CALL (Call Assisted Language Learning): CALL related to literature 1

1.The Foreign Language Teacher As Course-ware Author

David Weible, Ph. D.

Abstract:
This article discusses possible reasons for Foreign Language Departments to enter the CAI field. A general discussion of courseware and courseware requirements is followed by a summary of the problems faced by the courseware publisher. Some suggestions for involvement in CAI are offered to the teacher, and some possible benefits are also offered. The general tenor of the article suggests strongly that FL teachers get involved with CAI and suggest that many such teachers could produce or assist in producing quality CAI materials, even though they at present have not touched a computer.

Even though school budgets everywhere are strapped for funds, in many districts money seems to be available for computers. Generally, these computers are purchased with the somewhat nebulous goal of making the students "computer literate." As a secondary issue it is often noted that a booming new industry is developing to provide instructional software (courseware) at all levels of education. The courseware is, however, generally oriented towards mathematics, the natural sciences, and English language skills. As yet there is not very much available for foreign language instruction. In part this is due to reduced enrollments in foreign languages. In addition, administrators frequently seem to assume that no one in the foreign language department will be particularly interested in using a computer, or worse still, they feel the use of this limited resource should be reserved for "more important" subjects. Thus, the failure of foreign language departments to get involved on their own in the use of this new medium may, however unjustly, reinforce the view of foreign language study held by some educators as a peripheral area, a "soft" discipline, a frill. For their part, department chairmen may therefore be eager to push for the use of computers in language instruction merely to avoid the appearance of being behind the times, even if they have no clear notion of what computers can and cannot do for them.

A more sensible reason for the adoption of computers by foreign language departments is the reasonable hope that they may in fact provide significant aid to our instructional efforts. Such aid might come in various ways. Their very presence in a program might attract student interest. The interactivity of properly designed software could serve in to improve student learning generally and prove particularly helpful with the review needs of slower students. In fact, the whole concept of individualized instruction might enjoy a revival because of the computer's potential for providing tutorial instruction and its proven ability to facilitate detailed record keeping.

Courseware Considerations

Before we can consider using computers in foreign language instruction, we must have suitable courseware available for the particular model in use at out institution. Where is this supposed to come from? Can we count on commercial developers, either the traditional textbook publishers or new specialized courseware publishing houses? Or will programming continue to be primarily a "cottage industry," employing the talents of amateur enthusiasts of widely varying backgrounds and abilities, with much duplication of effort? Paradoxically, it is in the early stages in the use of a new medium such as this that high quality material is most needed and least likely to be available. Our students may seem to have deficiencies in other areas, but increasing numbers of them are becoming highly experienced in the use of computers, even if only as game players. Therefore, at the very least, they will expect a program to function smoothly and provide a degree of interactivity. Soon they may well expect more sophisticated elements such as graphics, color, animation, sound, etc. At the same time, if skeptical colleagues are to be won over, the courseware must clearly aid in the learning of the language. There will have to be an unmistakable improvement in student

performance resulting from the use of the program.

A substantial body of software is already available for the most popular moderately priced microcomputers, and much of it is excellent. Why should we not expect soon to have foreign language instructional programs of comparable quality from commercial publishers? First, we must bear in mind that, with the exception of computer games, the bulk of these programs are fairly straightforward data processing packages, either spreadsheets (computerized "scratch pads") or word processors. The programmers who developed these office utility programs for microcomputers could draw on the models of mainframe- and minicomputer-based software which had already gone through extensive testing and development over a relatively long period of time.

For some time, too, there have been in existence quite a number of foreign language CAI programs running on mainframes and minis, but their use has not been nearly as wide-spread as that of the various office utility program, nor have they been subjected to the same amount of critical review. What is more, the intended function of CAI programs is a far more complicated one than that of utility programs. There is a wide range of possible instructional methodologies to suit various classroom situations and pedagogical goals. Adapting as many of these as possible to us on a computer represents a considerable challenge. Also word processors and spreadsheet programs are essentially "intelligent" replacements for paper and pencil. There is no particular reason for them to employ sound effects, color, music or animation, all of which an, however, be used to good effect in an instructional program.

Taking all of these considerations into account, it comes as no surprise that the currently available foreign language microcomputer courseware is meager in quantity and generally unimpressive in quality.

Courseware Publishing

There is hope that commercial publishers will meet our need for more and better programs. To date, however, they have done next to nothing, but that is not surprising as the market is quite a new one. The market is also extremely unsettled in that there are a number of different models of computers commonly in us around the country, and most publishers have been holding off from entering the market, hoping for a particular model to establish clerarcut pre-eminence. This has not as yet happened, nor is it very likely to happen. This means that the publishers either will have to line up behind one model or another, or they will have to be prepared to spend additional money creating alternate versions of the courseware. The latter approach has been adopted by the publishers of office utility software, but as already noted, these seldom make use of a computer's graphics capabilities. In general, it is in the area of graphics that the greatest incompatibility between computer exists. If the courseware is to make the most of a given model's capabilities, the effort involved in translating the resulting program for effective use on another model will be all the greater.

Already it is clear that commercial publishers are faced with a rather unattractive prospect, but there are still more difficulties to be confronted. There is no methodological expertise in this area on whish the publishers may draw. Certainly the established textbook authors, on the whole, don't know much about computer assisted instruction. Perhaps the publishers will establish special divisions to aid in the development of courseware, but unless these divisions are staffed with people with considerable foreign language teaching experience, there is a danger that they will produce materials whish may be attractive and intelligently conceived but nonetheless inappropriate to the needs of the classroom.

The Teacher Problem

An additional source of frustration for the commercial publishers is their great uncertainty as to just what is wanted by the classroom language teacher. Most teachers take a rather proprietary view of their classroom and their students. They resent any intrusions into their domain. Often they find the textbook they are "stuck with" irritating enough, but they regard it as a necessary evil. Ancillary materials such as audio tape and computer programs are "unnecessary evil" and can be easily ignored. Publishers have been willing to produce audio tapes in the past because the presence of such a program is a marketing plus and the production cost is modest. Doubtless the presence of a computer component in a textbook package would also be a marketing plus, although only or potential customers already possessing the right computers, but the production cost will be much greater. If the computer component does not demonstrate a very high level of user friendliness, bearing in mind that "users" are teachers as well as students, it will most likely only serve as a dust catcher.

