Methodology in language teaching English

Cbnkm bmbnkk hkkkkgjlg kvvjkn

1.   Prepared By Hanan Abdallah Ozlam medhat Bashaer Hussein Israa kareem   Submitted to: Prof .dr. Istabraq Al azawy     Ministry of Higher Education andScientific Research University of Tikrit College of Education for Humanities English Department M.A Studies/ Methods of Teaching

2. Simply stated, Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) can be defined as “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (Levy, 1997, p. 1) CALL is now widely regarded as the central acronym to refer to studies concerned with second language and computer technology. Other terms, however, continue to be introduced to focus on particular uses of the computer. Overall, the main objective of CALL is to “improve the learning capacity of those who are being taught a language through computerized means” (Cameron, 1999a, p. 2). such a definition focuses particularly on language learning, not language teaching, while at the same time the use of the computer forces reconsideration of traditional stakeholder roles: learners, teachers, and researchers have each had to adapt to the demands and opportunities afforded by a range of new technologies. Socio-collaborative approaches to teaching and learning are replacing communicative ones, and debates about pedagogy now center on aspects of learner autonomy, collaborative project design, and appropriate assessment practices. CALL educators are also being challenged to keep pace with rapid change and innovation to meet concerns about evolving technologies, professional development, and rising student levels of electronic literacy. .Introduction

3. As with the broader field of applied linguistics, CALL can be located at the crossroads of a number of disciplines . Levy (1997, pp. 47–75) regards the studies in psychology, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, instructional technology, and human–computer interaction as primary influences. Although Levy is aware that the area can be framed somewhat differently, he draws on these five cross-disciplinary fields to as a way to structure the knowledge base. Chapelle (2001, pp. 27–43) places CALL within six computer-related sub-disciplines: educational technology, computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, and computer-assisted assessment. Unlike Levy (1997), Chapelle argues that studies in human–computer interaction have had little impact on CALL and sees educational technology as a much more significant influence. In her view, the area became distinct in the mid-1980s with the formation of professional organizations and journals specifically devoted to the emerging field. According to Chapelle (2001, p. 15), the Australian journal On-CALL appeared in the mid-1980s. A brief history Ahmad et al. (1985) consider the work conducted in the United States and Britain in the years 1965–85. In one early project carried out at Stanford University, instructors created self-instructional materials for Slavic language learning and delivered them via a mainframe computer. Another group at the University of Illinois developed a system named Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations (PLATO) , in which teachers were able to write a Russian-English translation course. The computer program was able to provide both drills and marking for student work as well as an authoring component for instructors. overview of ‘CALL’

4.   The PLATO system later expanded to include a number of foreign languages and offered them in increasingly technically sophisticated ways. Although high costs prohibited their widespread use, mainframe computer applications throughout the 1960s and 1970s were developed to the point of interactive features to help students read specialist scientific texts. From the early 1980s , increased computer availability fuelled a growing interest in CALL. Teachers were able to write or modify computer applications to suit specific language learning situations; as a result, more and more students were exposed to them both at home and on campus. Levy (1997) highlights the Time-Shared, Interactive, Computer Controlled Information Television (TICCIT) project initiated at Brigham Young University in 1971 as one of the first examples of multimedia-based instruction. Here, computers had the capacity to integrate text, audio, and video that could be controlled by the learner. She also singles out the Athena Language Learning Project based at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In this project, communicative approaches to language teaching underpinned the development of a multi media authoring environment and an integration of techniques based on research in artificial intelligence. One significant part of this project was the full integration of language teachers in the development process; that is, project managers promoted teaching and learning with computers above software design and instructional theory. By the end of the 1980s , CALL practitioners had produced a substantial body of work that focused mainly on pedagogical computer use From the start of the 1990s , teachers began to make greater use of networked computers, and by mid-decade the explosive growth of the Internet prompted CALL educators to increasingly adopt socio-collaborative modes of learning. In her recent overview, Chapelle (2001) notes that Internet usage prompted not only a much greater access to resources, but also provided the motivation for developers to create sophisticated materials that would hopefully attract large audiences . In the mid-1990s , an Australian national report found that “With minor exceptions, the application of technology in language teaching and learning has been fragmented, frequently idiosyncratic, topic oriented and largely based on distributive technologies.

