COMPUTER ASSISTED LAGUAGE LEARNING (CALL)

AND TEACHING

by

Afelumo Pamilerin Isaac

Presentation

held at

Department of Education, Unilag,

Lagos, Nigeria.

October 7, 2014.

1 | P a g e

CALL – COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING

INTRODUCTION:

As computers have become widespread in schools, homes and

business, a need for language learning has become urgent and the

necessity of computer literacy has become very obvious, language

teachers have started to use new technologies as a new

pedagogical tool in foreign language teaching. Introduction of

new pedagogical tools does not reject, but includes programs and

methods of the previous phase, representing inevitable innovation

that gains acceptance slowly and unevenly. (Sanja Seljan, NorbertBerger & Zdravko Dovedan; 2004)

This age is referred to as the computer age and is therefore

characterized by rapid growth in the development of computer

hardware and software for various things. Therefore, the need for

the application of computer in language learning cannot be

overemphasized, as put above, ‘computer have become widespread’,

people now virtually have mini or micro computers on them always.

Since, computer has become the ‘new language’ of the world, it is

therefore imperative that it be applied to language learning, to

make it effective, fun and ‘in fashion’.

Dhaif [2004] emphasizes the role of computer in language

learning, he says that, “there is no doubt that just as the

computer has established itself firmly in the world of business2 | P a g e

and communication technology, it has also succeeded in acquiring

a fundamental role in the educational process. This role is

becoming more powerful as computers become cheaper, smaller in

size, more adaptable and easier to handle. Computers are becoming

more appealing to teachers because of their huge capabilities and

extensive effectiveness”.

Isn’t it amazing how children learn the computer easily, even

without help from adults, they just seem to have computer

hardwired to their memory. Sometimes, we are amazed how our

little brother or sisters or kids teach us, when it comes to the

operation of computers, especially at a time like this, when

computers are easily accessible. We can therefore relate this to

the effectiveness of using computer to teach children language;

they are able to learn better and even without the teacher’s

help.

What then is CALL?

DEFINITIONS OF CALL:

Gamper and Knapp [2002] define Computer Assisted Language

Learning (CALL) as “a research field which explores the use of

computational methods and techniques as well as new media for

language learning and teaching”

3 | P a g e

Levy [1997] succinctly defined CALL as “the search for and study

of applications of the computer in language teaching and

learning”

Beatty [2003] offers a broad definition of CALL as “any process

in which a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his

or her language’

However, in a more simplistic way, I believe that CALL could be

defined as the use of computers in the language teaching and

learning process. CALL involves the application of computer

processes in language learning and is therefore regarded as

applied linguistics.

DEVELOPMENT OF CALL

CALL has been used since the 1960s and1970s, but it still lacks

clear research methods. CALL development can be divided into

three phases (Moras, 2001). These three phases include:

The behaviourist CALL approach

The communicative CALL approach

The Integrative CALL approach

The behaviourist CALL approach:

It was conceived in the 1950s implemented in the 1960s and 70s,

when the audio-lingual method was widely used. It could be

considered as a sub-component of the broader field of computer-

assisted instruction. This provided students with drills and

practice. In this phase, the computer is used as a tutor; it

entailed repetitive language drills-and-practice activities4 | P a g e

without feedback. Taylor (1980) referred to drill and practice

courseware as a tutor presenting drill exercises without feed-

back component. In this regard, the computer serves as a vehicle

for delivering instructional material.

From learning theories (especially B.F Skinners operant

conditioning), I believe that the core of the behaviourist

approach (Stimulus-response) is in the strengthening of behaviour

through consequence or reinforcement i.e. if a particular

behavioural pattern is positively reinforced, it would be

strengthened but if behavioural pattern isn’t reinforced, then

most likely, the behaviour would reduce or stop. The feedback is

therefore very important in the behaviourist approach and since

the behaviourist CALL approach lacked feedback, I do not believe

it was effective enough in the language teaching and learning

process, especially for second language learners; in other words,

it was not capable enough of strengthening the learner’s use of

language. Little wonder it had to be improved upon.