Due to the smallness of the foreign language market, it will not be at all surprising if the textbook publishers continue to delay their entrance into CAI. Specialized courseware publishing houses and independent authors, on the other hand, have already begun to offer some programs, but their rate of appearance has been slow, the choice and treatment of topics haphazard, and the quality quite uneven. Some sort of central organization, such as CALIO, may be of great help in overcoming these drawbacks; at least, this is our hope for the future.

A Goal for Teachers

At present, it would be a great help if ways could be found to get more foreign language teachers interested in trying their hand at instructional programming. There are many similarities between the activities of the programmer and of the teacher. Both are concerned with giving structured directions to a "learner," with the goal of producing a desired alteration in the learner's "behavior." Foreign language teachers are accustomed to breaking down learning tasks into component steps, and that is also one of the central concerns of a computer programmer. They also have a facility for learning other languages, and insofar as it may be analyzed in terms of grammar, syntax, morphology and vocabulary, a computer language is not so very different from a natural one. Most importantly, teachers are subject matter experts (SMEs), and the knowledge they have of the learner's characteristic difficulties and their causes is a critical contribution to any effective courseware package. The instructional strategies and techniques which they have developed for dealing with these problem areas may in many instances be capable of being translated into a computer program, thus permitting a talented teacher's approach to a given problem to become available to students all over the country.

But it cannot be denied that the successful translation of classroom experiences and approaches to use on a computer is not a trivial or obvious procedure—doing it properly takes new knowledge, imagination, and time—lots and lots of time. If instead of BASIC, a CAI-oriented authoring system much as PILOT, PASS, or PROF if used, as these make the programming and debugging of tutorial type lessons a lot simpler, much time could be saved and better

programs produced.

There are, of course, a number of pitfalls. When dealing with computers, one can never afford to disregard the GIGO principle: garbage in, garbage out. By now, probably everyone in the country can relate a "computer error" horror story from his or her own experience. The vast majority of these are not really computer errors at all, but human, specifically programmer errors. Computers are TOMs (totally obedient morons), and will faithfully execute any properly given instruction, no matter how foolish or undesirable the result. If professional programmers can and do occasionally produce howlers, can we reasonably expect inexperienced amateurs to avoid them? Of course, not! But classroom teachers have a great advantage over most programmers. They will be closely monitoring the users' interaction with the program and thus be quickly informed of any garbage coming out. Once teacher have a sufficiently clear notion of just what it is that they wish to do with the computer, students who have some programming ability can be drafted to help write the actual program, thereby both saving work and raising the level of student involvement in the learning process.

Teacher Benefits

Still, teachers must not become too remote from the actual programming effort lest they miss out on two fringe benefits: the security which comes from hands-on experience, and the challenge of teaching a totally obedient moron! It may be that the first of these "fringe" benefits is essential if the computer is truly to play a significant role in foreign language education. It was the sense of discomfort with an antipathy towards technology on the part of many teachers which limited the effectiveness of language laboratories from the outset. Only now that the cassette recorder has become a commonplace item in most homes has the audio laboratory begun to experience a rise in popularity. Now that a computer can be purchased for as little as $60, it may undergo a similar familiarization process. Of course, the most inexpensive computers are not well suited for CAI, but hands-on experience with them can aid in demythologizing computer programming. Even more helpful for teachers interested in learning about programming would be an introductory workshop utilizing a versatile microcomputer and a powerful CAI authoring system such as Apple's SuperPILOT. This initial direct involvement with programming gives the neophyte the necessary confidence to experiment further privately. Then, even if students become actively involved writing programs, teachers should continue trying out new options to discover new possible applications.

The second fringe benefit, learning to give clear, efficient instructions to a totally obedient moron, is less directly helpful but still of considerable value. Too often, we teachers think we have expressed ourselves perfectly clearly on some point, and when we meet with blank incomprehension on the part of the students, we innocently assume that they simply weren't paying attention or, worse still, that they are not as bright as we might wish. However, when a computer acting on our instructions fails to do what we intended, there can be no doubt as to where the blame lies. More than 999 times out of 1000, a computer will do exactly what it is told to do, and surprisingly often, one is astounded by the inadvertency of one's instructions. The real challenge in computer programming is learning to think clearly and to give clear expression to one's thoughts, and all of us can benefit from additional practice in doing that. Indeed, after having spent some time programming, teachers may find their classroom presentations becoming more focussed and effective.

Summary

Looking at all of the present trends and considerations leaves us with a very cloudy crystal ball indeed. There are two major threats to the broad success of CAI for foreign languages, both of them related to the possible rejection of computers by most teachers. Some may choose to reject them for emotional reasons: dislike of machines; fear of technology; or rejection of the intrusion of alien manners and methods into their domain. Others may reject them because they see them not as an aid to learning but as a frustrating waste of valuable class time. In addition, they may condemn the courseware as being of inferior quality and having inappropriate instructional content and in many ways they may unfortunately be justified in their condemnation.

At present, our best hope for averting both of these threats is to achieve the most broadly based direct involvement of classroom teachers in instructional programming and courseware design possible. A number of obstructions stand in the way of achieving this, however. Th greatest of these is undoubtedly the additional demand this places on teachers' time for professional activities. Without a doubt, mot foreign language teachers feel that they already have too little time for themselves and are not going to greet with enthusiasm the idea that they should spend a lot of hours learning how to program a computer. Indeed, quite a few are going to feel that they simply are not cut out for doing anything like that, no matter how much time might be at their disposal. In this opinion they will have the enthusiastic support of many specialists in the field of foreign language CAI who fear that the teachers' lack of formal training in the principles of courseware design and evaluation will condemn their efforts to exercises in frustration for teacher and student alike. The danger is real and cannot be ignored. Still, I firmly believe that among the tens of thousands of language teacher who have as yet never touched a computer, there are many who are quite capable of producing useful and valuable materials. I believe that without their involvement, the use of computers in foreign language instruction will never really catch on. I also believe that it is of the greatest importance that those of us who are already active in the field of foreign language CAI do what we can to share our knowledge, experiences, and skills with out colleagues. And, most of all, we should let them see that this sort of activity, far from being tedious and stultifying, is not only professionally useful, but fun!

