CALL-ing the learner into focus: Towards a learner-centred model for CALL
Debra Hoven
University of Queensland
Abstract
With the extension of the presence of computers in learning environments to include computermediated communications (CMC), such as electronic mail or the Internet, we must now devise models
for computer-enhanced pedagogy to encompass these new interlocutors (Chapelle, 1994). In devising
such models, it is important that we keep in mind the theories and findings from mainstream second
language pedagogy. The presence of new technology and new means of using it entail the development
of new models. However, the introduction of multimedia and communication capabilities to computers
in language learning does not necessarily imply that a whole new set of pedagogical models needs to be
devised. Rather, we should look to findings in more ‘traditional’ areas such as classroom interaction,
task and instructional design, self-directed learning, and the use of audio and video in language learning
to ground our models of ‘good practice’ in the areas of multimedia and CMC in language learning.
In the model and examples presented here, the framework for the allocation of control to learners is
provided in software by structuring and presenting the available language learning resources in a
manner that is easy for learners to navigate, while at the same time providing the information necessary
for making informed decisions about their learning paths. Sociocultural pedagogy provides the
framework and the rationale for incorporating learning styles and strategies into the conceptualisation of
both task and instructional design.
Keywords: learning styles, learning strategies, learner-centred instructional design, sociocultural
pedagogy
1.0 Introduction
Over the past several years, an increasing number of multimedia language learning
software packages has been developed and marketed, while, to date, only preliminary
attempts have been made to evaluate the effectiveness of such software in general, or
of more specific features within the packages which may or may not contribute to
improved learning (Brandl, 1995; Liou, 1995; Bradin, 1996; 1998). Simultaneously,
the proliferation of mechanisms for computer-mediated communication has
emphasised the notion of the computer as an interlocutor in the communication
process. Many administrators, teachers, researchers and users of computers in
language learning have asked questions about the effectiveness of computers in the
language learning process (Pederson, 1987; Luff et al. 1990; Dunkel, 1987; 1991;
1
Johnson, 1991; Chapelle, 1994). However, as Papert, (1987) and Chapelle (1994)
have pointed out, it is not so much the computer but the kinds of tasks and activities
that learners do on the computer that can make the difference. As Chapelle comments:
CALL texts are produced in any language learning context where the computer takes an
interactive role. Such contexts may be comprised of learners working individually with a
computer, of learners working in pairs or larger groups with a computer or multiple connected
computers, or of learners working with teachers or other experts. In each of these cases, the
participants – one of which is the computer – contribute to an emerging text which is affected
by the nature of the context and which both affects and provides evidence for the quality of the
learning experience.
(Chapelle, 1994: 38)
Chapelle draws on Halliday (1977) and Halliday and Hasan (1989) for her extension
of ‘context’ to include not only ‘features of the activities, topics, participants, and
language that comprise the text and in which the text is embedded’ (Chapelle 1994:
43), but also features outside of the computer program such as ‘learners, their
purposes, and the setting of the instruction’. In addition, she mentions other features
which are created by the instructor or teacher. These include the ‘types of CALL
materials and the parameters for using the materials’ (ibid.), all of which influence,
and are influenced by, the learning environment.
Jonassen also stresses the point that:
Technologies do not directly mediate learning. That is, people do not learn from computers,
books, videos, or the other devices that were developed to transmit information. Rather,
learning is mediated by thinking (mental processes). Thinking is activated by instructional
interventions, including technologies. Learning requires thinking by the learner. In order to
more directly affect the process, therefore, we should concern ourselves less with the design of
technologies of transmission and more with how learners are required to think in completing
different tasks.
(Jonassen, 1992: 2)
These observations set the scene for the framing of learner-centred CALL design in
terms of a sociocultural methodology, by effectively highlighting the importance of
various features of context in creating the texts produced, the negotiated, mediated,
and interactive nature of the creation of these texts, and the important role learners’
cognition and mental processes play in the language learning process.
2
This incorporation of cognition in the design model is exemplified by the potential for
the learner to make decisions about the content, mode, order, pace, level, and level of
self-direction of the presentation of the package. In addition, it can also be taken to
refer to the capacity a software package provides for the learner to interact with,
interpret, negotiate, and make meaning from the texts available, whether these are
written, audio, audiovisual, or visual texts.
2.0 Features of learner-centredness for CALL
We now turn to a discussion of those features of a learner-centred CALL model that
bring the learner into focus. Given the current state of our knowledge and research in
instructional design, CALL, and second language pedagogy, what are the essential
characteristics of a model that embody learner-centredness? The following five
principles are proposed as a starting point:
1. sociocultural methodology provides an appropriate paradigm
2. consideration of the critical features of learner-centredness includes the recognition
of features that are less amenable to change, awareness raising among learners of
features somewhat amenable to change, and accommodation of those features more
amenable to change;
3. allocation of control to learners needs to be accompanied by awareness-raising in
how to manage this control;
4. task-based pedagogy provides a useful framework for the instructional design of the
lesson material;
5. consideration of models of good practice from both mainstream second language
pedagogy and CALL needs to be incorporated.
