José Álvarez Valencia, Travis Hawkley, Sonja Fordham, and

Merica McNeil

Aims

• Review major perspectives of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning)  as a way to locate current computer mediated applications to language teaching and learning.

 • Show examples of two online communities for learning

languages and their implications in terms of the language, learning, the roles of the computer, the teacher and the students.  

Before starting

What differences do you notice in the following websites for language learning?

 http://www.pumarosa.com/  http://www.livemocha.com/sihp  http://www.busuu.com/enc/home

CALL: an overview CALL: Computer-assisted language learning (1950-1960) Deals with the study of computer applications or computer technologies in second or foreign language teaching and learning (Chapelle, 2001; Fotos & Browne, 2004; Egbert, 2005; Levy & Stockwell, 2006) Levy & Stockwell (2006):  Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL), Network-Based Language Teaching (NBLT), Web-Enhanced Language Learning, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), Information and Communication Technologies  (ICT) for language learning, are listed under the banner of CALL.       

 

Three theoretical approaches to CALL

 

In terms of a theory of language learning

The concept of community implies an construstivist view of  learning (Vygostky, 1981).  The notion of mediation: all human activity is mediated by tools or signs to facilitate action or structure mental functions (Egbert & Petrie, 2005).  The notion of social learning:  Language is acquired through social interaction (Zone of proximal development) but learners build and assess  their own knowledge development.   Some features in Livemocha and Busuu: Forum, Chat,Peer review and feedback of writing compositionsPeer review and feedback of oral exercies The metaphor of the "Language garden" to show progress. The offer of Gifts (Busuu) or Points (Livemocha) for extrinsic motivation (Busuu)The Catalog in Busuu or The Lessons in Livemocha Learning path: all skills (productive and receptive)

Previous Perspectives on CALL

Early attempts built on the Structuralist Perspective    - This meant lots of repetition    - Grammar and Vocabulary           - Viewing a picture, seeing the word, hearing the word, repeating the word that you heard    - Encino Man (Language Labs)    - Most teachers viewed this as a glorified tape recorder

 

Most older teachers are hesitant to use language labs, or to use new technology in classes.

Current CALL uses a more Interactional Perspective based on the idea that language skills are gained through use of the language with others that speak the language.

This idea goes with the Socio-Cognitive approach that links language skills and social interaction.

Busuu.com

-Vocabulary-Reading Comprehension-Writing Practice (to be corrected by Natives)-Chat online-Talk directly with Natives (given options of people already online)-Take a test -Find Friends

Lessons are based on grammar principles

Livemocha.com

-Learn (vocab and grammar)-Review-Write-Speak (Record a phrase that they give you)-Magnet (Give you phrase and possible words which you piece into the correct phrase)

-Given opportunity to get help from Native speakers through Chat-Able to make 'Friends' for further communication

The LearnerIn 1978, Evelyn Hatch published two papers on language learning and interaction that made an "indelible mark" on the field of SLA. Hatch called for researchers to change their focus from examining how the learning of L2 structure led to communicative use of the L2 and instead to look at how the learning of the L2 structure "evolved out of" communicative use (Pica, 1994, p. 494).  SLA research has focused on a specific kind of interaction known as negotiation.  The interactionist perspective suggests that oral discussions between native speakers and non-native speakers or between non-native speaker pairs will prime learners to focus on their own linguistic deficiences, an inportant step in interlanguage development (Blake & Zyzik, 2003).

The Learner

SLA is promoted when leaners resolve non-understandings through negotiation of meaning, defined as "communication in which participants' attention is focused on resolving a communication problem as opposed to communication in which there is a free-flowing exchange of information (Gass, 1997, p. 107). The benefits of negotiation of meaning include increasing comprehension of input, forcing learners to focus attention on certain features of their speech and providing feedback and assistance in production of modified output (Smith, 2003).  

The Learner

Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) may provide the "ideal medium" for language learners to benefit from negotiation of meaning as it "exhibits features of both oral and written language" (Smith, 2003, p. 39).  The written nature of online discussions provides a greater opportunity to focus on the form and content of the message as learners have more processing time to read and type messages. The lack of non-verbal cues may facilitate meaning negotiation, as communication has to rely merely on verbal correspondence. Additionally, because most SCMC programs provide logs of the chat sessions, learners can study the logs to reflect on their interlanguage (Kitade, 2000).

The Learner

The real-time nature and informality of chatting resembles oral communication reputedly even presenting some advantages over face-to-face interactions:• Chatting results in lexically and syntactically more complex

language.• Chatting allows for more equal participation among learners,

liberating the shy person and making it difficult for those who are talkative to dominate the conversation.

• Chatting is less threatening than face-to-face interaction, which often results in an increased willingness to take language risks and to negotiate meaning.

(Warschauer, 1996)

Conclusions

1. XXI century teachers need to use technology effectively to prepare students for the information and communication age, that includes for learning a language.  2. New language learning environments have generated different views of how language is learned, what language is, and what roles the teacher and the students should take.  3. New websites for language learning allow studenst to have agency and learn through socialization.--> motivation.

References

• Blake, R. & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who's helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers' networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519-544.

• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second langage acquisition. Cambridge : Cambridge Universty Press.

• Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (eds.) (2005). CALL Research Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Fotos, S. & Browne, C. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlboum Associates.

• Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 

 • Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners' discourse and SLA theories in CMC:

Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-16.o Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.o Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about

second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493-527.

• Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.

•  Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.