CALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

1
CALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

• Stephen Bax

2
General review of past studies on CALL history ?
too factual, lack of in-depth analysis
Bax own study An alternative categorization of
CALL history
Reassessment of Warschauer and Healeys study
Restricted CALL Open CALL Integrated CALL
Two fallacies The Omnipotence The Sole Agent
A concept of future CALL Normalization
Conclusion An agenda for future CALL
3
Part I Reassessing the history of CALL

• Three questions need to be addressed in the
  article
• Where has CALL been?
• Where is it now?
• Where is it going?

4

• The future must learn from the past and
  present.
• ? the necessity of reassessing the history of
  CALL, and its present situation as well.

5

• Literature review of previous study research of
  CALL history
• Delcloque (2000)

6

• Bax conclusion of current study on CALL history
• Ahmad et al.(1985) ? many acronyms but little
  analysis
• CALICO study (Sanders, 1995) ? relates only to
  North America and is weighed towards facts
  rather than analysis
• Levy (2000) / Chappele (2001) ? only a review,
  rather than an in-depth discussion
• Other reviews of history of CALL ? for the most
  part of the review type, insufficient in
  critical analysis

7

• By comparison
• Warschauer and Healeys (1998, 2000)
• ? the only substantive, systematic analysis to
  understand CALL history, more than factual
  terms.
• ? the best available analysis of CALL history
• ? as a starting point to revisit the history of
  CALL.

8
Part II An evaluation on Warschauer and
Healeys study of CALL history

• Three phases proposed by Warschauer and Healey
• ? Structural (previously Behaviouristic)
• ? Communicative
• ? Integrative
• (Table P15)

9

• Weaknesses in Warschauer and Healeys research
• - Inconsistencies in chronology significant
  differences in chronology for the same phases in
  different publications
• - Ambiguous disclaimers of the historical
  validity of the phases
• - Unclear criteria in defining Communicative
  CALL phase
• ? implausible examples and definitions for CLT,
  unclear criteria of definition the wishes of its
  proponents / the software / the use of software
  in class

10

• - Doubtful assertion of integrative CALL
• 1. If defined on the basis of approach to
  language teaching
• ? indistinguishable from mainstream CLT
• 2. If defined on the basis of the use of
  computers in the syllabus or in classroom
  practice
• ? there was no actual change at all
• 3. If defined as a new hope or ambition for CALL
  
• ? some validity in the category, but hardly a
  sufficient criterion for suggesting the emergence
  of a new historical phase of CALL

11

• Conclusion of evaluation
• ? call for a new analysis less confusing
  terminology, better fit with historical
  progression of CALL software, approach and
  practice.

12
Part III An Alternative analysis of CALL
proposed by Bax

• Criteria of categorization
• general approaches instead of phases
• Categorization
• Restricted CALL (1960s - 1980),
• Open CALL (1980s - today),
• Integrated CALL (existing in a few places and a
  few dimensions only. key difference to
  Integrative CALL does not exist to any
  significant degree, but represents instead an aim
  towards which we should be working.)

13

• Explanation of Validity
• ?Three approaches coincide with general
  historical periods.
• ? Other benefits
• 1. The terminology prevents conceptual confusion
  with behaviourist or communicative approaches
  to learning or teaching
• 2. The classification is more accurate as a
  description of what happened in the past and is
  happening now.
• 3. The framework helps to define practice in some
  detail.

14
Part IV where is CALL now?? Open CALL

• In general, Open aspect of the technology and
  software needs support of an Open attitude
  (teachers attitudes, administrators attitudes
  and timetabling)
•  
•  
•   Restricted
  CALL
•  
• Open CALL
•  

15
Part V The future of CALL Integrated and
Normalization

• Identification of an end goal for CALL
  Normalization ? when the technology becomes
  invisible, embedded in everyday practice and
  hardly recognized as technology itself.
•  
• Stages of normalization in CALL
• Early Adopters ? Ignorance/skepticism ? Try once
  ? Try again ? Fear/awe ? Normalizing ?
  Normalization

16

• Two fallacies in our approach to CALL
• 1. The Omnipotence Fallacy the excessive awe
  of computer technology and the belief that it can
  do more than it can
• 2. The Sole Agent Fallacy the common
  assumption that the key or only factor in
  successful implementation of the technology is
  the technology itself, neglecting many other
  factors required in successful implementation
• (eg. Training for teachers, administrative and
  pedagogical support, integration into the
  timetable)

17

• Overcoming the two fallacies
• 1. Emphasis on the analysis of other factors
  besides the technology and software, many areas
  technology, software, teachers attitudes etc.
• 2. Ethnographic study and analysis helps to
  identify many interlocking and overlapping
  factors that need to be take account to change a
  target institution, target our efforts more
  precisely.
• 3. For individual teacher carry out careful
  action research into integration.

18
Part VI ConclusionA possible future agenda for
CALL

• Aim/goal Normalization
• Requirements
• ? Changes in technology
• ? Change in attitudes, approach and practice
  among teachers and learners
• ? Integration into administrative procedures and
  syllabuses
• Means of achieving the goal
• ? more in-depth ethnographic studies
• ? individual action research

19
Part VII Web resources on CALL history

• http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_lan
  guage_learning
• Delcloque P. (2000) History of CALL
• http//www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdf

20
Part VIII Sum-up of forum discussion

• Normalization
• ? not an easy goal
• ? a long way to away
• ? unlikely to achieve unless technology becomes
  cheap and available to everyone
• ? its achievement is a matter of time, we are at
  one stage
• ? stay positive and look forward to the future of
  CALL
• ? unpredictable, hard to define

21

• Fallacies
• ? omnipotence thinking a software program needs
  to do everything, while seeing it as teacher /
  expenses make people want more features of
  software
• ? omnipotence technological innovations are
  regarded not as supplements but substitutes for
  language teachers work
• ? Sole agent few training opportunities and
  pedagogical support
• ? Sole agent a case, use of computer in a high
  school