Reprinted with permission of LogosInternational. Please cite as:
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction.In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: LogosInternational.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning:
An Introduction http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/call.html

by Mark Warschauer

Until quite recently, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) wasa topic of relevance mostly to those with a special interest in that area.Recently, though, computers have become so widespread in schools and homesand their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of languageteachers must now begin to think about the implications of computers forlanguage learning.

This article provides brief overview of how computers have beenused and are being used for language teaching. It focuses not on a technicaldescription of hardware and software, but rather on the pedagogical questionsthat teachers have considered in using computers in the classroom. Forthose who want more detailed information on particular applications, atypology of CALL programs (Appendix A) and a list of furtherCALL resources (Appendix B) is included at the end.

Three Phases of CALL

Though CALL has developed gradually over the last 30 years, this developmentcan be categorized in terms of three somewhat distinct phases which I willrefer to as behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, andintegrativeCALL (cf. Barson & Debski, in press). As we will see, the introductionof a new phase does not necessarily entail rejecting the programs and methodsof a previous phase; rather the old is subsumed within the new. In addition,the phases do not gain prominence one fell swoop, but, like all innovations,gain acceptance slowly and unevenly.

Behavioristic CALL

The first phase of CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the1960s and '70s, was based on the then-dominant behaviorist theories oflearning. Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills andcan be referred to as "drill and practice" (or, more pejoratively, as "drilland kill").

Drill and practice courseware is based on the model of computeras tutor(Taylor, 1980). In other words the computer serves as a vehiclefor delivering instructional materials to the student. The rationale behinddrill and practice was not totally spurious, which explains in part thefact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationaleis as follows:

* Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or evenessential to learning

* A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, sincethe machine does not get bored with presenting the same material and sinceit can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback

* A computer can present such material on an individualized basis,allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class timefor other activities

Based on these notions, a number of CALL tutoring systems weredeveloped for the mainframe computers which were used at that time. Oneof the most sophisticated of these was the PLATO system, which ran on itsown special PLATO hardware, including central computers and terminals.The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanationsand drills, and translations tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett,Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, behavioristic CALL was underminedby two important factors. First, behavioristic approaches to language learninghad been rejected at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level. Secondly,the introduction of the microcomputer allowed a whole new range of possibilities.The stage was set for a new phase of CALL.

Communicative CALL

The second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teachingwhich became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approachfelt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did notallow enough authentic communication to be of much value.

One of the main advocates of this new approach was John Underwood,who in 1984 proposed a series of "Premises for 'Communicative' CALL" (Underwood,1984, p. 52). According to Underwood, communicative call:

* focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;

* teaches grammar implicitly rather than explicitly;

* allows and encourages students to generate original utterancesrather than just manipulate prefabricated language;

* does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor rewardthem with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;

* avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a varietyof student responses;

* uses the target language exclusively and creates an environmentin which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen;and

* will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well.

Another critic of behavioristic CALL, Vance Stevens, contendsthat all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity--both learner-computer and learner-learner(Stevens, 1989).

Several types of CALL programs were developed and used duringthis the phase of communicative CALL. First, there were a variety of programsto provide skill practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of thesetypes of programs include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction,and language games (Healey & Johnson, 1995b). In these programs, likethe drill and practice programs mentioned above, the computer remains the"knower-of-the-right-answer" (Taylor & Perez, 1989, p. 3); thus thisrepresents an extension of thecomputer as tutor model. But--incontrast to the drill and practice programs--the process of finding theright answer involves a fair amount of student choice, control, and interaction.

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used forcommunicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor& Perez, 1989, p. 63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activityis not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather tostimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Softwareused for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may nothave been specifically designed for language learners, programs such asSimCity,Sleuth,or Where in the World is San Diego (Healey & Johnson, 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves thecomputeras tool (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980), or, as sometimescalled, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez, 1989). Inthis role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language materialat all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language. Examplesof computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammarcheckers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordancers.

Of course the distinction between these models is not absolute.A skill practice program can be used as a conversational stimulus, as cana paragraph written by a student on a word processor. Likewise, there area number of drill and practice programs which could be used in a more communicativefashion--if, for example, students were assigned to work in pairs or smallgroups and then compare and discuss their answers (or, as Higgins, 1988,students can even discuss what inadequacies they found in the computerprogram) In other words, the dividing line between behavioristic and communicativeCALL does involves not only which software is used, but also howthe software is put to use by the teacher and students.

