiced at the same time with the goal of fostering communicativecompetence. Their course is based on a collaborative, interpreted studyof contemporary American short stories, assisted by three technologicaltools:

* E-mail communication. The Bulgarian students correspond bye-mail with an American class of TESOL graduate students to explore indetail the nuances of American culture which are expressed in the stories,and also to ask questions about idioms, vocabulary, and grammar. The Americanstudents, who are training to be teachers, benefit from the concrete experienceof handling students' linguistic and cultural questions .

* Concordancing. The Bulgarian students further test outtheir hypotheses regarding the lexical and grammatical meanings of expressionsthey find in the stories by using concordancing software to search forother uses of these expressions in a variety of English language corporastored on CD-ROM.

* Audio tape. Selected scenes from the stories--dialogues,monologues, and descriptions--were recorded by the American students andprovide both listening practice (inside and outside of class) and alsoadditional background materials to help the Bulgarians construct theirinterpretation of the stories.

These activities are supplemented by a range of other classroomactivities, such as in-class discussions and dialogue journals, which assistthe students in developing their responses to the stories' plots, themes,and characters--responses which can be further discussed with their e-mailpartners in the U.S.

CALL authoring programs

CALL authoring programs offer a do-it-yourself approach to CALL. They were originally developed to enable programmers to simplify the entry of data provided by language teachers. Modern CALL authoring programs are designed to be used by language teachers who have no knowledge of computer programming. Typical examples are authoring packages that automatically generate a set of pre-set activities for the learner, e.g. Camsoft's Fun with Texts (Camsoft) and The Authoring Suite (Wida Software). Generic packages such as Macromedia's Director (http://www.macromedia.com/) are more sophisticated and enable the user to create a full-blown course, but they are probably too complex for most language teachers and are best suited to the template approach to authoring, as described in ICT4LT Module 3.2, CALL software design and implementation: http://www.ict4lt.org/ Web authoring packages are also available, e.g. Hot Potatoes software: http://web.uvic.ca/hrd/halfbaked. See ICT4LT Module 2.5, Introduction to CALL authoring programs. See also Bickerton (1999) and Bickerton, Stenton & Temmermann (2001).

Professional associations for CALL

An increasing number of professional associations devoted to CALL are emerging worldwide. The older associations are grouped together under WorldCALL, which is in the process of establishing itself as an umbrella association of associations. WorldCALL held its first conference at the University of Melbourne in 1998, and the second WorldCALL conference will take place in Banff, Canada, 2003: http://www.worldcall.org/. The current professional associations represented in WorldCALL are:

EUROCALL: The leading European professional association for CALL. The ReCALL journal is published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of EUROCALL: http://www.eurocall-languages.org

CERCLES: The European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education. http://www.cercles.org/. CERCLES embraces a similar constituency to IALLT in North America.

Multimedia CALL

Early personal computers were incapable of presenting authentic recordings of the human voice and easily recognizable images, but this limitation was overcome by combining a personal computer and a 12-inch videodisc player, which made it possible to combine sound, photographic-quality still images and video recordings in imaginative presentations - in essence the earliest manifestation of multimedia CALL. The result was the development of interactive videodiscs for language learners such as Montevidisco (Schneider & Bennion 1984), Expodisc (Davies 1991), and A la rencontre de Philippe (Fuerstenberg 1993), all of which were designed as simulations in which the learner played a key role.

The techniques learned in the 1980s by the developers of interactive videodiscs were adapted for the multimedia personal computers (MPCs), which incorporated CD-ROM drives and were in widespread use by the early 1990s. The MPC is now the standard form of personal computer. CD-ROMs were used in the 1980s initially to store large quantities of text and later to store sound, still images and video. By the mid-1990s a wide range of multimedia CD-ROMs for language learners was available, including imaginative simulations such as the Who is Oscar Lake? series: http://www.languagepub.com/. The quality of video recordings offered by CD-ROM technology, however, was slow to catch up with that offered by the earlier interactive videodiscs. The Digital Video Disc (DVD) offers much higher quality video recordings, e.g. the Eurotalk Advanced Level DVD-ROM series: http://www.eurotalk.co.uk/. A feature of many multimedia CALL programs is the role-play activity, in which the learner can record his/her own voice and play it back as part of a continuous dialogue with a native speaker. Other multimedia programs make use of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) software to diagnose learners' errors, e.g. Tell Me More Pro by Auralog: http://www.auralog.com/english.html. Most CALL programs under development today fall into the category of multimedia CALL. See ICT4LT Module 2.2, Introduction to multimedia CALL: http://www.ict4lt.org/.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: An Introduction

Until quite recently, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) wasa topic of relevance mostly to those with a special interest in that area.Recently, though, computers have become so widespread in schools and homesand their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of languageteachers must now begin to think about the implications of computers forlanguage learning.

This article provides brief overview of how computers have beenused and are being used for language teaching. It focuses not on a technicaldescription of hardware and software, but rather on the pedagogical questionsthat teachers have considered in using computers in the classroom. Forthose who want more detailed information on particular applications, atypology of CALL programs (Appendix A) and a list of furtherCALL resources (Appendix B) is included at the end.

