Computer-assisted language learning

Computer- assisted language learning

Jonathan Anderson

Microcomputers are being used in schools around the world in a multitude of ways. School administrators are realizing that here is a powerful management tool and that many administrative tasks are similar to those in small businesses where the computer has proved an aid in inventory control, access to records, budgeting and accounting. Teacher-librarians are appreciating that the computer can be used to good affect in many aspects of library work. In the classroom computers are being used to teach programming, to teach about computers, to solve problems, to simulate processes, to assist writing, to access information bases, to drill facts, to test learning, to stimulate thinking, and to play games.

In this article we examine some of the ways computers are being used in the language classroom. There are three main sections. In the first, the focus is on computers in language learning. In the second section, which occupies the major part, the focus is on the many different ways that language teachers around the world are using computers to promote language learning. And the third and final section, in examining prospects for theory and research, presents an overview of the strengths and weak- nesses of the different approaches to the use of computers in language teaching and learning.

Jonathan Anderson (Australia). Professor of Edu- cation at Flinders University of South Australia. Researcher in reading, statistics and computer education. Consultant to state, national and international agencies. Former president of the Australian Reading Association. Author of Computing in Schools, Psycholinguistic Experiments in Foreign Language Test ing and Developing Computer Use in Education.

Computers in language learning

The main purpose of this article is to discuss some of the exciting ways computers are beginning to be used in language learning. To those who might think that computers are linked with mathematics and science teaching, it may come as a surprise to learn that language teachers have more varied opportunities to use computers than teachers of other subjects in the curriculum.

Before considering particular applications, however, it is useful to look back at previous innovations in language learning to see what lessons there may be for educators. I t is important, too, to look forward to try to delineate emerging concepts of literacy brought about by changes in society. In this first section, then, we touch on possibly forgotten lessons from the past, as well as anticipate new demands on literacy techlng. Finally, a framework that language teachers might find useful in examining computer applications is put forward.

FORGOTTEN LESSONS

AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

In focusing on any educational issue, it is always useful to step back, as it were, and replace the telescopic lenses of our separate disciplines by a wide-angle view of learners and learning. New and valuable insights are often provided by examining a particular educational question beyond its surrounding context and the immediate present. This involves looking

Prospects, Vol. XVII., No. 3, x987

418 yonathan Anderson

both forwards and backwards in time and, where possible, adopting a global perspective.

It is worth recalling the fate of many language laboratories. In the I95OS and the early I96OS, the language lab was widely and extravagantly promoted, to be followed later by disillusion- ment. The educational investment in language labs foundered on three main grounds: first, there was in the beginning a shortage of good teaching materials; second, the underlying learning theory, based as it was on behaviour- ism, proved unattractive to many teachers; and, third, the enthusiasm of the promoters allowed managerial considerations to prevail over educational concerns, Higgins and Johns (1984, p. I2) assert that Cthe great mistake, in retro- spect, seems to have been installing the machines in large, unwieldy assemblages which were very expensive, and skimping on the costs of training and software development'.

The use of microcomputers in education could falter on these same three grounds. To guard against this, there must be a demand for quality software; educators should adopt a criti- cal stance towards computers in the curriculum and e~amine carefully the learning theory on which use of the technology is predicated; and teachers a n d learners need to feel they 'own' the technology, that it is not directing them, and that they are in control. To quote again from Hi?gins and Johns (1984, p. I2): The lessons we can learn from the language laboratory experience are not to impose computers on staff who have not been prepared or trained to use them, to put more money and effort into developing software than into acquiring hardware, and to use small, flexible units rather than large, centrally-controlled instal- lations.

The lessons of the past with language laboratories are valuable ones for all computer-using educators.

To move to cttrrent developments in computing and their possible impact on educational practice, a revolution can be said to occur when a particular technology comes within the reach of virtually everyone. This has happened with computer technology for, as a Japanese engineer noted as early as 1983, microprocessor chips

are already rather like perishable foods: they must be sold quickly before the price falls. Hence, the commonly held view that the new information technologies have brought about a revolution in the work-place and in our daily lives, dramatically changing patterns of inter- action in the different communities in which each of us participates.

Yet, as far as schools are concerned, it seems that most of the change is yet to come. The harbingers of this change may well be the advent of the truly portable, battery-powered microcomputer, with the capabilities of the new generation of computers. This development is on the near horizon and seems likely to have a considerable impact on education. The microcomputer will thus become a personal tool.

What is important about such developments, is that educational institutions have for the moment a breathing space, a time to consider how the new technologies are going to be accommodated across the curriculum. It is im- perative not to lose the opportunity offered, for the major tasks ahead relate, less to computers, than to education.

