Most CALL programs are designed for general linguistic abilities. Fewer have been designed for more specific purposes. Many of them are mostly for beginners with little literacy of language. Meanwhile, interactive conversation, which is a most valued pedagogical activity, is still difficult to implement on the computer because of the complexity of natural language parsing. In addition, most CALL courses are structure-driven rather than notional-functional. In this article the writer is trying to analyze four CDs of CALL programs from five basic principles: interactivity, usability, content appropriateness, effectiveness, and performance. The four CDs the writer is going to analyze are Learn English, Speak English, Vocabulary, and English Word.

1. First CD ( Learn English ).

Interactivity

This program provides good interactivity in the sense that the user is made busy doing the instruction given in the program; however, the user who is not very familiar with the computer tends to find it difficult to begin with the program, for the instructions are not stated clearly. Also the symbols of instructions used in this program seem to be unfamiliar, so the user has to try clicking here and there to finally find where to start from. In addition, the feedback given by the program tends to be monotonous and does not lead to natural language utterances.

Usability

The program proves to be ergonomic, meaning that it is easy enough for the user to navigate within the program. However, children, who seem to be the target of this program, find it difficult to navigate and follow the game provided in this program.

Content Appropriateness

Despite its amount of material presented in this program, the material is easily understood, for the presentation is simple and interesting; the material is suitable for learners with little literacy of English.

Effectiveness

In term of effectiveness in improving learners’ mastery of grammar, this program is suitable for the teaching of noun phrases from which the structure of the noun phrase of the learners’ language might differ.

Performance

Very good performance is what makes this program preferable to children. The presentation, layout of the screen, the color, and the illustration in this program has all made children stay before their laptop working with this program.

1. Second CD (Speak English).

Interactivity

As with the first CD, this program provides good interaction with the learners. Unfortunately, the feedback proves awkward. The feedback doesn’t suit the level the program is supposed to be for.

Usability

Learners don’t find it difficult to navigate within the program. The basic interest of the program meets the learners’.

Content Appropriateness

For most learners are eager to know more about English, the amount of material presented in this program never matter them. In addition, the material is also easily understood because it has always been interestingly presented.

Performance

The program is presented with attractiveness that it meets almost all the requirement of a good performance.

1. Third CD (Vocabulary)

This CD is not workable.

1. Fourth CD (English Word).

Interactivity

The instruction doesn’t meet the clarity for beginners.

Usability

Like the previous programs, there doesn’t seem any problem in navigating this program. It is easy enough for almost any level of learners.

Content Appropriateness

In spite of the amount of material presented, the words are graded in their ease of pronunciation. Learners find it easy and fun to play with the games provided in the program.

Effectiveness

Most of the games encourage the students to have understanding of the grammar of English words, but do not much lead to the teaching of the English sentences.

Performance

The performance deserves appreciation for its presentation, layout of the screen, the color, and the illustrations within the program.

INTRODUCTION

The use of computer in learning has permeated almost every level of education in many parts of the world. Schools, from Elementary to Senior High, are trying to win people’s interest as well as acknowledgement of quality from them by the provision of computers in their school and the implementation of Computer-Assisted Learning for various subjects of study in their learning process. Of many programs for CAL, language has seemed to be the one which has been widely used in schools and other educational institutions and has gained more focus and attention from both the society (parents and children) as education users and the authority (government, teachers, experts, etc.) as education executors. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has increasingly been gaining popularity and its place in the people’s heart. This might be due to the modernity image attached to it which people expect to be able to help students acquire their second/ foreign language more quickly and easily.  The expectation for a better result in language teaching and learning by the use of such media has encouraged many parties to design various programs for CALL most adjustable for each level of education and most convenient to the students’ age, milieu, and other individual differences, yet they don’t always match the need of every single different learner with such a lot of differences. Nor do they meet everybody’s satisfaction. This article discusses CALL from the perspectives of strengths/ advantages and weaknesses/ disadvantages.