Three Phases of CALL

Though CALL has developed gradually over the last 30 years, this developmentcan be categorized in terms of three somewhat distinct phases which I willrefer to as behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, andintegrativeCALL (cf. Barson & Debski, in press). As we will see, the introductionof a new phase does not necessarily entail rejecting the programs and methodsof a previous phase; rather the old is subsumed within the new. In addition,the phases do not gain prominence one fell swoop, but, like all innovations,gain acceptance slowly and unevenly.

Behavioristic CALL

The first phase of CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the1960s and '70s, was based on the then-dominant behaviorist theories oflearning. Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills andcan be referred to as "drill and practice" (or, more pejoratively, as "drilland kill").

Drill and practice courseware is based on the model of computeras tutor(Taylor, 1980). In other words the computer serves as a vehiclefor delivering instructional materials to the student. The rationale behinddrill and practice was not totally spurious, which explains in part thefact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationaleis as follows:

* Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or evenessential to learning

* A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, sincethe machine does not get bored with presenting the same material and sinceit can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback

* A computer can present such material on an individualized basis,allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class timefor other activities

Based on these notions, a number of CALL tutoring systems weredeveloped for the mainframe computers which were used at that time. Oneof the most sophisticated of these was the PLATO system, which ran on itsown special PLATO hardware, including central computers and terminals.The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanationsand drills, and translations tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett,Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, behavioristic CALL was underminedby two important factors. First, behavioristic approaches to language learninghad been rejected at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level. Secondly,the introduction of the microcomputer allowed a whole new range of possibilities.The stage was set for a new phase of CALL.

Communicative CALL

The second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teachingwhich became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approachfelt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did notallow enough authentic communication to be of much value.

One of the main advocates of this new approach was John Underwood,who in 1984 proposed a series of "Premises for 'Communicative' CALL" (Underwood,1984, p. 52). According to Underwood, communicative call:

* focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;

* teaches grammar implicitly rather than explicitly;

* allows and encourages students to generate original utterancesrather than just manipulate prefabricated language;

* does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor rewardthem with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;

* avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a varietyof student responses;

* uses the target language exclusively and creates an environmentin which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen;and

* will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well.

Another critic of behavioristic CALL, Vance Stevens, contendsthat all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity--both learner-computer and learner-learner(Stevens, 1989).

Several types of CALL programs were developed and used duringthis the phase of communicative CALL. First, there were a variety of programsto provide skill practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of thesetypes of programs include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction,and language games (Healey & Johnson, 1995b). In these programs, likethe drill and practice programs mentioned above, the computer remains the"knower-of-the-right-answer" (Taylor & Perez, 1989, p. 3); thus thisrepresents an extension of thecomputer as tutor model. But--incontrast to the drill and practice programs--the process of finding theright answer involves a fair amount of student choice, control, and interaction.

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used forcommunicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor& Perez, 1989, p. 63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activityis not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather tostimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Softwareused for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may nothave been specifically designed for language learners, programs such asSimCity,Sleuth,or Where in the World is San Diego (Healey & Johnson, 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves thecomputeras tool (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980), or, as sometimescalled, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez, 1989). Inthis role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language materialat all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language. Examplesof computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammarcheckers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordancers.

Of course the distinction between these models is not absolute.A skill practice program can be used as a conversational stimulus, as cana paragraph written by a student on a word processor. Likewise, there area number of drill and practice programs which could be used in a more communicativefashion--if, for example, students were assigned to work in pairs or smallgroups and then compare and discuss their answers (or, as Higgins, 1988,students can even discuss what inadequacies they found in the computerprogram) In other words, the dividing line between behavioristic and communicativeCALL does involves not only which software is used, but also howthe software is put to use by the teacher and students.

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advanceover its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators feltthat CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning &Kenning, 1990; Pusack & Otto, 1990; R�schoff, 1993). Critics pointedout that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashionand thus "finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal ratherthan to central elements" of the language teaching process (Kenning &Kenning, 1990, p. 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed with broader reassessmentsof the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfiedwith teaching compartmentalized skills or structures (even if taught ina communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teachin a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-basedapproaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop modelswhich could help integrate the various aspects of the language learningprocess. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing theopportunities to do just that.

Steps toward Integrative CALL: Multimedia

Integrative approaches to CALL are based on two important technologicaldevelopments of the last decade--multimedia computers and the Internet.Multimedia technology--exemplified today by the CD-ROM-- allows a varietyof media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be accessed ona single machine. What makes multimedia even more powerful is that it alsoentailshypermedia. That means that the multimedia resources areall linked together and that learners can navigate their own path simplyby pointing and clicking a mouse.

