CALL in 21 st Century

During the last two decades, technology, at both hardware (e.g., new smartphones) and software (e.g., virtual reality) level, has developed and expanded at a rapid pace (Chao, 2015). One important aspect of technological advancement is in the area of social media, and particularly communication tools, or technically called social networking, such as Facebook (Godwin-Jones, 2016). Today, people can easily and swiftly communicate with others around the world and enjoy synchronous audio or video chats (e.g., via WhatsApp) with excitingly low charges, and sometimes for free (Zayed, 2016). They can produce new content and share their thoughts online with broad and diverse audiences (e.g., cloud storages such as

Dropbox). The applications of social media and networking tools in CALL have been widely studied and reported in recent years (Blattner & Fiori, 2011; Lin, Warschauer & Blake, 2016). The study results of Lin et al. (2016) of 4174 Livemocha users, for instance, showed that language learning via social network websites creates considerable opportunities for language learners through interaction with native speakers. They further suggest that these learning environments might not encourage long-term attendance and contribution to learner accuracy.

In more recent years, mobile phones have had an integral role in our everyday lives, which has affected our ways of learning (Godwin-Jones, 2011). These tools are capable of connecting to the Internet, via wireless or network connection, and enable users to look up for new information on often-big touch screens. These kinds of useful features motivated CALL

41

researchers to study the applications of mobile phones for learning a second/foreign language (Al Fadda & Al Qasim, 2013; Hegelheimer & O’Bryan, 2009; Kukulska-Hulme & Shield, 2007). Godwin-Jones (2011) notes that smartphones are effective tools for promoting individualised and informal language learning. He believes that language learners need to have the autonomy to choose the appropriate App, and educators provide them with assistance and guidance. Considering that mobile phones are becoming the primary and perhaps sole computing devices, CALL experts advise that this trend cannot be ignored by language educators (Godwin-Jones, 2011).

Kimura, Obari and Goda (2011) investigated the applications of mobile technologies in language learning in the Japanese context. They identified several positive and negative aspects of language learning with mobile phones. As noted by Kimura et al., the compact size, fast networks, individualised and easy use are among the strengths of smartphones devices. They indicated that “mobile phones provide high-speed Internet access, a rich mix of data, CD-quality music, and high-quality still and motion pictures. They can transmit video suitable for m-learning as well” (Kimura, Obari & Goda, 2011; p. 39). Despite this, there are limitations perceived for mobile phones, such as small screen size and keypad, as well as a high purchase and maintenance expenses (e.g., broken display) (Kimura, Obari & Goda, 2011).

Any technological advancement brings about new opportunities for the

implementation of CALL (Beatty, 2013). This relationship means language teachers have an increasingly wider range of teaching tools and methods available, which encourages them to gain relevant knowledge and skills to be able to choose the best technological tools for the students. Nonetheless, “the overall validity of CALL applications must be viewed as being acceptable by learners with regard to both usefulness and enjoyment” (Stockwell, 2013, p. 213). Overall, contemporary CALL has enormous potential to provide language teachers and

42

learners with innovative learning experiences, without space and time limitations (Godwin- Jones, 2016). Examples of the recent advanced technologies are virtual reality (VR),

Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR) (Hawkinson, Mehran & Alizadeh, 2017). The information provided above presented a brief history of CALL and introduced the main milestones of the synergy between language teaching/learning and technology. This section is reviewed and concluded by presenting two chronological models of the history of CALL by Warschauer and Healey (1998) and Bax (2003).

Warschauer and Healey (1998) divided the history of CALL into three main stages: behaviouristic CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Two main factors that differentiated these stages were the level of the technology and pedagogical approach. Davies et al. (2013, p. 30) summarise these stages as:

• Behaviourist CALL: In this phase, which was conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and 1970s, the computer played the role of tutor, serving mainly as a vehicle for delivering instructional materials to the learner. Drill-and-practice programs were a prominent feature of this phase.

• Communicative CALL: In this phase, which became prominent in the 1970s and 1980s, the computer continued to be used as a vehicle for practising language skills, but in a non-drill format and with a greater degree of student choice, control and interaction.

• Integrative CALL: This phase was marked by the introduction of two

important innovations: multimedia and the Internet, both of which had become prominent by the mid-1990s.

This categorisation shows the concurrence of changes in approaches to language teaching/learning with technological developments of the time. While the gradual evaluation of CALL is aptly described in the above classification model, Bax (2003) questioned the

43

suggested dates and proposed three approaches to CALL, rather than stages. Bax’s (2003) categorises CALL as restricted, open and integrated CALL. During restricted CALL, the type of task is limited to closed drills and quizzes, students have minimal interaction, and the feedback is provided in a binary form of correct/incorrect (Bax, 2003). The open CALL, however, features more sophisticated tasks, such as simulations, games and computer- mediated communication (Bax, 2003). At this stage, students have more interaction with the computer and occasionally other students. Bax considers that during the restricted and open CALL era, teachers monitored students’ performance, and their attitudes toward CALL were accompanied by exaggerated fear and awe. Finally, the integrated CALL features more frequent interaction among students via using tools such as e-mail (Bax, 2003). At this stage, teachers as facilitators are believed to have normalised attitudes toward CALL. Contrary to the previous approaches, in the integrated CALL approach, only a small part of the lesson is carried out using computers (Bax, 2003).

Although these two models were developed years ago, they lend significant insights into the evolution of CALL. Bax (2003) introduced the concept of normalisation, by which he means arriving at a point where technologies in education become invisible and embedded in the teaching and learning process. As noticed by Otto (2017), earlier tools like chalk and boards used in language learning were not called ‘assistants’, and never had a term such as Chalk-assisted Language Learning. Otto believed that “in the future, our focus will return to our methods and goals, with less prominence given to the technologies that help us realise them” (2017, p.21). Bax and Otto’s comments propose useful guidelines for future CALL investigation, with an emphasis on pedagogical aspects of technological tools, rather than generic features.

44