There is so much you can do with Google Maps Street View, especially if you have access to an Interactive White Board that your students can use to navigate the map.  This combination provides a positive and meaningful learning environment to use language.  Your students will be highly motivated and more likely to retain what they have learned.   You can use the interactive map to teach vocabulary related to asking for/giving directions, prepositions, Common expressions related to asking for/giving directions…etc.  I’ve also used Google Earth while planning field trips in NYC.  Students often find it helpful when they get a sense of what the place looks like and how to get to it.

A few days ago, I received an email from Pratt’s Educational Technologist who invited me, along with a few other colleagues to look at some examples of Electronic portfolios.  We were given access to two demo installations of Eportfolios that the school is currently considering.

1- Desire 2 Learn: A commercial platform from Desire2Learn Incorporated.  Desire2Learn has been around since 1999 and offers a variety of e-learning solutions aimed mostly at educational institutions.

2- Mahara: This is a fully featured open-source Eportfolio web application that supports blogging, resume building as well as a file manager feature to store user files.  Mahara is developed by Catalyst IT.  I would like to thank Nigel McNie for clarifying that Catalyst IT is the lead developer of Mahara and that the actual founder of Moodle is Martin Dougiamas. The word Mahara means to “think” in Te Reo Maori, which indicates that the developers of this product are strong believers in a student-centered approach to learning.

Selecting the right ePortfolio application for your school can be a complicated process.  There are many factors to take into consideration as one must take into account the needs and preferences of all parties involved.  The most important of those parties are the end users who are the learner and the instructor.   As I explored the features and functionality of both Desire2Learn and Mahara I kept asking myself the following obvious question: which one is more intuitive and provides the best features to our students?   After many hours of clicking, dragging and dropping, here are some thoughts and observations:

Desire2lean (license: commercial)

In addition the usual Eportoflio features available in any platform (presentation, networking and reflection), Desire2Learn also offers:

1- A powerful control panel with easy to use tools for managing and sharing information.

2- Ability to create both learner roles and instructor roles.

3- Assessment tools to create quizzes and rubrics.

4- Class management tools, including a dropbox, class lists and a discussion forum.

These features make Desire2Leanrn a one-stop academic e-learning solution that addresses the needs of both the learner and the instructor.

source: desire2learn.com

Mahara (Free open-source)

As a full-featured ePortfolio, Mahara includes the following features:

• Users can create multiple views for a variety of audiences
• File repository for files of all types
• Blogs
• Social Networking
• Resume Builder
• Integration with Moodle (networking API) and one-click transfer

Overall, Mahara is an excellent e-portfolio solution that offers all the necessary tools learners need to showcase their work and reflect critically on what they have learned in the process.  When intergrated with Moodle, Mahara has the potential to deliver a comprehesive solution to online learning by allowing the learner to process and synthesize information, reflect on what has been learned and finally share those reflections.

Final thoughts

Both Desire2Learn and Mahara offer the necessary functions for learners to document their skills, critically reflected on aquired knowledge, and showcase their best work using a variety of multimedia tools.  Eventough, Desire2Learn includes an instructional component that currenly lacks in Mahara, I’m leaning more towards the latter since integration with Moodle compensates for that, making it a free comprehensive Eportfolio solution.

A wiki is an excellent tool for collaborative writing in the ESL classroom.   Wikis are simple interactive pages that a number of individuals can access and modify by adding and editing content.  When your students are working  on a writing activity in groups,  one of the main challenges is coordinating their work and insuring that all members of the group are actively involved in the project at hand.  For most students, email is the preferred medium of communication, as they send one another their latest drafts and wait hours and days for a followup.  As the speaker in this video indicates, email “is not good at coordinating and organizing a group’s input” since multiple email exchanges can become chaotic and lead to confusion. The alternative is for each group to create a Wiki that all members can access at any time to update content and exchange information.  In addition, you, the instructor, are able to continuously be involved in the writing process by visiting your students’ wikis to leave feedback or to simply peek in. There are many wiki services on the Internet to choose from.  My favorite one is Google Sites.  it’s free, easy to use, and it’s directly connected to my Gmail account.

