During the past twenty years, great strides have been made in improving language teaching. As our methodology has evolved, several different approaches have been developed and tried with varying success (Omaggio, chapter 2); consequently, a much more eclectic atmosphere prevails. Even the hypotheses of the Proficiency Movement, the predominant approach today, have been challenged (Freed 146; Kramsch, «Proficiency»; Lee; Schulz). As a result, our pedagogy is constantly being improved by debate and revision. Within the last decade, a large number of thought-provoking articles, books, and reports have been written about new methods, how people learn languages, communicative testing, our textbooks, and numerous other aspects of language teaching (Losiewicz).

Obvious progress has been made. Modern texts are not only more attractive in both appearance and personal interest; they are also much more practical. In the last few years, we have come to realize that customs and body language-as well as grammar, vocabulary, syntax, and literature-are important, and we have incorporated them into our texts. At the same time, we are also learning to make better use of the various media now at our disposal. As we begin to understand media other than print and to improve the way we use them, interesting developments like computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and computer-controlled interactive video (IAV) promise to make language learning dramatically more successful. Nevertheless, we are just beginning to understand how students learn, how to write good computer-assisted exercises, and how to use technological advances to implement our pedagogical ideals.

Fortunately, in this age of instantaneous contact via satellites, many people see language study not only as useful for commercial success overseas but also as the key to relaxing international tensions and improving life worldwide. More and more, governments and corporations are funding communications projects and investing in personnel with language skills. Add this renewed and increasing interest in foreign languages to the progress we are making, and one cannot help but feel that stimulating days are ahead for our profession¹⁷⁸. In the last few years, one innovation in particular has captured the imagination of many teachers: the use of the computer to facilitate learning. In fact, no other technological advance, including educational television, has ever enjoyed the sustained interest and growth -or the funding- that microcomputers have experienced during the past ten years (Robyler, 85).

The excitement about computers is understandable, once you realize that they can, in addition to displaying instructional programs on their own screens, serve as the heart of a multimedia learning station and control a wide variety of audio, video, and communications equipment. When teachers see students interact with computer-controlled video stations, like those at the Naval Academy, they begin -almost spontaneously- to speculate about the dramatic improvements computers will have on language learning. Actually, profound changes are already underway in education, and students at all levels are learning practical computer skills in preparation for college and for life in an information-oriented society.

Once conscientious teachers realize the advantages which computer-assisted learning offers both them and their students, they become very interested in making it available. Summarized simply, it does three important things: it increases student interest, promotes

––––––––   298   ––––––––

retention of the subject matter while substantially reducing the time needed for instruction, and lightens the burden for both teacher and student by providing individualized, self-paced instruction¹⁷⁹.

Besides CALL, other computer programs (such as word processors, testing programs, and electronic gradebooks) can alleviate many of the tedious aspects of teaching, testing, and clerical tasks. Overall, microcomputers reduce the time needed to do our work, help improve the quality of what we produce, and allow us to be more creative. As a result, they give us more time to perform the tasks that teachers do better than machines. For instance, they can «humanize» our classes by allowing us more opportunities to provide individual attention for our students. They are making more time available for person-to-person communication (not only between teachers and students, but also among professors, between administrators and researchers, etc.); and they are providing a focal point around which teachers can collaborate with each other, with psychologists, and with technicians to share ideas and improve instruction. As Kramsch says:

Although CALL by itself will probably never supplant classroom activities guided by the teacher, it can certainly supplement and enrich them. By using computer-controlled instruction, such as interactive video lessons displayed on large-screen monitors, teachers are already experimenting with presenting life-like foreign experiences in their classrooms, and, consequently, are bringing their classes closer to both the language and culture.

Just as there are things that teachers do better than machines, there are also tasks at which machines excel, and some of them are a little surprising. Unlike us, computers remain untiringly accurate and never lose patience. The machines can also grade exercises and report scores almost instantaneously. With well-written software, they provide consistent, accurate guidance to help students understand their mistakes and arrive at the correct answers. Besides helping students focus their efforts and learn more efficiently, experience with good CALL materials can have beneficial effects on teachers. For instance, as a result of having used various sets of software and having designed computer-assisted exercises for my students, I have found that, if students do not grasp my initial explanation or the follow-up exercise, I tend to «branch» to fuller explanations followed by examples. By learning to write good CALL lessons, teachers are reminded of the importance of stating ideas clearly and concisely. They also become more aware of the value of organizing presentations in a logical sequence that builds on previous knowledge and recyles important topics. In addition, designing computer-assisted exercises and seeing student reactions helps us understand how to introduce, practice, and test a topic more effectively. Above all, using CALL makes clear the need for us to improve constantly the way we communicate with others.

Numerous teachers have become interested in CALL and want to make it available to their students; until recently, however, several problems have stood in the way. Initial enthusiasm for computer-assisted language learning was tempered by the high cost of technology and the lack of well-designed instructional software. In the 1970's, skepticism grew due to the paucity of documented evidence of CALLs effectiveness over traditional teaching. The widespread adoption of CALL was also slowed because some teachers felt threatened by computers (Dunkel 258).