THE STRENGTHS/ ADVANTAGES

A lot of studies conducted by experts have been reported to indicate the advantages of CALL. Among of them are Jonassen (1996), Salaberry (1999), Rost (2002), Roger (1996), Lee (2000), Hartoyo (1998), Robertson et al. (1987), and many others. Some of the advantages of CALL are as follow.

1. It could provide second language learners more independence from classrooms and allow learners the option to work on their learning material at any time of the day (Jonassen, 1996; Salaberry, 1999; Rost, 2002).
2. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching, and when used in conjunction with traditional second language classroom study, students can study more independently, leaving the teacher more time to concentrate effort on those parts of second language teaching that are still hard or impossible by the computer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing and presentation (Roger, 1996).
3. Lee (2000) states that the reasons why we should apply computer technology in second language instruction, include computer and its attached language learning programs can (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning, (b) offer students more the learning motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) increase authentic materials for study, (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and students and peers, (f) emphasize the individual needs, (g) regard independence from a single source of information, and (h) enlarge global understanding. Lee further stated that when computer technology combines with Internet, it creates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and guide students to enter the “Global Community”. In this way, students not only can extend their personal view, thought, and experience, but also can learning to live in the real world. They become the creators not just the receivers of knowledge. And, “as the way information is presented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills and choose what to explore”.
4. A study conducted by Hartoyo (1998) reveals that a self-access computer-assisted language learning program is effective in delivering explicit grammar instruction in whict it was shown by the significant improvement of students’ scores in their knowledge of English grammar.
5. Taylor (1980) also expressed that computer assisted language learning programs can be wonderful stimuli for second language learning. Currently, computer technology can provide a lot of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses and anxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary. Those abilities will promote second language learners’ learning motivation. 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.

In addition to what has been stated by the experts, we might assume several advantages of CALL, for examples:

1. As learners may have the option to work on their learning material at any time of the day alone, they feel freer to express their English during the interactive sessions with the computer without having to feel shy or afraid of making mistakes. This will at last grow more confidence within their selves and consequently give better result.
2. Learners don’t have to take notes on what they want and have to learn from their teachers again as they get home. Thus, they save more time.
3. During the classroom, the teacher has more time to control the learners, so learners can be more focused on the lesson being presented.

THE WEAKNESSES

Despite the advantages experts have elaborated about  using CALL, experts also noticed some disadvantages that may become the weaknesses of CALL in language teaching and learning. Compared with the advantages CALL might contribute to the language teaching, the disadvantages might not be as significant in that how it affects the learning results but rather in that how it can be applied more economically and interactively with the ability to keep up with human intelligence, knowledge, and immediate response.  DiMattia & Gips (2004) indicated

The first disadvantage of computer and its attached language learning programs is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. When computers become a basic requirement for student to purchase, low budget schools and low-income students usually cannot afford a computer. It will cause unfair educational conditions for those poor schools and students. On the other hand, expensive hardware and software also becomes the big obligations for schools and parents. Second, it is necessary that both teachers and learners should have basic technology knowledge before they apply computer technology to assist second language teaching and learning. No student can utilize computer if he or she lacks training in the uses of computer technology. Unfortunately, most teachers today do not have sufficient technological training to guide their students exploring computer and its assisted language learning programs.

Another disadvantage of CALL is on the kinds of the programs that it offers. They do not cover all language skills in its presentation. Present computer technology mostly deals with listening, reading, and writing skills. Little work has been done to improve the speaking skill through CALL. Ideally, a program should be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input. Warschauer (2004) pointed out that a program should ideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also for “appropriateness”. It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options.

The most salient difference between computers and humans which shows another weakness of CALL is in the way they utilize information. Dent (2001) states that

Computers cannot handle unexpected situations. Second language learners’ learning situations are various and ever changing. Due to the limitations of computer’s artificial intelligence, computer technology is unable to deal with learners’ unexpected learning problems and response to learners’ question immediately as teachers do. The reasons for the computer’ inability to interact effectively can be traced back to a fundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information.

