Jozef Colpaert

Toward an ontological approach in goal-oriented language courseware design and its implications for technology-independent content structuring

The term ‘design’ is being understood more and more as a methodological process, together with its acceptance as the result of such a process. As a process, it is a stage in the courseware engineering life cycle which primarily focuses on rendering the development process more effective and on enhancing the qualities of the finished system, especially its linguistic-didactic functionalities. More importantly for CALL as a discipline, the design process should be research-based and research-oriented; it should integrate accepted findings, principles and methodologies on the one hand, and it should also generate new research findings which can lead to new working hypotheses, on the other. In this article we will focus on two essential design aspects: concept and content. We will show how both concept and content can remain independent from any technology so that they become as reusable, exchangeable, and sustainable as possible. The key activity is specification. The ontological approach in specification states that what can be specified can be developed. This working hypothesis does not depend on technology but on a sound conceptualisation of what is needed in a particular learning situation. As far as content is concerned, an intermediate level of content structuring in relational databases facilitates a rapid output to different or successive learning environments.

Elicitation of language learners' personal goals as design concepts

Abstract Educational engineering as a research method focuses more on the process than on the product, more on observable phenomena than on measurable differences. Ten years ago, we noticed a factor which appears to impact heavily on the design process, and we have been observing it ever since: the identification and formulation of personal goals, not defined as psychological realities, but as hypothetical design concepts. In this contribution, we describe the background and rationale behind our research. We explain how personal goals can be elicited and how they contribute to the solution construct. We conclude with a plea for collaborative theoretical and empirical validation.

Editorial: From Courseware to Coursewear?

Assuming that I am writing for posterity here, I have to address – and hopefully appeal to – three kinds of readers. The first type of reader will glance through this issue of the CALL Journal as soon as it appears. The second type of reader will be searching articles on a particular subject for a literature survey, probably within 2–5 years, and hopefully will come across this issue. The third reader will find this issue in the dusty archives of a library about to be demolished, and in so doing will save it from oblivion. My editorials usually contain, next to the perfunctory presentation of the articles accepted for publication, general considerations on CALL research, development and implementation. I write these considerations bearing in mind that they might be read next week, within 2 years or not until 20 years hence. Sometimes I resort to safely looking for a common denominator in all of the presented articles. However, today, is it the wine that accompanied my lunch or this last day of Indian Summer that has made me deviate from the trusted path? While rereading this issue’s articles, I was struck by something that is not there: a focus on technology. What can explain this absence? By the end of 2004, the Internet hype has faded away, but we are swamped with new devices and new technologies which can be expected to revolutionize language learning and teaching: We are entering the mobile era. Cellular or mobile phones with multimedia communication capabilities, and handheld devices that function more and more like wireless laptops have become common tools. After what has been written about the affordances of the Internet, I was expecting another tidal wave of articles promoting new language learning methods based on the advantages of mobile technologies and creating exaggerated expectations. Nothing of the kind. New technologies such as WAP (Wireless Application Protocol), PDA (Personal Digital Assistants), WML (Wireless Markup Language), GPRS (General Packet Radio Service), UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System), and I-mode (mobile Internet access) lead to new ways of communication. Bob Godwin Jones (1999) was one of the first to discuss mobile computing as an ‘emerging technology’ in the field of language

