In this entry I reviewed the paper "CALL-past, present and future" by Stephen Bax. The original paper can be viewed here.
As it is clearly stated, this article makes an attempt to answer three questions: where has Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) been, where is it now and where is it going? So it seems quite obvious that the author has adopted a historical approach towards CALL.
Referring to Delcloque (2000), the author highlights two major types of literature sources regarding history of CALL:
1- The properly researched, objective historical accounts
2- The interpretative typeThe author does not shy away from saying that he prefers the second type because he believes that the first type can only provide us with mere factual aspects of language while the second one makes us handful of in-depth analysis of this history and thus helps us understand it better. The author puts too much emphasis on understanding the history because he seeks an agenda for the future use of CALL. Being in favor of the second type of historical studies, the author attempts to take a careful look at work of Warschauer and Healey (1998 and 2000). They identified three phases of CALL. The following table briefly summarizes these stages:
Referring to Delcloque (2000), the author highlights two major types of literature sources regarding history of CALL:
1- The properly researched, objective historical accounts
2- The interpretative typeThe author does not shy away from saying that he prefers the second type because he believes that the first type can only provide us with mere factual aspects of language while the second one makes us handful of in-depth analysis of this history and thus helps us understand it better. The author puts too much emphasis on understanding the history because he seeks an agenda for the future use of CALL. Being in favor of the second type of historical studies, the author attempts to take a careful look at work of Warschauer and Healey (1998 and 2000). They identified three phases of CALL. The following table briefly summarizes these stages:
The author claims that there are some significant weaknesses in the abovementioned categorization. According to the author, the first inconsistency is in slippage in dates and terminology. The second weakness is that it is not clear that whether or not these phases are historical and the other weakness is the problem of unclear criteria. Warschauer and Healey have claimed that communicative CALL is no longer with us. But contrary to this view, the author believes that language teaching mostly happens within the communicative framework nowadays and such an assertion is confusing.
But the most doubtful of all these phases is the third phase- Integrative category.
Warschauer suggests that in the late 1980s and early 1990s many teachers were moving away from a cognitive view of communicative teaching to a more social or socio-cognitive view, which placed greater emphasis on language use in authentic social contexts. The author believes that this assertion is doubtful.
Criticizing and at the same time admiring the work of Warschauer and Healey because of their novel view, the author calls for a new analysis. In order to do this, he proposes clarification and amendments in their work in number of ways:
1. It is not clear whether the phases represent clearly defined historical periods or even whether they are supposed to;
2. The validity of the characterization of the 1980s as part of ‘Communicative
CALL’ requires more support and tighter reference to mainstream CLT methodology if the term is to be acceptable, as well as clarification of whether we are evaluating aims or use of software or software itself, or some combination.
It seems more satisfactory to rename that phase as it relates to that historical period;
3. The rationale for identifying a third phase, and then calling it ’integrative’, calls for more support- in terms of attitude to language and language teaching it has not been clearly enough distinguished from communicative approaches, while the implied claims for actual integration of CALL into the syllabus and classroom practice require more support and are doubtful.
Based on these major concerns, the author proposes his own way of categorization which is summarized in the table below:
But the most doubtful of all these phases is the third phase- Integrative category.
Warschauer suggests that in the late 1980s and early 1990s many teachers were moving away from a cognitive view of communicative teaching to a more social or socio-cognitive view, which placed greater emphasis on language use in authentic social contexts. The author believes that this assertion is doubtful.
Criticizing and at the same time admiring the work of Warschauer and Healey because of their novel view, the author calls for a new analysis. In order to do this, he proposes clarification and amendments in their work in number of ways:
1. It is not clear whether the phases represent clearly defined historical periods or even whether they are supposed to;
2. The validity of the characterization of the 1980s as part of ‘Communicative
CALL’ requires more support and tighter reference to mainstream CLT methodology if the term is to be acceptable, as well as clarification of whether we are evaluating aims or use of software or software itself, or some combination.
It seems more satisfactory to rename that phase as it relates to that historical period;
3. The rationale for identifying a third phase, and then calling it ’integrative’, calls for more support- in terms of attitude to language and language teaching it has not been clearly enough distinguished from communicative approaches, while the implied claims for actual integration of CALL into the syllabus and classroom practice require more support and are doubtful.
Based on these major concerns, the author proposes his own way of categorization which is summarized in the table below:
Proposing this new model, the author claims that his system offers a number of advantages contrasted to the previous model:
1- The terminology prevents conceptual confusion
2- The classification is more accurate
3- The framework allows us to define our practice in some detail
To me, as the reviewer, this new classification proves to offer some relative advantages. First it survives from the historical trap since showing historical evolutions with clear and distinct borders is somehow impossible. Second, it makes combination possible; something which has conflict with the notion of historical classification.