Creating a digital story
1- Script development: students will write the story, often with a group called a story circle to provide feedback and story development ideas.  By working collectively, learners are practicing their speaking and negotiating meaning.  This stage could last for more than one session, depending on the learning objectives you have set for your class.  In an integrated skills’ environment, I would have students submit multiple drafts of their scripts and assist them with form and structure.
2- Record the story (audio recording and editing): Now that your students are ready to record their stories, they need to practice their narration and work on their oral production (fluency, intonation, pronunciation).  As with step 1 (writing), you need to decide what areas need special attention depending on your learning objectives.
3- Capture and process the images to further illustrate the story (image downloading/scanning and editing): This a fun step in which students are able to be creative and original as they choose images they believe are meaningful reflections of their stories. As an instructor, you might have them justify their choices as an additional speaking/critical thinking activity.
4- Combine narration, images (and any additional video) onto a timeline, add music tracks. This is another venue for learners to unleash their creativity as they mix images, and add cool transitions and fun music to their stories.
5- Reviewing and presenting the finished version of the digital story: Your students are now ready to share their wonderful stories with the world. This could be done as a special presentation session, ideally using a computer projector for other students to watch and enjoy.  If you decide to include assessment in this project, I would recommend doing so informally and avoiding commenting on form and structure during or immediately after presentations. In fact, all aspects of this activity are based on a communicative approach where focus is on process as opposed to product.

It is widely accepted that meaningful interaction with the target language helps learners develop their L2 in many ways.  This interaction allows the learner to not only produce the language, but also manipulate it, in an effort to fully understand its inner workings (Foster, 1998). That is, the learner needs to be able to synthesize new ideas by connecting them to existing information.  Carey and Crittenden (2000) investigated the effectiveness of electronic bulletin boards as a tool that supports such meaningful learning with language learners.  They argued that language programs generally do not provide an environment for the language learner to engage sufficiently in meaningful communication. Interactive technology, they believe, has the potential for filling this gap by allowing learners to further engage in meaningful interactions of interest to them.  The authors came to this conclusion by comparing the benefits of interactive bulletin boards to successful real life models of authentic language exposure, such as immersion programs.  They conclude that, today, interactive technology is fully capable of simulating social interaction, which in turn leads to a high degree of interaction among language learners. The authors, however, seem to neglect one major aspect of social interaction which is nonexistent in online interaction: emotions and body language.  Communicating via bulletin boards is limited to just text.  This is particularly hindering for the language learner who has linguistic constraints and is not able to use body language to overcome these limitations. Podcasting as will be implemented in this research project, on the other hand, could provide a suitable platform for authentic language interaction.  As learners develop group podcasts, for example, they gather information, write scripts, do group corrections and read their parts.  At the same time, they are interpreting each others’ movements and body language as an additional form of input to help validate their understanding.

Another study, by Wagener (2006), looked at the value of using online digital video to help adult language learners develop independent language skills.  According to the researcher, video serves as a helpful instrument for exposing the language learner to authentic language. In addition, digital video facilitates the process of acculturation through socio-cultural information.  In the study, participants were required to use the video lab individually for a specific number of hours each week. Video segments were collected from various sources on the Internet and were deemed of particular interest to the learners.  The main focus for some students was to improve listening skills and vocabulary development.  For others, the aim was to instantly translate video segments. The results of the study indicate that the majority of participants responded positively to the use of online video as an instrument for language learning.  Participants found online video to be especially helpful for improving listening skills, expanding vocabulary and widening their knowledge of current affairs. Video, as was used in this study, adds an important dimension to authentic language exposure, and fosters independent learning.  A major limitation to this approach, however, is its lack of social interaction as each learner is confined to a separate area in the computer lab, in isolation from other learners and with no opportunity for language exchange.  Brown (2001) argues that direct interaction is a critical element in the language classroom that needs to exist at all stages of language acquisition.  It is this very limitation that this study aims at addressing vis-à-vis one-teacher and other native-speaker-generated audio, which is the predominant form of podcasting today.

Ayres (2002) investigated how language learners respond to CALL and its relevancy in the context of language learning.  The study was conducted at New Zealand’s School of English and Applied Linguistics with 175 non-native undergraduate students enrolled in various language programs. In the study, participants were given the opportunity to use various types of software they had to use but were not instructed on which part of the software to use or how to use it.  This flexibility allowed students to freely interact with the software and guide their own learning of the target language.  Follow-up surveys were administered to assess participants’ attitudes towards using the software.  The study concludes that learners clearly favored classroom language instruction as opposed to strictly CALL instructions.  However, most participants reported a high level of motivation with CALL and considered it to be a very useful tool for improving writing and spelling.  These results clearly indicate that successful implementation of CALL is dependent on how it is integrated within the existing environment of the language classroom.  It is important to understand that computer-based technology by itself is often irrelevant when implemented in isolation from the learning goals and objectives of the class. Implementation, therefore, needs to be aligned with the goals of the existing curriculum in order to provide a meaningful learning environment for the student.