One by one, these impediments have been overcome. Commercial competition and technical improvements have caused computer costs to decrease steadily and drastically. The market has narrowed from a field of about a dozen contenders -whose products were not mutually compatible- to only two: the «Apple family» (principally the IIe, IIgs, and Macintosh) and the IBM group (the IBM «compatibles»)¹⁸⁰. Due to lower costs, what would have been considered «advanced equipment» eight years ago (e. g., a 512K micro-computer vs. one with 32K) is now available in most schools. Technical advances, like converter boards and the new «Bridge Computer», have made the vast amount of Apple IIe software available to IBM MS-DOS users¹⁸¹.

––––––––   299   ––––––––

Because more teachers are using and experimenting with computer-assisted language learning, confidence in the value of CALL is growing, particularly since significant documented proof attesting to the benefits of computers in numerous fields has recently become available (Robyler et al.). It is encouraging to note that, as the result of hands-on experience, many teachers no longer fear the computer. On the contrary, they now welcome it as a helpful tool and are undertaking the very research that will enable us to use it more effectively (Church, Eisenberg, Robinson).

While the other problems hindering the widespread use of computers in instruction have, by and large, been surmounted, the lack of sufficient highquality software to supplement teaching is still keenly felt.

When microcomputers first became available, most CALL programs were written by computer buffs who had little or no training in foreign languages. Gradually, dedicated teachers took an interest in computers and began writing programs (Quinn, «On Teaching»). Many of these early programs consisted of generic lessons (written on general topics like conjugated verbs) rather than courseware (computer-assisted lessons correlated with a specific textbook or course). Later, a few publishers started producing courseware, and, in some cases, generic software as well. As Language Education Specialist at the U. S. Military Academy (West Point) and as Software Review Editor for Hispania, I have examined numerous software packages over the past five years. Unfortunately, even most programs produced by publishers still consist of drill-and-test exercises and couple 1950's methodology with late 1970's technology. Teaching discrete grammar items and isolated vocabulary, such programs fall short of being acceptable to language professionals who are trying to use a more realistic, communicative approach¹⁸². Lamentably, almost all focus on content -usually discrete grammar points or non-contextualized vocabulary. Most also involve drill-and-test, and place little emphasis on skills-which could be practiced through exercises involving role-playing, simulations, and meaningful communication. Better software is definitely needed¹⁸³.

Like classroom teaching, software should emphasize skills as well as content. For our students to be able to comprehend and converse, we need to teach them not only forms (i. e., morphology and lexicon), but also how to synthesize grammar into acceptable sentences (i. e., syntax and cultural contexts). In addition, since initiating and responding to questions form the major part of most conversations, we should emphasize question-and-answer techniques, in software as well as in the classroom. At present, most CALL exercises -like many textbook drills- involve a series of declarative sentences rather than questions to be answered; as a result, they do not help students develop the skills needed for conversation. In contrast, besides using formats which help students learn grammar and vocabulary (such as fill-ins and multiple-choice involving declarative sentences), we should use a variety of presentations (such as cloze exercises, question-answer drills, incomplete dialogs, reorganizing jumbled words into sentences, and putting the main ideas of a reading passage in order) to help students develop their syntactical skills and understand how to use contextual clues. To learn anything, students must focus their attention on it. Varying the formats not only keeps the lesson interesting; it also assists concentration. To be effective, therefore, exercises should include different formats and should involve comprehension. Rather than writing fill-ins or short-answer drills that students can do mechanically without paying attention to context, authors of good lessons design exercises -whether they are in textbooks or on computer screens- that students have to understand before they can give the correct answer.

Recently, a few publishers have produced entire packages (that is, computer software and videotapes, in addition to audio tapes and workbooks) to accompany their texts (such as En Contacto from Houghton Mifflin). They may be marketing these products too fast, however, since most of this material is generic and since sufficient research has not been done to prove that the formats or the suggestions for their use are actually effective. For instance, some video programs have little connection with the computer or textbook exercises, they are not interactive, and -although several teachers say their students prefer episodes with a continuing storyline like that in ZARABANDA¹⁸⁴- many consist of «compartmentalized»,

––––––––   300   ––––––––

unrelated segments. There may be much better ways to design and use such multimedia materials; in fact, there is the danger that, while such packages tie us to a specific textbook and serve the publishers' purpose of keeping their books attractive, they may actually slow our progress towards realizing the potential offered by the new media. By keeping us anchored to the past, in which the textbook was the major -and practically only- medium, they may impede insights which we can gain through trying new methods and experimenting to discover which media best support those methods. Rather than concentrating on textbooks, we might more profitably focus on communication, particularly as it can be achieved in small group settings. Thus, instead of settling for more material linked to the highly controlled, rather contrived environment created within a textbook's pages, we should be trying to re-create real life and help students learn to communicate more spontaneously in the classroom. Some universities are already developing courses in which several media, especially video, are being used in this more flexible way. A notable example of this type of effort is the Intensive Spanish Project being carried out at Utah State.

Producing such material, however, requires skill, time, and effort. A major factor contributing to the dearth of really good software is the fact that in most language departments the production of software does not count towards promotion or tenure, even though developing extensive, well-designed computer-assisted exercises can easily require more work than writing a book. Besides planning, sequencing, and revising the lessons, the CALL author must -in addition to providing the contents- prepare extensive, evaluative feedback and learn how to have the computer display all this material properly. It is all too true that

Because there is little commercial profit or academic reward, software for instruction continues to lag behind applications programs such as word processors and spreadsheets. Consequently, many teachers who have wanted to use computers creatively in their classes have had to become producers (Resumer 22), inspired, perhaps, by philanthropic ideals¹⁸⁵.

