ICT4LT Module 1.4ICT4LT Module 1.4
This module aims to familiarise the student with the basics of computer assisted language learning (CALL), beginning with a definition of CALL, its historical development and an overview of different types of programs. Different approaches to using CALL software in the languages classroom are explored, from whole-class teaching to distance learning. Section 8, by Sue Hewer, focuses on text manipulation, a specific use of CALL that has proved popular with language teachers since it first appeared in the early 1980s. Multimedia CALL is only referred to occasionally in this module as it merits special treatment and is covered in detail in Module 2.2, Introduction to multimedia CALL.
This Web page is designed to be read from the printed page. Use File / Print in your browser to produce a printed copy. After you have digested the contents of the printed copy, come back to the onscreen version to follow up the hyperlinks.
This module has undergone regular revision since it was first published in 1999.
Contents of Section 1
Inttroduction
ICT in language teaching and learning encompasses many different types of software applications. The applications tend to fall into two distinct types:
The term Generic CALL is also in use to describe an authoring package designed to cover all aspects of CALL program authoring and interaction, from simple gap-filling and multiple-choice exercises to exercises incorporating interactive multimedia, e.g. the MALTED authoring package as described by Paul Bangs in Module 2.5, Introduction to CALL authoring programs.
Generic software applications are designed for general use but they are extremely useful in language teaching when used in well-designed activities which seek to apply aspects of the functionality of the software to language learning situations. For example, the use of a word-processor to encourage drafting, critical reflection and editing is an excellent use of generic software to further a number of language learning objectives.
CALL software applications are designed to promote explicit or implied language learning objectives and are usually based on the software authors' beliefs about the ways in which students learn languages. They offer support in the acquisition of knowledge about language and in the application of that knowledge both in discrete and in mixed skill activities. CALL software can be content-specific in that the teacher cannot change the linguistic content or the format of the activities which seek to teach that content. Multimedia software supplied on CD-ROM is content-specific because it is impossible to make any changes to it: see Module 2.2, Introduction to mutimedia CALL.
CALL software applications can also be content-free in that the teacher can provide the content which the software then uses as data for the pre-programmed activities: see Module 2.5, Introduction to CALL authoring programs. Fun with Texts from Camsoft and The Authoring Suite from Wida Software are popular examples of this type and are referred to in detail below: see Section 8 on Text manipulation.
CALL is often associated (wrongly) with an old-fashioned approach to the use of ICT in language learning and teaching. Such a view is far from the truth. Levy (1997:1) provides the following succinct definition of CALL:
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) may be defined as "the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning".
This is a catch-all definition, which is also endorsed by the leading international professional associations, e.g. EUROCALL, CALICO and IALLT, but it is useful to break down CALL into various subdivisions, and this is reflected in the structure of the ICT4LT website.
CALL is a term that came into favour in the early 1980s, replacing the older term CALI (Computer Assisted Language Instruction). The term CALI fell out of favour because it became associated with programmed learning, i.e. a teacher-centred rather than a learner-centred approach that drew heavily on behaviourism. Throughout the 1980s CALL widened its scope, embracing the communicative approach and a range of new technologies. CALL now includes highly interactive and communicative support for listening, speaking, reading and writing, including extensive use of multimedia CD-ROMs and the Internet. An alternative term to CALL emerged in the late 1980s, namely Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL), which was felt to provide a more accurate description of the activities which fall broadly within the range of CALL. Brown (1988:6) writes:
Learning a foreign language can enrich the education of every pupil socially and intellectually and be vocationally relevant. The new technology should form an integral part of a modern language department's overall teaching strategy. By these means, to coin a communicative-sounding acronym, TELL (Technology Enhanced Language Learning) can help produce telling results in language performance both in school and in the wider world. It therefore has a place in every modern language department.
TELL was adopted by the TELL Consortium, University of Hull, and also figures in the name of the journal of CALL-Austria, TELL&CALL.
Many people expect far too much of CALL. The following description of an imaginary scenario was written as an illustration of how some business training managers perceived CALL in the early 1990s:
A business trainee is sitting at a computer following a language course. Step-by-step, the computer presents the essential vocabulary and structures. These are accompanied, where appropriate, by still and animated graphic images, photographs and video recordings. As new words and phrases are introduced, authentic male and female voices pronounce them and the learner repeats them. The learner's voice is recorded by the computer and played back. Any errors in pronunciation are indicated graphically on screen. Offending syllables are highlighted and additional practice is offered on sounds which the learner finds difficult. At the end of each presentation sequence, the computer tests the learner's grasp of the new vocabulary and structures, marking and recording those words and phrases which have been imperfectly recalled and offering feedback on points of grammar that the learner appears to have misunderstood. The learner has access at all times to an online dictionary, a reference grammar and verb conjugation tables. At the end of the work session the learner's progress is recorded by the computer, which enables the thread to be picked up at the next session. In addition, the learner's progress records - along with those of all the other trainees following the same course - can be accessed at any time by the training manager. Davies (1992:113)
To some people this is utopia, to others it is a nightmare. An integrated system of this level of sophistication still does not exist, many years after the above text was written. There are, however, many programs that will do independently what is described above, and these are briefly described under CALL typology (Section 3, below). Thankfully, human beings still have a role to play in language teaching and learning, although some administrators would like to dispense with them in order to save money: see the section headed "Beware of the administrator" in Davies (1997:29-30). Technology has to be treated as an aid and not as a panacea (Davies 1997:29). It is no accident that we talk about Computer Assisted Language Learning.
