CALL in Japan : Emerging Technologies and the
Future of CALL in the Classroom
journal or
publication title
Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review
volume
25
page range
51-59
year
2021-02-18
CALL in Japan:
Emerging Technologies and the Future of CALL in the Classroom
Kane LINTON*I. Introduction
This paper seeks to answer three questions: in the Japanese context, where is Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) currently, how are modern technologies shaping the path towards normalization and how can we benefit from CALL in the future? This article starts from the assumption that if we are to determine the future of CALL, we must first examine the way in which non-native students of English are using emerging technologies in their lives, both academically and privately. Furthermore, apart from an assessment of current trends in CALL, an overview of the history of CALL will assist in demonstrating the context in which we must place CALL as an emerging language pedagogy. To better identify the importance of technology in language education and the context in which Japanese students approach English language education the author of this article conducted a survey on current university students in Japan. The analysis of this survey will be reported in this paper. It concludes with a discussion on the effectiveness of CALL in Japan and how educators can utilize emergent technologies to best serve future generations of language learners.
II. Where is CALL Currently? 1. Origins and Definitions of CALL
Authors such as Sanders (1995), Warschauer, & Healey (1998), Delcloque (2000), Davies et al. (2005) and Thomas et al. (2012) have written on the origins of ────────────────────────────────────────── * IEFL, Master of Applied Linguistics, School of Science and Technology, Kwansei Gakuin
University
Kwansei Gakuin University Humanities Review
Vol. 25, 2020 Nishinomiya, Japan
Computer Assisted Language Learning. Although the analysis provided by Thomas et al. (2012) can be considered the most comprehensive to date, most scholarship agrees that the origins of CALL can be traced back to the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. This period is marked by considerable development in communicative theory which led to research into the use of educational technology and its interaction with teachers and learners (Nachoua, 2012). In his examination of CALL, Davies (2002) spoke of the view that early CALL is perceived as an attempt to integrate language learning and technology as an aid to further develop the interactivity of assessment and material presentation. In a broad sense, this description continues to be true for CALL more than 60 years after its foundation.
Prior to Warschauer, & Healey’s (1998) conceptual shift, there was an attempt to establish a typology of CALL with authors such as Levy (1997) defining a range of programs and technologies that allowed the teacher to incorporate software and educational programs into the language classroom. This approach is further exemplified by Johns & King (1991) who believed that discovery-oriented learning methodologies such as Data-Driven Learning (Levy, 1997), or DDL, might be more effective in addressing grammar or vocabulary. It can be said that this application of student oriented language learning technology such as Johns’s Contexts program (Johns, 1997) allowed for new educational opportunities which would not be available without the earlier attempts at the integration of technology in the classroom. This is exemplified by the definition put forth by Levy (1997) stating that CALL is ‘the search for, and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning’.
2. Paradigm Shift
However, this attempt at isolating the specific characteristics of CALL into a systematic typological classification was deemed unproductive and in the late 1990’s in response to the wider application of technology and the steadily evolving nature of language learning in the classroom (Thomas et al., 2012), Warschauer, & Healey (1998) identified three phases (or stages) of CALL, classified according to their pedagogical and methodological foundations. Thomas et al. (2012) and Bax (2003) define these three phases as:
Bax (2003) argued that, among other concerns, the inclusion of dates isolated these phases into ambiguous eras and therefore led to an oversimplification of the history of CALL. He offered a reevaluation and critical examination of the history of CALL putting forth his own three stages in the development of CALL.
In contrast to Warschauer, & Healey’s phases delineated by time, Bax (2003) looked to generalize his ‘approaches’ by theory of methodology. He argued that, according to the model put forth by Warschauer, & Healey an institution may,
Kane LINTON
depending on several external factors, exist within more than one phase at a time. When coupled with the fact that these phases are organized specifically by an era of time, Warschauer’s three stages of CALL begins to lose validity in comparison to Bax’s Restricted, Open, and Integrated CALL theory.
