Computer-AssistedComputer-Assisted Language LearningLanguage Learning

Lectureted byLectureted by

Deng GangDeng GangE-Mail: denggmail@126.cE-Mail: denggmail@126.comom

The Text Book Adopted:

Computer-Assisted Language Learning

Context and Conceptualization

By MICHAEL LEVY

CLARENDON PRESS •OXFORD

1997

The definition of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) may be defined as ‘the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning’.

The name is a fairly recent one: the existence of CALL in the academic literature has been recognizable for about the last thirty years(up to 1997). The subject is interdisciplinary in nature, and it has evolved out of early efforts to find ways of using the computer for teaching or for instructional purposes across a wide variety of subject areas, with the weight of knowledge and breadth of application in language learning ultimately resulting in a more specialized field of study.

CALL has been made possible by the invention and subsequent development of the computer. As a result, the nature of CALL at any particular time is, to a large degree, a reflection of the level of development of the technology. In the early days, when developers had access only to large mainframe 大型机 computers, they needed to know a machine language to program the computer, and they tended towards numerical applications because such computations were more directly compatible with the workings of the computer. In more recent times, computers have become smaller, faster, and easier for the non-specialist to use.

Developments in ‘user-friendly’ human-computer interfaces and higher-level languages and authoring systems insulate the developer from the lower-level workings of the computer, allowing comparatively complex applications to be written with relative ease.

The speed with which technology has developed since the invention of the computer has been both extraordinary and surprisingly sustained. For educators, the rapid and continuing introduction of new technology into education has outpaced the ability of teachers and developers to evaluate it properly. No sooner do we come to terms with one machine and develop some CALL materials for it than another, ‘better’ machine arrives to replace it. Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to be led purely by the latest technological breakthrough. Somehow, we must try and make sense of what is going on, in spite of the rate of change, and invent reliable and cost-effective mechanisms for dealing with it.

Set against this background of a rapid, continually evolving technology, there are conceptual and practical problems that all newcomers to CALL encounter in one way or another. For all those who wish to create new CALL materials, either privately or commercially, independently or as a member of a team, even a cursory glance at contemporary CALL activity shows that there are a multitude of approaches. Points of departure range dramatically from top-down approaches centred perhaps upon a theory of language or language learning, or a curriculum specification, while others might develop CALL materials from the bottom up, perhaps by using the computer to address a learning strategy, a macroskill, computer conferencing, or an exploration of aspects of the technology itself.

Once the point of departure has been clarified, there are immediately practical issues to consider – for example, the selection of the hardware and software development tools for the project. Hyper Card, Authorware , ToolBook, CALIS, C, and Visual Basic, or a mark-up language to enable publishing on the World Wide Web such as the Hypertext or Virtual Reality Mark- up Languages (HTML and VRML), are just a handful of the many options now available’.

Given that the way in which CALL is conceptualized can be largely determined by the hardware and software that is used, this initial design choice is a most important one, and it can have a sweeping influence on what is ultimately created. This is a consequence of the development process, where the strengths and limitations of the development environment variously shape and constrain the CALL materials that are produced.

The software then has to reach the students and be used on a regular basis. Here there is a twofold problem: on the one hand the equipment might have been superseded by the end of the project; on the other hand, the intended student group might not be able to get access to the materials because the cost of the equipment is prohibitive 昂贵 . If textbook materials prove themselves they may be used for years with good effect; of CALL materials are effective then often they are discarded when the next model of computer comes along – and for no other reason. In the twentieth century, it takes a special kind of courage to continue to use a particular technology once it is considered to be outmoded, even if that technology is more than adequate for the task at hand.

Within this volatile environment, a substantial number of CALL materials have been produced, especially over the last ten to fifteen years, and, judging by the number of projects described in the CALL journals and at conferences, there is no sign that this interest is about to diminish. Yet it has to be said that CALL remains a peripheral interest in the language teaching community as a whole, still largely the domain of the CALL enthusiast, and there is scant evidence to suggest that CALL has really been absorbed into mainstream thinking, education, and practice.

Of the CALL materials that have been produced, there has been much criticism, most especially directed at the software produced by language teachers. In the 1980s particularly, the inferior quality of CALL materials was blamed on inexperienced language teacher-authors who may not have known how to make appropriate use of the medium (Hofmeister and Maggs 1984: 1-19; Weible 1988: 67). As a result, questions have arisen concerning the most appropriate role of the language teacher in CALL materials production ( Smith 1988: 3; Last 1989: 34).

Whilst on the one hand leading writers on CALL appear to want language teachers to be involved in CALL (e. g. Farrington 1989: 70; Sussex 1991: 21), at the same time, somewhat paradoxically, language teachers who have become CALL authors have received much unfavourable criticism. In this debate, it should not be forgotten that were it not for the ambitious pioneering efforts of language teachers in CALL, the whole endeav-our might not have got off the ground. Arguably, within the field of computers and education, especially within humanities computing, it is teachers in the area of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and foreign languages more generally that have been in the vanguard.

For all the false starts and incomplete realizations of CALL, the 1980s were a highly creative decade. More recently, concerns have appeared to move away from the question of the role of the language teacher in CALL materials development, though concerns are still expressed about the status of CALL. In this respect, Kohn suggests that current CALL is lacking because of poor linguistic modeling, insufficient deployment of natural language processing techniques, an emphasis on special-purpose rather than general-purpose technology, and a neglect of the ‘human’ dimension of CALL (Kohn 1994: 32).

Although many of these criticisms may well be justified, a lack of guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has meant that CALL authors, be they language teachers of otherwise, have no reliable conceptual framework, or yardstick by which to measure their work (Smith 1988: 5; Last 1989: 35). Emerging most strongly in a review of the literature on CALL materials is the lack of a generally accepted theoretical framework that authors can use to guide their work. The absence of ‘a standard for the industry’, a ‘generally agreed set of criteria for the present generation of CALL’, or ‘guiding principles’ is noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1).

It appears that a clear, general theoretical framework has not emerged for a number of reasons. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their work. As early as 1977, for example, in computer-assisted learning Kemmis et al.(1977: 391) observed that many developers rely on their intuition 直觉 as teachers rather than on research on learning. He referred to development being practitioner 实践者 -led, not research-based. A similar division is noticeable in the field of artificial intelligence, where Ginsberg (1988) maintains that the field is divided between those who are primarily interested in solving problems by formulation theory (formalists), and those who prefer to solve problems by writing programs (proceduralists ).

A perception of this division has remained and more recently in 1995 it was reiterated in slightly different terms at two CALL Conferences. First, in a keynote address at the EUROCALL Conference in Valencia, McCarty spoke of the path of engineering versus the path of science in CALL( McCarty 1993, 1995), and secondly, at the CALL Conference in Exeter, Sussex, quite independently, contrasted Engineering CALL with Empirical CALL (Sussex 1995). Such divisions are worthy of further investigation and reflection.

Where theory has been used as a point of departure, theoretical sources that have been proposed and used have been diverse, not surprisingly perhaps given the range of CALL activities and the evoking nature of the field. Theories emanating from psychology, especially cognitive psychology and Second Language Acquisition (SLA), are a frequent point of departure (Schneider and Bennion 1984; Doughty 1991; Liou 1994).

The theories utilized from psychology are usually drawn from a restricted set thought to be amenable to the CALL context generally. For instance, Doughty (1991) limits her focus to comprehension-based models of SLA because of their suitability for the CALL environment. Other theoretical bases include theories of language (e. g. Demaiziere 1991; Catt 1991) and theories of instruction (England 1989; Lawrason 1988/9). In addition, integrated frameworks have been proposed, such as Hubbard (1992, 1996), or Mitterer et al. (1990:136) who suggest an integrated framework using theories from instructional design, language teaching, language learning, and knowledge of the applicability of the technology. Integrated frameworks recognize the multifaceted nature of CALL materials development.

There is also some evidence to suggest that a number of CALL projects have not been driven directly by theory as such. Although some projects clearly begin with a theoretical orientation, others begin at a lower level of abstraction more immediately determined by conditions governing actual practice and problems arising directly from it. CALL projects of this type as they are described by their authors in the literature include vocational language programs which begin with addressing student needs (Keith and Lafford 1989), Kanji Card which uses a specific language problem as a point of departure (Nakajima 1988, 1990) and CAEF, where developing grammar skills is the goal (Paramskas 1989, 1995).

In all, it is clear there are a number of possible theoretical points of departure in CALL, either utilizing a single theory or a mix of theoretical perspectives. It also seems apparent that some CALL projects do not begin with a theory at all, reflecting the comment by Kemmis and his colleagues about work that is practitioner-led as opposed to research-based (Kemmis et al. 1977). To help resolve this issue further, we need to have a clearer idea of what CALL authors actually do when they go about designing CALL materials.

Little is known about the conceptual frameworks and working methods of CALL authors at present. Sussex (1991: 26) stresses the importance of investigating the processes of CALL materials production and says:

At the present time rather little work has been done on the question of how teachers become CAL authors: how they objectify their knowledge domains, learning, and teaching; how they conceptualize learning materials and learning modes for transfer to the CAL medium; how they achieve this transfer; how the existence and use of CAL media influence theories of CAL, and vice versa.

By carefully reviewing what has already been done, and by exploring the ways in which CALL is conceptualized, a clearer understanding of theory and practice will emerge. This book attempts to address these areas of concern, not by providing definitive answers, but by shedding light on the nature of the problems. Such a description has the potential to improve our understanding of:

· the scope of CALL and prominent areas of focus within it;

· the theoretical sources and conceptual frameworks of CALL authors;

· the possible weaknesses or gaps between theory and practice.

As yet the scope of CALL is not well defined, and its relationship with other related fields is not clear. For example, some writers see CALL as a sub-domain of Applied Linguistics (e. g. Leen and Candlin 1986: 204), while others challenge this view (e.g. Fox 1986a: 235). A description of CALL projects to date, together with the points of departure their authors proclaim, can help situate CALL in relation to cognate fields and disciplines, and practical.