The term interactivity in the context of CALL has traditionally been associated with human-computer interaction - the stimulus / response / feedback paradigm - involving the use of a range of stimuli (text, images, audio or video), learner responses using a range of input devices (keyboard, mouse, touch screen or speech) and various types of feedback (text, images, audio or video). More recently the term interactivity has been "trivialised to simple menu selection, clickable objects or linear sequencing" (Sims 1996:1) and even to "passive" types of interactivity, such as interacting with a digital TV set by pressing the red button on a remote control device and pressing the number keys. And now we use the term interactive to describe the interactive whiteboard, where most of the interactivity is engendered by the teacher using the whiteboard as a stimulus in whole-class teaching: see Section 4, headed Whole-class teaching and interactive whiteboards, and Section 7, Module 1.3, headed Using PowerPoint. The whiteboard itself is not interactive; it's the software that it uses - and this may include traditional software embodying the stimulus / response / feedback paradigm mentioned above - or the way in which the teacher uses the whiteboard, e.g. getting the students to come out to the front of the class and make menu choices or using whiteboard presentations as a stimulus for oral and role-play activities.
In many respects it appears that interactivity is a "forgotten art" (Sims 1996), having been reduced to multiple-choice and point-and-click activities with little or no feedback apart from a bland "right" or "wrong" response. See:
We appear to have moved away from full-blown interactivity in ICT and language learning, especially the so-called ICALL (Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning) types of activities in which, for example, the following kind of interaction could be found - which is an authentic example from a gap-filling program called CLEF dating back to the 1970s:
Task: The learner has to fill in the blank with the correct form of one of the following verbs: chanter, parler, répondre.
The learner can also, at any point in the above routine, hit a key that takes him/her to a help page where information about -er and -re verbs can be found. CLEF is still around in a Windows version: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/clef.htm
ICALL is beginning to make a comeback. See:
Using computers in language learning is, contrary to popular opinion, not a very new phenomenon. It dates back to the early 1960s, although it was confined in those days mainly to universities with prestigious computer science departments. By the early 1980s, however, CALL was in evidence in a large number of schools in the UK and the rest of Europe. A potted history of CALL can be found in Levy (1997:13-46). See also Davies (2003) and Davies (2007a), two articles which take a look back at the history of CALL and attempt to predict where it is heading.
See Philippe Delcloque's document, History of CALL (2000). This document began as a poster exhibition that was produced to mark the beginning of the new millennium. It was then set up as a website (now closed) and is currently available in PDF format: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdf
Updates to cover the period from 2000 to the present day are being incorporated into this section by Graham Davies. The ICT4LT site as a whole is regularly updated. Use the Glossary or the ICT4LT Search Engine to search for keywords. New books and articles are regularly added to the Bibliography section of the Resource Centre.
Topics that were not covered in Philippe Delcloque's History of CALL include:
Contents of Section 3
When CALL began to reach a wider audience in the 1980s, a number of efforts were made to classify CALL programs. The following are examples of attempts to arrive at a definitive CALL typology. Selected program examples are shown in italics.
Warschauer (1996) distinguishes three phases of CALL, illustrating the development of an increasing number of different ways in which the computer has been used in language learning and teaching. This may be useful as a starting point in considering essential pedagogical and methodological issues. The three phases that Warschauer distinguishes can be summarised as:
See also Warschauer & Healey (1998).
Warschauer claims that we are now well into the integrative phase. Certainly, the range of different types of CALL software currently available is impressive. As well as routine drill-and-practice programs, there are vocabulary games, action mazes, adventures and simulations, exploratory programs, and text manipulation packages, including "total Cloze" packages (see Section 8).
One can take issue with Warschauer, however. The term behaviouristic certainly describes early CALL (late 70s, early 80s) but the communicative approach, spurred on by the Council of Europe's work on the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for Languages and its emphasis on functions, notions and communicative competence in the 1970s, predates the advent of the microcomputer in schools and universities. The integrative phase appears to be describing the technology more than the pedagogy and methodology.
Stimulating conversation and communication
See the following articles, all of which describe how computer programs have been used to stimulate conversation and to foster oral communicative skills:
Levy (1997:118ff.) analyses the results of a comprehensive CALL Survey which he carried out among authors of CALL materials in order to determine what kinds of conceptual frameworks lay behind their work. The CALL Survey was concluded in early 1991, which follows the boom period in CALL in the 1980s and pre-dates the advent of the Web in 1993. There was strong support among Levy's respondents for the communicative approach to language teaching and task-based learning, but a substantial number also favoured formal grammar instruction. On the whole, however, most respondents declared their approach to be eclectic. As for the role of the computer in CALL, most respondents favoured a non-directive role, with very few supporting the idea of the computer replacing the teacher. There was a significant lack of references to innovative pedagogical approaches:
Data Driven Learning was the only new approach to language teaching that was cited by survey respondents as a direct result of the attributes of the computer. In other words, this approach has been conceived with the computer in mind. (Levy 1997:123)
Data Driven Learning (DDL) is an approach to language learning, pioneered by Tim Johns, University of Birmingham, whereby the learner gains insights into the language that he/she is learning by using concordance programs to locate authentic examples of language in use. In DDL the learning process is no longer based solely on the teacher's initiative, his/her choice of topics and materials and the explicit teaching of rules, but on the learner's own discovery of rules, principles and patterns of usage in the foreign language. In other words, learning is driven by authentic language data. See Module 2.4 for more information on Data Driven Learning and using concordance programs in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom..
