Teaching Grammar with Call Survey of Theoretical Literature
This document was last updated on 11-Aug-1995
***********************************************************************
TEACHING GRAMMAR WITH CALL
SURVEY OF THEORETICAL LITERATURE
by Jimmy Backer
National CALL Counsellor
1.1 TYPOLOGIES AND TERMINOLOGY
Before examining the possibilities of teaching grammar on the
computer, it makes sense to categorize the ways the computer can be used
in ESL/EFL teaching in general. With these categories we can evaluate
the potential of using the CALL as a teaching environment.
Robert Taylor (1980) offers a three part typology of computer usage
in education (not only in language learning): tutor, tool, and tutee.
The computer-as-tutor presents tutorials and/or drill and practice
exercises. The computer-as-tool (such as a word processor) allows
students to become more proficient at specific tasks, but does not
"teach" anything. The computer-as-tutee (e.g. programming languages) is
instructed by the learner.
David Wyatt (1984), writing specifically about ESL, suggests a
three part typology: instructor, collaborator, and facilitator. These
terms correspond to Taylor's tutor, tutee, and tool respectively.
Stephen Kemmis (1977), also writing about language learning, posits
a more elaborate typology for the use of the computer: instructional,
revelatory, conjectural, and emancipatory. Instructional CALL presents
information to be learned and then checks for the students/absorber's
recall. Revelatory CALL provides student/experiencers linguistic
experience simulating the real world. Revelatory CALL may, or may not,
explicitly check the experiencer/student's assimilation of knowledge.
Conjectural CALL offers trial and error tasks during which
student/explorers play with language. These tasks are non-sequential,
often having no fixed beginning or end. They often have the students
teaching the computer, rather than vice-versa. Theoretically, students
will gain insights about the language they are playing with.
Emancipatory CALL facilitates "authentic labor" and eliminates
"inauthentic labor". For example, the word processor frees the students
from the inauthentic labor of copying drafts while facilitating the
authentic labor involved in reorganization of their thoughts. Students
using emancipatory CALL are seen as "practitioners" as opposed to the
roles of "absorbers", "experiencers", and "explorers".
De Quincey (1986), after surveying CALL courseware developed by the
British Council, offers a six-part typology of how they function in the
classroom: opponent, task setter, manipulator, enabler, simulator,
environment provider. While de Quincey's descriptions are both
interesting and valuable for classroom use, they are not particularly
rigorous. Many of the categories overlap and de Quincey himself notes
that the typology is not rigidly defined.
John Higgins (1986a, 1988), one of the most prolific CALL
practitioners, offers an additional format for analyzing the use of
computers in language learning. Higgins presents a dichotomy between
"computer-as-magister" and "computer-as- pedagogue". These terms reflect
the dichotomy in classical teaching styles. The computer-magister
initiates and controls procedures. The computer-magister knows the
truth, intervenes to guide the student toward that truth, and then
judges the student's performance. The computer-pedagogue, like the
original Greek slave that accompanied his young master, waits until
summoned, responds to requests and serves. Although knowing the truth,
the pedagogue patiently provides only the requested information or
activities in order to lead to exploration and discovery on the part of
the student.
Applying the magister/pedagogue dichotomy to Kemmis's typology, we
see that instructional CALL is essentially a magister initiating tasks,
correcting and judging performance, explaining errors, and directing the
learner to additional tasks. Conjectural CALL is essentially a pedagogue
patiently and non-evaluatively providing opportunities for exploration
and discovery. During execution, revelatory CALL simulates what Papert
(1980) calls as a "microworld", a small part of the world (real or
imagined). Presenting and maintaining the rules of this microworld is a
function of a pedagogue. But, according to Higgins (1986a and 1988), at
the meta-level of programming the simulation, a magister is present
guiding them from the beginning of the simulation to its end. According
to Higgins, emancipatory CALL is neither magister nor pedagogue since it
"teaches" no linguistic knowledge. It merely facilitates authentic
linguistic labor. Nevertheless, it could be argued that emanicipatory
CALL tools act as pedagogical slaves by providing dictionaries,
thesauruses, style checkers, etc. Another argument is that by
facilitating production of language, emanicipatory CALL tools actually
facilitate natural acquisition of language. Thus, I would tend to link
emancipatory CALL with the role of the pedagogue.
Building on Higgin's work (1988), we can see how Kimmis's typology
relates to some of the major language teaching methodologies:
.../.
DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
UNAWARE * Audio-Lingual (plus) * Communicative *
OF RULES* Instructional CALL * Revelatory CALL *
* * Emancipatory CALL *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
AWARE * Cognitive Code * ( ? ) *
OF RULES* Instructional CALL * Conjectural CALL *
* * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Early instructional CALL shared many features with behaviorist teaching
methodologies, such as Audio-Lingualism and Cognitive Code. (The
evolution from this instructional CALL - behaviorist match will be
discussed later in this paper.) Revelatory CALL often offers a
simulation of the real world that corresponds to the demands of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Emancipatory CALL, to the extent
it inductively facilitates natural language production, also parallels
CLT. Conjectural CALL seems not to be linked with any major ESL/EFL
methodology.
Philip Hubbard (1987) extends this analysis by using the major
language teaching approaches to categorize CALL programs. Hubbard's
three-part CALL typology includes: behaviorist CALL approaches, explicit
learning approaches, and acquisition approaches. This typology somewhat
alters the previous typologies. Kemmis's instructional CALL can be
either behaviorist, or explicit. Higgin's pedagogue and emancipatory
CALL tools, if providing requested HELP become explicit CALL. If they do
not provide HELP, they are acquisition CALL.
Forced to choose among the various typologies and terminologies,
Kemmis's typology seems the most useful in a discussion of CALL.
Revelatory and conjectural CALL seem to be unified in the three-part
typologies. Yet it makes some sense to analyze them separately. In
revelatory CALL the focus on meaning totally overshadows the interest in
form. In conjectural CALL there is a keen awareness of form while the
students are playing with the language. The six-part typology, on the
other hand, lacks the academic rigor to be the base of further analysis.
With this overview of analyzing CALL, let us turn to teaching and
learning grammar.
1.2 TEACHING GRAMMAR ACCORDING TO THE TYPOLOGIES
1.2.1 INSTRUCTIONAL CALL AND GRAMMAR
Chronologically, the first trend in CALL (originally called CAI -
Computer Assisted Instruction) was an electronic extension of "programed
learning" or "programed instruction (PL and PI, respectively) based on
the behaviorist theories of Skinner and Bloomfield. According to these
theories, all learning could be broken down into small "frames" and the
learner could be drilled and evaluated in each frame until mastery. The
teacher then brought the student to the next frame. In the computerized
version, the progress of the student could be monitored and guided
through "branching". Proficient students could automatically be sent
ahead, while slower students could be routed to remedial lessons.
According to Audio-Lingual and Cognitive Code methodologies, a major
focus of language teaching was grammatical structures through drill and
practice. Thus, the earliest attempts at computer-assisted language
instruction, first appearing at some large universities in the late
1950's, stressed learning grammatical structures through electronic PI.
It was hoped that computers could free the language teacher from
the drudgery of classroom drilling by creating an electronic drill
master. Another asset important for the teacher was the managerial power
of the computer. It could monitor, guide, evaluate, and report on every
student's progress. For the students, the computer allowed them to
proceed at their own pace, their own level via branching, and receive
immediate correction feedback to their work. Often this feedback could
include relevant remedial information. In addition, the student was
released from the pressure of performing in front of an entire class.
Learning became private and individualized.
Despite the positive aspects of the early use of instructional
CALL, the underlying methodology suffered from the behaviorist
assumption that all learning could be broken down into pre-planned
discrete units. Another problem was the assumption that one student
would work at each computerized work station. This demanded computer
hardware well beyond the financial means of most language learning
facilities. In addition, those students attending universities rich
enough to use CALL were physically and psychologically isolated from
other students. Early forms of instructional CALL made human interaction
almost impossible.
In the early 1980's Wilga Rivers (1981) observed that much of the
CALL material was still based on the theories of the fifties, theories
that encouraged the behaviorist overlearning of grammatical patterns and
creation of language habits. Five years later, Martin Phillip (1986)
wrote that much of the existing CALL programs was based on programed
learning and behaviorist psychology. Even today, there are major CALL
projects being designed using drill and practice methodologies (Cheung,
Wong, and Foong, 1990).
Despite the theoretical discrediting of behaviorism and its
resultant methodologies (principally the Audio-Lingual Method),
instructional CALL survives. There are many reasons for this phenomenon.
The first reason is the lag between theory and practice in the
field of language teaching. Many of the currently popular text books
still have a behaviorist structure, despite their contemporary marketing
hype. Instructional CALL is ideally suited to serve such behaviorist
texts.
