Communicative CALL

Communicative CALL

The second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teachingwhich became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approachfelt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did notallow 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 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 rather than explicitly;

* allows and encourages students to generate original utterancesrather than just manipulate prefabricated language;

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

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

* uses the target language exclusively and creates an environmentin 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, contendsthat all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity--both learner-computer and learner-learner(Stevens, 1989).

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

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used forcommunicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor& Perez, 1989, p. 63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activityis not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather tostimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Softwareused for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may nothave been specifically designed for language learners, programs such asSimCity,Sleuth,or Where in the World is San Diego (Healey & Johnson, 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves thecomputeras tool (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980), or, as sometimescalled, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez, 1989). Inthis role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language materialat all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language. Examplesof computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammarcheckers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordancers.

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

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advanceover its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators feltthat CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning &Kenning, 1990; Pusack & Otto, 1990; R�schoff, 1993). Critics pointedout that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashionand thus "finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal ratherthan to central elements" of the language teaching process (Kenning &Kenning, 1990, p. 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed with broader reassessmentsof the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfiedwith teaching compartmentalized skills or structures (even if taught ina communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teachin a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-basedapproaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop modelswhich could help integrate the various aspects of the language learningprocess. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing theopportunities to do just that.