ICT and Language Learning - Report Example

ICT and language learning Introduction Together with the recognition of the significance of foreign language teaching and learning especially in the context of the globalised and, hence, multi-cultural world, the potential of the rapidly advancing ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), is seen to offer novel opportunities for facilitating and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of language acquisition (Kumar & Tammelin 2008, pp. 4; Chambers & Davies 2001, pp. 7). Meaning not that the use of computers per se constitutes pedagogy (see Garrett 1991), Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) – or the use of ICT to facilitate the process of language acquisition – pushes pedagogy to continually metamorphose so as to exhaust the educational potentials of ICT. As such, CALL merely serves as a teachers’ tool to facilitate language learning process, reinforce what the learners have been learning in the classrooms, and functions as remedial to help learners with limited language proficiency (see Warschauer 1996). The subject of ICT and language learning is a broad topic. But, this paper would be understandably limited in its scope. It would dwell on ICT and its use by individual learners (or) in the classroom. It would also be restricted by its discussion about the learning principles behind the use the CALL, its presentation of how the outcomes of the employ of ICT in language acquisition are gauged, and its elaboration on the current as well as emerging issues in this field. Learning theories behind the use of ICT in language learning Since the inception of CALL in the 1950’s, at least four learning theories have generally supplied the principles of language pedagogy that serve as bases of CALL lessons and the design of CALL materials. Initially, CALL was designed following the behaviorist theories of learning (Warschauer 1996). Behaviorism is known to emphasize the role of experience in controlling behavior. It holds that all organisms possess innate motives driving instinctive behavior, and that the more important determinants of behavior are those that are learned. These learned drives motivate behavior and are learned through the organisms’ interaction with the environment. On this account, the behaviorist studies the rules or laws governing this learning, and uses these rules or laws to predict, control and understand behavior (Klein & Mowrer 1989, pp. 1-2). Subsequent critique directed against behaviorism particularly about the un-tenability of its derivative learning theory has made the educators and ICT experts to consider what the communicative approach to language learning may offer. This learning theory is founded on the idea that successful language acquisition comes through having to communicate real meaning. That is, when learners are involved in real communication, then their natural strategies for language acquisition will be used allowing the language learners to learn to use the language (see Mitchell 2003, pp. 33-42). Underwood (1983) opined that this approach is teaching grammar implicitly, rather than explicitly as it allows and even encourages students to come up with original utterances rather than just manipulate prefabricated language (pp. 52). Eventual assessments of the communicative approach to language teaching and learning, however, have found out that it is resulting to compartmentalization of skills pertinent to language competence. And that this learning process actually does not help the learner especially with information overload that characterizes our time (Humphreys 2005). Hence, the ensuing clamor by educators is to teach language in more integrative manner – and, with the use of task- or project-based approaches. Resulting to what is termed integrative learning (theory), the goal that is now being pursued is to come up with a pedagogical method that could help integrate the various aspects of the language learning process (Warschauer 1996). For, accordingly, one’s capacity to learn is fundamentally dependent upon how well one establishes connections and integrates disparate facts, theories and contexts to make sense of the complex world (Humphreys 2005). Finally, the pedagogical shift that characterizes the time involves the belief that the most effective way for students to learn is through active engagement with and exploration of the subject – or, as in the topic of this paper, the language. The resultant theory of learning is termed explorative. This theory asserts that the process of pedagogy is helped by the use of experience. Learning is about discovery; and educational process is guided activity (see Wayne 1990, pp. 51-53). CALL as pedagogical tools Now, the learning theories cited in the preceding do not merely serve as the conceptual foundation of CALL throughout the ages. In fact, they also designate just how CALL may be used by individual learners especially in the classrooms. As consequence, the designs of the computer hardware for language learning have evolved over time – i.e., from the big computer frames of the old that were contained inside language laboratories to the small – hence, handy – and personalized computer units that are available to date. In addition, nowadays, there are so many different types of courseware that were designed at different types of learners and learning situations for the acquisition of different bodies of knowledge. Too, there are generic programs and websites that may be used for language learning (see Murry 2004, pp. 79). Particularly, on account of the belief that repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial and even essential to learning, one design of CALL is to capitalize on repetitive language drills. After all, computers do not get bored, tired or impatient with learners who may be presented the lessons according to one’s pace and level, CALL programs are designed to present a stimulus to which the learner would provide a response. The computer system, then, would analyze the response and give feedback. The first design simply involved doing the presentation of stimulus and the provision of response only through text. The subsequent versions of devise are made to react to the learners’ mistakes by providing help screens and remedial activities (Warschauer 1996). Following the communicative approach to teaching, several designs of CALL are developed. Characteristically, as these CALL programs never follow the drill format of skill practice, they provide the process of finding the right answer involving a fair amount of student choice, control and