The author continues by posing this question that "where is CALL?" He answers this question by claiming that we are currently experiencing an Open CALL and we are far from the Integrated CALL. In fact, Integrated CALL is what the author sees as the future of CALL. Alongside the notion of integration, another concept, normalization – which is closely related to integration – should be taken into account. By normalization the author means a stage when technology is invisible, hardly even recognized as a technology. I believe that this assertion is the heart of this article. I totally agree with the author that when technological advances are not dissolved in their context of use they are viewed as fancy things which keep a considerable distance from the natural learning behavior. They may be viewed as innovations surprisingly effective, but the fancy aspect of them won't allow them to be used as natural and commonplace instruments.
Based on ideas of Rogers (1995), the author describes the stages of normalization. These stages are:
1. Early Adopters. A few teachers and schools adopt the technology out of curiosity.
2. Ignorance/skepticism. However, most people are skeptical, or ignorant of its existence.
3. Try once. People try it out but reject it because of early problems. They can’t see its value—it doesn’t appear to add anything of ‘relative advantage’ (Rogers, 1995).
4. Try again. Someone tells them it really works. They try again. They see it does in fact have relative advantage.
5. Fear/awe. More people start to use it, but still there is (a) fear, alternating with (b) exaggerated expectations.
6. Normalizing. Gradually it is seen as something normal.
7. Normalization. The technology is so integrated into our lives that it becomes invisible—‘normalized’.
To overcome the obstacles, the author suggests that at the macro level, a sort of ethnographical study should be conducted in order to find many interlocking and overlapping factors which have to be taken into account in implementing change in a target institution, and allow us to target our efforts more precisely. At the level of the individual teacher, the author suggests carrying out careful action research.
Finally, the author concludes and claims that he has found a possible agenda for CALL and that is moving towards normalization, a state in which CALL becomes invisible and integrated into every teacher's everyday practice and will serve the needs of learners.I believe that this article is neatly organized and successfully provides the reader with necessary background knowledge and guides him into the rest of the text.
1- The terminology prevents conceptual confusion
2- The classification is more accurate
3- The framework allows us to define our practice in some detail
To me, as the reviewer, this new classification proves to offer some relative advantages. First it survives from the historical trap since showing historical evolutions with clear and distinct borders is somehow impossible. Second, it makes combination possible; something which has conflict with the notion of historical classification.
The author continues by posing this question that "where is CALL?" He answers this question by claiming that we are currently experiencing an Open CALL and we are far from the Integrated CALL. In fact, Integrated CALL is what the author sees as the future of CALL. Alongside the notion of integration, another concept, normalization – which is closely related to integration – should be taken into account. By normalization the author means a stage when technology is invisible, hardly even recognized as a technology. I believe that this assertion is the heart of this article. I totally agree with the author that when technological advances are not dissolved in their context of use they are viewed as fancy things which keep a considerable distance from the natural learning behavior. They may be viewed as innovations surprisingly effective, but the fancy aspect of them won't allow them to be used as natural and commonplace instruments.
Based on ideas of Rogers (1995), the author describes the stages of normalization. These stages are:
1. Early Adopters. A few teachers and schools adopt the technology out of curiosity.
2. Ignorance/skepticism. However, most people are skeptical, or ignorant of its existence.
3. Try once. People try it out but reject it because of early problems. They can’t see its value—it doesn’t appear to add anything of ‘relative advantage’ (Rogers, 1995).
4. Try again. Someone tells them it really works. They try again. They see it does in fact have relative advantage.
5. Fear/awe. More people start to use it, but still there is (a) fear, alternating with (b) exaggerated expectations.
6. Normalizing. Gradually it is seen as something normal.
7. Normalization. The technology is so integrated into our lives that it becomes invisible—‘normalized’.
To overcome the obstacles, the author suggests that at the macro level, a sort of ethnographical study should be conducted in order to find many interlocking and overlapping factors which have to be taken into account in implementing change in a target institution, and allow us to target our efforts more precisely. At the level of the individual teacher, the author suggests carrying out careful action research.
Finally, the author concludes and claims that he has found a possible agenda for CALL and that is moving towards normalization, a state in which CALL becomes invisible and integrated into every teacher's everyday practice and will serve the needs of learners.I believe that this article is neatly organized and successfully provides the reader with necessary background knowledge and guides him into the rest of the text.
No comments:
Post a Comment