2.1 Sociocultural methodology seems to be the most appropriate paradigm to use for
the framework of the design of a learner-centred CALL model as it incorporates
negotiated, mediated creation of meaning among learners, between learners and
teachers, and between learners and computers.
Further, the adoption of a sociocultural approach allows the inclusion of learning
strategies in the instructional design and anticipated implementation of the model. As
mentioned above (Jonassen, 1992: 2), investigating how learners acquire and use
3
thought and mental processes help to make the learning process more effective. How
this can be achieved is best discussed in terms of the four major concepts of
sociocultural theory. These are (1) mediation, (2) goal-oriented or situated learning,
(3) the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), sometimes termed ‘apprenticeship
learning’ (Warshauer, 1996), and (4) and the ‘community of practice’ proposed by
Donato and McCormick (1994).
2.1.1 Mediation
By mediation, whether physical or symbolic, is meant the employment of some
catalyst which allows connections to be made between humans and their own
(internal) mental world, or the (external) physical world. In Vygotskian terms, the
most important symbolic tool for this mediation process is language, which can be
used to organise, plan, and maintain the environment both internal and external to the
individual.
Within this paradigm, communication strategies and social strategies, often excluded
from language learning strategies by researchers within the interlanguage and
psycholinguistic paradigms, can be incorporated as sets of language learning
strategies. In other words, communication strategies are used to communicate, while
at the same time improving communication. That is, the mediation process of
employing communication and social strategies to communicate improves both the
communication and the learning.
The level of success of communication can be judged by the learner on the basis of the
appropriateness of the response to the learner’s expectations. Thus learning is effected
through of communicative and social strategies since the language and strategies used
are modified on the basis of response appropriateness. Unlike cognitive and social
psychological theories, in which strategies in language learning are seen to be
relatively static, and generalisable from tasks and contexts, sociocultural theory
focuses on the influence of language tasks and contexts in bringing about the dynamic
emergence of strategic approaches in individual learners.
2.1.2 Goal-oriented or situated learning
4
Within this sociocultural paradigm, then, education or awareness-raising in the use of
more desirable or effective strategies is achieved through the mediation of situated
activities that allow learners to model, appropriate and achieve self-mediated
processing, rather than by direct instruction. However, as Gillette (1990) reminds us,
it is important that strategies implemented in the classroom culture are actually
directed towards language learning goals.
Similarly, Donato and McCormick (1994) stress that these strategies are situated in
the higher levels of mental processing, which are not uniformly developed. Their 1994
study, in fact, shows that a sociocultural approach encourages a more strategic task
orientation, where ‘strategic activity is seen as inherently goal embedded’ (Stone,
1989: 36). This reinforces the point made by Gillette above, that because the one
strategy may be employed with several (and possibly conflicting) goals in mind, it is
important to focus on constructing strategic tasks which provide the context for, and
foster the use of, higher level mental processes – the metacognitive and higher
cognitive strategies of researchers in other paradigms (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990;
Victori & Lockhart, 1995).
In a CALL context, this implies that in order for a software package or program to
foster in learners the development of higher mental processes, it must provide an
environment based on making available a range of strategic tasks, while also
providing information on the purposes of these tasks, to encourage self-reflection and
new strategic orientations in learners’ actions. Ideally, learners using such a package
should be able to choose their own tasks on the basis of information provided about
them, on the basis of their own language learning (and other) goals in using the
materials. In other words, the choices they make mediate their interaction with the
materials. They should thereby be able to identify for themselves those areas in which
they need more practice. This perspective on strategy development would allow
learners to take an ‘active task approach’, identified by Naiman and his colleagues
(1978) as one of the characteristics of a good language learner.
2.1.3 The Zone of Proximal Development
5
Within a sociocultural paradigm, selection of, or access to, progressively more
detailed feedback or help within a CALL package can also be framed in terms of the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) proposed by Vygotsky (1978). In an interesting
study to investigate the role of negative feedback on regulation and second language
learning in the ZPD, Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) identified three characteristics of
effective intervention mechanisms. They found that intervention should be graduated,
contingent (offered only when needed), and dialogic, or negotiated between the expert
and the novice (1994: 468). Thus, the help is offered by a more experienced member
of the joint activity, and begins at a highly implicit level. It is subsequently graduated
down to the level of specificity needed by the novice member.
This help is also contingent, in that, as the novice becomes more able to function
independently, the level of directiveness and specificity in the help is progressively
reduced. This progressive assessment of the learner’s needs, and tailoring of help to
meet them, is only possible through the ‘dialogic activity that unfolds between more
capable and less capable individuals’ (1994: 468). Thus, the process of learning as
exemplified through the concept of the ZPD can also be described as ‘scaffolding’, in
which, as learners become progressively more adept, the expert or mentor is able to
dismantle the scaffolded environment. This is possible because the learners
themselves have already internalised the necessary problem-solving processes
(Donato, 1994: 41).
Implications of these findings for feedback in CALL packages are supportive of the
notion of self-managed access to the help and feedback facilities, and a ‘layered’
construction of these features. By this is meant that individual learners (the novices)
need to be able to determine when they want to have access to any of a range of help
facilities available, and that these facilities are designed as successive layers, the
deeper and more extensive or explicit help only being accessible from the layer above.
