Instructional Simulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Instructional Simulation or Virtual Learning

Environment

An instructional simulation, also called an educational simulation, is a

simulation of some type of reality (system or environment) but which also
includes instructional elements that help a learner explore, navigate or obtain
more information about that system or environment that cannot generally be
acquired from mere experimentation. Instructional simulations are typically goal
oriented and focus learners on specific facts, concepts, or applications of the
system or environment. Today, most universities make life-long learning
possible by offering a virtual learning environment (VLE). Not only can users
access learning at different times in their lives, but they can also immerse
themselves in learning without physically moving to a learning facility, or
interact face to face with an instructor in real time. Such VLEs vary widely in
interactivity and scope. For example, there are virtual classes, virtual labs,
virtual programs, virtual library, virtual training, etc. Researchers have classified
VLE in 4 types: -1st generation VLE: They originated in 1992, and provided the
first on line course opportunities. They consisted in a collection of learning
materials, discussion forums, testing and e-mail systems all accessible on line.
This type of virtual environment was static, and did not allow for interaction
among the different components of the system. -2nd generation VLE: Originated
in 1996, these VLE are more powerful, both in data base integration and
functions - planning and administrating, creating and supporting teaching
materials, testing and analyzing results. Over 80 forms exist, including Learning
Space, WebCT, Top Class, COSE, Blackboard, etc. -3rd generation VLE: The
novelty of 3rd generation VLE is that they incorporate the newest technologies,
accessible in real and non real time (synchronous and synchronous
communications), such as audio and video conferences through the internet
-‘one to one’ and ‘one to many’, collaboration features for work in groups,
seminars, labs, forums, and of course the learning, development, planning,
library and administrative functions. Stanford On-line, InterLabs, Classroom
2000 and the system “Virtual University” (VU) are examples of this VLE. -4th
generation VLE: These are the environments of the future, and represent new
learning paradigms, at the center of which are the user and the ‘global
resources,’ as opposed to the teacher and the ‘local resources.’ Their main
advantage is that learning materials can be created, adapted and personalized to
the specific needs and function of each user. Few 4th generations VLE exist,
most of them still being in the planning and developing phases. One example of
supportive technology is called the ‘multi-agent technology,’ which allows the
interface of data among different systems. Reference:Ivanova, Angel Smrikarov,
A (2004). “Some Approaches to Implementation of Virtual Learning
Environments. International Conference on Computer Systems and
Technologies - CompSysTech’2004. Retrieved on 6/26/09
http://74.125.47.132/search?
q=cache:zqjMlxfHYcIJ:ecet.ecs.ru.acad.bg/cst04/Docs/sIV/425.pdf+
%22types+of+virtual+learning+environments
%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[edit] History
Simulations of one form or another have been used since the early 1900s as a
method for training or training. The United Stated Defense Modeling and
Simulation Coordination Office[1] identifies three main types of simulation: live,
virtual, and constructive. Live (live action) and virtual simulations are primarily
used for training purposes, whereas a constructive simulation is used to view or
predict outcomes like wargaming or stockmarket behavior. Each of these types
is based on some reality and is intended to provide the user with a pseudo-
experience without the danger, expense, or complexity of real life.

While simulations are used for learning and training purposes, noted authors,
such as Clark Aldrich[2] and Andy Gibbons[3] (Model-Centered Instruction)
suggest that simulations in and of themselves are not instructional. Rather, a
simulation only becomes instructional when instructional elements are included
that help expose the learner to key parts or concepts of the system or
environment. For example, an F-16 simulator is not inherently instructional
because it is primarily intended to replicate the F-16 cockpit behavior and the
environments the aircraft operates within. The simulator may be used for
training purposes, but it requires an instructor or some other external element to
identify key learning aspects of the system to the learner.

In education, simulations have had their use under a number of different names.
Ken Jones[4] in the 1980s defined simulations as interactions between people
such as role-playing. Others suggest that experiential learning activities like
those found in team training or ropes courses are also simulations because they
replicate the human decision-making processes groups may display, albeit in a
very different environment. These can be considered instructional simulations
because the effective use of these simulation types include using instructional
elements to help learners focus on key behaviors, concepts or principles.
 With the ever decreasing cost of computing tools, virtual and constructive
simulation are being used more and more. Simulation is used more an more in
elearning environments because of improved Web-authoring tools and an
increasing demand for performance-based training. As a result, more non-
technical personnel are involved designing simulation, a field dominated by
engineers and computer scientists.

[edit] Instructional Design Models for Simulations

Most traditional instructional design models have at least four components:[5]

 Analysis – components usually included are a goal analysis, performance

analysis, target population analysis, task analysis, media selection, and cost
analysis.

 Design – including interface design, sequencing, lesson design, and learner

control

 Development – a collaboration between programmers, graphic artists,

writers, subject matter experts, and others during which the educational product
is fully developed

 Implementation and Evaluation – delivering the final product to the learners

and evaluating whether the goals were met.

ADDIE is an example of an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model.

[edit] Effectiveness of Pedagogy

When designing VLEs more functions need to be considered than in designing
traditional learning modalities. The process of virtual learning consists of
organizational, quality control, correctional and predictable procedures. For
example, the effectiveness of the organization of student self-learning - called
the ‘pedagogical and didactical function’ in VLEs, will depend on the following:
1. Online content that satisfies the requirements of subject matter standards,
while at the same time allows engages students ‘interest in the process of
learning. For example, open ended inquiry-based approaches to learning allow
students to have some room to pursue individual interests.
2. Level of interactivity of learning environment, to increase motivation and
hands-on opportunities for learners. Simulation and animation provide excellent
multisensory learning environments.
3. Time management tools for the efficient assimilation of new materials. For
example, availability of timetables, schedule of synchronous consultations,
embedded hyperlinks for the ready access of information, etc.
4. Maximization of activities that focus on student critical thinking, and
information literacy skills, needed for the 21st century, such as acquisition,
processing and synthesis of information.
5. Communication modalities between teacher and student, peer to peer and
learner to experts. The role of the instructor is that of an organizer, while the
student is an initiator of the learning process.
A widely used format for designing on line learning environments is WebQuest.
However, there are today on the market newer models for instruction that are
more interactive and integrated, such as Project Page, MiniQuest,
CuriculumQuest, DecisionQuest. Reference: Jakes, D. (2003). “Creating Virtual
Workspaces: New Models for Developing Online Curriculum”. teachForum:
Breakthrough Technologies for 21st century Schools, Chicago, IL. April 29,
2003. Retrieved on 6/28/09: http://www.biopoint.com/ibr/techforum.htm

Since the 1990’s, trends such as the performance technology movement,

constructivism, Electronic Performance Support Systems, rapid prototyping,
increasing use of Internet for distance education/distance learning, and
knowledge management endeavors have influenced instructional design
practices These changes are producing challenges to existing design models.
According to Reigeluth (1996), the education and training field is in the midst of
a paradigm shift from the Industrial Revolution to the Information Age,
requiring a corresponding shift from standardization to customization of
instructional design. Moreover, Gros et al. (1997), posit the inflexibility of
traditional linear design processes, calling for a more iterative process, while
Winn (1997) and Jonassen et al. criticize the positivist assumptions that learning
situations are closed systems, imparting knowledge is the instructor’s
responsibility, and that human behavior is predictable.[6]

There are many alternative models that have been proposed as more conducive
to the new Information Age paradigm, including new methods of instruction
such as instructional gaming and simulations – Jonassen’s promotion of
hermeneutics, fuzzy logic and chaos theory as bases for ID, Hoffman’s use of
Reigeleuth’s Elaboration Theory and hypermedia,Akilli & Cagiltay’s FIDGE
model, among others.[7]

[edit] Hermeneutics, Fuzzy Logic and Chaos Theory

Hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of socio-historical context in

mediating the meanings of individuals creating and decoding texts. Massively
 multiplayer online learning environments, for example, require new social
processes that go well with social constructivist, hermeneutic philosophy and
methods. Chaos theory looks for order in chaotic systems, looking for repeating
patterns such as fractals. It is useful for non-linear, dynamic situations or for
situations where a small change in initial conditions can produce great changes
later. Finally, fuzzy logic is based on the idea that reality is rarely bivalent, but
rather multivalent – in other words, there are many “in-between” values that
need to be designed for. Therefore, instructional models should move away from
deterministic approaches and design for more probabilistic ways of thinking.[8]

[edit] Elaboration Theory (ET) and Hypermedia

Key aspects of ET are:

 A single organizing structure that reflects the primary focus of the course.

 Sequencing from simple to complex

 Sequence within the lesson: --For conceptually organized instruction

"present the easiest, most familiar organizing concepts first" (p. 251).

o For procedures, "present the steps in order of their performance"

o For theoretically organized instruction, move from simple to complex.

o Place supporting content immediately after related organizing content.

o Adhere to learning prerequisite relationships in the content.

o Present coordinate concepts simultaneously rather than serially.

o Teach the underlying principle before its associated procedure.[9]

Hoffman states that "the Web-like linking that characterizes hypermedia is more
alike to the functioning of human cognition than is the traditional linear structure
found in much educational programming," further asserting that "this kind of
model could lead to the possibility of modularity and plasticity, which would
bring along the ease to make changes in response to learner needs without
changing the overall structure of the product and rapid development."[10]

[edit] FIDGE (Fuzzified Instructional Design Development of Game-Like

Environments) Model

This model consists of dynamic phases with fuzzy boundaries, through which
instructional designers move non-linearly.[11] The main features are:

 The participants include all actively participating learners and experts

 Teams are composed of multidisciplinary, multi-skilled game-players

 The environment is socio-organizational and cultural

 The process is dynamic, fuzzy, non-linear, and creative

 Based on evaluation, change is continuous

 Evaluation is also continuous, iterative, formative and summative,

embedded into each phase

 Time management and scheduling is vital for success, as well as the

management of a good leader
 The model is suitable for game-like learning environments and educational
games, for novice to expert level instructional designers and learners.

[edit] Virtual Worlds in Instructional Simulation

A virtual world is an interactive 3-D environment where users are immersed in

the environment. Users can manipulate the environment and interact with other
users. Depending on the degree of immersion, users can begin playing a game,
interact with other users, attend seminars, or complete course work for an online
class. Online discussion groups and social networks such as Myspace and
Facebook are already being used to supplement interaction within coursework
(Baker 2009).

Sparkle is poised to become the first virtual world for the iPhone. What’s more,
it’s being developed completely from scratch, exclusively as an MMO for the
iPhone/iPod Touch. This will bring more mobility to the learner. They will no
longer need to be at a desktop.

Second Life is a virtual world where users create avatars. An avatar is a virtual
representation of the user to other users. These avatars then interact with any
other user within the Second Life world. Avatars can purchase virtual land, own
buildings, and travel, interact, conduct business, and even attend lectures by
professors. Second Life is running 24 hours a day and is tied into the Internet, so
there are always other avatars to interact with.

MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and Star Wars Galaxies are video game
based virtual environments. These game engines hold the potential for
instructional simulation. Unlike Second Life, these are pre-designed games with
their own set of objectives that need to be completed through a progression.

[edit] Uses in Education

In education, virtual learning environments are simulated experiences which

utilize the pedagogical strategies of instructional modeling and role playing for
the teaching of new concepts. The environment in which the experiences are
presented is a virtual one often accessed via a computer or other video
projection interface. Immersive virtual environment headsets have been used
with younger children and students with special needs. The advantages of using
instructional simulators via VLEs include: students are motivated when they are
able to use computers and other technology; VLEs allow for interaction,
exploration, and experimentation with locations, objects, and environments that
would otherwise be unavailable in the absence of the VLE; instructors can adapt
programs and parameters of the virtual learning experience to meet individual
learner needs; when multi-user virtual environments are used collaborative and
cooperative learning is encouraged; VLEs relate to students the real-world
relevance of their learning by extending concepts and skills to application in the
simulated environment; and learning can occur in an emotionally and physically
safe environment without detrimental consequence.

The use of instructional simulation with individuals with special needs is

gaining more attention. Mitchell, Parsons, and Leonard (2007) created a “Virtual
Café” program designed to teach social interaction skills to adolescents with
autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The program provides feedback to guide, or
scaffold, the user toward making appropriate social behavior decisions. Virtual
learning environments are also beginning to be used to teach children with ASD
how to respond in potentially dangerous situations such as crossing the street
and evacuating a building on fire (Strickland, McAllister, Coles, and Osborne
2007). The instructional simulation provides a safe environment within which to
practice appropriate response skills.

