• "Overview of Computer-Assisted Language Learning Research with Second Language Acquisition Perspectives" by Hee-Jung

  
  

• "CALL-ing EAP Skills" by Anna Franca Plastina

OVERVIEW OF COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING RESEARCH
WITH SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PERSPECTIVES
by Hee-Jung Jung

Washington State University,
Pullman, USA
hjung99@hotmail.com

Introduction

This article is to explore the trends of CALL research with SLA perspectives and the limitations of CALL studies. Teachers and researchers who are interested in improving the effectiveness of CALL environments look for guidance from second language acquisition (SLA) research with the hope that CALL activities can be designed to create ideal conditions for SLA. However, it seems that CALL studies with SLA perspectives have not reached to the desire yet. This article addresses the need for research in real language learning environments, not in the medium itself by illustrating CALL studies with three second language acquisition (SLA) perspectives: Input perspective, Output perspective, and Interaction perspectives.

Input Perspective

Input perspective states that we acquire language by using what we know couples with new information, or i+1. Krashen (1997) believes that language, which contains only structures that we already know, does not aid in acquisition. This is just i. Acquisition is a result of i+1, or current knowledge plus input just a bit beyond that, with the comprehensible input being the most important thing. Several CALL research studies conducted within an input perspective have attempted to explain the meaningful input with computer become helpful for the learner. However, all research of input perspective focused on the positive effects of computer applications comparing with conventional learning tools or methods.

In Schaefer’s study (1981), he compared the computer-based semantic practice with structural practice. He claimed that practice is important for the internalization of input and meaningful practice being effective in second language acquisition. In his study, learners were subjected to two sets of computer-based drills: semantic practice and structural practice. Results indicated that semantic practice is more effective than structural practice in terms of success on semantic measures and that both kinds of practice are equally useful for structural measures (grammar tests). Thus Schaefer (1981) concluded that meaningful practice leads to the acquisition of grammar structures and further that meaningful content processing results in better understanding. This study emphasized the importance of meaningful and comprehensible input when we design the activities with the aid of a computer. However, his research is poorly designed, with the participants and tests in the study not clearly stated.

Some researchers (Johns, 1991; Dodd, 1997; Fernandez-Villanueva, 1996) have provided evidence of input perspective with the concordancing program. These studies proved Krashen’s input perspective that context provides the key information necessary to allow i+1 input to be comprehended and incorporated into the developing languages. However, all these studies were too restricted to the effectiveness of the concordance program itself for grammar instruction.

Johns (1991) and Dodd (1997) examined the practice with the aid of computer software to understand meaning and grammar. They commonly found that the teacher facilitates students to research into language without knowing in advance what rules or patterns are used. Consequently, students are encouraged to make one up in their own terms. Fernandez-Villanueva (1996) emphasized the fact that the concordancing program provides more input and motivation than regular classroom exercises in her German language classrooms. Similarly, Johns (1991) supports the view that learner’s own discovery of grammar based on more input and motivation becomes central to the learning process and acquisition takes place during comprehension rather than production.

Doughty (1991) compared three kinds of computerized instruction; a rule-oriented instructional group, a meaning-oriented instructional group, and a control group. All subjects were presented the same reading texts on the computer, but the rule-oriented instructional group received explanations of the grammatical rules in relative-clause constructions, the meaning-oriented instructional group was encouraged to focus on both the content and structure, and the control group was merely exposed to the reading texts. While both the rule-oriented instructional group and the meaning-oriented instructional group improved equally well in relative-clause and significantly better than the control group, the meaning-oriented instructional group performed best in comprehending the reading texts.

Similarly, Robinson’s study (1996) employed computerized instruction to teach both simple and complex structures of English under several conditions. All subjects were presented the same target sentences on the computer, but, for example, the rule-instructed subjects were asked linguistic questions regarding the sentences, the rule-search subjects were asked if they identified any rule in the given sentences, and the implicit subjects were instructed to memorize the target sentences. The rule-instructed subjects performed significantly better than the rule-search subjects and the implicit subjects for the simple structure on the grammaticality judgment test. The rule-instructed subjects also outperformed the other groups for the complex structure although the difference was statistically significant only between the rule-instructed subjects and the rule-search subjects.

As demonstrated by all research studies above, most CALL empirical studies are focused on the use of computer application itself and instructional methods with the aid of a computer to provide comprehensible input to support learning in narrow areas. Also, findings for all meaningful use of computer application are positive. In this case, some questions are raised: how do technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) classroom environments, not a single computer application, support the input perspective for optimal language learning? What are negative results as well as positive results in TELL classrooms?

Output Perspective

The input perspective does not exclude a role for the learners’ output in assisting language learning. But, from the input perspective, the role of the learners’ output is usually seen as secondary and indirect. However, Swain (1985, 1995) argues “there are roles for output in second language acquisition that are independent of comprehensible input,” (Swain, 1985: 248). He believes that output may be used as a way of trying out new language forms and structures as learners stretch their interlanguage to meet communication needs; they may produce output just to see what works and what does not. CALL empirical research studies on output perspective are mostly comparative studies, and there is a tendency among these comparative studies to limit the types of CALL programs to tutorial or drill-and practice in attempting to replicate closely traditional instruction.

Swain’s study (1985) emphasized the comprehensible output very well. His software use was for drill and practice because it is easy to make conclusions. He indicated that sixth-grade French immersion students perform similarly to native speakers on those aspects of discourse and sociolinguistic competence which do not rely heavily on grammar for their realization but their grammatical performance is not equivalent to that of native speakers (p. 251). The immersion students in his study received enough comprehensible input with software, but their “comprehensible output” was very limited. Swain inferred that producing language, as opposed to simply comprehending the language with software, may force the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing, thereby facilitating more grammatical competence. Swain also refers to the phenomenon of individuals who can understand a language and yet can only produce limited utterances in it. A ninth-grade immersion student said, “I understand everything anyone says to me, and I can hear in my head how I should sound when I talk, but it never comes out that way,” (Swain, 1985: 248). This indicates that comprehension does not necessarily transfer to production.