Thus, at the top level, a learner may only need access to whether an answer is correct,
or to the meaning of a word, while more comprehensive help such as transcripts or
grammar notes may be provided at a deeper level.
2.1.4 The ‘community of practice’
6
As a final note towards the sociocultural framework for the development of a CALL
model, it is useful to review the concept of interactivity as employed in this paradigm
as the ‘community of practice’. In a study by Platt and Brooks (1994), for example, on
the validity of the term ‘acquisition-rich environment’, it was found that the learner’s
interaction with the language, and the dynamic creation process are just as important
as the language itself. It is these strategies of interaction with the target language, and
creation of meaning that enable learners to participate in the target language culture.
In their study of on- and off-task language of learners participating in problem-solving
tasks, they found that learners were not so much ‘in an acquisition-rich environment’
as ‘they created or constructed a context through their use of the target language to
solve a problem’ (Platt & Brookes, 1994: 504).
For the purposes of an instructional design framework within the sociocultural
paradigm, the concept of learners creating and constructing meaning implies that
learner choice and self-management of activity is critical, both in the tasks to be done,
and in the navigation through the feedback and help facilities. On another level, since
‘learners need opportunities to engage in analogous kinds of problem-solving tasks in
order to become better at doing them’ (Platt & Brookes, 1994: 509), it is important to
provide several tasks of each kind at each level for learners to use.
2.2 Features internal to the learner
Numerous studies have shown that individual learners differ in their approach to
language learning in numerous ways, including their preferred channels of perception,
the learning processes they activate, their background experience and education, their
aptitude and motivation for language learning or learning in general, and their age and
level of maturity (Skehan, 1989; Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991). These differences in
turn affect choices made by both learners and their teachers as to which materials,
resources, teaching and learning approaches, and forms of interaction are most
effective for language learning to proceed.
Broadly speaking, these differences can be classified as being either internal or
external to the learner, though there are areas of obvious cross-over such as learning
styles where external features of tasks, for example, can influence features of
7
perception which are essentially internal to learners. The extent to which learner
choices and differences can be accommodated within a learning environment has a
critical influence on the level of success in language learning that individual learners
achieve.
Individual differences can be defined as those features or factors within individual
learners which influence differential success in language learning among learners, or
which can be identified as accounting for such differences. As will be discussed in
more detail below, some of these features can be changed, modified, or developed
through instruction and awareness-raising, whereas others are less amenable to
change. Furthermore, in order for learners to take advantage of multiple channels of
perception, they need to be aware of their preferred styles of perception, the extent to
which the available media correspond to these, and how best to exploit this
correspondence.
2.2.1 Features less amenable to change
The aspects of individual difference listed below have been identified in the literature
as being unchangeable or less amenable to change (Larson-Freeman & Long, 1991;
Hoven 1997a; b). The factors or characteristics referred to here are specific to
individual learners, and include age and maturity, developmental features, sex,
aptitude for language, hemispheric processing orientation, previous language learning
experience, and L1 proficiency.
It is necessary for us to be aware of the existence of these factors and the influence
they have in order to choose more appropriate materials, or to direct learners to make
use of available materials in certain ways. In addition, through education and
awareness-raising in a range of learning strategies, it is possible to help learners
compensate for less desirable or less effective characteristics which they may have.
However, within learning materials themselves, and within a program of instruction or
learning little change can be effected in learners with regard to these features. A
learner may, for example, be beyond an age when language learning can easily be
8
achieved through the use of certain techniques, but she/he can be made aware of, and
encouraged to employ, other techniques or strategies which have been shown to be
more effective for older learners.
2.2.2 Features somewhat amenable to change
Certain other individual characteristics are discussed in the literature as sometimes, or
under certain conditions being amenable to change. These include: personality
(introversion/extroversion, self-esteem, anxiety, risk-taking, sensitivity to rejection,
empathy, inhibition, and tolerance of ambiguity); socio-psychological factors
(motivation and attitude); learning & cognitive style; sense modality preference;
sociological preference (preferred level of social interaction – pair/group etc.).
Proposals have been made by teachers and researchers about the desirability of
matching teaching style and the nature of classroom interaction with the personality
characteristics of individual learners. While it is proposed that such matches will
promote learning, little evidence has been provided for any consistency in the findings
(Hamayan et al.; 1977; Wong-Fillmore, 1982).
In addition, personality and aptitude are both features which are relatively difficult to
influence or change (Skehan, 1989: 38 - 39; 71 - 72) within a language programme.
Nevertheless, despite these difficulties, studies of personality and aptitude provide us
with valuable information on the range of influencing features in the learning process,
and which characteristics might be more desirable in the promotion of learning than
others, particularly as they relate to individual learning. This information then enables
us to make provision in language learning programs and materials for the range of
characteristics that learners bring to them.
2.2.3 Cognitive styles, learning styles and strategies: changeable or not?
In order to determine whether, or to what extent changes can be effected in the
cognitive styles, learning styles and learning strategies of learners, it is firstly
necessary to understand what these terms mean. Cognitive style, for example, has
been defined as the:
9
general characteristics of intellectual functioning that influence how one approaches a learning
task (Brown, 1987); the manner in which people perceive, conceptualize, organize and recall
information (Ellis, 1986).