Second, many language teachers have not reformed their behaviorist
classroom methodologies. This is how they were taught, this is how many
of them were taught to teach, and so this is how they teach. This second
reason extends beyond language teaching and into the teachers'
perceptions of computers in general. It seems to be human nature to
approach new knowledge in terms of what is already known. (This
observation is an integral part of many of the cognitivist theories of
learning.) In the field of media Marshall McLuhan (1964) has called this
phenomenon the "rear-view mirror" approach. Thus, educators try to
understand the potential of the computer within pre-existing concepts.
As a result, behaviorist CALL is somehow familiar while other forms of
CALL are beyond the conceptual bounds of tradition-bound educators.
The third reason is technical. Programming drill-and-practice
exercises is much easier than creating advanced parsers necessary for
more intelligent programs.
The fourth reason is the lack of interdisciplinary cooperation
between language teachers and computer experts. And at the school level,
language teachers tend not to interact with the computer-lab staff, thus
rarely experiencing the immense potential of the computer. On the
production level, this lack of cooperation means that programmers have
little pedagogical input from the teachers. In this situation, advanced
language teaching methodologies are slow to find electronic vehicles.
The result is the over-production of Instructional CALL and the
assumption by teachers that CALL is an extension of the behaviorist
language lab.
Yet instructional CALL grammar lessons need not be bound to
behaviorist methodology. With a little creativity, traditional formats
such as multiple choice, matching exercises, fill-in-the-blanks, and
freeform entrees can have meaningful content within a larger
contextualized framework. Formats like the CLOZE are inherently
meaningful and contextualized. Beyond these "electronic workbook"
formats, it is possible to present new forms of instructional CALL that
cannot be produced on paper. In addition, contemporary instructional
CALL can provide the student with a great deal of control over the
direction of his learning, within the general limits set by the teacher.
With this is mind, meaningful and interactive tutorials can be created
with various levels of optional HELP. These tutorials can incorporate
the meaningful exercises mentioned above.
The rationale for good instructional CALL is a powerful incentive
for the teacher and student: individualization, self-pacing, immediate
and meaningful feedback, privatization (lack of progress-reporting), and
branching. Some teachers may also be attracted by the managerial power
of instructional CALL (evaluation, direction, and reporting of students'
progress), yet contemporary instructional CALL need not be tied to
central reporting systems. Many students are intimidated by the
knowledge that every action is being monitored. These students may have
to try various answers before finding the correct one. If meaningful
feedback is available, real learning may take place. If there are still
problems, the student can turn to the teacher for aid. The teacher, now
freed from monitoring everything written on paper, can concentrate on
the students' real problems.
In the future, instructional CALL grammar lessons may also include
"intelligent tutoring systems" (ITS), based on artificial intelligence
(AI) techniques. The ITS will be able to understand both the subject
matter and the student on a fairly high level. But because ITS and AI
technology are not yet feasible, they are beyond the scope of this
paper.
1.2.2 REVELATORY CALL AND GRAMMAR
Since the early 1980's there has been a growing awareness that
behavioristic CALL was not the proper format for effective language
instruction. This dissatisfaction stemmed from the communicative
approach which replaced Audio-Lingualism as the dominant methodology of
language learning. The linguistic theories that inform the communicative
approach are Chomskyan and Cognitivist. According to these theories,
people have an innate ability to acquire language. Chomsky posited that
a person merely had to be in certain language environment for the
Language Acquisition Device (LAD) to acquire the features of that
language. The acquirer would hypothesize how to set linguistic
parameters, and then check the hypotheses against additional data from
the environment. The Cognitivists, particularly Vygotsky, believed that
the environment could be molded to aid language acquisition. Vygotsky's
theory of "Zone of Proximinal of Development" tried to explain how
caretakers (parents, teachers, slightly more experienced peers, etc.)
could lead language learners from their current knowledge to a slightly
extended knowledge. Krashen, Terrell, and others have reflected
Chomskyan and Cognitivist theories while creating the communicative
approach in language teaching. Krashen emphasized the distinction
between "learning" and "acquisition". The former was done in classroom
lessons and tended to develop a "monitor". This monitor, a conscious
collection of grammatical rules and lexis, can be used to produce high
quality language under controlled conditions (on exams or in pieces of
writing). The latter, "acquisition", is achieved while using language in
natural situations. People will inductively acquire grammatical rules
and lexis that are presented implicitly. To increase their knowledge,
acquirers must be in a linguistically rich environment where the input
is slightly above their current level of knowledge. Krashen called this
the "Input Hypothesis (i + 1)".