Levy could also have mentioned "total Cloze" text reconstruction programs such as Storyboard, Fun with Texts, Eclipse, Rhubarb (and many other variants), offering activities that could not be carried out without using a computer. See Section 8 on Text manipulation.
Bax (2003) offers a critical examination and reassessment of the history of CALL, and argues for three new categories - Restricted, Open and Integrated CALL. Bax offers definitions and description of the three approaches and argues that they allow a more detailed analysis of institutions and classrooms than earlier analyses. It is suggested that we are currently using the second approach, Open CALL, but that our aim should be to attain a state of ‘normalisation’ in which the technology is invisible and truly integrated. This state is defined and discussed. In the final section, Bax's article proposes some ways in which this normalisation can be achieved - using ethnographic assessments and action research, for example - thus setting an agenda for CALL practice in the future.
i. Restricted CALL
I call the first approach "Restricted CALL". In terms of its historical period and its main features it differs little from Warschauer and Healey's "Behaviourist CALL" […] the term "Restricted" is more satisfactory since it allows us to refer not only to a supposed underlying theory of learning but also to the actual software and activity types in use at the time, to the teachers' role, to the feedback offered to students and to other dimensions - all were relatively "restricted", but not all were "behaviourist". The term is more comprehensive, more flexible and therefore more satisfactory as a descriptor. (Bax 2003:20)
ii. Open CALL
According to Bax, this variety of CALL is more open in terms of feedback given to students, software types and the role of the teacher. It includes simulations and games:
The key point about Integrated CALL - which sharply distinguishes it from Warschauer and Healey's - is that it does not yet exist to any significant degree, but represents instead an aim towards which we should be working. (Bax 2003:22)
Bax argues that we are still (i.e. in 2003, when his article was written) using the Open CALL approach.
iii. Integrated CALL
Integrated CALL implies normalisation:
This concept is relevant to any kind of technological innovation and refers to the stage when the technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice and hence "normalised". To take some commonplace examples, a wristwatch, a pen, shoes, writing - these are all technologies which have become normalised to the extent that we hardly even recognise them as technologies."(Bax 2003:24)
There is still, as Bax points out, an element of fear and awe and exaggerated expectations surrounding ICT, and this has to be overcome in order to achieve a state of normalisation.
See also Bax & Chambers (2006).
What is interesting about the program examples listed above is that most of the programs are still available in updated versions and are as popular with the new generation of language teachers as they were with the old: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" (Davies 1997:27). Text manipulation in particular is alive and well and features prominently in this module (Section 8, below).
It is also interesting to note that generic applications, e.g. word-processors (v. Module 1.3), were perceived as useful way back in 1985 (Davies & Higgins:44), and that as early as 1989 Hardisty & Windeatt were aware of the importance of communications technology (v. Module 1.5) and using concordance programs in the languages classroom (v. Module 2.4).
Action mazes (also known as text mazes) seem to have lost their appeal for some reason or other. This is a pity, as mazes are useful reading exercises and they can be especially stimulating for group work. Using modern authoring tools, writing a maze is a piece of cake. A package known as Quandary can be used for designing mazes. For more information on mazes see the Quandary website and the entry under Maze in the ICT4LT Glossary. See also Berer & Rinvolucri (1981) for some good, printed examples of mazes. The Quandary wesbite is at: http://www.halfbakedsoftware.com/quandary.php
Some packages that first appeared on videodisc, e.g. Montevidisco and Getting the Message, became available on CD-ROM when videodisc technology became obsolete. It is surprising that more simulations such as Granville, Montevidisco (Schneider & Bennion 1984) and Expodisc (Davies 1991) have not found their way on to CD-ROM. Who is Oscar Lake? is a series of CD-ROM programs for the language learner that falls into the category of a simulation or adventure. See:
As CALL has moved on it appears that certain skills have been lost, e.g. the analysis of free-format input that characterised the CLEF package: Holmes & Kidd (1981) and Holmes (1984:27ff.). While presentation features such as full-colour graphics, sound and video have improved in leaps and bounds there has been an increasing tendency to neglect features such as discrete error analysis, feedback and branching. The trend today seems to be towards a point-and-click-let's-move-on-quick approach. Levy (1997:xi) sums it up:
I believe the CALL community needs to build upon what has gone before, rather than be led purely by the capabilities of the latest technological innovation. With the almost monthly appearance of new hardware and software there can be a tendency for those interested in CALL materials development simply to pick up the latest machine or technological option and get to work on a project. If the technology has not been widely distributed, it is rather too easy to impress. Moreover, past work and valuable experience can be ignored or overlooked. It is usual, when commencing research in other fields, to review and extend the work of others, but with CALL the approach can sometimes be a little more cavalier. Over the last three decades, a substantial number of CALL programs have been created. The concepts and principles underpinning the best of these programs do not necessarily become obsolete when the computer that is used to run them is retired. In fact, the valuable knowledge and experience that has accumulated through this work needs to be absorbed and used to inform new projects in the future.