(Wenden, 1991: 36)
Learning style, however, includes:
cognitive, affective and physiological behaviors that indicate learners’ characteristic and
consistent way of perceiving, interacting with and responding to the learning environment;
more concrete than cognitive style (Willing, 1988).
(Wenden, 1991: 36)
It is important that learning or cognitive styles, which refer to ‘the student’s preferred
way of tackling learning tasks in general’ be distinguished from learning strategies
which ‘concern the way a student elects to tackle a particular learning task’ (Watkins,
1982: 78). Learning or cognitive styles, therefore, while they can be varied somewhat
by learners, are not easily influenced by external factors such as learning materials.
Learners can, nevertheless, be made aware of their own preferred styles, and some
more sophisticated learners are also able consciously to modify their style according to
the tasks they encounter (Brumby, 1982).
As Scarcella and Oxford comment:
when left to their own devices, and if not overly pressured by their environment to use a certain
set of strategies, students typically use learning strategies that reflect their basic learning style
(Ehrman & Oxford 1989). They can, however, learn to develop additional learning strategies
and test the value of ones they already use.
(Scarcella & Oxford, 1992: 63–4)
To reframe this discussion of individual differences within a sociocultural framework,
it is also useful to consider the reflection of Peirce (1995), that individuals differ, not
only from one another, but also within themselves from one point in time to another,
and from one context to another.
Three critical elements which emerge from this wide-ranging discussion are
summarised as follows:
1) learners can be assisted in compensating for characteristics less appropriate to
successful language learning through help in developing stronger characteristics in
other areas;
10
2) learners need to move out of their individual ‘comfort zones’ in order to participate
productively and effectively in the learning process, and to carry the learning beyond
the immediate task to novel situations;
3) learners need information, support, and the infrastructure to negotiate this
development – they need not only to be given control, but also to be provided with the
means by which to take control on their own terms.
The last of these elements above brings us to a discussion of the third principle of a
learner-centred model introduced at the beginning of this section – the issue of
control.
2.3 Allocation of learner control: control of what?
An essential issue in the design of a learner-centred CALL model is the allocation of
control of both the navigation through the software, and the learning engendered in the
software. In order to make the most of control in a CALL context, learners need to
understand their own learning processes, to be able to make informed choices about
the paths their learning takes, and to be pro-active in managing and directing their
own learning. All of these facets of allocation of control to the learner revolve around
learners being able to use, and develop within themselves, effective language learning
strategies. In the design of a learner- and learning-centred CALL package, the
software interface and instructional design also need to provide support and
information for learners to assist them in the development of the necessary strategies.
It becomes clear, therefore, that the central goals of learner-centred design are to help
learners both to recognise their own uniqueness and to realise their full language
learning potential (Ely & Pease-Alvarez, 1996: 5).
In addition, the integration of new media, such as multimedia, into our existing
teaching and learning programs, needs to remain modelled on existing principles of
good practice in the use of other media. As Bickel and Truscello have recently
emphasised:
The use of technology does indeed require gathering new and different kinds of resources, but
our roles do not change qualitatively. We remain facilitators, guides, counselors, and
information providers. The materials and pathways onto which we guide our students simply
become electronic.
11
(Bickel & Truscello, 1996: 16)
Claims for the advantages of using computers frequently include the capacity of
computers to allow learners to work at their own pace, and in their own time. A
corollary to these advantages is that learners often work in a self-access context, and
that this entails the need for learners to be able to manage or direct their own learning.
In addition, in a learning environment incorporating the use of CALL software,
learner differences in the area of preferred modes of perception (visual, aural, or
kinesic) need to be catered for. This latter can be achieved by designing tasks to
exploit different modes, through the provision of a wide variety of text and media
types, and by the use of a variety of navigation modes. There is also evidence that
learners can be trained to use different and more effective strategies through
awareness-raising in their use in specific circumstances (Brett, 1995; Liou, 1995;
Hoven, 1991; 1997b). However, most learners still need guidance and guided practice
in acquiring the skills and strategies involved in managing their own learning
(Wenden, 1995; Victori & Lockhart, 1995).
As part of his report for the Council of Europe entitled Autonomy and Foreign
Language Learning, Holec defined autonomy in language learning as ‘the ability to
take charge of one’s own learning’ (1979: 3), where an ability was ‘a power or
capacity to do something’ (in contrast to a ‘behaviour’) and taking charge of this
entailed ‘to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all
aspects of this learning’ (1979). For Holec, in order to formulate their own objectives
and become strategy-using learners, self-directed learners on the road to autonomy
need to be informed of language needs in society as a whole, the results of research
into second language acquisition processes, and dimensions of verbal communication.
In other words, learners need to know how to make these decisions strategically, but at
the same time the infrastructure of the learning institution must allow for these
decisions to be made by the individual learners concerned. This process of acquiring
autonomy requires a gradual deconditioning of learners from the previously held
judgements and prejudices about both the target language and the language learning
and teaching process, and the gradual acquisition of knowledge and skills in using the
range of tools and resources available, including such internal mental resources as
12
self-evaluation and monitoring, and external resources like teachers or native
speakers.
