Full Artikel

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 126-146 ISSN 1823 6820

127

INTRODUCTION

Computer Assisted Language Learning or (CALL) has been implemented in the US since the 1960’s when the audio-lingual method was widely used. However, the advent of computer technology such as the ability of computers to be linked together via networks, the introduction of simple authoring programs and the invention of compact discs have given more opportunities for educators and instructional technologists to break away from the simple drills and practice of the first CALL programs (Gündüz, 2005). This evolution according to Warschauer (1996) can be categorised into three distinct phases: behaviourist, communicative and integrative.

Unlike the behaviourist approach which generally did not call for feedback from learners, communicative CALL provided skills practice in a non-drill format. Activities such as language games, reading and text construction in communicative CALL programs gave students different choices, control and interaction which were lacking in the earlier phase. As for integrative CALL, the current approach, these language learning programs largely benefited from the advancement of multimedia computers and the Internet. With a combination of texts, graphics, sounds and videos, computers and language learning software are no longer regarded as a tutor. The focus is not only on the teaching of language but rather the process of learning it. Integrative CALL propels the development of sophisticated CALL materials which has led to the concept of autonomous learning or better known as Self-Access Language Learning (SALL).

Gardner and Miller (1999) view self-access as a way of encouraging learners to move from teacher dependence towards autonomy. Similarly, highlighting the issue of self-access materials as an approach to learning and not teaching language per se, Reinders (2000) viewed self-access as “learning that takes place in a self-access centre [through] a number of resources (in the form of materials, activities and help), usually in one place, that accommodate learners of different levels, styles and with different goals and interests.

English Language Journal Vol 4, (2011) 126-146ISSN 1823 6820

128

It aims at developing learner autonomy among its users” Reinders (2000:222). As CALL programs continue to evolve and improve to accommodate current needs, they have also become part of the methodology for second language learning, particularly in ESL and EFL contexts.

The pros and cons of CALL

Some researchers (Taylor, 1990; Lee, 2000; Lai and Kritsonis, 2006; Han, 2008) were instrumental in identifying the advantages and disadvantages of CALL. After decades of implementation, the advantages of CALL lie in the fact that it is a wonderful stimulus for language learning. Taylor (1990) and Han (2008) argue that computer technology provides a lot of interesting games and communicative activities thus reducing learner anxieties and allowing for repeated lessons when needed. In addition, with CALL learners are given more independence from restrictive traditional classrooms.

Lee (2000) emphasised the possibility of more resources being made available to learners as compared to traditional classrooms. By using language learning software and the Internet, teachers can share more authentic materials with learners, giving them more practice to aid experiential learning. According to Lai and Kritsonis (2006), “through various communicative and interactive activities, computer technology can help second language learners strengthen their linguistic skills, affect their learning attitude and build their self-instruction strategies and self-confidence” (p. 2). These discussions, however, represent only a fraction of the significant amount of literature which explored the potentials of computer technology in teaching and learning languages.

Liu, Moore, Graham and Lee (2002) and Felix (2008) in their comprehensive review of related literature in CALL agreed that much enthusiasm in the benefits of CALL has been expressed over the decades, the limitations or barriers notwithstanding. While emphasising the advantages of computer technology, researchers have also identified several weaknesses that could inhibit the practice of computer based learning. These disadvantages are mainly categorised as


129

financial barriers, unavailability of hardware and software, lack of technical and theoretical knowledge and reluctance to accept new technologies (Calvo, 1997).

Does CALL lead to real learning?

Another issue that has been raised in relation to the implementation of CALL is : how effective are new technologies in promoting language learning? Suffice to say, the concrete evidence on the effectiveness of CALL is difficult to obtain. Davies (2008) indicated that the possibility of measuring the benefits of ICT is met with scepticism due to the fact that the variables are hard to pin down and there are many tasks in a variety of applications making it difficult for researchers to produce a reliable, controlled result.