In 2004, a study conducted by the Defense Language Institute looked into the efficacy of CALL in the process of vocabulary acquisition.  Tozcu and Coady (2004) hypothesized that there is a universal model for word recognition that applies to both native and non-native speakers of a language.  Automaticity, they argue, is an essential variable for successful vocabulary acquisition.  A total of 56 intermediate level students were selected to investigate this question.  28 of them were placed in the treatment group using computers and the other 28 in the control group using only print material.  A pre-test and a post-test were administered to assess the degree of vocabulary acquisition with both groups.  The research concluded that using a computer to learn vocabulary results in faster and more successful acquisition of frequent vocabulary.  In addition, students in the treatment group showed major improvement in their reading comprehension skills.  The study recognizes, however, that students in the control group showed a level of improvement in vocabulary acquisition using solely print material that is noticeable, although not as significant as that of the experimental group.  Even though the results of the study appear to be quite encouraging, they do not provide any evidence of long term retention of vocabulary as the interval between the pre-test and post-test is only two months.  Furthermore, all students’ activities were completed in isolation from the environment of the classroom, making it difficult to empirically attribute vocabulary gains strictly to the use of technology.

Bax (2003) argues that an in-depth analysis of how CALL was used in the past and how it is used today is necessary to devise “an agenda” for its future use. In 1986, the TESOL Quarterly published its first article related to the effectiveness of CALL in second language instruction. In a study conducted with Arabic and Spanish speaking students enrolled in an intensive ESL program, Chappelle and Jamieson (1986) asked direct questions and looked empirically at important variables such as learner attitudes towards CALL and educational gains attained as a result of using computers for language acquisition.  One of the main findings of this study was that learners’ attitude towards CALL had a significant impact on the degree of that learner’s involvement and commitment to using the computer as a learning instrument.  The research concludes that cognitive/affective characteristics of the learner directly impact the nature of his/her interaction with CALL.  Therefore, in order to effectively judge the effectiveness of CALL within a specific context, it is important to look at the student variable as a critical element in this formula.

Warschauer (2000) distinguishes between three types of CALL.  Structural CALL (1970’s-1980’s), Communicative CALL (1980’s-1990’s) and Integrative CALL (21^st century) (See Table 1).  He argues that “Structural CALL” used what is considered today obsolete technology, as well as a Grammar-Translation and Audio Lingual teaching approach that emphasized drills and repetition in order to achieve accuracy.  “Communicative CALL”, he claims, used modern computers and focused on communicative tasks to achieve fluency, but within a narrow context that fails to address the value of content in communication.  The alternative, he believes, is 21^st century “Integrative CALL”, which embraces all the positive qualities of Communicative CALL, but highlights the importance of content as an essential aspect of interaction.  In addition, Warschauer’s Integrative CALL stresses the importance of authentic discourse and learner agency as critical elements for successful application of technology.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest ways in which CALL and Internet methodology can be linked in with ordinary foreign-language classroom work in order to motivate the learners to learn what the teacher wants them to learn. This is especially important in classroom situations where the language to be learned (the target language) has the status of a foreign language rather than a second language, and where the individual interests of the learners, rather than their communicative needs as such, often determine what they actually learn.

Planning a CALL/Internet-based teaching unit

The teacher’s role, first of all, is to choose a CALL program or an online Internet activity (from now on collectively referred to as ‘computer program’ or just ‘program’) that can fulfil the teaching goals aimed at during the teaching unit and that is – hopefully – interesting from the learners’ point of view. The selected program must also be pedagogically meaningful, whether used for purposes of oral communication, vocabulary development, or as a starting point for more ambitious learning projects.

Next, the teacher must plan the teaching unit in detail. In addition to the computer session proper (the “hands-on” phase), CALL has traditionally involved one or several pre-computer phases as well as one or several post-computer phases. The length and character of these phases can and do vary depending on the number of lessons included in the teaching unit, the general teaching goals of the teaching unit, the content of the syllabus, the proficiency level of the learners, and the time that the teacher has assigned to each of the four language skills: reading, writing, speaking and listening. The same methodology applies in principle also to Internet-based teaching units.

(a) pre-computer work

During the pre-computer phase the teacher typically explains the outline and purpose of the program to be used (especially if it is new to the learners) and also introduces the topic in question in the same way that s/he would an ordinary foreign language lesson. A simple way of doing this is to write a key word (for example the name of the topic) on the blackboard and ask the learners individually to write down all content words relating to the key word that they come to think of. After a minute or two, the learners are requested to form pairs or small groups and to share their word lists with each other. The teacher can then revise and/or pre-teach relevant vocabulary items together with any necessary set phrases and/or grammar points needed by the learners for the computer and post-computer phases.

