Mike Levy

Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: questions of coherence and autonomy

This paper considers the problem of coherence and direction in CALL research. Rather than suggesting a top-down approach to setting goals for research, it argues for a much closer examination and a much stronger emphasis on existing CALL research work as a platform for directing and informing future CALL work. Based on a corpus of 47 CALL research articles published in books and journals in 1999, it sets out a framework for the description and analysis of CALL research as it is represented in the literature. Two major directions and three important, though less frequent, directions are described in detail, using examples from the corpus, and the implications for research in the future are considered. Particular emphasis will be placed on identifying the goals of CALL researchers and on clarifying the unique attributes of research in this field.

CALL by design: discourse, products and processes

‘Design’ is a term that is familiar to many language teachers and CALL practitioners. It is used regularly in relation to curriculum, syllabus, course and task in the general literature and it occurs in all these areas and more in the CALL sphere where instructional design, website design, interface design and screen design are just some of the additional points of focus. This paper aims to look at CALL design in more detail. It places a particular emphasis on describing the discourse, products and processes of design in CALL. It looks at what we have learnt about design and points to areas that remain problematical. It also makes connections with cognate fields whenever these links prove helpful. This study is the second in a series of three complementary papers which look at research, design and evaluation in CALL (see Levy, 2000). All use the same corpus of CALL work as a database and the research design and methodology in each is the same. In this paper the description and discussion is based on 93 articles involving design published in books and journals published in 1999. The descriptive section is followed by analysis and interpretation with special attention given to the relationship between theory and design, and the centrality of the task and the learner in the design process.

Why call CALL “CALL”?

The term ‘‘CALL’’ as a general label remains controversial when used to encompass the area of work concerned with the development and use of technology applications in language teaching and learning. Its use continues to attract strong opinion and debate, especially in discussion lists and at conferences. This difference of opinion is worth exploring a little more deeply. By way of introduction, it is interesting to look at the use of the term in book and journal titles involving technology and language learning. Sometimes, where readers might expect the label CALL to appear it is absent, as in books such as Computer applications in second language acquisition (Chapelle, 2001), or English language learning and technology (Chapelle, 2003). In other instances, it continues to be used as in Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning (Beatty, 2003). Journal titles tend to reflect the same division, with this journal adopting the tag, along with ReCALL, for example, while others avoid it, like Language Learning and Technology. These differing perspectives seem to have appeared, or at least been strengthened, with the introduction of the Internet and the kind of networking, both human and technological, that this kind of worldwide infrastructure allows. For example, in their book Kern and Warschauer (2000) introduce network-based language teaching (NBLT), and say it ‘‘represents a new and different side of CALL, where human to human communication is the focus’’ (p. 1). Later, a whole chapter is dedicated to the question of whether network-based learning is in fact CALL: the answer is positive, fortunately (Chapelle, 2000). Kern and Warschauer (2000) also speak of traditional CALL that ‘‘has been associated with self-contained, programmed applications such as tutorials, tools, simulations, instructional games, tests, and so on’’ (p. 1). They then go on to describe structural, cognitive and sociocultural approaches to CALL as three successive generations. The role of the computer as tool is very much attached to the most recent, sociocultural approach to CALL (see discussion of the wordprocessor, p. 11). Yet the computer as tool has existed throughout: this was very much the original role around which the tasks of the computer were conceived. In the discussion, there is a sense in which the new label is intended to replace the old one. As Chapelle (2000, p. 204), citing Patrikis (1997), points out, ‘‘approaches to computer-based teaching accumulate and coexist rather than progressing in the linear fashion replacing old (pre-network CALL) with new (NBLT)’’. Perhaps this means that the label ‘‘CALL’’ cannot ultimately make the transition from pre-network to Computer Assisted Language Learning Vol. 18, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 143 – 149

Language Students and Their Technologies: Charting the Evolution 2006-2011.

This paper has two key objectives. Firstly, it seeks to record the technologies in current use by learners of a range of languages at an Australian university in 2011. Data was collected via a large-scale survey of 587 foreign language students across ten languages at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Notably the data differentiates between those technologies that students used inside and outside of formal classrooms as well as recording particular technologies and applications that students perceived as beneficial to their language learning. Secondly, this study aims to compare and contrast its findings with those from two previous studies that collected data on students’ use of technologies five years earlier, in 2006, in the UK and Canada. The intention is to chart major developments and changes that have occurred during the intervening five-year period, between 2006 and 2011. The data reported in two studies, one by Conole (2008) and one by Peters, Weinberg and Sarma (2008) are used as points of reference for the comparison with the present study. The findings of the current study point to the autonomy and independence of the language learners in this cohort and the re-emergence of CALL tools, both for in-class and out-of-class learning activities. According to this data set, learners appear to have become more autonomous and independent and much more able to shape and resource their personal language learning experience in a blended learning setting. The students also demonstrate a measure of sophistication in their use of online tools, such that they are able to work around known limitations and constraints. In other words, the students have a keen awareness of the affordances of the technologies they are using.

