Bridging the gap between ESL and EFL: Using computer assisted language learning as a medium

Dr. Saad Al-Hashash discusses how the use of computer assisted language learning can bridge the pereived gaps between English as a second and English as a foreign language.

1. INTRODUCTION

As Warschauer and Healey (1998) point out, computers have been used for language teaching since the 1960. However, the decision to integrate Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) into language study programs goes beyond simply purchasing equipments and software and making them available to instructors and students. Nevertheless, computers and the Internet are so widespread today that one feels outdated if not using them. The use of technology in EFL setting has to be taken as a natural development in the field and the EFL community should look at the advantages that CALL brings to their students, especially in bringing “life” to the EFL classroom. “Life” here means using the foreign language for real interaction, and learning it for communicative purposes. Using CALL in EFL setting allows for a combination of sound, graphics, text, and video to be presented in one programme, which facilitates efforts to teach all four language skills by computer. The advent of the Internet, however, expanded the use of computers as tools for information processing as well as for simple communication-either synchronous (e.g. chatting and conferencing) or asynchronous (e.g. email messages and bulletin boards). Synchronous communication is achieved through the use of such programs as Daedalus or CommonSpace, via local area networks (LANs), or with Internet-oriented programs such as Internet Relay Chat (IRC), MSN Messenger, PalTalk, and Freetel (Sullivan 1998; Warchauer and Healey 1998 and others). The main (out-of thumb) advantage of applying CALL in EFL setting is to establish the link between the EFL learners and their counterparts in English speaking countries, and put them in a close proficiency level. It’s my objective in this paper, however, to explore the possibilities that CALL may provide in bridging the gap between EFL and ESL classrooms with respect to their linguistic competence. The paper also aims to touch upon other possibilities that CALL may provide with respect to bridging the cultural gap between the two learners’ communities; as we know–as practitioners in the field–that learning a language is best to be taken in its cultural context. The statement of the problem, then, is how can we bridge this gap using CALL applications? Moreover, will the use of CALL application result in a significant change on the level of EFL learners and put them in a parallel position with their counterparts in ESL setting?

Learn English naturally without learning grammar. Learn English just as you learned your native language as a child. Learn anywhere, anytime you want on your mp3 player, computer, or car. This program will make you fluent in English. Click Here!

2. SIGNIFICANCE & OBJECTIVES

Many researchers (Schreck and Schreck 1991; Salaberry 2000; Ashworth 1996; and Klassen and Milton 1999) have investigated several aspects of using CALL applications and presented many advantages for using CALL in TESL setting (i.e. where English is taught as a second language). In this paper, I wish to illustrate how CALL applications would improve substantially the process of teaching English as a foreign language (i.e. where English is taught in countries that do not use English for communication outside the classroom, Saudi Arabia is an example). Therefore, this paper aims to achieve two main objectives: first, to investigate how CALL applications may contribute to bridging the gap between ESL and EFL setting. Practical examples of CALL programs are given, and the benefits of using such programs are discussed with reference to their theoretical linkage to Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Second, the paper aims to examine other possibilities that CALL applications may bring to enhance EFL curriculum, and allow for more involvement with the cultural aspects of the target language such as: time of exposure to the target language (English), real communicative tasks such as: email correspondence, chatting, e-learning, and life conversations, and other language learning services provided via the Internet. Thus, two main categories of CALL applications are discussed in the paper: CALL Interactive software & the Internet

3. BACKGROUND

Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is not a new development in language teaching, as it has been used since the 1960s. However, it still lacks research methods and a clear theoretical foundation (Chapelle 1997). So, it might be necessary to provide a brief background about the development of CALL and discuss the most recent questions regarding theory. The development of CALL can be divided into three distinct phases (Warschauer 1996): behaviourist, communicative & integrative.

Behaviourist CALL was implemented in the 1960′s and 70′s, when the Audio-lingual method was mostly used, and provided students with drills and practice. This model used the computer as a tutor, presenting drills and non-judgmental feedback.

Based on the communicative approach, communicative CALL focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves. The communicative CALL programmes provide skill practice in a non-drill format, through language games, reading and text reconstruction. This approach still uses the computer as a tutor, although it gives students choices, control and interaction. Another CALL model used for communicative activities involves the computer as stimulus, as in programmes that stimulate writing or discussions, and which may not be specifically designed for language learners. Finally, communicative CALL also uses the computer as a tool, in programmes that do not provide language material, but enable the learner to understand and use the language, such as word processors, desk-top publishing, spelling and grammar checks programmes, as used for instance in process writing.

The current approach is integrative CALL, which is based on multimedia computers and the Internet. These technological developments have brought text, graphics, sound, animation and video to be accessed on a single inexpensive computer. These resources are all linked and called “hypermedia”, enabling learners to navigate through CD-ROMS and the Internet at their own pace and path, using a variety of media.