As proposed here, a sociocultural approach focuses on language in use: how meaning
is extracted, negotiated, and maintained in interactions between learners, contexts, and
texts, whether these texts are spoken, written, monologues, conversations, visual or
graphic representations, or conveyed by means of a computer. In fact, in a
sociocultural perspective on strategic language learning, computers are recognised as a
mediation tool for transforming ‘natural, spontaneous impulses into higher mental
processes, including strategic orientations to problem solving’ (Donato &
McCormick, 1994: 456). When CALL is used in a self-access or private practice
context, it is the learners’ interaction with, and therefore management of, the learning
environment that determines the learner-centred or humanistic nature of language
learning. The incorporation of the development of learning strategies, including those
implicated in the exploitation of paralinguistic features of language as well as
metacognitive and cognitive strategies, into CALL program design is therefore critical
in the provision of a learner-centred CALL environment which helps learners gain
more control over their own learning.
In a discussion of learners’ management of their own learning, Holec considers to
what extent learners are ready to take this management role. He urges teachers to
observe their learners to determine whether they are managing their learning or merely
‘managing to learn’ (1987: 145). Here he is highlighting the importance of allowing
learners to ‘have the choice between taking full responsibility for the process or
simply submitting to it’ (1987: 147).
Holec goes on to propose the role of ‘the good studier’ as being the focus of learning
as a management process. In this sense he diverges from other language learning
studies discussed here, by separating language proficiency level and language
achievement from the strategic decisions that need to be made by learners on
objectives, content, techniques and methods, and assessment. Several important points
that emerge from the Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en
Langues (CRAPEL) studies, in which Holec has been involved, are that learners can
13
improve their ability to manage their own learning; learners’ increase in competence is
variable; and there is no necessary causal relationship between knowing how to selfdirect and implementing this knowledge in practical ways. The analogy that Holec
draws is that of ‘someone who knows how to drive a car [who] may sometimes prefer
to be driven’ (1987: 156).
In his commentary on the changing face of CALL, Stevens (1992) notes three positive
contributions of humanistic principles to teaching and learning practices: the provision
of environments conducive to learning; the move from teaching-centredness to
learning- or learner-centredness; and a reemphasis on the worth of individual learners,
and learners as individuals. He sees the obvious product of these influences as being
the focus, in modern software design, on the development and fostering of learner
autonomy as exemplified in exploratory CALL such as multimedia applications, and
problem-solving software such as adventure games. As an earlier study has shown
(Stevens, 1984), ‘learning is enhanced when choice and control are in the hands of the
learner’ (Stevens, 1992: 23). However, bearing in mind the cautions of Holec, in the
CALL context Robinson (1991:158) also warns of the dangers of putting learners in
charge of their own learning when they have not yet developed the skills to be in
control or succeed at a language task
These understandings lead us to the hypothesis that computers can best be
incorporated into language learning by allowing learners to make their own choices
about the texts they work on, the paths they take through these texts, and the kinds of
tasks and tools they use to access these texts. However, this availability of choice by
no means precludes a learner’s choice to allocate control of her/his learning paths to
the teacher/designer of the instructional package. This flexibility in the level of control
also entails the provision of explicit information to learners on how to make the
choice about what level of control at which to work, as well as information on how to
make efficient use of this control in terms of both navigation through the package, and
material on which to work. We now turn to an examination of the characteristics of
task and instructional design that facilitate learners’ aquiring these skills and
strategies.
14
2.4 Task-based pedagogy and good practice in CALL
Kumaravadivelu advocates a learning-centred, task-based pedagogy for language
teaching and learning on the grounds that it provides a comprehensiveness that other
pedagogies do not. This approach entails that the design of tasks :
has to take into consideration minimally, the following psycholinguistic principles: language
learning is a developmental process; it is a decision-making process; it is a process of
negotiation; it is not linear and additive; it is primarily incidental; it is largely a subconscious
activity; and it is a meaning-focused activity
(Kumaravadivelu, 1993: 81)
If we examine the principles Kumaravadivelu lists here, we find several areas of
correspondence with the principles of a sociocultural methodology discussed earlier.
In other literature on task design and interaction, several features can be identified
among the various aspects of the classroom implementation of tasks which contribute
positively to second language acquisition. With regard to the nature of the tasks
themselves, the following have been found:
•
problem-solving (closed/convergent) tasks produce more questions in total,
more questions per subject, and more confirmation checks and referential
questions in total than debate (open/divergent) tasks (Duff, 1986; Long, 1989);
•
information exchange (closed/convergent) tasks produce more comprehension
and confirmation checks, clarification requests, repairs, preventive moves,
reactions, and self/other repetition (Doughty & Pica, 1986);
•
modifying language input of tasks is better done through interaction and
negotiation than by pre-modification to decrease complexity and increase
quantity and redundancy (Pica et al., 1986; Pica et al., 1987; Ross et al. 1991);
•
negotiation of input and output on tasks seems greatest on larger semantic
units, with little negotiation occurring in relation to syntactic elements such as
time and aspect (Ashton, 1986);
•
2-way (‘jigsaw’) tasks produce more and better negotiation work than 1-way
tasks (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Pica et al., 1989; Long, 1992);
•
decontextualised tasks produce more negotiation than contextualised ones
(Snow, 1989; Long, 1992)
15
•
‘There-and-then’ (temporally and spatially removed) tasks produce more
negotiation than ‘Here-and-now’ (local in time and place) tasks (Snow, 1989;
Long, 1992); and
•
more negotiation occurs when a feedback option is provided than when it is
not (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1990; Tomasello & Herron, 1988, 1989).
