Contemporary Issues of
CALL in TESOL
By Stephanie Colbert
History of CALL

Using computers in language learning is, contrary to popular opinion, not a new phenomenon. It
dates back to the early 1960s, although it was confined in those days mainly to universities with
prestigious computer science departments. By the early 1980s, however, CALL was used in a large
number of schools in the UK, Europe USA, Canada and Australia.

Timeline:

1960s: CALL begins, but only on big mainframe computers.

1976: CALL continues on "minicomputer“ (which was about the size of two vending machines).

Late 1970s: Enter the “microcomputer”. CALL becomes more widely accessible but still quite
limited due to the cost of the microcomputer.

1980s: Developments in the microcomputer mean it is more readily available. CALL begins to reach
the masses.

1990s: Advent of the Web, which becomes publicly available in 1993.

1998: First WorldCALL conference in Melbourne, Australia (1998).

2000: Broadband becomes more widely available, opening up new possibilities for delivering audio
and video materials via the Web. Blogs and podcasts appear.
Types of CALL used in the classroom today
Blogs, wikis, social
networking
 Podcasting
 Distance Learning,
Virtual Learning
Environments
 Interactive
whiteboards

Most significant development in
CALL over the past 50 years?

The Internet, of course!!!
Phases of Call

Warschauer (1996) distinguishes three distinct phases
during the development of CALL:
◦ Behaviouristic: The computer as tutor, serving mainly as
a vehicle for delivering instructional materials to the
learner.
◦ Communicative: The computer is used for skill practice,
but in a non-drill format and with a greater degree of
student choice, control and interaction. This phase also
includes (a) using the computer to stimulate discussion,
writing or critical thinking, and (b) using the computer as a
tool or workhorse - examples include word-processors,
spelling and grammar checkers ect.
◦ Integrative: This phase is marked by the introduction of
two important innovations:
(a) Multimedia
(b) The Internet

Bax (2003) outlines three very similar
phases but named differently:
Restricted CALL
 Open CALL
 Integrated CALL

Journals for CALL






CALICO Journal (The Computer Assisted Language
Instruction Consortium), USA.
CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), Taylor &
Francis, Abingdon, Oxfordshire:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/
CALL-EJ: The CALL Electronic Journal - an international
journal that welcomes contributions from around the
world: http://callej.org/.
CALL Review, Journal of the IATEFL Learning
Technologies SIG: http://ltsig.org.uk
IALLT Journal (International Association for Language
Learning Technology)
Language Learning and Technology - http://llt.msu.edu
Key Authors/Theorists
Graham Davies
 Mark Warschauer
 Michael Levy

CALL and English Language
Learning

BBC Learning English
◦ http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningen
glish/
◦ Pronunciation – sounds of English
◦ BBC LE China – for beginners. Click on ELT
Skill pronounciation from drop down ‘I want
to learn about’ box. Choose ‘hut and heart’.
◦ English slang: the good egg
Do you have any questions about CALL?
 Anything I might be able to answer for
you in my seminar tomorrow? (after all,
the purpose of this is your learning!)

Yesterday




Definition of CALL
History and development of CALL
Phases of CALL
Key theorists in the area
TODAY
Contemporary issues in CALL
 Disadvantages and barriers to implementation
 Evidence
 Advantages and support for implementation
 Evidence
 Practical example of CALL in the language classroom.

Contemporary Issues in CALL: Disadvantages
and barriers to implementation
ICT skills of students and teachers limit
the benefit of CALL (Park & Son, 2009).
 Inequity associated with the cost of ICT
(Lee, 2000).
 Inflexible curricula often does not allow
full implementation CALL (Lam, 2000;
Park & Son, 2009).

Evidence: Technological knowledge and access



Lacking basic ICT skills would severely limit the
benefit CALL for ELL students (Park & Son, 2009).
Often teachers lack the skills required to teach their
students of the ICT available in their classroom and it
goes unused. Training for teachers is costly and time
consuming (Park & Son, 2009).
Egbert, Paulus & Nakamichi (2002 in park & Son)
make the argument that since teachers often teach in
the same manner in which they were taught, teachers’
own experiences with technology is often a critical
factor in determining CALL implementation in the
classroom.
Class opinion: Technological knowledge
and access


This argument was made by Park
& Son (2009) but I do not agree.
If students lack basic ICT skills
then their is no better time to
learn than in the language
classroom. ICT skills are a
necessity for full functioning in
the modern economy and if
students lack skills and
confidence in this area then ICT
use should be encouraged to
improve these skills, not ignored
because it is too difficult.
Class opinions or experiences?
Evidence: Cost and Equity
A disadvantage of the increased use of computer
technology in the classroom is increased cost of
education and the potential harm to the equity of
the system. Low-budget schools and low-income
families would be at a disadvantage in the
technological era (Lee, 2000).
 However, the proliferation of computer technology
has seen a significant drop in the price and an
improvement in accessibility to people from all
socioeconomic backgrounds. If the price continues
to drop access will continue to increase but a
divide between high and low socioeconomic
groups will still exist in education.

Evidence: Inflexible Curriculum
A study by Park & Son (2009) found that ‘inflexible
curriculum’ was a common external barriers to the
integration of CALL in the language classroom
given by teachers.
 The teachers in the study sighted an often rigid,
textbook-based English curriculum as not being
conducive to the integration of new technology
(Park & Son, 2009). Many were supportive of the
use of ICT in the English classroom and desired to
increase its use but could not do so without
compromising students’ results in exams.
 Does anyone in the class have previous experience
feeling restricted as a teacher by rigid curriculum?