2. FIRST STEPS TO COMPUTER LITERACY*

Ruth L. Bennett

To modify a popular adage, familiarity breeds confidence. Almost all schools now have some computers; computers are helping to teach science, math, and other subjects; programs* are fast becoming available for foreign language instruction; young people are enthusiastic about operating computers; therefore, language teachers need to learn how to make use of these machines in order to profit from the built-in-motivation they afford.

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI)* can help in developing reading and writing skills, teaching culture, testing, enrichment activities, self-instruction and multi-level classes.

The fear that CAI will go the way of the language laboratory does not appear to be valid-computers are too strongly entrenched in the business and scientific worlds to be a passing fancy, and they are far more versatile than the language lab. Young people will always need to be familiar with computers, and the training they have in school, from the elementary though the college level, will be of tremendous use to them.

The second fear many teachers have is that computers are too complicated for them to learn to use. The fear is completely groundless. To write programs for the computer does take a great deal of skill and logic, but to run* programs is a far simpler matter. It can be compared with writing a textbook and teaching from one. To run a computer only necessitates learning some commands (like learning a language, but requiring much less knowledge) and having some typing skills. With a little practice, the whole process becomes automatic.

To start, let's define the different types of computers. A microcomputer* is what most schools, individuals, and small businesses are buying. Personal computer* is another name for microcomputer; personal does not mean that the machine is for home use only, rather than for a school or business. A minicomputer* is larger than a microcomputer and would be used by large firms or school systems. A mainframe* computer is the biggest machine of all and I generally used by hospitals, airlines, large firms with branches, and universities. The mainframe is kept at a central location, with terminals* at various sites; these terminals may show the same programs at one time or entirely different ones. When you make an airline reservation, or get your seat assignment, the clerk is using a terminal connected to a mainframe that may be quite distant. The minicomputer or personal computer has only one terminal and all the equipment is at one location.

Among the popular microcomputers for school use are Radio Shack's TRS80, the Commodore PET, the Commodore 64, the Commodore Vic 20, and the Apple IIe (which has replaced the Apple II plus), the Atari 800, and Texas Instruments. The computer manufacturers sell both hardware* and software; many firms sell only software. Hardware refers to the machines themselves and software to the programs that are run on the computer.

A good system usually consists of the following hardware:

A CPU*, or Central Processing Unit_ the part of the computer that contains its memory* and logic circuits; it controls the entire system. Usually the CPU is housed in the same unit as the keyboard*, although this is not true in the latest models such the IBM. The keyboard closely resembles a typewriter keyboard. Some computers also have a numeric keypad* next to the regular keyboard with the numbers from 0 through 9 are
arranged like those on a calculator or a push-button telephone.
A monitor* or screen*, also called a CRT*, or Cathode Ray Tube, is very much like an ordinary television screen. It displays what you call up or type into the computer. In fact, you can omit buying a monitor and connect any television set to your CPU by buying an inexpensive adapter for that purpose. However, a TV screen, especially one in color, does not have a high resolution as a monitor does, and there fore is not as clear.
A disk drive* to run the diskette* or floppy disk* that contains your program.

To lower the cost of a computer setup, a cassette player, connected to the computer by a cable, and cassettes can replace the disk drive and diskettes. However, the disadvantage here is that the cassette player take far longer to find, load* and save* programs. In a school situation, time is valuable and a good pace essential to keep students from getting bored.

A new kind of tape storage device, know as wafer tape drive*, uses very thin tape called a stringy floppy hold as much information as a low-capacity floppy disk, but there are still problems to be ironed out with the new system.

Some systems have two disk drives, rather than one; this saves still more time, but since each disk drive costs about $400, the second one is a luxury, and can be added at a later date if funds permit.

The floppy disk is a round magnetic disk housed in an envelope five and one-quarter inches square. It gets its name because it is somewhat flexible, unlike the hard disk* which can be 5" 8", or 14", or larger. The diskette must be handled very carefully-no weight, such as a book or an elbow, would be put on it, the uncovered part should not be touched because that is what the computer reads, and it should never be placed on top of a working machine because the static could destroy it.

Peripherals* are extra pieces of equipment that add services to the basic computer. The most important peripheral to be considered is a printer*, which does just that-it prints out what appears on the screen, or what you have entered into the computer, when you command it to do so. This is called hard copy*. Soft copy* is what appears on the screen. If an instructor wants to see how a student did on the exam he took on the computer, he or she has only to call up the program that the student used and look at the student's answers on the screen, provided the student saved his work. To save work on a computer, you just tap a few keys; otherwise the work can never be called up again-it just disappears. Of course any time you want to erase work that has been saved because you have no further need of it, you can do so, again by giving the computer a few simple commands. Then you'll be able to use the space that program took up for another program, just as you would with a cassette not connected to a computer.

However, if you have a printer, the student presses a button, or several, on the keyboard, depending on the program you are using, and everything he designates is printed on a roll of paper, usually 81/2 inches wide, that is grooved every 11inches. Thus, when you tear the sheets apart and remove the strips of holes at either side of the paper, you have standard 81/2 x 11 inch pages. Other sizes of paper may be used with the printer too, and most printers allow for the use of single sheets, such as letterheads, too. This feature is usually optional. Printers vary in cost from less than $400 to $800 and considerably higher for a letter-quality printer. Letter-quality means the printing is as attractive as that of electric typewriter. However, the less expensive printer with a dot matrix* (each letter is made up of dots) is fine for most teaching purposes, that is for printing drills, test, etc.

Another peripheral is designed to draw, or do graphics*. What use would graphics be in a language program? For example, you can draw a picture or cartoon for students to answer questions about-think of the drawings in the National Spanish Examinations of the AATSP-or you can make only a part of a picture appear at a time, for instance for playing Hangman, where each incorrect answer brings the man closer to the noose. That program, in a Spanish version called La corrida de toros and in a French version called La guillotine, has already been created and is available for sale. Caution: Not all printers can print graphics without adding hardware, so that feature should be checked on before purchasing a printer.