Also, another factor that hindered the effectiveness of the

behaviorist call was that, “although it eventually gravitated to

the personal computer, it was first designed and implemented in

the era of the mainframe. For instance, the best known tutorial

system, PLATO, ran on its own special hardware consisting of a

central computer and terminals and featured extensive drills,

grammatical explanations, and translation tests at various

intervals” (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, & Sussex, 1985)

The Communicative CALL approach5 | P a g e

This is the second phase of CALL, it 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 proponents of the communicative CALL approach was

John Underwood, who in 1984 proposed a series of “premises for

‘communicative’ CALL” (Underwood 1984:52). According the

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

utterances rather than just manipulate prefabricated

language;

Does not judge and evaluate everything the students do nor

reward them with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;

Avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a

variety of students responses;

Uses the target language exclusively 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.

The communicative CALL also incorporated the computer as a tutor’

model as there were a variety of programs to provide skill

practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of these types of

6 | P a g e

programs include courseware for paced reading, text

reconstruction and language games (Healey & Johnson 1995b). In

these programs, the computer remains the ‘knower-of-the-right-answer’,

just like the drill and practice programs. But – in contrast to

the drill and practice programs – the process of finding the

right answer involves fair amount of student choice, control, and

interaction. (Warschauer, 1996).

Another CALL model used for communicative activities involves the

computer as a stimulus. 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 Sim City, sleuth, or

Where in the World is San Diego? (Healey & Johnson 1995b).

The communicative CALL was a huge improvement on the first phase

of CALL development, especially with activities that involved

‘computer as a stimulus’, which provided for students to

critically think and discuss. When learners are able to discuss,

critically think for themselves and through these create original

language, they learn better and learning becomes permanent; I

believe that ‘permanent learning’ is what is easily applicable

when situations arise for them to make use of target language.

However, one fault I find with the use of the communicative CALL

was its neglect of extrinsic motivation (reward with

congratulatory messaged, lights, gold stars or bells). Extrinsic7 | P a g e

motivation could be a very good source of motivation for language

learners. For instance, getting more gold stars as one advances

in an online language course training could be a good source of

motivation, as the learner looks forward to expanding his

reservoir of gold stars and breaking more records.

Integrative CALL: Multimedia

Warschauer (1996) explains that 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 in 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.

Warschauer further emphasizes that 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

8 | P a g e

on their own individual path, going forward and backwards to

different parts of the program. Finally, a major advantage of

hypermedia is that it facilitates a principle focus on the

content, without sacrificing a secondary focus on language form

or learning strategies.

Learners learn better when they do so at their own pace and they

learn by their own behaviour (by doing) are two principles of

learning that integrative CALL (multimedia and hypermedia)

clearly incorporates. Also, the ability to read, write, speak and

listen is a great plus for the integrative CALL which the

multimedia provides. The fact that hypermedia focuses principally

on the content is also laudable i.e. it focuses more on what the

learners try to express, without neglecting though how they

express it.

Integrative CALL: The Internet

According to Warschauer (1996), Computer Mediated Communication

(CMC), which has existed in primitive form since the 1960s but

has only become widespread 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 (not

simultaneous) through tools such as electronic mail (email),

which allows each participant to compose messages at their time

and pace, or it can be synchronous (real time), which allows9 | P a g e

people all around the world to have simultaneous conversation by

typing at their keyboards.

The internet has made way for globalization; the world is now

referred to as a ‘global village’ with the internet breaking

barriers that once used to divide the world. Information is now

easily accessible from anywhere. The depth of information on the

internet is mind-blowing, its opportunities are limitless. The

internet has, over the years, made great impact on the world, on

education and on language teaching and learning.