EXTENDED NOTIONS OF LITERACY

There seems little doubt that, as in previous evolutionary milestones of human communication, the new computer-based technologies will bring about changed definitions of literacy. In the foreword to a book containing key articles on computers and literacy (Chandler and Marcus, I985), Adams (1985, p. x) writes: The evidence is very clear that the impact of microelectronics and computing generally will make more rather than fewer demands upon literacy, and that the definition of literacy will have to be extended to include screen reading and writing if it is to be adequate to the needs of those growing up in present- day society.

Geoffrion and Geoifrion (I985) echo similar sentiments in their account of computerized dynamic books which, they predict, the new technologies can be expected to make a reality in the not-too-distant future.

Computer-assisted language learning 419

Reading computerized screen displays is already a demand made on increasing numbers on the work-force. Public and private information databases require readers to take in information by 'screenfuls'; and moving backwards and forwards with screen-based texts calls for somewhat different literacy skills compared with book reading.

However, the major new demand upon literacy is for students to learn how to access the new world storehouses of information. These new storehouses of information are an inevi- table consequence of today's vastly increased supply of information and the new modes of storing this information on computer media. Throughout history, literacy has given power to those who have mastered the necessary skills required by society at the particular stage of social and political development reached. Dil- lon's conclusion, therefore, that 'computer literacy will be the new access to power in a high technology and information processing society' (Dillon, I985, p. 98), seems inescapable.

A FRAMEWORK FOR COMPUTER A P P L I C A T I O N S

One confusing aspect about much of the litera- ture in computer education is the range of ter- minology encountered and the lack of consensus about meanings of key terms. Some writers, for instance, describe learning with computers in terms of drill and practice, tutorials, simu- lations and demonstrations (Lathrop and Good- son, 1983). Others use a range of overlapping terms: computer-assisted instruction (CAI), computer-aided or assisted learning (CAL), computer-based learning (CBL), computer- managed instruction (CMI), electronic black- board. Yet others speak in terms of curriculum support applications, administration, communication/information access, and recreational computing.

The approach preferred here is to separate, first, learning about computers from learning with or from computers. Then Taylor's (I98O) framework is used to distinguish between the

various categories of learning with or from computers, which clearly embraces the major uses of computers in schools. Taylor (198o, p. 2) suggests that all computing in education can be accommodated in one of three modes--tutor/tool/tutee:

In the first, the computer functions as a tutor. In the second, the computer functions as a tool. In the third, the computer functions as a tutee or student.

Any classification of computer use in schools must be arbitrary to some extent with categories inevitably overlapping (Anderson, 1984) but Taylor's categories are sufficiently general to accommodate the main ways computers are used in language classrooms. When the computer functions as tutor, students' learning is essentially governed by the computer; that is, material is presented, students respond, re- sponses are evaluated, leading either to further presentations or a branch back to a previous item. By contrast, when the computer functions as tutee, roles are reversed: students direct the computer, thereby assuming greater responsi- bility for their learning. As a tool, the computer is used by students and teachers primarily as a general purpose aid, for teaching or learning, having been programmed to carry out certain useful tasks.

Applications of computers in language learning

It is convenient in discussing the applications of computers in language learning to use Taylor's (198o)framework of tutor, tool and tutee. Accordingly, in this section are described, first, the early uses of computers in education when the computer was conceived primarily as a teacher or tutor. Second, are described more recent uses of the computer as a general purpose tool. And, third, are considered other uses where the user directs the computermthe tutee mode. It is important to note that not all applications neatly fit Taylor's framework and some will cut across categories.


E A R L Y U S E S AS T U T O R

I f one were to ask the average teacher how computers might be used in language instruction, the answer is likely to be in terms of the computer 'teaching' the student. In other words, a common view is to regard the computer as tutor, or perhaps 'quizmaster' might be more accurate for often a rather narrow view of teaching is envisaged. Indeed, it is not unusual with any new technology to use it initially in the same way as earlier technologies and so, when computers began to be used experimentally in education in the I96os and early I97OS, they were conceived as teaching machines and programmed instruction before them as essentially for drilling students. We might distinguish two main kinds of use: drill and practice and tutorial programs.

Drill and practice

Most readers would be familiar with drill-and- practice type programs. At the most basic level, drill-and-practice programs advance sequen- tially through a series of items, not progressing to the next item until the student has success- fully answered the previous item (with prompt- ing if necessary). For example, a drill-and- practice program designed to reinforce plural forms might include a sequence like the following:

What is the plural of 'child'? ---> CHILDREN

Good[ What is the plural of 'goose'?

-->

and so on. Refinements permit branching forward or backward according to the needs of students, provision for varying levels of difficulty, and the facility to focus on areas of weakness. Graphics may also be included to increase motivation.

