Early CALL
Developed in the mid 1940s from earlier work in the 1930s and early 1940s, large mainframe computers were used during World War II for missile guidance and cryptography and were thus involved with language processes from the very start. Mechanical translations appeared in the 1940s as a spin-off from cryptography but proved to be inadequate; as a result, U.S. government funding for computer research initially decreased after the war (Last, 1992). However, because of the improved systems and programming languages that were developed throughout the 1950s, by the 1960s linguists were using computers to create concordances for text analysis. The first electronic corpus, the Brown Corpus of Standard American English was developed during this period. It consisted of about 1 million words, the minimum number required to provide stable word-frequency list.
Until the invention of microcomputers language learners had to work noninteractively with mainframe computers by punching their data on cards, running the program, then waiting for the results. Despite these limitations, simple CALL programs for drill and testing appeared as early as the 1950s, and a number of pioneer CALL projects existed by the 1960s (see Chapelle, 2001; Levy, 1977, for descriptions). Early programs required the learner to choose one of two answers and the score was presented after the data had been processed. This linear type of program was the first generation of CALL software, and both researchers and educators acknowledged its limitations. The challenge was to create a learner interface that presented the computer as an interactive tutor evaluating the student and providing subsequent activities, a model characterizing CALL from its inception (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Levy, 1997; Taylor, 1980).
Behavioristic CALL
This first phase of CALL has been termed behavioristic CALL (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Warschauer, 1996a). It dominated the 1960s and 1970s and replicated the teaching techniques of structural linguistics and the audio-lingual method, a behaviorist model of language learning based on habit formation (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Emulating techniques used in language laboratories at the time, CALL consisted mainly of drill-and-practice programs and was regarded as a supplement to classroom instruction rather than its replacement. However, it should be noted that even today numerous drill programs still exist for vocabulary study and grammar practice because repeated exposure to such material has been shown to promote its acquisition, and the computer provides both immediate feedback and presents material at the learner’s pace, thereby encouraging learner autonomy (Chapelle, 2001; Ellis, 2002; Fotos, 2001; Healy, 1999).
Communicative CALL
By the end of the 1970s, however, behaviorist approaches to language learning were challenged by communicative approaches based on meaning-focused language use rather than formal instruction (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The emergence of increasingly powerful microcomputers in the 1980s presented a greater range of possibilities for learner interaction, and pioneer books on CALL methodology, such as Higgins and Johns’ influential Computer in Language Learning (1984), Underwood’s seminal Linguistics, Computer and the Language Teacher (1984), and Ahmad, Greville, Rogers, and Sussex’s Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching (1985) began to appear. This period also witnessed the establishment of key professional organization such as the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO) in the United States and the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning (EuroCALL) in Europe, and publication of their journals, CALICO Journal and ReCALL. In addition, language teachers themselves began to write language-learning software using programs such as Hypercard, which were based on a nonlinear concept of interactivity—one of the key concepts driving the subsequent development of the Internet (Levy, 1997). This next generation of CALL software was characterized as communicative CALL (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Underwood, 1984; Warschauer, 1996a) because it emphasized communicative use of the language rather than mastery of isolated forms. Programs consisted of language games, reading and writing practice, text reconstruction, cloze tests, and puzzles. However, once again the prevailing model was the computer as tutor for the students, a “teacher in the machine” (Levy, 1997), and some researchers evaluating CALL questioned whether this technology was truly compatible with communicative methodology (see Dunkel, 1991; Underwood, 1984).
In reaction to criticisms that CALL was limited to mechanistic drills and lacked the ability to give learners essential feedback, the early 1990s was characterized by a different model, the computer as stimulus (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Warschauer, 1996a). Here, software followed a cognitive model of language learning that aimed to stimulate students’ motivation, critical thinking, creativity, and analytical skills rather than merely the achievement of a correct answer or the passive comprehension of meaning. A related learning model was the use of the computer as a tool providing the means for students to become active learners (Levy, 1997; Taylor, 1980). Software in the category, such as word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, desktop publishing programs, and concordancers, did not supply language-learning activities but facilitated the students’ understanding and manipulation of the target language (Warschauer, 1996a).