Another use for graphics is to draw maps-Dr. Neil Miller of Adelphi University has made maps of Spain and Latin America and created programs to teach the geography of these countries. The Latin American program is already on the market (Gessler Publishing Co., Inc., 900 Broadway, New York NY 10003) and the one on Spain will be shortly. To hold students' attention in potentially tedious drills, Dr. Miller has created a horse race graphics display where each student's horse moves ahead whenever he answers correctly. He has also drawn a Superman figure to appear on the screen whenever the student gives the correct answer.

To make life infinitely easier for unartistic souls, there are graphics table peripherals for all the principal makes of computers. They range in price from$200 to about $800. The graphics peripheral consists of a tablet or drawing pad and a pen-like wand. When you draw the wand across the tablet in any design you wish, this design appears on the screen. You can then erase parts and adjust the design until you have just the picture you want. Without this graphics aid, you can draw by plotting each dot that goes to make up your picture, but it extremely tedious work. When you are satisfied with what is on the screen, you save it and can call it up at will.

Computers are capable of either low-resolution graphics* or high resolution graphics*. High-resolution, or hi-res, graphics make clearer pictures because they have a grid of 280x160 dots to make a more detailed picture than the

low-resolution or lo-res graphics, which use a 40X40 dot grid. Most computer games, which require great detail, are made by using hi-res graphics.

Our next concern is computer languages. The on used on most personal computers is BASIC*, an acronym for Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. Other common languages are COBOL*, or Common Business-Oriented Language, used mainly for business, as its name tells you; PASCAL, a scientific and business language, named after the famous French mathematician Blaise Pascal; and APL*, A Programming Language, used by scientist and statisticians. All of these are more difficult than basic, but there are others even simpler than BASIC-kidstuff and LOGO-used for teaching even an elementary school child how to program. Some experts believe that LOGO will come into wider use even on upper school levels.

In any mention of a computer' capacity, you will hear or see the letter K* following a figure, which can be anywhere from 4K or 5K to 64K on up to 256K and even beyond. K stands for kilobyte, which is 2 to the 10^th power, a total of 1,24 characters, or bytes of storage* or memory*. A character, or byte, can be either a letter of the alphabet, a number, a punctuation mark or other symbol on the keyboard, or even a space. Thus if the capacity of a computer is 48K, that would be approximately 48,00 characters of RAM*; RAM stands for Random Access Memory. These 48,000 characters are available to the computer for use over and over again with each program, just as a cassette can be erased and used again. Each program cannot exceed 48,00 bytes or characters, however. Keep in mind that some of those 48K, up to 16K, are used for the general instructions that will allow the computer to accept programs, so this should be taken into account when deciding the capacity you require. The general instructions that e4very computer need in order to function are called the operation system, which often resides in the ROM*, meaning read-only Memory. This memory cannot be used for a program; the computer only reads it to get started. It is similar to a record that you buy-you cannot record that you buy-you cannot record over it, but can hear only what was on it when it was originally made.

What is good capacity for a personal computer? 48K will give you al reasonable amount of working room. Machines with 5K are mainly for playing electronic games and writing very small programs. Most computers can increase their Ks by adding an interface* which you buy for that purpose. It is somewhat expensive, but it is a way of buying your equipment on the installment plan rather than laying out a great deal at the beginning. It is a good idea to compare the cost of peripherals manufactured by the firm that made your computer and those made by other companies that are compatible with your machine. That latter often cost less.

As far as availability of programs for foreign language instruction is concerned, there are more than most of us are aware of. To learn what has been done, we need to attend meetings and workshops, read the catalogues of foreign language publishers, scan professional journals for pertinent articles, and read computer magazines, and computer-assisted instruction publications such as this one and Scholastic Magazine's Electronic Learning. A number of teachers are writing programs for their own students based on the texts they use and the computers with which their schools are equipped. Some of their programs are being made available commercially for several popular computers and will undoubtedly be listed in the sources mentioned above. Among those who have written programs, besides Dr. Miller, whose work was previously mentioned, are Father Russell Sloun, chairman of the Department of Modern Languages at Fordham Prep School in the Bronx, New York, and Elie de Comminges, of the Chapin School in Manhattan, New York. Father Sloun and his colleagues have produced programs for the Atari 800 to teach and test vocabulary, culture, and structure in French, Spanish, Latin, German, and Italian. The Atari 800 was chosen because it is more easily capable than any other computer of coordinating a cassette with a program on the screen. This allows the vital listening skills to be developed. Mr. de Comminges has written programs in French for the Apple II Plus.

The best commercial foreign language programs available are widely considered to be those put out by Control Data Publishing, P.O. Box 261127, San Diego, CA 92126. Their logo is Plato, and there are four programs in each of three languages: Spanish, French, and German. The programs are entitle Vocabulary Builder, Travel Vocabulary, Vocabulary for Shopping Use, and Classroom needs, but publishers are having programs written to complement their texts, and other programs will be appearing at a rapid rate in the immediate future.

The glossary that follows is intended for those who are just beginning to work with computers, or wish to start. Take the first steps to computer literacy and you will find that computers are not so intimidating after all!

GLOSSARY

APL stands for A Programming Language; used by scientists and statisticians.

BASIC A computer language; stands for Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. Most common language for microcomputers.

binary system Conveys information with only two numbers, 0 and 1, in much the same way as the Morse code, using only dots and dashes.

bit A contraction of binary digit. A bit is a 0 or a 1, usually grouped in larger units such as nybbles (4), bytes (8), or words (16, 24, 32, 89 or more).

byte A character of data; may be a number, letter, punctuation, mark, symbol, or simply a space.

CAI Computer-Assisted Instruction—teaching with the use of computers.

chip A printed circuit that increases the memory or other capabilities of the computer.

COBOL A computer language used in business; stands for COmmon Business- Oriented Language.

CPU Central Processing Unit-the part of a computer that contains its memory and logic circuits and controls the entire system.