Van Patten and Cadierno (1993a, 1993b) examined the effects of two types of instruction, traditional instruction and processing instruction, in both interpreting and producing Spanish object pronouns in object, verb, and subject (OVS) and object and verb (OV) order. The traditional instruction involved grammatical explanations and output practice, while the processing instruction involved grammatical explanations and comprehension practice. These two kinds of instruction were also different in the grammatical information provided and the instructional approach adopted. The result of their study indicates that the processing group performed significantly better than the traditional group on comprehension post-tests and equally well on production post-tests. Van Patten and Cadierno concluded “instruction is apparently more beneficial when it is directed at how learners perceive and process input rather than when instruction is focused on practice via output,” (1993a, p. 54; 1993b, p. 240).

A few years later, DeKeyser and Sokalski (1996) replicated Van Patten and Cadierno’s study using two different target structures: the Spanish direct object (the same structure used in Van Patten & Cadierno’s study) and the Spanish conditional, which is more complex and difficult to produce. DeKeyser and Sokalski’s study eliminated extra variables by providing the same grammatical instruction and exercise content, so the comparison was entirely between comprehension practice and production practice. The results of the immediate post-test show that for object, the input practice group performed better in the comprehension tasks and the output practice group performed better in the production tasks. For the conditional, the output practice group outperformed the input practice group in both the production and the comprehension tasks. These differences faded in the long term, however. The results indicate that “the relative effectiveness of production versus comprehension practice depends on the morphosyntactic complexity of the structure in question as well as on the delay between practice and testing” (DeKeyser & Sokalski 1996, p.231).

Nagata (1998) used two different computer applications for grammar instruction. She performed an experiment concerning the relative effectiveness of computer-assisted comprehension practice and production practice in the acquisition of a second language. Two computer programs were developed: (a) an input-focused program providing students with explicit grammatical instruction and comprehension exercises and (b) an output-focused program providing the same grammatical instruction together with production exercises. The study employed computer software to provide various types of comprehension and production tasks and examined the relative effectiveness of comprehension and production practice in the acquisition of Japanese honorifics. The results of the study suggest that given the same grammatical instruction, output-focused practice is more effective than input-focused practice for the development of skill in producing Japanese honorifics and is equally effective for the comprehension of these structures. Increased effectiveness of production practice over comprehension practice was observed in both written and oral production. The analysis of different types of exercises suggests that the relative advantage of production practice may be greater in tasks involving complex syntactic processing than in tasks requiring less syntactic processing. The results support Swain’s argument that there are roles for output in second language acquisition that are independent of comprehensible input.

Kern (1995) compared web discussion with oral discussion. He found that students had from two to three times more turns (opportunities) and produced two to four times more sentences and more words in the web discussion than in the oral discussion. Similarly, Sullivan and Pratt’s study (1996) provide indirect support for an increase in learner language production in the electronic mode by attesting to the drastic reduction of teacher talk in favor of student production. However, in both studies, their research methods were not appropriate. They used several rough measures of language productivity (length of learner output in terms of number of words, sentences, and turns) that are difficult to interpret because of the lack of controlled comparisons with face-to-face language production under equivalent conditions (such as number of participants, plus or minus teacher participation, etc.).

There are also research studies that show that the first language is minimized in electronic discussion (Beauvois, 1992; Kelm, 1992; Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995). However, it is difficult to establish links between the amount of language produced and the relative time that was actually invested in it (i.e., composing messages) because of the individual freedom in electronic discussions to allocate time and effort to several tasks, such as reading others’ messages, editing and revising one’s own contribution before sending it, and so forth. In addition, the quantity in analyses of computer assisted discourse does not provide any indication of the extent to which the output in question is competence expanding: amount in practicing may not be relevant from a language development (Chun, 1994).

In summary, CALL studies with output perspective emphasize the importance of comprehensible output. However, like CALL research with input perspective, CALL empirical research studies with output perspective are also mostly comparative studies and there are limited to the types of CALL programs to tutorial or drill-and practice. Such experiments on learning rules of a language required learning specific aspects of a language not of the learners’ choosing for short duration determined by the researcher. Although such experiments carefully model the desired cognitive characteristics for formal learning, critical elements of learner motivation and communicative language use are likely to be missing. In fact, given the artificiality of the learning situation created by the laboratory experiment, Hulstijn (1997) warns that “without additional research in real L2 learning environments, one should be extremely cautious in drawing immediate conclusions from laboratory studies to language pedagogy” (p. 132). Even, we can find similar limitations in CALL studies with interaction perspective. 

Interaction Perspective

Interaction perspective has been articulated primarily through research programs on the role of linguistic input and interaction in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) in instructional settings (Gass, 1997; Long, 1996; Pica, 1994). The interaction perspective claims that linguistic input needs to become intake in order to be acquired by the learner. Intake refers to input that the learner has comprehended both semantically and syntactically. Importantly, linguistic input that has been comprehended semantically may be of limited help to the learner because semantic comprehension is often accomplished by recognition of isolated lexical items or interpretation of non-linguistic cues with the help of existing schema (Hegelheimer & Chapelle, 2000).

Also, learners are most likely to notice linguistic form during interaction. The most useful interactions are those which help learners comprehend the semantics and syntax of input and which help learners to improve the comprehensibility of their own linguistic output. Such beneficial interactions can occur in a number of different ways depending on the situation. In face-to-face conversation, comprehension can be achieved through negotiation of meaning that occurs during communication breakdowns when learners are confused about meaning or syntax and are therefore unable to comprehend the message at first. One reason that negotiation of meaning is valuable is that it can result in modified input - input which is better tuned to the learner's level of ability. Doughty (1987) pointed out that interaction modifies through “confirmation checks, comprehension checks, and clarification requests and repetitions or paraphrases of a previous speaker’s utterances” (p.155). Like other perspectives we discussed, CALL empirical studies with interaction perspective are product-oriented to evaluate the effectiveness of CALL.