CALL also can be defined as the computer-delivered combination of a large range of communications elements–text, sound, graphics, pictures, photographs, animation and moving video. Language learning is concerned with the development of communication skills and has traditionally and creatively exploited all these communications elements in its classroom context. Each media element has its own particular advantages in conveying particular kinds of messages and evoking particular kinds of learner responses. Essentially however, the ability of the single source, the computer, to combine, link and orchestrate all these communications elements means we have a multimedia message which may well be much greater than the sum of its individual parts. Communication and language use however is not of course a one-way process. Multimedia environments provide a further and more powerful dimension to communication when the control and manipulation of meaningful information is passed into the hands of the learner. The ability to interact with these communication elements via interactive CALL allows language learners to explore, discover, ponder, search, question, answer and receive feedback.

Electronic publishing either through the internet or through CD-ROMs is now a feature of every day modern life. Personal computers currently on sale all have a CD-ROM drive as standard. EFL publishers have been issuing products on CD-ROM since the early nineties. Language learning via multimedia is already with us. Also, the successor to CD-ROM, Digital Video Disc (DVD) is now available, with between 8 to 18 times the storage potential of CD-ROMs. The expansion of the capacity and the speed of the World Wide Web is certain to continue. It can deliver real-time audio and video, and can be accessible via Radio?? and will no doubt supersede CD-ROM. Another means of interactive delivery of multimedia is the digital TV and dedicated educational channels are one obvious use. The point is that the channels and means for the delivery of multimedia language learning are already with us and are set to expand. With this envisaged expansion of it seems vital that language educators have some understanding of the power of multimedia so as to be able to design, select, write and exploit such material in the most productive fashion. And with the advent of virtual realities!

There are societal pressures too, which may also lead to a greater reliance on multimedia materials in the future. The pressure to teach more learners, at a uniformly higher standard, more cheaply and with less staff, may lead some to turn to technology. A second is the rapid changes in the nature of the workplace to which individuals will be expected to adapt. Charles Handy (1998) has estimated that people will be expected to engage in “lifelong learning” that may involve recycling themselves up to six times during their careers. Multimedia may be expected to figure prominently in such recycling.

Finally, as language teachers we regularly use in our teaching all the media types that go to make up multimedia. These being written texts, pictures, sound, and video. Each of these delivers messages in a particular manner and can exemplify or elicit communicative language in its own particular way. What multimedia delivers, is the ability to juxtapose these essential language learning media, they can now exist within the same space as each other. The power and effectiveness of the adroitly aligned “multi” learning media should be greater than the sum of its individual parts. Most people seem to remember more efficiently what they experience rather than for example what they have just read. Memory is also associated with images, and multimedia provides opportunities to experience language in a variety of media, each of which can serve to reinforce the other. For example, sound, the moving pictures and the written words to the language are likely to provide a fuller type of language input that uses two of our sensory channels, eyes for video and text, ears for sound. Add to this ability to see and hear, an element of doing and participation, then we should have a powerful learning tool. Using such a tool the learner can be encouraged to see, hear, say, do and get feedback on the doing.

4. ESL VS. EFL

There have always been great misunderstandings, or no understandings, of what are the differences in the terms ESL (English as a Second Language) and EFL (English as a Foreign Language). In the broad sense, they are similar in as much that they both refer to an assimilation of the English language. But that is pretty much where the similarities stop and the differences emerge. Many teachers, and even distinguished university professors, have erroneously believed for decades that ESL and EFL are one and the same. In the late 1970′s and early 1980′s, when these two acronyms started becoming buzzwords, many educational instructors started to interlace the meanings of the two.

On more than a few occasions, publications were released that actually made specific reference to both of them within the same paragraph. Each was given the same meaning and no differences were made between them. Many years later, these same mistakes are being repeated. A recent look at internet job boards for teachers also reveals this misconception. The major difference between ESL and EFL is often explained as follows: ESL refers to studying English while in a geographic location (i.e. country or target) where English is the native language. EFL is studying English where which English is not the native language spoken.

However, this is a simplified dichotomy that doesn’t address a lot of variables. Some important factors that require consideration are curriculum development and independent language policies, in addition to official languages. For example, if a student is studying English in Quebec (an area of Canada that dominantly speaks French) is it a case of ESL or EFL? In this case it would be ESL. A region that isolates itself through language (Quebec) while being within a greater national body (Canada-native language is English) remains an ESL case. This scenario could be compared to some parts of Los Angeles, California where the Spanish language is widely spoken. Would an English learner in L.A. be considered an EFL student? Even though there could be strong cultural arguments in both cases, stating that the cultural fabric of each area is different from its host nation, both remain ESL cases as the enveloping regions are native English speaking countries. Technically these cases would be EBL situations. However, EBL (English as a Bilingual Language) is not widely adopted and is even less understood than EFL and ESL.