CRT Cathode Ray Tube-a computer terminal combining a television-like display screen with a keyboard.

cursor A symbol on a CRT that indicates where the next character will be displayed.

data processing The execution of a systematic sequence of operations performed upon data.

disk drive Equipment that physically contains and rotates the disks and moves the heads that read and write upon them.

diskette A small flexible disk pack that contains programs, either commercially prepared, or put on by the user.

display screen Monitor or TV screen

dot matrix A method of forming characters by using many small dots.

floppy disk Sama as a diskette

FORTRAN A computer language used by scientist and mathematicians; stands for FORmula TRANslation.

graphics Drawings, maps, charts and graphs.

hard copy Material printed out by the printer (machine, not person)

high resolution (HI-RES) graphics Graphics generally using a 280X160 dot matrix or grid.

interface The hardware-software required to interconnect a device to a system or one system to another.

K A kilobyte, that is, 2 to the tenth power, equivalent to 1,024 bytes or characters of data; refers to the capacity of the computer.

keyboard Contains the letters, symbols, instruction keys, and often the numbers that are struck by the user to operate the computer.

load To feed a program into the computer.

Kidstuff A computer language used mainly by and for elementary school children.

LOGO A computer language used mainly by and for elementary school children.

low resolution (LO-RES) graphics Graphics generally using a 40x40 dot matrix grid.

main frame Largest type of computer generally centralized, with many terminals doing the same or different tasks.

matrix Grid

memory Same as storage

microcomputer A computer suitable for business, personal or school use. In most cases, it can only perform one task at a time and be used by one person at a time.

minicomputer Larger than a microcomputer, used by large businesses. May have a number of terminals doing the same or different tasks.

mouse A device connected to the computer to facilitate rapid cursor movements.

numeric keypad Buttons showing the numbers 0 - 9, similar to those on a calculator or push-button telephone, generally arranged to the right of the regular keyboard on a computer.

nybble Half a byte

Pascal A computer language named for Blaise Pascal; used mainly in business and science.

peripherals Equipment or hardware distinct from the central processing unit and may be connected to it, e.g. printer, disk drive, and graphics tablet.

personal computer Same a s microcomputer.

printer A machine that prints out whatever material stored in the computer that the user commands it to print

printout A document generated from a printer

RAM Random Access Memory—denotes ReadWrite Memory, a type of memory available in a computer for use over and over again; storage. Unlike ROM, the contents of RAM are lost when the computer is turned off unless they are saved.

ROM Read Only Memory; stores data that can only be read or processed. New data cannot be entered into a ROM; the contents of a ROM are retained when the computer is turned off.

run To cause a program to be shown on the monitor of a computer.

save To store information on a diskette or tape.

soft copy Material that appears on the monitor; it can be called up again if it has been saved.

software Programs for the computer

storage Pertains to a device into which data can be entered and held, and from which they can be retrieved at a later time. Loosely, any device that can store data.

stringy floppy The wafer tape used in a wafer tape drive to store programs.

terminal A device in a telecommunication network that enters or receives data from the main computer.

wafer tape drive A storage device for programs using a very fine tape rather than a regular cassette tape or a diskette.

word processing A system that allows the user to type letters, contracts, articles, books, etc. These can easily be corrected or changed on the terminal and then printed out.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barden, William, Jr. Guidebook to Small Computers. Howard W. Sams & Co.,

Inc., 4300 W. 62 Street, Indianapolis, IN 46268, 1980.

Brown, Carol W. The Minicomputer Simplified. New York: The Free Press ( a

division of Macmillan Publishing Co.) 1980.

Cassel, Don and Martin Jackson. Introduction to Computers and

Information Processing. Reston Publishing Co., Inc. (a division of Prentice-Hall, Reston, VA 22090, 1980.

Speelhoffer, Thomas J. BASICally Speaking: a Beginner's Workbook. J. Weston

Walch, Box 658, Portland, ME 04104. 1982.

3. Ethics And Computers: The "Oil And Water" Mix Of

The Computer World?

Paul C. Hardin

Abstract:
This paper deals with the need, the difficulty, and the present direction of determining what is and is not ethical in dealing with the creation and exchange of materials to be used on computers. First the need is presented, based on the supposition that the majority of American industry utilizes computers. Next a definition of ethics is given. Following the definition, specific problems confronted by computer users in determining what is ethical are presented. Finally, several examples concerning the present trends in computer ethics are given, with a call for continued efforts for full protection under the law for computer hardware, software, and courseware.

Can a fair, legal and practical standard of ethics be developed for application to computer hardware, software and courseware? John Naisbit, author of Megatrends and chairman of the Naisbitt Group, states that the work force is composed of 62 percent information-knowledge workers, and that computers are the center of the information -knowledge industry. (See "Restructuring of America' - When, Where, How and Why." U. S. News & World Report.) If this is true, the above question may be the single most critical social and economic issue for the courts, industry and education to confront the 1980s.

Webster defines ethics as "the study of standards of conduct and moral judgement" and "the system or code of morals of a particular . . . group, profession, etc."; moral is defined as "relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between, right and wrong in conduct" (Webster's' New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition. David B. Guralnik, Editor in Chief. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982). In order to develop a "code of ethics" for the computer industry, and specifically for the interchange of ideas which must take place among educational institutions, it may be assumed that all interested parties, including the national and international courts, must come to a conclusion as to what is "right and wrong" when dealing with computers.

There are several different issues at hand when we speak of computer ethics. The major ones are listed below:

Theft of money, goods or property using he computer a s a "tool" to such ends.
Taking information from computer memory, which information is then used in detriment to the parent entity and/or the benefit of the thief.
Utilization of computer time without authorization.
Utilization of hardware, software or courseware designs which are identical or nearly identical to those of another person or entity, and from which person or entity those designs originated.

The Courts have already determined, as have the computer industry as a whole, that cases A, B and C are crimes punishable under already existing laws. Case D, however, presents the dilemma of the decade, and the dilemma seems to revolve around the concept of "originality." This term immediately brings to mind the laws that protect patent owners of inventions and copyright holders of literary works and films. These laws essentially state that an individual's or entity's work cannot be duplicated without permission from that individual or entity, if such coping will be of financial detriment to the original owner.

The problem then becomes one of 1) determining who developed an idea first, 2) how lose to the original can a "second concept "come before it is considered a copy; or conversely, how dissimilar must a "second concept" be from an original before it is considered original, and 3) to what extent is the "second concept" infringing on the rights of the owner of the original, if it is found to be a copy?