While it may not be feasible to measure the effectiveness of CALL in controlled studies, some researchers have provided evidence of positive effects of CALL in their findings. Wang and Wang (2004) in their analysis of integrating technology in the learning environment for teaching process writing gave credence to this notion. They emphasised the importance of computers to provide instant feedback and immediate satisfaction on learners’ efforts.

Positive results on the effects of CALL have also been reported in the teaching of grammar (Nutta, 1998; Lu, Wu, Martin and Shah, 2009; Al-Zu’bi, 2010) and pronunciation (Tanner and Landon, 2009). AbuSeileek and Rababa’ah (2006) in their study on the effect of computer-based grammar instruction on the acquisition of verb tenses, however, found that both methods (computer-based and traditional classrooms) and approaches (rule-oriented and structure guessing) were equally effective in teaching verb tenses. In a different study, Tanner and Landon’s (2009) subjects who were involved in self-directed computer-assisted practice using Cued Pronunciation Readings showed significant gains in three areas: perception of pausing, perception of word stress and controlled production of word stress.

Since the late 1990s, researchers have also created various speech-enabled applications to further improve


130

speech technology in CALL. Horrigan (2009) for example, developed ‘Skynet’ which is a speech-enabled conversational agent to support second language learning. Overall, Liu, Moore, Graham and Lee (2002) and Felix (2008) in their extensive review of CALL in the last two decades summarise that there is enough data to suggest the general effectiveness of CALL in teaching specific language skills.

Today, the focus among researchers has shifted to finding the best ways to integrate IT into language teaching and learning. Many recent studies require learners to complete questionnaires which will represent their beliefs about their learning. Findings normally focus on perceptions and attitudes towards the use of CALL (Burrus, 2009; Ghandoura, 2006 and Son, 2008). In contrast, studies on the perceptions of teachers (Lee, 2000; Hong, 2009 and Topkaya 2010) indicated that pre-service English teachers had moderate levels of self-efficacy in computer technology. These findings (among many others) emphasised the need of adequate training during the pre-service level so that language teachers are ready to face ‘techno-pedagogy’ once they step into the classroom.

TECHNOLOGY INFUSED LEARNING: A MALAYSIAN STORY

As the integration of technologies in education in developed countries keeps on improving, the impact of such progress is shared by other countries worldwide. The spread of the World Wide Web and increase in computer literacy and computer usage have all contributed to positive developments in CALL in many classrooms. Like other developing countries, Malaysia has responded to this shift in language teaching and learning albeit slowly.

The number of empirical studies in the use of CALL in Malaysian language classrooms is also steadily growing. Most researchers are interested in the issues of CALL implementation, its effects and analysis of CALL courseware. Abu Bakar (2007) for example, conducted a case study based on language activities that took place in CALL-based classroom in a Malaysian secondary ‘Smart School’.


131

Her findings, which were the results of observations and interviews with language teachers, showed the restriction of content in CALL materials.

Some of these predicaments were also highlighted by Ismail (2008). Interviews with five ESL instructors revealed that knowledge barriers in technology and pedagogy, barriers in facilities, outdated beliefs in language teaching and the existing methods of assessment were the main factors that hinder the implementation of CALL. The instructors in this study believed that exam-based subjects in turn created exam-oriented learners who lacked interest in their own learning experiences and personal growth as autonomous learners.

Other studies saw positive results in teaching grammar using customised software as compared to the traditional ‘chalk and talk’ method (Mohamad and Mohamad Amin, 2009). Abdullah, Mahadi, Ahmad and Ahmad (2009) on the other hand, analysed the use of two courseware, ELLIS and DYNED to facilitate language learning among learners from China. They came to a conclusion that the use of computer–aided instruction lessens the anxiety of miscommunication in English lessons due to language barriers between teachers and learners.