Along with this is Blin (1994) who expressed that computer technology with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. In a word, today’s computer technology and its attached language learning programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. People still need to put effort in developing and improving computer technology in order to assist second language learners.

CONCLUSION

In summary, as with any other thing in the world which always has two sides, one of which we might like and the other we don’t, CALL has its own strengths with which we can work and weaknesses from which we have to start improving the program for the sake of a better language teaching and learning in the future and a better achievement/ acquisition of second/ foreign language of the learners. Finally, despite the weaknesses that CALL might pose, it deserves our award, for more advantages can be drawn from the use of CALL by both teachers and students.

REFERENCE

Gips, A., DiMattia, P., & Gips, J. (2004) The effect of assistive technology on

educational costs: Two case studies. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler,

D. Burger (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Springer,

2004, pp. 206-213.

Hartoyo. (2006). Individual Differences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning

Semarang, Pelita Insani.

Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Englewood cliffs, NJ:

Merrill.

Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language

learning,CALL-EJ Online, 3 (2). Retrieved June, 20, 2006, from http://www.

clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.html

Levy (eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language

learning, lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.133-147.

Lee, K.W. (2000) English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer assisted

language learning, The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved June, 25, 2006, from

http://www.4english.cn/englishstudy/xz/thesis/barrier.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human Learning (3rd Edition). Upper Sadle River, NJ:

Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Perrett, G. (1995). Communicative language teaching and second language

acquisition theory. A paper delivered at 1993 MLTA Conference. MLTAQ Inc.

Newsletter No. 101.

Robertson, E. B.; Ladewig, B. H.; Strickland, M. P., & Boschung, M. D. (1987).

Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction

Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5), 314-316.

Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus,

Ohio:Person Education.

Rost, M. (2002). New technologies in language education: Opportunities for

Professional Growth. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from

http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost

Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research

agenda. Language Learning and Technology, 3 (1), 104-107.

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York:

Teachers, College Press.

Taylor, R. & Gitsaki, C. (2003) Teaching well and loving it. In Fotos & Browne

(Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 131-

147). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A

communicative approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In Fotos &

Browne (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms

(pp.15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

INTRODUCTION

The use of computer in learning has permeated almost every level of education in many parts of the world. Schools, from Elementary to Senior High, are trying to win people’s interest as well as acknowledgement of quality from them by the provision of computers in their school and the implementation of Computer-Assisted Learning for various subjects of study in their learning process. Of many programs for CAL, language has seemed to be the one which has been widely used in schools and other educational institutions and has gained more focus and attention from both the society (parents and children) as education users and the authority (government, teachers, experts, etc.) as education executors. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has increasingly been gaining popularity and its place in the people’s heart. This might be due to the modernity image attached to it which people expect to be able to help students acquire their second/ foreign language more quickly and easily.  The expectation for a better result in language teaching and learning by the use of such media has encouraged many parties to design various programs for CALL most adjustable for each level of education and most convenient to the students’ age, milieu, and other individual differences, yet they don’t always match the need of every single different learner with such a lot of differences. Nor do they meet everybody’s satisfaction. This article discusses CALL from the perspectives of strengths/ advantages and weaknesses/ disadvantages.

THE STRENGTHS/ ADVANTAGES

A lot of studies conducted by experts have been reported to indicate the advantages of CALL. Among of them are Jonassen (1996), Salaberry (1999), Rost (2002), Roger (1996), Lee (2000), Hartoyo (1998), Robertson et al. (1987), and many others. Some of the advantages of CALL are as follow.

