On Phases of CALL and Normalisation
It does not come as a surprise that with computers being so widespread at homes as well as at schools teachers, and especially language teachers, must consider the implications of these devices for learning and teaching. I still remember the time when I started looking for a job as an English teacher, and many universities in Poland were looking for teachers with experience in CALL. Of course, at that time I was not even familiar with the acronym, neither knew anything about Computer Assisted Language Learning. In 1990s, computers were still somewhat of a novelty in Polish schools. Our students were still at awe about the first chatrooms. I still remember my first chatroom experience and how weird it was imagining I am talking to someone from Barbados or India. I remember the first question asked of me: a/s/l (age/sex/location). I could not grasp the idea of chatting in real time to someone who was thousands of miles away! I still remember printing out those chats! Before I knew it, computer programmes for language learning became available. But we were still not trained on how to use them. It was almost as if washing machines came before electricity was available!
You can imagine my surprise when I found out that according to Warschauer (1996), the first phase of CALL was dated back in 1950s! In his article "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction, he divides the development of CALL into three different phases (later calling them "stages"): behaviouristic, communicative and integrative. The first phase was born in 1950s, but implemented in 1960s and 70s. However, Warschauer's discussion of the phases is criticised by Bax (2003) who points out inconsistencies in dates and terminology. What he called "behaviouristic" in 1996, was later called Structural in 2000. In the earlier sources, dates given were 1950s ("conceived") and 1960s and 1970s ("implemented"). However, in 2000 Structural CALL is dated as 1970s and 1980s. The same shift in years is seen with regards to Communicative and Integrative CALL: the earlier source talking about the emergence in 1970s - 1980s and already in existence respectively, while the later source mentions 1980s - 1990s and 21st century. Torut (1990) links phases of CALL development to pedagogical approaches in language teaching. In Behaviouristic CALL, prevalent theories of behaviourism, empiricism, audiolingualism and structural linguistics shaped principles of language learning. Focus on stimulus, response and reinforcement were at the basis of programs which entailed multiple repetitions ("drill and practice"). Such courseware is based on the model of computer as tutor (Taylor, 1980) and the rationale behind using it is that of numerous repetitions focusing on language accuracy. Computer software is perfect for doing repetitive drills since presenting the same material over and over again followed by immediate and non-judgmental feedback does not bore the machine (as opposed to a teacher). Students could study at their own pace, and classroom time could be used for other activities (Warschauer, 1996). However, by 1980s two things happened: behaviouristic approaches to language learning were rejected by both theorists and practitioners, and the microcomputer opened the whole new array of possibilities.
Bax (2003) criticises Warschauer for inconsistency and ambiguity in calling stages "historical phases", at the same time claiming that all three coexist together today (Warschauer and Healey, 1998). Of the three categories, Behaviouristic CALL is probably the one that most of us would agree on today. But the other two categories (Communicative and Integrative) are much more confusing. The communicative approach to language teaching/learning which encourages students to produce original utterances rather than reproduce ready made ones is still part of language teaching practice in many teaching contexts (Torut, 1990; Bax, 2003). Therefore, how can we say that Communicative CALL is the phase of the past? Warschauer (1996) did point out that the introduction of the new phase did not really mean a complete rejection of programs and methods used in a previous phase/stage. It rather absorbed them and integrated them into a new phase. Bax (2003) also criticises computer as tutor model as having very little to do with communication other than limited computer-student communication. The second model, computer as stimulus, introduces activities which stimulate students' discussions or critical thinking rather than leading them to the right answer. This, however, is not a characteristic of CALL or this particular phase. It could be achieved in other ways, even without a computer; therefore, it cannot be counted as evidence for this stage being called as a communicative phase of CALL. In the third model, computer as tool, programmes not always provide a learner with language material, but rather aid the use and understanding of a language (e.g. word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, etc.). In this model, however, the computer is not really used for communication. It just manipulates or analyses language, and consequently can not be treated as a feature of Communicative CALL.
Further on, Bax (2003) refers to "phases" as "approaches" which, he claims, is a more general term. He calls the first approach as Restricted CALL, considering the restricted nature of the software, type of activities, the teacher's role and the feedback offered to students. The second approach is called "Open CALL", for previously mentioned features are relatively open in their nature. The third approach is "Integrated CALL" and what differentiates it from Warschauer's concept is its non-existence to any specific degree. It rather represents the goal which we should keep in mind and work toward.
So what is this goal? To understand it better, Bax (2000) introduces the concept of "normalisation", i.e. the stage when technology becomes so engrained in our daily life that it becomes invisible and no longer recognised as technology (much like a pen or shoes). Therefore, to consider CALL successfully integrated into language learning we would have to reach the point where it will stop existing as a separate concept. In other words, "CALL practitioners should be aiming at their own extinction" (Bax, 2003).
When will we get there? The list of prerequisites/conditions is long: computers should be used daily by both students and teachers, pretty much the same as pens or books. Computers should be used neither with fear/apprehension nor inflated importance (or the wow! effect). Lessons should not centre around them, but rather completely integrate them into all aspect of classroom life until they will go unnoticed. But the most important factor for normalisation is when we understand that learning comes first and the needs of learners are carefully analysed before the use of computer is implemented to serve those needs.