Now, however, the stage appears to be set for realizing more fully the microcomputer's instructional potential (Turner). As a recent EDUCOM survey showed, many schools are not only providing access to micros but are also helping with hardware and software use. Some even provide support for the development of instructional software (Lukesh 17). Teachers and researchers nationwide are diligently attacking the software problems (Quinn «Major Sources»), and numerous universities have engaged in projects to develop technologically-assisted instructional material. For example, Project Athena at MIT is now in its third year, FRENCH IN ACTION has been developed at Yale and a somewhat similar project for Spanish is underway at WGBH Television in Boston, and the Intermedia Project at Brown University is in full swing.

Recognizing the lack of incentives for effective instructional software, concerned groups have begun to provide funding or awards, establish distribution centers, and set up information sources¹⁸⁶. IBM, for instance, has donated more than $200 million to develop instructional software at 19 universities. Apple has joined with Kinko's to market some 200 courseware offerings created by college professors (Shao 83). To provide rewards and recognition for superior programs, EDUCOM has set up a «Software Initiative»; part of it encourages the development and use of high quality, educationally-valid computer material (Kozma 18). Due to the establishment of several centers, information about what software is available or being developed can be more easily obtained. For instance, Rutgers is making an international inventory (which can be accessed via the RLIN, or Research Libraries Information Network)¹⁸⁷. The bulletin board service provided by Hispania's computer editors is also a valuable source of information¹⁸⁸.

Much has been done, then, to solve the

––––––––   301   ––––––––

problems facing teachers who want to make computer-assisted learning available to their students; but today, approximately ten years after the introduction of the microcomputer, to what degree is it actually being used in colleges? In a survey carried out in cooperation with the Chronicle of Higher Education, 211 of 430 campuses affiliated with EDUCOM responded (Kozma 13). Three-fourths said they offered assistance, usually in evaluating software or in operating equipment. Far more institutions provided help with instructional uses of microcomputers than undertook projects for integrating computer-assisted learning with instructional objectives or gave training in specialized software. This fact suggests that the integration of microcomputers into the curriculum is still in its infancy (Kozma 16). The following, however, was the most interesting conclusion drawn from this report:

Constantly more cost-efficient and versatile technology, plus increasing numbers of students and teachers who are well-versed in using it, should pave the way for incorporating CALL into the core of the academic curriculum. Not only that, but the new speech-generating capability of computers also makes them more viable second-language tutors (Dunkel 251). Although CALL offers many advantages and although inexpensive, viable solutions for the computer's lack of «voicecapability» have been available for some time (Mohler), some critics have cited the computer's lack of «ears and mouths» as a drawback to using it to support communicative instruction (Larsen 938). That old idea, however, is rapidly changing. Rather than viewing the computer as a stand-alone device, we should think of it as the main element in a multimedia workstation. With Steve Jobs's NeXT machine, for example, words on the screen can be annotated with voice commentary and educational programs can be accompanied by music or realistic sound effects. Users can even record messages and send them to one another by electronic mail (Pollack 24). High quality, digitalized «voice playback» exists for other brands of computers; while this particular solution remains expensive, it is available from several sources¹⁸⁹. By viewing the computer as the heart of multimedia stations like those now available in learning laboratories at West Point and other educational institutions, we may be better able to integrate technologically-assisted learning into the language curriculum. Authoring systems (e. g., CALIS and IconAuthor, which can be used to write computer-controlled audio, CALL, and video exercises) offer a means of exploring the possibilities of such a multimedia approach. They also provide a way of more rapidly producing instructional software.

Disappointed with what is commercially available and aware of the lack of rewards, many teachers who want to combine up-to-date methodology with modern technology have turned to specialized programs called authoring systems, which considerably reduce the time and technical skills needed for producing software. In essence, authoring systems automate the process of writing computer-controlled exercises and allow teachers to focus on how the content will be delivered and evaluated, rather than worry about problems related to computer programming. With them, teachers can more rapidly produce lessons, by choosing from menus (lists of types of exercises available), icons (symbols representing tasks to be performed), or prompts (easily understood messages which lead the users through what they have to do). For example, in only about an hour, teachers can learn to use THE LANGUAGE COACH¹⁹⁰ and begin making a wide variety of exercises to accompany books such as D. C. Heath's Spanish for Medical Personnel or Heath's Law Enforcement Workbook. Although writing exercises with a good authoring system requires about as much technical knowledge as using an audiocassette recorder or typing on a word processor, producing effective exercises still requires skill and effort. The fact remains that, for educationally-sound CALL, teachers must give diagnostic feedback, in addition to providing the content of the exercises. These systems, nevertheless, may be at least a partial solution for the lack of good instructional software, since -with proper training and

––––––––   302   ––––––––

ingenuity- teachers can use them to write CALL exercises for improving reading comprehension, listening skills, and insights into culture. While a good authoring program can be helpful, just acquiring one does not insure that teachers will produce high quality software. By using one, in fact, those who do not know how to produce effective exercises can rapidly produce «drill and kill» material that is both boring and detrimental. It is extremely important to realize that of all the aspects of implementing technologically-assisted language learning, faculty training is the most important, yet most widely neglected¹⁹¹. Systems like CALIS and THE LANGUAGE COACH, which offer ways to write good exercises, are already available. It is up to us, however, to take advantage of them and use them properly.