Another parallel issue is the student’s goal in acquiring the English language. ESL and EFL learners have different goals and reasons for learning the language. The ESL student typically learns English to function within an English speaking region. For example, the ESL student needs English to buy milk, bread, gas, orientation, services, and more. The EFL learner generally does not require English for daily functions. EFL students learn for academic reasons. Or often times they learn to increase their social status or marketability for prospective future endeavors.

Now this brings into question teachers, and whether a teacher is an EFL or ESL teacher. Obviously, there are major differences here. However, the above guidelines can be applied if the specific applicability in most cases is weighed. ESL vs. EFL is a match that results in a different winner depending on where and why the challenge occurs. They are not the same, and here where CALL can be implemented to bridge an existing gap between the two different realities.

5. BENEFITS OF USING CALL IN AN EFL SETTING (EFL AND CALL)

One of the most important reasons for learning a language must be to establish contact with human beings and their culture. It follows from this that to speak of “communicating” or “interacting” with a computer is, in terms of language learning at least, to speak metaphorically. In another sense (i.e. programming), communication with the computer is in effect a performative act (Halliday 1986). Masoud Yazdani (1986) has depicted the computer of the future as an ideal teaching machine, which will enable the learner to acquire a knowledge of a language without formal instruction.

Nevertheless, traditional EFL curriculum lacks the features of bringing real communicative tasks in the language classroom, and resulting in creating a real gap between ESL and EFL curriculum. CALL applications, in general, include a) those in which the learner and computer are directly involved in; and b) non-instructional applications in which the computer is used as a technical assistant for word processing, data management, or research into language learning or teaching (Kenning & Kenning 1983). Both applications carry the potential to improve learner and instructor control over the learning and teaching processes. The reasons outlined below, encapsulate what the likely significant advantages of CALL for language learning. They are derived in the main from the potential of the technology.

5.1 Promoting interactivity

A strength of computer-delivered materials is their ability to create a situation in which learners working alone or in groups can interact with the learning materials and reference materials. This interactivity puts the learning elements under learner control. This control allows learners as individuals to approach the material with their own agendas, and their own actions. Learners using interactive CALL materials are not or should not be passive, they should need to think about the language, engage with it and to respond to it. The active and involved learner is thought to be a better learner. Interactivity within a CALL environment can take a variety of forms, choosing the learning materials, using the references sources, checking comprehension of language input and reacting to feedback of one’s productive efforts. The interactivity of CALL should provide learners with such opportunities to check, clarify, and confirm their understanding. Here is a sample of CALL programs that can be used to promote interactivity.

5.2. Recognizing individual differences

All language learners are very different in terms of their needs, interests, strengths and weaknesses, motivations, learning styles etc. The ability of CALL to be used as a flexible self-study resource may be useful in accommodating these learner differences. Learners can focus on language areas in which they decide they need help in and ignore others. They can take as much time as they like and exploit which ever of the variety of media on offer they prefer to learn from. They can work at whatever pace they choose and use or not use any off-line media that they so wish. The vast repositories of CALL, make it more likely that material of topic interest to different learners will be available. Here is a sample list of such programs.

5.3. Promoting learner control

As with all self-study resources, the responsibility for many of the learning decisions during the use of CALL can be passed over to the learner. The decisions about what to study, when to study, how to study, how long to study for are all passed over to the person who ideally should control them, the learner. Multimedia with its wealth of material in different media and its in-built feedback makes it suitable for autonomous learning. Likewise, the almost instant ability (at least on CD-ROM) to access learning sequences or information should free up time for learning, rather than it being spent on finding the learning material. Good autonomous learners are thought to be among the better language learners and the development of autonomy in the learning process should benefit learners. Here is a sample list of such programs.

5.4. Non-threatening learning environment

Work completed individually in the computer environment is essentially a private affair. Any errors are usually known only to the learner. There is no public loss of face at errors on what teachers and classmates may presume to be elementary language or skills and assumed to be already mastered. The non-public domain of this form of learning may free learners to explore areas that they may not like to admit to not having understood. Such alleviation of pressure may well serve to “lower affective filters” (Krashen 1985) Skills and language work can be repeated endlessly until the person who matters–the learner–is satisfied with their own performance or degree of understanding.

5.5. Flexibility in usage

Multimedia can be used in a variety of ways within different learning situations. As mentioned above, use as a self-access resource is one of the most common and obvious. These materials can be linked into courses, syllabuses, assigned to learners for homework or as follow up activities to work undertaken classroom sessions. Multimedia reference materials can also be used by teachers to help in their lesson preparation, providing texts, sound, digital video, grammar or vocabulary exercises that can be used in class. The World Wide Web for example can also be used by learners as research materials for classroom presentations or as sources for materials and information for project work. Learners working together around a CALL PC can use the tasks, input, or information as a basis for group work, discussions and joint decision making. Lastly, the one-to one teacher with such CALL facilities can exploit general or EFL CD-ROMs as a basis or focus for parts of lessons.