1. It could provide second language learners more independence from classrooms and allow learners the option to work on their learning material at any time of the day (Jonassen, 1996; Salaberry, 1999; Rost, 2002).
2. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching, and when used in conjunction with traditional second language classroom study, students can study more independently, leaving the teacher more time to concentrate effort on those parts of second language teaching that are still hard or impossible by the computer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing and presentation (Roger, 1996).
3. Lee (2000) states that the reasons why we should apply computer technology in second language instruction, include computer and its attached language learning programs can (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning, (b) offer students more the learning motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) increase authentic materials for study, (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and students and peers, (f) emphasize the individual needs, (g) regard independence from a single source of information, and (h) enlarge global understanding. Lee further stated that when computer technology combines with Internet, it creates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and guide students to enter the “Global Community”. In this way, students not only can extend their personal view, thought, and experience, but also can learning to live in the real world. They become the creators not just the receivers of knowledge. And, “as the way information is presented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills and choose what to explore”.
4. A study conducted by Hartoyo (1998) reveals that a self-access computer-assisted language learning program is effective in delivering explicit grammar instruction in whict it was shown by the significant improvement of students’ scores in their knowledge of English grammar.
5. Taylor (1980) also expressed that computer assisted language learning programs can be wonderful stimuli for second language learning. Currently, computer technology can provide a lot of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses and anxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary. Those abilities will promote second language learners’ learning motivation. 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.

In addition to what has been stated by the experts, we might assume several advantages of CALL, for examples:

1. As learners may have the option to work on their learning material at any time of the day alone, they feel freer to express their English during the interactive sessions with the computer without having to feel shy or afraid of making mistakes. This will at last grow more confidence within their selves and consequently give better result.
2. Learners don’t have to take notes on what they want and have to learn from their teachers again as they get home. Thus, they save more time.
3. During the classroom, the teacher has more time to control the learners, so learners can be more focused on the lesson being presented.

THE WEAKNESSES

Despite the advantages experts have elaborated about  using CALL, experts also noticed some disadvantages that may become the weaknesses of CALL in language teaching and learning. Compared with the advantages CALL might contribute to the language teaching, the disadvantages might not be as significant in that how it affects the learning results but rather in that how it can be applied more economically and interactively with the ability to keep up with human intelligence, knowledge, and immediate response.  DiMattia & Gips (2004) indicated

The first disadvantage of computer and its attached language learning programs is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. When computers become a basic requirement for student to purchase, low budget schools and low-income students usually cannot afford a computer. It will cause unfair educational conditions for those poor schools and students. On the other hand, expensive hardware and software also becomes the big obligations for schools and parents. Second, it is necessary that both teachers and learners should have basic technology knowledge before they apply computer technology to assist second language teaching and learning. No student can utilize computer if he or she lacks training in the uses of computer technology. Unfortunately, most teachers today do not have sufficient technological training to guide their students exploring computer and its assisted language learning programs.

Another disadvantage of CALL is on the kinds of the programs that it offers. They do not cover all language skills in its presentation. Present computer technology mostly deals with listening, reading, and writing skills. Little work has been done to improve the speaking skill through CALL. Ideally, a program should be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input. Warschauer (2004) pointed out that a program should ideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also for “appropriateness”. It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options.

The most salient difference between computers and humans which shows another weakness of CALL is in the way they utilize information. Dent (2001) states that

Computers cannot handle unexpected situations. Second language learners’ learning situations are various and ever changing. Due to the limitations of computer’s artificial intelligence, computer technology is unable to deal with learners’ unexpected learning problems and response to learners’ question immediately as teachers do. The reasons for the computer’ inability to interact effectively can be traced back to a fundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information.

Along with this is Blin (1994) who expressed that computer technology with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. In a word, today’s computer technology and its attached language learning programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. People still need to put effort in developing and improving computer technology in order to assist second language learners.

CONCLUSION

In summary, as with any other thing in the world which always has two sides, one of which we might like and the other we don’t, CALL has its own strengths with which we can work and weaknesses from which we have to start improving the program for the sake of a better language teaching and learning in the future and a better achievement/ acquisition of second/ foreign language of the learners. Finally, despite the weaknesses that CALL might pose, it deserves our award, for more advantages can be drawn from the use of CALL by both teachers and students.