THEORY‐DRIVEN CALL AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Abstract This paper reflects upon the nature of theory‐driven CALL, particularly as it relates to the development process. Theoretical frameworks that have been used to motivate CALL projects are reviewed. Development processes are described using the literature from instructional design and CALL, and the findings of an international survey covering 18 countries and 104 experienced CALL practitioners. The Richards & Rodgers model (1986) is suggested as a suitable framework to describe both theory‐driven CALL, and projects that use as a point of departure a lower level of abstraction, e.g., curriculum specifications. Development processes are shown to range from those that are linear and systematic to those that are iterative and transformational. The implications for theory‐driven CALL are considered and the concept of ‘fit’ between the theoretical framework or pedagogy and the computers capabilities is examined (see Wyatt, 1988). In addition, formalist and procedural approaches to CALL are discussed (se...

Teacher Training in a Synchronous Cyber Face-to-Face Classroom: Characterizing and Supporting the Online Teachers' Learning Process

This article discusses the learning process undertaken by language teachers in a cyber face-to-face teacher training program. Eight tertiary Chinese language teachers attended a 12-week training program conducted in an online synchronous learning environment characterized by multimedia-based, oral and visual interaction. The term “cyber face-to-face” is used here to describe this environment as it both resembles and differs from the physical face-to-face environment. This article discusses a two-phased program with a four-week online platform training (Phase 1) followed by an eight-week online teaching practice and observation (Phase 2), conducted from November 2006 to February 2007. Data collected throughout the program indicate a learning curve that could best be characterized by four stages – the “wow” stage, the “oh-oh” stage, the anxious stage, and the internalizing stage. This article focuses on how the trainees progressed through these four stages, and describes how their learning was supported in each stage through a cyclic approach of action, reflection, and improvement. The characterization of the four stages not only helps us to capture how trainee teachers learn about teaching online, and respond to the challenges and potentials this new form of teaching presents, but also helps the trainer to determine what knowledge and skills should be taught and what kinds of support should be provided at what points in the process.

CALL begins with a C: Interaction in computer-mediated language learning

Abstract Recent calls have been made to anchor CALL theory and practice in the Instructed SLA/Interaction Account of language learning (Chapelle, 1997, This move, it is argued, will provide CALL with a principled framework for research and theory development. Although we agree with these authors that much current CALL research lacks a transparent and coherent theoretical foundation, we believe the Interaction Account, as it stands, has significant shortcomings when applied directly to CALL. At issue is the nature of second language learning, the relationship between face-to-face and computer-mediated interaction, and the effects of technology on second language communication and learning. We argue that the Interaction Account evokes an overly narrow view of CALL, and that it does not differentiate sufficiently between the types of CALL now commonly practised, particularly with regard to the distinctive characteristics of the modes available under the rubric of Computer-Mediated Communication (i.e. email, discussion lists, Internet Relay Chat, video-conferencing).

A rationale for teacher education and call: The holistic view and its implications

In a paper written in 1987 entitled “Computers and the Humanities Courses: Philosophical Bases and Approaches” Nancy Ide put forward two views on teacher education in humanities computing, the “Expert Users View” and the “Holistic View”.1 Ides two views are derived from the collective opinions given by members of a workshop on teaching computing and humanities courses. In this article the degree to which Ides two Views can be substantiated in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is explored, through a review of the literature and through an international survey on CALL materials development conducted by the author in 1991 (Levy, 1994). On this basis, and given the scarcity of Holistic courses in CALL, a rationale for a CALL course with a holistic orientation is presented.

Developing the skills and techniques for online language teaching: a focus on the process

Abstract This paper aims to describe the experience of two online tutors as they learn to teach the language to learners at a distance. The two tutors formed part of a cohort of eight participants who attended a four-week training course (Stage 1) followed by an eight-week online teaching practice (Stage 2) from November 2006 to February 2007 at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. Special attention is paid to recording the tutors’ experience as they moved through the workshops and on to the teaching practice sessions, which began with individual teaching and later involved team teaching. In order to capture the details of the learners’ experience, and their individual views on working in an online environment, a qualitative approach is taken to record the experiences of the two tutors. A second and complementary point of focus is on the design, structure and sequencing of the training materials that were used to guide and motivate the trainee tutors, first in helping them acquire the knowledge and skills required to use a Synchronous Learning Management System (SLMS) and second on helping them develop the strategies and techniques necessary for effective online pedagogy. The paper describes the rationale, structure and use of these training materials which promote action and reflection through a learning cycle. This project employs an SLMS called the Collaborative Cyber Community (3C). 3C has a wide range of features that trainee tutors learn how to use including synchronous cyber classrooms supported by a videoconferencing system called JoinNet, an interactive whiteboard, text chat and joint web browsing.

Two conceptions of learning and their implications for CALL at the tertiary level

Though it may not be expressed explicitly, any CALL design reflects a particular conception of teaching and learning. A broad division may be made between learning that focuses on the individual learner, and learning that emphasises social interaction. The first orientation is represented by the work of Piaget, whose conception of learning is individualistic, whereas Vygotsky is the prime example of a theoretician who has focused on social factors. The two perspectives imply widely differing classroom practices, research agendas and techniques. This paper will detail the theoretical underpinnings of the two approaches, and will explore their implications as they relate to research and practice in CALL, with a particular focus on the tertiary level.