With reference to computer-enhanced listening and viewing comprehension, it would
seem, therefore, that tasks need to be designed to incorporate some elements of
negotiation of the texts (perhaps in the form of feedback and assistance available as
part of the software package), and that these texts need to be authentic and possibly
decontextualised. In addition, feedback needs to be provided, and there should be
elements of problem-solving and induction involved in the task demands. Within a
CALL environment, these criteria should therefore be met, in order to provide tasks
that promote the processes of negotiation, and that encourage learners to develop
negotiation skills with the activities and facilities of a CALL software package.
2.5 Models of good practice: Strategies for taking control
In a learning environment involving CALL, learner resistance to self-managed
learning can be addressed by providing learners with exposure to awareness-raising
activities across all parts of their language learning program, including in the CALL
software. In the initial stages, highly structured (teacher-centred) materials need to be
available to cater for the needs of those learners with a strong dependence on teacher
direction. However, to cater for differentially rapid development in the direction of
autonomy, it is also necessary to provide the means whereby learners can take more
control if they feel capable. As alluded to earlier, this can be achieved by writing into
the design of a CALL software package several levels of entry, or several modes of
interaction based on varying levels of learner control.
Thus, for example, novice learners or learners new to self-managed learning would
choose to work at the most structured lesson level. Learners with some experience
could work with more flexibility at a level where they choose the kinds of tasks and
texts to work on. Finally, more sophisticated or more confident self-managed or selfdirected learners could choose to work at the least structured level. Here they are able
16
to browse texts of different types, explore and compare the language and
paralinguistic features used, and call on the various background and help facilities.
In order to achieve the level of control proposed here, learners need to gain an
understanding of the strategies that are available to them, and the interaction among
them, the framework within which this interaction occurs, as well to practise using
effective strategies in context. The literature of both general learning and language
learning is informative here in formulating a comprehensive model. Of the lists and
inventories of strategies examined, Oxford’s (1990) classification of language
learning strategies seems the most comprehensive, and the most suitable for
modification to the CALL context. However, this classification still lacks sufficient
emphasis on paralinguistic strategies that are intrinsic to a multimedia CALL package.
It is therefore necessary to modify the framework of Oxford’s classification to include
a paralinguistic category (Hoven, 1997b).
In addition, Oxford’s distinction between Direct and Indirect strategies, even with a
paralinguistic category, is inadequate for a sociocultural paradigm. In order to take
better account of the role of interaction in the dynamic nature of the construction of
meaning in language learning processes, Oxford’s framework needs further
reconceptualisation into three levels which are progressively more outwardly-directed:
metalinguistic (internal to the learner), processing (both internal and externallyinfluenced), and interactional (more externally influenced than internal to the learner).
This new framework can then be incorporated into our model in three ways (see
Hoven, 1997b for an exemplification of such a software package).
Firstly, less self-directed learners who choose to work at the most structured level are
presented with an overview of the framework, with connections to tasks that practise
the various strategies listed. Secondly, tasks are designed such that the more effective
strategies are incorporated into the working of the tasks. Thirdly, to assist with the
development of metacognitive strategies, tasks are labelled with their cognitive level
and classification, and learners can go at any time to the overviews of both the
cognitive taxonomy and the strategy overview.
17
As discussed earlier, individual differences among learners, variations among texts,
contexts, and tasks, and the nature of learner interaction with the software all
contribute significantly to differential learner success in language learning mediated
by computers. In the model proposed here, meaning is constructed by learners through
their interaction with the tools and resources available in the CALL software. At the
same time that learners are negotiating meaning through a listening and viewing
comprehension task and the associated help tools, they are also co-creating with the
software their own individual learning paths. Another essential element of the
realisation of a sociocultural paradigm through the software is allocation of control to
the learner using it. With the understanding that different learners need and desire
different levels of control and structure, the three-layered model allows learners to
take control in an informed and staged or ‘scaffolded’ manner. The location and
function of navigation tools, the content and design of tasks, and the whole
instructional design concept are all grounded in this understanding.
However, such a software package should not be used in isolation. It is envisaged as
being used as just one tool in a complete learning environment (Hoven, 1992). In such
an environment, the incorporation of awareness-raising in language learning strategies
and a task-based approach reappear in other components of the teaching and learning
process.
Another essential feature of the flexibility of this model to cater for individual
differences is realised through the inclusion of tools and tasks in the package which
highlight visual, aural and kinesic modes of perception and learning. At the task level,
for example, some tasks require simple yes/no decision-making implemented by a
mouse-click. Other tasks, however, allow more kinesic learners to use their preferred
mode by picking up objects with the mouse and moving them to the appropriate
locations.
3.0 Conclusion
Some learners naturally prefer to manage their own learning; others can come to
prefer it when they have sufficient understanding of how to do it; while yet others may
never feel comfortable or successful when required to manage their own learning.
