|
Language learning, technology and development: the
essential interaction between teachers and students
Introduction
Some years ago in the pages of the ELT Journal (Jones, 1995), I described a self-access centre at a university in Cambodia which responded well to learners’ needs with a modest collection of books and home-made instructional kits in a physical environment that favoured informal group work and social exchange in English. It was "low-tech" self-access: there were cassette players for individual or group listening, two televisions and VCRs with multiple headphones — and not a computer to be seen. It was tempting, I confess now, to add to the conclusion of that article the suggestion that the success of this example of sociable, low-tech self-access in one of the poorest and most troubled countries in the world could inspire self-access planners in the rich and developed countries. Perhaps it did in some language centres. However, the truth is that in the developed world today no language centre feels that it can do without high technology in the form of computers. Students expect to find computers among the facilities available to them; and teachers and administrators are aware that computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is gathering prestige and that they must keep up with the trend. Language centres put computers for the use of learners in various places: laboratories, libraries, even classrooms. But a self-consciously up-to-date self-access centre will inevitably be provided with a concentration of computers. The chief reason is that the use of computers, like other self-access activities, tends to be regarded as promoting independent learning and thus autonomy, a highly valued goal in this age of the communicative approach. The promised benefits of learner-centredness and autonomy are frequently referred to in the research on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) (Levy, 1997). This paper, however, argues that the effectiveness of CALL depends greatly on teachers and that, while perhaps leading ultimately to autonomy, it cannot be regarded as largely a self-access operation. It undoubtedly requires more learner training and supervision than other self-access pursuits. Such training and supervision would have to be carried out by teachers. Are they ready and willing to do this? There is cause for doubt. According to Burston (1996), one reason for the failure of CALL to realize its promise is "lack of involvement of language teaching professionals"(p. 33). A further pivotal question: Are learners interested enough in CALL to seek its benefits? These matters, which have received very little attention in CALL research, need to be resolved if the approach is to be a successful learning experience and justify the formidable investment in hardware and software.
CALL and the role of the teacher CALL’s promise unfulfilled Plainly, a new era in CALL has begun. The early, unimpressive phase of "drill and kill" has passed. The fast improvement in the technology and the advent of the CD-ROM, and especially of the Internet, have enhanced the creative learning opportunities of the medium. The recognition of CALL as a valid resource appears to have been achieved, and energy is now concentrated on matters of design and quality standards (Dodigevic, 1997). Remarkably, however, this encouraging growth has not been accompanied by faith in the wondrous potential of CALL. At the inaugural WorldCALL Conference that took place in Melbourne in July 1998, keynote speakers, distinguished by their long experience in the computer’s educational applications, made no extravagant claims. Keith Cameron, for example, insisted that the rhetoric of CALL had gone ahead of the reality; promises of a revolution in language learning have not come to pass. Ben Shneiderman, who was instrumental in setting up the multimedia AT&T Teaching Theater at the University of Maryland, uttered the bons mots, "Computers are no more intelligent than a wooden pencil" and "The sound of education is the buzz of students talking together", even if they are amidst the most advanced technology. Graham Davies warned of the chaos into which the Web invites learners: "The Web is like a library: enter the door and there are all the books — all heaped up on the floor". CALL for the classroom These general cautions expressed by the experts appear to correlate with the attitude of CALL teachers who regard the computer as requiring the guiding hand of a human being; as more of an invaluable resource than an independent tutor. They see that what the computer offers learners is not "free standing" and the human teacher’s role is undiminished. Levy (1997) undertook a comprehensive survey of experienced CALL practitioners to determine how they conceptualized and used the medium. One common response among the 104 participants in the survey identified an approach to CALL based on learners’ needs and the curriculum, not on the computer itself (p.124). Many respondents claimed to set their students’ CALL activities in the context of the same communicative approach that they would adopt in the conventional classroom, insisting, for example, on the authentic content of exercises, problem solving and oral participation. It is possible that most learners too would affirm that CALL activities should be associated with a teaching programme. Felix (1997) conducted a case-study evaluation of a CD-ROM programme called Theater Interaktiv, which she herself developed. The programme used only the target language, German, and included a "large variety of written exercises with scored feedback", switching between "games and serious work" (p. 2). The majority of learners not only enjoyed the programme but significantly improved in competence through it, as demonstrated by the encouraging difference between pre- and post-tests. What is interesting, in the context of the question of whether the computer is best used as a tool or tutor, is that 75.5% of the 37 subjects wanted to regard the programme as a complement to classroom instruction, not as a stand-alone task for self-access use (pp. 8-9). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that these students were at an advanced level and might have been expected to manage, or seek to manage, their learning more independently. A good many designers of CALL programmes these days show awareness of the need for dual functions, describing their product as "for classroom or independent study", or equivalent expression. Teacher-direction or self-direction or both are feasible. According to the publicity for Planet English (http://www.planetenglish.com), for example, the programme is supposed to "reinforce classroom teaching", not acting as a "stand alone", and also encourage "independent learning strategies". In fact, such CD-ROM courses make the independent learning option, pursued in a self-access centre or elsewhere, very attractive. Clear instructions and guiding symbols are on the screen, explanations and feedback are readily provided and the learner’s interest is maintained by a variety of tasks and video and audio features. Conceivably, then, the learner would soon be in confident control of his or her learning and on the path to autonomy. That said, if the computer programme is undertaken as part of an institutional course (that is, the student is paying for instruction), then the teachers’ role is far from minimal. They would have to facilitate in a number of ways: relating units of the programme to a taught syllabus and/or to the individual learner’s special needs; identifying the right level for the learner (since many programmes vary proficiency levels for entry) and possibly helping select tasks; perhaps organizing pairs at each terminal for greater communicative value; and monitoring progress. EFL sites on the Web would entail the same duties on the part of the teacher as those above. However, these Web-based programmes, now steadily increasing in number, do not necessarily undergo the process of rigorous trialling and evaluation to which commercial CD-ROMs are submitted. They thus vary greatly in quality and require continuous appraisal: more work for the teacher. The vast reaches of the Web entail yet further responsibilities of the teacher. The Web is an immensely seductive resource for the EFL learner and teacher and offers genuine opportunities for self-directed learning. Sussex (1998) insists that "… the open-endedness of the Web encourages learners to construct more of their own learning goals, paths and agendas" (p. 17). Yet, in view of the lack of structure of the Web, there is real potential for disorientation: learners, especially those of lower proficiency, may not have developed skills of navigation to find what they want; and if they find it they may not know how to exploit the material. "Confusing, misleading or downright false information" could threaten a learner’s confidence and competence in dealing with the Web (ibid.:19). Computer conferencing This general term "computer conferencing" refers, in the language learning context, to computer-mediated communication on the Internet between individuals or groups separated by metres or continents. The communication may be either asynchronous in the form of email, where a reply to a message can be received any time after it has been sent, or synchronous in the form of electronic discussion or simulation, where messages sent by one person are replied to immediately by others who are on-line at the same time. Projects based on computer learning networks have been undertaken for some years and the benefits are becoming evident. Comprehensively reviewing the research on such networks, Warschauer et al (1996), for example, list the potential benefits for the learner under the headings of autonomy, equality (that is, equal participation by those who might have felt excluded in the normal classroom) and critical learning skills. For the argument of this paper, the significant point is that, in network projects, the teacher’s role remains strong. She or he needs to do a good deal of work to make a project succeed. In the case of email, Warschauer (1995, cited in Levy, 1997: 198) lists a number of tasks for the teacher: choosing software, mastering the email system, training students, arranging access to computers, designing handouts and instructions, assisting students in the early stages, preparing task-based projects, monitoring progress and offering continuing guidance. To these duties would be added the special responsibility to ensure that a certain decorum be maintained in the exchanges over the network: the teacher has to intervene if discussions become heated or misunderstandings arise. The teacher will also have to be alert to the natural reluctance of some learners to talk about themselves openly to a stranger, as computer conferencing often obliges one to do. Writing of their experience in Japan, Galloway and O’Brien (1998) point out that an email "key-pal" project can fail "because of the cultural reticence of Japanese to self-disclose" (p. 8). The need for the teacher Evidently CALL entails degrees of teacher intervention. A well-designed, interesting, interactive CD-ROM programme may release a learner from his or her teacher’s supervision at an early stage; computer conferencing, at the other end of the scale, is likely to burden the teacher with appreciable preparation and guidance. Furthermore, in any CALL activity at any level of proficiency, some learners, for a variety of cultural or psychological reasons, will be more teacher-dependent than others. The existence of such a continuum of dependency bears on the matter of where CALL should take place. It can, of course, take place wherever computers are, but, for the sake of effective learning, some locations are more appropriate than others. A CALL activity, for instance, that involves a small group or whole class and requires a teacher to be constantly on hand as a guide and adviser is more suitable to a laboratory than to a self-access centre. Learner training is precisely such an activity since it self-evidently demands a "trainer". The entire success of CALL depends on it. Given that students will need careful preparation by the teacher so that "they have the requisite learning strategies to use computer tools confidently and appropriately" (Levy, 1997: 210), they will not move instantly into self-access CALL. Indeed, it seems very likely that for most students CALL will need more learner training and more of the teacher’s presence than any other operations in the self-access centre.