There is a multitude of computer software designed to provide drill and practice in the various skills of language, for English and

other languages. For instance, two programs produced as part of the Microelectronics Edu- cation Programme (M.EP) in the United King- dom and used with students learning French as a foreign language, are Comprenez and Rdpondez (Heinemann, I982). These programs provide drill and practice in translating, understanding and using the present tense of French regular verbs. At Flinders University a series of programs, based on flash-card and multiple-choice format, for use with students learning Japanese as a foreign language has been developed (Matsushima, 1983). The publishers of Micro- course: Language Arts (Houghton Mifflin, I983) make the claim that their course is the most comprehensive of its type, which is rather easy to believe since it provides practice in no fewer than 44 ~ skills and comes on I36 disks, with pretests, practice exercises and post-tests for each skill!

Tutorial programs

Tutorial programs operate somewhat similarly to drill and practice except that, rather than just pose questions about material previously learned, new content or new concepts are introduced. The material is usually presented to students in small modules or frames. The rate of presentation is under student control, requiring normally a key to be pressed to proceed with a particular lesson. Tutorial programs may also include multiple-choice questions and incor- porate branching for additional explanation or repetition.

Here is an example from a public-domain tutorial program designed to teach students how to write Haiku poems--verses containing seven- teen syllables with three lines of five, seven and five syllables respectively. (A typical student's response is indicated below by the use of capitals.)

What is your name? --~ DAVID

D o y o u w a n t i n s t r u c t i o n s ?

NO

W r i t e t h e n a m e o f a p e r s o n , p l a c e , t h i n g , o r e m o t i o n .

--> DOGS

Computer-assisted language learning 4 21

How many syllables does the name have (for example, SUM-MER-TXM~ would have three syllables)?

-->-I Write an action word to follow the name you typed (I to 4 syllables long).

---> BARKING How many syllables does the action word have (I, 2, 3 or 4)?

- + 2 Write a two-syllable word that tells how, when, or where about the action word.

WILDLY Very good s David. A poet is born. You have the first line for your poem.

Dogs barking wildly.

The program continues with the remaining two lines of verse. Such programs are designed to simulate the role of the teacher; students can work at the computer on their own and at their own pace; and there is usually plenty of positive reinforcement, even ff occasionally it seems rather forced.

MORE RECENT USES AS TOOL

As technologies become established, so newer uses are explored. Similarly, in computer- assisted language learning, teachers soon discovered that microcomputers can do much more than merely drill students or function as electronic workbooks. Teachers of English, especially, are now beginning to use microcomputers in new and exciting ways, for instance as tools for processing text, checking spelling, analysing text, assisting in the planning stages of writing, generating reading activities and puzzles, retrieving information, engaging meaningfully with text, and much else besides.

What characterizes the applications described in this section is the way the computer has been programmed to carry out certain useful tasks. Much of language learning is concerned with processing text and here the computer can serve as a powerful tool, just as it has proved a powerful tool for processing numerical data, for the computer is equally suited to processing letters, symbols and signs.

Word processing

As reported in greater detail elsewhere (Ander- son, I985), the application of microcomputers in the language classroom which has possibly captured the most widespread interest and enthusiasm, among teachers and students alike, is word processing. Teachers have discovered that here is an application that opens the win- dow to creative writing; and students, too, are finding in word processing a new and powerful tool for communicating. One writer expressed it this way (Manefield, 1986, p. x):

The use of the word processing facility of a computer in the conference writing approach with children has been one of the most exciting happenings in p r i m a r y schools this decade. I f you, like me, have witnessed children's faces as their 'work' suddenly begins to appear on the pr inter accompanied by that dreadful chatter, you share that view.

But, it is more than just the excitement of the publishing stage. It seems that children relate their other language experiences better to the print on the computer screen and printout, than they are able with the product of their own scratchings!

When computers are used as word processors, they are tools in very much the same way that pencils and rubbers, ballpoints and liquid paper, and typewriters are tools. The enormous advantage of computers over these other tools, is that what is written is stored in the computer's memory rather than on paper, for easy retrieval and editing or printing as desired. What enables the computer to do the.se tasks is a program called a word processor, There are scores of word processors available for practically every microcomputer.

A key criterion fo r recommending a microcomputer for educational use might well be then, the availability of a reasonably versatile, easy- to-use word processor. The advantages of word- processing programs are that they enable text to be entered into the computer, edited and formated on the screen, and subsequently printed. Paragraphs can be inserted or moved around at will. Different formats can be exper- imented with and displayed. Limiting factors which schools may need to take into account,


are that word-processing applications make heavy demands on computer time, depend for effectiveness on standard, often more expensive type of keyboards, desirably should have an 80- column display, usually require considerable memory or auxiliary storage, and necessitate the purchase of a printer, a relatively expensive item if good quality output is wanted.