5. Major theoretical perspectives Trends in CALL roughly parallel those in other areas of applied linguistics . Starting with the structural and behaviorist models that manifested in audio - lingual approaches to language learning , CALL educators then explored aspects of communicative approaches to language learning . Socio - cognitive theories of instruction are now an integral part of CALL . Practitioners in the era of structural CALL placed a strong emphasis on grammar and they employed the use of mainframe computers to help students gain accuracy in their language usage . Grammar - translation and audio - lingual methods , grounded in behaviorism , went hand in hand with programmed instruction . Students were able to repeat drills with the seemingly tireless and patient computer - as - tutor , and instruction appeared to be at an upmost efficiency. Crook ( 1994 , pp . 13-16 ) examines the tutorial role of computers and the popularity of drill exercises . First , he notes , computers never truly became “ intelligent “ because of the inherent difficulties in constructing algorithms that could sensitively respond learner profiles . At the time , the sophisticated hardware needed to attempt this goal was available almost exclusively in military and industrial training contexts . Nonetheless , Crook writes , tutorial drills have a continued appeal to educators for two reasons : ( 1 ) teachers uncomfortable with innovative uses in technology “ may well adopt the comparatively easy solution of focusing their commitment on straightforward , self contained programs “ ( 2 ) many instructors feel that repeated exposures to certain practices and structures are beneficial to students Richmond ( 1999 ) argues that a true picture of CALL resembles a split between “ dedicated “ and “ integrated “ streams . Much more widely practiced , “ dedicated CALL “ largely consists of using stand - alone programs to drill and practice items of grammar , vocabulary , and syntax . Richmond argues that complexity and costs of software , as well as a host of technical problems , has shied teachers and students away from more integrated uses of the computer.

6. Esling ( 1991 ) , created a series of task - based CALL activities to promote productive email exchanges between ESL students at two Canadian universities . In these activities , for example , students were directed to describe photographs , give directions , or express an opinion . The role of computer software was to help deliver visual materials for description , process word documents , or provide interactive simulations. Integrative CALL seeks to make full use of networked computers as a means to engage learners in meaningful , large - scale collaborative activities ( Debski , 2000 ; Warschauer & Kern , 2000 ) . Instructors promote close ties between learning processes , objectives , and a student ownership of the out comes . As with mainstream computer - supported collaborative learning ( e.g .. Bonk & King , 1998 ; Koschmann , 1996 ; Land & Hannafin , 2000 ) , meaningful interaction and authentic project work are highlighted . Authentic discourse provides the basis for learning material . Students are taught techniques in online publishing , and are urged to produce their own texts. The key distinction between communicative CALL and integrative CALL is that , in the former , learner choice and self - management of activity are driven by task - based approaches to syllabus design . At its most liberal interpretation , a syllabus in integrative CALL simply represents a “ dynamic blueprint “ where learning occurs through “ accidents “ generated by projects ( Barson , 1999 ) . In contrast , a syllabus in communicative CALL is likely to be discrete and related to a set of curricular guidelines that have been defined in advance of learner needs ( Corbel , 1999 ) .

7. Roles of the computers In the structural stage of CALL , educators characterized the computer as a “ tutor “ who patiently delivered repetitive drills . In this way the computer could engage the independent student in individualized , self - paced instruction through efficient materials delivery . In communicative CALL , the computer was seen as a “ pupil “ that was trained to navigate through “ microworlds “ ( Papert , 1980 ) . Communicative CALL practitioners also used the computer to stimulate conversations amongst small groups of students who sat in front of it . In recent integrative CALL approaches , the computer acts like a “ unified information manager “ ( Ullmer , 1994 ) , that comes equipped with a host of applications , or a “ toolbox , “ that stand ready to be used in the construction of project More and more , a computer environment can create a “ social space “ in which to conduct purposeful interactions through virtual reality ( Toyoda & Harrison , 2002 ) These days , the computer is likely to be seen in the “ subservient role of tool in the service of the larger goals and contexts of instructional communities “ ( Meskill , 1999 , p . 141 ) . That is , most educators now downplay the centrality of computers and simply acknowledge their integrated use in classroom management , materials presentation , and learner interactions . In light of studies which view motivation as a key factor in language learn ing success ( for an extensive review , see Dörnyei , 2001 )

8. According to Pennington ( 1996 ) , learners gain motivation through computer use because they are less threatened and thus take more risks and are more spontaneous . With reference to computer based writing , Pennington ( 1999a , p . 289 ) credits positive attitudes toward computing as a key factor in student motivation to produce high quality materials . Increased access to authentic materials , email usage , and collaborat ive activities have also been seen to spur student motivation to learn language. One key role of computers is to deliver materials . Indeed , in structural CALL , efficient materials delivery was a prime focus of the technology . Materials in communicative CALL served as prompts for both discussion and practice . Increasingly , Internet access to foreign newspapers , specialized websites , and other forms of media has shifted a view of materials as authentic discourse . Specifically because they help make available such a wide range of authentic materials. Materials in communicative CALL served as prompts for both discussion and practice . Increasingly , Internet access to foreign newspapers , specialized websites , and other forms of media has shifted a view of materials as authentic discourse . Specifically because they help make available such a wide range of authentic materials. Computers also permit the creation of electronic materials .