Distance learning is growing. The importance of a physical classroom is being

reduced as the technology of distance learning develops (Sanders, 2006).
Sanders (2006) present a warning that students may do well in distance learning
environments, however they need to have engaging moments within the course.
He also warns students to critically assess a new technology before adopting it
as a learning tool. The virtual learning environment needs to simulate the
learning process, using goals and objectives to measure the learners’
achievement. Sanders (2006) uses movies like Terminator 2, The Matrix, and I,
Robot as callbacks to allegorical warnings of potential mishaps of relying too
much on technology. He presents possible ways to balance a distance course so
that it can effectively simulate a learning environment.

Barney, Bishop, Adlong, and Bedgood (2009) studied the use of a 3D virtual
laboratory as a tool to familiarize distance learning chemistry students with an
actual chemistry laboratory. While it was not incorporated into the initial study,
the researchers suggest including instructional scaffolding experiences to help
alleviate students’ anxieties with applying mathematics and chemistry concepts
in the actual laboratory setting (Barney, Bishop, Adlong, and Bedgood 2009).
The virtual laboratory does not replace the real-world experience, rather it helps
to enhance the student’s schema of a chemistry laboratory and prepare them for
performance expectations in the actual environment. Web-based virtual science
laboratories are also used with elementary school students. In their study, Sun,
Lin, and Yu (2008) found that students who used a web-based virtual science
laboratory in conjunction with traditional teaching methods not only found the
learning experience more enjoyable, they also performed better academically
and received higher grades.

Baker (2009) suggests multi-user virtual environments or MUVEs have the

potential to engage students. Second Life holds more of a purpose in interaction
(Baker, 2009). Instructors can hold lectures; students can collaborate through
chat in Second Life. When compared to a discussion board, Second Life is a
viable alternative for distance learning students to develop group work skills. At
Chesapeake High School in Baltimore County, MD, students explore the
ecological environment surrounding Mt. St. Helens via a 3D virtual learning
environment (Curriculum Review 2009). Students navigate through the
environment with a virtual unmanned vehicle and work collaboratively to solve
ecological and environmental problems that are built into the program for
instructional purposes. Engaging in the VLE provides many opportunities for
application, data collection, and problem solving.

[edit] Uses in Medicine

Sokolowski classifies medical simulations in 3 categories: 1. Simulators based

on physical models, usually referred to as the Human Patient Simulator (HPS),
of which several prototype exist for different purposes (CentraLine Man, Noelle
and Pediasim mannequins); 2. Virtual Reality training simulators based on
computers – i.e. LapVR Surgical Simulator, and Suture Tutor; 3. a hybrid model
of the first two kinds combines a realistic 3D computerized representation of an
organ system, for example, with the ability to interface with it through haptic
devices.
The use of simulation-based learning in the medical field has many benefits,
including patient safety, accelerating diagnostic and therapeutic procedures,
unfulfilled demand for medical personnel, medical cost reduction and lowering
of medical errors that amount to loss of life and associated costs. The use of
current technologies allow for very high fidelity simulations. These include
Immersive Virtual Environments (IVEs)- computer based 3D environments
known as serious games, and other very highly immersive virtual environments,
such as Cave Automatic Virtual environment(CAVE),in which the student sits in
a projection room wearing goggles and gloves equipped with sensors. This
haptic technology activates the sense of touch, allowing the trainee to interface
with a simulated patient, as well as to receive visual and auditory feedbacks,
making the simulated learning experience very realistic.

According to research <Issenberg SB et al. 2005 "Features and uses of high-

fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic
review." Medical Teacher 2005; 27, (1):10-28></ref>, the best instructional
simulators, medical or otherwise, contain these elements: - provide feedback -
involve repetitive practice - integrate with the curricula - possess a range of
difficulty levels - involve multiple learning strategies - capture clinical
variations - occur in a control environment - utilize individualized learning -
define expected outcomes - possess validity.

Immersive Virtual Environments (IVEs) in medical education range from

teaching simple skills (taking a patient’s blood) to complex skills (internal
surgery). Different medical care providers use simulations for different
purposes: emergency medical technicians, medics involved in combat
environments, nurses, doctors, surgeons and medical First Responders in. IVEs
simulate the human body so as to provide the student or trainee with the
opportunity to realistically practice and thus become proficient as to the
particular technique to be taught. IVEs are commonly used when teaching
patient examination, surgical procedures and assessment (individual and
collaborative). Students are relieved to know that these simulations are practice
and appreciate the opportunity to make mistakes now rather than later. The use
of IVEs provides a controlled, safe environment for students to learn and so the
anxiety factor is reduced. Students can discuss the symptoms more openly than
they could with an actual patient. At the same time, however, students use all the
protocol they would with a real patient. That means they introduce themselves,
address the patients by name and respect their privacy.

The use of the simulation saves lives and money by reducing medical errors,
training time, operating room time and the need to replace expensive equipment.
Simulation users may practice on a variety of patients, each of which has a
different case history, exhibits unique symptoms, and responds to user actions
with appropriate physiological responses. As in real life, patient anatomy moves
with the beating of the heart and the breathing of the lungs while tissues deform,
bruise and bleed. The system generates a detailed evaluation after each session,
enabling users and supervisors to measure the success of simulated procedures.

[edit] Barriers to Instructional Simulation in Medicine

Simulations in medicine have been in use as early as the 16th century when the
use of training mannequins helped to reduce the high maternal and infant
mortality rates. Today they have evolved, to include IVEs, CAVE, robotic
surgery, etc., but they are still relatively limited in their use by the health
industry. Medicine is a profession that uses very advanced technical, high risk,
as well as behavioral skills. However, unlike other areas with similar
requirements (such as aviation), medicine has not totally embraced the use of
simulations to assist with necessary medical training. The limited use of
simulations for training in the medical field can be explained by several factors,
including cost control, relatively limited modeling of the human body, lack of
scientific evidence of effectiveness, and resistance to change by professional in
the field. (Ziv, et al. 2003). A later study, conducted by Amalberti et al.(2005,
points to 5 systemic structural barriers to the use of simulators to advance
medical training. These are: 1. Unlimited decision-making autonomy of
individual medical staff; instead, teamwork and regulations should anticipate
problems and processes across departments. 2. Unlimited performance of
individuals and of the system; instead, hours of work should be limited and
shortage of staff addressed because excessive productivity-not competence,
leads to medical errors. 3. Focus on status of individual; instead, standards of
excellence of equivalent actors should be the goal. 4. Overprotection against
personal liability; instead, more consideration should be given to “unintended
consequences”, and to system-level arbitration to optimize safety strategies. 5.
Overregulation and technical complexities in medicine; instead, simplification
of regulations is needed <Sokolowski, J., and Banks, C.(2009) Principles of
Modeling and Simulation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; p. 209-
245ref></ref>. The existence of these barriers leads to a lower rate of patient
safety, and prevent the health industry to come closer to the goal of “ultrasafe
performance,” already achieved by the civil aviation and the nuclear power
industries <American Society of Clinical Oncology (2007) Journal of Oncology
Practice, Vol 3, No 2 (March), 2007: pp. 66–70. Retrieved on 6/20/09:
http://jop.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/3/2/66ref></ref>

[edit] References
1. ^ http://www.msco.mil

2. ^ Clark Aldrich

3. ^ Andy Gibbons

4. ^ Ken Jones

5. ^ Main, R. (1997). Integrating motivation into the design process.

Educational Technology, 33(12), 38-39

6. ^ Akilli, G. (2007). Games and simulations: A new approach in education?

In D. Gibson, C. Aldrich & M. Prensky (Eds.), Games and simulations in online
learning: Research and development frameworks. Hershey PA: Information
Science Pub. p. 9

7. ^ Akilli, 2007, 11

8. ^ Jonassen, D. et al.(1997). Certainty, determinism, and predictability in

theories of instructional design: Lessons from science. Educational Technology,
37(1), 27-34.

9. ^ Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1992). A critical review of elaboration theory.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 40 (3), 63-79.

10. ^ Akilli, 2007

11. ^ Akilli, 13-15

 Aldrich, Clark (2003). A field guide to educational simulations. Learning

Circuits. American Society for Training and Development. January, 2003.
 Baker, S., Wentz, R., Woods, M. (2009) Using virtual worlds in education:
second life as an educational tool. Teaching of Psychology, 36 (59-64).

 Barney, D., Bishop, A., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. (2009). Effectiveness of
a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry
students. Computers and Education, 53(3), 853-865.

 Coulter, B. (2009). Science through modeling and simulation. Connect.

March/April 2009, (16-17).

 Darabi, A., Nelson, D., Seel, N. (3 March 2009). Progression of mental

models throughout the phases of a computer-based instructional simulation:
supportive information, practice, and performance. Computers in Human
Behavior. 25, (723-730).

 Gibbons, A. S. (2001). Model-Centered Instruction. Journal of Structural

Learning and Intelligent Systems. 14: 511-540.

 Johnsen, K., Dickerson, R., Raij, A., Harrison, C., Lok, B., Stevens, A., et al.
(2006). Evolving an Immersive Medical Communication Skills Trainer.
Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 15(1), 33-46.

 Jones, Ken (1985). Designing Your Own Simulations. New York, NY:
Methuen.

 Mantovani, F., Castelnuovo, G., Gaggioli, A., & Riva, G. (2003). Virtual
Reality Training for Health-Care Professionals. CyberPsychology & Behavior,
6(4), 389.
 Mitchell, P., Parsons, S., & Leonard, A. (2007). Using virtual environments
for teaching social understanding to 6 adolescents with Autistic Spectrum
Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(3), 589-600.

 Sanders, R. (2006). The impnderable bloom: reconsidering the role of

technology in education. Innovate 2 (6).

 Simulated Environments Stimulate Learning. Curriculum Review, 01472453,

October 2009, Volume 49, Issue 2.

 Skiba, D. (2007). Nursing Education 2.0: Second Life. Nursing Education

Perspectives, 28(3), 156-157.

 Strickland, D., McAllister, D., Coles, C., & Osborne, S. (2007). An

evolution of virtual reality training designs for children with autism and fetal
alcohol spectrum disorders. Topics in Language Disorders, 27(3), 226-241.

 Sun, K., Lin, Y., & Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different
learning styles in a Web-based lab of science for elementary school students.
Computers and Education, 50(4), 1411-1422.

 Ziv, et al. (2003) Simulation-based Medicine: An Ethical Imperative,

Academic Medicine

Computer-supported collaborative
learning
 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Computer Supported Cooperative Learning)

Jump to: navigation, search

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies
or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and
inappropriate external links or by converting links into footnote
references. (May 2009)

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a method of

supporting collaborative learning using computers and the Internet. It is related
to Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) and cuts across research in
psychology, computer science, and education.

The technology allows individuals who are far apart to collaborate on-line. The
use of these tools is increasing, however many teachers are still new to what
tools are available on the Internet and how to use them effectively. This article
details some of the tools available and suggests ways to use them to promote
online learning and the collaboration of students.

Contents

[hide]

 1 About CSCL

 2 Current Research
 3 Means and Mediums

 4 Benefits

 5 Available Tools

o 5.1 Wikis

o 5.2 Blogs

o 5.3 Learning management systems

o 5.4 Survey systems

o 5.5 Online Image/Video Sharing

o 5.6 Video-conferencing/chat/file sharing

applications

o 5.7 Online Collaborative Work spaces

o 5.8 Online Whiteboards

o 5.9 Virtual worlds

o 5.10 Mind maps

 6 Teacher's Role

 7 See also
 8 References

 9 External links

[edit] About CSCL

CSCL is a method for bringing the benefits of collaborative learning and

cooperative learning to users of distance or co-locative learning via networked
computers, such as the courses offered via the Internet or in a digital classroom.
The purpose of CSCL is to scaffold or support students in learning together
effectively. CSCL supports the communication of ideas and information among
learners, collaborative accessing of information and documents, and instructor
and peer feedback on learning activities. CSCL also supports and facilitates
group processes and group dynamics in ways that are not achievable by face-to-
face communication (such as having learners label aspects of their
communication).CSCL is a way of integrated teaching

[edit] Current Research

Due to the surge of distance learning via the Internet, including courses that
employ CSCL, it is important that educators and instructional designers better
understand the benefits and limitations of CSCL. Like many educational
activities, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of CSCL
activities. Early efforts focused on suspected detrimental effects of
communication filtering of computer mediated communication (CMC) and
ignored the potential benefits of CMC. Historically, the lack of evidence that
technological innovations have improved learning in formal education highlights
the need for evidence of whether, how and when expected improvements in
learning take place.

A key characteristic of CSCL research is its diversity in methodology: CSCL

researchers apply laboratory experimental methods, quasi-experimental
approaches, discourse analyses, or case studies. Qualitative data shows high
regard for use of CSCL tools as aides to learning in the classroom.