The possibility of computer-mediated interaction was well illustrated by St. John and Cash (1995). Their study used analysis of texts and learner self-reports to investigate the effects of a six-month e-mail exchange between a high-intermediate learner of German and a German native speaker. The learner systematically studied the new vocabulary and phrases that he read in his incoming e-mail and stored the e-mail messages for later study. When he wrote letters, he reviewed the past messages and made special effort to put to use the new vocabulary and phrases, a process which the authors claim dramatically assisted his language learning. Even though the native speaker offered no explicit linguistic feedback, the learner was able to make many corrections, especially at the lexical level, by noticing the difference between his usage and the usage of his partner. By the end of the six months, striking progress had also occurred at the syntactic level, with the learner using more complex structures, longer sentences, more correct word order, and more natural German (St. John, Cash, 1995: 193).

Schultz (1996) tested the potential of interaction in second language writing classes, by comparing various combinations of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in eight intermediate French courses. She found that for most groups a combination of the two media worked best. She claimed that face-to-face interaction, with its fast pace and fluidity, allowed students to stop frequent digressions that seem to feed positively into idea generation. Written comments focused more in depth on one or two points, and these points were more likely to be incorporated into revisions. Taken together, the two modes allowed superior co-construction of knowledge than either mode alone. The benefits of adding computer-mediated interaction as an additional component of peer review were more pronounced for students in French 4 classes than for those in French 3 classes; Schultz concluded that their higher level of language allowed them to make better use of the electronic medium for sharing of ideas. Whether the same results would result from e-mail communication remains to be seen; first language studies have indicated a superiority of e-mail to oral communication for peer review (Hartman, et al., 1991; Mabrito, 1991; 1992).

Toyoda and Harrison ’s study (2002) examined negotiation of meaning that took place between students and native speakers of Japanese over a series of chat conversations and attempted to categorize the difficulties encountered. The data showed that the difficulties in understanding each other did indeed trigger negotiation of meaning between students even when no specific communication tasks were given. Using discourse analysis methods, the negotiations were sorted into nine categories according to the causes of the difficulties: recognition of a new word, misuse of a word, pronunciation error, grammatical error, inappropriate segmentation, abbreviated sentence, sudden topic change, slow response, and inter-cultural communication gap. Through the examination of these categories of negotiation, it was found that there were some language aspects that are crucial for communication but that had been neglected in teaching, and that students would not have noticed if they had not had the opportunity to chat with native speakers.

Implications

As we can notice from the study examples sited above, this product-oriented approach provides outcomes from CALL applications in controlled settings. We can know the result in the specific areas by using a specific tool. However, this approach has proven unsatisfactory primarily due to inattention to the central role of the learning process and the corresponding influence of learner characteristics (Doughty, 1987). To clarify the effectiveness of the technology and understand language learning, it is required the evaluation of classroom environment with multiple environmental elements based on empirical observation.

Then, how can we investigate language learning classroom environments? As discussed earlier, we need to explore multi-components to understand language learning classroom environments. Unfortunately, components to explore classroom environments are not clear. However, individual researchers have formed a number of environmental conditions that have an impact on students’ learning differently. It might be used as a framework to explore CALL classroom environments.

Moos (1974), for example, proposes three widely used categories for describing the social climate of a classroom: (1) personal development, involving personal growth and enhancement; (2) system maintenance, which involves environmental order, control and change, and (3) relationship, which identifies interaction and support among participants in the environment. Other environmental categories which have been proposed as high-impact include engaged time, feedback, atmosphere, class management, class size, and pacing.

Spolsky (1989) presents 74 conditions for second language learning (e.g., language as system condition, native speaker target condition, variability condition, unanalyzed knowledge condition, analyzed knowledge condition, specific variety condition, academic skill condition, productive/receptive skills condition). Salomon (1992) suggests that important components of classroom environments may include task, sense of control, teacher-student interaction, student-student interaction, atmosphere, and teacher behaviors.

Chapelle (1998) suggests that seven hypotheses relevant for developing CALL environment: (1) the linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient; (2) learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input; (3) learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output; (4) learners need to notice errors in their own output; (5) learners need to correct their linguistic output; (6) learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning; (7) learners should engage in second language tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.

Drawing on Moos, Salomon, Spolsky, and Chapelle, a set of important environmental conditions suggested by Egbert and Hanson-Smith (1999) is considered to explore opportunities from language learning classroom environments: (1) interaction: learners have opportunities to interact and negotiate meaning; (2) authentic audience: learners interact in the target language with an authentic audience; (3) authentic tasks: learners are involved in authentic tasks; (4) opportunities for exposure and production : learners are exposed to and encouraged to produce varied and creative language; (5) time/feedback: learners have enough time and feedback; (6) intentional cognition, learning style and motivation: learners are guided to attend mindfully to the learning process; (7) atmosphere: learners work in an atmosphere with an ideal stress/anxiety level; (8) control: learner autonomy is supported.

In summary, each element of optimal language learning classroom in some way affects the others. For example, authentic task may increase students’ motivation and give more peer interactions. Naturally more feedback and less stress cause excitement for learning. These elements that were suggested by each researcher cannot present all aspects to be considered for language learning. However, it will be helpful to look at fuller views of language learning classroom environments with technology.

