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).
Dostları ilə paylaş: