Introduction Statement
In this
module, the reader will be provided with the main reasons for the use of CALL
programs into the teaching of language. Indeed, the implementation of CALL
programs into teaching in general was backed by The National Education
Technology Plan (NETP, 2010). Since that time, the American educational system was
called to be transformed by the insertion of advanced technologies such as
digital devices, instruments used in people’s daily lives in order to improve
students’ learning experience.
Theoretically,
Krashen’s (1982) monitor theory suggested premises for communicative CALL. This
theory or hypothesis stated that a consciously learned language may be used
only to monitor the output and never be the source of spontaneous communication
(Krashen, 1982). Then, developers of CALL drew pedagogical decisions so that
the acquisition, and not the learning, of practice can be underlined. In other
words, their trust of this premise consisted of the fact that the computer was
expected to provide comprehensible input to the learner rather than instruction
or evaluation of student’s activity (Chapelle, 2009; Krashen, 1982; Underwood,
1984). Seen in the same theoretical perspective, the acquisition process
required linguistic input from the environment from which the linguistic
features or structures are inferred (Carroll, 2006; White, 1989). Therefore, such comprehensible input implied a
change in pedagogical orientations of CALL: the instruction must be tailored to
the need of individual students (Garrett, 1991). This is called generative
CALL, which assumes comprehensible input, in comparison to generative
linguistics, based on the monitor hypothesis or on the broad area of input
(Garrett, 1991).
From
this theoretical perspective, CALL designers not only theorize the normal
process of language acquisition as do proponents of generative linguistics but
also seek to modify this normal process in order for students to learn faster
and better (Garrett, 1991). In language learning, both the formal and the
informal instruction, which can be part of the practice of a language, are
required. In most cases, the latter is provided through the interactions with
speakers of the target language. When the learner’s community is
unknowledgeable of the target language, learners can rely on synchronous CALL
with the help of the Internet to “simultaneously communicate with others or
speakers of the target language all over the world” (Gündüz, 2005, p. 194). Also, the use of technologies in learning language
pushes students to explore and discover new functions by themselves. They may
be constructing knowledge and meaning for themselves as they learn through CALL
(Rolloff, 2010).
Rationale
for using CALL programs into teaching languages lies also on the benefits
precedent studies have shown of the potential CALL approaches. Asynchronous
CALL programs, for instance, provide lexical support for comprehending
authentic L2 readings and learning vocabulary in a non-linear fashion (Abraham,
2008; Boers, Eyckmans, & Stengers, 2004; Nation, 2001) since “learners can
choose and read materials fitting their interests, needs and levels and thereby
increase the likelihood of strong motivation” (Gorjian, Moosavinia, Ebrahimi
Kavari, Asgari, & Hydarei, 2011, p.385). It is a self-regulated learning
process: learners choose the level and the type of support they need (Cummins,
2008).
The teaching practice is also empowered by the use of CALL programs: the
use of micro computers as word processors is a complement tool of the audio
facilities “enabling the interactive teaching of all four language skills (…)”
(Crystal, 1987, p. 377). Foreign Language Teachers (FLT) are benefiting of the
great variety of exercises focusing on sentence restructuration, translation
checking, dictation, close tests, or simply when they use CALL to carry but
complex tasks that are impossible to do via other media. Some of those tasks
are automatic feedback, editing, deleting, inserting text, etc (Gündüz, 2005,
p. 199)