5.6. Achieving efficiency

There are efficiencies in range of audience, learner time and in quantity of data. Multimedia software is more efficient for learners to access than other media or combinations of traditional EFL media once the software’s contents, navigation and is mastered. The large quantities of instantly accessible indexed data in real world CDs, for example encyclopedias should free time for learning rather than searching. There is also efficiency in features of individual pieces of software that combine learning materials and reference works (glossaries, grammar explanations, dictionaries).A sample list of such programs are given below.

5.7. Repeatability

The computer is a tireless workhorse unlike many of us teachers and software of all descriptions can be run endlessly. The interactive nature of CALL software and its ability to provide tasks, receive learner reactions to those tasks via keyboard or mouse and provide an evaluation to those responses can all be endlessly invoked. This is not the case for one-to-one teachers or for paper-based materials which need learner responses written in them. (see appendix A for a list of CALL programs).

5.8. Authenticity of materials

Ideally no language material for input or skills work need ever be invented for the purposes of language learning and only naturally occurring truly authentic language should be used (e.g. Sinclair 1990). Exploitation of real world CD-ROMs e.g. edutainment CDs such as Encarta (1996) or Encyclopedia Britannica or Time Almanac and of real-world web sites, lead learners to engage with such authentic language materials. In the same way that the language learning profession has embraced the use of other authentic materials TV, newspapers and radio there is every justification for exploiting general purpose CD-ROMs or Web sites.

5.9. In conformity with SLA

Another set or reasons to suppose that a CALL environment may give us added learning value can be derived from Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research and theory (Doughty 1991). To provide a brief insight into how ideas from SLA theory might overlap with CALL, several points are discussed in the following.

5.10. Achieving comprehension

Language input for SLA is essential and debate has centered on what type of input may best facilitate acquisition. Krashen (1985) with the Input Hypothesis put forward that comprehensible input “i + 1″ was the key to SLA. Researchers such as Hatch (1978) and Long (1985) became interested in the ways in which learners made input comprehensible in communicative settings. They found that conversational modifications between native and non-native speakers enabled the repair of misunderstandings and thus made the original non-comprehensible input, comprehensible. Discourse analyses of these types of interactions examined the kinds of interact ional moves which mended communication breakdown (e.g. Pica and Doughty 1986) and found strategies such as, requests for clarification, confirmation checks and comprehension checks seemed to promote comprehension. The proposal is that it is the interact ional modifications made upon raw input to make it comprehensible which serves to facilitate acquisition. More recently Pica (1994) has suggested the relationship of negotiation to language acquisition is slightly different, in that it is negotiation during interaction which affords access to language forms and that it is this access which then in turn leads to comprehension. The CALL language learning environment may provide the ideal facility with which both to provide language input and accompany this with a range of support features which can be used to assist comprehension. Learners can then use these as they wish to maximize and negotiate their understanding of the input. Doughty (1991:3) sums this up well:

The interactionests perspective on SLA provides a promising theoretical underpinning for research and development of IVD software for language learning. If language learning is seen as a regular and ongoing interaction between the learner’s mental abilities and the linguistic environment, each contributing to language acquisition and each influencing the other, then the interaction between learner and the auditory and visual environment created in the IVD context may be hypothesized as facilitative to the second language acquisition process. (1991: 3)

5.11. Promoting noticing

The ideas about “noticing” follow the work of Schmidt (1990) and Hulstijin (1990). Noticing is related to the nature of consciousness and the relationship between this and language learning. In a cognitivist explanation of language learning a key role is given to learners’ “attention” to particular linguistic features. The idea is that if learners notice a difference in the nature of the L2 input to which they are exposed and that of the language they are producing, then changes may occur in the learner’s interlanguage to reposition it in a form closer to that of the input. This attention may then result in L2 input becoming intake. A study by Schmidt and Frota (1986) of a learner’s diary, examined the relationship between what had been “noticed” in input and the language the learner used in their communicative situations. The relationship between the language which had been noticed and that which was produced was very evident. Thus Schmidt and Frota conclude, that by “noticing the gap” between the state of one’s current language knowledge and output, and then by consciously comparing this with what has been experienced in input, learners will make language gains.

5.12. Promoting motivation

Crokes and Schmidt (1991) propose that connections between motivation and second language learning need to be examined according to the following four levels: (1) at the micro level, so the relationships between motivation and the cognitive and metacognitive processing of second language stimuli; (2) at the classroom level, where learning tasks and activities may increase or decrease motivation; (3) at the level of syllabus, where decisions about the content of the learning experience may influence motivation and; (4) out-of-class long-term factors (1991: 483).