The biggest impact of word processors in the classroom is on the process of writing itself. In one of the early detailed case-studies of the impact on writing, Kaiser (1983) reports how he used a word processor in conjunction with a process or conference approach to children's written language. How the word-processing program was introduced, the difficulties experi- enced with teaching keyboard skills, the prog- ress made by a sample of children, and the views of other teachers in the school about the project as a whole, are fully described in a way that makes this a most useful case-stndy for other teachers. Three trends noted by Kaiser were a tendency for students to write at greater length when using the computer, for the increase in length to be accompanied by an increase in the complexity of written work, and for no lessening of enthusiasm on the part of students as a result of using the computer as a writing tool.

Spelling checkers

Other tools available to writers, in conjunction with word processor, are programs to check spelling. These are not yet widely used in classrooms, probably because a second disk drive is usually needed. Besides, the use of spelling checkers is likely to prove controversial, for will it not lead, say some, to a decline in spelling standards? Socrates, it should be remembered, felt that the development of writing would lead to less reliance on memory and thus result in forget- fulness.

The way most spelling checkers work is first to count the number of words in a text and determine the number of different words used. This smaller list is then checked against an in-built dictionary. The Sensible Speller (Hartley, 1983), for instance, checks against

the 8o,ooo-word Random House Dictionary. Any word for which there is no match is highlighted in context and users are asked whether they wish to mark this as misspelled, or replace it, ignore it, add it to the dictionary, or even have the computer guess at the spelling.

What is important to note with spelling checkers is that the computer makes no judge- ment about the correctness or otherwise of spelling: the user does. What the computer often can do effectively is draw attention to typographical errors; it may also draw attention to repetitive use of words or inconsistencies in spelling, as well as to archaisms and the use of sexist language. Certainly, students note spelling errors more easily when their writing is printed by computer than in its handwritten form. Furthermore, users frequently comment that spelling checkers make them more aware of vocabulary and usage.

Text analysis

Other aids to writing are programs that analyse certain stylistic features such as some of the factors that contribute to the reading difficulty of written text. As an example here, let us describe the program TEXAN developed at Flinders University (Anderson, 1986). The program incorporates a word processor, thus allowing text for analysis to be entered at the keyboard; alternatively, texts created using another word processor may be analysed.

Various text analyses are available with TEXAN. First, there are a number of text counts. These include number of letters, words, long words (defined as words of more than six letters), and sentences in a text, together with average word and sentence length, and per- centage of long words. These counts, together with a display of the text, are produced automatically at the first stage of analysis.

The second stage of analysis consists of the sentence profile. A mesure of sentence corn- plenty, for example, is portrayed graphically, followed in turn by a graphic representation of range and average sentence length. The sentence profile is useful in that it provides a ready


means of pinpointing a major source of reading difficulty in texts and, as well, it highlights variations in one aspect of writing style.

The third stage of analysis is to display the text-difficulty profile. This comes in two parts. First, there is a graphic portrayal of the relative contributions to reading difficulty of a measure of word complexity and a measure of sentence complexity. These two components have been included in almost every published readability formula. This is followed by an estimate of the overall reading difficulty of the text, according to the Rix index (Anderson, I983). To aid interpretation, the Rix index is converted to a grade-level equivalent.

Finally, a further option provides for the display of the individual sentence difficulties. Although these measures are based on very limited samples and must therefore be inter- preted with caution, they may prove useful in identifying possible stumbling blocks to reading comprehension, as well as suggesting how large a sample to select from texts for analysis.

TEXAN has been used with Indonesian as well as English texts, and could be used with any language sharing the Roman alphabet. Of course, the conversion to a reading grade equivalent would only be sensible in those cases where Rix norms were available. TEXAN thus be used for analysing English and certain foreign language texts; it can provide a check by students of their writing or as a guide to the reading difficulty of printed materials.

Writing assistants

So far, word processors have been used in language classrooms to do what has been done before, but in different ways that lead to an extension of the writing process. Exciting as these might be, new and creative uses of word processors are being explored. At the Edinburgh University Department of Artificial Intelligence, for instance, Sharples (I983, p. 54) describes what he calls 'a construction kit for language'. Programs are being developed which, in conjunction with a type of word processor, are being used to generate sentences, to plan stories,

to transform text, and as a thesaurus. The use of the computer as 'writer's assistant' seems certain to challenge the imagination of teachers.

Other programs have begun to appear which help students with their writing. One such program from the United States is called ap- propriately enough Writer's Helper (Wresch, I985). One component of this program evalu- ates writing in a somewhat similar manner to TEXAN as described above. A second component offers help to students in finding and organizing a writing topic. Often students have difficulty in choosing a topic for writing, or in developing a topic and in organizing their thoughts. Writer's Helper is designed to help by stimulating students' thought processes. In selecting a topic, for instance, three options invite the student to create lists, to answer questions, or to brainstorm at the keyboard with the monitor as a sketehpad. Once a topic has been chosen, further ideas may be generated by a series of crazy contrasts or by looking at the topic in a different way, and again the computer facilitates creative thinking by posing questions (some of which may be determined by the instructor). The program offers several possibilities for organizing information too. One graphic way is to organize the information in tree-like structures by seeing what goes with what. Another is by developing an outline based on similarities and contrasts.