Advantages of CALL and support for
its implementation








Increasing need for students to have Information
Communication Technology (ICT) skills for employment
(Marquez-Chisholm and Beckett, 2002).
Improvement in English proficiency achievement (Lai &
Kristsonis, 2006; Park & Son, 2009), particularly in speaking, an
area that many ELLs find very difficult (Eskenazi, 1999).
Create valuable collaborative learning environments and enable
students to move through the various stages of SLA at their own
pace(Kung from Lai and Kris 2006).
Increase student motivation in English learning (Chapelle, 2009).
Increase the availability of authentic materials for study (Park &
Son, 2009).
Boost student confidence (Almekhlafi, 2006).
Enable self-paced learning through individualised learning
environments (Marquez-Chisholm and Beckett, 2002).
Improvement in cultural understanding of students (Park & Son,
2009).
Evidence: Increasing need for ICT
skills in the modern economy


Increasingly technological based job market –
over 50% of all jobs require competency in
information technology (Marquez-Chisholm and
Beckett, 2002).
Therefore, to provide English Language Learners
(ELLs) with the best opportunities for success in
the job market they must become technologically
literate. Many ELLs are from low-income homes
and therefore computer ownership is often also
low. Many ELLs have no access to computer
technology at home, so schools are often the
only avenue for these students to gain
technological literacy.
Evidence: Pronunciation improvement
and CALL
Total immersion in the country
of the target language is
obviously the most beneficial
thing a language learner can do
to improve their speaking
capabilities. However, this is not
always feasible.
 There is a plethora of research
that supports the benefits of
computer-assisted learning on
language proficiency,(Lai &
Kristsonis, 2006; Park & Son,
2009), particularly in areas of
speaking (Tanner & Landon, 2009;
Eskenazi, 1999).

Evidence: Improvement in
pronunciation and comprehensibility
A study by Tanner & Landon (2009) analysed the
performance of 75 ESL learners divided into control and
treatment groups.
 The treatment group was exposed to additional selfdirected computer-assisted speaking practice for 11 weeks.
 Speech perception and production samples were analysed
and compared with baseline data.
 Learners exposed to the computer-assisted practise
improved in aspects of their pronunciation (pausing, word
stress, and intonation), and comprehensibility at a greater
rate than the control group. Results from the statistical
tests revealed that the treatment had a significant effect on
learners' speaking abilities even though the time spent
practising in a self-directed environment was quite limited.

Using CALL in the classroom:
Wikispaces

Our wiki – Contemporary Issues in
TESOL
http://contemporaryissuesintesol.wikispac
es.com/
Evaluating CALL resources: Our Wiki

1. Language learning potential:The degree of opportunity present for
beneficial focus on form

2. Learner fit:The amount of opportunity for engagement with language
under appropriate conditions given learner characteristics.

3. Meaning focus: The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward
the meaning of the language.

4. Authenticity:The degree of correspondence between the learning activity
and target language activities of interest to learners out of the
classroom.

5. Positive Impact:The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who
participate in it.

6. Practicality: The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL
activity.
(Hubbard, 2006 , p6)
Using CALL in the classroom:
Interactive Whiteboards (IWB)



No. 1 tip: use appropriate search techniques
when looking for material on the Internet.
Don’t overuse PowerPoint: it is extremely
time consuming and can get dull for the
students very quickly.
Never underestimate the CD-ROMs given
with textbooks. These days they often have
amazing interactive games and activities
made especially for IWBs. In electronic
textbooks, the PDF will often have
hyperlinks to the appropriate activity
elsewhere on the CD or on the internet.
References

Almekhlafi, A. (2006). The effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
on United Arab Emirates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) school students’
achievement and attitude. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(2), 121-142.

Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory
and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Supp. 1),
741-753.

Egbert, J., Paulus, T. & Nakamichi,Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on
classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher
education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Retrieved January 18,
2011 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/default.html

Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using a computer in foreign language pronunciation training:
what advantages? CALICO Journal, 16(3), 447-468.

Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. Chapter 13 from L. Ducate and N.
Arnold (eds) 2006. Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New
Directions in Foreign Language Teaching. San Marcos: CALICO.

Kung, S. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning.
CALL-Electronic Journal, 3(2). Retrieved January 17, 2011 from
http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/3-2/sckung.html
References continued

Lai, C. & Kristsonis, W. (2006). The advantages and disadvantages of computer technology in
second language acquisition. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring Doctoral Student Research,
3(1). Retrieved January 14, 2011 from
http://www.nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/ChengChieh%20Lai%20The%20Advantages%20and%20Disadvantages%20of%20Computer%20Technolog
y.pdf

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers
do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389420.

Lee, K. (2000). English Teachers' Barriers to the Use of Computer-assisted Language Learning. The
Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved January 14, 2011 from http://iteslj.org/Articles/LeeCALLbarriers.html

Marquez-Chisholm, I. & Beckett, C. (2002). Integration for ESL Success:TESOL Standards, Multiple
Intelligences and Technology: Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference 2002 (pp. 601-605). Chesapeake,VA: AACE. Retrieved January 16, 2011
from http://www.editlib.org/p/10575.

Park, C. & Son, J. (2009). Implementing Computer-Assisted Language Learning in the EFL
classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning,
5(2), 80-101.

Tanner, M. & Landon, M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL
learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning &
Technology, 13(1), 51-65.