A lot of social media sites have developed today, making it

easier for synchronous communication, social sites such as

Facebook, Twitter, and Yahoo messenger, make it easier for language

learners to communicate with users or native speakers of a target

language. CMC also not only allows for one-to-one communication

but one-to-many, allowing a teacher or student to share

information with a small group, the whole class, a partner class,

or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of

people. An instance could be the development of a class blog for

a language class.

To further emphasize integrative CALL (internet), an example is

given of students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz

Mexico, who don’t just study general examples and write homework

for the teacher; instead the use the internet to actually become

scientific writers. 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 write10 | P a g e

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 opinions from readers. They advertize

their Web articles on appropriate internet sites, 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 email) they can take those into

account in editing their articles for republication on the web or

for submission to scientific journals.

Wow! What beautiful way to learn in a language class, the

students not only, through constant practice, improve their

language proficiency, they also improve their knowledge in

science and technology; another principle of learning states that

learners retain what is meaningful to them, teaching English in a

way that incorporates things that are meaningful to the students,

strengthens their retention of the language. The example above

only covers the aspect of reading and writing and might not

really affect speaking; it illustrates an integrative approach to

using technology in a course based on reading and writing.

LANGAUGE TEACHERS AND CALL

11 | P a g e

According to Atkins and Vasu (2000), teachers’ attitudes or

concerns have a significant influence on the use of computers in

the classroom. Lam (2000) also emphasizes that, teachers’

personal beliefs of the advantages of using technology for

language teaching influence teachers’ decision regarding

technology use. Similarly, Kim (2002) points out that critical

factors affecting successful integration of technology into the

classroom are associated with teachers themselves, such as

teachers’ perceptions and attitudes. She adds that teachers’

perceptions and attitudes toward teaching and technology can be

regarded as a facilitating or inhibiting factor, giving them more

confidence or a major barrier of technology use. Redmond, Albion

and Maroulis (2005) also reported that teachers’ personal

backgrounds such as personal confidence, interests in using ICT

and willingness to try something different are significant

factors that might promote ICT integration in the classroom.

However, Egbert, Paulus and Nakamichi (2002) assert that a

positive attitude toward computer technology does not guarantee

that teachers will be able to use the technology in the

classroom. Kim (2002) found that teachers’ actual use of Web-

based lessons was limited, frequently delayed, avoided or

withdrawn. They encountered some unexpected difficulties or

barriers due to lack of sufficient knowledge and computer skills,

lack of experience, insufficient time, computer anxiety and lack

of confidence, although all participants in her study had

positive attitudes toward the use of technology and strong

intrinsic motivation such as personal curiosity and interest.12 | P a g e

Nevertheless, I am of the belief that the teacher’s perception of

science and technology goes a long way in enabling his use of the

technology in the classroom as well as influencing his learners

to use them. A teacher’s positive attitude towards science and

technology makes him ready to learn, motivates his acquisition of

knowledge about such things and fuels his passion in practice,

which in turn influences the students’ favourable disposition

towards science and technology.

However, I do not neglect the fact that CALL requires sound

training for language teachers to become familiar enough with the

used technology and with the modern resources. Therefore teachers

who accept the CALL programs should make an extra effort to

adjust their competence and knowledge to a completely new

teaching environment.

For emphasis, Cunningham (2000) asserts that In order to cope

with technological paradigm shifts effectively, therefore,

teachers need to become familiar with Web technology and have

technical competence required to accommodate CALL applications

and use various functions of the applications for educational

purposes.

Over the years, teachers have developed fear that the

introduction of science and technology in the language class

might remove the role and need for the teacher, on the contrary,

science and technology does not eliminate the role and need of

the teacher but enables to teacher to achieve more with less

energy.13 | P a g e

According to Manuel C. (1997) Two different groups of criticism

were formed at the beginning: on the one hand, those who thought

that computers would usher language learners and teachers into a

new era and that all learning problems could be solved by using

computers in the classroom; on the other hand, those led by

Luddite prejudices, worried about their jobs and always afraid of

machines who thought, and still think, that computers are not

only useless but dangerous from all points of view. It is obvious

that none of these two approaches fits teaching realities.