Conclusion

Most CALL empirical studies with three perspectives of SLA focus on the effectiveness of the medium itself, particularly in comparison with conventional teaching tools and too narrow down to the small areas. In short, CALL is seen as a treatment applied to the learner, and the effect of the treatment on learning is then measured. In this regard, Pederson (1987) points out three major trends in CALL research that might account for the nonilluminating findings concerning the impact of CALL: (a) the past studies were mostly comparative studies (CALL versus non-CALL); (b) researchers attempted to attribute learning gains to the medium itself rather than to the attributes of the CALL software used; and consequently, (c) there was a tendency among these comparative studies to limit the types of CALL programs to tutorial or drill-and practice. This technocentric approach to the evaluation of the effectiveness of CALL had proven unsatisfactory primarily due to inattention to the central role of the learning process and the corresponding influence of learner characteristics (Doughty, 1987). Therefore, it is really hard to look the fuller view of technology-enhanced language learning environments. Thus, we need empirical research on how the technology used in classrooms affects the whole language-learning environment, not just a particular factor and what changes are experienced in language classrooms with technology broadly.

References

Beauvois, M. H. (1992). "Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion." Foreign Language Annals, 25(5), 445-464.

Chapelle, C. (1998). "Multimedia call: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA ." Language Learning and Technology, 2 (1), 22-34.

Chun, D. (1994). "Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence." System, 22, 17-33.

DeKeyser, R., Sokalski, K. (1996). "The differential role of comprehension and production practice." Language Learning, 46 (4), 613-642.

Dodd, B. (1997). "Exploiting a corpus of written German for advanced language learning." In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone , T. McEnery, G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora. New York : Longman, 131-145.

Doughty, C. (1987). "Relating second-language acquisition theory to CALL research and application." In W.F. Smith (Ed.), Modern Media in Foreign Language Education: Theory and Implication. Lincolnwood , IL : National Textbook Company, 133-167.

Doughty, C. (1991). "Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 (4), 431-469.

Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL Environments: research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria , VA : Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Fernandez-Villanueva, M. (1996). "Research into the functions of German modal particles in a corpus." In S. Botley , J. Glass, T. McEnery, A. Wilson (Eds.) Proceedings of teaching and language corpora 1996 . Technical Papers Volume 9. Lancaster : UCREL, 83-93.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hartman, K., Neuwirth, C., Kiesler, S., Sproull, L., Cochran, C., Palmquist, M., Zubrow, D. (1991). "Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of networked technologies." Written Communication, 8 (1), 79-113.

Hegelheimer, V., Chapelle, C. (2000). "Methodological issues in research on learner computer interactions in CALL." Language Learning & Technology, 4, (1), 41-59

Hulstijn, J. (1997). "Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131-143.

Johns, T. (1991). "From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary learning in the context of data-driven learning." ELR Journal 4, 27-45.

Kelm, O. (1992). "The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report." Foreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.

Kern, R. (1995). "Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production." Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.

Krashen, S. (1997). "The monitor models for adult second language performance." In M. Burt & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. New York : Regents, 152-161.

Long, M. H. (1996). "The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition." In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second language acquisition. New York : Academic Press, 413-468.

Mabrito, M. (1991). "Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations of high- and low-apprehensive writers." Written Communication, 8 (4), 509-532.

Mabrito, M. (1992). "Computer-mediated communication and high-apprehensive writers: Rethinking the collaborative process." The Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 55 (4), 26-30.

Moos, R. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings and policy implications. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass. 

Nagata, N (1998). "Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acqusition." Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 23-40.

Pederson, K. M. (1987). "Research on CALL." In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation. Lincolnwood , IL : National Textbook, 99-131.

Pica, T. (1994). "Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes?" Language Learning, 44 (3), 493-527.

Robinson, P. (1996). "Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search, and instructed conditions." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 27-67.

Salomon, G. (1997). "Novel constructivist learning environments and novel technologies: some issues to be concerned with." Research Dialogue in Learning and Instruction, 1 (1), 3-12.

Schaefer, R. (1981). "Meaningful practice with the computer: is it possible?" Foreign Language Annuals, 14 (2), 133-137.

Schultz, J. (1996). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

St. John , E., Cash, D. (1995). "Language learning via e-mail: Demonstrable success with German." In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu , HI : University of Hawaii , Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center , 191-197.

Swain, M. (1985). "Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development." In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley , MA : Newbury House, 235-253.

Swain, M. (1995). "Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning." Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long Beach , CA .

Sullivan, N., Pratt, E. (1996). "A comparative study of two ESL writing environment: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom." System, 24 (4), 491-501.

Toyoda, E., Harrison, R. (2002). "Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese." Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 82-99.

VanPatten, B., Cadierno, T. (1993a). "Explicit instruction and input processing." Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 225-243.

VanPatten, B., Cadierno, T. (1993b). "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role of instruction." The Modern Language Journal, 77 (1), 45-57.

CALL-ing EAP Skills
by Anna Franca Plastina
Universita degli Studi della Calabria,
Rende (Cosenza), Italy
annplast@tin.it

Introduction

The article focuses on how CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning) enhances the acquisition of EAP (English for Academic Purposes) skills. Research relating CALL to General English issues (Chun, Plass, 1997; Sullivan 1998; Eskenazi, 1999; Collentine, 2000) has been carried out, but little attention has been paid to the use of computers in EAP. On the other hand, EAP practitioners have principally grounded their research in the fields of academic writing (Kroll, 1990; Belcher, Braine, 1995; Kaplan, Grabe, 1996), academic reading (TESOL Quarterly; System) and academic assessment (Clapham, Alderson, 1996) without much noteworthy research on EAP related to CALL.

This paper, therefore, attempts to investigate whether CALL tools can empower EAP skills acquisition. In particular, it reports on a case study at the Centro Linguistico di Ateneo (CLA), Universita della Calabria (Unical), where a group of learners experienced implementing CALL in an EAP course. The hypothesis of the case study is that CALL tools can well respond to the EAP principles of needs analysis and learner-centred environments in that they offer invaluable resources for EAP course objectives, materials design and the production of a Computer-Assisted EAP portfolio. Surveys carried out during the pre-course and post-course phases respectively aimed at uncovering learner’s beliefs on EAP and at examining possible changes determined by the experience of CALL in EAP.