interaction. Thus, they include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction and language games (Healey & Johnson 1995). In some other designs following the communicative process of learning, language learners are stimulated to discuss, write or critically think in lieu of having the students discover the right answer (see Healey & Johnson 1995 for examples, such as Sim City, Sleuth, Where in the World is San Diego?, among others). Still, another version of programs based on this learning theory does not necessarily provide any language material at all, but rather empowers the learner to use or understand language – e.g., word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, desk-top publishing programs and concordancers (Warschauer 1996). Integrative CALL, for its part, tries to realize the learning of language through the approaches that are either task- or project-based. It was fortunate that this pedagogical shift has found an ally in the multimedia technology, which has provided text, graphics, sound and animation to language learning and teaching. The first forms of integrative CALL – i.e., the Montevidisco, Who is Oscar Lake? and A la rencontre de Philippe – were simulations of situations with the learner playing a key role (Warschauer 1996). Improving further the integrative CALL, explorative approach has been gaining ground. Not only are CALL programs inducing the use of all sensory organs of the body such as the seeing and listening just like in the real world, they are also encouraging the learners to try different possible solutions to a problem. For instance, there is the Dustin’s simulation of a foreign students’ arrival in the USA, or the use of concordance programs (Warschauer 1996). ELLIPS, or Electronic Language Learning Interactive Practicing System, is another example of explorative CALL program (Corda & Jager 2004). All of these developments have revolutionized the teaching of second languages. To date, what the language learners have is means for true individualized practice. That is, in and out of the classroom, language learning has become one-on-one, self-paced, and almost without need for supervision. Language learners now can study what they want, whenever they want and for as long as they want (see Underwood 1984, pp. 33). Measuring the outcome of CALL As mentioned in the preceding section, even within the specific area of CALL so much developments have transpired already transpired. Its primary repercussions are diversifications, too, in opinion and in emphases when evaluating the efficacy or the outcome of language learning assisted by ICT (see Murry 2004, pp. 79). Not surprisingly, Allum (2002) asserts that there is still a need for general studies of CALL outcome in variety of contexts. In fact, evaluating CALL system and its outcome is simply as difficult as evaluating language learning. Bergstorm (2007) made a study on Swedish language learners following provides a number of principles of evaluation of CALL outcome which she identified. Firstly, evaluation of CALL is said to be situation specific. Secondly, CALL needs to be evaluated through two points of view – that is, judgmental analysis of software and planned tasks, and the empirical analysis of the learner’s performance. Thirdly, the criteria for CALL quality should proceed from theory and research on instructed second language acquisition. Fourthly, the criteria should be applied in view of the purpose of the task. Fifthly, language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL. Similarly, Bergstorm (2007) noted that evaluation of CALL outcome actually engages every one that uses the CALL system. That means, it includes the learners and the teachers. Normally, the first level of analysis involves the evaluation of the CALL software. The second level, which commands judgmental method of evaluation, is directed to teacher-planned CALL activities. And, the third level, which necessitates empirical evaluation method, focuses on the learner’s performance during CALL activities. There are a number of researchers who have published their findings relative to gauging of CALL impact. That CALL’s capabilities are effectively enhancing language input and learner output – the crucial elements for language acquisition has been established, for one, using a reliable developmental measure such as Processability Theory (Kawaguchi & Di Biase n.d, pp. 287-302). Chapelle & Jamieson (1986) reports the results of their study where they made use of TOEFL and an oral test of communicative competence to gauge the English proficiency of their identified Arabic and Spanish-speaking computer-assisted language learners. Ultimately, they reported that certain types of learners may be better suited to some CALL materials than other learners, and that it is necessary to consider many learner variables when researching the effectiveness of CALL. Young (1988) proposes a model for measuring the outcome of the use of CALL. He posited that CALL software may be classified into two types: those that allow the learner to negotiate the outcome of the activity, and those which outcome is fixed. Between these two CALL models, it was found out that it is the negotiable outcome programs that are able to get closer to ordinary conversation and entailed the kind of interaction that researchers are claiming to be beneficial to language acquisition (pp. 65-83). Current and emerging issues in CALL For the last twenty years, studies on CALL have dwelt on trying to measure the impact of ICT on the second language performance of the learners. Usually, the framework of these studies consists of the traditional understanding of ICT as tutor, pupil (or tutee), and tool. Too, in these studies, computers and ICT are very broadly interpreted and with ICT normally placed at the disposal of the teacher and/or the learner being exploited as effectively as possible in pursuit of a clearly specified goal. In addition, it is commonplace in these researches the preoccupation with language learning as an activity that takes place in the classroom or other environments which are somehow “fenced off” from the wider experience of the language learner as an individual within a broader educational and societal culture, shaped both by local, national and global events, and cultural understandings of reality (Conacher, Taalas & Vogel 2004, pp. 9). Future directions for CALL are expected to take into consideration certain matters. Generally said, the future of CALL is anticipated to prioritize pedagogy over technology. Specifically, though, there is a need to address the need for greater levels of