Some of the roles of teachers in the use of CALL include;

a) The teacher selects and integrates the materials used via

computer. He conducts the class, establishing specific

goals, organizing review sessions, reinforcing what has been

learned by monitoring the conversation, yet in a more

discreet manner as compared to the traditional class.

b) The teacher also plays a very important subjective role in

praising and encouraging the students’ active participation

which is crucial in maintaining the students’ motivation.

c) The teacher becomes a facilitator, a resource person and a

counselor rather than the only authority and decision-maker

d) The role of teachers in the new era of technology is also

not only to transmit new knowledge, but to give students

tools to acquire knowledge and recognize the value of what

they see in books and software as well as on the Internet.

e) Also, Jeong (2006) emphasizes that the role of teachers in

EFL settings is more crucial than ever before because

14 | P a g e

teachers are able to motivate students and try to create

language learning environments which are non-threatening,

meaningful and affectively supportive by using Web

technology.

In the Guidelines for Teachers, M. Warschauer and P. W. Whittaker

(1997) suggest that in order to make effective use of new

technologies, teachers must take a step back and focus on some

basic pedagogical requirements. They propose five guidelines

designed to help teachers in implementing computer-networked

activities in language acquisition:

1) Consider your goals: Since reasons for using the Internet

range from motivation or distraction to improvements in

computer skills, the teacher should have self defined goals

in order to use it successfully in the classroom. If one of

the teacher’s goals is to teach computer skills, then they

can choose Internet applications that will be useful outside

the classroom. If the goal is mainly linguistic, the teacher

will probably choose suitable exercises for grammar practice

or vocabulary acquisition (using maps, quizzes, articles

about certain topics, e-journals, advertisements, shows,

poems, songs, etc.). On the other hand if the goal is to

teach writing, then they can ask students to write essays,

announcements, CVs, applications, etc.

2) Think Integration: Internet gives opportunities to

communicate by e-mail and to have pen pals, but that is not

enough. The teacher should be deeply involved in activities

and integrate them into the learning process, by including15 | P a g e

e-books, e-journals, joint work on seminars and by supplying

other students with information. In this case, the teacher

will probably do it by consulting students. The possibility

to integrate online connections in the class, for instance,

through class blog would probably be motivating, trendy and

enjoyable.

3) Don’t Underestimate the Complexity: It is possible that a

number of students lack basic computer skills, which may be

very time consuming for training. But the teacher should

also be aware of possible difficulties, such as depending on

laboratory schedules, malfunctioning hardware or software,

missing partner students, delays, differences in background,

language and experience. Therefore, to begin with, the

teacher should not depend too much on Internet activities,

but include them for specific purposes and integrate them

into classroom goals.

4) Provide Necessary Support: The teacher should prevent

students from being overwhelmed by difficulties, by creating

handouts, by including technology training lessons into

classroom activities, assure log-on systems and work inside

and outside the classroom, assigning tasks in pairs or in

groups specially in problem solving tasks, advising when and

where to ask for assistance, learn search criteria, etc.

5) Involve Students in Decisions: Network-based teaching is

part of the learner centered approach. Network-based

teaching supposes decentralized type of teaching, so the

teacher should learn to become a "coach". Their role is to

16 | P a g e

coordinate, to support, to help, to bring students’

attention to gain awareness of the language learning

process.

CALL AND TEACHING:

Current advances in ICT have changed the roles of language

teachers and learners. Learners are expected to be active

participants in the learning process rather than passive

recipients since they control their own learning in a technology-

enhanced learning environment (Brown, 1991).