Since language acquisition comes through meaningful interaction in
the real world, and explicit grammar instruction and explicit error
correction were seen as a harmful waste of time, it would appear that
grammar-oriented CALL had reached the end of the road in CLT
(communicative language teaching). Indeed, Stephen Krashen, during a
1986 lecture at U. Mass. Boston, specified that the word-processor was
the only relevant use of the computer in language teaching.
Nevertheless, an increasing number of teachers who felt that the
computer offered more than the traditional behaviorist methodologies
began to create communicative CALL courseware. John Underwood (1984), a
leading communicative CALL practitioner, tried to theoretically link
communicative CALL with Chomsky and Krashen. Underwood attacked the
behaviorist CALL methodologies, calling them the "Wrong - Try again
method". He pointed out that traditional CALL (electronic PI) tries to
simulate the least interesting elements of teaching. It tends to be
authoritarian and teacher oriented. It is highly evaluative, increasing
student tension and anxiety. In addition, it is over-structured because
of the need for sequencing and evaluation. All of theses factors impede
affective acquisition. As a result, Underwood predicted that the
behaviorist CALL would suffer a similar fate as that of the language
lab.
As an alternative, Underwood lists 13 premises for communicative
CALL:
1. Acquisition rather than learning. Focus on
communication rather than form. No drills.
2. Implicit grammar rather than explicit grammar.
Explanations will be optional.
3. Allow and encourage original use of language,
not merely manipulate prefabricated language.
4. Computer will not evaluate everything. The
students will evaluate their own work.
5. No use of the "Wrong. Try Again." format of
feedback. Either model the correct usage or
give gentle hints.
6. No "reward" with message, graphics, or sound.
The achievement of the goal will be sufficient.
7. No cuteness is needed. (example: inserting
student's name)
8. Use the target language exclusively.
9. Must be flexible enough for more than one
response only.
10. Allow student exploration and discovery. No one
right answer. Possibly no answers will be
given.
11. Create natural environment off the screen as
well as on it. Generate interaction among users
as well as between users and the computers.
12. Never use a computer for something a book can
do better. Do not create electronic workbooks.
13. CALL must be fun, optional, and supplementary
to regular classwork. There should be no record
keeping of a student's activities or progress.
According to Underwood, some examples of communicative CALL formats
are:
1. simulations
2. communicative games (actually simulations
perceived as games)
3. text manipulation programs such as hypertext,
storyboard, cloze formats, etc.
4. text generation programs such as poetry
generators and Madlibs
Simulations and communicative games (as defined by Underwood) have
the potential of being truly communicative. They present microworlds for
the students to experience where meaning is primary. The simulations and
games can generate meaningful interaction among the students who are
using them. And it could also be argued that meaningful interaction with
the computer is created in many cases as well (Underwood, 1987a). Thus,
simulations are a continuum ranging from mere catalysts for off-screen
discussion to involved dialogues between the computer and its users.
Through this human-human and human-computer interaction, grammar will be
learned implicitly.
Yet it is questionable if text manipulation programs and text
generation programs are truly communicative. Beside the off-screen
conversations they might generate, how do text manipulators and text
generators embody meaningful interactions in the real world? True, the
CLOZE technique draws on people's ability to infer meaning, yet the
CLOZE passage itself creates no meaningful interaction. It is simply a
test of syntactic and semantic knowledge.
In the current deluge of marketing hype tying everything in
language teaching to the communicative approach, valuable teaching
techniques like text manipulation and text generation have been
mislabeled. It might be more productive to see them as part of
contemporary instructional CALL or as conjectural CALL, depending on
their particular function and structure.
In addition, Underwood and others (Higgins and Jones 1984) assume
that all these programs will be used in an ESL environment where the
students are from differing L1 backgrounds. In this setting, the
programs will generate meaningful dialogue in the L2. Yet the vast
majority of the world's English students are in mono-L1 EFL
environments. While a CALL program can produce a communicative reading
exercise, using the L2 for oral communication is highly artificial.
Absorbing, content-oriented tasks will naturally flow back into the L1.
Thus, we see the flaw in Underwood's labelling of text-manipulations and
simulations as inherently communicative.
Here we can appreciate the distinction between revelatory CALL
generating off-line communication and on-line communication. Programs
that are merely catalysts for off-screen discussions are best used in
ESL settings or in EFL classes where motivation is extremely high.
Programs requiring on-line communication are more suited to EFL classes.