Given the newness of CALL, when practitioners do search for a theoretical foundation for their work, they are likely to draw on theories from the more established disciplines that surround it. It attempting to make use of these theories, care has to be taken to ensure that the theories are applicable. At this time, it does CALL a great disservice to try and force it into a single epistemology or theoretical framework, especially one that comes from a field where language learning with the computer is not foremost in mind.

It is tempting to approach the complexities of CALL in this way, of course, because such a strategy provides a well-trodden path for further research and development. But what if the theory does not encompass 包括 the unique qualities of learning with the aid of a computer? Ideally, the use of non-CALL theoretical frameworks should only occur if they are sufficiently well articulated and powerful in themselves, and if they are fully applicable to the context of CALL. By reviewing the motivations for CALL materials design, and by describing the CALL programs that have been produced, the relationship between theory and practice can be examined.

By describing what CALL authors actually do, their conceptual frameworks and working methods, their personal ‘theory’ of language teaching and learning can be set against their CALL programs, many of which are now in circulation and can be described and evaluated in their contexts of use. But first a description of what has already been done is needed.

Historical and interdisciplinary perspectives can help provide a context for CALL. An historical perspective can help identify topics and themes that keep reappearing over time, probably with good reason: for example the question of the role of the teacher in CALL. Also, it can help prevent CALL succumbing to the latest technological advance in a way that is blindly accepting. For example, multimedia is much in vogue 时兴 at present, not only in CALL but right across the educational curriculum. While undoubtedly having much to offer, multimedia is not new – it was available in a primitive form in the TICCIT project in the 1970s, and in a form rather similar to that of today in the Athena Project in the late 1980s, albeit on workstations rather than microcomputers (see Chapter 2).

Knowledge of the approaches taken in the design and implementation of these early multimedia programs provides insights for the contemporary multimedia author. A historical view is also helpful in mapping the changing relationship between approaches to language learning and computing. Early in the history of CALL, a highly structured view of language teaching and language learning provided a straightforward path towards materials development on the computer because the principles behind the theory could be easily matched to the qualities of the machine: lock-step drill and practice software was, for example, easy to program. More recently, with the advent of communicative views of language teaching and learning, and with more eclectic approaches to language teaching generally, the relationship between pedagogy and the technology has become more tenuous and more complex.

An interdisciplinary perspective on CALL shows it to be a relatively new field of study that has been subject to the influence of a number of other disciplines. In addition to the fields of computing and language teaching and learning, real or potential influences in the development of CALL have included aspects of psychology, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, instructional design, and human-computer interaction. Many of these disciplines are relatively now in themselves, having developed significantly since World War II.

They each have their own perspective and frame of reference, they often overlap and interrelate, and the extent to which any one discipline should influence the development of CALL has not been determined. At various times, CALL workers have called upon each of these fields to guide their own work in some way, and in Chapter 3 an interdisciplinary perspective gives examples of how these links have been utilized.

Having set forth a context for CALL, the book continues with a description of how CALL authors have conceptualized CALL. In broad terms ‘conceptualization’ is used as a label to signify the mental picture a CALL author or a teacher has when envisaging the use and role of the computer in CALL. The term is used by Richards and Rodgers (1986: 15) in discussing the evolution of their model of language teaching method. As with a discussion of approaches and methods in language teaching, ‘conceptualization’ would seem the best term to use for a discussion of similar issues in CALL.

It is not immediately obvious how to go about building a picture of how CALL has been conceptualized. On reflection, the strategy finally taken was that used by Hirschheim et al. (1990: 22) in ascertaining the impact of microcomputer use in the humanities. That team of researchers used a number of component ‘indicators’, each considered to represent a key factor that needed to be examined if the phenomenon as a whole were to be understood. The indicators that are held to relate to how CALL is conceptualized are the:

· language teaching and learning philosophy;

· role of the computer;

· point of departure;

· hardware and software;

· role of the teacher (as contributor);

· development process;

· role of the teacher (as author);

· materials developed.

A CALL author’s views of language teaching and learning are held to influence how that author conceptualizes CALL, even if the author cannot explain the effects or make them explicit. The role of the computer contributes to the conceptualization in many ways, the most important distinction perhaps being whether the computer’s role is directive or non-directive. The point of departure describes the CALL author’s declared starting-point for a project. Often given when CALL projects are written up and published, points of departure may range from a theory of language or language learning to a problem recognized by a language teacher in the classroom, and that is considered amenable to a solution via the computer.

The hardware and software, in their capabilities and limitations, are considered variously to shape what is, and what is not possible in a CALL project. The teacher may contribute in a conceptualization of CALL, or the role of the human teacher in the implementation of the program may not be envisaged at all. The development process is included as an indicator because of the way the process may deform or shape the initial conceptualization leading to an end-product that may be very different to the one originally conceived. As well as contributing in some way to the conceptualization by contributing to it, the teacher may also be involved in developing CALL materials, that is as a CALL author.

The role of the teacher as developer of CALL materials is included because of the ways in which language teachers, through their CALL development work, have contributed to CALL’s conceptual frameworks. Finally, a description of the CALL materials that have already been created is included. The CALL materials that are now available provide tangible evidence of the ways in which the use of the computer in language teaching and learning has been conceptualized.

The ways in which CALL authors translate their knowledge and experience of language teaching and learning to the computer and produce CALL materials is necessarily a complex and multifaceted process. The major assumption in this work is that these ‘indicators’ are valid. At this stage in the development of CALL all that may be said is that the indicators for conceptualization have face validity, and there is a reasonable likelihood that an investigation of these elements will provide insights on how CALL is conceptualized.

The indicators were investigated in both the literature reporting CALL projects and through a survey of CALL practitioners following the work of Stolurow and Cubillos (1983), Ng and Olivier (1987), and Fox et al. (1990). The component indicators for conceptualization provide the structural framework for Chapters 4, 5, and 6: the indicators are examined in the literature in Chapter 4 and through the CALL Survey in Chapter 5. The international CALL Survey was conducted in late 1991 and early 1992.

A total of 213 questionnaires were distributed and 104 (48.8%) usable responses were returned. The questionnaire was sent to 23 different countries, and key practitioners in CALL from 18 countries replied. The key practitioners were chosen on the basis of having written programs or published in the field of CALL. The vast majority of respondents (i.e. CALL authors) were practicing language teachers (97.1%). The questionnaire combined with the information found in the literature gives a comprehensive overview of how CALL has been conceptualized so far.

This book is divided into eight chapters. The first two chapters aim to set CALL in context in order to provide a suitable background for the discussion of CALL’s conceptual frameworks. Chapter 2 provides a historical perspective on CALL. This chapter is by no means a full and detailed history of CALL, but rather it is a perspective, a synopsis of the field by decade, in the 1960s and 1970s, in the 1980s, and in the 1990s. For each time period, CALL projects are selected and described which are representative of the thinking and the activity of the period, and themes are introduced that have contemporary relevance.

Particular emphasis is placed on some of CALL’s more invariant qualities: topics and issues that tend to recur in CALL over time, such as the role of the computer in CALL and the role of the language teacher in relation to it. An exploration of the context of CALL continues in Chapter 3 where an interdisciplinary perspective is provided. In this chapter and attempt is made to establish links between CALL and the disciplines that surround it, and have variously influenced its development.

A short description of each of the related disciplines accompanies the account. In this way these two chapters on CALL in context provide a setting for the rest of the book, and introduce many of the themes that are explored in greater detail later on. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 focus in much more detail on how CALL has been conceptualized, that is, how language teachers and CALL authors have envisaged the use of the computer in the realm of language teaching and learning. Using the indicators that are held to influence conceptual frameworks as an organizational framework, Chapter 4 looks at aspects and issues described in the literature on CALL, and Chapter 5 presents the findings of the international CALL Survey.

These two chapters approach the topic from different angles, the two approaches complement each other, and each perspective provides a window onto the complex phenomena of conceptualization. The threads of this description are brought together for discussion in Chapter 6, where particular themes are identified and drawn out. These themes do not account for all the ways in which CALL has been conceptualized but they do represent recognizable patterns that are discernible when CALL is viewed as a whole.

Chapter 7 looks at one conceptual framework in particular: the tutor-tool framework. This framework is presented as a potential means of conceptualizing CALL. The framework is valuable in helping users and developers recognize significant features in CALL from the vast array of CALL projects that have occurred to date. Other CALL models and frameworks are accommodated within the tutor-tool framework, and possible refinements to this framework are suggested also. The implications of the tutor-tool framework are considered by showing how the role of the computer, that is, whether it is used as a tutor or as a tool, has profound implications for methodology, integration into the curriculum, evaluation, and the roles of the teacher and the learner.

Finally, Chapter 8 on the nature of CALL completes the book. Viewing CALL as a body of work brings to light a number of issues such as the relationship between theory and application, and the effects the computer, and technology more generally, may exert on the surrounding educational environment. Finally, this chapter concludes with some suggestions for the future, reflecting on where the energy and the effort in CALL might most appropriately be directed.

1. In this book the label ‘materials’ will be used to encompass the different kinds of materials, software, courseware, programs, packages, and learning environments that are created in CALL. This label is used to emphasize the connection between language learning materials development in general – where the term ‘materials’ is commonly used – and CALL materials development in particular. Though in some instances materials and learning environments will be distinguished and treated separately, generally learning environments on the computer are included under the materials umbrella.

This follows the work of Breen et al. (1979: 5) who, in the case of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), suggest the development of two kinds of materials: content materials as sources of data and information; and process materials to serve as ‘guidelines or frameworks for the learner’s use of communicative knowledge and abilities’ (Breen et al. 1979: 5). Thus, learning environments on the computer are likened to process materials in that they provide frameworks within which learners can use and practice their communicative skills. The notion of materials as guidelines or frameworks for learning is reinforced by Allwright who argues for materials to be related to the ‘cooperative management of language learning’ (Allwright 1981: 5). Learning environments on the computer fit comfortably within this broad definition of materials.