Generating close reading activities

Language teachers today are generally quite familiar with close procedure, both as a teaching and testing technique. This is the technique whereby words are systematically deleted through a passage of text; the task requires students to attempt to restore the missing words. Numerous studies attest to the useful- ness of close procedure as a means of developing vocabulary, of assessing comprehension and of gauging readability.

While i t is not difficult to generate close tests over selected passages, the microcomputer makes the task even easier. A program that does this, and more, is GapMaker... GapTaker


(Prologic, 1986). Using the first part of the program, GapMaker, teachers and students can enter any written material using the in-built word processor. Then users can select words for hiding, perhaps choosing a regular deletion procedure as ill normal close procedure, or choosing particular classes of words, say, ad- jectives, adverbs or pronouns. The close activities thus generated may be printed on paper or stored on disk for subsequent use to be described next. Thus far the program has been used as a writing tool.

The second part of the program, GapTaher, functions as a reading tool for here other students must try to restore to their original state the texts created by GapMaher. In the screen version of the program, the computer administers the close tests, and students move the cursor around the screen to restore the missing words. On completion, the computer dislays both the words replaced and the original deletions and, if required, the words in context.

Tracing the ties in text

Less familiar than close procedure is the linguis- tic concept of cohesion. According to Halliday and Hasan (I976), readers of language normally have little difficulty in distinguishing between a set of unrelated sentences and a set of sentences which form a unified whole. The pro- perty of language that makes this possible is cohesion, that is the threads between sentences that tie them together and so make a text.

Research evidence is accumulating to show that reading comprehension is related to the ability to trace these threads in text (e.g. Chap- man, 1983). Stimulated by work in the United Kingdom, principally at the Open University, the United States and Australia, cohesion is a concept which is exciting considerable interest among teachers and researchers alike.

A new computer program called Tie Tracer (Jacaranda, I987) has as its theoretical under- pinning this concept of cohesion. Like Gap- Maker.. . Gap Taker, one part of this program allows users to create their own texts and then delete particular elements, say, ends of cohesive

ties or particular categories of words. For example, consider the following familiar rhyme:

Dr Foster went to Gloucester in a shower of rain. .......... stepped in a puddle right up to his middle. And he never went ............... again.

The microcomputer's facility to display text in colour allows different kinds of ties Or word categories to be displayed in varying colours. Thus in this example, one chain (Dr F o s t e r . . . He) may be colour-coded, say, in green, and the other chain (Gloucester . . . . . there) in red. Readers may then attempt to trace the ties by completing the missing parts taking advantage of the colour clue, and hence t h e name of the program, Tie Tracer.

The program has several components. In another part of the program, students are presented with sentences (or even parts of sentences) in jumbled order to rearrange so that they make sense. Students are successful to the extent that they are able to perceive the threads or cohesive ties in text. Again, we have in Tie Tracer the computer functioning as a versatile reading-and-writing tool, a tool that imaginative language teachers are using to promote language learning.

Developing text

An educational activity described as 'a signiti- cant new teaching tool' and one allowing 'children to read in a new way' (Govier, 1983) is Tray, developed as part of the MEP project in Britain. Called Tray because text is initially hidden, rather like an undeveloped photo, the task of students is to make the text appear progressively as does a photograph in a developing tray. Govier's full description of how this program might be used in the classroom suggests the potential of this new teaching tool. Students work in groups and this generates useful discussion about language. At different points in the 'development' of the text, they are invited to write a telegram saying what they think the text is about. This activity thus links reading, writing and thinking.

The Tray concept is an exciting one for it


involves students 'in a process of deep text analysis'. As Gorier (I983, p. 49) continues, the process requires 'the simultaneous application of analytic, convergent thinking as well as creative thought'. A program modelled on the Tray concept is Passage (Elizabeth Com- puter Centre, r984). In this version of the game, all that is displayed are punctuation marks, and students working in groups try to recreate the text by judicious guessing of letters.

Much learning about language generally re- suits--for example, learning about the prob- abilities of occurrence of letters singly, of di- graphs and~ as the text is progressively displayed, of phrases and words. The game format of buying letters of the alphabet, working in groups, making hypotheses, to have these con- firmed or rejected as the text is slowly revealed, is a fun experience. It is certainiy a new approach to teaching reading comprehension and one that merits the attention of language teachers.

Crossword puzzles

A wide variety of word- and text-based games is available for microcomputers. An excellent tool for generating crossword puzzles, for instance, is Crossword Magic (Sherman, I98I). One way to use this program is for the teacher to generate crossword puzzles and for students to attempt these, either on the screen or in printed form. The interactive nature of the program makes it easy to generate crossword puzzles for it automatically interconnects words, holding any words temporarily in memory which cannot be fitted immediately; it is easy to operate and puzzles may be stored for subsequent retrieval. Once the crossword is complete, appropriate clues are devised.