Evaluating CALL software is not a straightforward job. It's quite different from evaluating a book. A good deal of the contents of a CALL software package may not be immediately visible and will only appear if the user follows a particular route. In addition, there are factors such as screen design, user-friendliness, nature of the interaction, etc to take into account: see Section 3, Module 3.2, headed General program design principles. Allow at least an hour to examine a CALL software package. You may need a lot longer for multimedia packages: see Section 3.3, Module 2.2, headed Evaluating multimedia software.
As you can see from the range of different types of CALL programs listed above, it is difficult to apply one set of evaluation criteria to CALL software, and then there is the issue of how you intend to use the package in your teaching programme, e.g.
The key issue, as Chris Jones pointed out as long ago as 1986, is: "It's not so much the program: more what you do with it" (Jones C. 1986). We pick up this theme again in Module 2.1, CALL methodology: integrating CALL into study programmes.
When examining a new software package it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions:
Finally, what you feel about a CALL software package is often a question of personal taste. All too often teachers dismiss a CALL package as "rubbish" without considering, for example, who the intended users are and how they are likely to use it. Try to put yourself in the position of the user. Just because you happen to dislike adventure games, don't assume that they won't appeal to a disenchanted 13-year-old male learner of French. If you don't believe in presenting grammar exercises on a computer, then don't assume that they won't appeal to the sixth-form swot. It's a question of horses for courses.
See also our CALL Software Evaluation Form, which has been updated (August 2005) and is now available as a downloadable Word document. The document includes most of the above questions and also incorporates a Website / Web Page Evaluation Form. Click here: Evaluation Forms.
Behaviourism and authenticity: Both these terms are almost guaranteed to inflame discussions among language teachers. Behaviourism is unquestionably a dirty word in many language teachers' minds, whereas authentic materials have became a sine qua non in almost all language courses, both traditional and ICT-based. Consider the following. What do you think?
Graham Davies writes (unpublished email communication, 2005):
I don't mind materials being behaviouristic and artificial, especially in the early stages of language learning - no more than I minded circuit training in the gym as a way of toning up my muscles for playing rugby when I was a younger man, and no more than I minded practising putting on an aqualung in four metres of water at our local swimming pool while training as a scuba diver, and no more than I minded practising linked stem turns as a novice skiier, and no more than I now mind going to our local golf driving range regularly to whack 100 balls using my whole range of clubs from the pitching wedge to the driver. Behaviourism can be effective, as long it's not the main way of acquiring experience in a new skill. In other words, a virtual language lab is OK for practice in same way as using a golf range is OK for practice, but playing the game of golf is much more enjoyable and ultimately the best way of becoming a good golfer - and visiting a country and using the language is the best way of becoming a good linguist. As Phil Turk put it on page 3 of his article entitled "Re-educating anglophones and other irreverences" in the Summer 2005 edition of Language World, the newsletter of the Association for Language Learning (ALL) (http://www.all-languages.org.uk):
Ah, authentic! Why, oh why is it that footballers and other sportspersons do press-ups and other exercises to train their muscles and reactions, but which are not part of the game, ditto classical musicians with their scales and arpeggios, yet everything language students practise has to be 'authentic'? Can't we just flex our brains and whatever else to get avoir or whatever right, out of context for a few moments?
The computer: magister or pedagogue? Higgins (1985) makes a distinction between the role of the teacher as a magister or a pedagogue. He extends this distinction to different approaches to using computers in language learning and teaching:
Two possible models of what a teacher is might be called magister and pedagogue. The magister wears a gown to show that he is qualified. He is paid a salary every month. He carries a stick, real or metaphorical, with which to beat the children who give wrong answers. He makes assessments, right or wrong, good worker or lazy student. Most important of all, he chooses the order in which things happen, what is to be learned and what kind of activity the learners will carry out. However kind or humanistic he is, these are still his functions.
The pedagogue is the Greek slave. Originally just the slave who escorted the children to school, he is used by the patrician family to walk a few paces behind the young master. When the young master snaps his fingers, he comes forward to give information, answer questions, or perhaps, if that is what the young master wants, to conduct an argument or give a test. He may be expert, but his expertise only emerges on demand: he is a walking library. He doesn't earn very much, and knows that, once he fails to satisfy, he will starve.
How do you perceive the computer - as a magister or a pedagogue?
When computers were first introduced into schools in the 1980s it was usual for a teacher to bring a single computer into the classroom and teach the whole class, using a stand-alone computer, for example a BBC Micro in the UK, connected to a large TV screen. The teacher or a student would operate the keyboard, and the class would be asked to respond to what appeared on screen. The teacher might use the computer, for example, as a stimulus for eliciting oral responses from the class. This approach worked very well with a variety of programs, e.g. text manipulation programs, simulations, and programs such as Quelle Tête in which the aim was to build up a person's face on screen by keying in descriptions of the person's nose, eyes, hair, etc. The All-in-One Language Fun multimedia CD-ROM contains a face-building activity that would work well in a whole-class teaching situation: see Section 3.4.2, Module 2.2, headed CD-ROMs for young learners.