2. A mark-up language such as HTML (the Hypertext Mark- up Language) is a set of instructions that are inserted into a plain text file to enable it to be published on the World Wide Web. The set of instructions, or tags, defines exactly how the Web document is displayed. The tags also enable links to be made between documents. Once on the Web, browsers such as Netscape can interpret the file. VRML (Virtual Reality Modelling Language) is an emerging standard for creating three-dimensional spaces and objects that can be transferred easily via the Internet, then viewed by many users at the same time.

3. In the CALL Survey the initial orientation and points of departure are distinguished to accommodate more abstract and more precisely described initial positions (see Ch. 5, Apps. A and B). For example, if a CALL author describes the starting-point in a project rather abstractly, as in ‘exploration of a new technology’ perhaps, then this would be considered an initial orientation; if ‘curriculum specifications’ were the starting –point, however – a more concrete beginning – then this would be considered a point of departure. This distinction can only provide a rough approximation, but it was included in the CALL Survey because it allows for different degrees of clarity at the outset.

Three time periods

1) the 1960s and 1970s

2) the 1980s

3) the 1990s.

To identify some key themes and issues that remain important today.

1.for the 1960s and 1970s, the PLATO and TICCIT projects;

2.for the 1980s, Storyboard, and the Athena Language Learning Project (ALLP);

3. for the 1990s, the International Email Tandem Network, the CAMILLE/France Inter Active project, and the Oral Language Archive (OLA).

CALL in the 1960s and 1970s

Background

In the 1950s and early 1960s empiricist theory was predominant in language teaching, a theory described by Stern (1983:169) as ‘pedagogically audiolingualism, psychologically behaviourism, linguistically structuralism’. The principles emanating发源 from these three schools of thought were mutually supportive when applied to language teaching and learning.

WHAT IS AUDIOLINGUALISM?

Do you ever ask your students to repeat phrases or whole sentences, for example? Do you drill the pronunciation and intonation of utterances? Do you ever use drills? What about choral drilling 合唱队的 ? Question and answer? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then, consciously or unconsciously, you are using techniques that are features of the audiolingual approach.

This approach has its roots in the USA during World War II, when there was a pressing need to train key personnel quickly and effectively in foreign language skills. The results of the Army Specialized Training Program are generally regarded to have been very successful, with the caveat that the learners were in small groups and were highly motivated, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the approach.

The approach was theoretically underpinned by structural linguistics, a movement in linguistics that focused on the phonemic, morphological and syntactic systems underlying the grammar of a given language, rather than according to traditional categories of Latin grammar. As such, it was held that learning a language involved mastering the building blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these basic elements are combined from the level of sound to the level of sentence. The audiolingual approach was also based on the behaviourist theory of learning, which held that language, like other aspects of human activity, is a form of behaviour.

In the behaviourist view, language is elicited引出 by a stimulus and that stimulus then triggers a response. The response in turn then produces some kind of reinforcement,which, if positive, encourages the repetition of the response in the future or, if negative, its suppression. When transposed to the classroom, this gives us the classic pattern drill- Model:

She went to the cinema yesterday.

Stimulus: Theatre.

Response:

She went to the theatre yesterday.

Reinforcement: Good!

In its purest form audiolingualism aims to promote mechanical habit-formation through repetition of basic patterns.

Accurate manipulation of structure leads to eventual fluency. Spoken language comes before written language. Dialogues and drill are central to the approach. Accurate pronunciation and control of structure are paramount.

While some of this might seem amusingly rigid in these enlightened times, it is worth reflecting on actual classroom practice and noticing when activities occur that can be said to have their basis in the audiolingual approach.

Most teachers will at some point require learners to repeat examples of grammatical structures in context with a number of aims in mind: stress, rhythm, intonation, "consolidating the structure", enabling learners to use the structure accurately through repetition, etc. Question and answer in open class or closed pairs to practise a particular form can also be argued to have its basis in the audiolingual approach, as can, without doubt, any kind of drill.

Although the audiolingual approach in its purest form has many weaknesses (notably the difficulty of transferring learnt patterns to real communication), to dismiss the audiolingual approach as an outmoded method of the 1960s is to ignore the reality of current classroom practice which is based on more than 2000 years of collective wisdom.

There seems to be a widely held perception amongst language teachers that methods and approaches have finite historical boundaries - that the Grammar-Translation approach is dead, for example. Similarly, audiolingualism was in vogue in the 1960s but died out in the 70s after Chomsky’s famous attack on behaviourism in language learning.

B.F.Skinner and Behaviorism

Burrhus Frederic Skinner was born March 20, 1904, in the small Pennsylvania town of Susquehanna. Burrhus received his BA in English from Hamilton College in upstate New York.  He didn’t fit in very well, not enjoying the fraternity parties or the football games.  He wrote for school paper, including articles critical of the school, the faculty, and even Phi Beta Kappa!  To top it off, he was an atheist 无神论者 -- in a school that required daily chapel attendance.

He wanted to be a writer and did try, sending off poetry and short stories.  When he graduated, he built a study in his parents’ attic to concentrate, but it just wasn’t working for him.

Ultimately, he resigned himself to writing newspaper articles on labor problems, and lived for a while in Greenwich Village in New York City as a “bohemian 玩世不恭的 .”  After some traveling, he decided to go back to school, this time at Harvard.  He got his masters in psychology in 1930 and his doctorate in 1931, and stayed there to do research until 1936.

Also in that year, he moved to Minneapolis to teach at the University of Minnesota.  There he met and soon married Yvonne Blue.  They had two daughters, the second of which became famous as the first infant to be raised in one of Skinner’s inventions, the air crib.  Although it was nothing more than a  combination crib and playpen with glass sides and air conditioning, it looked too much like keeping a baby in an aquarium to catch on.

In 1945, he became the chairman of the psychology department at Indiana University.  In 1948, he was invited to come to Harvard, where he remained for the rest of his life.  He was a very active man, doing research and guiding hundreds of doctoral candidates as well as writing many books.  While not successful as a writer of fiction and poetry, he became one of our best psychology writers, including the book Walden II, which is a fictional account of a community run by his behaviorist principles.

August 18, 1990, B. F. Skinner died of leukemia 白血病 after becoming perhaps the most celebrated psychologist since Sigmund Freud.

B. F. Skinner’s entire system is based on operant conditioning 动作训练 .  The organism 生物体 is in the process of “operating” on the environment, which in ordinary terms means it is bouncing around it world, doing what it does.  During this “operating,” the organism encounters a special kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing stimulus, or simply a reinforcer.  This special stimulus has the effect of increasing the operant ------ that is, the behavior occurring just before the reinforcer.  This is operant conditioning:  “the behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future.”

Imagine a rat in a cage. This is a special cage (called, in fact, a “Skinner box”) that has a bar or pedal踏板 on one wall that, when pressed, causes a little mechanism to release a foot pellet 小球 into the cage.  The rat is bouncing around the cage, doing whatever it is rats do, when he accidentally presses the bar and -- hey, presto! -- a food pellet falls into the cage! The operant is the behavior just prior to the reinforcer, which is the food pellet, of course.  In no time at all, the rat is furiously peddling away at the bar, hoarding his pile of pellets in the corner of the cage.

A behavior followed by a reinforcing

stimulus results in an increased probability

of that behavior occurring in the future.

What if you don’t give the rat any more pellets?  Apparently, he’s no fool, and after a few futile 徒劳的 attempts, he stops his bar-pressing behavior.  This is called extinction 消失 of the operant behavior.

A behavior no longer followed by the reinforcing stimulus results in a decreased probability of that behavior occurring in the future.

Now, if you were to turn the pellet machine back on, so that pressing the bar again provides the rat with pellets, the behavior of bar-pushing will “pop” right back into existence, much more quickly than it took for the rat to learn the behavior the first time.  This is because the return of the reinforcer takes place in the context of a reinforcement history that goes all the way back to the very first time the rat was reinforced for pushing on the bar!

Skinner likes to tell about how he “accidentally -- i.e. operantly -- came across his various discoveries.  For example, he talks about running low on food pellets in the middle of a study.  Now, these were the days before “Purina rat chow” and the like, so Skinner had to make his own rat pellets, a slow and tedious task.  So he decided to reduce the number of reinforcements he gave his rats for whatever behavior he was trying to condition, and, lo and behold, the rats kept up their operant behaviors, and at a stable rate, no less.  This is how Skinner discovered schedules of reinforcement!

The fixed ratio schedule was the first one Skinner discovered:  If the rat presses the pedal three times, say, he gets a goodie.  Or five times.  Or twenty times. Or “x” times.  There is a fixed ratio between behaviors and reinforcers: 3 to 1, 5 to 1, 20 to 1, etc.  This is a little like “piece rate” in the clothing manufacturing industry:  You get paid so much for so many shirts.

The fixed interval schedule uses a timing device of some sort.  If the rat presses the bar at least once during a particular stretch of time (say 20 seconds), then he gets a goodie.  If he fails to do so, he doesn’t get a goodie. But even if he hits that bar a hundred times during that 20 seconds, he still only gets one goodie!  One strange thing that happens is that the rats tend to “pace” themselves:  They slow down the rate of their behavior right after the reinforcer, and speed up when the time for it gets close.

Skinner also looked at variable schedules.  Variable ratio means you change the “x” each time -- first it takes 3 presses to get a goodie, then 10, then 1, then 7 and so on.  Variable interval means you keep changing the time period -- first 20 seconds, then 5, then 35, then 10 and so on.

In both cases, it keeps the rats on their rat toes.  With the variable interval schedule, they no longer “pace” themselves, because they now can no longer establish a “rhythm” between behavior and reward.  Most importantly, these schedules are very resistant to extinction.  It makes sense, if you think about it.  If you haven’t gotten a reinforcer for a while, well, it could just be that you are at a particularly “bad” ratio or interval!  Just one more bar press, maybe this’ll be the one!

This, according to Skinner, is the mechanism of gambling. You may not win very often, but you never know whether and when you’ll win again.  It could be the very next time, and if you don’t roll them dice 骰子 , or play that hand, or bet on that number this once, you’ll miss on the score of the century!