Additionally, Mustafar (2006) and Masri, Wan Ahmad, Nordin and Sulaiman (2009) gathered feedback based on a questionnaire for software use in teaching literature. The students in Mustafar’s study preferred the use of computer-assisted technology and similarly, the pre-university learners in Masri, Wan Ahmad, Nordin and Sulaiman’s research were more interactive in their real-life discussions based on the effects of visuals available in CALL software. Finally, Abdul Rahim (2005) used Storyboard software in her language activities and recorded development in students’ motivation as they actively gathered their own materials and designed their own language learning tasks.

To summarise this section, the use of software both proprietary and commercial ones generally leads to positive effects in students’ English related performance, participation and motivation. However, it is crucial that courseware with


132

quality contents and tasks-proper be identified and introduced to educational institutions. For this reason, relevant criteria in software selection must be identified to ensure desired learning outcomes are realised.

OUR NEW FRAMEWORK FOR COMPUTER-AIDED, SELF-ACCESS LANGUAGE LEARNING

After decades of implementation, research and improvement, there is still no strong framework or accepted set of standards that can help beginning and novice language educators to use computer technology satisfactorily to achieve their lesson objectives both inside and outside of their classrooms. The fact is that there are so many factors and variables involved in determining whether or not a certain program, software or technological wizardry has worked in language teaching.

Chapelle and Jamieson (1986) purported that in order for computerised lessons to be ‘intelligent’, it has to take into consideration learners’ cognitive/affective characteristics and needs. From a different perspective, Kennedy and Levy (2009) studied a group of Italian teachers, who have benefitted from 15 years of CALL in an Australian university. They investigated the key factors that contributed to the success of that program, particularly its sustainability. Kennedy and Levy (2009) agreed upon three main principles: tailoring, integration and an iterative development process. Equally important, according to them, is the continuous experimentation, evaluation and enhancement of such learning programs.

Based on our synthesis of contemporary research in computer-aided and self-access language learning and our own professional experience with online (English) language learning, we have come up with a 5-point evaluative framework for computer-aided self-access language learning (or 5-point CASA-LL framework, for short) that must be addressed to ensure that such language learning courses or programmes are useful and really beneficial for language learners (see Zamari and Adnan, 2010), as in Figure 1.


133

Figure 1 Our 5-point CASA-LL framework

RESEARCHING THE ‘GOOD ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER’ COMMUNITY ON FACEBOOK USING OUR CASA-LL FRAMEWORK

Our research was guided by practical concerns. First, we wanted to understand how the Facebook social networking platform can be effectively used to promote English language learning within the CASA-LL framework. This is due to the fact that Facebook is currently the ‘buzzword’ in language learning on the Internet but the fact remains that the online platform was not designed to cater for the critical needs of English language learners.

Secondly, we wanted to know how far we can push the limits of Facebook as a language learning platform based on the CASA-LL framework. Looking at an already established


134

virtual community of English language learners – GELL on Facebook – that one of us created and maintained we have the opportunity to look under the hood of the community as it were, to understand how things are run and to check whether the community meets all the criteria of the CASA-LL framework that we synthesised.

Finally, as both of us are academics with interests in technologically infused learning methodologies, our practical research effort also feeds our personal curiosity to see just how far the notions of CALL and SALL have spread within the World Wide Web of knowledge, not in their purest forms as software or courseware or physical self-access learning centres but as learning communities that grow together with the ultimate aim to increase accuracy and fluency in the English language.

In the next section, we present and discuss the 5-point CASA-LL framework using practical examples from our ongoing research on the GELL on Facebook community. Where names, picture icons and comments of community members are presented as data, these are reproduced with the explicit written permission of respective community members.

THE CASA-LL FRAMEWORK APPLIED TO THE GOOD ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER COMMUNITY ON FACEBOOK

CASA-LL framework’s point 1 - Needs (computer skills, language skills, learning styles)

Since the focus of online language communities is more on language learning not teaching, learner needs become the most important criterion to be addressed. The most basic need based on the CASA-LL framework is computer skills. Nevertheless, as Facebook is a popular networking site with a large (and growing) user base we envisage that learners should be able to understand how things work in GELL as soon as they become familiar with Facebook.