REFERENCE

Gips, A., DiMattia, P., & Gips, J. (2004) The effect of assistive technology on

educational costs: Two case studies. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler,

D. Burger (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Springer,

2004, pp. 206-213.

Hartoyo. (2006). Individual Differences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning

Semarang, Pelita Insani.

Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Englewood cliffs, NJ:

Merrill.

Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language

learning,CALL-EJ Online, 3 (2). Retrieved June, 20, 2006, from http://www.

clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.html

Levy (eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language

learning, lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.133-147.

Lee, K.W. (2000) English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer assisted

language learning, The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved June, 25, 2006, from

http://www.4english.cn/englishstudy/xz/thesis/barrier.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers.

Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human Learning (3rd Edition). Upper Sadle River, NJ:

Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Perrett, G. (1995). Communicative language teaching and second language

acquisition theory. A paper delivered at 1993 MLTA Conference. MLTAQ Inc.

Newsletter No. 101.

Robertson, E. B.; Ladewig, B. H.; Strickland, M. P., & Boschung, M. D. (1987).

Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction

Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5), 314-316.

Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus,

Ohio:Person Education.

Rost, M. (2002). New technologies in language education: Opportunities for

Professional Growth. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from

http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost

Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research

agenda. Language Learning and Technology, 3 (1), 104-107.

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York:

Teachers, College Press.

Taylor, R. & Gitsaki, C. (2003) Teaching well and loving it. In Fotos & Browne

(Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 131-

147). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A

communicative approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In Fotos &

Browne (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms

(pp.15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

By Sigit Suharjono

Abstract

The downpour of CALL programs should be considered revolutionary for language teaching. Teachers and students are expected to know more involving themselves in analyzing if these programs are likely to run in their teaching and learning process and if they are really effective to the language teaching and learning so that these CALL programs are really worth-investing. In this respect, this article attempts to analyze the effectiveness of CALL programs to the language teaching and learning.

A. Introduction

One of the differences between CALL programs and traditional language classes is that in the latter the selection of material is pre-determined and lessons are sequentially ordered and that lessons go at a fixed pace. The selection, sequence and pace are all determined by the teacher. The computer allows the learner to control selection, sequencing and the pace of learning. Recently, with the increasing advance in computer technology, a great many CALL programs have been produced. Facing this sudden downpour of CALL titles, students and teachers are likely to wonder if these programs are really effective, if it is really worthwhile to spend time and money on them, and how we choose the most suitable and workable one(s) among so many alternative programs. This paper attempts to discuss several issues related to CALL by answering and explaining the following questions.

•What are the strengths and limitations of CALL?
•How well has computer technology served language teaching?
•What areas have been best served and which areas can be better served?

B. Objectives

As the advance of information technology progresses so rapidly like a torrent, applied technology in language teaching keeps up to meet the trends of today’s education world. One of the most popular applied technologies in language teaching is CALL. Since many teachers and learners rely on CALL for the success of language teaching, the objective of this article is to discuss several issues teachers and learners need to know more about CALL. The discussion will then begin from describing the strengths and limitations of CALL and go on to analyze how well the computer technology has served language teaching. The discussion will also cover what areas have been best served by computer technology and which areas can be served better. Finally, the writer will draw conclusion on the position of CALL in language teaching and suggest what needs to be improved in  CALL programs.