At the micro level of motivation CALL may motivate learners to attend to the input through its use of combined media. This amalgamated use of video, supported by subtitles with instantly accessible definitions of language items and through on-line tasks with synchronous feedback may all collectively, or individually motivate learners to attend. The attraction of moving, interactive, full colour input may be more a motivating proposition than the language laboratory. Video may add interest and increase comprehension, on-line tasks may provide motivational goals for attention. It is hypothesized that such an environment and these learning support features may motivate learners to attend to the input more than other learning tools, because such learning supports may make the input more comprehensible and accessible. These learning supports may also motivate learners to “notice” and consequently understand features of the input. Also at the micro level, learners’ motivation to deploy useful learning strategies might be beneficial to acquisition. The features of the CALL-delivered may well provide the forum for supporting, encouraging or motivating the use of metacognitive strategies such as “monitoring” and being able to evaluate their own performance. Directed attention may be encouraged through the meaning-focused tasks and their feedback. Whether in the CALL environment such metacognitive strategies can be used more easily or whether it is the CALL environment that motivates the use of these strategies is an interesting question.

5.13. Student centered and self-access

The final theoretical area which underpins CALL is that of autonomous and self-instructed language learning. Multimedia-delivered language learning environments are primarily designed to be used by learners studying alone. They can deliver authentic input, provide meaningful language learning tasks, deliver feedback on those tasks and can be manipulated according to the learning agenda of the user. Therefore they may have great potential in facilitating autonomous language learning. Autonomous language learning refers to situations in which “learners become self-directed (i.e. are able to determine their own learning objectives, choose their own ways of achieving these, and evaluate their own progress)” (Ellis 1994: 516). The aim is to hand the responsibility for learning over to the learner. There are five reasons put forward by Dickinson for self-instruction in language learning. The first concerns the practical reasons that learners might have in attending classes. A second set of reasons concerns the individual differences that have been shown to exist among language learners. There are differences between learners as to their learning styles, in aptitudes to language learning, in goals for language learning, in motivation, and in preferred learning strategies. The third reason for interest in self-instructional mode concerns wider educational aims. In particular it can help with society’s need for “life-long learning” and with continuing education. It may also encourage the use of learning strategies which have been found (Naiman 1978) to characterize “good” language learners. A fourth reason put forward by Dickinson is concerned with the motivational advantages of self-study, supported by some research e.g.; Bachman’s (1964) and Gardner, Ginsberg and Smythe (1976).

6. INTERACTIVE CALL SOFTWARE: FEATURES & EVALUATION

First, it must be remembered that “the use of the computer does not constitute a method. Rather, it is a medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (Garret, cited by Warschauer 1996).

Secondly, as Integrative CALL is still a very recent development, its research methods and theoretical foundations are under intense debate among researchers (Chapelle 1997; Salaberry 1999). Therefore, until more studies confirm the advantages of Integrative CALL and clearer guidelines for teachers are published, we need to analyse it carefully in the light of our experience and the results we obtain.

Chapelle (1997) proposes two basic questions to guide the evaluation of CALL activities, and which can be useful in our practice. They are:

* What kind of language does the learner engage in during a CALL activity?

* How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning?

Both questions are complex and a reliable answer to these would involve discourse analysis, which is not the field of teachers. However, they show us some aspects we need to consider.

In some CD-ROM programs and Internet activities, what learners do most is click the mouse, or engage in other activities in which very little language is produced. And when there is language production, does it promote learners dual concern for communicating meaning using suitable form? Does it elicit repetition or expansion of previous language?

We also need to consider the question of input. How can we control input and provide optimal comprehensible input in CALL activities and on the Internet?

Fox (1998) suggests attention to three basic elements in successful Internet activities: integration in the course, e.g. a pen-pal project alongside a writing course; development of computer competence by teachers and students alike; and active teacher involvement in guiding and supporting students to avoid frustration.

Warschauer (1997) proposes five guidelines to help teachers implement computer network-based activities into the second language classroom. They are general guidelines that can also be used in an EFL context:

1. “Consider carefully your goals”: It must be clear to the teacher why this tool would be more successful than a traditional one. Reasons for using the Internet range from increased motivation to learning computer skills, but we should not ask students to do something on the computer that a book could do just as well.

2. “Think integration”: Simply asking students to have a computer pen pal will not ensure a significant educational outcome. Teachers must be more involved in the activities and integrate them into the overall design and goals of the course.

3. “Don’t underestimate the complexity”: A number of students may lack basic prerequisites for using the Internet, and it might be very time consuming to train these students. Apart from this, technical practicalities such as having computers available, hardware and software malfunction and excessively long waiting time to access web pages may all hinder the use of the Internet in class.