Generally speaking, Bax’s theory does reflect broad historical periods in a similar way to that put forward by Warschauer, however, it provides a more detailed explanation of what happened in the past (as well as what is happening now), and the terminology used does minimize confusion by offering a detailed look at the
Table 1 Warschauer’s three stages of CALL
Phase Structural CALL1970’s-1980’s Communicative CALL1980’s-1990’s Integrative CALL21stCentury
Technology Mainframe PCs Multimedia and Internet
English Speaking Paradigm Grammar-translation and audio-lingual Communicate[sic] language teaching Content-based ESP/EAP
View of Language Structural (a formal structural system) Cognitive (a mentally constructed system) Socio-cognitive (developed in social interaction) Principal use of Computers
Drill and practice Communicative exercise Authentic Discourse
Principal Objective Accuracy And fluency And agency
From Thomas et al. (2012).
The computer as a tutor, primarily delivering instructional materials to the learner. Prominent use of drilling practices.
Emphasized a greater degree of student efficacy, choice, and interaction. Moved away from drilling for practicing language skills.
Demonstrated by the introduction of multimedia and the internet. Further emphasis on student interaction.
Table 2 Bax’s (2003) Restricted, Open and Integrated CALL
Content Type of task Type of student activity Type of feedback Teacher roles
Restricted CALL
Language System
Closed drills Quizzes
Text reconstruction Answering closed questions Minimal interaction with other students
Correct/incorrect Monitor
Open CALL
System and skills
Simulations Games CMC
Interacting with the computer
Occasional interaction with other students Focus of linguistic skills development Open, flexible Monitor/ facilitator Integrated CALL Integrated language Skills work Mixed skills and system
CMC WP Email
Any, as appropriate to the immediate needs
Frequent interaction with other students
Some interaction with computer through the lesson
Interpreting, Evaluating, Commenting, Stimulating thought Facilitator Manager CALL in Japan: Emerging Technologies and the Future of CALL in the Classroom 53
specific aspects of the theory itself.
3. The Push Towards Integrated CALL
In 2003 Bax stated that CALL is, as described in his theory, currently in its 2nd
approach−open CALL. He cites the fact that, in 2003, each individual institution struggles with achieving the aims of open CALL, with a general mix of restricted, and sometimes integrated CALL features (Bax 2003, 2007). These concerns are echoed by authors such as Salaberry (2001) who states “CALL represents an explicit attempt at mimicking the highly contextualized nature of feedback provided by humans” (p.47), as well as Dina & Ciornei (2013) who found CALL leads to a “deterioration of the teacher role in the learning process” (p.251) and Polat (2017) who raised the point that “integrated CALL or integrative CALL requires a thorough integration of computers and technology in education” (p.20). These factors were a concern for the potential of CALL around the time that Bax provided his revised theory in 2003, however, 17 years later, on which stage do we find CALL? Open, Integrated, or still a composite of the three?
4. The Normalization of CALL
Normalization is defined by Bax (2000) as “in which teachers and learners treat the technology as merely one of the many resources available” (p.202), further, he goes on to state that the teacher “knows the limitations inherent to the technology, what it can do and what it cannot do” (p.202). To put this notion another way, we can consider the example of a pen. A pen is a form of technology, in the same way
Table 2 continued Bax’s (2003) Restricted, Open and Integrated CALL
Content Teacher attitudes Position in curriculum Position in lesson Physical positionof computer
Restricted CALL
Language System
Exaggerated fear and/or awe
Not integrated into syllabus-optional extra Technology precedes syllabus and lecturer needs
Whole CALL lesson
Separate computer lab
Open CALL
System and skills
Exaggerated fear and/or awe
Toy
Not integrated into syllabus-optional extra Technology precedes syllabus and learner needs
Whole CALL lesson Separate lab-perhaps devoted to languages Integrated CALL Integrated language Skills work Mixed skills and system
Normal part of teaching-normalized
Tool for learning
Normalized into syllabus, adapted to learners’ needs Analysis of needs and context precedes decisions about terminology Smaller part of every lesson In every classroom, on every desk, in every bag Kane LINTON 54
that a computer is, however teachers and students do not need to consider the application of the pen in the classroom. A pen exists independent of a pedagogy. This is the end goal of normalization that Bax speaks of. In a way, Bax is speaking of the end of CALL. If we can fully integrate computers into the domain of the classroom, then what need is there for the use of the term? We have no need for terms such as PALL (Pen Assisted Language Learning) or TALL (Textbook Assisted Language Learning) and if we are to achieve the aims of normalization for CALL, the outcome should be the same.