The paper, initially, touches on the issue of relating CALL to EAP, briefly outlining the principles which are common to both fields of study. It, then, describes the case study, providing a detailed analysis of the core stages of the EAP course. In examining the collected data and in analysing the results, the article draws conclusions on the value of the experimental Computer-Assisted approach to the EAP course.

CALL in EAP 

As “electronic information and communication are assuming an ever-expanding role in our everyday lives” (Cangiano, Haichour, Stauffer, 1995: 512), even educational institutions are increasingly affected by the development of Information and Communication Technology. In the present case, this has prompted the attempt to implement CALL in EAP as a more effective means of enhancing EAP skills.

As a branch of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), EAP “…is an approach to language teaching in which all decisions as to content and method are based on the learner’s reason for learning” (Hutchinson, Waters, 1987:19). In questioning: ‘What aspects of the language does some particular group of learners need to know?’” (Tarone, Yule, 1989: 31), it can be assumed that the purpose of an EAP course is to empower participants to use real language in the authentic context of the academic environment according to their effective needs. This socio-cognitive view of EAP is shared by Integrative CALL (Warschauer, Healey, 1998), which emphasizes the value of integrating language skills and technology to combine authentic language, learner autonomy with information processing and communication.

“If a general approach to an EAP course is taken, the course usually consists primarily of study skills practice /…/ with an academic register and style in the practice texts and materials” (Hamp-Lyons, 2001:127). It is, therefore, reasonable to claim that academic study skills practice strongly strives for learner autonomy while academic texts and materials rely on authenticity. On the other hand, “the establishment of special content-based courses that are specifically based on combining a focus on language and technology” (Warschauer, 2001:212) are emerging.

In the case of EAP, if “…the academic context has proved able to provide subject matter that is sufficiently specific and relevant to satisfy learners’ needs…” (Hamp-Lyons, 2001:127), an EAP course can be considered as a special content-based course where CALL could share the common ground of authenticity and autonomy.

Lee (2002) goes a step further in considering the significant contribution of CALL to ESL/EFL pedagogy in terms of experiential learning, motivation, enhanced student achievement, authentic materials for study, greater interaction, individualization, independence from a single source, global understanding.

Given that EAP is a branch of ESP and that “ESP is not different in kind from any other form of language teaching, in that it should be based in the first instance on principles of effective and efficient learning” (Hutchinson, Waters, 1987:18), the following case study raises the issue of the instructional effectiveness and efficiency of CALL in the EAP course presently described.

The Case Study

The investigated course is part of the national programme "Progetto Ricerca, Sviluppo Tecnologico di Alta Formazione" funded by the Italian Ministry of Higher Education (MURST) with the purpose of offering foreign language training (English, French, German, Italian) to the Unical community (undergraduate/postgraduate students, administrative and academic staff) (http://cla.unical.it/frame.htm).

In the case of EFL and following a General English written entry test, three proficiency levels - beginners (A), intermediate (B), advanced (C) - are established. Candidates are, subsequently, required to report in writing on the purpose of course attendance. Beginners claim the need to acquire the basics of the language, whereas both intermediate and advanced candidates seek language for specific purposes according to their professional profile. Consequently, three types of courses - General English, English for Occupational Purposes, English for Academic Purposes - are held.

The course henceforth examined is a first module which addresses Italian and overseas PhD students from all disciplines, wishing to learn/improve English. It is in-sessional, i.e., taken at the same time as the learners’ main academic course and intensive in that it is a 50-hour module articulated in 34-hour class lessons, 15-hour self-study at the language centre and a one-hour final test. Lessons are based on two-hour sessions held twice weekly, spanning eight and a half weeks. Following the first two weeks, learners access the language centre for self-study, assisted by an EFL tutor and supported by CALL software available at CLA.

As for the other target groups, doctoral students are divided into beginners (A), intermediate (B), advanced (C). Needs and objectives of the doctoral groups are broadly identified by the didactic coordinator and the instructors involved. Beginners enrol in a General English course, whereas intermediate and advanced students take EAP courses. Then, each instructor proceeds to designing and implementing the specific course.

Here, I will only refer to my group of 25 intermediate students (Group B) with whom I decide to experience implementing CALL in EAP. Firstly, the course focuses on needs analysis. I concentrate on “…language study skills that will probably form part of an EAP course” (Gillett, 1996:18) for a twofold purpose:

1. Although attending an institute of higher education like Unical where Italian is the most common language of instruction, the fundamental need of the target group is the use of English as the medium of academic communication and of research activities both at the national and international level to pursue success in academic careers;

2. Participants’ heterogeneous background due to the diverse disciplines followed in their main academic courses is handled more easily if focus is placed on skills rather than on specialist language.

The Core Stages

This section provides a detailed account of the five stages undertaken to design and implement the EAP course. Similar to a traditional EAP approach, stage 1 begins with the learner and the situation, identifying needs and specifying course objectives. In stage 2, learners negotiate and identify the EAP skills they mostly need to acquire and/or practice, bearing in mind constraints which may influence their choice. Stage 3 focuses on the problem which arises in the selection of suitable materials and resources to meet learners’ needs in the immediate instructional context. This, in turn, leads to the choice of integrating CALL materials in EAP . Consequently, in stages 4 and 5 respectively, a Computer-Assisted EAP Portfolio is designed and implemented. 