A question Skinner had to deal with was how we get to more complex sorts of behaviors.  He responded with the idea of shaping, or “the method of successive approximations.”  Basically, it involves first reinforcing a behavior only vaguely similar to the one desired.  Once that is established, you look out for variations that come a little closer to what you want, and so on, until you have the animal performing a behavior that would never show up in ordinary life.  Skinner and his students have been quite successful in teaching simple animals to do some quite extraordinary things.  My favorite is teaching pigeons to bowl!

The theory of B.F. Skinner is based upon the idea that learning is a function of change in overt 明显的 behavior. Changes in behavior are the result of an individual's response to events (stimuli) that occur in the environment. A response produces a consequence such as defining a word, hitting a ball, or solving a math problem. When a particular Stimulus-Response (S-R) pattern is reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned 有条件的 , 习惯于 ... 的 to respond. The distinctive characteristic of operant conditioning relative to previous forms of behaviorism (e.g., Thorndike, Hull) is that the organism can emit responses instead of only eliciting response due to an external stimulus.

Reinforcement is the key element in Skinner's S-R theory. A reinforcer is anything that strengthens the desired response. It could be verbal praise, a good grade or a feeling of increased accomplishment or satisfaction. The theory also covers negative reinforcers -- any stimulus that results in the increased frequency of a response when it is withdrawn (different from adversive 外来的 stimuli -- punishment -- which result in reduced responses). A great deal of attention was given to schedules of reinforcement (e.g. interval versus ratio) and their effects on establishing and maintaining behavior.

Structuralism

Beginning from the second of this century, a school of linguistics, known as Structural Linguistics, emerged as a flourishing linguistic theory in the academic world and in language pedagogy. Structuralism, as it is often called, is a reaction against hitherto迄今 traditional grammars in that it is able to set up precise and verifiable definitions on formal and distributional criteria the problems of which traditional grammars have long unable to solve.

Leonard Bloomfield 1887-1949

Leonard Bloomfield was born in 1887. Leonard studied under many different colleges; he graduated from Harvard in 1906, and then went on to graduate from the University of Wisconsin in 1908. Then from there he went on to further education and studied at the University of Chicago where he later graduated. He spent most of his time dealing with comparing and contrasting Germanic languages. At the University of Ohio, Bloomfield caught his first break as an Assistant Professor of German. He spent seven years under that title, and then moved on to the University of Chicago. There he was the head Professor of German, and spent a lot of his time (1921-1928) teaching here.

After this Leonard became more interested in the description of languages, and how they pertained to science. When Leonard got into this aspect of language, it is when he wrote his masterpiece Language. It dealt with a standard text, and had a tremendous influence on other linguists. Until very recently most United States linguists considered themselves in some sense Bloomfield's disciples, whether they actually studied under him or not, and a great deal of American linguistic work has taken the form of working out questions raised and methods suggested by Bloomfield (Online-Media: Important Linguists).

Leonard had six main publications during his lifetime, and they too have had their own little mark in the history of linguists. His first main book came in 1914, when he was an Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois. It was called Introduction to the study of Language; this dealt with the overall aspect of language and was just the beginning of Leonard's profound career. After this Leonard went into the grammatical aspect of the Philippine language, he wrote and published his next main book Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis (1917).

The next book was called Menomini Texts (1928), one of Bloomfield's least favorable publications. In the middle of his writing career came Language (1933), which was the book he is renowned for. From here Leonard went deeper into grammar, and wrote The Stressed Vowels of American English (1935). The last main book of Leonard Bloomfield's career was when he went back into the scientific research of language. It dealt with the overall aspect of language and science, and didn't get as much publicity as Language. This book was called Linguistic Aspects of Science (1939). At the end of Leonard's writing career, he tried to write about other languages (Dutch and Russian) but couldn't really get the true feeling out of this, like he did with his other books. In the end, Leonard Bloomfield is not only considered one of the best Linguists of his time, he is considered one of the best of all time.

Structuralism is a theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves. This method found wide use from the early 20th cent. in a variety of fields, especially linguistics, particularly as formulated by Ferdinand de Saussure. Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss used structuralism to study the kinship systems of different societies.

No single element in such a system has meaning except as an integral part of a set of structural connections. These interconnections are said to be binary in nature and are viewed as the permanent, organizational categories of experience. Structuralism has been influential in literary criticism and history, as with the work of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault. In France after 1968 this search for the deep structure of the mind was criticized by such “poststructuralists” as Jacques Derrida, who abandoned the goal of reconstructing reality scientifically in favor of “deconstructing” the illusions of metaphysics.

The noun structuralism has 3 meanings:

Meaning 1: linguistics defined as the analysis of formal structures in a text or discourse  Synonym: structural linguisticsMeaning 2: an anthropological theory that there are unobservable social structures that generate observable social phenomena Synonym: structural anthropologyMeaning 3: a sociological theory based on the premise that society comes before individuals Synonym: structural sociology

Structuralism is an approach that grew to become one of the most widely used methods of analyzing language, culture, and society in the second half of the 20th century. 'Structuralism', however, does not refer to a clearly defined 'school' of authors, although the work of Ferdinand de Saussure is generally considered a starting point. Structuralism is best seen as a general approach with many different variations. As with any cultural movement, the influences and developments are complex.

Broadly, structuralism seeks to explore the inter-relationships (the "structures") through which meaning is produced within a culture. According to structural theory, meaning within a culture is produced and reproduced through various practices, phenomena and activities which serve as systems of signification. A structuralist studies activities as diverse as food preparation and serving rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary texts, and other forms of entertainment to discover the deep structures by which meaning is produced and reproduced within a culture. For example, an early and prominent practitioner of structuralism, anthropologist and ethnographer Claude Levi-Strauss, analyzed cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship, and food preparation.

When used to examine literature, a structuralist critic will examine the underlying relation of elements (the 'structure') in, say, a story, rather than focusing on its content. A basic example are the similarities between West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet. Even though the two plays occur in different times and places, a structuralist would argue that they are the same story because they have a similar structure - in both cases, a girl and a boy fall in love (or, as we might say, are +LOVE) despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other, a conflict that is resolved by their death. Consider now the story of two friendly families (+LOVE) that make an arranged marriage between their children despite the fact that they hate each other (-LOVE), and that the children resolve this conflict by committing suicide to escape the marriage.

A structuralist would argue this second story is an 'inversion' of the first, because the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed. In sum, a structuralist would thus argue that the 'meaning' of a story lies in uncovering this structure rather than, say, discovering the intention of the author who wrote it.

Some feel that a structuralist analysis helps pierce through the confusing veil of life to reveal the hidden, underlying, logically complete structure. Others would argue that structuralism simply reads too much into 'texts' (in the widest sense) and allows clever professors to invent meanings that aren't actually there. There are a variety of positions in between these two extremes, and in fact many of the debates around structuralism focus on trying to clarify issues of just this sort.

Saussure's Course

Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics (1916) is generally seen as being the origin of structuralism. Although Saussure was, like his contemporaries, interested in historical linguistics, in the Course he developed a more general theory of semiology. This approach focused on examining how the elements of language related to each other in the present ('synchronically' rather than 'diachronically'). He thus focused not on the use of language (parole, or talk) but the underlying system of language (langue) of which any particular utterance was an expression. Finally, he argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts, a 'signifier' (roughly, the sound of a word) and a 'signified' (the concept or meaning of the word).

This was quite different from previous approaches to language which focused on the relationship between words and the things in the world they designated. By focusing on the internal constitution of signs rather than focusing on their relationship to objects in the world, Saussure made the anatomy and structure of language something that could be analyzed and studied.

Structuralism in linguistics

Saussure's Course influenced many linguists in the period between WWI and WWII. In America, for instance, Leonard Bloomfield developed his own version of structural linguistics, as did Louis Hjelmslev in Scandinavia. In France Antoine Meillet and Émile Benveniste would continue Saussure's program. Most importantly, however, members of the Prague School of linguistics such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy conducted research that would be greatly influential.

The clearest and most important example of Prague School structuralism lies in phonemics. Rather than simply compile a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague School sought to examine how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analyzed in terms of a series of contrasts. Thus in English the words 'pat' and 'bat' are different because the 'p' and 'b' sounds contrast. The difference between them is that you vocalize while saying a 'b' while you do not when saying a 'p'. Thus in English there is a contrast between voiced and non-voiced consonants. Analyzing sounds in terms of contrastive features also opens up comparative scope - it makes clear, for instance, that the difficulty Japanese speakers have differentiating between 'r' and 'l' in English is due to the fact that these two sounds are not contrastive in Japanese.

While this approach is now standard in linguistics, it was revolutionary at the time. Phonology would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different forms.

Structuralism after the War

After WWII, and particularly in the 1960s, Structuralism surged to prominence in France and it was structuralism's initial popularity in this country which led it to spread across the globe.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, existentialism such as that practiced by Jean-Paul Sartre was the dominant mood. Structuralism rejected existentialism's notion of radical human freedom and focused instead on the way that human behavior is determined by cultural, social, and psychological structures.

The most important initial work on this score was Claude Levi-Strauss's 1949 volume Elementary Structures of Kinship. Levi-Strauss had known Jakobson during their time together in New York during WWII and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism as well as the American anthropological tradition. In Elementary Structures he examined kinship 亲缘关系 systems from a structural point of view and demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were in fact different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1950s he published Structural Anthropology, a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism.

By the early 1960s structuralism as a movement was coming into its own and some believed that it offered a single unified approach to human life that would embrace all disciplines. Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida focused on how structuralism could be applied to literature. Jacques Lacan (and, in a different way, Jean Piaget) applied structuralism to the study of psychology, blending Freud and Saussure. Michel Foucault's book The Order of Things examined the history of science to study how structures of epistemology 认识论 , or epistemes shaped how people imagined knowledge and knowing (though Foucault would later explicitly deny affiliation with the structuralist movement). Louis Althusser combined Marxism and structuralism to create his own brand of social analysis. Other authors in France and abroad have since extended structural analysis to practically every discipline.

