Computer-Assisted Language Learning: From Vision to Reality?

CALICO Journal, 25(3) Computer-Assisted Language Learning: From Vision to Reality
This low level of implementation notwithstanding, pendulums continue to swing and
bandwagons continue to roll. It is therefore paramount that CALL not be assigned a particular
direction of movement, either by principle or by practice, without adequate forethought and
consideration. The urgency of the situation is accentuated by the fact that accelerating change
promises to render obsolete in the future various aspects of what is done today.
In any case, finding CALL’s appropriate role is crucial, one that can only be determined
by careful study. For instance, the theoretical underpinnings of popular models of language
acquisition rely significantly on the special role attributed to the negotiation of meaning in the
process (Chapelle, 1998; Doughty & Long, 2003; Clifford & Granoien, 2008). Although CALL
is obviously more limited in this regard than a human tutor, it can facilitate the conveyance of
meaning in the target language (Chun & Plass, 1996; Meskill, 1996). Furthermore, theorists
and practitioners alike must recognize that good instruction is good instruction, regardless of
delivery system, and that each channel of communication (e.g., teacher, text book, or technology)
has certain advantages over the others.
To illustrate, we know without a doubt that the teacher in the classroom is able to do
things that the technology cannot do, suggesting the teacher’s time will be better spent with
instructional tasks that cannot be assumed by the other channels. An orderly process of research
and development will help make the necessary distinctions between various possible
tasks. Furthermore, the ensuing research will not only help determine the exact role that CALL
should play, but it will also assist in “theory-building SLA research” (Kramsch, 2000, p. 316)
that explores not only SLA but also foreign language methodology.
THE CALL OF RESEARCH
Language Acquisition Research
To envision and implement a system that takes into account the combined capabilities of the
teacher and the technology, as well as facilitate important SLA research, research methodologies
must address questions that are related to each system element, separately and in
conjunction with all the others. This multilevel approach implies studies that take place at
the activity or exercise level (microlevel), independent of delivery system, and at the overall
system level (macrolevel) which considers all channels of communication and loci of activity
in the typical educational setting.
For research to take place at the microlevel, system components must be identifiable
and separable from the whole. For example, a recent report on multimodal learning concludes
that it is important to separate media from the instructional approach (Metiri Group, 2008).
Such decomposition enables a process for learning about language learning at a fine level of
granularity in which activities become the target of interest rather than the delivery system.
Illustrating this notion and peripherally addressing the unknowns as to how technology might
have application in language acquisition research, Kramsch speaks of language as social semiotic
practice. She states that “applied linguistic research can focus language study on the
universe of signs in which it is embedded—signs that are only partially verbal, and increasingly
visual, acoustic, gestural, or electronic.” She continues, saying that “In particular, computer
technology offers new ways of representing and mediating language and its associated
cultural capital” (2000, p. 322).
Chapelle (2005) illustrates the lessons learned from previous CALL research, summarizing
these in six hints. Specifically, she suggests that the multimodal capabilities of CALL
should be implemented and that to provide help for comprehension is beneficial, adding that
teachers should teach their students how to best use capabilities of CALL. In addition, she
456