9. Dived in (1988) provides a succinct four - part overview of multimedia authoring packages for language teachers . In the first of his categories , he cites products which align with the “ Keep it Simple and Stupid “ school of design . The popularity of this approach rests with its relative ease of use . Secondly , an integrated approach using a full authoring suite can be utilized for materials production . A third approach is to use a multipurpose application and then later move and adapt materials into related computer environments . In his fourth “ Generic CALL “ category , Davies writes about the formation of a European Community project , known as MALTED ( Multimedia Authoring for Language Tutors and Educational Development ) , that aims to create an authoring environment which specifically meets the requirements of language teachers . fourth “ Generic CALL “ category , Davies writes about the formation of a European Community project , known as MALTED ( Multimedia Authoring for Language Tutors and Educational Development ) , that aims to create an authoring environment which specifically meets the requirements of language teachers. Chapelle observes , there is no single tool that can perform functions such as task difficulty estimates and yet support a structure for learner models . the nature of technology mediated tasks for language acquisition and assessment is a particular point of interest for CALL ( Chapelle , 2001 ; Hoven , 1999a ) . The basic definition of pedagogical tasks is “ a focused , well - defined activity , relatable to pedagogic decision making , which requires learners to use language , with an emphasis on meaning , to attain an objective , and which elicits data which may be the basis for research “ ( Bygate , Skehan , & Swain , 2001 , p . 12 ) . Significantly for CALL educators , computers have the potential to help students with special needs for example , in their use of screen readers , Braille devices , or other assistive technologies

10. Roles of the learner In each of the three stages of CALL, the role of students changes in tandem with shifts in learning theory, the capabilities of computers, and instructional processes. In structural CALL, students were dependent on programs of instruction that efficiently delivered grammar and vocabulary materials. Communicative CALL practices sought to place learners in independent relationships with the computer, as students progressed through interactive work with applications. Within integrative CALL, students are expected to work collaboratively and utilize the computer as a "toolbox" for group project work . Generally, applied linguists hold a strong interest in learner strategies ( Chamot , 2001). In CALL, this interest has been directed to looking at student behaviors regarding online reading, listening, speaking, and writing ( Hegelheimer & Chapelle , 2000; Liou , 2000), particularly in regard to the comprehension of second language multimedia. Chun and Plass (1997) framed the key issues of "multimedia comprehension" based on studies of online reading and visual interpretation. Hoven (1999b), too, proposed a model for learners' listening and viewing skills in multimeat environments . speech technologies for language learning are rapidly developing ( Ehansi & Knodt , 1998; Goodwin-Jones, 2000a) as educators seek to make student learning more engaging within the computer environment. With an emphasis on pronunciation the student can interact through speech in three general ways. The first, List denotes, is in the form of "visual feedback," which shows a student a display of intonation and loudness patterns . Second, When a student utterance is compared to that of a native speaker and scored automatically, a "template-based" approach is used.

11. A third way to assist students with pronunciation is to have a "model-based" approach. By building up a model of mispronunciations through comparison to native speaker utterances or predicted common errors, students gain specific feedback on errors and a guide on how to correct them . One of the major findings in this area is that students produce longer compositions and are more positive about writing when they use computers. Pennington (1999) attributes such positive attitudes primarily to the ease of generating text, clarity of the copy, and the cyclical nature of critical text-generation-and-revision processes . Although Blin (1999 ) found that few CALL studies have researched autonomous learner processes, one direction in the move toward integrative CALL is to allow for, and promote, learner autonomy throughout a course of instruction . learner autonomy can be defined as "the development of a capacity for engagement with and critical reflection on the learning process" (Shield & Weininger , 1999, p. 100) . Hoven (1999a) clearly places the learner in control of his or her own learn- ing . She believes that the learner needs to be in control of the "content, mode, order, pace, and level of self-direction of the package" (p. 150). An advocate of integrative CALL, Hoven argues that syllabus design should be framed in a sociocultural theoretical perspective in which the texts are negotiated, mediated, and made to be interactive . Although exactly what defines "literacy" is debatable (for an extensive review, see Kern, 2000), in the context of CALL the term seeks to describe the range of technical skills and embedded social practices students need before they can productively engage in computer-based activities Although Corbel (1997) promoted "computer literacy" as a way to examine such practices, Shetzer and Warschauer (2000) discredit the term because of its relatively narrow focus on technical aspects of usage. For their part, "electronic literacy" is a preferred term to encompass the skills and practices regarding how to find and organize information as well as how to read and produce it ( Shetzer & Warschauer , 2000, p. 173; Warschauer , 1998) . Accordingly, Shetzer and Warschauer (2000) divide the electronic literacy framework into three overlapping areas: communication, construction, and research. Thus, to become adept at communication via computer, the learner must be able to interact and collaborate in decentered, asynchronous ways.