(b) computer work

Depending on the selected program and the focus of the teaching unit, the computer phase can in principle involve any kind of learner activity. There is, however, an important point to be kept in mind: even if the selected program seemingly presents the learning task, checks learner input and provides feedback, the control exercised by the learners within the boundaries set by the program must still be supervised (and occasionally restricted) by the teacher. It is always the teacher’s responsible to plan the computer session to suit his or her teaching situation as it cannot be automatically assumed that a computer program knows what is expected from the learners for example in terms of language skills to be practised (in the same way that a reading passage given to learners cannot know whether they are expected to translate the text, find all adjectives or cross out every nth word). In addition to such instructions the teacher must also inform the learners about any supplementary tasks to be performed during this phase (such as note-taking or filling in worksheets).

When planning the teaching unit the teacher must also take into consideration the fact that some computer programs are obviously better suited for practising specific language skills than others. Simulations, for example, are valuable tools for oral communication in a foreign language since they generally provide the learners with something meaningful and interesting to talk about. Being excellent substitutes for a wide range of useful, real-life activities (such as booking a trip and checking in at a hotel) they increase learner motivation and at the same time offer authentic language practice involving learner decisions based on data from realistic situations.

If the learners are requested to search for specific information on the Internet, it is the teacher’s responsibility to provide them with clear working instructions (such as what to find, where and how to find it, and what to do with it once they have found it). Whenever possible, the teacher should select a topic that has current relevance to events that relate to the learners’ interests or environment, and also take into account the fact that finding information on the Internet often requires different types of reading skills from the learners, such as skimming (is the text worth going into?) and scanning (looking for specific facts). Moreover, s/he must remember that it is generally not enough that the selected reading tasks concentrate on the learners’ understanding of the plain sense of what is said in a text (an ability which Neville Grant has termed “plain sense reading”). The tasks given should rather draw on the learners’ ability to make inferences from what is said in the text (“deductive reading”), or better still, their ability to relate the reading passages to their own knowledge and experience (“projective reading”).

It is also in the teacher’s interest that the relevant information can be found by the learners with an appropriate level of effort and/or difficulty and that the task design will enable the information to be processed and transformed by the learners into new knowledge. To put it differently, the learners must be able to understand the information in question (using dictionaries whenever necessary), to assess what constitutes relevant information, to arrange and/or rearrange the information selected, to make comparisons with their previous knowledge or other information, and, during the post-computer phase, to present their findings in a way that is meaningful from an educational point-of-view. Otherwise there is a great risk that the “learning task” will be performed mechanically by the learners without any actual learning taking place.

For the computer phase, pairs are in most cases the preferred group size. Working in pairs, each learner has someone to talk to or negotiate with and at the same the theoretical talking time for each learner is maximal, particularly when compared to large-group interaction. While the learners are working, the teacher has ample opportunity to move around in the classroom supervising, providing help whenever needed, and, if relevant for the activity in question, reminding the learners that all conversation should be carried out in the foreign language.

(c) post-computer work

During the post-computer phase the learners practise and/or demonstrate, in one way or other, what they have learned or found during the computer phase. They may, for example, have to prepare individual, pair, or group reports based on their worksheet notes to be presented orally in class. Or, they may be requested to practise the program vocabulary and grammar points through role-play activities (with learners from different pairs or groups forming new pairs or groups) or one-to-one interviews relating to the topic of the computer session. By slightly varying his or her instructions, the teacher can in such cases easily transfer the emphasis onto specific grammar points instead, for example by asking the learners to report on what they achieved during the computer phase (practice of the past tense) or what they would do differently if they had to do whatever they did again (practice of conditional sentences).

If, on the other hand, the teacher wants to focus on vocabulary work, s/he can do so in a number of different ways. S/he can for example give the learners a piece of paper listing some of words that were used during the computer phase and ask them to translate the words into their native language (using dictionaries if necessary), to use bilingual dictionaries to look up additional meanings to the words, to group the words together, for example into semantic fields or by creating associational links between chains of words, to arrange the words in order of perceived difficulty or according to their usefulness in everyday life, or to tick the words that they have come across before and categorise them according to place or source (such as the class textbook, the teacher, friends, a film, a pop song, or a magazine).

The learners could next be asked to share their results orally in class, to write a number of sentences that contain as many of the newly learned words as possible, or to prepare vocabulary exercises for their classmates (such as filling in gaps or matching words with their definitions, synonyms, antonyms or native language equivalents).