Some of the advantages of CALL in teaching include:

a. Learner Autonomy: With a CALL program, learners can work at

their own pace. The learner can spend more time on those

topics that are causing difficulty. Information can be

reviewed and tasks can be repeated until the learner is

happy to move on to a new topic. The learner feels in

control, which usually enhances satisfaction levels with the

learning process. Successful language learners assume

responsibility for their own learning (Naiman et al., 1977).

b. Privacy: Many learners are shy in a traditional classroom

setting, not participating as much they would like, for fear

of making mistakes and being the object of ridicule. The

computer offers a forum where learners can lose their self-

consciousness. The computer will not expose them when they

make any mistakes (although the errors may be stored for

review). The learners can learn within the sheltered,

protected confines of the CALL program.17 | P a g e

c. Feedback: in the traditional classroom setting, it may not

be possible to provide immediate feedback to each individual

learner. However, the computer can give feedback at the

touch of a button. Thus, learners can test their knowledge

and learn from their mistakes. It is important that errors

are corrected before they are converted into part of the

learner’s “language knowledge”.

d. Motivation: Motivation is an important factor in language

learning. Motivation encourages greater learner effort and

thus greater language performance. The desire to engage

science and technology in so many dimensions in a language

class could help fuel motivation in learners (although, only

self-motivated learners can respond to this).

e. Access to Information: Another benefit of CALL is the

control over access to information. A CALL program has the

potential to provide more information to the learner (via

links to electronic dictionaries, more detailed screens and

links to other sites) (Egbert and Hanson-Smith, 1999), while

conversely, learners can avoid information overload if they

feel they are being overwhelmed. They can leave a program to

give themselves time to absorb the new knowledge. In a

traditional classroom setting, students cannot usually leave

if they feel overloaded. They must wait until the class has

ended, possibly not paying attention to what the teacher is

saying and missing out on the topic being taught. With a

CALL program, the user can leave when he wishes and come

back to where he left off and start again

18 | P a g e

f. Interactivity: Computers promote interactivity. Learners

have to interact with the computer and cannot hide behind

their classmates. If the learner does nothing, nothing

happens. At the very least, learners have to start the CALL

program. The program can only pass from one section to

another with the “consent” of the learner. Thus learners

have to drive the program. Usually they have to use the

target language in exercises within the program. They have

plenty of opportunities to practise the language in a one-

on-one situation. They can practise the exercises as many

times as they like, until they are satisfied with their

results.

Limitations of CALL in teaching include:

a. Limited availability of resources: CALL is an emerging

discipline. Research points out many of the current and

potential benefits of CALL. However, in many learning

institutions, the availability of CALL resources is limited.

Limited resources include time and money for development of

CALL materials (Levy, 1997), finance to purchase computers

and lack of teacher knowledge. Sometimes there is a mismatch

between the CALL program and the users and/or the setting.

b. Anti-social behaviour: The whole reason behind learning a

language is to be able to communicate with others. If

someone learns a language for the purposes of interacting19 | P a g e

with another human in the same language and yet s/he only

“speaks” to a computer, surely that is missing the whole

point of learning the language. Although the computer cannot

force learners to speak with other speakers of the language,

it can suggest to learners that they practise with other

speakers at various points throughout the program. However

learners may get “wrapped-up” in the program and focus on

learning the language in isolation.

c. Learning Content: Another possible problem with CALL

programs is that sometimes misleading, oversimplified

explanations are provided. Not only will this waste the

students’ time, it will confuse them and will not meet their

learning needs

TYPES OF CALL RELATED MATERIALS AND ACTIVITIES:

1. Chat Online: Chat centers can be a rewarding experience for

the language learner. The user meets other learners online and

can communicate with these through text or speech. It is easy to

set up a chat server, but difficult to gain users.

2. Electronic Dictionaries: Electronic dictionaries are very

useful for the learners of the less taught languages. Though

this, learners are able to build up their vocabulary and easily

check the meaning of words anywhere and anytime.

3. Role plays/ MUD and MOO: On the Internet it is possible to

take part in role plays with participants from all over the

world. The activity is often called MUD; Multi User Dungeons. In

some cases the activities have been made explicitly for language

20 | P a g e

teaching and class room use, try these two addresses:

http://moo.du.org and www.du.org

4. Blogs (Weblogs): creating a class blog could also be a great

way of encouraging learners in a language class to use a

language. The teacher could be the facilitator of the blog and is

responsible for regulating discussions in the group to enable the

learners make constant use of the language.

