Meetings
addressing computer-assisted language learning (CALL) often seem
to gravitate toward talk among teachers of the awkwardness with
which some programs have integrated a CALL component and the resulting
difficulty in making it an effective tool of instruction. Seldom
do I hear of an enlightened, systematic, and practical approach
taken to integrating computers into an ESL program, at least in
post-secondary programs. In light of this situation, I'm forgoing
a detailed report on the Professional Development Opportunity (PDO),
Making Multimedia Work for ESL,[1]
held on June 14 at CELOP, Boston University, in favor of submitting
what I immodestly suggest is an enlightened approach to CALL--not
one that I took, but one that I now recognize.
Not
to be completely ignored, the PDO, held to present and discuss specific
computer applications and activities for ESL teachers, proved to
be a teaser and a torture as it demonstrated the possibilities while
unavoidably revealing the complexities of CALL. There were 75 takers
for the 50 spots available, and that enthusiasm was apparent as
the participants, many working in pairs in the two Multimedia Language
Labs, proved that students empowered with computers have little
need for an attention- and control-hungry teacher (me, for example).
The next such workshop should offer a 9:1 ratio of hands-on exploration
to lecture. Students at computers, as students of language generally,
learn by doing and experimenting, not by lectures and excessive
guidance.
To
learn about specific applications, look for the next PDO of this
type, or, better yet, get yourself to a lab and give it a go yourself.
For now, here's a message for administrators and teachers who find
themselves somewhere in the transition to CALL labs.
The
nature of the analog-to-digital transition in language labs seems
to be more push than pull. For reasons of competition and prestige,
many programs are expected by the administration to offer a computer-based
lab long before teachers and staff know what do to with one. Grant
providers and administrators are often concerned with getting hardware
on desks--the tangible acquisitions--and underestimate the so-called
hidden costs and concerns--the intangibles. Ironically, it is these
intangibles that will make or break a lab, though it is the hardware
that attracts the most concern. Continuing the irony, traditionally
non-technical academic programs seem to have little appreciation
for the value of knowledge when it comes to the human resources--particularly
technical specialists--they allocate to getting a lab working and
achieving the desired goals.
In
those cases where a decision for a CALL lab is not made in advance
of serious thought, here are a few preliminary considerations:2
1.
Is the proposed lab compatible with the program's pedagogical
goals?
2.
Is the program ready to use it immediately for a variety of tasks
to utilize and justify the capabilities? (Computers are tools
not investments. They have value only in their use.)
3.
Computer networks typical of CALL installations are technically
complicated. Does the program have knowledgeable, experienced,
and objective people responsible for making informed purchasing
decisions, installing, configuring, and maintaining this system?
Will a coordinator be needed? If so, with what balance between
technical and teaching experience?
4.
Do the teachers have the computer training, enthusiasm, and time
to develop or implement a CALL curriculum?
5.
Will the program have enough licensed material to use?
6.
A CALL lab will not save money. In addition to the initial outlay
for hardware and labor, will the budget allow for a coordinator,
faculty release time, maintenance, upgrades, software, outside
consulting, professional development, and so forth?
Choosing,
installing, configuring, maintaining, and teaching in a high-end
networked computer lab is expensive, complicated, and ambitious.
Most ESL programs are not set up to handle such a project effectively.
Too much of the process differs from their daily missions; thus
knowledgeable and experienced outside help needs to be brought in.
Far from an added expense, this is actually the cheapest route in
that it will avert expensive mistakes and free up administrators
and teachers for what they do best--which may not be setting
up a lab.
Coupled
with possible missteps in this process, the other possible foot
trap on the path to success may be teacher resistance, or simply
anxiety. People tend to resist change by nature, dismissing the
long-term benefits of this change by focusing on the difficulty
of the transition alone. It's worth remembering that CALL is a long-term
repositioning, not a short-term solution. Though the transition
period will be one characterized by longing for the relatively uncomplicated
days of the old lab, that energy would be better spent accepting
the new lab and getting on with it. Fortunately, at least some teachers
do embrace the new, and with an infectious and frenzied enthusiasm.
Once
in a new CALL lab, the first inclination of teachers is often to
replicate functions and activities performed in the old lab. This
is an unavoidable mistake. CALL pedagogy differs from conventional
classroom pedagogy, and the CALL lab itself differs appreciably
from its predecessor, the tape-based lab. It's an enormous task
to relearn an approach to classroom teaching and learn to skillfully
use complex tools. It would be a mistake to assume that it can be
done in a semester or two, before a computer culture evolves within
the program, or even that every teacher will make the transition
successfully. The key is to have an open mind to accept new approaches
and possibilities, have the enthusiasm to explore them, and have
the resourcefulness to meet teaching goals regardless of whether
these new approaches and tools work at any one moment in class.
With
the greater capabilities of the CALL lab comes greater complexity.
Thus the illogical sentiment "I want the lab without the technology"
discounts the many-fold increase in communicative and critical thinking
possibilities, the enormous content wrapped up in the means (i.e.,
technology as intermediary content), and the relevance of computer
skills for our students' futures. The neo-Luddites clamoring for
the good old days of simple listening and repeating in the tape-based
lab may well not have used it any more (or more effectively) than
they use a CALL lab.
Newcomers
to CALL easily lose sight of the fact that this technology is the
means to pedagogical goals and not an end in itself. In this dark
phase, a teacher may think of having a "computer class." This perspective
can be forgiven--as long as it's eventually outgrown. Having a "computer
class" focuses on the means instead of the end. Nonetheless, after
the initial fascination (or trauma, depending upon one's experience
and disposition) induced by the means, the goal of delivering and
engaging students with English is more effectively accomplished
in a CALL lab.
Though
the CALL transition has its difficulties, we're more concerned with
life after that. In the meantime, administrators would be well served
by approaching this endeavor with great respect for what they don't
know and the realization that expertise will not come easily or
cheaply. Teachers need to be finessed into the fold and not intimidated
into teaching with computers because everyone else is. The first
part of this process involves conveying the wisdom, as opposed to
the righteousness, of CALL pedagogy through more showing than telling,
which, coincidentally, provides a segue for me to refer you to the
MLL web site (what closing remarks these
days are complete without a call to "visit the web site"?). So,
visit the web site. In the "Admin/Tech"
area, click on "Call Rationale." You'll
find examples of how CALL provides a more effective, stimulating,
and relevant environment for a language lab.
1.
My CELOP colleagues Margo Downey and Michael Feldman joined me in
presenting.
2.
These questions are taken from a paper delivered at TESOL Orlando,
1997: Designing a Digital Learning Lab for the 21st Century, by
Pamela Couch, John de Szendeffy, Margo Downey, and Bruce Rindler.