Perhaps AI technology offers the possibility of meaningful,
wide-ranging dialogue between humans and the computer needed
particularly in EFL settings. Even with today's limited AI levels,
microworlds can be created where a limited range of meaningful
communication is created between the computer and the student. There are
various ESL/EFL programs that do this: STATION simulates a telephone
conversation about railroad information, JOHN AND MARY and SHRDLU deal
with physical relationships with in a small area, and others create
adventure formats within restricted areas. Other programs, not created
specifically for ESL/EFL also create microworlds in which meaningful
information is communicated between the computer and the students. The
most well known are the commercial adventure stories.
1.2.3 CONJECTURAL CALL AND GRAMMAR
Returning to the Higgin's concept of the computer-pedagogue allows
us to analyze and categorize a small, but growing body of games and
exercises that explicitly play with language. The aim is primarily to
induce grammatical rules and secondarily to increase lexical knowledge.
The technique is trial and error until insight (e.g. discovering how the
third person singular "s" works in the present tense), partial or whole,
is achieved. Although trail and error discovery can also take place in
some of the revelatory CALL microworlds, the major distinction of the
conjectural CALL program is the explicit search for grammatical rules.
Often the student must actually teach the computer in the process
of exploring the language. The computer will react according to
preprogramed rules, occasionally not adequate to cope with real
language. It is hoped that the student will push the computer to this
point, and will learn about language in the process. Thus "beating" the
computer becomes possible and desirable in these exploratory programs.
Seymour Papert (1980) had students use LOGO to create random, but
rule-driven sentences. By surveying example sentences, the students had
to discover the rules of verb conjugations and then teach the computer
these rules. This exercise could be developed into a major project to
aid the students' discovery of grammatical functions. Higgins (1986a)
and others have produced small programs that invite students to discover
grammatical structures by trial and error exploration. In these programs
both the students and computer can produce errors that may, or may not
be identified. It is hoped that insights will be gained by these errors
as well as correct procedures.
On a theoretical level, Bialystok's implicit knowledge/explicit
knowledge dichotomy partially explains the value of conjectural CALL.
Bialystok rejects Krashen's concept that explicit grammar learning only
will lead to a non-productive monitoring capacity. Instead, information
gained through formal practice is stored in monitor-like "explicit
knowledge", but can be used in fluent communication. A similar partial
explanation for conjectural CALL's value is offered by McLaughlin's
information-processing theory. Grammatical rules can enter the student's
interlanguage as separate and analyzed (explicit) chunks of data. These
separate chunks, through frequent controlled accessing can be integrated
into the student's automatic knowledge. Thus, according to both
Bialystok and McLaughlin, grammar that is "learned" can also become
"acquired" (Doughty, 1987).
Bialystok and McLaughlin seem to give a theoretical base to both
instructional and conjectural CALL. What separates the two are the
general educational theories of Dewey, Montessori, and Piaget. In
summarizing these theories, Papert states that "children learn by doing
and thinking about what they are doing" (Papert, 1980). This
introspection is generally lacking from instructional CALL.
Unfortunately there is little good conjectural CALL available on
the market. This form of courseware is probably the most ingenious of
the CALL programs, and therefore the hardest to produce. In addition,
many teachers and administrators may shy away from conjectural CALL
since uncorrected errors abound and insights tend to occur infrequently.
Higgins (1986a and 1988) warns teachers of the large amounts of time
required to allow trail and error processes to come to fruition. Thus,
for more traditional educators, conjectural CALL seems a waste of time.
On a more fundamental level, conjectural CALL threatens the traditional
status of the teacher more than any other form of CALL. Here the
learning process is the most student centered and the teacher is truly a
facilitator of that process. Once again many traditional educators tend
to set self-imposed conceptual limitations on themselves.
1.3 CONCLUSIONS OF LITERATURE SURVEY
Grammar can be taught in all three modes of CALL: instructional,
revelatory, and conjectural. While early instructional CALL corresponded
to behavioristic methodologies, contemporary instructional CALL often is
meaning-based, contextualized, and holistic. Revelatory and emancipatory
CALL offer electronic vehicles for the communicative approach.
Revelatory CALL program is a catalyst for meaningful off-screen
interactions between students and/or limited meaningful on-line
interactions between students and the computer. Emancipatory CALL can
facilitate the production of natural language. According to the
communicative approach, these uses of meaningful language will lead to
assimilation of correct grammatical forms. Conjectural CALL returns
grammatical structures to the focus of the exercise. But here the
students induce the grammar through trial and error exploration and by
teaching the computer, rather than being taught by it.