Stage 1: Defining EAP Objectives

As “the job of the EAP lecturer is to find out what the students have to do and help them do it better” (Gillett, 1996:17), together with the learners, I negotiate the objectives they wish to attain by the end of the course. The importance of a comprehensive syllabus which integrates language, cognitive, and communication skills with academic tasks and topics in the academic context seems crucial for the overall objective of facilitating learners’ mastery of the most frequently needed EAP skills. “The overall objectives of a comprehensive syllabus should lead the students to understand the social roles and language functions typical of the academic field they are involved in” (Argondizzo, 2001:31). A comprehensive syllabus which eclectically integrates the core features of different syllabi, namely functional-communicative, formal, process, task and skill-based, can potentially target EAP objectives coherently (see Appendix 2).

Stage 2: Identifying EAP skills

Participants discuss and negotiate the EAP skills they need mostly. Frequency of occurrence and time constraint are the two variables they strongly consider in this stage. In order to come up with a concrete needs analysis, the group is requested to split into 5 sub-groups with the specific task of establishing at least ten EAP sub-skills. They are, subsequently, asked to rank the sub-skills, in order of priority, and group them under the macro-skills of writing, oral, reading and listening. Each sub-group, then, reports to the whole class to share priorities and together compile a needs analysis checklist based on the recurring group priorities, as shown in Table 1.  

Table 1. The Needs Analysis Checklist

The checklist reflects the group’s attitude to EAP skills. Academic writing is given absolute priority with 9 sub-skills which are considered crucial. With 2 sub-skills, academic reading is ranked less necessary than 4 oral sub-skills. This indicates a specific demanding need in the academic context perceived by the group. Lastly, the traditional listening sub-skill for note-taking during lectures and presentations has been listed. Once EAP skills/sub-skills have been identified, it is necessary to select materials and resources which effectively enhance EAP skills.

Stage 3: Selecting Materials and Resources

I consider three types of resources: EAP course books, authentic materials, instructor-generated materials. The immediate shortage of EAP course books available urges me to turn to the other two sources. Indeed, Jones (1990) questions whether ESP textbooks really exist, but such issue is beyond the purpose of this article. Firstly, I search for authentic EAP materials in the traditional academic context and face two constraints, namely a lack of variety of authentic EAP materials suitable to cover all the skills identified by the group and the limited time available for course design. In the first case, most materials (articles, abstracts, academic papers) seem only to aid traditional EAP reading/writing courses where “the great amount of material taught by some methods includes much that is never used and soon forgotten” (Mackey, 1965:161). The second disadvantage is due to time constraint. I agree with Jones (1990:91) that “ESP teachers find themselves in a situation where they are expected to produce a course that exactly matches the needs of a group of learners, but are expected to do so with no, or very limited, preparation time.”

I attempt to overcome such restrictions by introducing CALL materials which will be elaborated to support instructor-generated EAP materials. In this view, Gatehouse (2001: 8) states: “Given that ESP is an approach and not a subject to be taught, curricular materials will unavoidably be pieced together, some borrowed and others designed specially.”

To this purpose, I select materials to design a Computer-Assisted EAP Portfolio which covers course objectives.

Stage 4: Instructional Design and framework of the Computer-Assisted EAP Portfolio

In this stage, it is necessary to set up a portfolio framework within which the Computer-Assisted EAP Portfolio will be designed (see Appendix 1). This implies carrying out a series of essential steps which I group in four main phases, namely access, retrieval, creation and analysis.

In the first phase, I search the Web with the main purpose of browsing websites which are potentially suitable for the group, according to the Needs Analysis Checklist (see Table 1). When finding appropriate materials, I bookmark resources to avoid time-consuming, repetitive search. Then, I download files to floppy disk, ready to be selected and elaborated in the following phase. In the meanwhile, I also test the functionality of the visited websites as a fundamental requisite for the successful accomplishment of www resources evaluation (see Appendix 3).

In phase 3, the files previously downloaded are elaborated and tailored to meet the group’s needs. File materials are, subsequently, integrated with instructor-generated tasks (see sample activity below) and, consequently, organised in the Portfolio which will be implemented as in stage 5. The fourth phase, in fact, coincides with the EAP course, whereby students analyse, assess and provide feedback on materials (see Appendix 3) and create their personal portfolio which is eventually assessed.  

Table 2. The Portfolio Framework Phases

A sample activity  

The following activity indicates how an instructor-generated EAP task has been tailored to learners’ needs with the crucial support of CALL tools and materials. In particular, worksheet 1 integrates academic register and CALL resources, enabling learners to accomplish collaborative and comparative activities beyond the traditional EAP classroom. Moreover, the activity provides invaluable learner-generated materials for in-class sessions, besides keeping track of the EAP learning process stored in the portfolio.

Activity N° 1 - Moving Around Campus(es)

Field: Academic

Topic: The Academic World

Level: Intermediate

Language Skills: Vocabulary, Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

Communicative Function(s): Asking and Giving Information about Academic Environments

Grammar Focus: Reported Statements/Questions

CALL: www resources, e-mail, word processor

Aim: To learn how to report on Academic Environments using appropriate language and style

Moving Around Campus(es) requires asking and giving information about academic environments.

Let’s start by writing as many questions as you can think of.

Possible questions:

When was the University founded/built/instituted/established?

Where is it located/situated?

How many faculties are there?

How many students live on campus?

Why do students have compulsory attendance?

Who is the Chancellor of the University?

Who is the Dean of the Faculty of …?

What courses are available?

What career opportunities follow?

- Now we can visit some university websites: www.lse.ac.uk, www.une.edu.au, www.unimelb.edu.au, www.nus.edu.sg

- Skim the web pages and choose the one you prefer most

- Now scan the website you have chosen to complete the following worksheet  

Worksheet 1. Asking and giving information about academic environments

This has been a quick and interesting way of collecting information on different academic institutions.

Now :

·                     Write a short report on the university you have visited following your notes in the worksheet above.

·                     E-mail your report to your group/instructor/a friend

·                     Visit the university website where you have accomplished your Bachelor Degree and prepare notes on your own university to report orally in class.