4. “Provide necessary support”: We should not stop trying to use the Internet due to the problems we mentioned above, but provide support in the form of hand-outs, training sessions, set up simple log-on procedures, encourage students to work in pairs or groups and help each other, and being available to help students when they are carrying out their Internet tasks.

5. “Involve students in decisions”: Because of the complexities and difficulties mentioned, the teacher must be aware of the impact of these activities, consulting them through class discussions and surveys. This does not mean a passive role for the teacher, who should co-ordinate activities, focus students’ attention on linguistic aspects of texts and assist students in developing learning strategies.

Concluding, although we certainly do not think technology should take over the language classroom, we believe CALL and the Internet show great potential for use in EFL. Therefore, we ought to endeavour to make informed choices about how such activities can be successfully integrated into our teaching, being open to analysing the results of such experiments

6.1 Computerizing EFL writing

Fifteen or so years ago, the vast majority of written work produced by EFL or ESL students was handwritten; only in very high-level Academic English courses was it normal to expect students to hand in type-written work. The increasing ubiquity of the computer in educational environments, along with the growth in sophistication and ease-of-use of word-processing packages, has changed the situation dramatically, however, and students at many levels and in many types of courses are now encouraged to hand in word-processed work. Indeed, many of us now teach word-processing skills as part of ESL and EFL courses, and the word-processor is beginning to be exploited as an effective tool in developing writing skills. Here are some programs that deal with this issue. Also, Microsoft Word includes a range of tools for sharing, annotating and revising a document. These allow multiple readers to add their own distinct annotations and to highlight text in a range of colors. Where it is practical for a whole class to standardize on one word-processing package, using these tools (which are intended for the office environment) would seem to be a viable alternative, and would eliminate the need to use Rich Text Format as a document standard. This would also allow students to work together on writing projects. Here are some examples of some programs in English:

7. EFL & THE INTERNET

There are many advantages in using the Internet, as seen in Fox (1998), Singhal (1997) and Warschauer (1997). First, taking part in the Internet is intrinsically motivating for students, since they see it as a trendy and useful tool, enabling them to be connected with the world. As English is the main language in the Internet, learners begin to appreciate the usefulness in learning the language. Using the Internet also gives students control over their learning, enabling them to go at their own pace and choose their paths according to their individual needs, which may also be motivating. It helps in promoting learner independence and the development of learning strategies, provided that learners receive appropriate guidance.

Secondly, the World Wide Web (WWW) give students instant access to a wide range of authentic material, from newspaper and magazine articles to radio broadcasts and informal chat-rooms, and also to material prepared specially for learners, such as grammar, pronunciation and vocabulary exercises and tests. Apart from retrieving information from the Internet, learners can also create their own materials, such as projects, and share them with partner classes or with the general public. This possibility also adds a great deal of interest, as learners communicate with a real audience.

Thirdly, the Internet allows learners to participate in the culture of the target language and to see real language in context, away from course books and the classroom. Because the internet is primarily text driven, it appeals to shy students, giving them time to think and participate in exchanges in a chat room, e-mail or class conferencing. Another positive outcome of Internet use (reported by Singhal 1997, Fox 1998) is improved reading and writing skills. Furthermore, because language used on the Internet tends to be lexically and syntactically more complex than oral discourse, students may gain a broader range of English. Communication with native speakers forces students to practice specific skills such as negotiating, persuading, clarifying meaning, and requesting information. Further benefits of using the Internet in the EFL classroom are discussed in the following.

7.1. Digitizing EFL instruction

What can be digitized and what can not? Text, pictures, voice, and video can all be digitized. Text can be typed in, pictures can be scanned in, and voice and video can be recorded digitally. But this is not all. Interactive conversations can be digitized. Interactive environments, for instance, a classroom, a train station, or a business meeting can be digitized. Since English instruction consists primarily of text, pictures, voice, video, conversation, and interactive environments, English instruction can be almost fully digitized. If a student writes a digitized document and gives to the teacher to correct, the teacher can add notes to the document just as he/she can to a regular paper document. The difference is that the student can then click on the digitized notes, e.g. “use present perfect here” which takes him to an interactive, multimedia lesson teaching him about the present perfect tense and when to use it. Connected to this is a grammar chat room with students and tutors who discuss and answer questions about grammar. The student learns what he needs to know when he needs to know it.