In 2003 Bax stated that CALL will achieve normalization when computers are treated as secondary to the education of the student. He laid out 7 stages leading towards the normalization of CALL:
I. Early Adopters. A few teachers and schools adopt the technology out of
curiosity.
II. Ignorance/Skepticism. However, most people are skeptical, or ignorant of its existence.
III. Try once. People try it out but reject it because of early problems. They can’t see its value-it doesn’t appear to add anything of ‘relative advantage’ IV. Try again. Someone tells them it really works. They try again. They see it
does in fact have some relative advantage.
V. Fear/Awe. More people start to use it, but still there is (a) fear, alternating with (b) exaggerated expectations.
VI. Normalizing. Gradually it is seen as something normal.
VII. Normalization. The technology is so integrated into our lives that it becomes invisible- ‘normalized’.
However, it should be noted, in 2011 Bax reconsidered the assumption that normalization is inevitable and desirable and questioned whether the steps towards normalization occur at the same rate or in the same manner as with other technologies.
III. How Are Modern Technologies Shaping the Path Towards Normalization?
As new technologies (i.e. radio, television, computers, tablets) arrive and are slowly adapted into the catalog of learning tools their effectiveness in the realm of language learning is initially unclear. However, Lindenau (1984) argues that “it is with integration that teachers need help” and until teachers and educators are better equipped to utilize these new technologies, the path towards normalization will delay the opportunities available.
1. A Survey of Current Japanese University Students
In preparation for this paper, the author conducted a survey of 184 primarily 2nd
grade students attending a university in western Japan. The 17-question electronic questionnaire focused on their use of technology and how it affects their language education. 157 complete responses were received1). The questionnaire primarily
focused on 2 facets of student life relating to technology: I. Their perceived technological aptitude.
II. The electronic devices they use.
The questionnaire was completed using a 5-point Likert scale with 1 being perceived as incompetent and 5 being perceived as proficient. The way in which students perceive their own computer proficiency and their classmate’s proficiency may only deviate slightly, however, a large disparity is seen in the way in which students view their teacher’s computer proficiency compared to their own ability.
The questionnaire asked students to specify the technology they had access to daily. The highest response was access to a smartphone with 94.9% of respondents indicating that they had daily access to a smartphone. A small number of respondents indicated that they had access to a computer of some form, with the highest exposure being 55.4% of students having access to a laptop computer every day.
────────────────────────────────────────── 1 ) 3 incomplete responses were disregarded.
Table 3 Student’s Questionnaire Response
How would you label your
computer proficiency?
How would you label the computer proficiency of your family members?
How would you label the computer proficiency of your classmates?
How would you label the computer proficiency of your teachers?
Mean 2.823 2.835 3.114 3.854
Mode 3 3 3 4
Standard Deviation 0.791 0.907 0.734 0.901
Table 4 Student’s Access to Technology
Access to a laptop computer Access to a desktop computer Access to a smartphone Access to a tablet (such as an iPad) n 87 42 149 33 Mean 55.4% 26.8% 94.9% 21% Kane LINTON 56
2. Analysis of Survey Responses
In reviewing the data gathered through this survey, two important points are evident. Firstly, students consider their teachers technical proficiency to be beyond their own ability, notably, these results were recorded at a science and technology campus where students are expected to be generally proficient with technical equipment. In relation to Bax’s three stages of Restricted, Open, and Integrated CALL, these results indicate that students identify with their teacher as a facilitator and manager, represented by Integrated CALL and less as a monitor/manager, represented by Open CALL. However, taking into account student’s perceived ability of their classmates (3.114) compared to their own (2.823), it is noted that this effect could be a factor of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, showing that students are better able to achieve with others that they perceive as having more knowledge or expertise (Chaiklin, 2003). In relation to CALL, these responses indicate that interaction with a teacher or other knowledgeable person remains to be an important factor.