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advanceover its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators feltthat CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning &Kenning, 1990; Pusack & Otto, 1990; Rüschoff, 1993). Critics pointedout that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashionand thus "finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal ratherthan to central elements" of the language teaching process (Kenning &Kenning, 1990, p. 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed with broader reassessmentsof the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfiedwith teaching compartmentalized skills or structures (even if taught ina communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teachin a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-basedapproaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop modelswhich could help integrate the various aspects of the language learningprocess. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing theopportunities to do just that.

Steps toward Integrative CALL: Multimedia

Integrative approaches to CALL are based on two important technologicaldevelopments of the last decade--multimedia computers and the Internet.Multimedia technology--exemplified today by the CD-ROM-- allows a varietyof media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be accessed ona single machine. What makes multimedia even more powerful is that it alsoentailshypermedia. That means that the multimedia resources areall linked together and that learners can navigate their own path simplyby pointing and clicking a mouse.

Hypermedia provides a number of advantages for language learning.First of all, a more authentic learning environment is created, since listeningis combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Secondly, skillsare easily integrated, since the variety of media make it natural to combinereading, writing, speaking and listening in a single activity. Third, studentshave great control over their learning, since they can not only go at theirown pace but even on their own individual path, going forward and backwardsto different parts of the program, honing in on particular aspects andskipping other aspects altogether. Finally, a major advantage of hypermediais that it facilitates a principle focus on the content, without sacrificinga secondary focus on language form or learning strategies. For example,while the main lesson is in the foreground, students can have access toa variety of background links which will allow them rapid access to grammaticalexplanations or exercises, vocabulary glosses, pronunciation information,or questions or prompts which encourage them to adopt an appropriate learningstrategy.

An example of how hypermedia can be used for language learningis the programDustin which is being developed by the Institutefor Learning Sciences at Northwestern University (Schank & Cleary,1995). The program is a simulation of a student arriving at a U.S. airport.The student must go through customs, find transportation to the city, andcheck in at a hotel. The language learner using the program assumes therole of the arriving student by interacting with simulated people who appearin video clips and responding to what they say by typing in responses.If the responses are correct, the student is sent off to do other things,such as meeting a roommate. If the responses are incorrect, the programtakes remedial action by showing examples or breaking down the task intosmaller parts. At any time the student can control the situation by askingwhat to do, asking what to say, asking to hear again what was just said,requesting for a translation, or controlling the level of difficulty ofthe lesson.

Yet in spite of the apparent advantages of hypermedia for language learning,multimedia software has so far failed to make a major impact. Several majorproblems have surfaced in regarding to exploiting multimedia for languageteaching.

First, there is the question of quality of available programs.While teachers themselves can conceivably develop their own multimediaprograms using authoring software such as Hypercard (for the Macintosh)orToolbook (for the PC), the fact is that most classroom teacherslack the training or the time to make even simple programs, let alone morecomplex and sophisticated ones such as Dustin. This has left thefield to commercial developers, who often fail to base their programs onsound pedagogical principles. In addition, the cost involved in developingquality programs can put them out of the market of most English teachingprograms.

Beyond these lies perhaps a more fundamental problem. Today'scomputer programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive.A program like Dustin should ideally be able to understand a user'sspokeninput and evaluate it not just for correctness but also orappropriateness.It should be able to diagnose a student's problems with pronunciation,syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options(e.g., repeating, paraphrasing, slowing down, correcting, or directingthe student to background explanations).

Computer programs with that degree of intelligence do not exist,and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Artificial intelligence(AI) of a more modest degree does exist, but few funds are available toapply AI research to the language classroom. Thus while IntelligentCALL (Underwood, 1989) may be the next and ultimate usage of computersfor language learning, that phase is clearly a long way down the road.

Multimedia technology as it currently exists thus only partiallycontributes to integrative CALL. Using multimedia may involve an integrationof skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves amore important type of integration--integrating meaningful and authenticcommunication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. Fortunately,though, another technological breakthrough is helping make that possible--electroniccommunication and the Internet.

