System, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 221-223, 1988 0346-251X/88 $3.00+0.00 Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press plc

CALL N O T E S

W H A T C A N R E S E A R C H T E L L US A B O U T C A L L ?

DAVID H. WYATT

Computer Editor

If we check its vital signs, CALL appears to be in robust health. The number of language teachers who are CALL enthusiasts is continuing to grow. Because of this and the ever- increasing presence of computers in the classroom, more language learners are using CALL. Software development is expanding our options through both commercial and public domain sources. A steady stream of conference presentations and journal articles reports encouraging student responses to various types of CALL materials.

Despite this, one of CALL's organs remains notably underdeveloped--the area of research. The mills of research grind slow in all educational endeavors, so we would hardly expect CALL research to provide us with all the answers we seek. The problem is that, even with reduced expectations, the quantity of CALL research and other educational research applicable to CALL seems dangerously scanty. Practitioners such as teachers and software developers have virtually no research-tested basis of principle to inform their work. This is particularly surprising because computers, with their ability to unobtrusively collect comprehensive, unbiased data on student activity, provide an outstandingly powerful medium for some types of research.

Why is the base of worthwhile research so small? There are well-known general problems in applying educational research findings to educational practices. Two examples are the isolated, piecemeal nature of many research studies, and underemphasized "side effects" which may become distressingly obvious when serious consideration is given to implementing research findings (Borg and Gall, 1983). However, there are three additional obstacles not generally faced in other areas of education that have a strong impact in computer-assisted learning and CALL.

First, rapid advances in technology can greatly reduce the relevance of much of the research evidence. Experiments in computer-assisted language learning have been conducted for over 20 years. During that period, however, the computer technology used in CALL has been changing dramatically. As late as 1982, some university CALL systems were still using slow, printer-based "teletype" units rather than video displays. Today, most CALL courseware employs rapid, microprocessor-mediated video terminals with extensive graphics capabilities. The continued relevance of many research findings based on older systems seems questionable.

As computer technology and software engineering continue to change rapidly, the problem

221

222 CALL NOTES

of obsolete research appears likely to grow. For example, interactive computer-controlled videodisc (IAV) systems open up entirely new dimensions of language learning. The potential impact of IAV approaches to CALL may be an order of magnitude greater than with previous technologies. At present, few educational institutions can afford IAV systems. However, research based on the capabilities of today's commonly available non-IAV systems may soon seem outdated and of little relevance unless the research focus is carefully designed to avoid this.

The second problem facing research on computer-assisted learning is the very large number of variable elements. For example, one of the most widely researched types of CALL is tutorial courseware. In one analysis of tutorial programs, Criswell and Swezey (1984) identified nineteen general phases or aspects of a single tutorial program. However, for just one such aspect - -"provide consequence contingent on response accuracy"- - there is a very wide range of possible approaches. When and how should the learner be informed that an answer is wrong? What kind of assistance or hints should be available? Should the student or the program decide when help is needed and what level of help should be provided? Other types of CALL courseware may demand very different types of decisions, but the range of choices for the developer is likely to be equally broad. In some software, a single decision may have a "make or break" impact. More commonly, it is the cumulative effect of a myriad of developer choices which determines the effectiveness or otherwise of the program. Faced with such complexity, are we to conclude that CALL software development will remain an art?

In real-life interactions between particular students and CALL programs, learner characteristics add a layer of further complexity to the situation (see, for example, ChapeUe and Jamieson, 1986). As a result, the CALL researcher must confront an enormous number of variables. For the purposes of research, it would be all too easy to eliminate so many variables that experimental results, while valid, would have little meaning for the development or use of CALL programs. It will be a tremendous challenge for researchers to establish a basis of CALL findings which can provide clear guidelines for practitioners.

A third problem of particular importance in present-day CALL is changes in pedagogical approach and philosophy. As computers have become more widely available in schools, the debate over how to use them effectively has intensified. In CALL, as in other areas of education, there has been a distinct movement towards using computers for holistic, enrichment activities and away from tutorial and drill applications. Yet it is in the area of tutorial and drill that the majority of basic and applied computer education research has been performed.

This type of debate is nothing new, as the development of Logo demonstrates. Over fifteen years ago, in describing Seymour Papert 's early work with Logo, Hammond (1972) commented that the benefits of using Logo were difficult to assess by traditional means. During the last seven years, Logo has been increasingly widely used in education, including CALL applications. Researchers have begun to focus on developing assessment procedures matched to the anticipated effects of working with Logo. The surprising result has been an accumulation of evidence that Logo has few or none of the effects that were expected. In other words, the holistic, discovery-learning, problem-solving approach of Logo which

CALL NOTES 223

has formed the basis for its widespread and enthusiastic adoption is increasingly being called into question.

In CALL, there has been a strong movement towards the use of collaborative and facilitative courseware, and away from instructional software such as tutorial and drill programs. The newer, more holistic approaches appear to have considerable promise. However, in the absence of hard evidence for their effectiveness, it seems important to sound a note of caution. In other areas of education, a considerable weight of research has generally shown that tutorial and drill programs have a measurable effect on student learning, whereas holistic, enrichment programs add little or nothing to student achievement (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1985). CALL research may well show that the situation is quite different in the field of language learning. Whatever the eventual outcome, the current trend towards holistic, enrichment computer applications is a trend away from the greater part of the established CALL research base. This further reduces the ability of existing research findings to exert an influence on CALL practice.

In summary, the research base for CALL is disturbingly small. Even worse, there are serious obstacles which limit the relevance to the practitioner of much of the work that has been performed. Expanding the research base is a challenging but vitally important task. In the generally robust state of CALL, the lack of research is an ailment which, if untreated, may seriously damage our health.

REFERENCES

BANGERT-DROWNS, R. L., KULIK, J. A. and KULIK, C.-L. C. (1985) Effectiveness of computer-based education in secondary schools. Journal o f Computer-Based Instruction 12, 59-68. BORG, W. R. and GALL, M. D. (1983) Educational Research. White Plains, NY: Longman. CHAPELLE, C. and JAMIESON, J. (1986) Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly 20, 27-46. CRISWELL, E. L. and SWEZEY, R. W. (1984) Behavioral learning theory-based computer courseware evaluation. Educational Technology 24, 43-46. HAMMOND, A. L. (1972) Computer-assisted instruction: many efforts, mixed results. Science 176, 1005-1006.