The definition of 'structuralism' also shifted as a result of its popularity. As its popularity as a movement waxed and waned, some authors considered themselves 'structuralists' only to later eschew the label. Additionally, the term has slightly different meanings in French and English. In the US, for instance, Derrida is considered the paradigm of post-structuralism while in France he is labeled a structuralist. Finally, some authors wrote in several different styles. Barthes, for instance, wrote some books which are clearly structuralist and others which are clearly not.

Reactions to structuralism

Today structuralism has been superceded by approaches such as post-structuralism and deconstruction. There are many reasons for this. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favoring deterministic structural forces over the ability of individual people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (and particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting the academy, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of people's attention. In the 1980s, deconstruction and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language - rather than its crystalline logical structure - became popular. By the end of the century Structuralism was seen as a historically important school of thought, but it was the movements it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, which commanded attention.

A notable problem is the definitions of parts of speech, e.g. traditional grammar defines that 'a pronoun stands for a noun', but there are many words which can be used instead of a noun and they are not necessarily pronouns and follow different distributional criteria in a sentence from those we commonly name as 'pronouns'.

Structuralist grammar, on the other hand, sees languages in form as consisting of various constituent structures, thus 'if words occur regularly in the same patterns - the same positions in sentences, we say that they belong to the same form class...' (Paul Roberts, quoted in Roulet 1975:23).

The ideas of this kind led to the substitution drills widely used in teaching English as a foreign language in the 50s and 60s known as the Audio-lingual Method which is still applied today in some classrooms in the world. We see that the idea is the elaboration of the de Saussure's 'langue is forme, non substance' and his 'associative relations'.

The movement of Structuralism is represented by American linguists C.C. Fries and Robert Lado in the University of Michigan.  Fries' influential publication The Structure of English (1952) triggered off the enthusiasm in Structuralism. He and Lado's English Sentence Patterns (1957) is the representative structuralist teaching material. The axioms 公理 of the structuralist view on the nature of language can be summarized as follows:

1. Language is speech;

2. Language is a system;

3. The language system is arbitrary任意的 ;

4. Language is for communication (Bell 1981:92)

The structuralists, however, were not able to develop the last axiom because they had paid less attention to the study of meaning, i.e. the substance of language. In psychology, structuralists found their base on Pavlov-Skinner Stimulus-Response Behaviourist model so as to produce their brain child Audio-lingual Method in language teaching. One should add 'language is habit' to the axioms of the language view of the structuralists. Other American influential Audio-lingual language teaching materials are Lado English Series (Lado 1977) and English 900 (English Language Services 1964).

In Europe, structuralist theories were mingled with British linguists' version of structuralism - the notion of 'situation'. It was first referred to as the Oral Approach and termed Structural-Situational Approach later. In language theory, Structural-Situational Approach is not very much different from American Structuralism. This is clear from a statement made by A.W. Frisby:

Word order, Structural Words, the few inflexions of English, and Content Words, will form the material of our teaching (Quoted in Richards & Rodgers 1986:35).

also from H.E. Palmer's view on language learning:

... there are three processes in learning a language - receiving the knowledge or materials, fixing it in the memory by repetition, and using it in actual practice until it becomes a personal skill (op cit: 36).

It is again a habit -learning theory. What is different is that the British structuralists put emphasis on the close relationship between the structure of language and the context and situations in which language is used. In typical Structural-Situational teaching materials we can find units like 'At the Railway Station', 'In the Restaurant' and so on. Sentence structures which are assumed to be used in these situations are practised intensively.

One can find the shortcomings of this approach: communication patterns are not always the same in the same situation, e.g. in a restaurant, besides ordering food, one could appreciate or criticize the service provided, therefore one needs language items which fit these communication patterns. Furthermore, the same language item may have different communicative functions.

An everyday utterance 'Would you like...' may be used to give an invitation or to ask for an opinion. To introduce these items to students according to the situations in which they may occur may give the wrong impression that these structures can only be used under certain circumstances. The above facts are the criticism of the structuralist theoretical foundation: language is form, not substance. The fact is language is both form and substance.

E Roulet has some comprehensive criticisms of structuralist theories and their application in language of Structuralism can be summarized as follows:

First, language corpus is necessarily unlimited, so simply providing an inventory of structures cannot lead to the mastery of a language, e.g. having learned 900 sentences of a language will not result in the ability of using that language freely in various social interactions.

G. Sampson has a vivid analogy between mathematics and language: language is just like a circle on a sheet of graph-paper in which one can find infinitely many points (Sampson 1980:132). Syllabuses based on language structures often lead teachers and students to think that manipulation of structures is an end itself in language learning.

Second, form alone do not decide the correct grammaticality. they are of only secondary importance while meanings and functions are of primary importance. A linguistically correct form or structure can be socially or functionally unaccepted, considered from when, where and how it is used. So in determining degrees of grammaticality of utterances, teachers have to seek criteria or rules apart from rules of forming structures. There is an implication here that language is not the only variable in language pedagogy: there are social, economic, political and psychological variables.

Finally, structures are not isolated within a language (even between languages). There exists certain relationship between forms and between structures which allow the native language user to shift from one pattern to another, or to 'generate' many other useful patterns. Structuralist grammars do not consider these relations. This is a typical criticism of Structuralism from Chomsky's Transformational-Generative Grammar (TGG).

Although Structuralism has met with criticisms in theory and in language pedagogy, its significant influence on language teaching and learning cannot be underestimated.

In today's rapidly changed language teaching methodology, structural contents are still the basic section in language teaching. Linguistic theories have, to put it simply, made two important contributions to language teaching and learning since Structuralism, one is the primary of speech and the other is the adequate descriptions of language. The former is inherited from the early Reform Movement and is further applied by structuralists.

最早的计算机辅助教育 (CBE) 的应用程序是在大型机和小型机上开发的。有两个最著名的系统至今还在影响着教育：一个是 PLATO( 在大型机上运行 ) ，另一个是 TICCIT( 在小型机上运行 ) 。

PLATO ： 1959 年，依利诺斯大学的工程师．物理学家，心理学家和教育学家们在 Denald Biber 的领导下，开始开发一个旨在使个别化教学自动化的系统。以 PLATO 闻名的这个系统最初是由依利诺斯大学和国防部提供资金，逐渐发展成为一个功能强大的 CBE 系统。开发的内容包括一个计算机辅助教学的写作语言 TUTOR( 该语言的目的是简化 CAI 程序的开发过程 ) 以及一个专用的计算机终端。在头六年中，这一系统从一个终端增至 71 个，并可允许 21 个终端同时操作。在系统上编制了近 200 个课件，这足以证明该系统在教学上的灵活性。 1967 年，依利诺斯州立大学建立了计算机辅助教育研究实验室，把 PLATO 也搬进了这个新实验室。在这其间实验的重点是如何有效利用该系统、大型 CBE 系统的软件开发以及硬件的开发。

多年来，投入 PLATO 系统开发的资金累计已达几亿美元，资金来源很广泛，除 CDC 之外．还包括了国家自然科学基金、联邦教育部、国家教育研究所以及依利诺斯州立大学等。 PLATO 系统也许可算作世界上最著名的 CAI 项目，以致于它本身己成为被研究的对象。这个系统是卓有成效的，这可以从不断涌现的有关提高使用者成绩和态度的报告得到证明。在美国已经不用 Micro－ PLATO；但在日本， TDK还继续使用它并还在做进一步的开发。

PLATO 的继承者 NovaNET(University Communications 公司的注册商标 ) 提供了更高品质的图像以及更高的效率。该系统通过下 列 三 个 途 径 降 低 成 本 ：①它在一组 DEC Alpha 计算机上运作，可同时 运 行 几 千 个 NovaNET 终 端 ；②个人系统 ( 包括 Dos 、 Windows 、 Macintosh 和 UNIX 计算机 )都可以享受这种服务；

③拨通租用的电话线以及在 Internet 上可以使用这套系统。

TICCIT ： TICCIT(分时、交互、计算机控制的信息电视 ) 系统始于 1971 年，是弗吉尼亚州的MITRE公司的工程师们与德克萨斯州立大学 CAI 实验室的教育工作者们共同合作的项目。后来杨百翰大学的计算机教育应用研究所也加入进来。该系统的研制由国家自然科学基金投资，在 C.V. 邦德森的主持下，工作组开始开发大学低年级数学和英语的整个课程。课程开发涉及到小型机、彩色电视机、图像、专用的写作系统以及精通教学设计领域的专家和心理学家的专门知识。 TlCCIT 系统通常是放置在学习中心，并且能够处理多达 128 个终端。

TlCCIT 采用的教学策略有几个方面不同于先前的计算机辅助学习――最突出的一方面是学生掌握学习内容的控制权：将要学习哪一课，以及希望学习课程中的哪一部分。热心于 CAI 的人常常希望有这样一个系统：它能够知道学生的学习方式、以往的成绩、学习的准备情况，然后把采用最恰当的策略把最适合的信息呈现给学生。 TlCCIT 的设计人员感到，如果这种努力使得学生完全依赖于系统，那么就会起到反作用――后续的学习会变得更加困难，因为现实世界毕竟不会如此完美地符合个人需要。 TICCIT的一个主要目标就是帮助学生成为一个独立的学习者。

当学生学着在 TICCIT 系统上选择不同的显示内容时，他或她同时也在学习在没有计算机辅助的情况下如何选择下一步的学习。设计 TICCCIT 系统最初是为大学低年级学主提供英语和数学的教学。它实际上应用最多的却是军职人员、大学英语和代数的教学。 TICCIT 在 1995 年中己逐步停止使用。

Behavioristic CALL

The first phase of CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and '70s, was based on the then-dominant behaviorist theories of learning. Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as "drill and practice" (or, more pejoratively, as "drill and kill").

Drill and practice courseware is based on the model of computer as tutor (Taylor, 1980). In other words the computer serves as a vehicle for delivering instructional materials to the student. The rationale behind drill and practice was not totally spurious, which explains in part the fact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationale is as follows:

* Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential to learning

 * A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine does not get bored with presenting the same material and since it can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback

 * 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

Based on these notions, a number of CALL tutoring systems were developed for the mainframe computers which were used at that time. One of the most sophisticated of these was the PLATO system, which ran on its own special PLATO hardware, including central computers and terminals. The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanations and drills, and translations tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, behavioristic CALL was undermined by two important factors. First, behavioristic approaches to language learning had been rejected at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level. Secondly, the introduction of the microcomputer allowed a whole new range of possibilities. The stage was set for a new phase of CALL.