Although some of the CLT theoreticians have rejected any other
methodologies than their own (Underwood, 1984 and Krashen, 1986), most
of the CALL practitioners are more flexible (R. Taylor, 1980; Wyatt,
1984 and 1987; Higgins and T. Jones, 1984; C. Jones and Fortescue, 1986;
Higgins, 1986a and 1988, Hubbard, 1987; Pennington, 1989). They see
value in the various modes of CALL, each according to the needs of the
teacher and the students. In particular, many English for Special
Purposes (ESP) classes have profited from instructional CALL. In general
ESL/EFL classes, the teacher can weigh the particular needs of the
students, the demands of the syllabus, and the function of particular
pieces of CALL software, whatever their place in the typologies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, Roberta G. (1985). Field independence-dependence
and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (4),
689-702.
----- & H. C. Liou (1991). Interaction generated by
three computer programs: Analysis of functions of spoken
language. In P. Dunkel (ED.). Computer-assisted language
learning and testing (pp. 85-109). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Atwell, Eric (1986). Beyond the micro: advanced software for
research and teaching form computer science and
artificial intelligence. In Geoffrey Leech &
Christopher N. Candlin (Eds.) (1986). Computers in
English language teaching and research (pp. 168-183).
New York: Longman.
Bailin, Alan & Lori Levin (1989). Intelligent
computer-assisted language instruction. Computers and
the Humanities 23 (1989) 3-11.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in
second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal,
65, 24-35.
Cameron, Keith (ed.) (1989). Computer assisted language
learning. London: Intellect Limited.
Canale, M. & Barker, G. (1986, February) How creative
language teachers are using microcomputers. TESOL
Newsletter, 20 (1), Supplement 3, 1-3.
Carrier, Carol A. & Gregory C. Sales (1987). Pair versus
individual work on the acquisition of concepts in a
computer-based instructional lesson. Journal of
Computer-based Instruction, 14 (1) pp. 11-17.
Chapelle, Carol (1989). Using intelligent computer-assisted
language learning. Computers and the Humanities 23
(1989) 59-70.
----- & Joan Jamieson (1986). Computer assisted
languague learning as a predictor of success in
acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 27-46.
----- & Joan Jamieson (1989). Research trends in
computer assisted language learning. In Martha C.
Pennington (Ed.) (1989). Teaching languages with
computers: the state of the art (pp. 47-59). San
Francisco: Athelstan.
Cheung, Dorothy, Irene F. H. Wong, & Yap Sook Foong (1990).
The development of GRAMSKIL: A CALL grammar program for
learners of English as a second language. Computers and
Education, 15 (1), 105-110.
Coleman, D. Wells (1987). Let's put the artificial back into
artificial intellegence. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4),
785-787.
----- (1990) Conversing with the computer: environment,
structure, and reality. In D. Crookall & R. L. Oxford
(Eds.) (1990). Simulation, gaming, and language
learning. (pp. 191-196) New York: Newbury House.
Cook, Vivian J. (1988). Designing CALL programs for
communicative teaching. ELT Journal, 42 (4), 262-271.
Crookall, D. & R. L. Oxford (Eds.) (1990). Simulation,
gaming, and language learning. New York: Newbury House.
Crookall, D., D. Wells Coleman, & E. B. Versluis (1990)
Computerized language learning simulations: form and
content. In D. Crookall & R. L. Oxford (Eds.)
Simulation, Gaming, and Language Learning (pp.
165-182). New York: Newbury House.
Diem, Richard A. (1986). Microcomputer technology in
educational environments: Three case studies. Journal
of Educational Research, 80 (2), 93-98.
Doughty, Catherine (1987). Relating second-language
acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In
W. F. Smith (Ed.) (1987). Modern media in foreign
language education: theory and implementation (pp.
133-168). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Dunkel, Patricia (1987, June). The effectiveness literature
on CAI/CALL and computing: implications of the research
for limited English proficient learners. TESOL
Quarterly, 21 (2), 367-372.
----- (Ed.) (1991). Computer-assisted language learning
and testing: research issues and practice. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Durrani, Osman (1989). Designer labyrinths: text mazes for
language learners. In Keith Cameron (ed.) (1989).
Computer assisted language learning (pp. 38-48).
London: Intellect Limited.