The post-computer phase too should give the learners sufficient opportunity to process the language material in such a way that old knowledge is transformed into new knowledge. When, for example, the learners are presenting their results by reading text from a paper, there is always a risk that the learners (readers) themselves may not understand what is said, that the classmates (listeners) may not understand what is said, or that the classmates may not even listen to what is said.

Possible solutions would be to ask the learners to work with native language material but do their presentations in the foreign language, to work with foreign language material but do their presentations in the native language, to work with foreign language material but do their presentations in the foreign language while required to rephrase all “difficult” words and passages found in the original material, to comment on the material by relating to personal experience, to prepare a few questions to be answered by their classmates, or to prepare follow-up questions to be discussed in class.

Similarly, if the post-computer phase requires the learners to produce a written report to be completed at home, the teacher should bear in mind that even if the submitted foreign language text is well organised and contains a variety of grammatical structures and rich vocabulary, the learners may have copied most of it with little or no learning whatsoever taking place.

Conclusion

Regardless of the type of tasks performed by the learners, it is always profitable from an educational point-of-view to let the learners reflect upon what they feel they have learned during the various phases of the teaching unit. Furthermore, project work dealing with different countries, peoples, and cultures in particular often lead to further questions that need to be answered and which could perhaps be worth a follow-up project in its own right. The teacher could therefore ask the learners to prepare, as homework, questions to be asked using one or several of the communication options offered by the Internet, such as e-mail, electronic postcards, or a chat site. Providing ample opportunity for authentic, albeit written communication in the foreign language with other learners throughout the world, such homework generally guarantees optimal learner motivation.

Salaberry (2001) looked retrospectively at the various technologies by analyzing technology-related articles that have been published in the Modern Language Journal since 1916.  He raised concerns about the implications of misusing technology in the language classroom, maintaining that the most important challenge posed by technology is identifying its educational objectives.  Wyatt (1987) agrees that it is important to distinguish between the medium and the approach.  He claims that in order to successfully use computers in the language classroom, it is vital to view the computer only as a tool not to be associated with a particular pedagogical approach.

When computers were first introduced to the language classroom, it was believed that a major revolution in the field of ESL was underway.  Teachers and language scholars quickly embraced this modern innovation.  Therefore, the need for pedagogical scrutiny was often overlooked.  Recently, however, there has been a major shift in regards to how technology in general is being perceived within the context of second language acquisition.  Today, CALL has replaced computer assisted language instruction (CALI) as the latter was mainly used for drills and rarely as a tool for meaningful instruction (Underwood, 1984).   Despite this fundamental shift, CALL is still far from being recognized as capable of delivering the pedagogical benefits it often promises.

Garrret (1991) argues that there is no simple answer to the question of whether or not using computers can actually help in the process of language acquisition.  He believes it is not feasible to conduct large-scale research to account for all the variables that might affect the outcome of such a study.  Therefore, there is a need for specific and targeted research that addresses a specific technology, within a specific learning context and focusing on a specific population.  Such an approach has the potential of maximizing our understanding about how aspects of a specific technology can be of relevance to the language learner.  In the case of podcasting, what is needed is an understanding of the conditions under which the process of learning is effective, while taking into account individual learner goals and learning preferences.  This study attempts to answer fundamental questions which relate to how learners perceive podcasting and interact with it before making a case for actual language gains.

Concerns about the effectiveness of CALL stretch beyond pedagogical issues.  Studies have indicated that although language teachers are often enthusiastic about using technology to enhance their teaching, a lack of teacher development programs and time dedicated to experimentation hinder instructors’ skills and knowledge (Shelly, 2000).  Another major barrier in getting teachers to use technology is that each of those teachers is at a different level of technology competence (Glenn, 1997).  While some are barely able to start a computer; others, have achieved a high level of computer knowledge and have acquired sophisticated technology skills.  This often creates very difficult decisions for schools and language programs about how much professional development is needed for teachers.  Even though podcasting is relatively a new concept, it does not require high levels of technological competence in order to use it due to its user-friendly recording and playing features that resemble those of the traditional cassette player.  Recorded audio segments can be easily published to a variety of online services such as ITunes (www.apple.com/itunes) or Podomatic (www.podomatic.com) for sharing and distribution.