[edit] Means and Mediums

Online Collaboration tools are the means and mediums of working together on
the Internet that facilitates collaboration by individuals who may be far apart. [1]
The use of collaborative tools is increasing, however many teachers are still new
to what tools are available on the Internet and how to use them effectively.[2]

[edit] Benefits

If Collaborative learning is the idea of bringing together learners to work and

learn in a collaborative manner,[3] then Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) tools accomplish this task either synchronously or
asynchronously. {See Asynchronous Learning} Online collaborative tools
provide a central locale for these types of interactions.[4]
 Some specific benefits of the utilization of web-based applications for
collaborative learning include:[5][unreliable source?]

 Saves time. Students can work either together or independently, either way
contributing to the success of their group overall.

 Develops oral and written communication and social interaction skills.

 Allows for interactions with students outside their class, school, city, state
and even country.

 Prepares young students for upper grades and the technology tools they will
be encountering there.

 Allows for students who are unable to attend school to keep up with their
peers.

 Share ideas.

 Increases student motivation.

 Encourages different perspectives views.

 Aids in metacognitive and evaluative thinking skill development.

 Develops higher level, critical-thinking skills thanks to use of problem-

solving approaches.

 Encourages student responsibility for learning.

 Establishes a sense of learning community.

 Creates a more positive attitude about learning.

 Promotes innovation in teaching and classroom techniques.

 Enhances self management skills.

 Develops skill building and practice. Common skills which often require a
great deal of practice can be developed through these tools, and made less
tedious through these collaborative learning activities in and out of class.

 Develops social skills.

[edit] Available Tools

A variety of tools are available via the Internet to assist in online collaboration
efforts.[6][7][8]

[edit] Wikis

Wikis are a type of website in which users, such as students, can easily add,
remove, or edit the content.

Application in education

Teachers can engage students by using wikis to create a space for collaborative
essays. Students can posts their reflections and share information. Students
working collaboratively on research projects can use wiki spaces as a depot for
note taking, or to learn from other student research projects [9]. Teachers can also
create a compendium of concepts for the course to use as a study guide. Wikis
can serve as teacher or classroom webpages, with the added benefit that students
themselves can edit the content. For example, students can change the page that
displays the weeks' spelling words.

[edit] Blogs

Blogs are interactive, online journals.

Application in education

Teachers may write a blog for students in their classrooms with links to Internet
sites which aide in learning and/or research tasks. Teachers may have students
use blogs as learning reflections, story writing, etc. Viewers can leave comments
which aide the writer in his/her writing development.

[edit] Learning management systems

Learning management system (LMS) or course management systems (CMS) are

an online package to help educators create effective online learning
communities.

Application in education

Teachers can post discussion topics, questions, homework or resources in the

forums, and answer questions or send messages online. Or they can set quizzes
for test review. It can provide a secure place for email exchange. A CMS helps to
establish a learning community online. For home-bound children, a CMS can
provide the learning experience and collaborative opportunities missed in the
classroom.

[edit] Survey systems

These tools allow the creation and administration of surveys completely online.

Applications in Education

These tools are great for both teachers and students. Surveys can easily be
turned into quizzes with multiple choice answering, and open-ended
questioning. The survey can render your results for you, and even synthesize and
analyze the results into a variety of formats including charts and graphs.

[edit] Online Image/Video Sharing

These tools allow for the sharing of image and video files specifically and often
allows commentary, dialogue and/or exchanges.

Application in education

Teachers and students can use these tools to discuss and analyze photos, videos,
etc. Teachers and students can upload pictures or video from their computer,
camera, or cell phone. It's a great place to store and organize photos and videos;
however, it is not entirely secure. The students can then actively engage with the
image and think about and discuss specific aspects. Specifically in applications
such as Flickr, students can organize pictures by tags. As a collaboration project,
teachers can encourage students to upload pictures about a topic, for example a
world heritage site, and invite users to contribute tags to the images. In
applications, such as VoiceThread, students can add voice and written
commentary to the overall video, picture or document. The comments are
sequenced, so that late-comers can follow the dialogue.

[edit] Video-conferencing/chat/file sharing applications

These are various applications which allow students from around the world to
engage in synchronous conferencing through live video feeds, video replays,
chatting, and/or voice.

Applications in Education

Teachers can create online working spaces for student groups within their
classrooms, across classrooms, grade levels, school, states, the nation, and even
the world. Students can work collaboratively on group assignments, and keep
active communications ongoing with e-pals.

[edit] Online Collaborative Work spaces

Various web-based applications which allow groups of students to work together

on common documents in various formats either synchronously or
asynchronously. Many applications include to-do lists, calendars, and ample
storage space. These spaces are not always secure, however. Some applications
include blogs and wikis for group work, as well.

Application in Education

You can upload various types of documents or spreadsheets, even PowerPoint

presentations in many applications and have students work entirely online
asynchronously on a product. Partners and groups can be inside the same
classroom, or across the country or world from one another.

[edit] Online Whiteboards

Various web-based applications which allow students to chat, while writing,

drawing, demonstrating, etc. in/on an virtual whiteboard. Often these
applications let you save what has been written on the whiteboard as a picture
file, and/or print them[citation needed].

Application in Education

In these types of Web 2.0 tools[citation needed]

, students can brainstorm, create
graphics together, and engage in peer-to-peer tutoring in skills and concepts such
as multiplication or division. These can often be video-taped to show process,
and/or saved as an image file and printed for review[citation needed].

[edit] Virtual worlds

Virtual worlds are areas online where students can interact with each other
through avatars.

Application in Education

Virtual Worlds, such as Whyville, have great potential in education by providing

fun, highly motivating, places for collaboration. In these virtual worlds new
functions are constantly being added that provide additional utility to the system.
This environment provides ample opportunity for social skills development and
writing/reading skill development through a fun, non-intimidating manner.

[edit] Mind maps

Mind maps are diagrams used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items.

Application in education

Teachers can utilize brainstorming approaches that can generate ideas without
regard for a more formal, hierarchical organization system. Notetaking,
 organizing, connecting, summarizing, revising, and general clarifying of
thoughts can be accomplished with this tool.

[edit] Teacher's Role

[10]
Instructors play a vital role in facilitating online collaborative learning.
Researchers indicate that strong instructor support, frequent instructor-student
interaction, and superior organizational skills are critical elements of successful
online collaborative learning (Ku, Lohr, & Cheng, 2004). According to the
Shank study, competencies of online instructors and those planning the use of
online collaboration tools in the traditional classroom setting, are as follows:

 Administrative—The primary goal is to assure smooth operations and reduce

instructor and learner overload.

 Design—The primary goal is to assure successful learning outcomes.

 Facilitation—The primary goal is to provide social benefits and enhanced

learning.

 Evaluation—The primary goal is to assure that learners know how they will
be evaluated and help learners meet objectives.

 Technical—The primary goal is to assure that barriers due to technical

components are overcome.

[edit] See also

 Educational psychology
 Fle3 - Future Learning Environment - web-based learning environment for
computer supported collaborative learning.

 CoFFEE - Face to Face and computer mediated collaborative learning in the

classroom.

 Opportunistic collaboration

 Group cognition

 Virtual Collaborative Learning

[edit] References

1. ^ Srinivas, H (2008) Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking.

Retrieved October 16, 2008, from The Global Development Research Center:
Knowledge Management Web site: http://www.gdrc.org/kmgmt/c-learn/

2. ^ http://www.classroom20.com/group/elementaryschool20

3. ^ Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical

thinking.Journal of Technology Education, 7 (1) , Retrieved October 15, 2008,
from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html

4. ^ Hsiao, J (1996). CSCL Theories. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from CSCL
Theories Web site: http://www.edb.utexas.edu/csclstudent/dhsiao/theories.html

5. ^ Jakes, David (2008). JakesOnline!. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from

JakesOnline! Web site: http://www.jakesonline.org/
6. ^ Summerford, S. (2008). Web 2.0 for the classroom. Retrieved October 16,
2008, from An Internet hotlist on Web 2.0 Web site:
http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/pages/listweb20s.html

7. ^ Web 2.0 in online Learning (2006). Retrieved October 16, 2008, from The
Office of Technology Enhanced Learning at the University of Illinois at
Springfield Website: http://otel.uis.edu/Portal/presentations/web2.ppt

8. ^ (2008). Elementary School 2.0 . Retrieved October 16, 2008, from

Classroom 2.0 Web site:
http://www.classroom20.com/group/elementaryschool20

9. ^ Joshua M. Pearce, “Appropedia as a Tool for Service Learning in

Sustainable Development”, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
3(1), pp.47-55, 2009.

10. ^ Shank, P (2008). Competencies for online instructors. Retrieved October

16, 2008, from Learning Peaks Web site:
http://www.learningpeaks.com/instrcomp.pdf

[edit] External links

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies
or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and
inappropriate external links or by converting links into footnote
references. (Feb 2010)

 The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning is

a quarterly, peer-reviewed, ISI-indexed, online and hardcopy journal published
 by Springer. It is available through membership in ISLS (at http://isls.org). Pre-
publication versions of all articles are available for free at http://ijCSCL.org . It
is edited by Gerry Stahl and Friedrich Hesse.

 An introduction to CSCL is available in several languages: Stahl, G.,

Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). "Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective". In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press. In English, simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, Spanish,
Portuguese, German, Romanian, Japanese.

 The Online Collaborative Learning in Higher Education web site contains

links to articles, books, conferences, and other resources related to CSCL.

 Gerry Stahl's CSCL web page contains links to articles, books, conferences,
and other resources related to CSCL. It contains videos of several presentations
at CSCL conferences.

 Virtual Math teams web page contains a pre-publication version of a new

book on CSCL -- "Studying Virtual Math Teams" by Gerry Stahl, Springer, 2009.

 Group Cognition web page contains a pre-publication version of a recent

book on CSCL -- "Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building
Collaborative Knowledge" by Gerry Stahl, MIT Press, 2006.

 CSILE, the first CSCL environment, and its second generation groupware:
Knowledge Forum
 Allan Jeong's web page contains links to empirical studies and software
tools that use student labeled communications in CSCL to analyze, visualize,
and identify sequential patterns in message-response exchanges (e.g., argument-
challenge, challenge-explain) that trigger high level critical thinking and
problem-solving.

E-learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Computer Based Learning)

Jump to: navigation, search

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality

standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2008)

E learning is defined as instruction delivered on a computer via internet or CD-

ROM (Clark & Mayer, 2007). It can be self paced or instructor led and includes
media in the form of text, streaming video, and audio and builds user knowledge
to improve organizational functioning. E learning commonly refers to training
delivered electronically in an organizational setting while Online Learning is
used to differentiate courses delivered via the internet in educational settings.

Contents
 [hide]

 1 Benefits

 2 Market

o 2.1 Higher education

 3 History

o 3.1 E-Learning 2.0

 4 Approaches to E-Learning Services

o 4.1 Computer-based learning

o 4.2 Computer-Based Training

o 4.3 Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)

o 4.4 Technology-enhanced Learning (TEL)

 5 Technology Issues

o 5.1 Communication technologies used in e-learning

o 5.2 Learning management system (LMS) and Learning content

management system (LCMS)

o 5.3 Computer-aided assessment

o 5.4 Electronic performance support systems (EPSS)

 6 Content Issues

o 6.1 Pedagogical elements

o 6.2 Pedagogical approaches or perspectives

o 6.3 Reusability, standards and learning objects

 7 See also

 8 References

 9 External links

[edit] Benefits

E-Learning can provide benefits for the organizations and individuals involved.

1. Improved performance: A 12-year meta-analysis of research by the U.S.

Department of Education found that higher education students in online learning
generally performed better than those in face-to-face courses.[1]

2. Increased access: Instructors of the highest calibre can share their

knowledge across borders, allowing students to attend courses across physical,
political, and economic boundaries. Recognized experts have the opportunity of
making information available internationally, to anyone interested at minimum
costs. For example, the MIT OpenCourseWare program has made substantial
portions of that university's curriculum and lectures available for free online.
3. Convenience and flexibility to learners: in many contexts, eLearning is
self-paced and the learning sessions are available 24x7. Learners are not bound
to a specific day/time to physically attend classes. They can also pause learning
sessions at their convenience. High technology is not necessary for all online
courses. Basic internet access, audio, and video capabilities are common
requirements.[2] Depending on the technology used, students can begin their
courses while at work and finish them at home on a different computer.

4. To develop the skills and competencies needed in the 21st century, in

particular to ensure that learners have the digital literacy skills required in
their discipline, profession or career Bates (2009)[3] states that a major
argument for e-learning is that it enables learners to develop essential skills for
knowledge-based workers by embedding the use of information and
communications technologies within the curriculum. He also argues that using e-
learning in this way has major implications for course design and the assessment
of learners.

