0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
60 tayangan3 halaman
A lack of guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has meant that authors have no reliable conceptual framework. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their work. The absence of 'a standard for the industry', a 'generally agreed set of criteria', or 'guiding principles' is noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1)
A lack of guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has meant that authors have no reliable conceptual framework. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their work. The absence of 'a standard for the industry', a 'generally agreed set of criteria', or 'guiding principles' is noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1)
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
A lack of guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has meant that authors have no reliable conceptual framework. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their work. The absence of 'a standard for the industry', a 'generally agreed set of criteria', or 'guiding principles' is noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1)
Hak Cipta:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Format Tersedia
Unduh sebagai PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd
Although many of these criticisms may well be justified, a lack of
guidelines or standards for the current generation of CALL materials has meant that CALL authors, be they language teachers or otherwise, have no reliable conceptual framework, or yardstick by which to measure their work (Smith 1988: 5; Last 1989: 35). Emerging most strongly in a review of the literature on CALL materials is the lack of a generally accepted theoretical framework that authors can use to guide their work. The absence of ‘a standard for the industry’, a ‘generally agreed set of criteria for the present generation of CALL’, or ‘guiding principles’ is noted by Smith (1988: 3), Last (1989: 35), and Ng and Olivier (1987: 1). It appears that a clear, general theoretical framework has not emerged for a number of reasons. There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that materials developers fall into two broad bands in their approach to their work. As early as 1977, for example, in computer-assisted learning Kemmis et al. (1977: 391) observed that many developers rely on their intuition as teachers rather than on research on learning. He referred to development being practitioner-led, not research-based. A similar division is noticeable in the field of artificial intelligence, where Ginsberg (1988) maintains that the field is divided between those who are primarily interested in solving problems by formulating theory (formalists), and those who prefer to solve problems by writing programs (proceduralists). A perception of this division has remained and more recently in 1995 it was reiterated in slightly different terms at two CALL Conferences. First, in a keynote address at the EURO CALL Conference in Valencia, McCarty spoke of the path of engineering versus the path of science in CALL (McCarty 1993, 1995), and secondly, at the CALL Conference in Exeter, Sussex, quite independently, contrasted Engineering CALL with Empirical CALL (Sussex 1995). Such divisions are worthy of further investigation and reflection. Where theory has been used as a point of departure, theoretical sources that have been proposed and used have been diverse, not surprisingly perhaps given the range of CALL activities and the evolving nature of the field. Theories emanating from psychology, especially cognitive psychology and Second Language Acquisition (SLA), are a frequent point of departure (Schneider and Bennion 1984; Doughty. 1991; Liou 1994). The theories utilized from psychology are usually drawn from a restricted set thought to be amenable to the CALL context generally. For instance, Doughty (1991) limits her focus to comprehension-based models of SLA because of their suitability for the CALL environment. Other theoretical bases include theories of language (e.g. Demaiziere 1991; Catt 1991) and theories of instruction (England 1989; Lawrason 1988/9). In addition, integrated frameworks have been proposed, such as Hubbard (1992, 1996), or Mitterer et al. (1990: 136) who suggest an integrated framework using theories from instructional design, language teaching, language learning, and knowledge of the applicability of the technology. Integrated frameworks recognize the multifaceted nature of CALL materials development. There is also some evidence to suggest that a number of CALL projects have not been driven directly by theory as such. Although some projects clearly begin with a theoretical orientation, others begin at a lower level of abstraction more immediately determined by conditions governing actual practice and problems arising directly from it. CALL projects of this type as they are described by their authors in the literature include vocational language programs which begin with addressing student needs (Keith and Lafford 1989), KanjiCard which uses a specific language problem as a point of departure (Nakajima 1988, 1990) and CLEF, where developing grammar skills is the goal (Paramskas 1989, 1995). In all, it is clear there are a number of possible theoretical points of departure in CALL, either utilizing a single theory or a mix of theoretical perspectives. It also seems apparent that some CALL projects do not begin with a theory at all, reflecting the comment by Kemmis and his colleagues about work that is practitioner-led as opposed to research- based (Kemmis et al. 1977). To help resolve this issue further, we need to have a clearer idea of what CALL authors actually do when they go about designing CALL materials. Little is known about the conceptual frameworks and working methods of CALL authors at present. Sussex (1991: 26) stresses the importance of investigating the processes of CALL materials production and says: At the present time rather little work has been done on the question of how teachers become CAL authors: how they objectify their knowledge do- mains, learning, and teaching; how they conceptualize learning materials and learning modes for transfer to the CAL medium; how they achieve this transfer; how the existence and use of CAL media influence theories of CAL, and vice versa. By carefully" reviewing what has already been done, and by exploring the ways in which CALL is conceptualized, a clearer understanding of theory and practice will emerge. This book attempts to address these areas of concern, not by providing definitive answers, but by shedding light on the nature of the problems. Such a description has the potential to improve our understanding of: • the scope of CALL and prominent areas of focus within it; • the theoretical sources and conceptual frameworks of CALL authors; • the possible weaknesses or gaps between theory and practice.