Computer Assisted Language Learning
-
Upload
independent -
Category
Documents
-
view
0 -
download
0
Transcript of Computer Assisted Language Learning
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