Sue Hewer writes:
I used the full-class approach with a class who were reluctant speakers of the target language. I used the screen as a focus and, with the help of various games devised largely by Barry Jones (Homerton College, Cambridge), students' confidence grew and they proved to be much more willing to "have a go" than if there was no focus for their eyes and the eyes of the rest of the class. I also used the full screen with the Copywrite component of Graham Davies's Fun with Texts software (see Section 8 below) to promote discussion about language, in addition to an ancient piece of software, produced by the ITMA group, called Clues, which enabled you to mark up the same text in lots of different ways, including colour coding and various forms of gapping. This, too, made a discussion about grammar quite palatable. It was possible to obtain printouts of some of the markups (no colour printers then!) which were then used in small-group follow-up activities at different levels.
Whole-class teaching went out of favour as computers became cheaper, and it is not unusual nowadays to find a school equipped with several networked computer labs, each one set up for a specific purpose. There is no doubt that the availability of this kind of computer lab has its advantages, but it can also lead to the "battery chicken" approach to language learning, which sounded the death-knell for the language laboratory (Davies 1997:28-29), and this has caused many teachers to become sceptical about the use of computer technology in this way. In addition, many teachers find it difficult to get regular access to a computer lab. The advent of lower-priced, high-quality projection equipment and the interactive whiteboard has brought about a revival in whole-class teaching with a computer.
Computer labs, however, still have an important role to play, as indicated by Heather Rendall in Section 5 (below), headed Teaching in the computer network room. Computer lab work is very effective in offering the intensive one-to-one practice that language learners need, as claimed by two of the contributors to Module 3.1, Managing a multimedia language centre:
There has been a good deal of discussion in recent years about the pros and cons of interactive whiteboards (IWBs). Some teachers believe that they are just another techno-gimmick, "an overhead projector on steroids", while others are brimming over with enthusiasm for this new presentation medium. See Section 1.3.4, Module 1.2, which includes an image of an interactive whiteboard.
Graham Davies writes:
Introducing an exotic language: In my training sessions for teachers I use a PowerPoint presentation including pictures and sound to introduce a language that the trainees are unlikely to have learned before, e.g. Hungarian. This puts them in the position of a complete beginner, which helps them to judge the effectiveness of such a presentation. Most people can't even recognise what language it is when I begin the session by playing the sound files without any text on screen. Then I use a clickable map of the country - with sound files - to introduce place names, and clickable text on screen - again with sound files - to present dialogues spoken by native speakers. The meaningless gabble of sounds that the trainees hear and the strange clusters of letters on screen remind them of what it's like to be an 11-year-old beginning a new language. This presentation works well with a laptop connected to a data projector or with a fixed interactive whiteboard. The feedback I usually receive is that, although the teachers find the presentation stimulating, they have reservations about how much of the material presented actually sinks in. It's an important observation: we live in an age that is obsessed with presentation, and young people have come to expect it, but learning a language is 90% practice following 10% presentation. Good presentation helps, but you learn a language mainly by "doing it".
Using moving text and colour to introduce points of word order and grammar in French and German: Here are a couple of ideas that date back to the late 1970s and early 1980s: (a) the French CLEF package and (b) Camsoft German. The CLEF package has lots of animated sequences, illustrating points of French grammar. Lessons 10 and 11 on agreement and position of adjectives include sequences in which an adjective drifts across to a noun, slotting into the correct position either in front of it or behind it. A feminine and/or plural ending is then added - if necessary - in a different colour. Camsoft German included sequences showing inverted word order in sentences beginning with a time phrase, and subordinate clause word order. Both sequences made use of animation, showing the verb wandering to different parts of the sentence. It made inverted and subordinate clause word order look easy - which it is once you understand the rules. The Camsoft German sequences were originally programmed in BASIC, but they would be quite easy to replicate using modern presentation tools such as PowerPoint. CLEF is still available in a revamped Windows version: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/clef.htm
Alan Crease writes:
I use PowerPoint and HTML presentations to introduce new topics to the sixth form. In Germany last summer I took a hundred digital photos of signs and notices and it's great for displaying them. I have a little application that does seating plans very nicely but also flashes up the names of class members when you hit the keyboard. It motivates the class when we are doing quick-fire oral work.
Gray et al. (2005) are generally positive about the ways in which IWBs can enhance whole-class teaching and engage learners, but they also point out that lessons can easily turn into "show and tell" sessions with the learners playing a passive role. This is a common criticism of the way in which teachers use IWBs. There is a discernible tendency for this new technology to produce a more frontal style of teaching, and consequently fewer opportunities for genuine learner interaction.
Ideally, one should aim at a balance between lively IWB presentations in the classroom, with plenty of learner participation, and opportunities for individual practice in a computer lab. See the BECTA document entitled What the research says about interactive whiteboards: BECTA (2003). So far, however, there is little conclusive evidence that IWBs per se make a significant difference to language learning. Most of the positive evidence is anecdotal, pointing to students' motivation, enthusiasm and engagement, which may be a very good thing - at least until the novelty wears off. In an article entitled "Whiteboards under the microscope" (The Guardian, 20 June 2006) Julie Nightingale, writes:
Millions of pounds have been spent on providing schools with interactive whiteboards in the belief that they could act as powerful aids to raising attainment, yet the boards are having no discernible impact on children's test scores.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,,1801077,00.html
But see also Heather McLean's article
entitled "How to give lessons a real talking point" (The Guardian,
20 June 2006), which expresses a more positive view:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,,1801085,00.html
A common misconception is that you have to buy special IWB software to go with an IWB. This is not so. Any software can be used on an IWB - or on a stand-alone computer linked to a data projector, with the image projected on a standard wall screen: CD-ROMs, Internet, Word documents, Flash, EXE files etc. It's what you do with the software and how you interact with the class that makes the difference. We've known this for years, dating right back to the days of the BBC Micro and the large TV set, which were used for whole-class teaching in the 1980s, when Chris Jones wrote an article with a title that says it all: "It's not so much the program: more what you do with it" (Jones C. 1986). We pick up this theme again in Module 2.1, CALL methodology: integrating CALL into study programmes.