To begin with the question whether computers really assist second language learning, many teachers who have never touched a computer tend to respond with an emphatic no; whereas, the overwhelming number of teachers who give computers a try find that they are indeed useful in second language learning.  No doubt, computers make excellent teaching tools, especially in teaching languages in any aspect, be it vocabulary, grammar, composition, pronunciation, or other linguistic and pragmatic-communicative skills.  And the major benefits offered by computer in enhancing language acquisition apparently outweigh its limitations.

ADVANTAGES

Interest and Motivation
It is often necessary, in a language learning classroom, to provide repeated practice to meet important objectives.  Because this can be boring, painful, and frustrating, many students lose interest and motivation to learn foreign languages. CALL programmes present the learner with a novelty.  They teach the language in different and more interesting, attractive ways and present language through games, animated graphics and problem-solving techniques.  As a result even tedious drills become more interesting.  In fact, CALL motivates the students to go beyond the point of initial mastery and practice activity until they become automatic.

Individualisation
Many students need additional time and individualised practice to meet learning objectives. The computer offers students self-instructional tasks that let them master prerequisite skills and course objectives at a speed and level dictated by their own needs. Besides, additional programmes can be made available for students who master objectives quickly.  These additional programmes can provide more intense study of the same objectives, proceed to higher objectives, or integrate the objectives covered in the unit with other objectives.  In this manner, a computer gives individual attention to the learner and replies immediately to questions or commands.  It acts as a tutor and guides the learner towards the correct answer while adapting the material to his performance.

A Compatible Learning Style
Students differ in their preferred styles of learning. Many students seem to learn much more effectively when they are able to use a compatible learning style than when they are forced to employ an incompatible one.  Serious conflicts may arise when a teacher employs a style that is incompatible with a student’s.  In this regard, the computer can be used for adapting instruction to the unique styles of individual students.  To cite an instance, the computer can provide an exciting rapid-fire drill for one student and a calm, slow-paced mode of presentation for another.

Optimal Use of Learning Time
By using the computer, students are often able to use their Academic Learning Time (ALT) more fruitfully.  Academic Learning Time (ALT) is the amount of time a student spends attending to relevant academic tasks while performing those tasks with a high rate of success.  For example, not all the time officially scheduled for studying a foreign language is likely to be allocated to it.  If an hour is assigned to working on a topic, but the teacher devotes five minutes at the beginning of the session to returning papers and five minutes at the end to reading announcements, then only fifty minutes have been allocated to working on the topic.  Scheduled time merely sets an upper limit on allocated time.  Likewise, allocated time merely sets the upper limit to engaged time, which refers to the amount of time students actively attend to the subject matter under consideration.  Even though fifty minutes may be allocated to studying a topic in French class, students may stare out the window or talk to their neighbours instead of pursuing the assigned activity.  Therefore, even when they are actively engaged in studying the foreign language, students learn effectively only when they are performing at a high rate of success.  This smaller amount of time is the factor that is most strongly related to the amount of learning that takes place (Lareau 1985:65-67).  Computers enhance second/foreign language academic learning time by permitting learners to acquire specific information and practice specific skills and by helping students develop basic tools of learning which they can apply in a wide variety of settings.  This also subverts the relationship between time and traditional instruction.  Traditional instruction holds time constant and allows achievement to vary within a group.  Computer-assisted learning reverses this relationship by holding achievement constant and letting the time students spend in pursuit of the objectives vary.

Immediate Feedback
Learners receive maximum benefit from feedback only when it is supplied immediately.  Their interest and receptivity declines when the information on their performance is delayed.  Yet, for various reasons, classroom feedback is often delayed and at times denied.  A deferment of positive feedback, though important to act as encouragement and reinforcement, may not harm the progress of the learners.  Nonetheless, any delay in offering negative feedback, the knowledge that one is wrong, will become crucial.  A blissfully ignorant student may continue mispronouncing a word or applying a misconception before discovering the nature of this error.  In such case, the computer can give instantaneous feedback and help the learner ward off his misconception at the initial stage itself.  In addition to this, the computer can look for certain types of errors and give specific feedback, such as, “It looks as if you forgot the article.”

Error Analysis
Computer database can be used by the instructor to classify and differentiate the type of general errors as well as errors committed by learners on account of the influence of the first language.  And thus determine the most common errors cross-linguistically and more specifically, the particular form of a particular error type within a particular language group.  One such study conducted reveals interesting findings, for example, that in subject-verb agreement errors the base form of verb was over generalised incorrectly more often than the -s form by all speakers.  Also, Chinese writers typically omitted the articles a/an more often than the (Dalgish 1987:81-82).  A computer can thus analyse the specific mistakes the student has made and can react in a different way from the usual teacher–this leads the student not only to self-correction, but also to understanding the principles behind the correct solution.