References:
Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00071-4
Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place. In: Field, C. (Ed.), Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching. Routhledge, pp. 208 - 219
Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
Torut, B. (1990). Computer assisted language learning: an overview. In: O'Sullivan, K. (Ed.), CALL: A Guide for English Language Teachers. TASEAP, pp. 1 - 18
Warschauer, M. (1966). Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction. In: Fotos, S. (Ed.) Multimedia Language Teaching. Tokyo: Logos International, pp. 3 - 20
You can imagine my surprise when I found out that according to Warschauer (1996), the first phase of CALL was dated back in 1950s! In his article "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction, he divides the development of CALL into three different phases (later calling them "stages"): behaviouristic, communicative and integrative. The first phase was born in 1950s, but implemented in 1960s and 70s. However, Warschauer's discussion of the phases is criticised by Bax (2003) who points out inconsistencies in dates and terminology. What he called "behaviouristic" in 1996, was later called Structural in 2000. In the earlier sources, dates given were 1950s ("conceived") and 1960s and 1970s ("implemented"). However, in 2000 Structural CALL is dated as 1970s and 1980s. The same shift in years is seen with regards to Communicative and Integrative CALL: the earlier source talking about the emergence in 1970s - 1980s and already in existence respectively, while the later source mentions 1980s - 1990s and 21st century. Torut (1990) links phases of CALL development to pedagogical approaches in language teaching. In Behaviouristic CALL, prevalent theories of behaviourism, empiricism, audiolingualism and structural linguistics shaped principles of language learning. Focus on stimulus, response and reinforcement were at the basis of programs which entailed multiple repetitions ("drill and practice"). Such courseware is based on the model of computer as tutor (Taylor, 1980) and the rationale behind using it is that of numerous repetitions focusing on language accuracy. Computer software is perfect for doing repetitive drills since presenting the same material over and over again followed by immediate and non-judgmental feedback does not bore the machine (as opposed to a teacher). Students could study at their own pace, and classroom time could be used for other activities (Warschauer, 1996). However, by 1980s two things happened: behaviouristic approaches to language learning were rejected by both theorists and practitioners, and the microcomputer opened the whole new array of possibilities.
Bax (2003) criticises Warschauer for inconsistency and ambiguity in calling stages "historical phases", at the same time claiming that all three coexist together today (Warschauer and Healey, 1998). Of the three categories, Behaviouristic CALL is probably the one that most of us would agree on today. But the other two categories (Communicative and Integrative) are much more confusing. The communicative approach to language teaching/learning which encourages students to produce original utterances rather than reproduce ready made ones is still part of language teaching practice in many teaching contexts (Torut, 1990; Bax, 2003). Therefore, how can we say that Communicative CALL is the phase of the past? Warschauer (1996) did point out that the introduction of the new phase did not really mean a complete rejection of programs and methods used in a previous phase/stage. It rather absorbed them and integrated them into a new phase. Bax (2003) also criticises computer as tutor model as having very little to do with communication other than limited computer-student communication. The second model, computer as stimulus, introduces activities which stimulate students' discussions or critical thinking rather than leading them to the right answer. This, however, is not a characteristic of CALL or this particular phase. It could be achieved in other ways, even without a computer; therefore, it cannot be counted as evidence for this stage being called as a communicative phase of CALL. In the third model, computer as tool, programmes not always provide a learner with language material, but rather aid the use and understanding of a language (e.g. word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, etc.). In this model, however, the computer is not really used for communication. It just manipulates or analyses language, and consequently can not be treated as a feature of Communicative CALL.
Further on, Bax (2003) refers to "phases" as "approaches" which, he claims, is a more general term. He calls the first approach as Restricted CALL, considering the restricted nature of the software, type of activities, the teacher's role and the feedback offered to students. The second approach is called "Open CALL", for previously mentioned features are relatively open in their nature. The third approach is "Integrated CALL" and what differentiates it from Warschauer's concept is its non-existence to any specific degree. It rather represents the goal which we should keep in mind and work toward.
So what is this goal? To understand it better, Bax (2000) introduces the concept of "normalisation", i.e. the stage when technology becomes so engrained in our daily life that it becomes invisible and no longer recognised as technology (much like a pen or shoes). Therefore, to consider CALL successfully integrated into language learning we would have to reach the point where it will stop existing as a separate concept. In other words, "CALL practitioners should be aiming at their own extinction" (Bax, 2003).
When will we get there? The list of prerequisites/conditions is long: computers should be used daily by both students and teachers, pretty much the same as pens or books. Computers should be used neither with fear/apprehension nor inflated importance (or the wow! effect). Lessons should not centre around them, but rather completely integrate them into all aspect of classroom life until they will go unnoticed. But the most important factor for normalisation is when we understand that learning comes first and the needs of learners are carefully analysed before the use of computer is implemented to serve those needs.
References:
Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00071-4
Bax, S. (2000). Putting technology in its place. In: Field, C. (Ed.), Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching. Routhledge, pp. 208 - 219
Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
Torut, B. (1990). Computer assisted language learning: an overview. In: O'Sullivan, K. (Ed.), CALL: A Guide for English Language Teachers. TASEAP, pp. 1 - 18
Warschauer, M. (1966). Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction. In: Fotos, S. (Ed.) Multimedia Language Teaching. Tokyo: Logos International, pp. 3 - 20
tes
ReplyDelete