The “Publish and Perish” syndrome

During the last 30 years, 10 as editor of this journal, I have been a privileged witness of six important evolutions in our field. The most obvious one is the technological evolution: from punch cards and floppy disks to mobile devices and ambient intelligence. Secondly, there is the pedagogical evolution from textbook-based knowledge-driven lecturing to student-centered competence-oriented interaction. These two evolutions are obvious and well known by the readers of this journal. The following ones, however, are less apparent. The third evolution is related to business, more specifically to the concept of the product: from closed software packages and proprietary textbooks to Open Source, Open Knowledge, Open Data and Open Educational Resources, each with their respective communities and peculiarities. This evolution is mainly noticeable on two axes: the product/service axis and the individual/collaborative axis. Products are more and more supposed to be offered free of any charge: companies are expected to build their business plan on the services they can offer around these products. Products, including educational artifacts, have evolved from individual realizations to collaborative achievements. These two alleged paradigm shifts entail a serious impact on the notion of ownership, hence the increasing success of Creative Commons. The roles of all actors involved seem to change rapidly, which I consider a significant fourth evolution. Learners become semi-autonomous self-managers, communicators and administrators, writing detailed reports on their reflection process and progress. They are expected to be peerand co-evaluators, and even coconstructors of knowledge as they can contribute to course content and research data. They are also easily turned into cheap ICT support staff (although I am the first to reduce these so-called innate technological skills of our ‘‘digital natives’’ to their right proportions). Teachers become facilitators and coaches who formulate challenges and offer support, they co-author learning materials and participate in real-world research. They have to be more and more available (anytime anywhere: students expect feedback on Monday morning on assignments submitted on Sunday evening). Parents can follow the learning process of their children almost in realtime, and communicate with teachers through electronic learning environments. Publishers reconsider their product range and their production process, as they want to keep pace with rapidly changing technology, language pedagogy, market mechanisms and user expectations. A fifth change can be observed on the level of research design in CALL. Our reviewers surely remember the early years of CALL research when authors wrote ‘‘I used this program and my students just loved it’’ as proof of concept. Computer Assisted Language Learning Vol. 25, No. 5, December 2012, 383–391

Evaluating automatic speech recognition-based language learning systems: A case study

ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to evaluate a prototype of an automatic speech recognition (ASR)-based language learning system that provides feedback on different aspects of speaking performance (pronunciation, morphology and syntax) to students of Dutch as a second language. We carried out usability reviews, expert reviews and user tests to gain insight into the potential of this prototype and the possible ways in which it could be further adapted or improved, with a view to developing specific language learning products. The evaluation revealed that domain experts and users (teachers and students) are generally positive about the system and intend to use it if they get the opportunity. In addition, recommendations have been made which range from specific changes and additions to the system to more general statements about the pedagogical and technological issues involved. These recommendations can be useful to improve this prototype and to develop other ASR-based systems, which can be deployed either as language courseware or as research tools to investigate design hypotheses and language acquisition processes.

Research challenges in CALL

The theme of the XVIth International CALL Research Conference 2014 in Antwerp was “Research Challenges in CALL”. Before discussing the main results of this conference, it is perhaps useful to briefly describe how this theme came along. As editor and associate editors of this journal, we can look back with many other experienced CALL researchers on an exciting couple of decades characterized by numerous changes, expanding horizons, and increasing diversity. We have learned not just to talk but more importantly to listen, to focus on real needs instead of false goals, and to encourage instead of criticize. Our primary concern is to guide and support the new generation of researchers whose biggest concern is to survive in these meritocratic times. They are under huge pressures. Listening to their presentations at conferences (but also to their aspirations during coffee breaks), evaluating their papers and project proposals, and reading their messages and posts, we constantly feel their pulse. Together with the other members of the editorial board of Computer Assisted Language Learning, we have been serving as the scientific committee for the International CALL Research Conferences since 2002, in an attempt to reflect the most common concerns and issues:

Teacher use of the interactive whiteboards in Flemish secondary education--mapping against a transition framework

Interactive Whiteboards (IWBs) are a relatively new, but increasingly more common, tool in the classrooms of Flemish Secondary schools. This paper reports on research which attempted to map not only the amount of IWB use in Flemish secondary schools but, perhaps more importantly, to assess how they are used and the progress of teachers in developing their IWB skills in the classroom. An online quantitative survey was conducted, based on a detailed IWB transition framework. The survey (n = 433) identified the distribution and usage levels of the IWB by teachers in Flemish Secondary Education. The results show that the distribution of IWBs is affected by the educational network to which a teacher belongs. In terms of the level of IWB use, teachers classified themselves predominantly in the first two stages of the transition framework (Black/Whiteboard Substitute and Apprentice use). This would suggest that teachers in Flemish Secondary Education have been initiated (in a technological sense) in using the IWB and are beginning to initiate (in a pedagogic sense) wider usage, including incorporating pupil use of the IWB. In this process, however, teachers appeared to be more confident in technical use of the ICT skills, but less confident in developing new pedagogic approaches which may exploit the full potential of the IWB.