Steps toward Integrative CALL: The Internet

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which has existed in primitive formsince the 1960s but has only became wide-spread in the last five years,is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impacton language teaching. For the first time, language learners can communicatedirectly, inexpensively, and conveniently with other learners or speakersof the target language 24 hours a day, from school, work, or home. Thiscommunication can be asynchronous (not simultaneous) through tools suchas electronic mail (e-mail), which allows each participant to compose messagesat their time and pace, or in can be synchronous (synchronous, "real time"),using programs such as MOOs, which allow people all around the world tohave a simultaneous conversation by typing at their keyboards. It alsoallows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowinga teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class,a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousandsof people.

Computer-mediated communication allows users to share not onlybrief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents--thusfacilitating collaborative writing--and also graphics, sounds, and video.Using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can search through millions offiles around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials(e.g., newspaper and magazine articles, radio broadcasts, short videos,movie reviews, book excerpts) exactly tailored to their own personal interests.They can also use the Web to publish their texts or multimedia materialsto share with partner classes or with the general public.

It is not hard to see how computer-mediated communication andthe Internet can facilitate an integrative approach to using technology.The following example illustrates well how the Internet can be used tohelp create an environment where authentic and creative communication isintegrated into all aspects of the course.

Students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz Mexico don'tjust study general examples and write homework for the teacher; insteadthey use the Internet to actually become scientific writers (Bowers, 1995;Bowers, in press). First, the students search the World Wide Web to findarticles in their exact area of specialty and then carefully read and studythose specific articles. They then write their own drafts online; the teachercritiques the drafts online and creates electronic links to his own commentsand to pages of appropriate linguistic and technical explanation, so thatstudents can find additional background help at the click of a mouse. Next,using this assistance, the students prepare and publish their own articleson the World Wide Web, together with reply forms to solicit opinions fromreaders. They advertise their Web articles on appropriate Internet sites(e.g., scientific newsgroups) so that interested scientists around theworld will know about their articles and will be able to read and commenton them. When they receive their comments (by e-mail) they can take thoseinto account in editing their articles for republication on the Web orfor submission to scientific journals.

The above example illustrates an integrative approach to usingtechnology in a course based on reading and writing. This perhaps is themost common use of the Internet to date, since it is still predominantlya text-based medium. This will undoubtedly change in the future, not onlydue to the transmission of audio-visual material (video clips, sound files)World Wide Web, but also due to the growing use of the Internet to carryout real-time audio- and audio-visual chatting (this is already possiblewith tools such asNetPhone and CU-SeeME, but is not yetwidespread).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to wait for further technologicaldevelopments in order to use the Internet in a multi-skills class. Thefollowing example shows how the Internet, combined with other technologies,was used to help create an integrated communicative environment for EFLstudents in Bulgaria--students who until recent years had little contactwith the English-speaking world and were taught through a "discrete topicand skill orientation" (Meskill & Rangelova, in press, n.p.). TheseBulgarian students now benefit from a high-tech/low-tech combination toimplement an integrated skills approach in which a variety of languageskills are practiced at the same time with the goal of fostering communicativecompetence. Their course is based on a collaborative, interpreted studyof contemporary American short stories, assisted by three technologicaltools:

* E-mail communication. The Bulgarian students correspond bye-mail with an American class of TESOL graduate students to explore indetail the nuances of American culture which are expressed in the stories,and also to ask questions about idioms, vocabulary, and grammar. The Americanstudents, who are training to be teachers, benefit from the concrete experienceof handling students' linguistic and cultural questions .

* Concordancing. The Bulgarian students further test outtheir hypotheses regarding the lexical and grammatical meanings of expressionsthey find in the stories by using concordancing software to search forother uses of these expressions in a variety of English language corporastored on CD-ROM.

* Audio tape. Selected scenes from the stories--dialogues,monologues, and descriptions--were recorded by the American students andprovide both listening practice (inside and outside of class) and alsoadditional background materials to help the Bulgarians construct theirinterpretation of the stories.

These activities are supplemented by a range of other classroomactivities, such as in-class discussions and dialogue journals, which assistthe students in developing their responses to the stories' plots, themes,and characters--responses which can be further discussed with their e-mailpartners in the U.S.

Conclusion

The history of CALL suggests that the computer can serve a variety of usesfor language teaching. It can be a tutor which offers language drills orskill practice; a stimulus for discussion and interaction; or a tool forwriting and research. With the advent of the Internet, it can also be amedium of global communication and a source of limitless authentic materials.