CALL in the 1980s Bakground

Notable amongst the new methods that began to appear in the 1970s were the new humanistic methods such as Community Language Learning (Curran 1976) and Total Physical Response (Asher 1977), Humanistic methods and techniques engaged the whole person, their emotions and feelings, the affective dimension (see Moskowitz 1978: 2). But the most far-reaching approach to language teaching to emerge at this time was Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

Communicative language teaching is an approach that is based on communicative language use. Richards and Rodgers summarized the following theoretical premises deduced from the consideration of CLT:

1. The communication principle: Activities that involve communication promote language learning.2. The task principle: Activities that involve the completion of real-world tasks promote learning.3. The meaningfulness principle: Learners must be engaged in meaningful and authentic language use for learning to take place (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 72).

Communicative CALLThe second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teaching which became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approach felt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did not allow enough authentic communication to be of much value.  One of the main advocates of this new approach was John Underwood, who in 1984 proposed a series of "Premises 前提 for 'Communicative' CALL" (Underwood, 1984, p. 52). According to Underwood, communicative call:

* focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;

 * teaches grammar implicitly 隐含地 rather than explicitly;

 * allows and encourages students to generate original utterances rather than just manipulate 操作 prefabricated预制 language;

 * does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor reward them with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;

* avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a variety of student responses;

 * uses the target language exclusively 专有地 and creates an environment 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.

Another critic of behavioristic CALL, Vance Stevens, contends that all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic 内在的 motivation and should foster培养 interactivity--both learner-computer and learner-learner (Stevens, 1989).

Several types of CALL programs were developed and used during this the phase of communicative CALL. First, there were a variety of programs to provide skill practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of these types of programs include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction, and language games (Healey & Johnson, 1995b). In these programs, like the drill and practice programs mentioned above, the computer remains the "knower-of-the-right-answer" (Taylor & Perez, 1989, p. 3); thus this represents an extension of the computer as tutor model. But--in contrast to the drill and practice programs--the process of finding the right answer involves a fair amount of student choice, control, and interaction.

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used for communicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor & Perez, 1989, p. 63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather to stimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Software used for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may not have been specifically designed for language learners, programs such as SimCity, Sleuth, or Where in the World is San Diego( 在 San Diego, CA周边使用 Where in the World is 进行搜索所得到的当地结果 )(Healey & Johnson, 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves the computer as tool (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980), or, as sometimes called, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez, 1989). In this role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language material at all, but rather empower 授权 the learner to use or understand language. Examples of computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammar checkers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordances.

Of course the distinction between these models is not absolute. A skill practice program can be used as a conversational stimulus, as can a paragraph written by a student on a word processor. Likewise, there are a number of drill and practice programs which could be used in a more communicative fashion--if, for example, students were assigned to work in pairs or small groups and then compare and discuss their answers (or, as Higgins, 1988, students can even discuss what inadequacies they found in the computer program) In other words, the dividing line between behavioristic and communicative CALL does involves not only which software is used, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students.

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advance over its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators felt that CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning & Kenning, 1990; Pusack & Otto, 1990; Rüschoff, 1993). Critics pointed out that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashion and thus "finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal rather than to central elements" of the language teaching process (Kenning & Kenning, 1990, p. 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed吻合 with broader reassessments 重新估价 of the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfied with teaching compartmentalized分类 skills or structures (even if taught in a communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teach in a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-based approaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop models which could help integrate the various aspects of the language learning process. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing the opportunities to do just that.

The official website for SimCity, with online play, forums, downloads, and moreinformation than you can shake a stick at. A great place to visit for all yourSimCityneeds.

Sleuth - Cast, Crew, Reviews, Plot Summary, Comments, Discussion, Taglines, Trailers, Posters, Photos, Showtimes, Link to Official Site, Fan Sites.

1975 年，微型计算机是成套提供的。不久以后，美国的学校就得到预先装配好的微机了 ---- 包括 Commodore Pet 、 Apple Ⅱ、 TRS-80 。由此引发的一个市场在短短几年间就把几十万台微型计算计带进美国的家庭和学校中。随着计算机的发展，它对社会的影响也变得明显， 1982 年《时代》周刊甚至打破评选年度新闻人物常规，而把计算机评选为年度的新闻“人物”。出版商Mayers 在其刊首语中写道“几位人类竞选者也许代表了 1982 年，但是没有人能象这台机器一样更丰富地象征看过去的一年，或说更有资格被历史记载下来”。

It was in the early 1980s that the language teacher-programmer became prominent. With the widespread availability of inexpensive microcomputers, often supplied with a version of BASIC, the motivated language teacher could write simple CALL programs. Programming in BASIC for language teachers was encouraged through texts such as Higgins and Johns (1984), Kenning and Kenning (1984), and Davies (1985), which contained fragments of BASIC, or complete programs in the language. Prior to microcomputer CALL, most software development had resulted from well-funded team efforts because of the complexity of the task and limited access to mainframe computers. The programming component of these projects was completed by specialists in the field.

Now, in theory at least, language teachers were free to develop their own conceptualization of CALL on the microcomputer, the only major constraint being their programming ability. The range of software written by teacher-programmers at this time was broad. It was often centred around a single activity and examples included text reconstruction, gap-filling, speed-reading, simulation, and vocabulary games (Wyatt 1984c; Underwood 1984).

In developing CALL software for the microcomputer in the 1980s, teacher-programmers often chose to learn a high-level programming language such as BASIC to design materials from scratch. Other language teachers produced CALL materials using authoring programs such as Storyboard. Two other possible approaches to authoring were the use of authoring systems and authoring languages.

An authoring system that has had a resounding influence across educational computing is HyperCard is a good example of how long-standing concepts can suddenly find expression and widespread acceptance on the computer, though they have existed for many years. The non-linear approach to text production and consumption was derived from the work of Ted Nelson who first coined the word ‘Hypertext’ in 1965(see Nelson 1976, 1981).

This work itself was derived from the idea of the ‘memex’ first outlined by Vannevar Bush in 1945. Other manifestations of the concept include Notecards by Xerox PARC, Intermedia at Brown University, and Guide at the University of Kent, which was the first commercial implementation of hypertext (Cooke and Williams 1993: 80). More recently, of course, the phenomenal growth in the use of hypertext started when the NCSA Mosaic ( 美国 ) 国家计算机安全协会 browser was released early in 1993, and the hypertext concept has in part been responsible for the extraordinary growth of the Internet and the World Wide Web ever since.

The language teacher has not only played a role in developing CALL materials, but also in using them effectively with students. Many CALL commentators have stressed the importance of carefully integrating CALL work into the broader curriculum (e.g. Farrington 1986; Hardisty and Windeatt 1989; Garrett 1991). In achieving successful integration, the teacher’s role is central, not only in choosing materials to incorporate into the programs, but also in integrating the computer activity into the lesson as a whole (Jones, C. 1996).

This point is emphasized in Jones’s influential paper ‘It’s not so much the program, more what you do with it: the importance of methodology in CALL’ (Jones, C. 1986). Jones stresses the intelligent combination of class work away from the computer with work on the computer, achieved by coordination and advanced planning by the teacher. Thus, CALL materials are not intended to stand alone, but to be integrated into broader schemes of work (see also Hardisty and Windeatt 1989).

The development of word processing on microcomputers must be mentioned also because of its widespread use in language teaching (Wresch 1984). In 1978 MicroPro announced WordMaster, the precursor to WordStar, and Word and WordPerFect for a variety of micros followed in 1983 and 1984 respectively (Smarte and Reinhardt 1990).

Storyboard

A typical example in the authoring program genre of the 1980s is the Storyboard program written by John Higgins. Storyboard is a text-reconstruction program for the microcomputer where the aim is to reconstruct a text, word by word, using textual clues such as the title, introductory material, and textual clues within the text. The program also falls into the authoring program or authoring package category, in that teachers (or students) can use the authoring facility within the program to write, or author, their own texts which are then incorporated into the program for future use.

Storyboard has an interesting history that gives some indication of how a CALL software program evolves as the concept and the technology develop. The original total text reconstruction idea for a microcomputer probably emanates from Tim Johns at the University of Birmingham, who wrote two programs called Masker and Textbag that variously exploited the general concept (Davies 1996). Both programs are described in Higgins and Johns’s seminal book, Computers in Language Learning (1984).

John Higgins wrote the original version of Storyboard in 1981 for a Sharp CP/M computer and for the Sinclair Spectrum in BASIC(Eclipse manual: Higgins 1989:18). Graham Davies (1996) then worked collaboratively with Johns to produce a version for the Commodore PET and BBC microcomputers. Chris Jones produced and Apple II version at the same time. Early versions of Storyboard were published by Wida Software, London in 1982. An agreement with a second publisher, who insisted on certain modifications to make the program more user-friendly, led to a new version of the program called Copy Write which was published in 1984.

Storyboard itself underwent further modification, and new versions of the program were created for different languages and for different microcomputers. In the mid to late 1980s text reconstruction programs proliferated扩散 , with many variations exploiting the same central idea in different ways. They included Developing Tray, TextPlay, Storyline, Quartext, Storycorner, are a Swedish version called Memory. Other programs such as Fun with Texts extend the total text reconstruction idea considerably by adding further activities. Versions of Storyboard are now available for IBM style (DOS and Windows) and Macintosh computers for English, French, Spanish, and German.

The level of expertise and the amount of time required to create such programs as Storyboard was within the reach of individual language teacher-programmers. It is interesting to note, however, that as the 1980s progressed expectations grew, and in more recent versions of the text-reconstruction idea, professional programmers have usually been employed to optimize 使最优化 the workings of the program, and to ensure that the programs are suitably user-friendly and ‘bomb-proof’. Last refers to programs like Storyboard as first-generation CALL, and text reconstruction, alongside gap-filling, text manipulation, and simulation, provided the basis for many CALL activities created by language teacher-programmers at this time (Last 1989:47; Scarborough 1988:301).