Less costly computers with abundant memory, as well as easy-to-use authoring systems, have arrived at an opportune moment -when we are actively investigating the ways people acquire languages and how we can help them learn more effectively. With the tremendous expansion of interest in the Proficiency Movement in the last few years, we have been closely re-examining what we are teaching and how we are teaching it. As a result, we have found that contextualized, interactive, communicative exercises can be very helpful. By reducing the time and problems involved in taking advantage of computer-assisted language learning, easy-to-use authoring systems are helping us concentrate our efforts on the exercises themselves; consequently, CALL is being refined into a powerful teaching tool.

It is clear now, that, after mastering the mechanism of producing a lesson, teachers must go beyond those basics to write clear, communicative exercises with contextualized content that is presented in various formats and accompanied by diagnostic feedback. The educational value of computer-assisted lessons depends primarily on the quality of their content and the usefulness of the feedback provided by the author. The latter is particularly important, since it determines how interactive the exercises will actually be. To rival one-on-one instruction with a tutor, the computer must provide continuous feedback which guides students, as if they were constantly being monitored by a teaching assistant with infinite patience, painstaking accuracy, and unrelenting consistency. Specific evaluation must occur at the completion of each step. Correct entries should be acknowledged, errors pinpointed as to their type and as to exactly what is incorrect, and help should be easily available at any moment. In addition, the lesson's organization must be logical and readily apparent (Weyh 33).

Some authoring systems, like DASHER (available from CONDUIT, The University of Iowa, Oakdale Campus, Iowa City, Iowa 52242), offer answer analysis that automatically supplies most of their generalized feedback. Other authoring programs, like CALIS (which is free, from Duke University), simplify matters in a different way; they let teachers enter content and give feedback by typing questions, hints, and help-screens with a word processor. To reduce the time involved in this less automated, more labor-intensive way which gives specific feedback, teachers can use macros (statements that are repeated whenever a specified symbol or series of key strokes is typed). With them, instructors can provide a fairly large number of guiding responses in a reasonable amount of time. Even though authoring systems reduce the time and effort involved in producing CALL lessons, the fact remains that microcomputers are rather restricted as to the answers they can check. They are not good, for example, at verifying long, spontaneous responses. This limitation, nevertheless, does not hinder our using them in introductory or even intermediate classes, where students need direct guidance within a restricted framework. In addition, it is important to remember that CALL is generally intended to supplement, not supplant, classroom instruction; it complements the teacher's work and frees time for us to practice spontaneous conversation during class time.

Once teachers grasp the methodology involved, are familiar with an authoring system, and know what textbook is to be used, they can write software for literature, composition, or almost any subject. Because teachers and students rely heavily on the text, many of us prefer to produce exercises related to a specific book. Such courseware, naturally, facilitates coordinating assignments done on the

––––––––   303   ––––––––

computer with work done in class. More importantly, though, because students can easily see how doing the CALL exercises will help their grades, they are readily motivated to use courseware.

If we tie CALL to textbooks, however, our texts must be exceptionally good. Otherwise, we may have a repeat performance of one of the main problems with the language lab; when the audio exercises became mere adjuncts to the text, they also became boring drills rather than interesting, helpful exercises. Despite all the potential for exciting, life-like lessons that the audio lab offered (e. g., simulated conversations, weather reports, dramatic renditions with sound-effects for dialogs, plays, etc.), in many schools it became a workplace for doing drills that language learners did not like. Since teachers seldom explained how labwork related to class activities and almost never gave quizzes on it¹⁹², students avoided the audio lab.

While the textbook is the main tool used by teachers, it is just one of several delivery media (like audio tapes, computers, and video) which we should exploit in order to reach our students as effectively as possible. Technological developments are occurring at a remarkable rate, and new machines are constantly becoming commercially available. In their enthusiasm, some of our colleagues who are avid aficionados of CALL or interactive video seem to become enthralled with each new device as it appears on the market. Not long after they begin to exploit the possibilities of one, they turn to another «improved» machine shortly after it becomes available. We have reached, I believe, almost the «point of diminishing returns». Rather than seeking newer and faster machines, we should be concentrating on how we can best use the ones already available. It is not the medium but rather the method that seems to influence the effectiveness of instruction the most. In trying to take advantage of the various media, we must remember that they are merely tools.

Today, just as when language labs were first used, our main concern should be the educational principals underlying the development and use of instructional materials and the contribution technology can make to the language learning experience, rather than the machines which technical advances make possible (Morely 18; emphasis mine). Researchers now realize that when the use of a medium fails us, it is not necessarily the fault of the tool; on the contrary, the problem is more likely our lack of understanding how to use the tool properly and our failure to employ it well. As Olsen has pointed out, it takes a long time for us to learn to use technological innovations well. «After all», she says, «motion pictures began as photographed plays, and the first printed books tried to imitate the appearance of hand-copied manuscripts» (Olsen viii). Similarly, when writing CALL exercises, some authors use computers to produce «electronic workbooks», another clear example of an improper, anachronistic use of a new technology.