Farrington, Brian (1989). Grandeur or servitude. In Keith
Cameron (ed.) (1989). Computer assisted language
learning (pp. 67-80). London: Intellect Limited.
Ferney, Derrik (1989). Small programs that 'know' what they
teach. In Keith Cameron (ed.) (1989). Computer
assisted language learning (pp. 14-27). London:
Intellect Limited.
Fox, Jeremy (1989). Can computers aid vocabulary learning?
In Keith Cameron (ed.) (1989). Computer assisted
language learning (pp. 1-13). London: Intellect
Limited.
Gallently, J. E., C. W. Butcher, & J. Lim How (1989). Toward
an intelligent syntax checher. In Keith Cameron (ed.)
(1989). Computer assisted language learning (pp.
81-100). London: Intellect Limited.
Garrett, Nina (1987). A psycholinguistic perspective on
grammar and CALL. In W. F. Smith (Ed.) (1987). Modern
media in foreign language education: theory and
implementation (pp. 169-196). Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Gay, G. (1987). Interaction of learner control and prior
understanding in computer-assisted video instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 225-227.
Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feddback methods
for correcting errors by computer-assisted instruction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 503-508.
Hardisty, D. & S. Windeatt (1989). CALL. Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.
Higgins, J. (1986a) The computer and grammar teaching. In G.
Leech & C. Candlin, C. (Eds.) (1986). Computers in
English language teaching and research. (pp. 31-45) New
York: Longman.
----- (1986b) Reading, writing and pointing:
communicating with the computer. In G. Leech & C.
Candlin, C. (Eds.) (1986). Computers in English
language teaching and research (pp. 48-54). New York:
Longman.
----- (1987a). Artificial unintelligence: computer
uses in language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (1),
159-165.
----- (1987b). Response to D. Coleman. TESOL Quarterly,
21 (4), 785-787.
----- (1988). Language, learners, and computers. New
York: Longman.
----- & T. Jones (1984). Computers in language
learning. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
----- & D. Morgenstern (1990). Simulations on
computers: elements and examples. In D. Crookall & R.
L. Oxford (Eds.) Simulation, Gaming, and Language
Learning. (pp. 183-189). New York: Newbury House.
Hubbard, Philip L. (1987). Language teaching approaches, the
evaluation of CALL software, and design implications.
In W. F. Smith (Ed.) (1987). Modern media in foreign
language education: theory and implementation (pp.
227-254). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Human Resourses Research Organizaton (1986). Dolphin
curricula in Washington, D. C. Alexandria, VA: Human
Resourses Research Organization.
Jamieson, Joan (1986) Cognitive styles, working styles on
computers and second language learning. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign.
----- & Carol Chapelle (1987). Working styles on
computers as evidence of second language learning
strategies. Language Learning, 37 (4), 523-544.
Johnson, Donna (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 (pp. 61-83). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Johnson, Roger T., David W. Johnson, & Mary Beth Stanne
(1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 23 (3), 382-392.
Jones, Christopher & Sue Fortescue (1987). Using computers
in the language classroom. New York: Longman.
Kemmis, Stephen, Atkin, R., & Wright, E. (1977). How do
students learn? Working paper on computer-assisted
learning: UNCAL evaluation studies. Center for Applied
Research in Education, Occasional Publications No. 5,
Norwich.
Lancy, David F. & Bernard L. Hayes (1988). Interactive
fiction and the reluctant reader. English Journal,
November, 42-46.
Leech, Geoffrey (1986). Automatic grammatical analysis and
its educational applications. In Geoffrey Leech &
Christopher N. Candlin (Eds.) (1986). Computers in
English language teaching and research (pp. 205-214).
New York: Longman.
Leech, Geoffrey & Christopher N. Candlin (Eds.) (1986).
Computers in English language teaching and research.
New York: Longman.
Levy, M. & J. Hinckfuss (1990). Program design and student
talk. CAELL Journal, 1 (4), 21-26.
Krashen, Stephen (1986) The power of literacy. Lecture at
University of Massachusetts at Boston, 4.14.86.
Markham, Paul (1989). Effects of contextual versus
definitional computer-assisted vocabulary instruction
on immediate and long-term vocabulary retention of
advanced ESL students. Educational Psychology, 9 (2),
121-126.
McLuhan, Marshall (1964). Understanding media: the extension
of man. New York: Signet Books.
Mulford, George W. (1989). Semantic processing for
communicative exercises in foreign-language learning.
Computers and the Humanities, 23 (1989) 31-44.