It can indeed be argued that "interactive" is a misnomer as applied to an IWB, insofar as it's not the board that is interactive, but the teacher who uses it: see Section 1.1 (above), headed Interactivity. IWB technology is not difficult to handle, but many teachers who are using IWBs are underutilising the technology. Above all, you do need to adapt your presentation style. A skilled operator can work magic with an IWB, but an untrained teacher might just as well stick to a computer, data projector and wall screen - or just chalk and talk.
You do not necessarily have to pay a fortune for a special licence for software you intend to use for whole-class teaching. There are many packages for which you only have to buy a single-user licence, providing that the software is installed only on one computer at a time. Unless the terms of use of the software state specifically that a special IWB licence or whole-class teaching licence is required, then you do not have to buy one.
There are many software packages around that lend themselves to whole-class activities using an IWB without any special preparation, e.g. text manipulation packages such as Fun with Texts (see Section 8 below) and adventure games such as Who is Oscar Lake? (see Section 3.4.9, Module 2.2, headed A simulation on CD-ROM).
If you wish to produce your own materials for use on an IWB, you can do a lot with electronic worksheets created with a word-processor or with presentations created with PowerPoint: see Module 1.3, Using word-processing and presentation software in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom. Bear in mind that you may require a fair amount of preparation time if you want to produce something that is a real advance on what you can do with other media.
You may find a laptop and data projector are more flexible than an IWB, as they can easily be moved around to different locations. An IWB screen imposes certain restrictions. The screen is usually fixed in one place and has to be of limited size, and you have to be able to reach to the top of the screen in order to initiate certain functions, so it has to be hung in a fairly low position. In a long room the screen may look small from the back row. The maximum group size for comfortable viewing is around 30 people. A laptop connected to a data projector is the better option for larger audiences, as the wall screen can be much bigger.
There are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed concerning the use of IWBs. One of them is what an IWB can do. All any IWB can actually "do" is to carry a signal from the board to the computer, which is the equivalent of a mouse-click. This controls whatever is on the computer. The IWBs produced by Smart and Promethean both have pens, and both have drag-and-drop facilities in their own software, but a Smart IWB can also be controlled by your finger. This has led to great popularity in the primary schools market where pupils find it easier to use their finger when they are still learning to use a pen to write on paper.
One of the key advantages that we are coming across with IWBs is the ability to "annotate over" other applications. For example, if you are running a PowerPoint presentation or a CD-ROM, you can "freeze" the page and write comments across the top of it. This can all be saved and brought back at a later stage or accessed by pupils from the school network.
Health and Safety issues
There are important Health and Safety
guidelines on the safe use of data projectors in the classroom. Data projectors
can expose the eye to potentially damaging exposure levels. Users, especially
students, should try to keep their backs to the beam as much as possible. The
use of a stick or laser pointer to avoid the need for the presenter to enter
the beam is recommended. Projectors should be located out of the sight line
from the screen to the audience. This ensures that, when presenters look at
the audience, they do not also have to stare at the projector lamp. Ceiling-mounted
projectors, rather than table- or trolley-mounted projectors, are recommended.
In order to minimise the lamp power needed to project a visible presentation,
room blinds should be used to reduce ambient light levels. See the article entitled
"Whiteboard projector safety fears" at the BBC Website, 29 June 2007:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6253410.stm
Companies that produce interactive whiteboards
Interactive whiteboard resources on the Web
Commercial software packages suitable for whole-class teaching with IWBs
This section consists of a personal account and research study by Heather Rendall, who begins by describing her early experiences of teaching in a computer network room in the 1980s. An informal three-year research study, beginning in 1996, is also described here. The 1996-1999 study attempted to replicate her early experiences in the 1980s and to provide concrete evidence of the effectiveness of CALL, demonstrating that simple programs can have a lasting effect when integrated on a regular basis with classroom teaching. For further reading see:
See also Davies, Bangs, Frisby & Walton (2005) - this document includes a brief discussion of the pros and cons of using a computer lab as opposed to whole-class teaching using a data projector and an interactive whiteboard.
Contents of Section 5
It is strange to look back to the early 1980s and realise that there was, in some schools for those who wanted it, greater access to computers then than now. My department’s share of the computer room timetable was six 35-minute lessons a week. As no one else wanted to avail themselves of the room, each of my six classes in Years 7-9 in both French and German were able to have a lesson a week. To have the same access today in a similar 8 form entry school, when ICT is more fully integrated into the curriculum, would require 3 (years) x 8 (forms) x 35 minutes = 14 hours booked to Modern Languages alone. If similar provision were given to the 14-16 year old cohort then the equation would look like this:
5 (years) x 8 (form entry) = 40 x 35 minutes = 23.33 hours a week
Nearly a whole week’s booking of one computer network room! It is not surprising then that, with notable exceptions, whole-class teaching and learning in the computer network room is a methodology which has not taken off in the secondary sector! Which is a pity. Because what we learnt though trial and error in those early days, with the simple (by today’s standards, simplistic) programs that we had to hand, was not just that here was a motivational tool of the first order, but also a medium that could offer, perhaps uniquely, assistance in language learning.