Guided and Free Writing
A word-processor in the computer can be very effective in teaching guided/free writing activities.  The ability to create and manipulate text easily is the principle on which the word-processor programmes are founded.  In this manner, the word-processor encourages practice in guided or free writing activities together with a number of sub-skills which comprise the writing process.  Aspects of paragraphing, register, style, cohesion, rhetorical structure, lexical choice and expression can all receive attention without requiring the user to learn different programmes.  The advantage is that the teacher can direct the student’s writing without exerting total and rigid control, allowing for freedom of expression within certain bounds.  Insights into grammar, vocabulary, punctuation, can also be developed.

Pre-determined to Process Syllabus
One major advantage in using a microprocessor is that it can enhance the learning process from a pre-determined syllabus to an emerging/process syllabus.  Even the ordinary ‘fill-in-the-blanks’ type of monotonous exercise on paper can be made an exciting task on the screen in the self-access mode, where the students themselves choose their own material.  CALL thus facilitates the synthesis of the pre-planned syllabus and learner syllabuses “through a decision making process undertaken by teacher and learners together” (Breen 1986:51).

Other Prospects
As students and teachers become more sophisticated in their use of such CALL software, more complicated use of these packages become possible.  For instance, the ability of the computer to handle data, and allow the students to become computational linguists, is very powerful (Hardistry 1988:42-43).  The experiential use of Wide Area Network (WAN) and Local Area Network (LAN) can reveal unexplored teaching materials and untouched learning methods. By effective use of linking computer with internet, authentic material can be brought directly into the classroom.  A reading text can be done using that day’s news item or weather forecast than using a news clipping of the previous year.  The topicality of the issue can generate lot of interest and create authenticity of purpose.  Correspondingly, the facility of LAN can be very useful for the practising of writing pithy telegraphic and telex messages.  Of course, the joy and the excitement involved in the online communication process, both local and international, is an additional increment one gets from screen-based learning!

APPREHENSIONS

Man versus Machine
In spite of its glaring merits, the prospect of computer-assisted language learning has troubled teachers more.  Perhaps, the major cause of their worry might have developed from the basic problem of accessibility.  Often the computers have been kept in Science or Maths department causing a real and psychological distance in the minds of the Arts faculty.  Nevertheless, many see computer as a threat not only in terms of its power to replace the traditional skills, which the language teachers promote, but also its eventual replacement of the teacher himself.  Furthermore, shifting the control centre from the authoritarian teacher to the need-based learner and accepting the humble role of a facilitator/moderator instead of being a veritable dictator does not come easy for the traditionally clad chalk-talk teacher.  In addition, the computer-student interactive learning not only allows the possibility of role changes, but also the potential for role-reversal, endangered by physical reversal by students.  That is, the students literally turn their back to the teachers, and silence is now on the part of the teacher until called for assistance. Yet this role reversal can be exploited, since, it allows the classroom to become far more “learning centred” (Hardistry 1988:39).  This term rather than learner-centred, has been used, to indicate that the central aim of the language lesson is to enable students to learn.

The Language Lab versus Computer
Another reason why teachers and sanctioning authorities alike are uncertain about the use of computers in language learning is that computers too, like language lab and other technological innovations, despite large investments, may remain unused and stored in some dark and abandoned room.  After all, language laboratories in many countries fell into disuse, as they were too tied to one particular form of methodology, which limited the awareness of the potential.  One real danger is that the computer could be used, like the language lab, as an instrument of Skinnerian behaviourism to facilitate the structuralist approach with an emphasis on “correctness,” negating its flexibility and potential as a teaching aid to liberate the imaginations of the learners (Moore 1986:18-19).  In this perspective, often CALL courseware has been restricted to drill and practice, with the screen equivalent to the textbook.  Much software, like a textbook, is static both in presentation and in content.  Another major criticism of CALL software is the lock-step design of the lessons.  This, in turn, means that CALL software is missing a chance to exploit the computer’s potential, with the result that computer power is not released to the student adequately.

CALL versus TALL
Computer-Assisted Language Learning(CALL) contrasted with Textbook-Assisted Language Learning(TALL), demands certain extra-skills such as typography, graphic design, or paper making and the lack of which panics the teacher and the taught alike.  For instance, an inadvertent typographical error on the part of the student input may be classified wrong although the grammar of the student’s answer is correct.  Further, in terms of communication of ideas, a book is a means of communication between the author and the reader.  In the same way, the computer is a means of communication between the programmer and the user.  However, in this analogy, the author and the programmer do not mostly share similar concerns.  While the author is bound to be a subject expert, the programmer is mostly a technician combined with the likely motives of a businessman.  This gap between the author and the programmer is responsible for inappropriate lesson content, poor documentation, errors in format and content, improper feedback, etc.  Likewise, in most software, there is little chance for the teacher to add to or modify the existing programmes, even if he wishes too, since most of it is locked to prevent pirating.  And for the few of those who develop their own material, the time spent on programming and typing in the lessons can be quite lengthy.