Over the years, legal and industry-specific guidelines have been developed as an aid in developing sound "moral judgement" concerning these issues in relation to machines,

literature and films. Thus, computer hardware design is generally protected under these laws, except when the line between hardware and software or courseware becomes fuzzy, such as when dealing with micro storage devices such as chips, or when memory retrieval is dependent on specific hardware configurations. Then the application of the laws becomes difficult.

Software on the other hand is difficult to protect under literary laws because it doesn't look like literature since it doesn't read as easily as Milton or Asimov! and its function is not considered "literary" by some detractors. (See American Software Firm Alleges Program Piracy." Japan Times, November 18, 1982)

Courseware is difficult to protect, because it isn't in book from. The idea that software produces courseware, and courseware appears on a screen has led may to feel that perhaps computer software and courseware can be protected under laws similar to those for the film industry. While this idea is being considered, vast differences between the industries seem to be causing major roadblocks to such an idea.

There are encouraging signs that the courts and the computer industry as a whole are coming to grips with the problem. In Japan, a recent Tokyo District Court ruling stated that "computer-related software such as microcomputer programs for video game machine's should be considered literary work subject to protection under Copyright Law" ("Copyright Law Applies To Software, Court Rules." Japan Times, December 7, 1982). As part of that ruling, the judge stated that "the microcomputer program … consists of diverse information and orders that embodies the programmers' original and creative concept." (Ibid.) This ruling will hopefully set an important precedent for other courts throughout the world.

At the Second International Video Game Manufacturer Conference held in October of 1981 in Tokyo, where copyright problems were discussed in relation to video games, it was concluded that "while the 'idea' of the game is not protectable under existing copyright laws, the 'expression' of the game on the screen with distinct sounds is protectable" ("2^nd International Video Games Manufacturer Conference Tackles Copyright Problem." Tokyo: Cash Box, November 28, 1981, p. 7). At this same conference, Professor Terri Do from the legal department of Waseda University in Japan indicated that "the computer program is a copyrightable work because the courts have ruled that he final product is in the program….the music or sound, the game and the ROM should be protected in the same way as a motion picture." (Ibid.) If such were the case, designers and developers of computer materials would indeed enjoy the legal protection required. Since games are becoming an integral part of computer education, the efforts of this international video games organization will definitely have an impact on the language teaching community. (Refer to John Higgins' talks "Approaches to CALL for English as a Foreign Language: Artificial Intelligence," presented at the TESOL '83 Convention, for examples of research being done in the area of language games. See below for other TESOL involvement.)

At the 1983 International TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages) Conference held in Toronto, Canada March 15-27, a Special Interest Group dedicated to enhancing the use of computers in second-language education was formed. One of the principal issues to be addressed by CALICO and this organization will be the ethics and standards governing the exchange of information and materials between eductional institutions.

Hopefully proceedings, court ruling and organized efforts on this order will help us develop sound "moral judgement" in dealing with the development and exchange of computer materials as we all drive to enhance the quality of computer aided teaching materials, and strive to "mix" the "oil and water" of the computer industry.

4. Foreign Language Instructional Technology: The State

Of The Art

Constance E. Putnam

This is a good news, bad news story, which — as is to be expected — makes the telling of it a bit awkward. Furthermore, there is a common-sense quality to much of what needs to be said, which may make some of it seem self-evident. Nonetheless, some benefit may well emerge from an overview, an attempt to assess both where we are and whither we might go in the use of computers and other products of modern technology for foreign language instruction.

The good news is that we are on the threshold of some very exciting developments. Indeed, some excellent and highly creative work has been done already. The bad news is that educators are floundering in the face of a computer flood. In the December 7, 1982 issue of The New York Times, under the title "Computer Pitfalls Spur School Vigil," Fred M. Hechinger wrote about a new service offered by Consumers Union and the Educational Products Information Exchange Institute (EPIE). The new alliance, he says, was formed with hopes of averting "the kinds of errors that killed earlier educational technologies and that already threaten to turn the current educational computer boom into a costly bust."

One thing is manifest. Anything having to do with computers is a hot topic at foreign-language meetings these days. Computers were the subject of one of the Northeast Conference's Winter Workshops in February of 1983, and the Pre-Conference Workshop on computers at the October 1982 meeting of the Massachusetts Foreign Language Association (MaFLA) was certainly not unique in being oversubscribed. All of the sessions with "computer" in the title at the Sixth Annual conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (at Youngstown State University in Ohio), also in October 1982, were jammed. But a paradigm for what we do not need is the presentation at one recent conference of "Some Trivial Ways of Using a Microcomputer in Language Teaching." The use of "trivial" was all too literally true, as it turned out. We are past the need for a sharing of the early experiments of an utter novice at programming, and the pedagogical gaffes in his work were embarrassing.

The perspective in this paper is that of a foreign-language pedagogue, not a computer specialist, an important point, since even as computer literacy increases, equal expertise in foreign-language pedagogy and computers is rare and likely to remain so. On the other hand, humanists really need not apologize for not being computer experts; unless, of course, they persist in a head-in-the-sand attitude. Not all scientists are completely at ease with computers, either. What humanists do need to do is to avoid trying to imitate scientists' uses of computers. Just as individuals in the humanities have always felt their educational tasks were related to but different from the tasks of scientists in education, their uses of computers should almost certainly be different.

This general commentary is less irrelevant to the issue of computer use in foreign-language education specifically than might first seem to be the case. The burgeoning field of computer-based education (CAI, CMI, CAVI, or whatever) is going to affect us all. The greater the cooperation among a variety of experts, the more beneficial the effects will be. No longer is it possible for a single "expert" to do all of what needs to be done in the development either of hardware or of software. The disadvantages of non-cooperation are all too obvious in the plethora of programs that already exist. A sense of this can be gained from looking at some of what is being promoted or discussed.