5. Crosswords: Cross words are often very popular with students,

and when created from the vocabulary that the students have just

been working on it is a good tool for post task exercises. This

is an activity that can easily and in a few minutes be created

with the software “Hot Potatoes”, and with Hot Potatoes students

may even create the exercises for one another.

6. Listening Exercises: In this activity the computer replaces a

tape recorder. Often the activity is combined with other

activities like multiple choice exercises to control if the

student has understood the content.

7. Tandem: The best way of learning a foreign language is

communication with a native speaker who wants to learn your

language. It is a give and take solution where you are the

teacher (of your own language) and the student (of a foreign

language). Help and tips on how to learn as a tandem partner can

be found here:

http://www2.tcd.ie/CLCS/tandem/email/help/helpeng01.html

21 | P a g e

CONCLUSION:

The need for CALL in the teaching and learning language process,

especially in the acquisition of second language cannot be

overemphasized as it offers the teachers and learners a lot of

opportunities in the acquisition and usage of language. However,

the place of the teacher should also not be undermined; teachers

should be trained and properly equipped with tools needed to

facilitate the use of CALL in classroom settings. To ensure an

effectives use of CALL, resources should be adequately provided

and maintained and a motivating environment should be created for

students to make use of these resources.

22 | P a g e

Reference

Ahmad, k., Corbett, G., Rogers, M., & Sussex, R. (1985). Computers, languagelearning and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Atkins, N. E., & Vasu, E. S. (2000). Measuring knowledge of technology usageand stages of concern about computing: A study of middle school teachers.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 8(4). 279-302.

Brown, H. D. (1991). TESOL at twenty-five: What are the issues? TESOLQuarterly, 25, 245-260.

Cunningham, K. (2000). Integrating CALL into the writing curriculum. TheInternet TESL Journal, 6(5), Retrieved March 26, 2008, fromhttp://iteslj.org/Articles/Cunningham-CALLWriting/

Dhaif. H., “Computer Assisted Language Learning: A Client's View,” ComputerJournal Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, vol.7, no. 2, pp. 467-469,2004. 2.

Egbert, J.L., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALLinstruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technologyin teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 108-126. RetrievedMay 17, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6'num3/egbert/

Gamper, J., Knapp, J.: A review of Intelligent CALL systems. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning. 15, 4, 329-342 (2002)

Healey D. & Johnson N. (1995b) “A brief introduction to CALL". In Healey D. &Johnson N. (eds.) 1995 TESOL CALL interest section software list Alexandria,VA: TESOL publications: iii-vii.

Joy Egbert, Elizabeth Hanson-Smith (1999); Call Environments: Research,practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL publications.

Kim, H. (2002). Teachers as a barrier to technology-integrated languageteaching. English Teaching, 57(2), 35-64.

Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at whysecond-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms.Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.

23 | P a g e

Levy, M. (1997). CALL: context and conceptualization. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Moras, Solange. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (Call) and the Internet.Karen’s Linguistic Issues,2001.(http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/CALL.html, accessed 6th,October, 2014.)

Redmond, P., Albion, P. R., & Maroulis, J. (2005, March). Intentions vReality: Pre-service teachers’ ICT Integration during Professional Experience.Paper presented at the 16th International Conference of the Society forInformation Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 2005), Phoenix, USA.

Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: tutor, tool, tutee. New York:Teachers College Press.

Underwood J. (1984) linguistics, computers and the language teacher: acommunicative approach, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Warschauer M. (1996) "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an introduction".In Fotos S. (ed.) Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo: Logos International: 3-20.

Warschauer, M; Whittaker, P.F. The Internet for English Teaching: Guidelinesfor Teachers, 1997. TESL Reporter 30,1. p. 27-33

24 | P a g e