The scepticism with which IT (as it was then called) was met by some language teachers was both voluble and predictable. Firstly they expected it to consist of programmed learning exercises, and therefore, being grammar based, would be boring, and secondly they would frequently ask in disparaging tones, "Ah but where’s the oral input?" As an advisory teacher doing demonstrations in unknown schools with unknown students, this could have been off-putting. Fortunately the programs demonstrated for themselves not only possible oral/aural angles, but also the fact that, though the exercises might be of a type, their content was never the same. But most of all it was possible to predict in advance the students’ own reactions. The programs’ motivational value was such that you could assure staff that: (a) within 30 minutes even their most demotivated 14-year-old would be too absorbed to notice the bell, (b) that someone would comment that they hadn’t known that they knew so much, and (c) that they would within a short space of time not be competing against each other but against their own previous efforts - the zeal to improve on one’s own performance would be ignited.
I relied mainly on three types of authoring program, leavened occasionally with a commercial dedicated "fun" program. Each unit of work in our textbook comprised learning new vocabulary and structures, practising the same and finally using them both in context, so we reflected each stage with a complementary program:
For each unit of work I created files containing the core and extension vocabulary with at least one complete text for Fun with Texts to end with. With these three programs we could parallel every development within the classroom and keep pace with learning - though in the end I think it may have been more the other way round.
Unable to capture any data while in school, I set up a small research project in 1996 aiming to replicate as far as possible the CALL sessions of the 1980s. For the next three years I worked with a half class of 12 students in a small rural secondary school for approximately 30 minutes a week, observing and recording their progress. I have been allowed to set tasks and assessments across the whole year in order to compare performances.
Within the first year it was clear that CALL was having a positive effect. In those areas where a grammar point was totally lacking in English - such as gender and adjective agreement - students’ performances could be seen to move rapidly from total confusion to a system for resolving each task faultlessly.
5.2.1 Example: Word Sequencing
Word Sequencing: a program used with 11-year-olds in their first term of learning French.
The data used in this program consists of pairs of nouns with adjectives which the program jumbles like this:
Each pair of noun plus adjective has to be resorted in turn. To start with, when the skills required to know what to do and in what order, are still being developed, it takes a long time with much oral support before the right pairing is made. In September 1996 a similar set of data that just paired nouns and articles (Un compas et une calculette) had taken on average 2 minutes 7 seconds per pair. The more difficult task with adjectives was introduced in November 1996 and had an average completion rate of 1 minute 13 seconds - already a clear improvement on the easier file. By the end of November 1996 the average time for completing pairing had dropped to 26 seconds, which is about as fast as a solution can be reached.
| Phrase to be sorted |
7.11.96 |
7.11.96 |
14.11.96 |
14.11.96 |
21.11.96 |
21.11.96 |
| Un crayon rouge et des ciseaux rouges | 2m08 | 32 secs | 1m51 | - | 14 secs | 31 secs |
| Un sac bleu et une calculette bleue | - | 59 secs | 48 secs | 1m11 | - | 24 secs |
| Une règle verte et un crayon vert | 2m18 | 42 secs | 24 secs | - | 19 secs | 17 secs |
| Des crayons rouges et un bic rouge | - | 1m04 | 38 secs | 37 secs | 1m56 (!) | 23 secs |
| ! a local distraction caused a delay | - | - | - | - | - | - |
5.2.2 Additional explanation of results (1)
What is also noteworthy is that by this time the number of immediate correct solutions had risen as well i.e. the student made no superfluous moves: each word was placed correctly in turn. The work done on one of the computers was recorded on video, allowing each move to be analysed. The rate of improvement looked like this
| Number completed with the minimum of moves | |
| 7.11.96 | |
| 1st attempt | none out of 1 pairing completed |
| 2nd attempt | 3 out of 7 completed |
| 3rd attempt | 1 out of 1 completed |
| 14.11.96 | |
| 1st attempt | 3 out of 6 pairings completed |
| 2nd attempt | 1 out of 6 completed |
| 3rd attempt | 4 out of 5 completed |
| 21.11.96 | |
| 1st attempt | not recorded |
| 2nd attempt | 3 out of 6 completed |
| 3rd attempt | 8 out of 9 completed |
5.2.3 Additional information of results (2)
It became clear by 1999 that this research group outperformed all other students in the same cohort in free writing tasks with regard to the position and agreement of adjectives. Adjective agreements were not perfect but 70% of the research group used them in the correct position and the only student out of the whole year group to use adjectives freely and with 96% accuracy came from the CALL research group.
There were obviously some drawbacks in the course of the research study: I had to miss the odd week’s lesson because of commitments elsewhere. One student was absent for two terms, and another left the school. But most importantly, it was difficult to keep up with the amount of vocabulary and its range. The number of topics and breadth of vocabulary that these students had been introduced to, and supposedly had to learn, was astonishing. Occasionally there was not even enough time to establish passive recognition, before they had to move onto another totally unrelated subject.