But as pointed out by Garrett (1991), "the use of the computerdoes not constitute a method". Rather, it is a "medium in which a varietyof methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented"(p. 75). The effectiveness of CALL cannot reside in the medium itself butonly in how it is put to use.

As with the audio language lab "revolution" of 40 years ago, those whoexpect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensiveand elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computertechnology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly findways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunitiesof their students.

Appendix A:
A Typology of CALL Programs and Applications[1]

Computer as Tutor

Grammar

CALL Programs designed for teaching grammar include drill and practiceon a single topic (Irregular Verbs, Definite and Indefinite Articles),drills on a variety of topics (Advanced Grammar Series, English GrammarComputerized I and II), games (Code Breaker, Jr. High Grade Builder),and programs for test preparation (50 TOEFL SWE Grammar Tests) Grammarunits are also included in a number of comprehensive multimedia packages(Dynamic English, Learn to Speak English Series).

Listening

This category includes programs which are specifically designed to promotesecond-language listening (Listen!), multi-skill drill and practiceprograms (TOEFL Mastery), multimedia programs for second languagelearners (Accelerated English, Rosetta Stone), and multimedia programsfor children or the general public (Aesop's Fables, The Animals).

Pronunciation

Pronunciation programs (Sounds American, Conversations) generallyallow students to record and playback their own voice and compare it toa model. Several comprehensive multimedia programs (Firsthand Access,TheLost Secret) include similar features.

Reading

This category includes reading programs designed for ESL learners (ReadingAdventure 1 - ESL) and tutorials designed for children or the generalpublic (MacReader, Reading Critically, Steps to Comprehension).and games (HangWord). Also included are more general educationalprograms which can assist reading (Navajo Vacation, The NightBefore Christmas) and text reconstruction programs (see below).

Text Reconstruction

Text reconstruction programs allow students to manipulate letters, words,sentences, or paragraphs in order to put texts together. They are usuallyinexpensive and can be used to support reading, writing, or discussionactivities. Popular examples include Eclipse, Gapmaster, SuperCloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up.

Vocabulary

This category includes drill and practice programs (Synonyms), multimediatutorials (English Vocabulary), and games (Hangman,Scrabble).Also useful are several reference and searching tools (such as concordancers)which will be described in the Computer as Tool section below.

Writing

Most software for supporting writing falls under the Computer as Tool category(see below). Exceptions include tutorials such as Sentence Combining,SentenceMaker,and Typing Tutor.

Comprehensive

A number of comprehensive multimedia programs are designed to teach ESLstudents a variety of skills. They range in price but many are quite expensive.Among the better known are Dynamic English, Ellis Mastery,EnglishDiscoveries, Rosetta Stone.

Computer as Stimulus

The computer as stimulus category includes software which is used not somuch as a tutorial in itself but to generate analysis, critical thinking,discussion, and writing. Of course a number of the above-mentioned programs(e.g., The Animals, Navajo Vacation, Night Before Christmas) canbe used as a stimulus. Especially effective for a stimulus are programswhich include simulations. Examples of this latter group include LondonAdventure,Oregon Trail, SimCity, Sleuth, Crimelab,AmazonTrail, Cross Country Canada/USA, and Where in the World isCarmen Sandiego?

Computer as Tool

Word Processing

The most common use of computer as tool, and probably the most common useoverall of the computer for language learning, is word processing. Highquality programs like Microsoft Word can be useful for certain academicor business settings (Healey & Johnson, 1995a). Programs such asClarisWorksandMicrosoftWorks are cheaper and simpler to learn and still have usefulfeatures. SimpleText and TeachText are simpler yet and may be sufficientfor many learners.

Grammar Checkers

Grammar checkers (e.g., Grammatik) are designed for native speakersand they typically point to problems believed typical of native speakerwriting (e.g., too much use of passives). They are usually very confusingto language learners and are not recommended for an ESL/EFL context.

Concordancers

Concordancing software searches through huge files of texts (called corpora,whichis the plural of corpus) in order to find all the uses of a particularword (or collocation). While very confusing for beginners, concordancerscan be a wonderful tool for advanced students of language, linguistics,or literature.