12. Roles of the instructor The integration of CALL into the classroom has challenged instructors to become familiar with new technologies and redefine their views of teaching. Indeed, according to Kramsch (1993, p. 201) : The enormous educational potential of the computer is confronting teachers with their pedagogic responsibilities as never before . Not only have computers shifted instructional practices, they have changed the way materials are designed, assessment is conducted, and how programs are evaluated . In both structural and communicative CALL, the teacher often served as a mediator between the computer and students throughout the learning process. Although computer usage generally fostered a "programmed" approach to instruction, instructors were nonetheless reminded to stay on hand to keep things running smoothly. In a study of learner talk elicited by computers, Abraham and Liou (1991, p. 104) suggested that teachers "need to make sure that students understand instructions and can supply the kind of responses required to make the program advance ." Lewis and Atzert (2000) found that an extensive use of computers fostered anxiety in some students and thus detracted from language learning goals. To counter such anxieties, Lewis and Atzert suggest that teachers situate computer technologies in a historical and cultural context in such a way that students can form a critical perspective of their use. one responsibility for teachers regarding students is to "deepen their understanding of the relationship between text and context when teaching language as communicative practice" ( Kramsch & Anderson, 1999, p. 39) in order to avoid portraying multimedia in simplistic ways .

13. To prepare teachers for professional development workshops, Hatasa ( 1999 provides a 16-point checklist for self-evaluation of technological literacy . Although somewhat simplistic and focused on technological aspects, Hatasa nonetheless lays the foundation for discussion on what types of skills should be required for proficient CALL instructors.

14. Establishing CALL research priorities Primary research concerns in CALL shift with each stage. Within structural CALL, investigators examined ways in which the use of the computer helps with the efficacy of instruction (see, for example, Dunkel , 1991). Such concerns Chapelle (1997, p. 21) sparked debate when she argued that cohesive research agenda required a “perspective on CALL which provides appropriate empirical research methods for investigating the critical questions about how CALL can be used to improve instructed SLA [second language acquisition]”. In Chapelle’s view, cross-disciplinary contributions to empirical CALL research were found wanting and published studies had often vaguely described key definitions . She identified two key research questions : T he fist “What kind of language does a learner engage in during a CALL activity?” and (2) “How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning?” ( Chapelle , 1997, p. 22). Essentially, Chapelle sees attempts to answer the first question as descriptive. That is, they provide a basis for decisions creating a syllabus. The second question is evaluative in that it aims to examine the quality of learner language . Although Chapelle points out that these questions, of course, are not the only ones that could be explored in the CALL classroom, she concluded her call for a research agenda focused on aspects of instructed SLA. Salaberry pointed out that a more comprehensive agenda would examine the medium of presentation in CALL activities and more closely examine psycholinguistic assumptions, and concluded that “the analysis of computer mediated com- munication , including the analysis of learners’ use of technical components that render CMC possible, deserves to be at the forefront of future research agenda