trainings in design and creation of multimedia CALL. The earlier trend was to leave the design of instructional materials to programmers and computer designers. But, unless the CALL designers are educators themselves, pedagogy cannot take the driving seat and language teachers will not be less dependent on technologies. For, language teachers understand better what is needed by the learners – who happen to be the focus and the reason for existence of the CALL (see Bangs & Cantos 2004, pp. 235). Actually, educators also need to be instructed further not only in matters technological but also pedagogical. In particular, there is no denying that most – if not all – language teachers wish to make good use of CALL. However, they are still wanting when it comes to choosing, applying and integrating CALL into their school curriculum. The collective experience of governments across the globe, and their institutions of learning, assert that this endeavor is definitely huge and expensive. Besides, training the educators for better incorporation of CALL into their curriculum is not all. It surely will lead to enforced changes in classroom organization and methodology (see Bangs & Cantos 2004, pp. 235). It is also being anticipated that should educators become better trained in this aspect, the thorny issue of gauging the impact or the outcome of CALL to language learning and teaching. Moreover, the future of CALL would hope to finally settle the trade-off between complexity of the CALL program and the ease of its use. A courseware may be used by either language learner or teacher with virtually no training in its use, but would be visibly limited in what it can actually offer. On the other hand, there may be a courseware that requires more than basic or specialized training in order to fully exhaust its systems to the full. Obviously, given the state of CALL programs nowadays, this would mean more research and development remains to be done in this area (Bangs & Cantos 2004, pp. 235). Conclusion That ICT occupies an increasingly important place in language learning and teaching is no longer a subject for debate, particularly since pedagogy as a whole currently transpires within what is called new learning environments. Definitely, CALL is evolving. And this evolution of CALL is very obvious in the aspect of its technology – that is, from PLUTO to ELLIPS. But, the side of the pedagogy is catching up. While since the inception of CALL the learning theories have been serving – in a manner of speaking – as its soul, there is much to be desired on the more practical levels of, for instance, choosing, applying and integrating CALL into the everyday classroom lessons. Classified as caveats of the present state of CALL, it is foreseen that they are going to constitute the meat of the future endeavors related to ICT and language learning and teaching. References: Allum, P. 2002. CALL and the classroom: the case for comparative research. ReCALL, [Online], 14 (1). Abstract from Portal data base. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=984944 [Accessed on 14 March 2010]. Bangs, P. & Cantos, P. 2004. What can computer assisted language learning contribute to foreign language pedagogy? International Journal of English Studies, 4 (1), pp. 221-239. Bergstorm, H. 2007. Evaluation of a computer assisted language learning system for Swedish language learners. Available at: http://www.speech.kth.se/prod/publications/files/3041.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2010]. Chambers, A. & Davies, G. (eds). 2001. ICT and language learning: a European perspective. Lisse (Netherlands): Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers. Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. 1986. Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Quarterly, [Online], 20 (1). Abstract from JSTOR database. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3586387 [Accessed on 14 March 2010]. Conacher, J., Taalas, P. & Vogel, T. 2004. New language learning and teaching environments: how does ICT fit in? In A. Chambers, J.E. Conacher & J. Littlemore (eds), ICT and language learning: integrating pedagogy and practice. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press, pp. 9-27. Corda, A. & Jager, S. 2004. ELLIPS: providing web-based language learning for higher education in the Netherlands. ReCALL, [Online] 16 (1). Abstract from The ACM Portal database. Available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1008794 [Accessed 8 March 2010]. Garrett N. 1991. Technology in the service of language learning: trends and issues. Modern Language Journal , 75 (1), pp. 74-101. Healey D. & Johnson N. 1995. A brief introduction to CALL. In D. Healey & N. Johnson (eds.) 1995 TESOL CALL interest section software list. Alexandria (VA): TESOL Publications, pp. iii-vii. Humphreys, D. 2005. Why integrative learning? Why now? Peer Review, [Online]. Available at: http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-sufa05/pr_sufa05realitycheck.cfm [Accessed 14 March 2010]. Kawaguchi, S. & Di Biase, B. (n.d.). Aligning second language learning and computer-assisted language learning: networking the language class, tandem learning and e-movies. The INternationa Journal of Learning, 16 (10), pp. 287-302. Klein, S. & Mowrer, R. 1989. Contemporary learning theories: instrumental conditioning theory and the impact of biological constraints on learning. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc. Kumar, S. & Tammelin, M. 2008. Integrating ICT into language learning and teaching: guide for institutions. Linz: Johannes Kepler Universität. Mitchell, R. 2003. The communicative approach to language teaching: an introduction. In A. Swarbrick (ed.), Teaching modern languages. New York: Routledge, pp. 33-42. Murray, L. 2004. Essential evaluation criteria in multimedia CALL and WELL environments. In A. Chambers, J.E. Conacher & J. Littlemore (eds), ICT and language learning: integrating pedagogy and practice. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press, pp. 79-94. Underwood, J. 1984. Linguistics, computers and the language teacher: a communicative approach, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Warschauer, M. 1996. Computer assisted language learning: an introduction. In Fotos, S. (ed.), Multimedia language teaching. Tokyo: Logos International, pp. 3-20. Wayne, J. 1990. What brain research has taught us about brain-based learning. The Institute for Learning and Teaching Networker, 2, pp. 51-53. Young,R. 1988. Computer-assisted language learning conversations: negotiating an outcome. CALICO Journal, 5 (3), pp. 65-83. Read More