Additional advantages of computer-based training over traditional classroom

training include the ability to:

1. Pay less per credit hour

2. Reduce overall training time

3. Spread training out over extended periods of time (even months)

4. Bookmark progress (computer remembering where the student left off so

they can resume the courses from there)
5. Remain in one location (e.g., home, office, airport, coffee shop, etc.) with no
need to travel (also reduces the cost of transportation to physical classrooms and
benefits environment).

6. Participate in class activities when convenient (not tied to class meeting

times)

7. Access public content such as webcasts or other course content

8. Access courses from a variety of locations[citation needed]

[edit] Market

The worldwide e-learning industry is estimated to be worth over thirty-eight

(38) billion euros according to conservative estimates, although in the European
Union only about 20% of e-learning products are produced within the common
market.[4] Developments in internet and multimedia technologies are the basic
enabler of e-learning, with consulting, content, technologies, services and
support being identified as the five key sectors of the e-learning industry.[5]

[edit] Higher education

By 2006, 3.5 million students were participating in on-line learning at

institutions of higher education in the United States.[6] According to the Sloan
Foundation reports,[7][8] there has been an increase of around 12-14 per cent per
year on average in enrollments for fully online learning over the five years
2004-2009 in the US post-secondary system, compared with an average of
approximately 2 per cent increase per year in enrollments overall. Allen and
Seamen (2009)[7] claim that almost a quarter of all students in post-secondary
education were taking fully online courses in 2008, and a report by Ambient
Insight Research[9] suggests that in 2009, 44 per cent of post-secondary students
in the USA were taking some or all of their courses online, and projected that
this figure would rise to 81 per cent by 2014. Thus it can be seen that e-learning
is moving rapidly from the margins to being a predominant form of post-
secondary education, at least in the USA.

Many higher education, for-profit institutions, now offer on-line classes. By

contrast, only about half of private, non-profit schools offer them. The Sloan
report, based on a poll of academic leaders, says that students generally appear
to be at least as satisfied with their on-line classes as they are with traditional
ones. Private institutions may become more involved with on-line presentations
as the cost of instituting such a system decreases. Properly trained staff must
also be hired to work with students on-line. These staff members need to
understand the content area, and also be highly trained in the use of the
computer and Internet. Online education is rapidly increasing, and online
doctoral programs have even developed at leading research universities.[10]

[edit] History

Early E-Learning systems, based on Computer-Based Learning/Training often

attempted to replicate autocratic teaching styles whereby the role of the e-
learning system was assumed to be for transferring knowledge, as opposed to
systems developed later based on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL), which encouraged the shared development of knowledge.

As early as 1993, William D. Graziadei[11] described an online computer-

delivered lecture, tutorial and assessment project using electronic Mail, two
 [12]
VAX Notes conferences and Gopher/Lynx together with several software
programs that allowed students and instructor to create a Virtual Instructional
Classroom Environment in Science (VICES) in Research, Education, Service &
Teaching (REST).[13] In 1997 Graziadei, W.D., et al.,[14] published an article
entitled "Building Asynchronous and Synchronous Teaching-Learning
Environments: Exploring a Course/Classroom Management System Solution".[14]
They described a process at the State University of New York (SUNY) of
evaluating products and developing an overall strategy for technology-based
course development and management in teaching-learning. The product(s) had
to be easy to use and maintain, portable, replicable, scalable, and immediately
affordable, and they had to have a high probability of success with long-term
cost-effectiveness. Today many technologies can be, and are, used in e-Learning,
from blogs to collaborative software, ePortfolios, and virtual classrooms. Most
eLearning situations use combinations of these techniques.

[edit] E-Learning 2.0

The term E-Learning 2.0[15][16] is a neologism for CSCL systems that came about
during the emergence of Web 2.0[17] From an E-Learning 2.0 perspective,
conventional e-learning systems were based on instructional packets, which
were delivered to students using Internet technologies. The role of the student
consisted of learning from the readings and preparing assignments. Assignments
were evaluated by the teacher. In contrast, the new e-learning places increased
emphasis on social learning and use of social software such as blogs, wikis,
podcasts and virtual worlds such as Second Life.[18] This phenomenon has also
been referred to as Long Tail Learning[19] See also (Seely Brown & Adler 2008)
[20]
E-Learning 2.0, by contrast to e-learning systems not based on CSCL, assumes
that knowledge (as meaning and understanding) is socially constructed.
Learning takes place through conversations about content and grounded
interaction about problems and actions. Advocates of social learning claim that
one of the best ways to learn something is to teach it to others.[20]

However, it should be noted that many early online courses, such as those
developed by Murray Turoff and Roxanne Hiltz in the 1970s and 80s at the New
Jersey Institute of Technology,[21] courses at the University of Guelph in Canada,
[22]
the British Open University,[22] and the online distance courses at the
University of British Columbia (where Web CT, now incorporated into
Blackboard Inc. was first developed),[23] have always made heavy use of online
discussion between students. Also, from the start, practitioners such as Harasim
(1995)[24] have put heavy emphasis on the use of learning networks for
knowledge construction, long before the term e-learning, let alone e-learning
2.0, was even considered.

There is also an increased use of virtual classrooms (online presentations

delivered live) as an online learning platform and classroom for a diverse set of
education providers such as Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and
Sachem School District.[25]

In addition to virtual classroom environments, social networks have become an

important part of E-learning 2.0. Social networks have been used to foster online
learning communities around subjects as diverse as test preparation and
language education. Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is a term used
to describe using handheld computers or cell phones to assist in language
learning.
[edit] Approaches to E-Learning Services

E-learning services have evolved since computers were first used in education.
There is a trend to move towards blended learning services, where computer-
based activities are integrated with practical or classroom-based situations.

Bates and Poole (2003)[26] and the OECD (2005)[27] suggest that different types
or forms of e-learning can be considered as a continuum, from no e-learning, i.e.
no use of computers and/or the Internet for teaching and learning, through
classroom aids, such as making classroom lecture Powerpoint slides available to
students through a course web site or learning management system, to laptop
programs, where students are required to bring laptops to class and use them as
part of a face-to-face class, to hybrid learning, where classroom time is reduced
but not eliminated, with more time devoted to online learning, through to fully
online learning, which is a form of distance education. This classification is
somewhat similar to that of the Sloan Commission reports on the status of e-
learning,[citation needed] which refer to web enhanced, web supplemented and web
dependent to reflect increasing intensity of technology use. In the Bates and
Poole continuum, 'blended learning' can cover classroom aids, laptops and
hybrid learning, while 'distributed learning' can incorporate either hybrid or fully
online learning.

It can be seen then that e-learning can describe a wide range of applications, and
it is often by no means clear even in peer reviewed research publications which
form of e-learning is being discussed. However, Bates and Poole argue that
when instructors say they are using e-learning, this most often refers to the use
of technology as classroom aids, although over time, there has been a gradual
increase in fully online learning (see Market above).

[edit] Computer-based learning

Computer-based learning, sometimes abbreviated to CBL, refers to the use of

computers as a key component of the educational environment. While this can
refer to the use of computers in a classroom, the term more broadly refers to a
structured environment in which computers are used for teaching purposes. The
concept is generally seen as being distinct from the use of computers in ways
where learning is at least a peripheral element of the experience (e.g. computer
games and web browsing)[citation needed].

[edit] Computer-Based Training

Computer-Based Trainings (CBTs) are self-paced learning activities accessible

via a computer or handheld device. CBTs typically present content in a linear
fashion, much like reading an online book or manual. For this reason they are
often used to teach static processes, such as using software or completing
mathematical equations. The term Computer-Based Training is often used
interchangeably with Web-based training (WBT) with the primary difference
being the delivery method. Where CBTs are typically delivered via CD-ROM,
WBTs are delivered via the Internet using a web browser. Assessing learning in
a CBT usually comes in the form of multiple choice questions, or other
assessments that can be easily scored by a computer such as drag-and-drop,
radial button, simulation or other interactive means. Assessments are easily
scored and recorded via online software, providing immediate end-user feedback
and completion status. Users are often able to print completion records in the
form of certificates.

CBTs provide learning stimulus beyond traditional learning methodology from

textbook, manual, or classroom-based instruction. For example, CBTs offer
user-friendly solutions for satisfying continuing education requirements. Instead
of limiting students to attending courses or reading printing manuals, students
are able to acquire knowledge and skills through methods that are much more
conducive to individual learning preferences.[citation needed] For example, CBTs offer
visual learning benefits through animation or video, not typically offered by any
other means.[citation needed]

CBTs can be a good alternative to printed learning materials since rich media,
including videos or animations, can easily be embedded to enhance the learning.
Another advantage to CBTs are that they can be easily distributed to a wide
audience at a relatively low cost once the initial development is completed. [citation
needed]

However, CBTs pose some learning challenges as well. Typically the creation of
effective CBTs requires enormous resources. The software for developing CBTs
(such as Flash or Adobe Director) is often more complex than a subject matter
expert or teacher is able to use. In addition, the lack of human interaction can
limit both the type of content that can be presented as well as the type of
assessment that can be performed. Many learning organizations are beginning to
use smaller CBT/WBT activities as part of a broader online learning program
which may include online discussion or other interactive elements.

[edit] Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL)

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is one of the most promising
innovations to improve teaching and learning with the help of modern
information and communication technology. Most recent developments in
CSCL have been called E-Learning 2.0, but the concept of collaborative or
group learning whereby instructional methods are designed to encourage or
require students to work together on learning tasks has existed much longer. It is
widely agreed to distinguish collaborative learning from the traditional 'direct
transfer' model in which the instructor is assumed to be the distributor of
knowledge and skills, which is often given the neologism E-Learning 1.0, even
though this direct transfer method most accurately reflects Computer-Based
Learning systems (CBL).

In Datacloud: Toward a New Theory of Online Work, Johndan Johnson-Eilola

describes a specific computer-supported collaboration space: The Smart Board.
According to Johnson-Eilola, a “Smart Board system provides a 72-inch, rear
projection, touchscreen, intelligent whiteboard surface for work” (79). In
Datacloud, Johnson-Eilola asserts that “[w]e are attempting to understand how
users move within information spaces, how users can exist within information
spaces rather than merely gaze at them, and how information spaces must be
shared with others rather than being private, lived within rather than simply
visited” (82). He explains how the Smart Board system offers an information
space that allows his students to engage in active collaboration. He makes three
distinct claims regarding the functionality of the technology: 1) The Smart
Board allows users to work with large amounts of information, 2) It offers an
information space that invites active collaboration, 3) The work produced is
often “dynamic and contingent” (82).[28]
Johnson-Eilola further explains that with the Smart Board “…information work
becom[es] a bodied experience” (81). Users have the opportunity to engage with
—inhabit—the technology by direct manipulation. Moreover, this space allows
for more than one user; essentially, it invites multiple users.[28]

[edit] Technology-enhanced Learning (TEL)

Main article: Technology-Enhanced Learning

Technology enhanced learning (TEL) has the goal to provide socio-technical

innovations (also improving efficiency and cost effectiveness) for e-learning
practices, regarding individuals and organizations, independent of time, place
and pace. The field of TEL therefore applies to the support of any learning
activity through technology.

[edit] Technology Issues

Main article: Educational technology

Along with the terms learning technology, instructional technology, and

Educational Technology, the term is generally used to refer to the use of
technology in learning in a much broader sense than the computer-based training
or Computer Aided Instruction of the 1980s. It is also broader than the terms
Online Learning or Online Education which generally refer to purely web-based
learning. In cases where mobile technologies are used, the term M-learning has
become more common. E-learning, however, also has implications beyond just
the technology and refers to the actual learning that takes place using these
systems.
E-learning is naturally suited to distance learning and flexible learning, but can
also be used in conjunction with face-to-face teaching, in which case the term
Blended learning is commonly used. E-Learning pioneer Bernard Luskin argues
that the "E" must be understood to have broad meaning if e-Learning is to be
effective. Luskin says that the "e" should be interpreted to mean exciting,
energetic, enthusiastic, emotional, extended, excellent, and educational in
addition to "electronic" that is a traditional national interpretation. This broader
interpretation allows for 21st century applications and brings learning and media
psychology into the equation.[citation needed]

In higher education especially, the increasing tendency is to create a Virtual

Learning Environment (VLE) (which is sometimes combined with a
Management Information System (MIS) to create a Managed Learning
Environment) in which all aspects of a course are handled through a consistent
user interface standard throughout the institution. A growing number of physical
universities, as well as newer online-only colleges, have begun to offer a select
set of academic degree and certificate programs via the Internet at a wide range
of levels and in a wide range of disciplines. While some programs require
students to attend some campus classes or orientations, many are delivered
completely online. In addition, several universities offer online student support
services, such as online advising and registration, e-counseling, online textbook
purchase, student governments and student newspapers.

e-Learning can also refer to educational web sites such as those offering learning
scenarios, worksheets and interactive exercises for children. The term is also
used extensively in the business sector where it generally refers to cost-effective
online training.
The recent trend in the e-Learning sector is screencasting. There are many
screencasting tools available but the latest buzz is all about the web based
screencasting tools which allow the users to create screencasts directly from
their browser and make the video available online so that the viewers can stream
the video directly. The advantage of such tools is that it gives the presenter the
ability to show his ideas and flow of thoughts rather than simply explain them,
which may be more confusing when delivered via simple text instructions. With
the combination of video and audio, the expert can mimic the one on one
experience of the classroom and deliver clear, complete instructions. From the
learners point of view this provides the ability to pause and rewind and gives the
learner the advantage to move at their own pace, something a classroom cannot
always offer.