7.2. EFL teacher & the internet

The function of a English teacher in general is to communicate to students the concepts and skills necessary to function well in situations which involve reading, writing, speaking, listening, and social skills. And with the exponentially increasing speed at which bits can be pumped through the rapidly multiplying fiber optic cables and satellites of the Internet, more and more English students world-wide will be able to interact with language teaching videos and virtual worlds which will bring them to a relatively high level of proficiency, especially since other people will be running around through these virtual worlds as well, talking to each other, getting help from each other, and practicing language functions in contextual situations. These services will be paid for through advertising–students will learn the phrase “I would like a Coke, please” because Coca Cola sponsors the program. This means that high quality computer language instruction will be free for anyone who has a fast enough Internet connection. The following are some suggestions for English teachers in order to prepare themselves for the digital age (ranked in order of importance):

1. Get access to a computer with an Internet connection.

2. Learn how to search for information on the World Wide Web.

3. Learn how to send and receive E-Mail.

4. Learn how to join and participate in news groups, and find colleagues with similar interests.

5. Learn how to attach documents and other files to E-Mail.

6. Learn how to create, publish, and update a home page.

7. Learn how to type with both hands without looking at the keyboard.

Despite the advantages just mentioned, there are a number of disadvantages or obstacles we need to consider. First, technical and financial problems, such as long waiting time to access information and costs related to the acquisition of computers, programmes, training, telephone lines and other expenses. Lack of training and familiarity with computers and the Internet (on the part of both learners and teachers) can lead to frustration, instead of offering a motivating learning experience. The enormous quantity of information found on the Internet can also be a disadvantage. First, it may be difficult for students to focus on what they want to do, with so many possibilities to sidetrack. Secondly, a lot of the material on the net is unsuitable for children and young learners, and it is virtually impossible to bar them from accessing it.

Finally, we have to address a problem that is not intrinsic to CALL and the Internet, but to how teachers use these resources. As Warschauer (1997) recommends, “in order to make effective use of new technologies, teachers must thus take a step back and focus on some basic pedagogical requirements”.

8. CONCLUSIONS

This paper aimed to illustrate the potential role that CALL programs and the Internet can play in bridging the gap between ESL and EFL. Two main topics were investigated: first, analyzing CALL application in light of their theoretical framework and how they appeal to the pedagogical approaches in second language learning. Comprehensive review of their proposed advantages in EFL setting was illustrated. Second, a detailed analysis of the possibilities that CALL applications may bring to enhance EFL curriculum was given. It is obvious that CALL and the Internet allow for more involvement with the cultural aspects of the target language such as: time of exposure to the target language (English), real communicative tasks such as: email correspondence, chatting, e-learning, and life conversations, and other countless language learning services provided via the Internet. Several examples of CALL interactive software and the internet applications were analyzed with respect to the advantages they bring to the EFL setting.

The majority of CALL programs available; however, provided the opportunity to: (a) follow a specific theoretical model of Second Language Acquisition (SLA), (b) record students’ behaviors while they are reading on-line, and (c) offer the requisite cultural background necessary to understand the text–re, a unique perspective for EFL as students lack contact with the L2 culture. Further, in order to be accessible to beginning EFL learners, the text had to include extensive annotations, which, if found on the printed page, might interfere with the flow of “natural” reading. Computerized annotations can be hidden from the view of readers until needed. This type of hyper-textual reading may offer students a greater variety of glosses than could be presented in the print version, due to the computer’s ability to hide and reveal information at the request of the individual reader. It remains to be seen whether this type of glossing will allow learners to process and store textual information more efficiently and whether the software will help activate appropriate text processing strategies. A recent study by Chun and Plass (1996), as well as a doctoral study by Karp (personal communication, 1988), make use of tracking data and may offer partial answers to these and other questions.

Clearly, new approaches and new materials are needed to equip the global electronic EFL instruction of the second millennium. Great hope has been placed on the Internet and computers in general as providers of authentic materials and as mediators of unfamiliar cultural and linguistic materials. Certainly the cost of individualizing instruction and of integrating computers into the curriculum should be considered along with the short- and long-term influence of computer use on learning (see Woolfolk 1990). We now have enough computers in educational settings to determine how, under what conditions, and to what degree computers can affect student learning (Bozeman & House 1988). Although some believe that comparing computer-based learning with traditional learning is similar to comparing apples and golf balls, the need for accountability is great (Pogrow 1988).

Technology is called upon to play an important role in this restructured EFL instruction, particularly in the area of “authentic performance assessment in foreign language education” (Nielson & Hoffman 1996). Foreign language reading in particular has been an area thought to be well suited to technological applications (Blake 1992). Increasingly, second language researchers and computer scientists are recognizing the value of hyper-textual glosses and electronic reading which lead the reader to a contextualized interpretation of an authentic text (see Landow 1990). Glosses relating to culturally “dense” readings provide insights about specific texts and cultures, which individual language teachers may not be able to provide, thus bridging the gap between language and literature and between the reader and the text. Meanwhile, with the emergence of E-Books and other modern approaches, faculty will have to enter into alliances with colleagues in other disciplines to create more sophisticated and appropriate approaches to electronic reading. It is suggested that CALL applications can be particularly effective at facilitating the intake of grammatical structures that normally have little communicative value in input. It is important to note that although ample empirical evidence supports the assumptions that underlie the design of the prototype application sketched here, its validity and reliability still require verification. It is hoped that CALL application designers will continue to explore ways of incorporating these assumptions into grammar oriented applications. More important, developers should consider a variety of learning theory principles in the design of their CALL applications which will ultimately lead to a sounder foreign language curriculum in general. Also, the future of English instruction is supposed to have a set of different features that CALL has allowed.