Brett (1994) discusses the use and value of text reconstruction programs. He emphasizes the use of authentic material, and suggests that text reconstruction activities are best exploited as one in a series of communicative tasks. The careful integration of CALL work and non-CALL work is apparent in the way Brett organizes the learning environment. Legenhausen and Wolff (1991) assessed the Storyboard program more formally, particularly with regard to the learning strategies used by students. They noted six strategy types: frequency strategies, form-oriented strategies, and strategies related to grammatical knowledge, semantic knowledge, textual knowledge, and world knowledge. They conclude that regardless of the particular learning strategy learners employ, the sue of Storyboard is valuable for promoting language awareness.

The Athena Language Learning Project

While many language teachers were becoming directly involved in creating CALL software for the microcomputer, the tradition of the larger scale project. In 1983, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) established Project Athena as an eight-year research program to explore innovative uses of the computer in education. One focus of the project was to create an experimental system for building multimedia learning environments. Within this framework is the Athena Language Learning Project (ALLP), whose aim is the creation of communication-based prototypes 模型 for beginning and intermediate courses in French, German, Spanish, Russian, and English as a Second Language (Morgenstern 1986).

The Athena Language Learning Project (ALLP) was conceived within the communicative approach to language learning. The educational principles underlying ALLP are, described by Murray et al. (1989: 98):

Language is seen as a negotiable system of meanings, expressed and interpreted via the social interaction of reader and text, or between speakers in a culturally coded situation rather than as a closed system of formal lexical and grammatical rule. Accordingly the aim of the materials being developed is not so much mastery of the grammatical and syntactic code as the ability to use this code to perform certain actions.

Project Athena began in 1983 at MIT with initial funding of $50 million dollars from Digital Equipment Corporation and IBM with the aim of exploring innovative uses of the computer in education (Lamper 1988). As of 1988, MIT had 450 computer workstations, interconnected using a campus-wide network, on various sites around the institute. Among these workstations is ‘a cluster of 32bit “Visual Workstation” machines which are capable of combining full-motion digitized colour videodisc, cable television, digital audio, high resolution graphics and CD-ROM’(Lampe 1988).

Of the many new research initiatives associated with this project, two are particularly noteworthy. The first is the development of the MUSE multimedia authoring environment. It uses the basic structure of hypertext and hypermedia systems to provide for extensive cross-referencing of video, audio, and graphic materials (Lampe 1988). The second important initiative employed in the ALLP is MIT-based artificial intelligence techniques where the goal is to ‘develop a natural language processing system that can intelligently “guess” meanings intended from minimal clues, and check its understanding with the user’ (Murray et al. 1989:98).

An example of an application of these techniques is No Recuerdo, language learning materials for Spanish. No Recuerdo is an interactive video narrative based on a simulation game about an amnesiac 记忆缺失 的 Columbian scientist (Murray 1987: 35). The video provides a series of structured conversations with strong narrative interest and a topic-based discourse structure (Murray et al. 1989: 106). As students explore and try to understand the plot, they query people in the story by typing questions and commands on the keyboard. The program uses artificial intelligence techniques to parse the questions and commands and thereby determine the flow of the action through the story (Murray et al. 1989: 107). The goals of the program are vocabulary learning in context, reading and listening comprehension, cultural awareness, and practice with conversational strategies (Morgenstern 1986: 31).

As the ALLP is intended as a prototype原型 only, it is difficult to assess the role of the teacher when these materials are in use. Nevertheless, Morgenstern (1986: 24) asserts that the software will ‘certainly not supplant代替’ the teacher-learner relationship, as the materials are designed for use in the language laboratory and in conjunction with classroom activities. It is also significant that language teachers were heavily involved in the ALLP and their areas of interest and expertise were utilized in their development (see Murray 1987: 34). Finally, since the ALLP has not been widely implemented, extensive evaluative studies have not yet been conducted.

Evaluation When empiricist theory predominated there appeared to be a perfect match between the qualities of the computer and the requirements of language teaching and learning. With the advent 出现 of the communicative approach to language teaching, some writers began to say that CALL methodology was ‘out of step’ with current ideas on language teaching and learning (Stevens et al. 1986: p. xi), that the ideologies conflicted (Smith 1988: 5) and that CALL was not adaptable to modern methodologies (Last 1989: 39). Last commented that, ‘The potentiality of the computer appears all the more restricted as a language teacher if you couple that to the fact that communicative competence is now increasingly playing a central role at all levels of language learning’ (Last 1989: 37).

Aside from the question of matching methodological demands with technological capabilities, other critics of CALL have directed their attention towards the dominance of the microcomputer and, in come instances, specific brands of microcomputers. For example, in 1989 Last (1989: 32) blamed the static state of the art in CALL in the UK on the market dominance of the BBC microcomputer. Lian also maintains that conceptualizing CALL only within a microcomputer framework is overly restrictive (Lian 1991: 2).

Two major syntheses 综合性 of research on CALL in the 1980s have been completed by Pederson (1988) and Dunkel (1991b). They summarize their findings on effectiveness research on CAL and CALL to date as ‘limited’ and ‘somewhat equivocal 歧义的’ (Dunkel 1991b: 24). Of the research on CALL and education generally conducted to 1988, Pederson summarizes the research findings as follows:

1. Meaningful (as opposed to manipulative) CALL practice is both possible and preferable.

2. The way CALL is designed to encourage the development of language learning skills can result in more learning.

3. Learner differences can be documented easily and accurately through computer tally of interactive learning strategies.

4. Learner differences can affect learner strategies, learning gains, and attitude in CALL.

5. Students tend to demonstrate a more positive attitude towards CALL written by their own instructor.

6. Language teachers need to develop strategies for manoeuvering 大演习 effectively within the culture of the learning laboratory and the educational institution in order to secure needed computer resources.

7. Despite the enthusiasm of language teachers already using CALL, many language teachers are dissatisfied with existing software and desire training on how to integrate CALL into the existing curriculum.

In suggesting research directions for the 1990s, Carol Chapelle (1989a) describes how the assumptions underpinning the CALL research question of the 1970s – ‘Is CALL effective in improving students’ second language competence?’ – have been invalidated during the intervening period and gives the following justification.

Firstly, it is now recognized that the term CALL covers a range of activities, not just one type;

Next, ‘second language competence’ is now defined as a complex set of interrelated competencies, making it more difficult to test directly as a result;

Thirdly, researchers have recognized the importance of studying the processes of learning, causing research that focuses on learning outcomes alone to be inadequate; and finally, individual student characteristics have been shown to lave沐浴 a significant impact on SLA (Chapelle 1989a: 7-9).

CALL in the 1990s

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 accessed on a single machine. What makes multimedia even more powerful is that it also entails hypermedia. That means that the multimedia resources are all linked together and that learners can navigate their own path simply 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 world. 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 their learning, since they can not only go at their own pace but even on their 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 使便利 a principle focus on the content, without sacrificing a secondary focus on language form or learning strategies. For example, while the main lesson is in the foreground, students can have access to a variety of background links which will allow them rapid access to grammatical explanations or exercises, vocabulary glosses, pronunciation information, or questions or prompts which encourage them to adopt an appropriate learning strategy.

An example of how hypermedia can be used for language learning is the program Dustin which is being developed by the Institute for Learning Sciences at Northwestern University (Schank & Cleary, 1995). The program is a simulation of a student arriving at a U.S. airport. The student must go through customs, find transportation to the city, and check in at a hotel.

The language learner using the program assumes the role of the arriving student by interacting with simulated people who appear in video clips and responding to what they say by typing in responses. If the responses are correct, the student is sent off to do other things, such as meeting a roommate. If the responses are incorrect, the program takes remedial action by showing examples or breaking down the task into smaller parts. At any time the student can control the situation by asking what to do, asking what to say, asking to hear again what was just said, requesting for a translation, or controlling the level of difficulty of the lesson.

Yet in spite of the apparent advantages of hypermedia for language learning, multimedia software has so far failed to make a major impact. Several major problems have surfaced in regarding to exploiting multimedia for language teaching.

 

First, there is the question of quality of available programs. While teachers themselves can conceivably develop their own multimedia programs using authoring software such as Hypercard (for the Macintosh) or Toolbook (for the PC), the fact is that most classroom teachers lack the training or the time to make even simple programs, let alone more complex and sophisticated ones such as Dustin. This has left the field to commercial developers, who often fail to base their programs on sound pedagogical principles. In addition, the cost involved in developing quality programs can put them out of the market of most English teaching programs.

Beyond these lies perhaps a more fundamental problem. Today's computer programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. A program like Dustin should ideally be able to understand a user's spoken input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also or appropriateness. It should be able to diagnose诊断 a student's problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options (e.g., repeating, paraphrasing, slowing down, correcting, or directing the student to background explanations).

Computer programs with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Artificial intelligence (AI) of a more modest degree does exist, but few funds are available to apply AI人工智能 (artificial intelligence)research to the language classroom. Thus while Intelligent CALL (Underwood, 1989) may be the next and ultimate usage of computers for language learning, that phase is clearly a long way down the road.

Multimedia technology as it currently exists thus only partially contributes to integrative CALL. Using multimedia may involve an integration of skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves a more important type of integration--integrating meaningful and authentic communication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. Fortunately, though, another technological breakthrough is helping make that possible--electronic communication and the Internet.

Integrative CALL: The Internet

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which has existed in primitive form since the 1960s but has only became wide-spread in the last five years, is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impact on language teaching. For the first time, language learners can communicate directly, inexpensively, and conveniently with other learners or speakers of the target language 24 hours a day, from school, work, or home.

This communication can be asynchronous 异步(not simultaneous) through tools such as electronic mail (e-mail), which allows each participant to compose messages at their time and pace, or in can be synchronous (synchronous, "real time"), using programs such as MOOs, which allow people all around the world to have a simultaneous conversation by typing at their keyboards. It also allows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowing a teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class, a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of people.