It was, however, very easy to determine when they were not gaining mastery of the topic. Their results on Word Sequencing and the other programs just did not improve in the usual manner. Despite the help offered by CALL, it was occasionally clear that the language and the structures were remaining beyond them. This highlighted the fact that CALL is not a panacea; it is a learning support, an accelerator perhaps but if the introduction to the work is not sound, if the level of language is too far removed from their existing standard, if the choice of vocabulary or structures is too confusing, then any benefit CALL might bring is reduced. It was useful to report back to their teacher that, for example, in the Youth Hostel dialogues, they seemed unable to differentiate between C’est pour combien de nuits? and C’est combien pour une nuit? and that in Lost Property, they were completely unable to handle the pronouns which had suddenly appeared with the briefest of explanations:
This is the briefest overview of work that spanned three years, but hopefully it has given enough data to whet the appetite and to suggest that CALL integrated on a regular basis with classroom lessons can support and enhance language learning to lasting effect.
The final exercise in any unit would be a text manipulation exercise using Fun with Texts or, occasionally, GapKit. It took very little time to discover that students preferred to tackle each Fun with Texts file in the same order of activities:
Only very occasionally have I met a student or a group who asked to be able to do Copywrite Easy first!
If you do not know the Fun with Texts program, download the demo copy from the Camsoft website: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/fwt.htm. See also Sue Hewer: Section 8: Text manipulation.
Why do you think students preferred the order of text manipulation activities described above?
Contents of Section 6
This section aims to provide an introduction to self-access learning. Further information, including five case studies of schools and higher education institutions that make successful use of self-access centres, is provided in Module 3.1, Managing a multimedia language centre.
Most of the discussion up to this point has focused on ways in which a teacher can use ICT with a whole class or with smaller groups within a class. ICT in language learning can also have an important role to play in the work that a student completes independently. This type of independent study is often seen in the context of self-access.
Self-access is often thought of in terms of a study or resource centre. It would be more accurate to think of self-access as an approach to teaching and learning. A self-access centre supplies the resources to support an institution that advocates self-access methodology, encouraging independent learning.
There are many activities which can be extremely time-consuming to complete in class and which, to a certain extent, can be better achieved on an individual basis. For example, learning and revising vocabulary, intensive listening practice, practice of grammar structures. Using CALL packages to help students make the most of their own study time has been shown to enhance the productivity of study time alone.
In some instances self-access may have been mistrusted and seen as an attempt to replace teacher contact time and save money: see Davies (1997). Those centres which have adopted self-access seriously have come to realise that far from saving money, a properly-run self-access centre requires a significant injection of time, money and expertise in order to function effectively. The true value of a self-access centre lies in the benefits gained by students who use these facilities.
What are the advantages of using CALL in a self-access context?
There are, of course, some disadvantages, but these can be overcome:
The key questions to be asked when equipping and managing a self-access centre are detailed below. See also Module 3.1, Managing a multimedia language centre, for more detailed information and selected case studies
Note: Networking computers for running software that contains large amounts of sound or video can lead to a significant decrease in the quality and frequent crashes. See the Appendix, Module 2.2: Networking CD-ROMs.
Note: Suppliers usually offer single- or multiple-user licences. All your software will have to be licensed to run on a specified number of computers in your institution or you must install metering software to monitor and regulate the number of computers that can use it concurrently. You must buy the appropriate licence for your network or you risk prosecution under copyright law. See our General guidelines on copyright.
This topic is also covered in:
Contents of Section 7
Distance learning: Clear
definitions are hard to come by and confusion can sometimes result. The term
distance learning is taken to mean, principally, individual learners
working by themselves, at a place and time of their choosing and, to some extent,
at a pace and in an order also chosen by themselves. This term encompasses aspects
of open learning in that it includes degrees of openness in terms of
place, time, pace and content of learning. It also takes in aspects of resource-based
learning in that, as the student's knowledge of the target language develops,
he/she is often required to work with a range of resources presented in different
media, particularly for practice in reading and listening skills. The essential
characteristic of this kind of learning is that it involves a substantial element
of self-study, despite the provision of tutors who can be contacted by phone,
email and letter. The term
distance learning tends to imply that the students are linked to a centre,
from which they are at a distance. This is true of students studying
languages with the Open University in the UK:
http://www.open.ac.uk/new/distance-learning.shtml
However, if we follow through the definition of distance learning given above, students using less formally organised courses produced by other organisations for home study, such as the free online language learning materials at the BBC website (see below), are also distance language learners. Such courses currently take a multiple-media approach in that materials are produced in the medium most appropriate to their purpose, resulting in learning packs containing text books, audiocassettes and videocassettes. TV and radio programmes are also produced to supplement the published materials. In the case of the Open University, published materials and TV broadcasts are also supplemented by face-to-face tutorials for those willing and able to attend. With regard to the BBC courses, educational institutions often offer their own face-to-face courses based on the BBC materials, thereby providing students with a learning environment involving both distance and face-to-face contact modes. This is a typical example of blended learning (see below).
The Open University's language courses recruit well and currently attract several thousands of students annually. BBC courses on the Web are also popular and attract thousands of "hits" per day. In addition, the BBC's turnover in more traditional language publications runs to millions of pounds. See:
E-learning: E-learning (electronic learning) has become a buzzword in recent years. To some people, e-learning describes any application of ICT in learning and teaching, from producing a word-processed handout to a full-blown course on the Web - and this catch-all definition is the one which is favoured by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)) in the UK. The whole of the ICT4LT website is, therefore, in this sense all about e-learning in the context of teaching and lea