135

Screenshot 1 GELL on Facebook ‘landing’ page

Indeed, compared to advanced courseware with more features and complicated interfaces, GELL on Facebook requires little time to reduce learners’ anxiety to learn. However this is not to say that we should do away with computer software and self-access centres. This is due to the fact that they serve different purposes that cannot be met by GELL on Facebook, bearing in mind that the community is actually based on a social networking platform and not a self-access e-learning environment that is catered specifically for language learning.

Directly related to the above is the second learner need within our framework that is language skills. No matter what, language instructors and language learners must never forget that when they join a language learning community – they are trying to develop their language skills. A community that is full of fossilised errors for example, will definitely be detrimental to the language skills of English language learners of all levels.


136

In this instance, GELL on Facebook is not a practicable replacement to a dedicated self-access e-learning environment (as in Screenshot 2) like one that was recently developed and launched in 2010 by the English Language Self-Access Centre (ELSAC) at the University of Auckland.

Screenshot 2 ELSAC’s ELE

Finally, for computer-based language learning to provide optimal experience it must be tailored according to learners’ specific needs and be designed based on sound knowledge of different learners’ language learning styles. Within the CASA-LL framework we see learning styles as the final need of learners that must be met. That said it is almost impossible to assess language learning styles on the spot, therefore Chapelle (1998 and 2005) suggests needs analysis be done ‘on-the-fly’ or based on e-learning profiles built over a short period of time. Again GELL on Facebook does not allow for this, what more with the many different community members that are active within the community at one time.


137

CASA-LL framework’s point 2 - Design

Language learning tools, online or otherwise, must be designed with the end-user in mind. For CALL, this criterion is met with the help of two groups who will be involved in developing the actual e-learning tool, namely the technical team and the course developers who are experts in language teaching methods and language learning styles. However on Facebook, language instructors are limited to the look and feel of the social network.

Screenshot 3 The Discussion Board – one of the more useful design features of GELL on Facebook

As seen in Screenshot 3, using the predesigned Discussion Board is useful as a language learning tool to some extent. The ability of language instructors or ‘Page Admins’ to post dedicated Notes, external links, photos and videos are also useful design features within Facebook – as long as all these features are connected or dedicated to language learning activities as opposed to general social networking and online socialising.

Undeniably, the overall design of a computer-based language learning tool is pivotal in ensuring the success of CASA-LL. Whilst Facebook is limited in some ways, more


138

conventional CALL software to teach English can also be limited or even flawed by its final design. Hence, language instructors who work with technology must take the initiative to investigate whether or not the e-language learning tool they are using was developed based on sound instructional design models. Within the CASA-LL framework, we subscribe partly to Keller’s ARCS instructional design model (see Marimuthu and Goh, 2005) that must be given priority in designing e-language learning for online usage.

CASA-LL framework’s point 3 – Learner autonomy

The goal of all computer-assisted learning is to promote autonomy. Having experienced computerised learner-centred language lessons, learners must be prepared to change their roles gradually and move a step further into autonomous self-access language learning. Reinders (2000) sees autonomous language learning as learning that happens when motivated language learners consciously make informed decisions about their learning activities.

Within the CASA-LL framework however, this does not necessarily mean that learners should learn without the presence of a language instructor. In fact, in GELL on Facebook community members still want guidance in developing their language skills from those who teach English as a profession and those who are real language experts.

Even though community members actively support each other’s language learning in terms of interaction, it is clear that learner autonomy in virtual language learning communities will actually benefit from, and might not even work without, the presence of real-life (RL) English language instructors. Sometimes, we noticed that other community members might not even respond to a question posed by any one of them or they will wait for an initial response from the online language instructor/Page Admin, as seen in Screenshot 4.


139

Screenshot 4 A community member asking a grammar related question in GELL on Facebook

Gardner and Miller (1999) explained that in self-access learning, learners need to start taking responsibility for their learning. They must be able to reflect on their own learning and redefine their goals to suit their needs. Another important component of self-access learning is the setting up of physical self-access centres. These centres become the source of materials published or authentic, accessible to both teachers and learners.