·                     Bring a printed copy of worksheet 1 to be completed in class while listening to your colleagues’ report.

·                     Finally don’t forget to save your work in your floppy disk portfolio. (Plastina, 2002)

Stage 5: Implementation of CALL in EAP skills

The CALL tools introduced in the EAP Portfolio (see Appendix 1) and implemented in the course are e-mail, www resources, word processor and a presentation program.

At the beginning of the course, I created a mailing list both to overcome the limited time allotted to class sessions (34 hours) and to encourage effective communication in English beyond the classroom. Portfolio tasks and tutorials on-line reached all participants simultaneously. This proved particularly helpful in the case of some students engaged in doctoral stages overseas for a few weeks. Thanks to the mailing list, all learners were able to maintain the course pace, regularly carry out portfolio activities and receive immediate feedback on their work without waiting for the two weekly class sessions.

Before completing the tasks which required access to www resources, students were asked to complete an evaluation form (see Appendix 3) in which they express a personal verdict on them. This activity triggered authentic discussions in class and helped pilot CALL materials. Learners were integrating language, cognitive and communication skills with academic topics thanks to CALL. In fact, the twenty websites accessed not only gave learners credibility and variety of authentic cyberspace sources, but also allowed them to interact in real-life EAP activities (tasks 3,4,5). Autonomous language learning beyond the course was also assured as in task 13. In word-processing in English, the group reinforced “the ability to write, change, experiment, delete, restore, cut and paste, etc.” (Hardisty, Windeatt, 1989) their portfolio activities. Increasing confidence with language usage on the keyboard was gained in matching the writing process with EAP content (tasks 2,6,7,9,11). Microsoft Power Point represented a valid technological support for oral skills (task 12) and facilitated peer evaluation during class performances.

Eventually, students felt that a demonstration of portfolio samples in class was far more effective for assessment than a written EAP test which certainly could not cover fixed objectives. In this way, the CALL portfolio was generating a learner-centred environment, encouraging students to develop a critical approach to the acquisition of EAP skills while building on their increasing self-confidence and interest in sharing their portfolio product. Each student was allotted 15 minutes and performances were video-taped for self-evaluation. Portfolio content and layout, language and presentation skills were assessed as excellent, good or needing improvement. Assessment parameters were presented beforehand so students could target their activities adequately. Results indicate that 5 students were assessed as excellent, 18 good and 2 needed improvement. The latter attributed performance results to their weak computer skills and other academic commitments.

On the whole, a cooperative and enjoyable learning environment was created and, although students were burdened with their normal academic course, they regularly attended class sessions, punctually carried out the requested portfolio activities, willingly engaged in performance assessment.

Data collection and results

A survey was carried out during the pre-course and post-course phases. In the pre-course phase, students were interviewed and then asked to complete a questionnaire, expressing their expectations on the course structure. The aim of the survey was to uncover learner’s beliefs and assumptions on EAP. Specifically, students were asked to report on the following variables: EAP Needs/Objectives, EAP Materials, Resources, Time, EAP Language Use, Group Interaction/Communication, Learning Process, Attitude, Other Skills, Final Product. The choice of such variables is based on two main points: 1. the variables mirror the basic components of an EAP course and, thus, provide essential information on single EAP aspects; 2. the ten variables match both course expectations and outcomes and, therefore, allow for comparative data analysis (see below). 4 students based their feedback on experience of previous EAP courses, 8 were influenced by colleagues/friends on campus, 11 were making hypotheses, reflecting prior knowledge on EAP, 2 had no idea of EAP. The results of the preliminary survey are illustrated in Table 3 below and show that learners reflect a traditional view of EAP. In particular, all students conceive EAP needs restricted to academic reading and writing and assume that academic articles/papers are the only EAP materials available and that resources are limited. The group is fully aware of the duration of the EAP course and of its structure and expects to use EAP in class which appears to be the main setting for group interaction and communication. Most learners are convinced that the learning process is based on grammar and translation and, therefore, no other skills are basically developed. The overall attitude is of academic duty which certainly affects learners’ initial motivation. As a final course product, 15 interviewees expect to take away lecture notes and photocopied materials whereas 10 believe that they will have paper assignments in hand.  

Table 3. Learner’s beliefs and assumptions on EAP

In the post-course phase, the survey was repeated and, this time, participants were requested to relate each variable to their experience of CALL in EAP. The final survey, illustrated in Table 4, indicates the changes brought about by CALL in participants’ view of EAP skills acquisition. Only 2 students were overwhelmed by the amount of EAP materials and by their navigational skills which, in turn, influenced their attitude to the course and to EAP language use on the net.

At this point, it is worth comparing the data collected to analyse the outcomes of the surveys.  

Table 4. Participants’ view of CALL in EAP skills acquisition

Comparative Data Analysis

Data were collected from all 25 EAP course participants. While the outcomes of Table 3 are prior to the implementation of the EAP course, results in Table 4 express participants’ direct experience of EAP supported by CALL. By comparing the single variables, it is possible to make some remarks. Learners become aware that CALL in EAP skills acquisition can tailor their immediate needs and not limit EAP objectives to traditional academic writing and reading skills. While CALL materials and resources are numerous, learners previously assumed that materials were mainly academic articles/papers. Time is another significant variable in that participants realise that CALL does not restrict their learning process to the classroom. Greater peer interaction and major individualization in learner-centred tasks is now feasible. Furthermore, CALL fosters a positive attitude to EAP and, therefore, enhances students’ motivation and self-confidence. All learners claim they had the opportunity of developing critical and cognitive skills, thanks to Computer-Assisted tools and materials which increases their sense of autonomy. Finally, learners find that their personal Portfolio is not only useful for future reference and self-study, but above all, has enabled them to construct their own materials and, therefore, to gain a broader understanding of EAP.