C. Review of Related Literature

Egbert (2005, 4) states that CALL implies that students learn language in any context with, through, and around computer technologies. In line with this, Levy (1997, 1) defines CALL little more broadly as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning”. Numerous studies have been conducted relating how the use of CALL affects the development of language learners’ four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). The results of the studies report significant achievements in reading and listening. This has proven the effectiveness of computer in language learning. In spite of this, Hartoyo (2006, 11) states that the effectiveness of learning a language using computer depends totally on the users.  He further states that the users can manipulate computers as a teacher or tutor, providing material, guiding a student how to learn it, and giving information and explanations. Kenning, et al. in Hartoyo (2006) adds to the function of the computer in language learning as a partner for the learner to play educational games. However, Chu (1996) pointed out quite cleverly that some of the games, such as those found in CALL programs for Chinese ‘ABC’ and ‘PIC’, are mostly devoid of pedagogical essence. With respect to syllabus design, most CALL courses are structure-driven rather than notional-functional in the sense of Wilkins (1976).

D. Analysis

As has been mentioned, the discussion and analysis in this paper will be limited to three problem questions: What are the strengths and limitations of CALL? How well  has the computer technology served language teaching? and What areas have been best served and which areas can be better served?

Strengths and Limitations of CALL

In general, the use of technology inside or outside the classroom tends to make the class more interesting. In addition, the greater amount of time spent by students before the computer indicates increased motivation which is a significant factor in improving achievement in language learning. Realizing that the talking machine they face is a no-heart-feeling device which never matters what mistakes they make, nor it gets angry when they do the same mistakes again, students feel more convenient to interact with it and feel freer to communicate with it, practicing their English. In addition, with real communication acts provided in the computer, students feel less shy and less afraid to contact others. Students believe they learn faster and better with computer-mediated communication. Also, students learn more about culture in such an environment.

Interactivity is another vital strength of this new technology in language teaching known as CALL. The computer is interactive, first of all, by the fact that the user can gain control over learning and therefore becomes an active participant in the learning process. Interactivity also allows the instant feedback from the computer. The interactivity of the computer makes it especially suitable for implementing learner-centered teaching methods. It is important that multimedia be considered truly innovatory for language teaching. The new technology really shines in its presentation of form and meaning. The sound and graphic capabilities of the computer not only have improved presentation, but have also made possible what conventional textbooks cannot do. Digitalized audio has enabled the modeling of pronunciation. Still or animated graphics for illustrating meanings and speech production may both educate and entertain which in the end makes learning more interesting and enjoyable.

Arbitrary and fast access allows the quick retrieval of vocabulary and grammar explanations. It also enables easy learner to control and recycle the materials. We can thus avoid the pre-teaching of vocabulary, which is out of context and can miss the target altogether due to individual differences in learner backgrounds. The easy availability of help also enables the option of hiding the help initially, hence making it possible for the learner to challenge themselves. Furthermore, every grammatical and vocabulary item in a lesson can be linked to a shared pool of annotations and explanations.

The consistency and patience of the computer is not only crucial for learning by association and repeated exposure. Without the possible ill-effects of a bossy human teacher, the patient and interactive computer can provide a very user-friendly and learner-centered learning environment.

All the strengths mentioned above make CALL deserve further consideration and suggestion of use in the language teaching and learning of today. That is why it is important that teachers as well as institutions be supposed to start thinking of investing CALL.

On the other hand, the natural speaker variability in CALL situations makes speech recognition hard to achieve because of the complexity of natural language parsing; the learners’ creative and open-ended output cannot be easily evaluated (Zheng, 1997). Zheng further stated that due to the difficulty of speech recognition and natural language parsing, the interactivity of the computer does not go far enough. Interactive conversation, which is a most valued pedagogical activity, is very hard to implement on the computer. This is true because, with the current computers, students can not have true, human-like interaction, especially for speaking practice. Not to mention that if the computer cannot evaluate a learner’s speech exactly, it is almost no use at all. Language teachers can be more comfortable with textbooks because it is what they are used to, and there is the idea that the use of computers threatens traditional literacy.