15. In the area of educational media research, the dismissal of media comparison approaches led to a rise of investigations concerned with “media attributes” (Wetzel, Radtke , & Stern, 1994). Educational media researchers (e.g., Clark, 1994; Kozma , 1994) now urge investigators to consider those variables that cluster around “media” (e.g., speed of presentation, familiarity, editing style, clarity of images, topic). Additionally, researchers need to examine those associated with “method” (e.g., instructor behaviour, repeated viewings, length of exposure, motivational attitudes) as a way to account for differences in performance . In a similar vein, Tatsuki (1993) claims that CALL research has also suffered because of significant flaws that include exceedingly small sample sizes, a lack of control groups, a tendency to overgeneralize, and a failure to operationalize key variables. As with Dunkel (1991), Tatsuki (1993) called on researchers to abandon comparative designs in favor of more “basic research into how learners learn language and how specific media affect language learning” (p. 24). Fortunately, such advice has been largely heeded and researchers now look more closely at how the interactions of computers, learners, and instructors influence the process of language learning . In regard to the examination of learner behaviours, or strategies, CALL researchers need to explore the framework of “constructively responsive” readers set out by Pressley and Afflerbach (1995). This perspective, based on the underpinnings of cognitive constructivism (for an overview, see Driscoll, 2000), regards comprehends as flexible, concerned with main ideas, and, most importantly, responsive to the presentation of textual resources as they attempt to build a coherent macro-structure.

16. There are a number of reasons to advocate this approach. . First , unlike perspectives of learner behaviour established on information-processing models of cognition (e.g., O’Malley & Chamot , 1990), its theoretical foundation remains current and defensible in light of the recent construction-integration model of comprehension proposed by Kintsch (1998 ). Secondly , the framework is sufficiently complex to accommodate a wide range of interactions with electronic texts that, no doubt, exist. The complexity of this framework can help investigators go far beyond the relatively narrow conceptualizations of learner behaviours offered by the three-category “ cognitive, metacognitive and social/affective” framework of O’Malley and Chamot (1990). Importantly, as Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) point out, their framework is far from being “saturated” and thus permits its use as a cornerstone for investigations. The need for evaluation of CALL projects and activities is a recurrent theme in the literature and has become more urgent as the field expands ( Chapelle , 2001, p. 26). As Motteram (1999) has observed, CALL researchers appear to have focused on finding ways to justify large investment in computers. Several factors, however, are merging to strengthen CALL evaluation research. Broadly speaking, the increased emphasis on computer-based learning through- out education has produced new tools for analysis, increased funding, and widened interest.

17. Discussion Because of large-scale computer-based tests, student work styles and the increasingly commonplace use of information technologies, Chapelle (2001) predicts “anyone concerned with second language teaching and learning in the 21st century needs to grasp the nature of the unique technology-mediated tasks learners can engage in for language acquisition and how such tasks can be used for assessment” (p. 2). Interpreted broadly, Chapelle’s comment foreshadows a time in the near future when computers will occupy a much more central position in applied linguistic Clearly, the networked-based and socio-cognitive approaches that mark integrative CALL are here to stay. Mainstream educators have widely examined such learning environments ( Jonassen & Land, 2000); CALL specialists need to draw from these experiences and make them relevant to second language contexts. Although the interdisciplinary nature of CALL makes it an unwieldy area of research on occasion, a wider exploration of related literature should nonetheless be encouraged. integrative CALL practitioners have been at a loss to deal with assessment issues. As Barson (1999, p. 25) observes, there is a “troubling lack of correlation between standard achievement tests and the complex of values requiring assessment and appreciation in self-realization learning.”

18. For their part, those who seek to improve CALL pedagogical practices must neces - sarily begin to address assessment concerns, particularly through collected volumes of work that focus on specific techniques of instruction. Because large-scale language examinations such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) are now available as computer-based versions, language testing specialists will continue to gain insights into the use and implications of computers in language assessment (see, for example, Ginther , 2001; Taylor et al., 1998). CALL educators will need to work alongside these language test- ing professionals to develop integrated assessment practices, particularly in cases such as web-based testing ( Roever , 2001). As Barson (1999) recognizes, there is a major challenge ahead to create classroom-based and teacher- supported instruments that can accurately capture foreign language proficiency in the context of computer-supported collaborative learning. Given the increasing centrality of technologies to applied linguistics, it is disappointing to see recent attempts to define pedagogic tasks ( Bygate , Skehan , & Swain, 2001) ignore the role of computers. The absence of technology in such discussions limits the insights about task design and research solely to traditional classrooms Finally, as Warschauer (1999; 2000b; 2002) examines the impact of computers beyond the classroom and begins to unpack the “digital divide,” other CALL researchers need to be urged to read more widely in areas of social informatics, cyber-cultures, and cultural studies. One notable absence in the framing of “critical applied linguistics” ( Pennycook , 2001), for example, was a lack of dis- cussion of the impact of technologies in the field. A stronger critique of tech- nologies could only strengthen CALL and move it further away from a tendency to paint somewhat troublefree and utopian visions of technology in education