The inappropriate use of a medium is reflected in laboratories where students practice with it. We often hear the refrain «language labs have been abandoned», and many teachers and administrators wonder if the same fate awaits the even more complicated and expensive laboratories designed for CALL and interactive video. Rather than saying that audio laboratories have been abandoned, it might be more accurate to say these are no longer used in schools where they did not live up to the promise made for them, but have evolved beyond just being «audio labs» in others. Actually, schools still use «language labs», and technologically-advanced learning centers have recently been installed in numerous universities¹⁹³. Even so, if we fail to use these new media properly, a similar situation may arise before long: no matter how sophisticated they are, laboratories will probably be abandoned where they do not meet the needs of students and teachers.

For several years, however, there have been concerted efforts to avoid the mistakes that were made with the audio lab; for instance, we are trying to produce computer-controlled lessons that are communicative, presented randomly rather than linearly, and motivational. Two characteristics of microcomputers are actually facilitating these efforts: by using computers, teachers can provide feedback, including scores (thus increasing motivation and interactivity, besides fostering

––––––––   304   ––––––––

a more communicative environment for learning) and teachers can cause presentations or exercises to «branch», that is, move to a new section when certain criteria, like achieving a certain percent of correct answers, are met (thus better serving the needs of individual students and maintaining their interest). Many of us also realize the need for faculty training and are providing workshops to help teachers integrate technology into the language curriculum.

To supplement classroom activities with computer-controlled lessons and to take advantage of the fact that it can present selfpaced, individualized instruction, we should allow students reasonable amounts of time to work individually or in small groups at the computer. So that students have sufficient access to the machines, leading universities (Brown, for example) and military academies (such as West Point) have provided facilities for taking advantage of CALL and computer-controlled video. At present, such laboratories are usually considered «learning centers» rather than «language labs» and are used in a multimedia approach to teaching. More research, like that being undertaken at the Defense Language Institute and at San Diego State, should be conducted to help us understand precisely how people acquire and retain languages, as well as how our media and laboratories can best facilitate our students' efforts.

Opinions, fads, and lack of training in the proper use of the media have not only resulted in long-term problems like those associated with the language lab; they have also been responsible for poor quality software and even «vaporware» (much heralded, but never finished, products). To produce high quality software and use the various media properly, we must be guided by facts -rather than by guesses and opinions. As Bernhardt and Hammandou point out:

Even entire theoretical models for second language acquisition, such as Krashen's Monitor Model, have been proposed on the basis of very limited research and led to the advocacy of a narrowly prescribed methodological stance (Byrnes 35). Unfortunately, textbooks (such as Dos Mundos by Terrell) and reference books (like The Video Connection by Altman) have recently been based on such incomplete studies.

Claire Kramsch has suggested a viable alternative to fads and narrow stances:

Truly «modern» methods must be based on more than opinions, intuitive guesses, and mere innovation. Thus, empirical research on the role of media in language learning -followed by training that helps teachers learn to apply its practical findings- is essential. Through experimentation we need to determine which types of exercises, what screen formats, and which combinations of media are actually best suited to teaching the various skills needed by language students. As we experiment, we should try to develop and investigate a wide range of possibilities. Then we should listen to what that research tells us and be guided by what we have learned through practical experience.

To make progress in producing and implementing pedagogically-sound software, we must take a comprehensive view and be sure our methods and materials are firmly based on psychologically-proven facts and classroom-tested practical experiences. We must also be careful to see that they are integrated with the framework of our curriculum to fulfill functions they are well-suited for, and we need to be sure that they actually help both teachers and students meet their goals. Programs should be field-tested by students as well as teachers¹⁹⁴. Without this overall perspective, computer-assisted language learning (along with other innovations that might eventually form an integrated technological approach) may be discredited because of the shortcomings of exercises or applications that prove inappropriate for the medium employed.

We now have empirically-proven data to show that computer-assisted learning is effective:

––––––––   305   ––––––––

as mentioned earlier, a recently-published book by Roblyer summarizes the research that has been conducted on computer-assisted learning in a number of fields. Included in her meta-analysis are many previously unpublished studies (Robyler et al.). As well as helping to keep us headed in the right direction, it can assist in justifying costs to administrators. Even so, a substantial body of factual information based on empirical studies and indicating exactly the most effective ways to present, practice, and test both skills and content in language courses does not yet exist. Many more studies dealing specifically with language learning are needed, but we have begun to reap the benefits of research conducted recently in numerous places¹⁹⁵.

As a result of research already done, we have a clearer idea of what works in connection with computer-assisted learning for foreign languages. For example, to write lessons that hold students' attention and help them remember what they are learning, teachers need to be aware that language learning is more effective when the subject matter is presented in context rather than as discrete items and when attention is focused on meaning rather than grammatical form. It is also more effective if students actually have to use the language to solve problems rather than just describe, when they can personally relate to the materials, and if it is amusing or emotionally stimulating. These facts are derived from two studies on language-learning: one conducted at the U. S. Military Academy (West Point) and the other carried out by the Center for Applied and Cross Curtural Skills in San Francisco (Quinn, «Applied» and Robinson, «Computer-assisted»).