[edit] Communication technologies used in e-learning

Communication technologies are generally categorized as asynchronous or

synchronous. Asynchronous activities use technologies such as blogs, wikis, and
discussion boards. The idea here is that participants may engage in the exchange
of ideas or information without the dependency of other participants
involvement at the same time. Electronic mail (Email) is also asynchronous in
that mail can be sent or received without having both the participants’
involvement at the same time.

Synchronous activities involve the exchange of ideas and information with one
or more participants during the same period of time. A face to face discussion is
an example of synchronous communications. Synchronous activities occur with
all participants joining in at once, as with an online chat session or a virtual
classroom or meeting.
Virtual classrooms and meetings can often use a mix of communication
technologies.

In many models, the writing community and the communication channels relate
with the E-learning and the M-learning communities. Both the communities
provide a general overview of the basic learning models and the activities
required for the participants to join the learning sessions across the virtual
classroom or even across standard classrooms enabled by technology. Many
activities, essential for the learners in these environments, require frequent chat
sessions in the form of virtual classrooms and/or blog meetings. Lately context-
aware ubiquitous technology has been providing an innovative way for written
and oral communications by using a mobile device with sensors and RFID
readers and tags (Liu & Hwang 2009).

[edit] Learning management system (LMS) and Learning content

management system (LCMS)

Main article: Learning management system

A learning management system (LMS) is software for delivering, tracking and

managing training/education. LMSs range from systems for managing
training/educational records to software for distributing courses over the Internet
and offering features for online collaboration.

A learning content management system (LCMS) is software for authoring,

editing and indexing e-learning content (courses, reusable content objects). An
LCMS may be solely dedicated to producing and publishing content that is
hosted on an LMS, or it can host the content itself (remote AICC content hosting
model).
[edit] Computer-aided assessment

Computer-aided Assessment (also but less commonly referred to as E-

assessment), ranging from automated multiple-choice tests to more sophisticated
systems is becoming increasingly common. With some systems, feedback can be
geared towards a student's specific mistakes or the computer can navigate the
student through a series of questions adapting to what the student appears to
have learned or not learned.

The best examples follow a Formative Assessment structure and are called
"Online Formative Assessment". This involves making an initial formative
assessment by sifting out the incorrect answers. The author/teacher will then
explain what the pupil should have done with each question. It will then give the
pupil at least one practice at each slight variation of sifted out questions. This is
the formative learning stage. The next stage is to make a Summative Assessment
by a new set of questions only covering the topics previously taught. Some will
take this even further and repeat the cycle such as BOFA[29] which is aimed at
the Eleven plus exam set in the UK.

The term learning design has sometimes come to refer to the type of activity
enabled by software such as the open-source system LAMS[30] which supports
sequences of activities that can be both adaptive and collaborative. The IMS
Learning Design specification is intended as a standard format for learning
designs, and IMS LD Level A is supported in LAMS V2.elearning has been
replacing the traditional settings due to its cost effectiveness.

[edit] Electronic performance support systems (EPSS)

Main article: Electronic performance support systems

An Electronic performance support systems (EPSS) is a "computer-based
system that improves worker productivity by providing on-the-job access to
integrated information, advice, and learning experiences". 1991, Barry Raybould

[edit] Content Issues

Content is a core component of e-learning and includes issues such as pedagogy

and learning object re-use.

[edit] Pedagogical elements

Pedagogical elements are an attempt to define structures or units of educational

material. For example, this could be a lesson, an assignment, a multiple choice
question, a quiz, a discussion group or a case study. These units should be
format independent, so although it may be in any of the following methods,
pedagogical structures would not include a textbook, a web page, a video
conference or Podcast.

When beginning to create e-Learning content, the pedagogical approaches need

to be evaluated. Simple pedagogical approaches make it easy to create content,
but lack flexibility, richness and downstream functionality. On the other hand,
complex pedagogical approaches can be difficult to set up and slow to develop,
though they have the potential to provide more engaging learning experiences
for students. Somewhere between these extremes is an ideal pedagogy that
allows a particular educator to effectively create educational materials while
simultaneously providing the most engaging educational experiences for
students.

[edit] Pedagogical approaches or perspectives

 It is possible to use various pedagogical approaches for eLearning which
include:

 instructional design - the traditional pedagogy of instruction which is

curriculum focused, and is developed by a centralized educating group or a
single teacher.

 social-constructivist - this pedagogy is particularly well afforded by the use

of discussion forums, blogs, wiki and on-line collaborative activities. It is a
collaborative approach that opens educational content creation to a wider group
including the students themselves. The One Laptop Per Child Foundation
attempted to use a constructivist approach in its project[31]

 Laurillard's Conversational Model[32] is also particularly relevant to

eLearning, and Gilly Salmon's Five-Stage Model is a pedagogical approach to
the use of discussion boards.[33]

 Cognitive perspective focuses on the cognitive processes involved in

learning as well as how the brain works.[34]

 Emotional perspective focuses on the emotional aspects of learning, like

motivation, engagement, fun, etc.[35]

 Behavioural perspective focuses on the skills and behavioural outcomes of

the learning process. Role-playing and application to on-the-job settings.[36]

 Contextual perspective focuses on the environmental and social aspects

which can stimulate learning. Interaction with other people, collaborative
discovery and the importance of peer support as well as pressure.[37]
[edit] Reusability, standards and learning objects

Much effort has been put into the technical reuse of electronically-based
teaching materials and in particular creating or re-using Learning Objects. These
are self contained units that are properly tagged with keywords, or other
metadata, and often stored in an XML file format. Creating a course requires
putting together a sequence of learning objects. There are both proprietary and
open, non-commercial and commercial, peer-reviewed repositories of learning
objects such as the Merlot repository.

A common standard format for e-learning content is SCORM whilst other

specifications allow for the transporting of "learning objects" (Schools
Framework) or categorizing metadata (LOM).

These standards themselves are early in the maturity process with the oldest
being 8 years old. They are also relatively vertical specific: SIF is primarily pK-
12, LOM is primarily Corp, Military and Higher Ed, and SCORM is primarily
Military and Corp with some Higher Ed. PESC- the Post-Secondary Education
Standards Council- is also making headway in developing standards and
learning objects for the Higher Ed space, while SIF is beginning to seriously
turn towards Instructional and Curriculum learning objects.

In the US pK12 space there are a host of content standards that are critical as
well- the NCES data standards are a prime example. Each state government's
content standards and achievement benchmarks are critical metadata for linking
e-learning objects in that space.

An excellent example of e-learning that relates to knowledge management and

reusability is Navy E-Learning, which is available to Active Duty, Retired, or
 Disable Military members. This on-line tool provides certificate courses to
enrich the user in various subjects related to military training and civilian skill
sets. The e-learning system not only provides learning objectives, but also
evaluates the progress of the student and credit can be earned toward higher
learning institutions. This reuse is an excellent example of knowledge retention
and the cyclical process of knowledge transfer and use of data and records.

[edit] See also

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of

ICT in Education

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of

Blended Learning

Wikiversity has learning materials about Teaching and Learning

Online

 Adult education

 Andragogical learning theory

 Andragogy

 Blended learning

 Computer-based testing

 Distance education
 Educational technology

 Flexible Learning

 Heutagogy

 Hybrid course

 Learning management system

 Lifelong Learning

 Media psychology

 Microlearning

 Microlecture

 Online learning community

 Online music education

 Remedial education

 Ubiquitous learning

 Virtual education

 Virtual learning environment

 Virtual World Language Learning

 Web-based simulation

Systems

 Blackboard Learning System

 Claroline

 Desire2Learn

 Dokeos

 eFront

 HotChalk

 Moodle

 Sakai

 Spiral Universe

[edit] References

1. ^ Means, B.; Toyama, Y.; Murphy, R.; Bakia, M.; Jones, K. (2009),
Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis
and Review of Online Learning Studies,
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf,
retrieved 20 August 2009
2. ^ Kerkman, L. (2004). Convenience of Online Education Attracts Midcareer
Students. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 16(6), 11-12. Retrieved from Academic
Search Premier database.

3. ^ TonyBates.ca

4. ^ EC (2000). Communication from the Commission: E-Learning -

Designing "Tejas at Niit" tomorrow’s education. Brussels: European
Commission

5. ^ Nagy, A. (2005). The Impact of E-Learning, in: Bruck, P.A.; Buchholz, A.;
Karssen, Z.; Zerfass, A. (Eds). E-Content: Technologies and Perspectives for the
European Market. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp.79-96

6. ^ "Sloan Consortium"

7. ^ a b Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2008) Staying the Course: Online Education

in the United States, 2008 Needham MA: Sloan Consortium

8. ^ Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2003) Sizing the Opportunity: The Quality and
Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2002 and 2003 Wellesley, MA:
The Sloan Consortium

9. ^ Ambient Insight Research (2009) US Self-paced e-Learning Market

Monroe WA: Ambient Insight Research

10. ^ Hebert, D. G. (2007). "Five Challenges and Solutions in Online Music

Teacher Education". Research and Issues in Music Education 5 (1).
http://www.stthomas.edu/rimeonline/vol5/hebert.htm.
11. ^ Graziadei, W.D., 1993. Virtual Instructional Classroom Environment in
Science (VICES) in Research, Education, Service & Teaching (REST) CNI.org

12. ^ Graziadei, W. D., 1993. Mosaic & Gopher/Lynx

13. ^ William D. Graziadei, Sharon Gallagher,Ronald N. Brown,Joseph

Sasiadek Building Asynchronous and Synchronous Teaching-Learning
Environments: Exploring a Course/Classroom Management System Solution

14. ^ a b Graziadei, W. D., et al., 1997. Building Asynchronous and Synchronous

Teaching-Learning Environments: Exploring a Course/Classroom Management
System Solution

15. ^ Karrer, T (2006) What is eLearning 2.0? Elearningtech.blogspot.com

16. ^ Karrer, T (2007) Understanding eLearning 2.0. Learning circuit

17. ^ Downes, S (2005) E-Learning 2.0. Downes.ca

18. ^ Redecker, Christine (2009). "Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on

the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe". JRC
Scientific and technical report. (EUR 23664 EN – 2009).
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pub.cfm?id=2059.

19. ^ Karrer, T (2008) Corporate Long Tail Learning and Attention Crisis
Elearningtech.blogspot.com

a b
20. ^ Seely Brown, John; Adler, Richard P. (2008). "Minds on Fire:Open
Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0". Educause review
 (January/February 2008): 16–32.
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf.

21. ^ Hiltz, S. (1990) ‘Evaluating the Virtual Classroom’, in Harasim, L. (ed.)

Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment New York: Praeger, pp.
133-169

a b
22. ^ Mason. R. and Kaye, A. (1989) Mindweave: Communication,
Computers and Distance Education Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press

23. ^ Bates, A. (2005) Technology, e-Learning and Distance Education London:

Routledge

24. ^ Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995) Learning Networks:
A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

25. ^ WebEx Education Platform

26. ^ Bates, A. and Poole, G. Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher

Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2003

27. ^ OECD (2005) E-Learning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We Stand?

Paris: OECD

a b
28. ^ Johnson-Eilola, Johndan. Datacloud: Toward a New Theory of Online
Work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 2005. Print.

29. ^ PlanetBofa.com

30. ^ LamsFoundation.org
31. ^ Wiki.Laptop.org

32. ^ Informal description of Laurillard's Model

33. ^ E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online - Gilly Salmon ,
Kogan Page, 2000, ISBN 0-7494-4085-6

34. ^ Bloom, B. S., and D. R. Krathwohl. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives: Handbook 1

35. ^ Bååth, J. A. (1982) "Distance Students' Learning - Empirical Findings and

Theoretical Deliberations"

36. ^ Areskog, N-H. (1995) The Tutorial Process - the Roles of Student Teacher
and Tutor in a Long Term Perspective

37. ^ Black, J. & McClintock, R. (1995) "An Interpretation Construction

Approach to Constructivist Design."