Neuwirth, Christine M. (1989). Intelligent tutoring systems:
exploring issues in learning and teaching writing.
Computers and the Humanities, 23 (1989) 45-57.
Nyns, Ronald R. (1990). An expert system in computer
assisted language learning. Computers and Education, 15
(1) 99-104.
Oxford, Rebecca (1989). The role of Styles and Strategies in
Second Language Learning. ERIC Digest, 1989.
Papert, Seymour (1980). Mind storms: children, computers,
and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Pederson, Kathleen Marshall (1987). Research on CALL. In W.
F. Smith (Ed.) (1987). Modern media in foreign language
education: theory and implementation (pp. 99-132).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Pennington, Martha C. (Ed.) (1989). Teaching languages with
computers: the state of the art. San Francisco:
Athelstan.
Phillips, Martin (1986). CALL in its educational context. In
G. Leech & C. Candlin (Eds.) (1986). Computers in
English language teaching and research. New York:
Longman. (pp. 2-10).
----- (1987). Communicative language learning and the
microcomputer. London: British Council.
Piper, A. (1986). Conversation and the computer: A study of
the coversational spin-off generated among learners of
English as a foreign language working in groups.
System, 14 (2), 187-198.
Pusak, James P. (1983). Answer processing and error
correction in foreign language CAI. System, 11 (1)
53-64.
de Quincey, P. (1986). Stimulating activity: the role of
computers in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 4
(1), 55-66.
Rivers, Wilga M. (1981). Teaching language skills. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Robinson, Gail., J. Underwood, Wilga Rivers, J. Hernandez,
C. Rudesill, & C. M. Ensenat, (1985). Compter-assisted
instruction in foreign language education: a comparison
of different methodologies and the effectiveness of
error correction. San Francisco: Center for Language &
Cross-Cultural Skills.
Schaeffer, Reiner H. (1981). Meaningful practice on the
computer: Is it possible? Foreign Language Annals, 14
(2), 133-137.
Schcolnik, M. (1990). Effect of task type on student
performance on text outlining. CAELL Journal, 1 (4),
18-20.
Smith, W. F. (Ed.) (1987). Modern media in foreign language
education: theory and implementation. Lincolnwood, IL:
National Textbook Company.
----- (Ed.) (1989). Modern technology in foreign z
language education: applications and projects. Chicago:
NTC Publishing Group.
Steinberg, E. (1977). Review of student control in
computer-assisted instruction. Journal of
Computer-Based Instruction, 3, pp. 84-90.
Stevens, Vance (1989). A direction for CALL: from
behavioristic to humanistic courseware. In Marth C.
Pennington (Ed.) (1989). Teaching languages with
computers: the state of the art (pp. 31-43). San
Francisco: Athelstan.
Taylor M. & L. Perez (1989). Something to do on Monday. San
Francisco: Athelstan.
Taylor, Robert P. (Ed.) (1980). The computer in the school:
tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.
Underwood, John (1984). Linguistics, computers and the
language teacher: a communicative approach. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
----- (1987a). Artificial Intelligence and CALL. In W.
F. Smith (Ed.) (1987). Modern media in foreign language
education: theory and implementation (pp. 197-226).
Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
----- (1987b). When the music stops: a review of "Using
computers in language learning". CALICO Journal, 4 (3)
March 1987 pp. 35-45.
----- (1989). On the edge: intelligent CALL in the
1990's. Computers and the Humanities, 23 (1), 71-84.
Vernon, Robert V. (1990). Ethical issues. In D. Crookall &
R. L. Oxford (Eds.) (1990). Simulation, gaming, and
language learning (pp. 239-243). New York: Newbury
House.
Weible, David M. (1987). Towards a media-specific
methodology for CALL. In W. F. Smith (Ed.) (1987).
Modern media in foreign language education: theory and
implementation (pp. 67-84). Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Wyatt, David H. (1984). Computers and ESL. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
----- (1987). Applying pedagogical principles to CALL
courseware development. In W. F. Smith (Ed.) (1987).
Modern media in foreign language education: theory and
implementation (pp. 85-98). Lincolnwood, IL: National
Textbook Company.
Windeatt, S. (1986). Observing CALL in action. In G. Leech
& C. Candlin (Eds.), Computers in English language
teaching and research (pp. 79-97). New York: Longman.
Yazdani, Masoud (1989). Language tutoring with PROLOG. In
Keith Cameron (ed.) (1989). Computer assisted language
learning (pp. 101-111). London: Intellect Limited.