A more powerful use of this educational tool, according to Hyde (I983), is when students make crossword puzzles themselves, generating the solution and then matching appropriate clues. In other words, in this use of the program, as we have seen in some of the other applications described above, students become authors rather than passive recipients or players.

Hyde describes how two senior students devised a crossword puzzle based on research they had done on Shakespeare, assembling a collection of words for which suitable words could be assigned (for example, D~SDEMONA--clue: 'Look to her, Moor, if thou hast eyes to see.'). Used in this way, a program such as Crossword Magic becomes a powerful tool for learning.

Speech simulation and speech synthesis

Thus far the discussion has focused on written text. A very famous program that simulates spoken language is Eliza. Originally developed by Weizenbaum (I984) for a mainframe computer, there are now versions for most microcomputers. In the original version the computer plays the role of a psychotherapist and draws out a patient, the user, by engaging in conver- sation. In the microcomputer versions it is possible to have a seemingly intelligent conver- sation with the computer. The computer's re- sponses appear on screen and users enter their replies at the keyboard. The program is used in some language classes as an educational activity for, as students work in groups, it gives rise to plenty of natural language. There are even versions of Eliza in French and German.

A very different kind of computer program is The PlaywHter's Theater (Borg-Warner, 1985), which allows students to write plays, and direct, see and hear them acted on the screen. The following excerpt from a play written, produced and directed by a young Australian student using The Playwriter's Theater, may give some idea of this unusual program:

The Cowardly Knight

Curtain opens The setting: CASTLE Sound effect: CASTLE Theme Enter KING (~own center Enter QUEEN center Enter CAR down left CAT: Meow QUEEN: A dragon is loose in the castle! Z<ING: Tell me if you see him. Q~EN: Of course! Sound effect: Knock at door


KZNG: Yes Enter KNIGHT right KNIGHT: I am a brave Knight. KNIGHT: I will catch him! KING: Thank you. Enter DRAGON left DRAGON: Dragon sounds KNIGHT: I don't like it here Exit KNIGHT DRAGON: Dragon sounds QUEEN: Oh, no[ Sound effect: CASTLE Theme Curtain closes

The Playwriter's Theater is quite an exceptional program which adds another dimension to word processing: students not only read words and sentences on screen but they also hear them spoken and see them acted out in realistic stage settings with appropriate sound effects.

OTHER USES AS TUTEE

Thus far we have considered applications of the computer in language learning under two of Taylor's (198o) modes: the computer as tutor and the computer as tool. A further mode, according to Taylor, is when the computer functions as tutee, that is where users teach the computer, in contrast to being tutored or using the computer as a tool. As Taylor (I98O, p. 4) notes: CBecause you can't teach what you don't understand, the human tutor will learn what he or she is trying to teach the computer.'

Often implied under the computer as tutee mode is computer programming. However, in this section are described examples of educational programs in the language field where students actively direct the computer in other ways. The first example of software illustrates how imaginative software designers can turn a drill-and-practice program into a learning experience where students do the teaching; and the second illustrates a mini-expert system where, again, students teach the computer.

A program that learns

Shrink On' Stretch (SRIA, I983) is a program with a difference. Two cartoon characters called Shrink and Stretch play a 'game' against students in which students learn about contractions (e.g. I will --~ I'I1). Shrink can take an expanded form like ' I will', for instance, and shrink it to T l l ' ; and Stretch can do the reverse. The game starts with the computer asking a question and scoring the student right or wrong, as in a traditional drill-and-practice program. Then comes the surprise element. The student is now invited to ask the computer a question. Initially this reversal of the normal teaching role can puzzle students. But when they get over their surprise, they ask the computer to stretch, or alternatively shrink, an item. The computer searches its store of ex- pansions and contractions and, if it cannot find the answer, the student is asked to teach it. Because the computer generates its questions randomly, it could then ask the student the very same question since it has now been 'learned', and so the computer progressively becomes more knowing.

This variation on a theme, at one stroke, changes the computer from the role of tutor to tutee, while the student becomes programmer rather than puppet, as other writers have expressed it. Of course, the student may feed in incorrect data and it is necessary for the teacher to check the set of contractions from time to time. As well, it is better if the computer is not too knowing at the outset. The program is highly motivating, students delighting in searching for questions to stump the computer. This involves active learning, discussion and reading.

A mini-expert system

A rather different kind of game is a simple one of my own called Friend or Foe (Anderson, I985), based on a game readers may recognize. It mainly involves logieal thinking, though it serves also as an introduction to expert systems and formal grammars. Players visit a land where the following rules apply:


Friend's friend =friend Foe's foe =friend Friend's foe =foe Foe's friend =foe. Someone approaches. Perhaps it is a 'foe's friend's opponent' or a 'friend's foe's foe's friend'. Is it a friend or a foe?