[edit] External links

 Liu, G. Z.; Hwang, G. J. (2009). "A key step to understanding paradigm

shifts in e-learning: towards context-aware ubiquitous learning". British Journal
of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00976.x.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122440751/abstract.

 European Foundation for Quality in eLearning (EFQUEL)

 Computer-assisted language learning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is a form of computer-based

learning which carries two important features: bidirectional learning and
individualized learning. It is not a method. CALL materials are tools for
learning. The focus of CALL is learning, and not teaching. CALL materials are
used in teaching to facilitate the language learning process. It is a student-
centered accelerated learning material, which promotes self-paced accelerated
learning.

Contents

[hide]

 1 Definition

 2 History

 3 Current and Past Language Educational

Programs

 4 CALL and computational linguistics

 5 Theoretical basis for CALL instruction

 design

 6 Role changes for teachers and students

o 6.1 Teachers

o 6.2 Students

 7 Use of CALL for the four skills

 8 Multimedia language centers

 9 Advantages of CALL

o 9.1 Motivation

o 9.2 Adapting learning to the student

o 9.3 Authenticity

o 9.4 Critical thinking skills

 10 Problems and criticisms of CALL

instruction

 11 References

 12 Further reading

 13 Professional associations
 14 Professional journals

o 14.1 Journals dedicated to CALL

o 14.2 Journals that regularly include

CALL articles

 15 See also

[edit] Definition

CALL originates from CAI and was invented by Sir Mazlan from IIUM in
1970's. (Computer-Accelerated Instruction), a term that was first viewed as an
aid for teachers. The philosophy of CALL puts a strong emphasis on student-
centered lessons that allow the learners to learn on their own using structured
and/or unstructured interactive lessons. These lessons carry 2 important features:
bidirectional (interactive) learning and individualized learning. CALL is not a
method. It is a tool that helps teachers to facilitate language learning process.
CALL can be used to reinforce what has been learned in the classrooms. It can
also be used as remedial to help learners with limited language proficiency.

The design of CALL lessons generally takes into consideration principles of

language pedagogy, which may be derived from learning theories (behaviorist,
cognitive, and constructivist) and second language learning such as Krashen's
Monitor Theory.

Others may call CALL an approach to teaching and learning foreign languages
whereby the computer and computer-based resources such as the Internet are
used to present, reinforce and assess material to be learned. CALL can be made
independent of the Internet. It can stand alone for example in a CDROM format.
Depending on its design and objectives, it may include a substantial interactive
element especially when CALL is integrated in web-based format.It is in the
area of industrialization of teaching that is reigning now. The traditional face-to-
face teaching which is based on interpersonal communication between the
teacher and student is gone. however the industrialized teaching is able to offer
teachers with the opportunity of sourcing from the computer internet rather than
being faced with the problem of materials. It may include the search for and the
investigation of applications in language teaching and learning. [1] Except for
self-study software, CALL is meant to supplement face-to-face language
instruction, not replace it.[2]

Computers have been used for language teaching ever since the 1960s. This 40-
year period can be divided into three main stages: behaviorist CALL,
communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a
certain level of technology and certain pedagogical theories. The reasons for
using Computer-assisted Language Learning include: (a) experiential learning,
(b) motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) authentic materials for
study, (e) greater interaction, (f) individualization, (g) independence from a
single source of information, and (h) global understanding. The barriers
inhibiting the practice of Computer-assisted Language Learning can be
classified in the following common categories: (a) financial barriers, (b)
availability of computer hardware and software, (c) technical and theoretical
knowledge, and (d) acceptance of the technology.

Introduction
[edit] History

CALL’s origins and development trace back to the 1960’s (Delcloque 2000).
Since the early days CALL has developed into a symbiotic relationship between
the development of technology and pedagogy.

He divided the development of CALL into three phases: Behavioristic CALL,

Communicative CALL and Integrative CALL (Multimedia and the Internet) [1].
Bax (2003) perceived the three phases as Restricted, Open and Integrated - and
there have been several other attempts to categorize the history of CALL: see
the ICT4LT website (Section 3 of Module 1.4)].

Because repeated exposure to material was considered to be beneficial or even

essential, computers were considered ideal for this aspect of learning as the
machines did not get bored or impatient with learners and the computer could
present material to the student as his/her own pace and even adapt the drills to
the level of the student. Hence, CALL programs of this era presented a stimulus
to which the learner provided a response. At first, both could be done only
through text. The computer would analyze errors and give feedback. More
sophisticated programs would react to students’ mistakes by branching to help
screens and remedial activities. While such programs and their underlying
pedagogy still exist today, to a large part behavioristic approaches to language
learning have been rejected and the increasing sophistication of computer
technology has lead CALL to other possibilities.

Communicative CALL is based on the communicative approach that became

prominent in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. In the communicative approach, the
focus is on using the language rather than analysis of the language, teaching
grammar implicitly. It also allowed for originality and flexibility in student
output of language. It also correlates with the arrival of the PC, making
computing much widely available resulting in a boom in the development of
software for language learning. The first CALL software in this phase still
provided skill practice but not in a drill format, for example, paced reading, text
reconstruction and language games but computer remained the tutor. In this
phase, however, computers provided context for students to use the language,
such as asking for directions to a place. It also allowed for programs not
designed for language learning, such as Sim City, Sleuth and Where in the
World is Carmen Sandiego? to be used for language learning. However,
criticisms of this approach include using the computer in an ad hoc and
disconnected manner for more marginal rather than the central aims of language
teaching. It usually taught skills such as reading and listening in a
compartmentalized way, even if not in a drill fashion.

Integrative/explorative CALL, starting from the 1990’s, tries to address these

criticisms by integrating the teaching of language skills into tasks or projects to
provide direction and coherence. It also coincides with the development of
multimedia technology (providing text, graphics, sound and animation) as well
as computer-mediated communication. CALL in this period saw a definitive
shift of use of computer for drill and tutorial purposes (computer as a finite
authoritative base for a specific task) to a medium for extending education
beyond the classroom and reorganizing instruction. Multimedia CALL started
with interactive laser videodiscs such as “Montevidisco” (Schneider & Bennion
1984) and “A la rencontre de Philippe” (Fuerstenberg 1993), all of which were
simulations of situations where the learner played a key role. These programs
 later were transferred to CD-ROMs, and new RPGs such as [[Who is Oscar
Lake?]] made their appearance in a range of different languages.

In multimedia programs, listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real
world. Students also control the pace and the path of the interaction. Interaction
is in the foreground but many CALL programs also provide links to
explanations simultaneously. An example of this is Dustin’s simulation of a
foreign student’s arrival in the USA. Programs like this led also to what is called
explorative CALL.

More recent research in CALL has favored a learner-centered explorative

approach, where students are encouraged to try different possible solutions to a
problem, for example the use of concordance programs. This approach is also
described as data-driven learning (DDL), a term coined by Tim Johns. See
Module 2.4 at the ICT4LT site, Using concordance programs in the Modern
Foreign Languages classroom.

[edit] Current and Past Language Educational

Programs

 Bueno Entonces is a internet and iTunes store downloadable Spanish

language software.

 Rosetta Stone (software) is a family of language software consisting of over

29 languages. They also provide support for the creation of custom software for
"orphaned" or "threatened" languages.
 Rocket Languages (software) is a family of softwares consisting of 9
languages, including sign language.

 Fluenz - is a language software for teaching Spanish, Italian, Mandarin, and

French.

[edit] CALL and computational linguistics

CALL and computational linguistics are separate but somewhat interdependent

fields of study. The basic goal of computational linguistics is to “teach”
computers to generate and comprehend grammatically-acceptable sentences…
for purposes of translation and direct communication with computers where the
computer understands and generates natural language. Computational linguistics
takes the principles of

A very simple example of computers understanding natural language in relation

to second language learning is vocabulary drill exercises. The computer prompts
the learner with a word on either the L1 or target language and the student
responds with the corresponding word.

On a superficial level, the core issue for humans and computers using language
is the same; finding the best match between a given speech sound and its
corresponding word string, then generating the correct and appropriate response.
However, humans and machines process speech in fundamentally different
ways. Humans use complex cognitive processes, taking into account variables
such as social situations and rules while speech for a computer is simply a series
of digital values to generate and parse language.journal=Language Learning and
Technology |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=45–60 |id= |url= |accessdate= 2007-12-
02 }}</ref> For this reason, those involved in CALL from a computational
linguistics perspective tend to be more optimistic about a computer’s ability to
do error analysis and other pedagogical tasks than those who come into CALL
via language teaching.[2]

The term Human Language Technologies is often used to describe some aspects
of computational linguistics, having replaced the former term Language
Engineering. There has been an upsurge of work in this area in recent years,
especially with regard to machine translation and speech synthesis and speech
analysis. The professional associations EUROCALL (Europe) and CALICO
(USA) have special interest groups (SIGs), respectively devoted to Natural
Language Processing (NLP) and Intelligent CALL (ICALL). See Module 3.5 at
the ICT4LT website for further information.

[edit] Theoretical basis for CALL instruction design

Computers have become so widespread in schools and homes and their uses
have expanded so dramatically that the majority of language teachers now think
about the implications. Technology can bring about changes in the teaching
methodologies of foreign language beyond simply automating fill-in-the-gap
exercises.[3] The use of the computer in and of itself does not constitute a
teaching method, but rather the computer forces pedagogy to develop in new
ways that exploit the computer's benefits and that work around its limitations. [1]
To exploit the computers’ potential, we need language teaching specialists who
can promote a complementary relationship between computer technology and
appropriate pedagogic programs.[3]
A number of pedagogical approaches have developed in the computer age,
including the communicative and integrative/experimentative approaches
outlined above in the History of CALL. Others include constructivism, whole
language theory and sociocultural theory although they are not exclusively
theories of language learning. With constructivism, students are active
participants in a task in which they “construct” new knowledge based on
experience in order to incorporate new ideas into their already-established
schema of knowledge. Whole language theory postulates that language learning
(either native or second language) moves from the whole to the part; rather than
building sub-skills like grammar to lead toward higher abilities like reading
comprehension, whole language insists the opposite is the way we really learn to
use language. Students learn grammar and other sub-skills by making intelligent
guesses bases on the input they have experienced. It also promotes that the four
skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) are interrelated. [4] Sociocultural
theory states that learning is a process of becoming part of a desired community
and learning that community's rules of behavior.[5]

What most of these approaches have in common is taking the central focus away
from the teacher as a conveyor of knowledge to giving students learning
experiences that are as realistic as possible, and where they play a central role.
Also, these approaches tend to emphasize fluency over accuracy to allow
students to take risks in using more student-centered activities, and to cooperate,
rather than compete.[3] The computer provides opportunity for students to be less
dependent on a teacher and have more freedom to experiment on their own with
natural language in natural or semi-natural settings.

[edit] Role changes for teachers and students

[edit] Teachers

Although the integration of CALL into a foreign language program can lead to
great anxiety among language teachers,[6] researchers consistently claim that
CALL changes, sometimes radically, the role of the teacher but does not
eliminate the need for a teacher altogether. Instead of handing down knowledge
to students and being the center of students’ attention, teachers become guides as
they construct the activities students are to do and help them as students
complete the assigned tasks. In other words, instead of being directly involved in
students’ construction of the language, the teacher interacts with students
primarily to facilitate difficulties in using the target language (grammar,
vocabulary, etc.) that arise when interacting with the computer and/or other
people.[3][4]

Elimination of a strong teacher presence has been shown to lead to larger

quantity and better quality of communication such as more fluidity, more use of
complex sentences and more sharing of students’ personal selves. [4] However,
teacher presence is still very important to students when doing CALL activities.
Teachers should be familiar enough with the resources to be used to anticipate
technical problems and limitations.[3] Students need the reassuring and
motivating presence of a teacher in CALL environments. Not only are they
needed during the initial learning curve, they are needed to conduct review
sessions to reinforce what was learned. Encouraging students to participate and
offering praise are deemed important by students. Most students report
preferring to do work in a lab with a teacher’s or tutor’s presence rather than
completely on their own.[4]. The student too are able to enjoy various
opportunities which are not enjoyed before invention of computer, there are
opportunities for slow learners to still learn what is not clear to him in the school
lesson if the computer based system is applied.

[edit] Students

Students, too, need to adjust their expectations, of their participation in the class
in order to use CALL effectively. Rather than passively absorbing information,
learners must negotiate meaning and assimilate new information through
interaction and collaboration with someone other than the teacher, be that person
a classmate or someone outside of the classroom entirely. Learners must also
learn to interpret new information and experiences on their own terms. However,
because the use of technology redistributes teachers’ and classmates’ attentions,
less-able students can become more active participants in the class because class
interaction is not limited to that directed by the teacher. [4] Moreover more shy
students can feel free in their own students'-centered environment. This will
raise their self-esteem and their knowledge will be improving. If students are
performing collaborative project they will do their best to perform it within set
time limits.