In addition to the technology ability being discussed above, another limitation of the technology is its availability. First of all, there is the problem with cost and the simple availability of technological resources such as the Internet (either non-existent as can be the case in many developing countries or lack of bandwidth, as can be the case just about anywhere)

However, the most crucial factor that can lead to the failure of CALL, or the use of any technology in language education is not the failure of the technology, but rather the failure to invest adequately in teacher training and the lack of imagination to take advantage of the technology’s flexibility. Graham Davies (2007) states that too often, technology is seen as a panacea, especially by administrators, and the human component necessary to make it beneficial is ignored. Under these circumstances, he argues, “it is probably better to dispense with technology altogether”

Given the strengths and limitations of the current technology, the most sensible strategy for CALL programs to adopt is to take full advantage of its strengths and not overload it where it is inherently limited.

How Well Technology Has Served Language Teaching

CALL is a cooperative attempt between language teaching and computer technology. Unfortunately, advanced technology and innovative pedagogy do not always go together. Some programs do not well enough explore the full potential of the new technology. Some programs are based on old-fashioned beliefs about language learning, while some have no clear pedagogical orientation at all. It is not surprising then that the pedagogical effectiveness of CALL programs vary.

The success of technology in serving pedagogy depends on first of all the strengths and limitations of the technology and secondly the way technology is used.

Not every aspect of pedagogy is equally served by technology. Of the four skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing, the receptive skills of listening and reading are more commonly addressed by CALL programs than the productive skills of speaking and writing.

Due to its greater attention to receptive skills, the phases of the lesson that are best served are the initial ones of presentation and comprehension checks; however, practice, the most important phase of the lesson, has to be limited to the less open-ended exercises. The imbalance between the receptive and productive skills can be called as the ‘big head, small tail’ which means ‘more presentation, less practice’.

In terms of the level of instruction, the beginning level has attracted the most attention from CALL programmers. It won’t be surprising, considering the disproportional attention on receptive skills, which are more basic and closely associated with the beginning level. The most common areas addressed by CALL are pronunciation, and vocabulary.

In contrast, the teaching of grammar is not as common. Although many CALL programs include grammatical explanations similar to those found in conventional textbooks, teaching grammar in a way that goes beyond explanations is a challenge that has not often been met. The creativity and abstractness of grammar requires real skill and cleverness when designing exercises for it.

In addition to what has been stated above, the success or failure of CALL programs also depends on the cautious exploitation of technology, informed by knowledge of language structure and language pedagogy.

First of all, it will be unfortunate if we do not take full advantage of the new technology, or worse, if we use the new technology to simulate outdated technology. For example, random access affords the user faster and easier access and control than audio and video tapes. Random access also makes it easier to relate different items not adjacent to each other.

The use of technology has to be guided by pedagogy. Otherwise, even an acknowledged strength of the technology can be wrongly used. Higgins&Johns (1984) and Last (1989) stated that the computer, with its endemic drills-and-practice thanks to its patience and consistency, seems to have served audiolingualism particularly well, which emphasizes repetition and imitation for the sake of formal accuracy. In general, CALL programs have not kept up with innovations in language pedagogy. With respect to syllabus design, most CALL courses are structure-driven rather than notional-functional.

What areas have been best served and which areas can be better served

Have we fully used up the potential of CALL? The answer appears to be negative. While there are areas that have been served by an over-abundance of programs, there are also areas that can benefit from more uses of CALL.

CALL programs have characteristically been structure-based. It is now that we start using the computer for functional communicative teaching. Instead of organizing the syllabus around such structural concepts as interrogative and imperative sentences, why don’t we use the functional ones such as request and command? Given the lack of one-to-one correspondence between form and function, organizing the syllabus around notions and functions would mean the impossibility of maintaining a graded structural syllabus (Zheng, 1997). In addition, most CALL programs are designed for general linguistic abilities. Fewer have been designed for more specific purposes. Isn’t it worth-thinking of creating such a program for specific purpose that people don’t have to learn a foreign language, say English, in general first before they can use the language for their own use and need? There should be CALL programs for business, travel, and other specific purposes that people can directly learn and practice what they really need without having to learn English itself in general.