Besides computer programs for learning languages, a few video packages are available. Of these, TRAVESSIA, which is for Portuguese and consists of a textbook, workbook, and videotapes, seems to be the best. Its success may be due to the fact it reflects many of the traits found desirable in the West Point and San Francisco studies. Filled with humor, songs, and other emotionally attractive stimuli, TRAVESSIA was filmed in Brazil by Tele-Globo under a joint grant by the University of New Mexico, Georgetown, Florida International, and the University of Arizona¹⁹⁶. Interactive, computer-driven exercises are being written to complement such video programs. At Staten Island University, for example, Zelda Brooks is using IconAuthor to write lessons for TRAVESSIA.

We have also learned that, particularly when writing computer-assisted lessons, teachers need to know how to give effective feedback. In other words, we must know how to guide students clearly and accurately by our responses to their incorrect answers. From the studies at West Point and in San Francisco, we have found that feedback is more effective, if, instead of just giving the right answer or explaining it, errors are indicated while students are helped to discover the correct response through hints; if the question is rephrased or guidance is offered, instead of just telling students «wrong» or «try again»; and if, rather than repeating the item missed, a parallel item is presented. In addition, we now know that on-line help screens are more effective when students have control over whether to look at them or not, but teachers have decided what will be on them. It is also important to realize that learning to give accurate, guiding feedback is a valuable skill that teachers can easily transfer to classroom interaction.

More and more, we are finding out what works and what does not. For instance, DFLash, a set of software for several languages, was one of several projects undertaken in conjunction with the research at West Point. After surveying several hundred cadets in introductory Portuguese and Spanish to find out what they felt they needed¹⁹⁷, the research team that I headed began to write DFLash. Following several trials, the program was modified, based on what we felt, through practical experience, would be more effective. For instance, we added a menu at the beginning to let each student tailor the program according to individual preferences for number of tries, having sound effects on or off, automatically producing a study file that will generate an exercise based on the items they miss, etc. Instructors were cautioned to keep their exercises interactive, communicative, and contextualized. Our students found DFLash very helpful and responded favorably. Colleagues in the Department of Foreign Languages at

––––––––   306   ––––––––

the Air Force Academy have also obtained excellent results with this software¹⁹⁸.

To date, studies on CALL have revealed mainly qualitative rather than quantitative benefits. That is, computers appear to affect student behavior (i. e., confidence, interest, and motivation) more dramatically than they affect performance (grades). In the initial stages of the three-year research project undertaken at West Point, for instance, cadets remarked that the CALL exercises used in pilot studies motivated them, helped them better understand the material they were studying, and made them feel they were progressing more quickly than they did otherwise.

The impression that computer exercises influence student attitudes and behavior more than they affect performance or achievement, however, may arise from the fact that up to now most studies have tended to be informal and deal with relatively small groups. In research at Vanderbilt, for instance, Church found that when he surveyed students after they used CALL, they believed the exercises helped improve their work. He concluded that the positive attitude toward the computer exercises had a noticeable effect on class morale and said «students who feel they are getting real help in their learning ... are likely to ... perform to their potential» (Church 255). Similarly, Eisenberg concluded that students enjoyed the advantages provided by CALL and thereby profited from its use (Eisenberg 43).

On the other hand, in more formal studies quantitative results are found, such as the following from research at the Center for Applied and Cross Cultural Skills in San Francisco: «The experimental group significantly outperformed the control group on the post test, both in absolute terms and when scores were mediated by prior knowledge, language aptitude, attitudes, and abilities»¹⁹⁹. Similar results were reported in the latter stages of the research conducted at West Point.

Well-written CALL exercises, then, can both increase motivation and promote retention. These findings are important for two reasons. First, because motivation is essential for learning: as the proverb says, «para aprender, lo principal es querer». Second, because retention, rather than acquisition, seems to be the major problem in language study: while most students can memorize the meanings and patterns they need for immediate use, it is often difficult for them to recall and use such items later, and CALL can provide help with retention²⁰⁰. For substantial gains in performance as well as behavior, it would seem that we should not only continue to concentrate on the process of learning (that is, on improving our teaching methods) but also redouble our efforts to incorporate recent findings (such as those on feedback) into the delivery of computer-controlled lessons.

It is interesting to note that CALL experiments conducted to date have concentrated on students in introductory classes, and no completed studies, as far as I have been able to ascertain, have assessed whether the cumulative effects of both improved motivation and retention will result in substantially improved performance (i. e., whether students who have used computer-assisted instruction in both introductory and intermediate classes will achieve significantly higher grades than those who have never used it). The research being conducted at the Naval Academy, therefore, is especially interesting. This longitudinal study, which began in August, 1987, and will end in May, 1990, is being carried out by Helen Purket to determine the effectiveness of computer-controlled interactive video. To my knowledge, it is the only research being undertaken to determine what long-range benefits technologically-assisted learning has on language students²⁰¹.

An important aspect of the Annapolis study is that the computer itself is gathering information about student progress as the midshipmen learn with the software. In the future, we can expect to see the computer used more often to deliver instruction, give and grade tests, and then tabulate and analyze statistical results on that same material. It will not only collect performance data (such as how many times students retry a question, what routes they take through branching, which help screen they go to the most, etc.) but will also help evaluate it, too. As Clair Kramsch remarked:

Thus, computers may become one of our best allies not only in determining what qualitative and quantitative advantages CALL offers, but also in improving courses and tailoring tutorial instruction to suit the individual learner's needs.