Are the students and teachers interested and willing? In a language centre CALL will not happen without teachers: these teachers and their students will have to be interested and willing. This point is obvious and would not be worth making if one were confident that, in overwhelming numbers, they are interested and willing. But, despite the now long established presence of CD-ROMs and the Internet for language learning, it is by no means clear that the medium has gained the popularity and commitment one would have expected. That said, it is hard to generalize since some centres enjoy more enthusiastic development than others; however, I would like to offer some data and comments on the attractiveness of CALL to students and teachers. Are students interested in CALL? A "Computer Use Survey" of EFL students at the University of Canberra was undertaken at the end of 1997 (Jones, 1998) as a means of gaining information that would influence the design of learning programmes in both laboratory and self-access centre. The large majority of students came from North and South East Asia. The survey revealed that a little over half of the 128 respondents were regular users of the computer for personal purposes (i.e., once a week or more), spending their time mainly surfing the Internet and emailing. But 96.7% claimed they wanted to develop their computer skills in order to learn English, with 74.2% showing a desire to learn more about the Internet. A later survey of 41 newly arrived students in July 1999 showed that a much higher proportion of students were using the computer regularly. 88% believed that the computer could help them improve their English; the remaining 12% did not know whether it could or not. Asked about the ways in which the computer could help them improve, most could not say anything. Fifteen percent wrote simply, "The computer is in English". In August 1999, a colleague of mine administered a survey of the same design as the earlier Canberra one to second- and third-year students of English (both English and Science majors) at the University of Ubon Ratchathani in Thailand. As at the University of Canberra, computers have for some years been at the disposal of students at several sites on campus. Most respondents were regular users of the computer, especially for email. An emphatic 100% of the 68 respondents stated a desire to develop computer skills to improve their English, a large majority wishing to learn about programmes for practising English and about the Internet. These local data from two places in different regions of the world are not necessarily generalizable, yet they have common implications for both institutions and presumably many others like them: the students are "overwhelmingly" interested in CALL. At the time of the surveys, they were largely uninformed about how CALL works and what its benefits are, but they want to know more about it. The two language centres are heeding these voices, aware that if they do not do so their students will not be equitably served and their expensive technology will remain unexploited. The attitude of teachers — those who should guide and sustain the students in their computer use — seems to be more complex. Their situation is more alarming too. Most language teachers are not comfortable with high technology; they have not, unlike so many of their students, grown up with computers. Some may fear that administrators will use computers to replace them (Evans, 1999); others may resent the administrators’ decision to spend large sums of money on high technology rather than on, for instance, books, furniture and people. In any language centre a certain proportion of teachers will remain hostile to or simply uninterested in CALL. However, there is little doubt that, as the innovation has grown less complex and its benefits clearer, acceptance and interest among teachers have become more widespread (Dodigevic, 1998). An important question, however, is what proportion of teachers in a given language centre would be interested enough to drive the CALL process as fast as its expert proponents would wish. According to one senior CALL teacher working in a centre whose curriculum has been enhanced by technology for some years, active interest from about a quarter of the teaching staff is probably as much as can be expected. But, he adds, this is not an inevitably disappointing response: the percentage would be lower if one forced teachers to take up CALL (Mike Smith, personal communication, August 1999). If a language centre has enough of its teaching staff actively interested in CALL, will those teachers be able to fulfil their enthusiasm? My own observations as well as collegial enquiries undertaken in the course of preparing this paper suggest that what prevents teachers from following an interest in CALL is simply lack of time. They tend to be already sufficiently burdened by their conventional administrative and classroom duties. Moreover, they recognize that computers do not save or reduce the workload (Burston, 1996). Even if they are provided with training, both technical and pedagogical, they might still find little time to put into practice what they have learnt. CALL might thus be reduced to the "better than nothing" solution where teachers manage only to recommend to their students CD-ROMs or Internet sites relevant to the syllabus, not having time properly to integrate CALL into their regular teaching or help learners individually with activities in self-access mode.
Conclusion There is a plain implication to be drawn from the state of affairs described above. If the management of a language centre, having purchased expensive and modern computers with appropriate language learning software, wishes to exploit the rich potential of CALL, then it must do five related things:
All the above conditions apply to any language centre where computers are installed for the use of learners. However, for parts of the developing world where funds are scarce, it would be worth adding a word of caution. The educational, financial and moral priority is the provision of teaching: CALL can wait until sufficient funds are available. Finally, in the light of the relationship, as figured above, between CALL, the learner and the teacher, how should we view the presence of the computer in a self-access centre? If it is accepted that students are very interested in computers for learning, then, quite simply, computers should be provided for them in the self-access centre. CALL would be among many resources in the room, and, though inevitably popular, not necessarily dominant in the space available. But the vision of sociable self-access remains, in a place that offers a variety of learning activities, silent or spoken, carried out by individuals, pairs or groups. The human character of self-access has to be preserved.
References
|
|
 |
PDF version of this paper |