This small-scale analysis cannot, obviously, generalise the issue of instructional effectiveness and efficiency of CALL in EAP, but it certainly has emphasised the benefits of implementing computer-assisted materials and resources in the present EAP course.

Conclusion

This paper has briefly described the case of implementing CALL in EAP as a more effective means of enhancing EAP skills. In considering the core stages which introduce CALL in EAP, I have examined the process of designing the Computer-Assisted EAP portfolio as a feasible tool for empowering EAP learners. Feedback data show that if learning on the part of the students has been helped by the use of a tool, then the tool has been used successfully (Shrum, Glisan, 1994). However, while advantages over traditional materials (Shortis, 2001) have been outlined, it is worth remembering that “Tools don’t teach. When effectively implemented they assist in the learning process” (Rosen, 1998:1).

In the present case, the CALL portfolio has supported tailored needs and objectives of the target group. It has effectively supplemented resources and variety of EAP materials otherwise unavailable for the implementation of the present EAP course. Furthermore, the portfolio has introduced a mixed mode pedagogy, i.e., a combination between the traditional and the virtual learning contexts. A similar learning process fosters real language use, encourages collaborative learning and interaction, develops learner autonomy while enhancing experiential, navigational and critical skills. It overcomes time-limit, allowing for communication beyond the classroom. This, in turn, strengthens students’ positive attitude to EAP learning. As a final result, the CALL portfolio stimulates EAP learners to create a useful product for assessment, for self-study activities and future academic reference.

On the one hand, its accomplishment relies on participants’ computer-skill proficiency. The drawback for EAP instructors who may wish to attempt a similar experience, could be the “…hurdles in utilizing modern resources, in addition to traditional approaches, [which] involve the issues of time and effectiveness, instructional design, and credibility of the new resource” (Rosen, 1998:1).

On the other, the experimental computer-assisted approach to the EAP course has proved that both learners and instructors can benefit from a similar experience. “One of the aspects of EAP that attracts the best English language teachers is the potential for developing one’s own material based on needs analysis of the immediate situation” (Hamp-Lyons, 2001:129) and CALL materials have proved to be extremely helpful in the present case.

Finally, the comparative data analysis denotes a change in learners’ attitude to EAP. Overall, students have perceived that the implementation of CALL in EAP has created a learner-centred environment which effectively and efficiently responds to their needs.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Professor Carmen Argondizzo for the opportunity she has offered me to collaborate on the project and for trusting in my CALL approach to the EAP course.

Note

This article is based on the presentation at the conference “Implementing CALL in EFL: Living Up to Expectations”, organised by IATEFL Comp SIG & CyTEA, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, 5-6 May 2001.  

References

Argondizzo, C. (2001). European Skills in Academic Modern Language Classrooms-new challenges and old beliefs. Rende: Centro Editoriale e Librario, Universita della Calabria.

Belcher, D., Braine, G. (eds.) (1995). Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. Norwood , NJ : Ablex.

Cangiano, V.J., Haichour, El H., Stauffer, S.J. (1995). “Taming the electronic lion, or How to shape a language-learning environment out of the chaos called the Internet” in Alatis, J.E, Straehle , C.A. , Gallenberger. B. and Ronkin, M. (eds.). Linguistics and the Education of Language Teachers: ethnolinguistic, psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic aspects. Washington DC : Georgetown University Press, 512- 525.

Chun, D.M., Plass, J.L. (1997). “Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments”, Language Learning and Technology 1 (1), 60-81.

Clapham, C., Alderson, J.C. (eds.) (1996). IELTS Research Reports 3: Constructing and Trialling the IELTS Test. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.

Collentine, J. (2000). “Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behaviour tracking technologies”, Language Learning and Technology 3 (2), 44-57.

Eskenazi, M. (1999). “Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype”, Language Learning and Technology 2 (2), 62-76.

Gatehouse, K. (2001). “Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Curriculum Development”. The Internet TESL Journal, vol. VII, no. 10, http://iteslj.org/Articles/Gatehouse-ESP.html

Gillett, A. (1996). “What is EAP?” IATEFL ESP SIG Newsletter, 6, 17-23.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2001). “English for Academic Purposes” in Carter, R., Nunan, D. (eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 126-130.

Hardisty, D., Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Hutchinson, T., Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred approach. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Jones, G. (1990). “ESP textbooks: Do they really exist?” English for Specific Purposes, 9, 89-93.

Kaplan, R.B. , Grabe, W. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. London : Longman.

Kroll, B. (ed). (1990). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Lee, K. (2000). “English Teachers’ Barriers to the Use of Computer-Assisted Language Learning”, The Internet TESL Journal, vol. VI, no. 12, http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Lee-CALLbarriers.html.

Mackey, W. (1965). Language Teaching Analysis. Bloomington , Ind. : Indiana University Press.

Plastina, A.F. (2002). “Academic English 1” in Argondizzo, C. (ed.). English on Campus. Rende: Centro Linguistico di Ateneo, Università della Calabria, 157-160. Unpublished project materials.

Rosen, L. (1998). “The World Wide Web: Taking on the Pedagogical Challenge”, http://horizon.unc.edu/projects/monograph/CD/

Shortis, T. (2001). The Language of ICT. London and New York : Routledge.

Shrum, J.L., Glisan, E.W. (1994). Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction. Boston , MA.: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Sullivan, N. (1998). “Developing critical reading writing skills: Empowering minority students in a networked computer classroom” in Swaffar, J., Romano, S., Markley, P. and Arens, K. (eds.). Language Learning Online: Theory and Practice in the ESL and L2 Computer Classroom. Austin , TX : Labyrinth Publications/Daedalus Group, 41-55.

Tarone, E., Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Warschauer, M., (2001). “On-line Communication” in Carter, R., Nunan , D. (eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 207-212.

Warschauer, M., Healey, D. (1998). “Computers and Language Learning: an overview”, Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.