When it is the computer's turn to answer, it asks players to define as friend or foe any terms not known (e.g. 'opponent') and then proceeds formally to apply the rules above. In this way, the computer again '1earns' progressively and students enjoy searching for new synonyms to build a 'system' that can answer any question posed.

One way this program has been used in language classrooms is for different groups of students to develop their own mini-expert systems, teaching the computer, if you like, all the synonyms for 'friend' and 'foe' they know, in English or any other language too. Then students change sides and try to find a word not known by the expert system of another group. While the activity is relatively trivial, it is quite motivating and can generate considerable discussion, while opening up new vistas for exploration.

Prospects in theory and practice

The microcomputer has been described as 'an imagination machine', an 'almost-anything machine' (Computer Solutions, 1981, p. 2); and as Can innovation of more than ordinary magnitude, a one-in-several-centuries innovation' (quoted in Walker, I986, p. 22). Certainly, the range of ways that computers are beginning to be used by language teachers testifies that the computer is the most versatile of inventions. At the same time, however, criticisms are made that many computer programs, especially in reading and language, are somewhat limiting. How are these different views to be reconciled?

Language teachers know that language development is best nurtured if based on plenty of student talk, listening, reading and writing,

and that language development goes hand in hand with growth in students' thinking abilities. In considering the applications discussed above, then, it is rather important to determine the extent to which talk, listening, reading, writing and thir~king are promoted by the use of particular computer software. It is these aspects that should be foremost in evaluating software, rather than the user-friendliness of programs or the attractiveness of screen presentations, important though these are.

Taylor's (I98o) framework of tutor/tool/tutee has been useful in delineating the different kinds of language-learning software. Under the computer as tutor, were considered drill- and-practice and tutorial programs. Charac- teristics of good tutorial and drill-and-practice programs are that they provide practice in developing proficiency in certain language skills; because learning is individualized, students can learn at their own pace; students are able to receive immediate feedback about their performance; at the same time the teacher is able to review student performance and provide individual help where necessary; new content may be presented or previous content re- viewed. Programs may include interest-arousing graphics and are usually relatively easy to produce.

On the negative side, drill-and-practice programs often do not utilize the fuU potential of the microcomputer; they often add little to learning that cannot be provided by more traditional, less expensive means; and, if students are restricted to just this kind of program, it can be dreadfully dull Perhaps the most serious limitation, however, is the danger of reducing language learning to a series of skills and sub- skiUs.

Without denying the value of drill-and- practice and tutorial programs for some students and for learning some skiUs, the use of the computer as tutor characterizes much of yes- terday's applications of computers to language learning, and as Balajthy (I985) observed, em- phasizes linear subski11 models of the reading/ learning process.

Under Taylor's computer-as-tool mode, one

428 ~onathan Anderson

is better able to appreciate the full versatility of the microcomputer as an aid for learning and teaching. The list of applications discussed above is by no means exhaustive for the kinds of uses to which the computer may be put in language learning appear limited only by teachers' imaginations.

Many of the developments noted are quite recent, for the whole field is very new. There are other possibilities and still more will suggest themselves in the future. It seems reasonable to conjecture that, as more teachers begin to em- ploy microcomputers, so the computer as a versatile, general-purpose tool will be seen as having more to contribute to language learning than the computer used just as tutor.

Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of the computer as tool is that when it is so used in the classroom as a general-purpose learning/ teaching aid, it mirrors the way computers are used in most of the rest of society. Computers are used in business and industry, for example, in commerce, in the armed services and at col- leges and universities, essentially as a means of storing and retrieving information, as a tool for writing and for communication. In so far as these same functions are part of the objectives of language teach'rag, it is not unexpected that language teachers would in the course of time adapt these same applications to the needs of students in the classroom.

The use of the computer as tutee, Taylor's third major function, is not as familiar to most language teachers as the computer as tutor or tool. This tutee mode comes closest to artificial intelligence (AI) and expert systems. Arti- ficial intelligence includes the development of machines and programs for many tasks humans take for granted, but which are hard to define for a computer such as vision, and comprehension of natural language. Expert systems are the programs which have been developed to assist people in areas where knowledge of human experts is well established.

Although the first of the expert systems dates from the end of the 196os , applications did not become widespread until quite recently. As industrial interest in expert systems was be-

ginning to grow, the political standing of arti- tcial intelligence research was transformed by the decision of the Japanese Government, in I98I, to back a $735 million research programme aimed at developing a fifth generation computer by the I99os. The goals of the Japanese project are to develop machines that will understand Japanese and other spoken languages, respond to spoken commands from any user, and act as intelligent assistants for sophisticated tasks as expert systems do. But while fully powerful AI-based systems are years away, thus giving schools breathing space, early crude harbingers are here now and advances will be steady and inexorable.