In the last two or three years, we have learned much about how to write better CALL exercises and are making significant progress towards providing software that is instructionally-sound. The final impediment to implementing CALL -the lack of high quality software- is being removed. For us to continue advancing in our efforts to integrate computer-controlled instruction with the language curriculum, however, more empirical investigations need to be undertaken. We need to know more about how to take advantage of the strengths of each of the media and blend their uses into a harmonious approach. We must also keep experimenting to find new and better ways of teaching with what we already have. For example, as new strategies and methods are proven to be of value, we must continue to incorporate them into the print medium, (i. e., into textbooks, workbooks, and teacher's manuals), as well as into computer-controlled instruction. In particular, we should reexamine the sequencing and recycling of topics²⁰².

As an example of such sequencing and how it could improve both our textbooks and CALL, consider the fact that approximately 40 years ago, William E. Bull revolutionized the way we teach verbs. As a result of his research and suggestions, writers of introductory Spanish texts came to concentrate on the most frequently used tenses (the present and past). For many years, textbook authors have also introduced the future and the conditional (which are related in their forms) as well as the imperfect and preterit (which can be contrasted in their uses), one after the other. Perhaps it is time to expand that type of sequencing to include teaching the forms and contrasts involved in the present indicative vs. present subjunctive and the preterit vs. past subjunctive²⁰³.

As we seek to improve language learning by experimenting and using the media more effectively, we must have a clear grasp of this fundamental fact: textbooks, computers, video, audiocassette players, etc., are not methods. They are merely tools. As such, they are only as effective as the teachers using them. Our success depends primarily on how effective our methods are. Consequently, one of the greatest challenges facing our profession is the effective integration of the new media with more productive ways of presenting the subject matter. Further research in this area has the potential for yielding valuable results which will help determine more precisely which methods and media are most appropriate for specific groups of students, purposes, and learning situations.

At present it appears that a multimedia approach -seeking to integrate the use of the textbook with interactive audio, computer, and video materials and to couple them with the most suitable methods at the appropriate times- is the most promising way to improve the effectiveness of foreign language instruction. In this type of approach, teachers would use the various media to present life-like instruction. We would also exploit the unique features of each medium and use each one for the purposes for which it is most appropriate. For instance, audio equipment might be used for practicing listening comprehension, pronunciation, and intonation; computers might assist in teaching reading comprehension and composition, as well as grammar and vocabulary; and videotape might help students learn gestures, body language, and culture through the study of authentic conversations appearing in the context of the foreign environment.

Because we will have to combine the knowledge we gain from research and practical experience in order to integrate modern methods and computer-controlled instruction successfully, we must continue our investigations and experimentation, learn how to use our media tools more effectively, and pass that information on -not only to teacher-candidates but also to teachers already in the classroom.

By using the media more extensively, we may be able to provide interesting, more effective training in the new methodological and technological skills needed by teacher candidates, graduate assistants, and classroom

––––––––   308   ––––––––

teachers. Team teaching supported with CALL exercises written by master-teachers, for example, could help improve both teacher training and student-oriented instruction. High quality lessons prepared by these teachers could be presented via video, CALL, audio tapes, etc. Those of us who are already teaching might also benefit by having the opportunity to see such lessons and emulate segments that we find useful.

Ultimately, teachers will make the decisions that determine how far and how fast our profession advances. As a group, we teachers are responsible for improving language instruction at all levels. Our understanding of student needs -plus our willingness to meet those needs as effectively as possible- are essential to progress in improving language teaching. Rather than the media -whether machines, software, or books- the human element is the key to integrating modern methods and computer-controlled learning for more successful language study.

Altman, Rick. The Video Connection: Integrating Video into Language Teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989.

Bernhardt, Elizabeth and Joann Hammandou. «A Decade

––––––––   310   ––––––––

of Research in Foreign Language Teacher Education». The Modern Language Journal 71.3 (1987): 289-99.

Bull, William E. «Modern Spanish Verb-Form Frequencies». Hispania 30.4 (1947): 451-66.

___. Time, Tense, and the Verb: A Study in Theoretical and Applied Linguistic, with Particular Attention to Spanish. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.

Byrnes, Heidi. «Second Language Acquisition Research: Does It Suggest Program Goals?» ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (April 1987): 35-38.

Church, Dan M. «Textbook Specific Computer Exercises for Elementary French Students». The Modern Language Journal 70.3 (1986): 251-57.

Cohen, Howard. «Pedagogical Benefits of the Computer in the Foreign Language Business Course». Hispania 70.2 (May 1987): 408-12.

Dobrian, Walter A. Español: Segundo Curso. New York: Random House, 1973.

Dunkel, Patricia A. «Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL): Past Dilemmas and Future Prospects for Audible CALL». The Modern Language Journal 71.3 (1987): 250-60.

Eisenberg, Yehuda. «The Effects of Computer-Based Instruction on College Students' Interest and Achievement». Educational Technology April 1986: 40-43.

Feustle, Joseph A., Jr. «Instructions for Using the A.A.T.S. Electronic Bulletin Board». Hispania 70.3 (Sept. 1987): 698-700.