PROBLEMS OR CHALLENGES?

Yet, these apprehensions should be seen in the backdrop of a developmental stage of  computerisation of individuals and institutions and as a temporary phenomenon.  The next generation of teachers and learners will be part of a computer generation.  They will take for granted the skills demanded by computer technology and handle it as coolly as switching on a taperecorder or watching a television.  Similarly, the pupils will need no readjustment of attitude when faced with a computer in a classroom and their familiarity and frequent association with the machine would replace the sense of awe and alienation felt by older people.  Then planning pre-, actual and post-computer activities would be easily possible.  The teachers would ensure that they are the ones in control of educational software by becoming involved in the development process and rejecting those programmes which do not serve their needs.  For that reason, the onus is on the present CALL-disposed teachers that in order to convince the CALL-deposed teachers about the potentiality of CALL courseware, they must prove that it is not only perfect in every way, but that it is far better than any other existing teaching aid.

CONCLUSION

An ideal CALL courseware remains not an alternative but a complementary tool in reinforcing classroom activities.  Apart from relying on the ability of educators to create suitable CALL courseware, the effectiveness of CALL depends on the teacher’s readiness to adopt new attitudes and approaches toward language teaching.  The teacher should avoid being skeptical about the use of computer in language teaching and begin to re-evaluate his methods in the light of computer’s tremendous teaching potential and boldly address to the challenges offered.  The computer can best assist teachers if it is seen not as a replacement for their work but as a supplement to it.  By the way, the computer, will not replace the language teachers, but, used creatively, it will relieve them of tedious tasks and will enable students to receive individualised attention from both teachers and machines to a degree that has hitherto been impossible.

CALL is often associated (wrongly) with an old-fashioned approach to the use of ICT in language learning and teaching. Levy (1997:1) provides the following succinct definition of CALL
“Computer Assisted Language Learning 9call) may be defined as”the search for and study of applicatons of the computer in language teaching and learning”.
This is catch-all definition, which is also endorsed by the leading international proffesional associations.

Three Phases of CALL :
1) Behavioristic CALL; entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as “drill and practice”.
The rationale behind drill and practice was not totally spuious,which explains in part the fact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationale is as follows :
a. Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential to learning.
b. A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine does not get bored with presentin the same material and since it can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback.
c. A computer can present such material on an individualized basis, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class time for other activities.

2) Communicative CALL; According to Underwood, 1984, p.52 communicative call :
a. focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;
b. teaches ammar implicitly rather than explicitly:
c. allows and encourages students to genearte original utterances rather than just manipulate prefabricated language;
d. does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor reward them with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;
e. avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a variety of student responses;
f. uses the target language exclusively and creates an environtment in which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen; and will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well.

3). Steps toward Integrative CALL:Multimedia.
Integrative approaches to CALL are based on two important technological developments of the last decade-multimedia computers and the Internet Multimedia technology-exemplified today by the
CD-ROM-allows a variety of media (text,graphics,sound,animation, and video) to be accesed on a single machine.What makes multimedia resources are all linked together and that learners can na
vigate their own path symply by pointing and clicking a mouse.
Hypermedia provides a number of advantages for language learning.First of all, a more authentic learning environment is created, since listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real word.
Secondly, skills are easily integrated, since the variety of media make it natural to combine reading,writing,speaking and listening in a single activity. Third, students have great control over
theirlearning, since they can notonly go at their own pace but even ontheir own individual path, going forward and backwards to different parts of the program, honing in on particular aspects and
skipping other aspects altogether. Finally, a major advantage of hypermedia is that it facilitates a principle focus on the content, without sacrificing a secondary focus on language form or learning
strategies.

*) Steps toward Integrative CALL: The Internet.
Computer mediated communication allows users to share not only brief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents-thus facilitating collabotative writing-and also graphics, sounds,and video. using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can searchthrough millions of files around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles,radio broadcasts, short videos,movie reviews,book excerpts) exactly tailored to their own personal interest. They can also use the Web to pulish their text or multimedia materials to share with partner classes or with the general public.