Secondly, student access to mobile technology is much more widespread than access to a standard computer, something that would not have been relevant or even expected when Warschauer, & Healey outlined their three stages of CALL more than 20 years ago. Further, more emphasis should be placed on Mobile Assisted Language Learning, or MALL (Chinnery, 2006). Adapting computer based activities to mobile technology would not lead to immediate satisfactory outcomes, due to intrinsic psychological and physical limitations of a handheld device such as a smartphone, nevertheless, if mobile technology can act as a link between the world of learning and the world that learners interact with on a daily basis, then there is a better opportunity for learning to be available at all times (Stockwell, as cited in Thomas et al., 2012).
If the end goal is to achieve normalization, it is apparent that further ethnographic studies need to take place to interpret the relationship between CALL, MALL, and the role of the teacher in individual learning contexts.
IV. How Can we Benefit from CALL in the Future?
CALL in Japan remains to be difficult to define, and although a great deal of research has been done on the subject, there remains a lot to be done. If the goal of normalization of CALL technology can be achieved, the individual teacher will feel empowered to fully integrate technology into pedagogy in the same way they do with a pen or a textbook. This is what Bax defines as Integrated CALL.
To truly achieve normalization several contextually independent factors need to be considered (Chambers & Bax, 2006). These factors differ depending on the
context, but may include the physical limitations of technology, teacher expertise, prioritization of faculty resources, timetabling and so on. Furthermore, a key feature of Bax’s argument on normalization (Chambers & Bax, 2006) is that these factors need to be considered independently and also how they relate to each other in a pedagogical context, as they may impede or promote the goal of normalization.
References
Bax, S. (2003). CALL−past, present, and future. System, 31(1), 13-28.
Bax, S. (2011). Normalization revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 1 (2), 1-15.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context, 1(2), 39-64.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34(4), 465-479.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies. Going to the mall: mobile assisted.
Davies, G. (2002). Article on Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in the Good Practice Guide at the website of the Centre for Languages. Linguistics and Area Studies (LLAS), University of Southampton.
Davies, G. (2005, June). Computer Assisted Language Learning: Where are we now and where are we going. In Keynote speech at the University of Ulster Centre for Research in Applied Languages UCALL conference: Developing a pedagogy for CALL (pp.13-15).
Davies, G., Walker, R., Rendall, H., & Hewer, S. (2005). Introduction to computer assisted language learning (CALL).
Delcloque, P. (2000). History of CALL. Retrieved October 5, 2010.
Dina, A. T., & Ciornei, S. I. (2013). The advantages and disadvantages of computer assisted language learning and teaching for foreign languages. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 248-252.
Johns, T. (1997). Contexts: The background, development, and trialing of a concordance-based CALL program. In Teaching and language corpora (pp.100-115).
Johns, T., & King, P. (Eds.). (1991). Classroom concordancing. Centre for English Language Studies, the University of Birmingham.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford University Press.
Lindenau, S. E. (1984). The teacher and technology in the humanities and arts. The Modern Language Journal, 68(2), 119-124.
Nachoua, H. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning for improving students’ listening skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1150-1159.
Polat, M. (2017). CALL in context: A brief Historical and Theoretical Perspective. Issues and trends in educational technology, 5(1).
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A
Kane LINTON
retrospective. The modern language journal, 85(1), 39-56.
Sanders, R. H. (1995). Thirty years of computer assisted language instruction: Introduction. Calico Journal, 12(4), 7-14.
Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2012). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. A & C Black.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language teaching, 31(2), 57-71.