[edit] Use of CALL for the four skills

A number of studies have been done concerning how the use of CALL affects
the development of language learners’ four skills (listening, speaking, reading
and writing). Most report significant gains in reading and listening and most
CALL programs are geared toward these receptive skills because of the current
state of computer technology. However, most reading and listening software is
based on drills.[3] Gains in writing skills have not been as impressive as
computers cannot assess this well.[4]
However, using current CALL technology, even with its current limitations, for
the development of speaking abilities has gained much attention. There has been
some success in using CALL, in particular computer-mediated communication,
to help speaking skills closely linked to “communicative competence” (ability to
engage in meaningful conversation in the target language) and provide
controlled interactive speaking practice outside the classroom.[7] Using chat has
been shown to help students routinize certain often-used expressions to promote
the development of automatic structure that help develop speaking skills. This is
true even if the chat is purely textual. The use of videoconferencing give not
only immediacy when communicating with a real person but also visual cues,
such as facial expressions, making such communication more authentic.[4]

However, when it comes to using the computer not as a medium of

communication (with other people) but as something to interact with verbally in
a direct manner, the current computer technology’s limitations are at their
clearest. Right now, there are two fairly successful applications of automatic
speech recognition (ASR) (or speech processing technology) where the
computer “understands” the spoken words of the learner. The first is
pronunciation training. Learners read sentences on the screen and the computer
gives feedback as to the accuracy of the utterance, usually in the form of visual
sound waves.[7] The second is software where the learner speaks commands for
the computer to do. However, speakers in these programs are limited to
predetermined texts so that the computer will “understand” them.[3]

[edit] Multimedia language centers

During the 1960s, language laboratories with cassette players and headphones
were introduced into educational institutions. The use of this kind of center grew
rapidly in the late 1960s and 1970s, but then went rapidly out of fashion." [8]
Later, “digital language labs” were introduced, still following the traditional
language format, such as teacher monitoring. What made them new was that
they incorporated new technologies such as video. The term multimedia was
originally used to describe sets of learning materials which included a book,
audiocassettes and/or videocassettes. However, with the advent of computer-
based materials, such packages tend to be called multiple media or mixed media
- although there is not absolute consensus on this point. Nowadays multimedia
refers to computer-based materials that can perform more varied tasks then the
purely-audio mixed-media. Not only can such play pre-recorded audio and video
material, it can create new audio and video recordings. It also has the capability
of integrating the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as
well as giving immediate, if limited, feedback to the student. However, like its
predecessors, multimedia centers run the risk of being underutilized due to poor
management.[9]

While multimedia computer-based materials can be used directly in the

classroom, because of costs, such resources are usually found in a multimedia
language center, fulfilling the role of the previous cassette-based and digital
language laboratories. However, managing such a center requires knowledge of
a wide range of equipment and the increasing expectations of such equipment
from administrators, language teachers and students. Administrators often have
the mistaken belief that buying hardware by itself will meet the needs of the
center (often devoting 90% of a center’s budget to such and ignoring software
and training needs) and will cut down on the number of teaching staff needed.[10]
While multimedia offers many opportunities for language learning with the
availability of text, images, sound and video as well as interactive activities, the
problem is that these opportunities have not been taken advantage of well. Most
multimedia computer programs tend to be strong on presentation but weak as far
as pedagogy and even interaction. One of the main promises of CALL is the
ability to individualize learning, but like with past language laboratories, use of
the facilities in many cases have devolved into rows of students all doing the
same drills. The only advantage to the multimedia in these cases has been better
sound and color images. Most modern language learning theories stress the
importance of teacher guidance rather than control, giving students control over
what they do, how fast they do it and even the ability to find and correct their
own mistakes.[10]

Managing a multimedia language center properly requires not only knowledge

of foreign languages and language teaching methodology, it also requires a
certain amount of technical know-how and budget management ability as well
as the ability to combine all these into creative ways of taking advantage of what
the technology can offer. Often a center manager needs assistants for technical
problems, for managing resources and even the tutoring of students. Multimedia
centers lend themselves to self-study, and potentially self-directed learning, but
such is often misunderstood. The simple existence of computers in a laboratory
does not automatically lead to students learning independently. Significant
investment of time is essential for materials development and creating an
atmosphere conducive to such.

Self access language learning centers or independent learning centres have

emerged partially independently, and partially in response to these issues. In
self-access learning, the focus is on developing learner autonomy through
varying degrees of self-directed learning, as opposed to (or as a complement to)
classroom learning. In most centres, learners access materials and manage their
learning independently, but have access to staff for help. Many self-access
centres are heavy users of technology and an increasing number of them are now
offering online self-access learning opportunities. Some centres have developed
novel ways of supporting language learning outside the context of the language
classroom (also called 'language support') by developing software to monitor
students' self-directed learning and by offering online support from teachers (cf.
[11]
)

Center managers and support staff need to have new roles defined for them to
support students’ efforts at self-directed learning. In fact, a new job description
has emerged recently, that of a “language advisor”[12].

[edit] Advantages of CALL

[edit] Motivation

Generally speaking, the use of technology inside or outside the classroom tends
to make the class more interesting. However, certain design issues affect just
how interesting the particular tool creates motivation.[4] One way a program or
activity can promote motivation in students is by personalizing information, for
example by integrating the student’s name or familiar contexts as part of the
program or task. Others include having animate objects on the screen, providing
practice activities that incorporate challenges and curiosity and providing a
context (real-world or fantasy) that is not directly language-oriented.
For example, a study comparing students who used “CornerStone” (a language
arts development program) showed a significant increase in learning (compared
to students not using the program) between two classes of English-immersion
middle-school students in language arts. This is because CornerStone
incorporate personalized information and challenging and imaginative exercises
in a fantasy context.[13] Also, using a variety of multimedia components in one
program or course has been shown to increase student interest and motivation.[4]

One quantifiable benefit to increased motivation is that students tend to spend

more time on tasks when on the computer. More time is frequently cited as a
factor in achievement.[4]

[edit] Adapting learning to the student

Computers can give a new role to teaching materials. Without computers,

students cannot really influence the linear progression of the class content but
computers can adapt to the student.[3] Adapting to the student usually means that
the student controls the pace of the learning but also means that students can
make choices in what and how to learn, skipping unnecessary items or doing
remedial work on difficult concepts. Such control makes students feel more
competent in their learning.[13] Students tend to prefer exercises where they have
control over content, such as branching stories, adventures, puzzles or logic
problems. With these, the computer has the role of providing attractive context
for the use of language rather than directly providing the language the student
needs.[3]

[edit] Authenticity
“Authenticity” in language learning means the opportunity to interact in one or
more of the four skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) by using or
producing texts meant for an audience in the target language, not the classroom.
With real communication acts, rather than teacher-contrived ones, students feel
empowered and less afraid to contact others. Students believe they learn faster
and better with computer-mediated communication.[3] Also, students learn more
about culture in such an environment.[4] In networked computer environments,
students have a conscious feeling of being members of a real community. In
situations where all are learners of a foreign language, there is also a feeling of
equality. In these situations students feel less stressed and more confident in a
language learning situation, in part because surface errors do not matter so
much. This works best with synchronous CMC (e.g. chats) as there is immediate
feedback but email exchanges have been shown to provide most of the same
benefits in motivation and student affect.[3]

[edit] Critical thinking skills

Use of computer technology in classrooms is generally reported to improve self-

concept and mastery of basic skills, more student-centered learning and
engagement in the learning process, more active processing resulting in higher-
order thinking skills and better recall, gain confidence in directing their own
learning. This is true for both language and non-language classrooms.[4]

[edit] Problems and criticisms of CALL instruction

The impact of CALL in foreign language education has been modest. [7] Several
reasons can be attributed to this. The first is the limitations of the technology,
both in its ability and availability. First of all, there is the problem with cost [1]
and the simple availability of technological resources such as the Internet (either
non-existent as can be the case in many developing countries or lack of
bandwidth, as can be the case just about anywhere). [3] However, the limitations
that current computer technology has can be problematic as well. While
computer technology has improved greatly in the last three decades, demands
placed on CALL have grown even more so. One major goal is to have
computers with which students can have true, human-like interaction, esp. for
speaking practice; however, the technology is far from that point. Not to mention
that if the computer cannot evaluate a learner’s speech exactly, it is almost no
use at all.[1][7]

However, most of the problems that appear in the literature on CALL have more
to do with teacher expectations and apprehensions about what computers can do
for the language learner and teacher. Teachers and administrators tend to either
think computers are worthless or even harmful, or can do far more than they are
really capable of.[6]

Reluctance on part of teachers can come from lack of understanding and even
fear of technology. Often CALL is not implemented unless it is required even if
training is offered to teachers.[6] One reason for this is that from the 1960’s to the
1980’s, computer technology was limited mostly for the sciences, creating a real
and psychological distance for language teaching.[14] Language teachers can be
more comfortable with textbooks because it is what they are used do, and there
is the idea that the use of computers threatens traditional literacy skills since
such are heavily tied to books.[14][15] These stem in part because there is a
significant generation gap between teachers (many of whom did not grow up
with computers) and students (many of whom did grow up with computers).
Also, teachers may resist because CALL activities can be more difficult to
evaluate than more traditional exercises. For example, most Mexican teachers
feel strongly that a completed fill-in textbook “proves” learning. [15] While
students may be motivated by exercises like branching stories, adventures,
puzzles or logic, these activities provide little in the way of systematic
evaluation of progress.[3]

Even teachers who may otherwise see benefits to CALL may be put off by the
time and effort needed to implement it well. However “seductive” the power of
computing systems may be[3], like with the introduction of the audio language
lab in the 1960’s, those who simply expect results by purchasing expensive
equipment are likely to be disappointed.[1] To begin with, there are the simple
matters of sorting through the numerous resources that exist and getting students
ready to use computer resources. With Internet sites alone, it can be very
difficult to know where to begin, and if students are unfamiliar with the resource
to be used, the teacher must take time to teach it.[3] Also, there is a lack of
unified theoretical framework for designing and evaluating CALL systems as
well as absence of conclusive empirical evidence for the pedagogical benefits of
computers in language.[7] Most teachers lack the time or training to create
CALL-based assignments, leading to reliance on commercially-published
sources, whether such are pedagogically sound or not.[1]

However, the most crucial factor that can lead to the failure of CALL, or the use
of any technology in language education is not the failure of the technology, but
rather the failure to invest adequately in teacher training and the lack of
imagination to take advantage of the technology's flexibility. Graham Davies
states that too often, technology is seen as a panacea, especially by
administrators, and the human component necessary to make it beneficial is
ignored. Under these circumstances, he argues, "it is probably better to dispense
with technology altogether".[8] To better see his views and favorite CALL sites,
see his Webliography Portal at
<http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/websites.htm>. It's been called CamSoft
Collection of CALL Websites (Graham Davie's CALL Glossary), and another
very extensive World CALL Directory is the Virtual Encyclopedia collected at
www.CALL4ALL.us, maintained by John Paul Loucky. It integrates close to
5,000 CALL websites and programs for teaching or learning about 150 world
languages, with links to over 7,000 distinct web dictionaries and technical
lexicons as well. (For various views and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of
CALL, see Felix; Stockwell; and Loucky, John Paul.(2009). Discovering
Excellent CALL Programs for Effective Language Education in Various Foreign
Languages. APACALL Newsletter, Series No. 13, December 2009, pp. 4–10.
[Access at <http://www.apacall.org/news/Newsletter13.pdf>].

Rody Klein, Clint Rogers and Zhang Yong (2006), studying the adoption of
Learning Technologies in Chinese schools and colleges, have also pointed out
that the spread of video games on electronic devices, including computers,
dictionaries and mobile phones, is feared in most Chinese institutions. And yet
every classroom is very well equipped with a desk embedded computer, Internet
connection, microphone, video projector and remote controlled screen to be used
by the teacher for multimedia presentations. Very often the 'leaders' prefer to ban
completely Learning Technologies for students at the dismay of many foreign
ESL teachers. Books and exercise books still prevail. In order to enhance CALL
for teaching ESL and other languages in developing countries, it would be also
crucial to teach students how to learn by themselves and develop the capacity to
practice self evaluation and enhance intrinsic motivation. Tests and quizzes
 should be designed accordingly to encourage and enhance students autonomous
practice. Teachers using CALL should be computer literate and trained
continuously. Ideally each Foreign Language Department using CALL should
hire an experienced Computer Scientist who could assist teachers. That expert
should demonstrate dual expertise both in Education and Learning Technologies.

