An Integrated Approach to Effectiveness Research in CALL
Chapter 3 - Has CALL made a dif ference: And how can we tell? 59
Chapter 3 Has CALL made a dif ference: And how can we tell? Introduction The shifting parameters of CALL ef fectiveness research To judge by the conclusions of several CALL researchers there is much to learn from the mistakes and successes of the past. Levy, for example, talks of the ‘contemporary relevance of old projects and past experience’ (Levy 1997). Even the oft-maligned empiricist approach of 1950s and 1960s lan- guage teaching dubbed by Stern (1983: 169) as ‘pedagogically audiolingual- ism, psychologically behaviourism, linguistically structuralism’ can inform our post-communicative era (Levy 1997: 14), or contribute to the best practice of future eras. One can summarize the preoccupations of CALL ef fectiveness research in its relatively short history in the following four principal debates: 1. The improvement debate: Does CALL improve language learning? 2. The comparison debate: Can comparative evaluations be of any value in demonstrating learning gains? 3. The configuration debate: What combination of methods is best for measuring progress in CALL? 4. The outcome vs. processes debate: Do we only focus on measuring learning outcomes? What about learning processes? Can we measure the latter? If so, how? The history of ef fectiveness research in CALL shows a move away from a preoccupation with proving that CALL, of itself, improves students’ second language competence towards an interest in the variables involved in the 60 Chapter 3 language teaching and learning process within computer-based environ- ments. Nevertheless, we can glean useful lessons and methodology from each of the dif ferent debates,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.