Finally, EFL teachers should accustom themselves to the new digital invornment which allows for many options were never available in the past. Publishing an article on English teaching, for example, is now a matter of clicking your mouse button, and your readers are able to respond to and discuss your article immediately. Universities offer full English courses online. Class texts are available via download, class lectures available via streaming audio and video, students and teachers interact via E-Mail and online teleconferences. For an example of such a multimedia class, visit the HCCS Technology Center in Houston atPush technology software provides the ability to have an up-to-date custom, interactive news source right from your desktop which send you English teaching news only on the subjects you want. You simply enter your interests one time and the software will roam the web for you sending you articles which are of interest to you. For an example of push technology, check outAnybody with a credit card and an Internet connection will be able to choose from numerous online English tutors and get instant instruction or help via video conference. You can visit a virtual New York today atThe World Wide Web is currently doubling itself every four months and getting faster. This is going to have a tremendous impact on the way we teach English. Prepare yourself for this by developing skills today which will improve your English teaching in the digital age.

REFERENCES

Ashworth, D. 1996. Hypermedia and CALL. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The Power of CALL (pp. 79-95). Houston, TX: Athelstan Publishers.

Blake, R. J. 1992. Second language reading on the computer. ADFL Bulletin, 24/1, 17-22.

Chapelle, C. 1997. CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning and Technology, 1/1, 19-43.

Chun, D. & Plass, J. 1996. Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198.

Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fox, G. 1998. The internet: Making it work in the ESL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal, 4/9.

Halliday, J. 1986. A sense of perspective: CALL for Russian. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer and Modern Language Studies. Ellis Horwood Publications.

Kenning, M. J. & Kenning, M. M. 1983. An Introduction to Computer Assisted Language Learning. Oxford University Press.

Klassen, J. & Milton, P. 1999. Enhancing English language skills using multimedia: Tried and tested. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12/4, 281-294.

Krashen, Stephen. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman Press.

Landow, G. 1990. Changing texts, changing readers: Hypertext in literary education, criticism, and pedagogy. In B. Hendricksen & T. Morgan (Eds.), Reorientation: Critical Theories and Pedagogies (pp. 133-164). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Nielson, M. & Hoffman, E. 1996. Technology, reform, and foreign language standards: A vision for change. In Robert Lafayette (Ed.), National Standards: A Catalyst for Reform (pp. 119-137). Lincolnwood, Il: National Textbook Company.

Noblitt, J. S. & Bland, S. K. 1991. Tracking the learner in computer-aided language learning. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom (pp. 120-132). Boston: D. C. Heath.

Pogrow, S. 1988. The computer movement cover-up. Electronic Learning, 7/7, 67, 566.

Porto, B. 1998 The internet, e-mails and foreign language teaching. ELT News & Views, Supplement, 5/1, 11-15.

Renner, C. E. 1998. Learning to surf the net in the EFL classroom. ELT News & Views, Supplement, 5/1, 11-15.

Salaberry, R. 2000. Application of technology in second language teaching: A retrospective. Modern Language Journal, 85/1.

–. 1999. CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda. Language Learning and Technology, 3/1, 104-107.

Schreck, R. & Schreck, J. 1991. Computer assisted language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language pp. 473-486).

Singhal, M. 1997. The internet and foreign language education: Benefits and challenges. The Internet TESL Journal, 3/6.

Skinner, B. & Austin, R. 1999. Computer conferencing–does it motivate EFL students? ELT Journal, 53/4, 270-279.

Sullivan, N. 1998. Developing critical reading and writing skills: Empowering minority students in a networked computer classroom. In J. Swaggar, S. Romano, P. Markley, & K. Arens (Eds.), Language Learning Online: Theory and Practice in the ESL and L2 Computer Classroom (pp. 41-55). Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.

Warschauer, M. 1996. Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia Language Teaching (pp.3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.

–. 1997. The internet for English teaching: Guidelines for teachers. TESL Reporter, 30/1, 27-33.

–., Shetzer, H. & Meloni, C. 2000. The internet for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

–. & Healey, D. 1998. Computer and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

Woolfolk, A. E. 1990. Educational Psychology. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Yazdani, M. 1986. The ideal teaching machine. In K. Camron (Eds.), Computer and Modern Language Studies. Ellis Horwood Publishers.

About the author

DR. SAAD AL-HASHASH, KING SAUD UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF LANGUAGES AND TRANSLATION