Within the CASA-LL framework we see such centres as working hand-in-hand with online communities so that language learning will be more self-directed and eventually becoming autonomous. Finally, we can argue that CALL and SALL have worked when English language learners become


140

more involved in their learning and are able to reflect on, and evaluate as well as maintain, their learning activities for an extended period of time. Nonetheless, looking at how things work in the GELL on Facebook community it is difficult to say whether it fully meets the learner autonomy criterion within the CASA-LL framework.

CASA-LL framework’s point 4 – Assessment/Evaluation

Using technology for language learning only goes so far without an assessment or evaluation component be it online or computer-based. Abu Bakar (2007) and Ismail (2008) have discussed the lack of suitable assessment methods which caused learners to disregard the importance of CALL.

Screenshot 5 An informal assessment in GELL on Facebook

Since CALL courseware contains rich linguistic data, teachers need to evaluate learners’ understanding and


141

application of all relevant language skills. Assessment results are also a form of feedback which can be used to improve a learning program. Another aspect of evaluation is gathering information on teachers’ and learners’ responses towards language learning activities, materials used and the management of CALL or SALL.

Screenshot 6 Community members attempting the informal assessment

As GELL on Facebook is built upon the idea of social networking and collaborative learning, it is not possible to explicitly implement an assessment/evaluation component unless it is linked to an external site (not within Facebook). Furthermore, community members do not expect to be ‘tested’ in any formal way, not that this is possible in the first place given the open nature of membership in the ‘Page’ setting within Facebook.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is not possible to hold online quizzes or tests albeit informally as shown in


142

Screenshot 5. On the contrary, there is a limit to the items that can be assessed within this community given that the Facebook platform uses a ‘posting’ system that is catered to shorter posts (or ‘online tweets’). This makes it very difficult for both community members and language instructors to check and respond to the items being assessed, as highlighted in Screenshot 6.

CASA-LL framework’s point 5 – Sustainability

Lastly, after the efforts of introducing various learning experiences and developing autonomous skills, a CALL-SALL project must be able to go through an iterative development process (Kennedy and Levy, 2009). An outdated e-language learning program will not benefit learners in the long run. In fact, learners will get bored with the same challenges and tasks will be predictable enough to hamper new learning experience. Therefore the sustainability of an e-language learning project should be an indication of its successful implementation.

This begs the question – will GELL on Facebook face the same problems that are often encountered by courseware developers thus making the language learning community boring and obsolete after a period of time? We do not have enough data at this moment to make a strong prediction. That said, given the growing popularity of Facebook and its growing user base it is difficult to see this platform becoming outdated at least in the next five years or so.

This means that GELL on Facebook meets the CASA-LL criterion of being sustainable as a community of English language learners who are learning to use that language within the confines of a social network. As the platform changes in the future and perhaps incorporate better tools that can be used for teaching and learning, there is a high possibility that GELL and indeed other language learning communities on Facebook will change and grow with the times for the benefit of both language learners and language instructors.


143

SUMMARY

In this practical research paper we have discussed the evolution of English language teaching and learning using computers and we have looked at many noteworthy research efforts with reference to CALL. We have also outlined some of the issues that language learners and language instructors face in the Malaysian context with reference to computer-based English language learning. Based on all these empirical studies we have synthesised a 5-point framework for computer-assisted self-access language learning that we call the CASA-LL.

Using a virtual online community of English language learners on the Facebook social networking platform as a case in point, we discussed the 5-point CASA-LL framework at length with actual examples from the online English community. Early results indicate that the popular Facebook social networking platform does afford a degree of usefulness as an e-language learning tool but at this moment in time it can never replace a well designed dedicated CALL software, a purpose-built e-language learning environment or a physical self-access English language learning centre.

Full Artikel

Documents

world wide

iterative

language learning

english language

access language

language learning

language learning

english language