Can Computers Provide Meaningful Language Learning?

I just started reading about computer assisted language learning (CALL) and speech technologies. The book is The Path of Speech Technologies in CALL, edited by Holland and Fisher. It is a 2008 compilation of chapters written by a range of researchers (and in some cases, designers) in the CALL field.

Not unlike Andy Zucker’s book, Transforming Schools with Technology, which I read this spring, Holland and Fisher chose an opening chapter that points to all the reasons why technology is falling short when it comes to CALL. Although it hasn’t really raised my interest in speech technologies as a teaching tool, the first chapter provides a very nice framework for identifying meaningful language learning and thus analyzing the effectiveness of CALL.

Clifford and Granoien, authors of chapter 1, think that the allure of technology, not pedagogical research, often leads the development of many CALL applications. Furthermore, where research is present in CALL development, it is at least two decades old and does not reflect the current consensus that language learning is fundamentally based on social interaction.

Here is where it has been interesting for me to see how theories of second language acquisition cross with more general learning theories. For example, many of the CALL researchers refer to interactivist theory. As I understand it, this theory draws upon the work of Vygotsky’s social constructivism. It sees the interaction between native and non-native speakers as a type of learning apprenticeship. Interactivism also incorporates Selinker’s 1970s concept of interlanguage. He proposed that second language learners develop their own linguistic codes that can follow rules independent of either their first or second language. Through social interaction, correction, and additional practice, this interlanguage eventually becomes more and more like the target language.

So how do Clifford and Granoien think that CALL is falling short? Well, if we assume, as they do, that social interaction is a necessary component of meaningful language learning, then it follows logically that automated CALL programs are not up to the job of effectively facilitating learners’ perception of language features, comprehension of linguistic input, and most importantly analysis and feedback of learners’ output. Therefore the following chapters promise to provide more limited proposals for the use of CALL, specifically speech technologies, to enhance individual aspects of the language learning process, especially pronunciation.

The limitations of CALL certainly did not come as a surprise for me but the framework presented for analyzing the usefulness and effectiveness of such programs helped to clarify my thinking about what is effective language learning. It builds upon many of the ideas discussed this spring in our course on Internet and schools, such as the importance of pushing technology beyond just lower order thinking tasks like memorization. Analyzing the components of language learning from an interactivist perspective also gave me the language needed to defend my suspicions about programs like Learner Web, which is about to be implemented in our consortium. Among many concerns, I worry that this program sets up the expectation for learners to engage in self directed learning that provides few, if any, opportunities for interaction in the target language. Thus students only engage in the most basic of comprehension activities and do not move toward effective production of the language.