18
These findings point to the need in self-access CALL packages for a flexibility of
approach that caters for this range of learner capacity for managing their own learning.
As we have seen, there is also the need to incorporate information that helps learners
increase their awareness of their own learning and their understanding of strategies
and approaches to improve this.
We conclude therefore, that the help and feedback components of a CALL package
are critical in a sociocultural model for learner-centred CALL, and that the help
should include information on learning styles and strategies, and some context or
background information on the texts available, as well as the more common languageor task-specific help. In addition, the design of tasks needs to incorporate practice in
the use of those strategies that have been shown to be effective in language learning,
and particularly in self-managed learning. In terms of the interface design, the
navigation elements similarly should allocate to learners control over their paths
through the package. The three-layered approach to learner access suggested in the
model represents one practical approach to the implementation of the sociocultural
paradigm in a learner-centred CALL software package based on multimedia texts.
References
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second
language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern
Language Journal, 78: 465-483.
Ashton, G. 1986. Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: the more the merrier?
Applied Linguistics 7: 128-143.
Bickel, B. & Truscello, D. (1996). New opportunities for learning: styles and
strategies for computers. TESOL Journal, 6: 15-19.
Bork, A. (1982). Interaction in learning. In Proceedings of NECC ‘82. Columbia, MO:
University of Missouri – cited in J. G. Hedberg & N. R. Perry (1984).
Bradin, C. (1996) How second language learners utilize input in CALL. In F. L.
Borchardt, C. L. Bradin, E. M. T. Johnson & L. Rhodes (eds) Proceedings of
the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium 1996 Annual
Symposium: “Distance Learning”. Durham, Nth. Carolina: Duke University.
19
Bradin, C. (1998). Utilisation of input in CALL: A research study. In J. Gassin, M.
Smith, & D. Cunningham (eds) Proceedings of the 1998 WorldCALL
Conference. Melbourne: The Horwood Language Centre, University of
Melbourne: 21-23.
Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for feedback options and
responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79: 194-211.
Brett, P. 1995. Multimedia for listening comprehension: the design of a multimedia-based
resource for developing listening skills. System 23: 1: 77-85.
Brumby, M. (1982). Consistent differences in cognitive styles shown for qualitative
biological problem-solving. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52:
244-257.
Chapelle, C. A. (1994). CALL activities: Are they all the same? System, 22: 33-45.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 53: 4: 445-459.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42: 2: 21-29.
Crockford, D. (1988). Stand by for fun: experience and interaction. In S. Ambron &
K. Hooper (eds.) Interactive multimedia: visions of multimedia for
developers, educators, & information providers. Redmond, Washington:
Microsoft Press: 267-272.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf
& G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian approaches to second language research.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Donato, R. & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language
learning strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78:
453-464.
Doughty, C. & Pica, T. 1986. Information-gap tasks: do they facilitate second language
acquisition? TESOL Quarterly 20: 2: 305-325.
Duff, P. 1986. Another look at interlanguage talk: taking task to task. In Day, R. R. (ed.)
Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House: 147-181.
20
Dunkel, P. (1987). The effectiveness literature on CAI/CALL and computing:
Implications of the research for limited English proficient learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 21: 2:; 367-372.
Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and
computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (ed) Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Testing. New York: Newbury House.
Ely, C. M. & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1996). Learning styles and strategies in ESOL:
Introduction to the special issue. Tesol Journal, 6: 1: 5.
Gillette, B. K. (1990). Beyond Learning Strategies: A Whole-Person Approach to
Language Learning. Newark: Dissertation, University of Delaware.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Explorations in the Functions of Language. New York:
Elsevier, North Holland.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1989) (Eds.) Language, Context, and Text: Aspects
of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hamayan, E., Genesee, F. & Tucker, G. 1977. Affective factors and language. Language
Learning 27: 225-241.
Hedberg, J. G. & N. R. Perry (1984). Design of interactive video materials: problems
and prospects. In R. M. Russell (ed.), Proceedings of the conference on
computer-aided learning in tertiary education. Brisbane: University of
Queensland: 105-114.
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Council of
Europe/Pergamon Press.
Hoven, D. (1991). Towards a cognitive taxonomy of listening comprehension tasks.
SGAV Review, 9: 2: 1-14.
Hoven, D. (1992). CALL in a language learning environment. CÆLL Journal, 3: 2:
19-27.
Hoven, D. (1997a). Instructional design for multimedia: Towards a learner-centred
CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) model. In K. Murphy-Judy
& R. Sanders (eds) NEXUS – The convergence of language teaching and
research using technology. CALICO Monograph Series Vol. 4. Nth.
Carolina: CALICO.
Hoven, D. (1997b). Improving the management of flow of control in computer-
21
assisted listening comprehension tasks for second and foreign language
learners. Doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland.
Johnson, D. (1991). Second Language and Content Learning with Computers:
Research in the Role of Social Factors. In P. Dunkel (ed) Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Testing. New York: Newbury House.