The best concordancer for language students and teachers is Oxford'sMicroConcord.The program includes as an optional extra several large (total 1,000,000words) taken from British newspapers. Or this program, and other concordancersas well, can be used with any other text files available in electronicform.

Collaborative Writing

A number of tools exist to help students work on their writing collaborativelyon computers linked in a local area network. The most popular among languageteachers is Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment, which includesmodules for real-time discussion, word processing, electronic mail, andbrainstorming, as well as citation software and a dictionary. Other programswith some similar features are Aspects and MacCollaborator.

Reference

There are numerous CD versions of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Two whichhave highly recommended (Healey & Johnson, 1995a) for language learnersare the encyclopedia ENCARTA and the Longman Dictionary of AmericanEnglish.

Internet

The three most popular uses of the Internet for language teaching are electronicmail (e-mail), the World Wide Web, and MOOs. Numerous programs exist forusing electronic mail. The Eudora program has several nice features,including "point-and-click" word processing capacity, easy attachment offormatted files, and ability to include foreign characters and alphabets.The free version (Eudora Light) is suitable for most purposes; thereis also a more powerful commercial version (Eudora Pro).

Eudora requires a direct connection to the Internet. Additionalprograms which run through the unix system and do not require a directInternet connection are Pine and Elm.

To access the World Wide Web, one needs a special program calleda browser. By far the most popular browser among educators is Netscape,which until now has been free to teachers and students.

MOOs ("Multiple-user-domains Object Oriented") allow for realtime communication, simulation, and role playing among participants throughoutthe world, and a special MOO has been set up for ESL teachers and students(schmOOze University homepage, 1995). The use of MOOs is greatly facilitatedif one uses a special client software program such as TinyFugue(for unix), MUDDweller (for Mac), or MUDwin (for Windows).

Authoring

Authoring allows teachers to tailor software programs either by insertingnew texts or by modifying the activities. Authoring runs on a spectrumfrom set programs which allow slight modification (e.g., inclusion of newtexts) to complex authoring systems.

Many of the programs listed earlier (e.g., MacReader, Eclipse,Gapmaster,Super Cloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up) allow teachersto insert their own texts and thus make the programs more relevant to theirown lessons (and greatly extend their shelf life too). By allowing thestudents themselves to develop and insert the texts, the programs can bemade even more communicative and interactive.

On the other end of the spectrum, authoring systems allow teachers todesign their own multimedia courseware. These can take a lot of time andeffort to master, and are most often used by true enthusiasts. Some arespecifically designed for language teachers (CALIS, DASHER), othersfor educators (Digital Chiseler) and others for the generalpublic (Hypercard, Hyperstudio, Supercard, Toolbook, Macromind Director).

Appendix B:
Additional CALL Resources

Selected Books

Athelstan. (1995). Technology and language learning yearbook, vol. 6.Houston,TX: Athelstan.

Dunkel, P. (Ed.). (1991). Computer-assisted language learningand testing: Research issues and practice. New York, NY: Newbury House.

Hardisty, D., & Windeatt, S. (1989) CALL. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press

Healey, D. (1995). Something to do on Tuesday Houston:Athelstan.

Healey, D., & Johnson, N. (Ed.). (1995). 1995 TESOL CALL interestsection software list. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Higgins, J. (1988). Language, learners and computers. London:Longman.

Jones, C., & Fortescue, S. (1987). Using computers in the languageclassroom. London: Longman.

Kenning, M.-M., & Kenning, M. J. (1990). Computers and languagelearning: Current theory and practice. New York: Ellis Horwood.

Pennington, M. (Ed.). (1989). Teaching languages with computers:The state of the art. La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Schank, R. C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Taylor, M. B., & Perez, L. M. (1989). Something to do on MondayLa Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Thompson, J, & Parsons, J. (1995). ReCALL software guide #4,1995. Hull, UK: CIT Centre for Modern Languages, University of Hull.

Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom.Harlow: Longman.

Warschauer, M. (1995a). E-mailfor English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.

Warschauer, M. (Ed.) (1995b). Telecollaborationin foreign language learning. Honolulu, HI: University of HawaiiSecond Language Teaching and Curriculum Center (University of Hawaii Press).

Warschauer, M. (Ed.) (1996). Virtualconnections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners.Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and CurriculumCenter (University of Hawaii Press).