Development and Integration of Speech Technology into COurseware for Language Learning: The DISCO Project

Language learners seem to learn best in one-on-one interactive learning situations in which they receive optimal corrective feedback. However, providing this type of tutoring by trained language instructors is time-consuming and costly, and therefore not feasible for the majority of language learners. This particularly applies to oral proficiency, where corrective feedback has to be provided immediately after the utterance has been spoken, thus making it even more difficult to provide sufficient practice in the classroom. The recent appearance of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) systems that make use of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and other advanced automatic techniques offers new perspectives for practicing oral proficiency in a second language (L2). In the DISCO project a prototype of an ASR-based CALL application for practicing oral proficiency for Dutch as a second language (DL2) was developed. The application optimises learning through interaction in realistic communication situations and provides intelligent feedback on various aspects of DL2 speaking, viz. pronunciation, morphology and syntax. In this chapter we discuss the results of the DISCO project, we consider how DISCO has contributed to the state of the art and present some future perspectives.

Distributed language learning

Sometimes submissions for the CALL Journal can be easily grouped into specific topics, categories or themes. Occasionally we invite authors to submit articles for a guest issue or for a special issue which focuses on topics like design or language testing. Every so often we select papers from conferences like the CALL conferences in Antwerp, UNTELE or ICALL. In other cases, articles are diverse in nature, but we can easily find a common trait which inspires us when writing an editorial. In this issue, the selected articles seem at first glance to have only one aspect in common: they have very little in common. Every article has been written about a different topic in specific circumstances, using a specific technology, interacting with different content and people. It is a good illustration of the multifaceted, multimodal and multidimensional nature of CALL, a view of the field echoed in the CALICO 2007 conference theme, ‘‘The Many (Inter)faces of CALL’’, and hinted at somewhat more darkly in the JALTCALL 2007 conference theme, ‘‘CALL: Integration or disintegration?’’ This polymorphism of CALL systems, activities, and research should not lead to the perception that CALL is a heterogeneous field of idiosyncratic approaches. We should stimulate the diversity in approaches, but at the same time work on a common methodology for guaranteeing this adaptation to various language learning situations. Distributed language learning (DLL), an approach applied at the new LINGUAPOLIS Language Institute at the University of Antwerp, illustrates this point. DLL is a methodological and conceptual framework for designing competency-oriented and effective language education. Its starting point is the design of a language learning environment for a specific language learning situation. The design is based on a thorough analysis of all factors and actors in the language learning situation, and on the identification of aspects amenable to change or improvement. The main phases of the design are goal-oriented conceptualisation and ontological specification. Goal-oriented conceptualisation stands for the formulation of a solution based on the realisation of ‘practical goals’ as a hypothetical compromise between (often conflicting) personal and pedagogical goals, both for teachers and learners. Ontological specification is a detailed description of the architecture of the language learning environment, defined as the network of interactions between learner, colearner, teacher, content, native, etc, inside or outside the learning place. DLL first selects the language learning method on the basis of the design of the language Computer Assisted Language Learning Vol. 20, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 1 – 3

From Working Hypotheses to Development: The LISA Platform

Abstract In order to obtain more added value, Didascalia has developed a CALL model that complies with as many criteria as possible. This model is based on contents and events, in an object‐oriented approach. This article describes how the didacteme as basic object can enhance learner‐content interaction and how this approach can lead to a new platform for courseware generation.