Reflection: definitions of CALL

I enjoyed reading both articles of the overview and various definitions of CALL. Egbert (2005) has nicely connected the definitions of CALL, TESOL standard, the guidelines of using technology, and the National Educational Technology Standards. The author also points out the the four key principles of CALL. The central argument of this book chapter is that the focus of CALL should be on language learning and not on technology. The effective and efficient use of technology then will facilitate both learning and teaching. Kern & Warschauer (2005) offer a good overview of the development of CALL. The authors review the shift in perspectives and theories and practices in CALL and the results of paradigm shift and their influences on the use of technology. The structural, cognitive/constructivist, and sociocultural perspectives all serve as significant frameworks for the use and development of technology in various stages of language learning. The authors also offer examples of different computer software and computer use to demonstrate the changing nature of technology in language learning and teaching.


I was particularly impressed by NBLT article by Kern & Warschauer(2005). I am familiar with the shifting perspectives in learning (structural, constructivist /cognitive and sociocultural) and it is very nice to learn more about how the field of CALL is also influenced by the paradigm shifts. However, after reading the articles I have a few questions and comments. First of all, just as Kern & Warschauer (2005) and Egbert point out, it is impossible to provide a definition which would cover the essential principles and most researchers would agree on. However, I was wondering that it might not be very productive in terms of teaching and researching since so many different abbreviations and terms are all used to refer to similar phenomenon in language education. In response to the Egbert article, although I appreciate his effort to connect the principles of CALL and various instructional standards, I feel some of the eight conditions of classroom language learning appear to be too general. For example, the definition of authentic tasks is still unclear. In addition, I don't think a learning task which learners may not use ourside of classroom or may not parallels real functions beyond the classroom is without value. After all, a language classroom is an environment created for maximum learning and not simple exposure to target languages. In general, I appreciated the point that all the authors make in the theory and practice of CALL which emphasizes communication and learning VIA technology. Technology is the facilitator in the language classroom and should not be the replacement of teachers. I also agree with the the sociocultural perspective of learning. A well-structured technology-mediated environment has much to offer since our students probably often feel more comfortable than teachers. The Time magazine article seems to be a good connection and bridge to our reading for this week. How we can create a true 21 century classroom so it will match our students' and even our very own lived experience can be quite a challenge.