For example, in November 1982 Mark W. Seng (University of Texas at Austin) put together a list of articles on computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in the field of foreign languages, with close to one hundred titles. While hardly an exhaustive list, it is an instructive one. Included are reports of very general studies as well as analyses of specific concerns, suggestions for particular languages, research reports, and practical advice. Staying abreast of the literature, when it encompasses so much, is clearly impossible. Such lists, if properly updated, would have to change frequently and rapidly.

In that range, however, lies both richness and the source of current difficulties. While there are those who urge that we must rush ahead full speed, and do as many different kinds of things with computers as can possibly be done, with attention focused on local needs, this may turn out to be the road paved with good intentions. In contrast to what has been happening in most instances so far, my judgment is that we should exercise caution, pay close attention to the special needs of foreign-language education, and concentrate on making programs and materials as widely usable and transportable as possible. Let us turn now to look at some of the concerns that face the foreign-language educator and would-be user of computer, in order to see more clearly why I argue as I do.

Caution. The explanation of interest, available hardware, and in some instances even adequate funding, has not surprisingly resulted in a sense of urgency, and a strong inclination to take prompt advantage of the opportunities. Carpe diem. Foreign language education in this country is clearly in trouble (despite a shot in the arm that the President's Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies in 1979 was intended to give it). Help is needed fast, and even if computers are perceived as little more than a source of increased motivation, it is no wonder that computer fever has become a contagious disease among foreign-language instructors. As a group, these educators have a history of jumping on passing bandwagons, perhaps even more than some of their colleagues in other disciplines. Apparently they need to be reminded that wen the music stops they may find themselves far from home with nothing but broken instruments and badly frayed sheet music, though painful memories of language laboratories ought to be fresh enough to keep us from making the same mistakes again so soon. Computers will prove no more to be panaceas than did anything that earlier technological developments brought us, and we would be will to act cautiously and patiently.

Of course, too much caution amounts to an unwillingness to experiment; clearly this is not what we need. Rather, thoughtful careful steps need to be taken with full knowledge that CAI does not invariably provide improvements for all instructional tasks. For any use of technology to bring benefits we must make certain we know what we want; the miracles will not happen by themselves.

Above all, we need to be willing to acknowledge that technological developments have far outstripped pedagogical insights. If we try to utilize the latest technology without testing our pedagogical assumptions first, we are bound to end up with a mismatch of more-or-less serious proportions, to say nothing of misspent monies and time, and quite likely unreasonable raised expectations.

Specialization. Generally we view some degree of diversification favorably, but when the diversity becomes as extensive as it now is when people talk about computers, it is important to narrow the field of vision in order to achieve better focus. Even within education, the myriad kinds of computers and computer-related materials are too varied to be of relevance for everyone. On eof the most manifest examples of the problem is the way many papers are written and sessions at conferences are run. Even where the audience is largely made up of people in the foreign-language field (no doubt giving authors the feeling that they are specializing), a high percentage of the performances showcase writers and presenters who feel constrained to run the gamut from "This is thy the 'Return' key matters" to a sophisticated description of a computer program. Happily, both the level of awareness and the level of discourse are rising, but it is still true that too many people are trying to cover too much in twenty minutes or twenty pages, thus showing their unwillingness or inability to specialize.

More useful for a short general session is the kind of concrete information-sharing that James Soper (of the Institute of International Studies in Monterey, CA) engaged in at the November 1982 Annual Meeting of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) in New York. Part of his hour-and-a-half presentation (at least he had more than twenty minutes!) was devoted to a quick run-through of the diverse hardware and software currently available. By reviewing their relative usefulness or appropriateness for work specifically in foreign-language education, Soper was able to guide those in attendance in their own investigations and planning. But even such a practical session has severe limitations; within a very few months the guidelines are likely to be outdated. Newcomers to the world of computers (which still includes most foreign-language teachers) need to be on the alert.

Foreign-language education is by its nature a discipline with considerable diversity, providing a built-in safeguard against overspecialization. Not only are there innumerable languages to be taught; those languages are typically taught at many levels within the educational system for widely varying reasons, over very different periods of time to audiences of all possible sorts and sizes. Yet there are special needs. One as-yet-largely-overlooked area of concern is figuring out the ways in which the processes of learning or teaching foreign languages make the use of computers peculiarly relevant. We know, for instance, that computers are especially valuable tools in any kind of data storage and sorting. Specialists need to look more closely at the possibility of a significant connection between the artificial "languages" needed to program computers and the natural languages we seek to teach.

At the very least, we should be unwilling to make do with second-hand authoring languages developed initially for other disciplines, which do not really fit our needs. Nor should we put up with printers not designed to deal with the diacritical marks and other special features of the languages we teach. Typing accents in the space following the accented character or using an apostrophe for an acute accent and a comma for a cedilla, as Geoffrey Hope reports that the elementary French program FRELEM requires (in use at the University of Iowa), is not really satisfactory, despite Hope's contention that "Users quickly adapt to the system and have apparently not carried the process over into their own writing habits." Since, as Hope goes on to say, "some computers, notable the Apple, do allow for the creation and proper placement of accent marks," we do not have to accept distortions of the written language. We would not accept an a factor for every e in English, for example, even if we thought we could adjust to it; neither should we have to accept ae for a or ss for B in German, or odd spacings and wrongly placed accents in any language.

One excellent example of the sort of specialization we do need is James Pusack's DASHER. Written in a BASIC dialect, DASHER is a language-processing program developed explicitly for work with foreign languages. But Pusack is very clear about the limitations; it is, he says, good for dealing with a small number of discrete items, for practice and review of elementary language work. So far it lacks graphics capabilities, and its answer-processing methods restrict what it can do. Still, Pusack has worked hard to make effective use of computers in foreign-language instruction a reality.

Transportability. As ever greater number of individuals become interested in computers, an increasing tendency has developed on every local scene to get involved and to use computers in some fashion. While much of such armchair planning and small-time programming is interesting, some of it clever, and very likely most of it usable by those who create it, the usefulness usually ends there. The reason that reading reviews of the existing literature and attending sessions on CAI and related concerns at foreign-language meetings tend to be boring activities is that-in addition to trying to cover the waterfront-most writers and speakers are talking about materials with very limited appeal. Of course, there are exceptions, but even though in individual cases papers may be well written or well presented or have some intrinsically interesting aspects, there is a kind of adult "Show and Tell" quality to most of it. The problem with presentations that begin with the equivalent of "Look at the clever little program I've put together for a select group of my students at East overshoe University with a Mini-Miracle Grant over a three-year period" is that these people rarely have hard data to show the effectiveness of what they've don. (That the students "seems' to like it or "apparently" have fun is insufficient evidence of pedagogical validity.) Worse yet, such programs and materials typically lack altogether the critical feature of transportability. What works in one setting may be impressive, entertaining, or instructive — or even all three — but if it cannot be replicated elsewhere with little or no adaptation, its value is greatly diminished.