Jonassen, D. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In P. A. M. Kommers et al. (eds)
Cognitive Tools for Learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kahn, P. (1989). Webs, trees, and stacks: how hypermedia system design effect
hypermedia content. In G. Salvendy & M. J. Smith (eds.), Designing and
using
human-computer
interfaces
and
knowledge-based
systems.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V: 443-449.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 42: 2: 7-19.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. The name of the task and the task of naming: methodological
aspects of task-based pedagogy. In Crookes, G. & S. M. Gass (eds.) Tasks and
language learning: integrating theory and practice. Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.: 69-96.
Lantolf, J. P. & Appel, G. (eds) (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language
Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition
research. Essex, England: Longman Group UK Limited.
Liou, H-C. (1995). Evaluation of interactive videodisc courseware: Effects of strategy
training and collaborative learning. In F. L. Borchardt, & E. M. T. Johnson
(eds) Proceedings of the Computer assisted Language Instruction
Consortium 1995 Annual Symposium “Computers and Collaborative
Learning” Durham, Nth. Carolina: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Long, D. R. 1989. Second language listening comprehension: a schema-theoretic
perspective. The Modern Language Journal 73:1: 32-40.
Long, M. H. 1992. Input, focus on form, and second language acquisition. Paper delivered
at the PacSLRF Conference, Sydney, July.
Loschky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. 1990. Creating structure-based communication tasks for
second language development. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL 9:
1: 161-212.
22
Luff, P., Gilbert, N. & Frohlich, D. (eds) (1990). Computers and Conversation.
London: Academic Press.
Lumsdaine, A. A. (1963). Instruments and media of instruction. In N. Gage (ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Mielke, K. W. (1968). Questioning the questions of ETV research. Educational
Broadcasting Review, 2: 6-15.
Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H. H. & Todesco, A. (1978). The Good Language
Learner. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Research in
Education Series 7.
Nielson, J. (1990). Hypertext and hypermedia. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should
know.Boston, Mass.: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. Technocentric thinking. Educational
Researcher, January-February: 22-27.
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. F. Smith (ed) Modern Media in
Foreign Language Education: Theory and Implementation. Lincolnwood,
Ill.: National Textbook Company.
Pica, T., Dought, C., & Young, R. 1986. Making input comprehensible: do interactional
modifications help? International Review of Applied Linguistics 72: 1-25.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. 1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension.
TESOL Quarterly 21: 4: 737-758.
Platt, E. & Brookes, F. B. (1994). The ‘acquisition-rich environment’ revisited. The
Modern Language Journal, 78: 497-511.
Reiser, R. A. (1994). Clark’s invitation to the dance: An instructional designer’s
response. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42: 2: 45-48.
Robinson, G. L. (1991). Effective feedback strategies in CALL. In P. Dunkel (ed)
Computer-assisted language learning and testing. New York: Newbury
House.
Ross, S., Long, M. H., & Yano Y. 1991. Simplification or elaboration? The effects of two
types of text modifocations on foreign language reading comprehension.
University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL 10: 2: 1-32.
23
Ross, S. M. (1994). Delivery trucks or groceries? More food for thought on whether
media (will, may, can’t) influence learning. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 42: 2: 5-6.
Scarcella, R. C. & Oxford, R. L. 1992. The tapestry of language learning. Boston, Mass.:
Heinle & Heinle.
Shrock, S. A. 1994. The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don’t lose
sight of the big picture. Educational Technology Research and Development,
42: 2: 49-53.
Skehan, P. 1989 Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
Snow, C. E. 1989. Beyond conversation: second language learners’ acquisition of
description and explanation. In Lantolf, J. P. & A. Labarca (eds.) 1989. Research
in second language learning: Focus on the classroom. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex
Publishing Corporation: 3-16.
Spencer, K. (1991). Modes, media and methods: the search for educational
effectiveness. British Journal of Educational Technology, 22: 1: 12-22.
Stevens, V. 1984. Implications of research and theory concerning the influence of control
on the effectiveness of CALL. CALICO Journal 2: 1: 28-33, 48.
Stevens, V. 1992. Humanism and CALL: a coming of age. In Pennington, M. C. & V.
Stevens (eds.): 11-38.
Stone, A. C. (1989). Improving the effectiveness of strategy training for learning
disabled students: the role of communicative dynamics. Remedial and
Special Education, 10: 35-42.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. 1988. Down the garden path: inducing and correcting
overgeneralization errors in
the foreign language classroom.
Applied
Psychloinguistics 9: 237-246.
Tomasello, M. & Herron, C. 1989. Feedback for language transfer errors: the garden path
technique. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11: 4: 385-395.
Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. 1995. Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language
learning. System, 23: 2: 223-234.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (eds &
trans). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
24
Warschauer, M. (1996). Sociocultural learning theory and computer-mediated
communication. In F. L. Borchardt, C. L. Bradin, E. M. T. Johnson & L.
Rhodes (eds) Proceedings of the Computer Assisted Language Instruction
Consortium 1996 Annual Symposium: “Distance Learning”. Durham, Nth.
Carolina: Duke University.
Wenden, A. L. 1995. Learner training in context: A knowledge-based approach.
System, 23: 2: 183-194.
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1982. Instructional language as linguistic input: second language
learning in classrooms. In Wilkinson, L. (ed.) Communicating in the classroom.
New York: Academic Press.
25