Computer-mediated communication allows users to share not only brief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents--thus facilitating collaborative writing--and also graphics, sounds, and video. Using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can search through 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特制的 to their own personal interests. They can also use the Web to publish their texts or multimedia materials to share with partner classes or with the general public.

It is not hard to see how computer-mediated communication and the Internet can facilitate an integrative approach to using technology. The following example illustrates well how the Internet can be used to help create an environment where authentic and creative communication is integrated into all aspects of the course.

Students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz Mexico don't just study general examples and write homework for the teacher; instead they use the Internet to actually become scientific writers (Bowers, 1995; Bowers, in press). First, the students search the World Wide Web to find articles in their exact area of specialty and then carefully read and study those specific articles. They then write their own drafts online;

the teacher critiques the drafts online and creates electronic links to his own comments and to pages of appropriate linguistic and technical explanation, so that students can find additional background help at the click of a mouse. Next, using this assistance, the students prepare and publish their own articles on the World Wide Web, together with reply forms to solicit恳求 opinions from readers. They advertise their Web articles on appropriate Internet sites (e.g., scientific newsgroups) so that interested scientists around the world will know about their articles and will be able to read and comment on them. When they receive their comments (by e-mail) they can take those into account in editing their articles for republication on the Web or for submission to scientific journals.

The above example illustrates an integrative approach to using technology in a course based on reading and writing. This perhaps is the most common use of the Internet to date, since it is still predominantly a text-based medium. This will undoubtedly change in the future, not only due to the transmission of audio-visual material (video clips, sound files) World Wide Web, but also due to the growing use of the Internet to carry out real-time audio- and audio-visual chatting (this is already possible with tools such as NetPhone and CU-SeeME, but is not yet widespread).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to wait for further technological developments in order to use the Internet in a multi-skills class. The following example shows how the Internet, combined with other technologies, was used to help create an integrated communicative environment for EFL students in Bulgaria--students who until recent years had little contact with the English-speaking world and were taught through a "discrete 不连续 topic and skill orientation" (Meskill & Rangelova, in press, n.p.). These Bulgarian students now benefit from a high-tech/low-tech combination to implement an integrated skills approach in which a variety of language skills are practiced at the same time with the goal of fostering communicative competence. Their course is based on a collaborative, interpreted study of contemporary American short stories, assisted by three technological tools:

* E-mail communication. The Bulgarian students correspond by e-mail with an American class of TESOL graduate students to explore in detail the nuances细微差别 of American culture which are expressed in the stories, and also to ask questions about idioms, vocabulary, and grammar. The American students, who are training to be teachers, benefit from the concrete experience of handling students' linguistic and cultural questions .

* Concordancing. The Bulgarian students further test out their hypotheses regarding the lexical and grammatical meanings of expressions they find in the stories by using concordancing software to search for other uses of these expressions in a variety of English language corpora stored on CD-ROM.

* Audio tape. Selected scenes from the stories--dialogues, monologues, and descriptions--were recorded by the American students and provide both listening practice (inside and outside of class) and also additional background materials to help the Bulgarians construct their interpretation of the stories.

These activities are supplemented by a range of other classroom activities, such as in-class discussions and dialogue journals, which assist the students in developing their responses to the stories' plots, themes, and characters--responses which can be further discussed with their e-mail partners in the U.S.

Conclusion

The history of CALL suggests that the computer can serve a variety of uses for language teaching. It can be a tutor which offers language drills or skill practice; a stimulus for discussion and interaction; or a tool for writing and research. With the advent of the Internet, it can also be a medium of global communication and a source of limitless authentic materials.  But as pointed out by Garrett (1991), "the use of the computer does not constitute a method". Rather, it is a "medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented" (p. 75). The effectiveness of CALL cannot reside in the medium itself but only in how it is put to use.

As with the audio language lab "revolution" of 40 years ago, those who expect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensive and elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computer technology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly find ways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunities of their students.

A Typology of CALL Programs and Applications

Computer as Tutor

Grammar

CALL Programs designed for teaching grammar include drill and practice on a single topic (Irregular Verbs, Definite and Indefinite Articles), drills on a variety of topics (Advanced Grammar Series, English Grammar Computerized I and II), games (Code Breaker, Jr. High Grade Builder), and programs for test preparation (50 TOEFL SWE Grammar Tests) Grammar units are also included in a number of comprehensive multimedia packages (Dynamic English, Learn to Speak English Series).

Listening

This category includes programs which are specifically designed to promote second-language listening (Listen!), multi-skill drill and practice programs (TOEFL Mastery), multimedia programs for second language learners (Accelerated English, Rosetta Stone), and multimedia programs for children or the general public (Aesop's Fables, The Animals).

Pronunciation

Pronunciation programs (Sounds American, Conversations) generally allow students to record and playback their own voice and compare it to a model. Several comprehensive multimedia programs (Firsthand Access, The Lost Secret) include similar features.

Reading

This category includes reading programs designed for ESL learners (Reading Adventure 1 - ESL) and tutorials designed for children or the general public (MacReader, Reading Critically, Steps to Comprehension). and games (HangWord). Also included are more general educational programs which can assist reading (Navajo Vacation, The Night Before Christmas) and text reconstruction programs.

Text Reconstruction

Text reconstruction programs allow students to manipulate letters, words, sentences, or paragraphs in order to put texts together. They are usually inexpensive and can be used to support reading, writing, or discussion activities. Popular examples include Eclipse, Gapmaster, Super Cloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up.

Vocabulary

This category includes drill and practice programs (Synonyms), multimedia tutorials (English Vocabulary), and games (Hangman, Scrabble). Also useful are several reference and searching tools (such as concordancers) which will be described in the Computer as Tool section below.

Writing

Most software for supporting writing falls under the Computer as Tool category (see below). Exceptions include tutorials such as Sentence Combining, SentenceMaker, and Typing Tutor.

Comprehensive

A number of comprehensive multimedia programs are designed to teach ESL students a variety of skills. They range in price but many are quite expensive. Among the better known are Dynamic English, Ellis Mastery, English Discoveries, Rosetta Stone.

Computer as Stimulus

The computer as stimulus category includes software which is used not so much as a tutorial in itself but to generate analysis, critical thinking, discussion, and writing. Of course a number of the above-mentioned programs (e.g., The Animals, Navajo Vacation, Night Before Christmas) can be used as a stimulus. Especially effective for a stimulus are programs which include simulations. Examples of this latter group include London Adventure, Oregon Trail, SimCity, Sleuth, Crimelab, Amazon Trail, Cross Country Canada/USA, and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?

Computer as Tool

Word Processing

The most common use of computer as tool, and probably the most common use overall of the computer for language learning, is word processing. High quality programs like Microsoft Word can be useful for certain academic or business settings (Healey & Johnson, 1995a). Programs such as ClarisWorks and MicrosoftWorks are cheaper and simpler to learn and still have useful features. SimpleText and TeachText are simpler yet and may be sufficient for many learners.

Grammar Checkers

Grammar checkers (e.g., Grammatik) are designed for native speakers and they typically point to problems believed typical of native speaker writing (e.g., too much use of passives). They are usually very confusing to language learners and are not recommended for an ESL/EFL context.

Concordancers

Concordancing software searches through huge files of texts (called corpora, which is the plural of corpus) in order to find all the uses of a particular word (or collocation). While very confusing for beginners, concordancers can be a wonderful tool for advanced students of language, linguistics, or literature.  The best concordancer for language students and teachers is Oxford's MicroConcord. The program includes as an optional extra several large (total 1,000,000 words) taken from British newspapers. Or this program, and other concordancers as well, can be used with any other text files available in electronic form.

Collaborative Writing

A number of tools exist to help students work on their writing collaboratively on computers linked in a local area network. The most popular among language teachers is Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment, which includes modules for real-time discussion, word processing, electronic mail, and brainstorming集体讨论 , as well as citation software and a dictionary. Other programs with some similar features are Aspects and MacCollaborator.

Reference

There are numerous CD versions of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Two which have highly recommended (Healey & Johnson, 1995a) for language learners are the encyclopedia ENCARTA and the Longman Dictionary of American English.

Internet

The three most popular uses of the Internet for language teaching are electronic mail (e-mail), the World Wide Web, and MOOs. Numerous programs exist for using electronic mail. The Eudora program has several nice features, including "point-and-click" word processing capacity, easy attachment of formatted files, and ability to include foreign characters and alphabets. The free version (Eudora Light) is suitable for most purposes; there is also a more powerful commercial version (Eudora Pro). Eudora requires a direct connection to the Internet. Additional programs which run through the unix system and do not require a direct Internet connection are Pine and Elm.

To access the World Wide Web, one needs a special program called a browser. By far the most popular browser among educators is Netscape, which until now has been free to teachers and students.

 MOOs ("Multiple-user-domains Object Oriented") allow for real time communication, simulation, and role playing among participants throughout the world, and a special MOO has been set up for ESL teachers and students (schmOOze University homepage, 1995). The use of MOOs is greatly facilitated if one uses a special client software program such as TinyFugue (for unix), MUDDweller (for Mac), or MUDwin (for Windows).

Authoring

Authoring allows teachers to tailor software programs either by inserting new texts or by modifying the activities. Authoring runs on a spectrum from set programs which allow slight modification (e.g., inclusion of new texts) to complex authoring systems.  Many of the programs listed earlier (e.g., MacReader, Eclipse, Gapmaster, Super Cloze, Text Tanglers, and Double Up) allow teachers to insert their own texts and thus make the programs more relevant to their own lessons (and greatly extend their shelf life too). By allowing the students themselves to develop and insert the texts, the programs can be made even more communicative and interactive.

On the other end of the spectrum, authoring systems allow teachers to design their own multimedia courseware. These can take a lot of time and effort to master, and are most often used by true enthusiasts. Some are specifically designed for language teachers (CALIS, DASHER), others for educators (Digital Chiseler) and others for the general public (Hypercard, Hyperstudio, Supercard, Toolbook, Macromind Director).