Since the conventional curriculum has always targeted the beginner with no or little language or literacy background, most of the CALL programs have also been designed to meet with such an audience in mind. However, as student background of language or literacy has changed in many parts of the country, more CALL programs that serve students with background should be created.

Lack of student creativity is another concern we have to consider in CALL programs. Of course, in a minor sense, we can require the learner to do as many creative productive exercises in a computer program as we can in a conventional textbook, but without feedback from the computer, these exercises are more or less just as helpful as a conventional textbook without the feedback from the human teacher.

In the following, by way of a sentence making exercise, I suggest that creativity, in spite of a very limited kind, can be achieved without going beyond pattern matching.

The sentence making exercise can be used for teaching vocabulary as well as teaching grammar. The exercise requires the user to make sentences patterning on an existing model. All the sentence slots will be given. The words used will also be provided, for example, in a word list. All the user has to do is to put in the right word, one by one, in the right slot. Since students have a range of choices in what words they use instead of using the exact words given earlier, they do enjoy some degree of creativity and may come up with unexpected combinations of words. Feedback is still possible by using pattern matching. Instead of matching individual words and sentences, as required respectively in fill-in-the-blank and descrambling, the feedback can be based on a more abstract matching algorithm (step-by-step procedure) such as the matching of parts-of-speech or sentence slots. Unlike descrambling, this exercise focuses not on individual sentences but on sentence patterns; unlike fill-in-the-blanks, which focuses on one sentence slot, this exercise requires the global ability of sentence construction; unlike both de-scrambling and fill-in-the-blanks, this format is more like the real-world use of language in producing the whole sentence in the natural word order.

Conclusion

To sum up, despite its strengths due to its interactivity in language learning, CALL programs has focused more on receptive skills of listening and reading, serving the audiolingualism which emphasizes on repetition and imitation for the sake of formal accuracy than on productive skills of speaking and writing. Meanwhile, interactive conversation, which is a most valued pedagogical activity, is still difficult to implement on the computer because of the complexity of natural language parsing. In addition, with respect to syllabus design, most CALL courses are structure-driven rather than notional-functional. Therefore, it should become the concern of CALL programmers to create interactive programs focusing on the productive skills of speaking and writing, adopting functional communicative teaching.

REFERENCES

Chu, C. 1996. Case study on the use of computer assisted language learning technology by Chinese language programs in ten U. S. institutions of higher learning. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.

Chun, D. (1989). Teaching tone and intonation with microcomputers. CALICO Journal 7.21-46.

Davis, Graham (2007). “CALL: Guide to Good Practice 3” http://www.yarasystem.ir/index.html?www.llas.ac.uk&resources&goodpracticeaspx&resourceid=61. Retrieved 2007-12-01.

Dunkel, P. (1991). Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing—Research Issues   and Practice. Newbury House.

Dunkel, P. (1991). The Effectiveness Research on Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing—Research Issues and Practice. Newbury House.

Hartoyo. (2006). Individual Differences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Semarang: Pelita Insani.

Higgins, J. and Tim Johns. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. Collins ELT. London and Glasgow

Last, R.W. (1989). Artificial Intelligence Techniques in Language Learning. Ellis Horwood Limited.

Robinson, G. (1991). Effective feedback strategies in CALL: Learning Theory and Empirical Research. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing—Research Issues and Practice. Newbury House.

Stenson, N., Bruce Downing, Jan Smith and Karin Smith. (1992). The Effectiveness of computer-assisted pronunciation training. CALICO Journal 9, 4, 5-19.

Weizenbaum, J. (1984). Computer Power and Human Reason. From judgment to calculation. Penguin, Harnondsworth.

Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses: a taxonomy and its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. London: Oxford University Press

Zhang, Z.S. 1997. Review of Hyper Chinese: the pronunciation modules. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association. Vol. 32:2.