___. «Using Nuestro BBS through BITNET» Hispania 72.1 (March 1989): 207-08.

Freed, Barbara F. «Preliminary Impressions of the Effects of a Proficiency-Based Language Requirement». Foreign Language Annals 2.2 (1987): 139-46.

Hendrickson, James M. Poco a poco: Spanish for Proficiency. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1986.

Irizarry, Estelle. «Correcting Compositions on the Computer». Hispania 71.2 (May 1988): 448-50.

___. «Graphic Configuration for Analysis of Novels». College Literature 15 (1988): 35-46.

Kozma, Robert B., Robert Bangert-Drowns and Jerome Johnston. «Rewarding Innovation: 1987 EDUCOM/ NCRIPTAL Higher Education Software Awards». EDUCOM Bulletin 22.3 (Fall 1987): 18-26.

Kramsch, Claire. «The Missing Link in Vision and Governance: Foreign Language Acquisition Research». ADFL Bulletin 18.3 (April 1987): 31-34.

___. «New Directions in the Study of Foreign Languages». The Governance of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning: Proceedings of a Symposium. Princeton, NJ, 9-11 October, 1987. Ed. Peter C. Patrikis. New Haven, CT: The Consortium for Language Teaching and Learning, 1988: 106-19.

___. «Proficiency versus Achievement: Reflections on the Proficiency Movement». ADFL Bulletin 18.1 (September 1986): 22-24.

Kulik, James A., et al. «Effectiveness of Computer-based College Teaching: A Meta-analysis of Findings». Review of Educational Research 50.4 (Winter 1980): 525-44.

Larsen, Mark D. «Obstacles of Integrating Computer-Assisted Instruction with Oral Proficiency Goals». Hispania 70.4 (Dec. 1987): 936-44.

Lee, James F. «Toward a Modification of the "Proficiency" Construct for Reading a Foreign Language». Hispania 71.4 (Dec. 1988): 941-53.

Losiewicz, Beth L. «An Introduction to New Ideas in Language Teaching: An Annotated Bibliography for Teachers». Hispania 71.1 (March 1988): 160-65.

Lukesh, Susan S. «Microcomputer Use in Higher Education: Summary of a Survey». EDUCOM Bulletin (Fall 1987): 13-17.

Mohler, Stephen C. «A Practical Way to Coordinate the Microcomputer with Programmable Listening Drills». Collegiate Microcomputer 3 (Autumn 1985): 249-54.

Morley, Joan. «Current Directions in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: A State-of-the-Art Synopsis». TESOL Newsletter 4 (1987): 16-20.

Olsen, Solveig. «Introductory Remarks». Computer-Aided Instruction in the Humanities. Ed. Solveig Olsen, ed. New York: MLA, 1985.

Omaggio, Alice C. Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency-Oriented Instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1986.

Pollack, Andrew. «The Return of a Computer Star». New York Times 13 Oct. 1988: D1 and D24.

Quinn, David J. «The Lab Sheet: Making the Lab Teach». Foreign Language Annals 8.2 (May 1975): 144-48.

Quinn, Robert A. «Applied Technology in Second Language Learning: The Effective Use of the Multimedia Laboratory». Research Seminar sponsored by the office of the Dean, United States Military Academy, May 1988.

___. «Major Sources of Information for Computer-Assisted Language Learning». MLA Newsletter 19.2 (Summer 1987): 16.

___. «On Teaching Programs: Acquiring Educationally-sound Software». Hispania 67.3 (Sept. 1984): 463.

Resmer, Mark. «New Strategies for the Development of Educational Software» Academic Computing (December 1987/January 1988): 22-25 and 43-44.

Robinson, Gail. «Effective Error Feedback Strategies and the Use of Word Processing in Language Learning». Fifth Annual CALICO Symposium. Salt Lake City, 25 February, 1988.

___. «The CLCCS CALL Study: Methods, Error Feedback, Attitudes and Achievement», Modern Technology in Foreign Language Education. Ed. William Flint Smith. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co., 1988.

Robinson, Gail et al. «Computer-Assisted Instruction in Foreign Language Education: A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Methodologies and Different Forms of Error Correction, Final Report». Washington: ERIC/CLL ED 262626.

Roblyer, M. D. «The Effectiveness of Microcomputers in Education: A Review of the Research from 1980-1987». T.H.E. Journal 16.2 (Sept. 1988): 85-89.

Roblyer, M. D. et al. The Effectiveness of Computer Applications for Instruction: A Review and Synthesis of Recent Research Findings. New York: The Haworth Press, 1988.

Schulz, Renate A. «From Achievement to Proficiency through Classroom Instruction: Some Caveats». Hispania March 1986: 187-93.

Shao, Maria, et al. «A Campus Groan: I've Got the Computer, So Where's the Software?» Business Week 24 October, 1988 (No. 3076): 82-83.

Terrell, Tracy, et al. Dos Mundos: A Communicative Approach. New York: Random House, 1986.

Turner, Judith A. «Campus-Written Software May Herald New Chapter in Computer Revolution». Chronicle of Higher Education 2 July 1986: 1, 14-15.

Weyh, John A. and Joseph R Crook. «CAI Drill and Practice: Is It Really that Bad?» Academic Computing 2.7 (May June 1988): 32-36 and 52-54.

Hispania [Publicaciones periódicas]. Volume 73, Number 1, March 1990