To summarize, then, there is a rich variety of applications for computer-assisted language learning. Until recently, teachers were possibly most familiar with the computer as tutor. Cur- rently, the use of the computer as a general- purpose tool is capturing the imagination of increasing numbers of language teachers. And still on the horizon, but more than a growing speck, is the tutee mode where the computer might function more as an intelligent assistant. These different modes are not, of course, mu- tually exclusive. What is important is that language teachers should be familiar with the different modes, and that they should explore the innovative ways of incorporating computers in their teaching for the benefit of students' language learning. []

(South Australia, December ~ 986 )

References BOOKS AND ARTICLES

ADAMS, A. I985. General Editor's Introduction. In: D. Chandler and S. Marcus (eds.), Computers and Literacy. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

AND~r, so~, J. x983. Lix and R.ix: Variations on a Litt le- known Readability Index. ffournal of Reading, Vol. 26,

pp. 49o-6. �9 x984. Computing in Schools: An Australian Perspec-

tive. Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research.


�9 (ed.). 1985. Computers in the Language Classroom. Perth, Australian Reading Association.

BALAJTHY, E. 1985. Artificial Intelligence and the Teaching of Reading and Writing by Computers. Journal of Reading, Vol. 29, No. I, pp. 23-32.

CHANDLER, D.; MARCUS, S. I985. Computers and Literacy. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

CHAPMAN, J. 1983. Cohesion: An Overview. Australian Journal of Reading, Vol. 6, No. I, pp. 5-11.

COMPUTER SOLUTIONS�9 I98I. Zardax Word Processor. Brisbane, Computer Solutions.

DILLON, D. I985. The Dangers of Computers in Literacy Education: Who's in Charge Here? In: D. Chandler and S. Marcus (eds.), Computers and Literacy. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.

GEOEFRION, L. D.; GEOI~FRION, O. P. 1985. Beyond the Electronic Workbook. Paper presented at the 1985 Meeting of the International Reading Association, New Orleans.

GORIER, H. 1983. Primary Language Development. Acorn User, No. 1o, pp. 45-5I.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K.; HASAN, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London, Longman.

HIGGXNS, J.; Joints, T. 1984- Computers in Language Learning. London, Collins.

HYDE, H. 1983. Switched on to Crosswords. Australian Journal of Reading, Vol. 6, No. 4, PP. 193-8.

KAISER, C. I983. The Use of a Word Processor in Conjunc- tion with a Process or Conference Approach to Children's Language. Adelaide, Angle Park Computer Centre.

LATHROP, A.; GOODSON, B. 1983. Courseware in the Classroom. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.

MA~mFIELD, B. 1986. Preface. The Write Stuff. Sydney, Denistone East School.

SHARPLES, M. A. 1983. A Construction Kit for Language. In: D. Chandler (ed.), Exploring English with Micro- computers. Leicester, Council for Educational Tech- nology.

TAYLOR, R. P. (ed.). I98o. The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. New York, Teachers CoUege Press.

WALKER, D. F. 1986. Computers and the Curriculum. In: J. A. Culbertson and L. L. Cunningham (eds.), Microcomputers and Education--Eighty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

WEIZEm3AUM, J. 1984- Computer Power and Human Reason. Harmondsworth, Pelican.

COMPUTER SOFTWARE

ANDERSON, J. 1985. Friend or Foe. Adelaide, Flinders Uni- versity of South Australia.

- - . x986. TEXAN. Adelaide, Fhnders University of South Auslxalia.

BORG-WARNER. 1985. The Playwriter's Theater. Arlington Heights, 111., Borg-Warner Educational Systems.

ELIZABETH COMPUTER CENTRE. 1984�9 Passage. Hobart, Elizabeth Computer Centre.

HARTLEY, C. A. I983. The Sensible Speller IV. Oak Park, Sensible Software.

HEINEMANN�9 1982. Comprenez. London, Heinemann. Computers in Education.

.. 1982. Rdpondez. London, Heinemann. Computers in Education.

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN. I983. Microcourse Language Arts. Hanover, N.H., Houghton Mifflin.

JACARANDA. 1987. Tie Tracer. Brisbane, Jacaranda Soft- ware.

MATSUSHIMA, C. S. 1983. Computer and its Implemen- tation into Language Teaching. Brighton High School. (Unpublished paper.)

PROLOGIC. 1986. GapMaher... GapTaker. Melbourne, Prologic.

SRIA. 1983. Punctuation (includes Shrink "n' Stretch). Perth, Science Research Institute of Australia.

SHERMAN, L. 1981. Crossword Magic. Sunnyvale, Calif., L&S Computerware.

WRESCH, W. D. I985. Writer's Helper. Iowa City, Conduit.

Computer-assisted language learning

Documents

Transcript of Computer-assisted language learning