Computers in the English Language Classroom

 2
the specialised Faculty library, as well as the John Rylands Library, one of 
the largest university libraries in Europe. 
The base for the present work has been the lectures that I have attended and 
the unpublished lecture notes provided in them. All of the references used, 
in the form of books, journals and papers, are available at one of the two 
libraries in Manchester, as well as, in some cases, on the Web.  
Without Gary and Diane’s help and collaboration the present work would 
not have been possible. 
 
 3
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
In recent years there has been an explosion of interest in using computers in 
various academic disciplines across the curriculum, including ELT (English 
Language Teaching), which has led to the widespread adoption of 
technology in education and research.  
Computers can provide a realistic representation of a language, including 
authentic material, that can be accessed through a large number of formats, 
such as a CD-ROM, or the Internet. In some cases these can provide 
feedback on the students’ performance and ability, they can be accessed at 
any time, be highly interactive and their environment can be highly 
motivating to many learners, allowing them to take risks and experiment in 
ways that might be threatening in a classroom.  
However, all of these properties, and the other advantages offered by 
computers, are no guarantee that technology will be used effectively. 
Without an appropriate pedagogy, technology cannot reach its full didactic 
potential, and this is the reason why there is the need for a critical 
examination of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning), and for 
appropriate empirical research. This will enable teachers to make decisions 
about how to use the available tools and techniques in order to best achieve 
the goal of improving second language instruction. 
 
 4
A brief history of CALL 
Computers have been used for ELT since the 1960s but their role has 
changed significantly over the years. At first, language was seen as a habit 
structure, so the emphasis was on repetitive and mechanical grammar and 
vocabulary multiple-choice drill and practice. This approach, commonly 
known as “Behaviouristic CALL”, regarded the computer as a machine 
able to emulate or even replace the teacher, assuming that the learning 
provided by teachers is “somehow inferior to that which the computer can 
provide” and thus “the machines are the preferred option for teaching and 
learning” (Levy, 1997: 182-3). Computer programs of this type tended to 
be subject-specific, in the sense that they dealt with only one idea or skill, 
so that students were encouraged to focus on the surface forms of the 
language rather than to communicate.  
 
In reaction to this approach, it was argued that the computer was just being 
used as an expensive page-turner to present traditional language workbook 
material and that this was a poor use of the resource. At the same time there 
was growing agreement that the pedagogical goal of CALL activities 
should be for learners to improve their ability in the target language by 
participating in linguistic interaction. 
As a result, from the late 1970s and in the 1980s, CALL moved away from 
PI (Programmed Instruction) methods towards a more communicative 
approach known as “Humanistic CALL”. Along with traditional grammar 
exercises or vocabulary games for English learners, programmed activities 
started to rely on the communicative function of language, teaching 
 5
grammar implicitly rather than explicitly and focusing on realistic 
interaction and deductive learning.  
This shift was facilitated by technological developments, which increased 
computer potential and created new possibilities: authoring software 
became available, allowing ordinary teachers to produce their own software 
materials; word processing, voice synthesis and analysis, and audio-video 
media were all incorporated in language teaching and testing materials; 
telecommunication, particularly Internet, further expanded possibilities. 
 
Warschauer and Healey suggest a third approach, “Integrative CALL”, in 
common use today, in which both various skills and technology are more 
fully integrated in the language process, and in which “students learn to use 
a variety of technology tools as an ongoing process of language learning 
and use” (1998: 58).  
Some CALL materials still contain grammar and vocabulary drill 
programs, but these are contextualised, and now incorporate graphics, 
audio recording and playback and video, and drills are accompanied by 
simulations or games as well. In addition, the new programs can now 
immerse students in rich environments for language practice, and the 
Internet allows for a myriad of opportunities to communicate in the target 
language, to access information and to publish for a global audience.  
 
Classifying CALL: the tutor/tool distinction 
The number and complexity of computer based learning activities has 
grown rapidly, hence the need for classificatory models of CALL in order 
 6
to better understand it. One of the most diffused and shared models among 
the researchers distinguishes between two different roles that the computer 
can play:  in Levy’s terminology this is defined as “tutor-tool framework” 
(1997), a concept developed from an original idea suggested by Taylor in 
1980. The same basic distinction of roles is labelled “magister and 
pedagogue” or “instructor and facilitator” by Higgins and Wyatt (in Levy, 
1997). Essentially, evaluation of the student by the computer is the key 
distinguishing factor:  
To function as a tutor […] the computer presents some subject material, the 
student responds, the computer evaluates the response and from the results 
of the evaluation, determines what to present next. […] To function as a 
tool, the computer needs only have some useful capability programmed into 
it such as statistical analysis, super calculation, or word processing. 
(Taylor in Levy, 1997: 83) 
As Levy states, although evolved and matured, the tutor role still shows 
some aspects of the behaviouristic and PI tradition whilst the tool role, on 
the other hand, focuses its concern on the user rather than on the machine, 
and nowadays is considered the most fundamental function of the 
computer, being “the basis for the computer’s widespread acceptance and 
use” (1997: 184): its purpose is to enhance or improve the efficiency of the 
student’s work. 
 
