Microsoft Word josefinfinalversion docx

2.2 Computer Assisted Language Learning
Computers have become a major part in our everyday lives and there is a present need to 
integrate them more fully into ELT (Hubbard, 2009). The term used for the field of teaching 
language with technology is called Computer Assisted Language Learning (Healy, 1999). 
Glenn Stockwell (2014) defines CALL as the process where technology facilitates the 
language learning, whilst Beatty (2003) defines CALL as ”any process in which a learner 
uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language” (2003: 7). The definitions 
open up for interpretations and critical assessment. Hubbard (op cit) claims that Beatty’s 
definition of CALL does not solely include the canonical desktop and laptop devices that are 
labelled computers. According to Levy and Hubbard (2005) this definition suggests that 
CALL also involves any other technological devices with a computer embedded in them, such 
as: mp3 players, mobile phones, tablets, electronic whiteboards and DVD-players etcetera and 
also the networks connecting them (Levy and Hubbard, 2005). This seems to agree with 
Stockwell’s (op cit) definition where the word technology is used instead of computers. 

---

9
Furthermore, Hubbard (op cit) also raises another question – What is meant by improve in 
Beatty’s definition? He argues that this question can be answered with respect from a few 
different perspectives and claims that the term ‘improve’ that Beatty (op cit) uses is not 
referred to as ‘direct learning improvement’, it is rather referred to as ‘the improvement of 
learning conditions’ (Hubbard, 2009:2). This can be compared to Stockwell’s (op cit) 
definition, where he uses the term facilitates instead of improve when referring to the effect 
CALL has on learning. Some of the learning improvements CALL favours are, according to 
Hubbard (op cit:2),
• Learning effectiveness – the learners can preserve language knowledge for a longer 
time and they make deeper associations and learn more of what they need.
• Learning efficiency – learners pick up language skills quicker and with less effort.
• Access – the learners have entrance to a wider range of material that otherwise would 
be impossible to get. 
• Convenience – the learners can study with equal effectiveness across a wider range of 
time and places 
• Motivation – the learners engage more in activities and enjoy the learning process 
more. 
• Institutional efficiency – less teacher time and expensive material are required from 
the learners.
Stockwell (op cit) continues to question how technology can be adopted in language teaching 
to obtain this, since technological devices are rapidly developing and continually changing in 
access, size and power (Stockwell, op cit). This constant development and change requires 
new knowledge for teachers and learners and creates needs for renewed skills for the teachers 
to stay apace (Hubbard, 2009).
CALL has gone through three distinct phases during the years, behaviouristic CALL, 
communicative CALL and integrative CALL. The first CALL phase is referred to as 
‘behaviouristic CALL’, which was conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and 
'70s. This period was based on the behaviouristic theories of learning. It focused on repetitive 
language drills and automatic feedback. The interaction was mainly between the learners and 
content. The computer delivered instructions to the pupil who followed instructions and 
received instant feedback (Warschauer, 1996). The ‘behaviouristic CALL’ might sound 
unsophisticated and Bax (2003:534) call this period ‘restricted’, due to its hardware 

---

10
limitations. The exercises during this era were decontextualized exercises, simple games, text 
reconstruction and word processors. However, according to Warschauer (1996), there were 
positive aspects with drill-based CALL. It was beneficial for pupils’ learning process to 
repeat exercises and practice the same material several times and the computer was ideal for 
carrying out repeated drills, since the machine does not get bored with presenting the same 
material to the pupils repeated times. Furthermore, the computer can provide the pupils with 
immediate non-judgmental feedback and individualized material for the pupils and it allows 
them to proceed in their own pace (Warschauer, ibid). Furthermore, due to the technological 
development a new era arose, which Warschauer (ibid) refers to as ‘communicative CALL’ 
while Bax (ibid) describes it as ‘open’ (Bax, op cit: 534). This phase opened up for more 
interaction. Proponents of the first phase believed that the drill and practice program did not 
allow enough authentic communication (Warschauer, op cit). The technology guided the 
pupils to language discovery and focused more on language production instead of language 
recognition. The exercises allowed for critical thinking and involved situated language 
practice (Dudeney and Hockley, 2012). Moreover, the third phase is referred to as the 
‘integrative CALL’ and is based on two technological developments – multimedia computers 
and Internet. Multimedia computers allow a variety of media, such as text, graphic, sound and 
animation to be accessed on one single machine, this generated a more authentic learning 
environment since listening could now be combined with seeing. The variety of multimedia 
learning opportunities also made it more natural and easier to integrate and combine all the 
four language skills in one single activity (Warschauer, op cit). Bax (op cit) argues that 
language teaching has not yet fully achieved this, but it is a goal that should be aimed for 
(Bax, ibid: 534).
Additionally, since the computer has become a major part of our everyday lives the question 
is no longer whether technology should be integrated into teaching or not, the question is how 
to integrate it in a way that improves the pupils’ learning. There are several promising ideas 
of how to use CALL in teaching, but there are no complete answers on how to use it most 
effectively to support language learning (Hubbard, op cit).