Hypermedia provides a number of advantages for language learning.First of all, a more authentic learning environment is created, since listeningis combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Secondly, skillsare easily integrated, since the variety of media make it natural to combinereading, writing, speaking and listening in a single activity. Third, studentshave great control over their learning, since they can not only go at theirown pace but even on their own individual path, going forward and backwardsto different parts of the program, honing in on particular aspects andskipping other aspects altogether. Finally, a major advantage of hypermediais that it facilitates a principle focus on the content, without sacrificinga secondary focus on language form or learning strategies. For example,while the main lesson is in the foreground, students can have access toa variety of background links which will allow them rapid access to grammaticalexplanations or exercises, vocabulary glosses, pronunciation information,or questions or prompts which encourage them to adopt an appropriate learningstrategy.

An example of how hypermedia can be used for language learningis the programDustin which is being developed by the Institutefor Learning Sciences at Northwestern University (Schank & Cleary,1995). The program is a simulation of a student arriving at a U.S. airport.The student must go through customs, find transportation to the city, andcheck in at a hotel. The language learner using the program assumes therole of the arriving student by interacting with simulated people who appearin video clips and responding to what they say by typing in responses.If the responses are correct, the student is sent off to do other things,such as meeting a roommate. If the responses are incorrect, the programtakes remedial action by showing examples or breaking down the task intosmaller parts. At any time the student can control the situation by askingwhat to do, asking what to say, asking to hear again what was just said,requesting for a translation, or controlling the level of difficulty ofthe lesson.

Yet in spite of the apparent advantages of hypermedia for language learning,multimedia software has so far failed to make a major impact. Several majorproblems have surfaced in regarding to exploiting multimedia for languageteaching.

First, there is the question of quality of available programs.While teachers themselves can conceivably develop their own multimediaprograms using authoring software such as Hypercard (for the Macintosh)orToolbook (for the PC), the fact is that most classroom teacherslack the training or the time to make even simple programs, let alone morecomplex and sophisticated ones such as Dustin. This has left thefield to commercial developers, who often fail to base their programs onsound pedagogical principles. In addition, the cost involved in developingquality programs can put them out of the market of most English teachingprograms.

Beyond these lies perhaps a more fundamental problem. Today'scomputer programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive.A program like Dustin should ideally be able to understand a user'sspokeninput and evaluate it not just for correctness but also orappropriateness.It should be able to diagnose a student's problems with pronunciation,syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options(e.g., repeating, paraphrasing, slowing down, correcting, or directingthe student to background explanations).

Computer programs with that degree of intelligence do not exist,and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Artificial intelligence(AI) of a more modest degree does exist, but few funds are available toapply AI research to the language classroom. Thus while IntelligentCALL (Underwood, 1989) may be the next and ultimate usage of computersfor language learning, that phase is clearly a long way down the road.

Multimedia technology as it currently exists thus only partiallycontributes to integrative CALL. Using multimedia may involve an integrationof skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves amore important type of integration--integrating meaningful and authenticcommunication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. Fortunately,though, another technological breakthrough is helping make that possible--electroniccommunication and the Internet.

Computer Assisted Language Learning: Good Decision Making When we create materials for our ESL classes, we might use bubbl.us, comic strips or Read

When we create materials for our ESL classes, we might use bubbl.us, comic strips or Read, Write, Think (like I discussed here). And the decision is pretty simple. If we like the program and the product, we use it. The story gets quite a bit more complicated when we start having students use computer assisted language learning (CALL) products. It’s about more than fun colors and flashy end-products. The process of using the technology should be helpful to students. The use of technology should be tied to learning outcomes. But there is even more to think about than learning outcomes. Well, I have developed a nice process to help you/me decide when and how to use CALL in your/my ESL classes.

Let me explain since you can’t read the chart to the left (view a larger/readable copy here). First, you need to consider the learning objectives of the ESL lesson. Then, identify appropriate CALL materials. Determine what is feasible in your setting and fully consider the benefits of the technology. Finally, decide. There are a lot more details on the chart which will hopefully help you decide if and when to use CALL.

Tags: CALL, computers, esl, hih tech, teaching, technology, web 2.0

This entry was posted by Katie Mitchell on Friday, March 13th, 2009 at 5:36 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Functionality of using CALL

In this part areas are pointed out in which computational linguistics methods could be used in a CALL scenario.
This is one of the main aspects of applying CL-technology to CALL-systems: Functionality of programs should be improved with CL.
The hypothesis is that methods of computational linguistics can support the learning of a second and even first language by using "intelligent" computerprograms.


Two main views can be taken.
On the one hand one can start thinking about methods to enhance the computational aspects and on the other hand one can start thinking about the improved processing and presentation of content.
An aspect of the first type could be advanced error recognition (see chapter » Error-Analysis).
An aspect of the second could be precise modelling of the morphosyntax of future tense or the integration of WordNet-like structures.


Probably there isn't a sharp division but a spectrum between these two views.
Corpus linguistics is a case in question.
On the one hand corpus-tools allow the learner to use large language data-bases and on the other hand specific items like collocations may be taught using corpora, see e.g. Erpenbeck, Arno ; Koch, Britta et al., 2001

If one accepts the categorization made in the previous chapter, then the question is: "Which functionality can be improved or newly integrated based on each of the categories?"


« up