The tool role of the computer is a neutral one, since the machine gives no 
guidance. In this case the student has to be more responsible as he/she has 
to learn how to use the material available effectively, and learn how to 
 7
determine “whether the use of the tool is appropriate and how best to make 
of it” (Levy, 1997: 199).  
In contrast, when the computer plays a tutor role, it controls the activity, 
which is the reason why this approach is considered to be well suited for 
private or self-access study: the program can provide context-sensitive help 
and a management system to guide the learner and be response to his or her 
particular needs.  
These features allow students to be even more independent and 
autonomous, able to learn at the time and place that suits them. However, 
even if one of the most agreed benefits that the computer brings to 
language learners is greater learning autonomy, we cannot forget that 
teacher support is still necessary in all circumstances for successful use of 
the computer, whether it plays a tutor or a tool role (Levy, 1997). 
 
Considering a computer application to be either a tutor or a tool is not only 
useful for defining the role of the learner, it also affects the teacher’s role 
and how we evaluate the programs, the teaching methodology and 
curriculum, and the learning environment. 
 
The teachers’ role 
The teachers’ role has changed significantly with the introduction and the 
development of CALL, which tends to create a situation in which 
classroom control is still in the teachers’ hands, but students can choose the 
pace and selection of materials and programs. 
 8
Whether the computer is used as tutor or tool, teachers facilitate learning 
but don’t have control over every part of it, providing assistance at the right 
times and in the right ways, but removing it as it is no longer needed. 
Students are encouraged to explore and be creators of language rather than 
passive recipients of it, and teachers should train them to become 
autonomous, able to use a variety of interaction types and involving 
multiple language skills.  
To be able to do this, as Oxford et al. (1998) suggest, teachers should learn 
ways in which technology can help them improve their language 
instruction, be able to deal with technology effectively, develop 
competence in teaching students how to use technology and learn which 
cognitive styles are better with which kind of class activities and with 
which technology application.  
Although in both cases the teachers’ part is reduced, a distinction must be 
made between the actual role that the teacher should assume: when the 
computer plays a tutor role, the teacher may have a minimal, peripherical 
role, or be temporarily excluded altogether, since the computer tends to 
replace the teacher; alternatively, with the tool role of the computer, the 
teacher “may play a pivotal role in the actual delivery of the material” 
(Levy, 1997: 100) and in fact some of the CALL programs have actually 
been formulated with the premise that a teacher is present to assist the 
students during their use.  
 
 9
Some researchers have also pointed out the computer’s potential to free 
teachers in a sense, enabling them to concentrate on intensive work with 
small groups of students.  
The computer can give them the opportunity to spend more time for 
“creative and imaginative teaching in those parts of the course when the 
teacher-student contact is more necessary” (Ahmed et al. in Levy, 1997: 
102) such as in oral activities. A rota system can be applied to the class, so 
that every student has specific slots allocated during the lesson for oral 
work and work at the computer.  
This method was validated by Cameron (1986) after using it with German 
learners at Coventry Polytechnic: his research has shown positive results 
both in the development of independent and mature work at the computer, 
and in the improvement of students’ communication skills during face-to-
face work with the teacher.  
 
Teachers have the difficult task of choosing the appropriate software, 
learning how to use it, training students, organising work, preparing 
instructions and tasks and finally monitoring progress and providing 
guidance.  
In order to choose software teachers have to be able to evaluate and 
describe its features and its appropriateness for the learning situation 
objectively. In doing this, they should consider contextual factors (such as 
number of computers, presence of a computer lab or standalone machine in 
the classroom, available software, and whether an Internet connection 
exists or not), student-based factors (such as the level of the students’ 
 10
language and computer knowledge, or their comfort at using a computer), 
and also their own competence in using the computer.  
The job does not end after the evaluation and selection of the software 
package: teachers also need to set the correct cognitively challenging tasks 
for their students (Davis et al. in Somekh and Davis, 1997), thinking about 
the purpose of each activity and the different effects that different tasks 
might have; they must be critical in order to best exploit the potential of the 
technology, or they risk employing technology for its own sake. 
 
What aspects of language work should be handled by the computer and 
what should be in the hands of the teacher or student; how much time 
should be spent using the computer; and how can CALL be fully integrated 
in the curriculum are also all important issues that the teachers have to 
consider and find answers to. 
Unfortunately, it is not possible to give a single universal answer to any of 
these questions: teachers must make their own decisions based upon their 
own and their students’ unique needs. 
 
The following chapters describe a selection of CALL activities and 
technology that can be used in language learning and teaching in order to 
improve the students’ language skills, classified within Levy’s “tutor-tool 
framework”. It is hoped that this document will provide teachers with 
advice on how to exploit these tools, and also provide guidance and 
valuable assistance to help them make a more reasoned and accurate 
choice.