Integrative CALL
The present stage of CALL, integrative CALL, arose in the mid 1990s and has been made possible by the development of powerful desktop computers that support rapid use of the Internet, local area networks (LANs), multimedia, and linked resources known as hypermedia (Warschauer, 1996a). Currently, a typical multimedia language program might allow students to do a reading assignment in the target language, use a dictionary, study grammar and pronunciation related to the reading, perhaps access support materials and translations in the students’ first language (L1), view a movie of the reading, and take a comprehension test on the reading content, receiving immediate feedback, all within the same program. This is a highly interactive and individualized approach, with the main focus on content supported by modules instructing learners on specific skills (Kern & Warschauer, 2000).
Much of the theory underlying integrative CALL is derived from the Vygotskyan sociocultural model of language learning (Wertsch, 1985) in which interaction is regarded as essential for the creation of meaning. Thus, person-to-person interaction is a conspicuous feature of many current CALL activities. The rise of LANs to teach writing interactively and e-mail exchange programs among students, classes, and institutions are examples of interactive language learning activities, as are multiplayer role-playing games and interactive online real-time learning situations such as MOOs (Multiple-user-domain object oriented) and simulation games played by different users. The rise of the Internet has promoted the use of CALL for information retrieval, creating the concept of computer literacy, a term referring to the development of skills for data retrieval, critical interpretation, and participation in online discourse communities (see Felix, 1999, 2002; Hawisher & Self, 2000; Murray, 2000; Warschauer, 1999). Learner autonomy—the influential concept from general education suggesting that students learn better when they discover things through their own efforts rather than when they receive knowledge passively through instruction—is an important goal of the current view of CALL (Healy, 1999).
A second feature of integrative CALL is the movement away from language-learning software and CD-ROMs to Web-based activities that allow learners flexible, self-paced access to information (Felix, 1998, 1999, 2000; Lin & Hsieh, 2001; Schcolnik, 2002; Warschauer, 1999). Thus, both teachers and students increasingly view computers and CALL as means to an end—the end being authentic, Web-based communication for meaningful purpose—rather than merely as a tool for language learning.
Regarding the future of CALL and the direction of educational technology in general, the point has been made repeatedly that no one knew what a powerful communication tool the telephone would eventually become, how the car would transform transportation, or how important television would become as a global medium. On the same way, from our current vantage point at the start of the computer era, it is impossible to visualize the changes that will occur as a result of its future development. Some researchers caution against the destruction of human relationships and the fragmentation of human society as a result of computer-mediated communication (CMC) preempting face-to-face interaction, warning that “improved tools are still projecting an unimproved and thoroughly unrevolutionary agenda” (Brown, 1997, P. 245). Other researchers (e.g., Ogden, 1995; Warschauer, 1999) predict that we are heading toward a world without borders, with the rise of knowledge brokers and information literates as the new aristocracy and power elite. However, still others caution that the expensive technology and infrastructure required for online activities tend to privilege the culture and educational pedagogies of the advanced nations, creating a hegemonic “digital divide” between technological haves and have-nots (e.g. Crystal, 2001; Hawisher & Self, 2000; Hoffman & Novak, 2001; Murray, 2000; Warschauer, 2003). However, Murray (2000) observed that the new communication technologies such as video conferencing and e-mail have not yet replaced the old forms such phone calls and letters, but rather complement them, so the direction of the relationship between language learning and technology is still unclear. Nonetheless, most researchers agree that a major shift is taking place (see discussions in Crystal, 2001; Murray, 2000; Warschauer, 2003)—a shift in the use of general technology and a shift in education away from the teacher-centered classroom toward a learner-centered system where the learner is in control of the lesson content and the learning process. CALL has historically been rooted in educational technology, and findings from the general field of education will continue to be influential in determining its future directions.
(from Sandra Fotos & Charles Brown. New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwha, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated, 2004. P 3.)