Improving Vocabulary and Reading Skills in Various Languages Online reading

is arguably much different than learning to read print. Articles dealing with some
of its advantages and how to overcome the challenges of trying to read a foreign
or second language (L2) online are the following:
<http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/fqp039?
ijkey=YqWnMnWbIH3vAlV&keytype=ref>, [16] Constructing a roadmap to
more systematic and successful online reading and vocabulary acquisition.
Literary and Linguistic Computing], and [17] Discovering excellent CALL
programs for effective language education in various foreign languages.
APACALL Newsletter, Series No. 13. December 2009, pp. 4–10. (Asia-Pacific
Association for CALL) [Accessed 12/25/09 from Online PDF at
<http://www.apacall.org/news/Newsletter13.pdf>]

[edit] References
a b c d e f
1. ^ "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction".
Warschauer Mark. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-
11.

2. ^ "CALL (computer assisted language learning) Guide to Good Practice 3".

Davies Graham. http://www.yarasystem.ir/index.html?
 www.llas.ac.uk&resources&goodpracticeaspx&resourceid=61. Retrieved 2007-
12-01.

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o
3. ^ "Computer-assisted language learning: Increase of
freedom of submission to machines?" (Domingo Noemi).
http://www.terra.es/personal/nostat. Retrieved 2007-12-10.

a b c d e f g h i j k l
4. ^ {{cit
e journal |last=Stepp-Greany |first=Jonita |year=2002 |month=January |
title=Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment:
Implications for the new millennium |journal= Language Learning and
Technology |volume= |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= 2007-12-15 }}

5. ^ Mitchell, R; F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories.

London: Arnold.

6. ^ a b c Thelmadatter, Leigh (July/Sept 2007). "The Computers Are Coming …

Are Here!". TESOL Greece Newsletter 95.

a b c d e
7. ^ Ehsani, Farzad; Eva Knodt (July 1998). "Speech technology in
computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL
paradigm". Language Learning and Technology 2 (1): 45–60.

a b
8. ^ "ICT4LT Module 1.1". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved
2008-07-11.

9. ^ "Introduction to multimedia CALL". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm.

Retrieved 2008-07-11.
 a b
10. ^ "Managing a multimedia language centre".
http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.

11. ^ Reinders, Hayo (July 2007). "Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-
access language learning with a student monitoring system". System 35 (1): 93–
111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.10.009. http://www.innovationinteaching.org.

12. ^ [1]

a b
13. ^ Traynor, Patrick (July 2003). "Effects of computer-assisted instruction
on different learners". Journal of Instructional Psychology.

a b
14. ^ Ravichandran, T (2000). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)
in the perspective of the interactive approach: Advantages and apprehensions.

a b
15. ^ Bollin, G.G. (Mar/Apr 2003). "The Realities of Middle School for
Mexican Children". The Clearing House 76 (4): 198.
doi:10.1080/00098650309602002.

[16] Loucky, J.P. 2009. Constructing a Roadmap to More Systematic and

Successful Online Reading and Vocabulary Acquisition. Literary and Linguistic
Computing.<http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/fqp039?
ijkey=YqWnMnWbIH3vAlV&keytype=ref>, Online at doi: 10.1093/llc/fqp039
[17]Loucky, J.P. (2009). Discovering Excellent CALL Programs for Effective
Language Education in Various Foreign Languages. APACALL Newsletter,
Series No. 1. December 2009, Asia Pacific CALL Newsletter Feature. pp. 4–10.
Feature article in APACALL Newsletter, Series No. 13, December 2009. (Asia-
Pacific Association for CALL) [Accessed 12/25/09 from Online PDF at
<http://www.apacall.org/news/Newsletter13.pdf>
 [edit] Further reading

 See the ICT4LT Resource Centre for a select bibliography on CALL:

http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_resource.htm

 See also EUROCALL's CALL Bibliography. This is a comprehensive list of

CALL publications, including other bibliographies on the Web.

 Anson Yang, (2006). Does an Open Forum Promote Learning Among

Students? A Collaborative-Learning Approach. Asian EFL Journal Vol 7. [2]

 ATALL (Autonomous Computer-Assisted Language Learning) ATALL

Wikibook. On the relationship between CALL and learner autonomy, there are
many references in the bibliography of learner autonomy maintained by Hayo
Reinders on [3]

 Bax S. (2003) CALL - past, present and future, System 31: 13-28

 CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) journal, Taylor and Francis

(formerly published by Swets & Zeitlinger): http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/

 Chapelle C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition:

foundations for teaching, testing and research, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

 Cheon Heesook (2003) The viability of Computer Mediated Communication

in the Korean secondary EFL classroom, The Asian EFL Journal Vol 5, 1:
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/march03.sub2.php
 Davies G. (1997) "Lessons from the past, lessons for the future: 20 years of
CALL". In Korsvold A-K. & Rüschoff B. (eds.) New technologies in language
learning and teaching, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Also on the Web (revised
2007) at: http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm

 Davies G. (2007 - revised) "Computer Assisted Language Learning: Where

are we now and where are we going?"
http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/docs/UCALL_Keynote.htm

 Davies G., Bangs P., Frisby R. & Walton E. (2005) Setting up effective
digital language laboratories and multimedia ICT suites for Modern Foreign
Languages, London: CILT: http://www.languages-
ict.org.uk/managing/digital_language_labs.pdf

 Delcloque P. (2000) History of CALL:

http://www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdf

 de Szendeffy J. (2005) A practical guide to using computers in language

teaching, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 Egbert, J. & Petrie G. (eds) (2006). CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Egbert J. & Hanson-Smith E. (eds.) (1999) CALL environments: research,

practice and critical issues, Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

 Felix U. (2001) Beyond Babel: language learning online, Melbourne:

Language Australia.
 Figura, K. & Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based materials: a study of learner
autonomy and strategies. System 35 (40):448-468.

 Fitzpatrick A. & Davies G. (eds.) (2003) "The Impact of Information and

Communications Technologies on the Teaching of Foreign Languages and on
the Role of Teachers of Foreign Languages". This is a comprehensive report
commissioned by the EC Directorate General of Education and Culture.

 Fotos S. & Browne C. (eds.) (2004) New perspectives on CALL for second
language classrooms, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Grossmann, S. (2008). Supplementing Textbooks with Computer-Based

Resources in the Primary EFL-Classroom. http://telearn.noe-
kaleidoscope.org/open-archive/file?
Grossmann_Masters_Thesis_(001858v1).pdf

 Hubbard, P. (2003). "A Survey of Unanswered Questions in CALL." CALL

Journal 16.2-3. See www.stanford.edu.~efs/callsurvey.

 Hubbard, P. (2005). "A Review of Subject Characteristics in CALL

Research." CALL Journal 18.5.

 Hubbard, P. (2006). "A Review of Subject and Treatment Characteristics in

CMC Research.“ Paper presented at PacSLRF Conference, Brisbane, Australia,
July 2006. PP online at www.stanford.edu/~efs/pacslrf06.

 Jarvis, H. and Szymczyk, M. (2010). Student views on learning grammar

with web and book-based materials. English Language Teaching Journal.
61(1):32-44.
 Jarvis, H. (2009). Computers in EAP: change, issues and challenges.
Modern English Teacher. 18(2): 51-54.

 Jarvis, H. & Pastuszka, L. (2008). Electronic literacy, reading skills and non-
native speakers: issues for EAP, CALL-EJ 10(1) :
http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/10-1/jarvis.html

 Jarvis H. (2005) Technology and change in English Language Teaching

(ELT), The Asian EFL Journal Vol 7, 1: http://www.asian-efl-
journal.com/December_05_hj.php

 Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and Informal CALL Preparation and Teacher

Attitude Toward Technology. CALL Journal, Taylor & Francis: Antwerp.

 Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL Teacher Training: What are We Doing

and What Could We Do Better? In Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. Teacher education in
CALL. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

 Language Learning and Technology: A refereed journal for second and

foreign language instructors: http://llt.msu.edu

 Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in

Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Levy, M.& Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL "CALL"? Editorial.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(3): 143-149.

 Levy M. (1997) CALL: context and conceptualisation, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.
 Littlemore J. (2001) Learner autonomy, self-instruction and new
technologies in language learning: current theory and practice in higher
education in Europe. In Chambers A. & Davies G. (eds.) ICT and language
learning: a European perspective, Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger

 Liu, G. -Z. (2008). Innovating research topics in learning technology: Where

are the new blue oceans?.British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (4), 738-
747.

 Liu, G.-Z. & Chen, A.S.W. (2007). A taxonomy of Internet-based

technologies integrated in language curricula. British Journal of Educational
Technology 38 (5), 934–938. http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00728.x

 Mills, Jon (1997) "Virtual Classroom Management and Communicative

Writing Pedagogy" Proceedings of 1996 European Writing Conferences: EARLI
Special Interest Group Writing, Writing and Computers Association, University
of Barcelona, 23–25 October 1996. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona,
Universitat Autònima de Barcelona. CD-ROM. ISBN 84-88795-36X.
http://www.oocities.com/f_j_mills/Virtual_Classroom_Management_and_Com
municative_Writing_Pedagogy.PDF

 Piper A. (1986) "Conversation and the computer: a study of the

conversational spin-off generated among learners of English as a Foreign
Language working in groups", System 14, 2: 187-198.

 ReCALL: The Journal of EUROCALL, now published by Cambridge

University Press - login at http://www.journals.cup.org. Back numbers are
available at: http://www.eurocall-languages.org/recall/r_online.html
 Son J.-B. (ed.) (2009) Internet-based language learning: Pedagogies and
technologies, Raleigh, NC: Lulu.

 Son J.-B. (ed.) (2004) Computer-assisted language learning: Concepts,

contexts and practices, Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.

 Warschauer M. (1996) Computer-assisted language learning: an

introduction. In Fotos S. (ed.) Multimedia language teaching, Tokyo: Logos
International.

 Warschauer M. & Healey D. (1998) Computers and language learning: an

overview, Language Teaching 31:57-71.

 Wenger E. (1998) Community of practice: learning as a social system.

Relates more to business than education, but contains some interesting ideas on
creating, organising and sharing knowledge.

[edit] Professional associations

 APACALL: Asia-Pacific Association for CALL.

 AsiaCALL: The Asia Association of Computer Assisted Language Learning.

 IndiaCALL: The India Association of Computer Assisted Language

Learning.

 CALICO: US-based professional association devoted to CALL. Manages a

regular annual conference.
 JALTCALL: Japan-based professional association devoted to CALL.
Coordinates an annual conference and the JALTCALL Journal.

 PacCALL: Professional CALL association in the Pacific: from East to

Southeast Asia, Oceania, across to the Americas.

 EUROCALL: Europe-based professional association devoted to CALL.

Manages a regular annual conference.

 IALLT: US-based International Association for Language Learning

Technology. IALLT is a professional organisation dedicated to promoting
effective uses of media centres for language teaching, learning, and research.
Manages regular conferences.

 Learning Technologies Special Interest Group The Learning Technologies

Special Interest Group of the International Association of Teachers of English as
a Foreign Language. This UK-based group runs a variety of events and produces
a regular newsletter.

 TESOL Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, CALL Interest

Section.

 WorldCALL: A worldwide association devoted to CALL and embracing

other leading professional associations.

 SLaTE Speech and Language Technologies for Education

 AILA ReN AILA Research Network for CALL and the Learner.

[edit] Professional journals

 [edit] Journals dedicated to CALL

 CALICO Journal (CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction

Consortium)

 Teaching English with Technology (IATEFL Poland)

 CALL-EJ On-line (Online Journal)

 Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal (Taylor

and Francis)

 CALL Review: the SIG Journal (The IATEFL Special Interest Group's
Newsletter)

 IALLT Journal (International Association for Language Learning

Technology)

 JALTCALL Journal (Japan Association of Language Teaching - Computer-

Assisted Language Learning Special Interest Group)

 ON-CALL (Australia) Archives only - now incorporated into CALL-EJ:

http://www.cltr.uq.edu.au/oncall/home.html

 Language Learning and Technology (Online Journal)

 ReCALL (European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning)

 Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (Blackwell - Computer Assisted

Learning in general rather than CALL)
 SLaTE

 AsiaCALL Online Journal (AsiaCALL OnlinJournal)

[edit] Journals that regularly include CALL articles

 British Journal of Educational Technology

 System (An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied

Linguistics)

 Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching

[edit] See also

 Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning (ATALL) Wikibook

 Flashcards

 Intelligent computer-assisted language instruction (ICALI)

 List of Educational Software

 Memory

 Mnemonics

 Language exchange

 Technology-Enhanced Learning