For example, at the Foreign Language Instructional Technology (FLINT) Conference in Monterey, California, in September of 1982, two of the best sessions — Randall Jones's description of "The German TICCIT CAI Program" (at Brigham Young University) and Sue Otto's report of her work on "Video Retrieval Systems for Foreign Languages" (at the University of Iowa) — presented work so complex in its conception that, however useful it is, could only be implemented at other institutions only with great expense. (Jones and Otto are clearly aware of this, and are concerned — to their credit — about making their work more transportable.) At the same conference Joan Rubin made strong case for the use of interactive videodiscs, but she ended more lamely than she probably intended or perhaps realized by acknowledging that costs continue to put all of what she was recommending out of reach of virtually everyone.

Most of the dozen or more computer sessions at the 1982 ACTFL meeting reflected a variant form of the problem of parochialism: "Microcomputers in the Foreign Language Program," "Easy Access to Foreign Language Computing," "Computer-Based FL Learning," "Computer-Assisted ESL/ESP," and "Computers as Instructors" sounds distressingly similar. Since these sessions were (presumably deliberately) not scheduled simultaneously, many of the same people attended several (maybe even most) of them. The overlap in content was considerable, and for the novice such a proliferation of information dissemination is bound to be more confusing than helpful. A joint effort by those presenters for a more substantial block of time (though in fairness it should be pointed out that one was a two-day workshop) might have been more beneficial to all concerned, in the long run.

Clearly local triumphs should be celebrated, and word o f them should be spread. To think, however, that this is the best route to great breakthroughs is to ignore what we have learned about the relative merits and usefulness of other kinds of instructional materials. The best teaching tools, whether exercises or activities or something else, are not those that depend on peculiarities of the originator's personality or on teaching conditions unique to one set of circumstances. We cannot expect computer materials to be commercially viable, if they work only in one way, or in only one place, or with only one textbook, any more than printed materials usable only by the author(s) ever get published. In any case we need to be honest about whether our aim is to have fun playing with computers or to develop genuinely effective instructional materials using the unique capabilities of the new media now available to us.

One excellent approach to what is needed was illustrated by Glyn Holmes (from the University of Western Ontario) at the FLINT Conference. While eager to talk about the work he and some of his colleagues have done on a free-form system for French instruction called CLEF, Holmes is also both ready and eager to talk about the importance of developing template systems that make available as much as possible of the good aspects of free-form systems, because the latter simply cost too much. Some kind of hybrid system may be the best thing to aim for, he argues; he is a strong proponent of the need to cooperate and to standardize software materials. Most impressive is his undaunted enthusiasm for the microcomputer as a presenter of information and as a tool with great potential for local programs, even while he continues his quest for ways to share what has been done so far.

Another of the most useful presentations at the FLINT Conference was by James Pusack, author of the DASHER program previously mentioned. In Monterey, however, Pusack was concerned less with explaining DAHSER itself than with more general "Design Criteria for Authoring Systems in Foreign Language CAI." In his own words, "successful foreign language CAI requires that a proven teacher/learning strategy reach language instructors in a flexible and adaptable form. The ideal authoring system must provide tools which are specifically designed to support the production of foreign language CAI materials. This presentation discusses the flexibility, control, and documentation necessary to an authoring system to stimulate creative exploitation of its features." Pusack was as good as his word. Stressing that flexibility and adaptability have to be the chief criteria for authoring systems, he wen ton to list several other rules of thumb: Assumptions should not be made about users,

options should be built in, extraneous features (e.g., color, blinking lights, jokes) should be deletable, changes should be easy to make, sequences should be alterable, and praise and criticism responses should be modifiable. Above all, wherever possible, programs should not be language specific.

Perhaps the most important point Pusack made was that the computer, properly programmed, has no difficulty storing options. Even what seems like the worst option to the author will probably appeal to someone. As long as it does not violate our pedagogical principles, it should be included. If we do not make such options available, we end up locking ourselves into the rigidity of book format, and fail to take adequate advantages of the technology.

Solid foundations have been laid, with some very creative work by both foreign-language and computer specialists. Technological developments clearly have worked as teachers, as Edward Schneider has pointed out. The problem lies, in his opinion, not so much with the technology as with the integration of technology into school instruction. How long what Schneider calls the "intrinsic motivation" of using computer technology will endure is an open can help us escape the immediate environment of the classroom more easily and with greater realism than any visual aids previously used. More interesting is Schneider's insistence that the pedagogical proficiency of the teacher can be increased by proper use of computer technology, inter alia by fine tuning the sense of when (and how) to bother with asides, and by allowing for adjustable criteria on the acceptability of student responses. Technology can enable us —if we use it appropriately — to escape the traditional lockstep of the print media and most current methodology.

In apparent agreement with this position, even the federal government has gotten involved. Near the end of 1982, the congressional Office of Technology Assessment (O.T.A.) released the final version of its report: "Informational Technology and Its Impact on American Education." The report includes "a detailed discussion of the United States as an information society, with a look at the future" as well as the "effects the emerging technologies could have on the 'provision of education.'" Preparing ourselves to anticipate changes we cannot yet imagine is crucial. "The anticipated 'information society' will create new demands for education and training. Computer-based automation […] will create a need for workers who can be continually retrained as changes occur and new technologies are developed." Since learning how to learn is the primary aim of any worthwhile educational endeavor, we should welcome federal awareness of this need. Others, in the private sector, have also noted that we are facing "a veritable explosion in new technology," which places home entertainment "in the throes of a revolution that is […] reshaping what we can do without ever leaving a room."

If we are to reap the benefits of this new awareness, the exploding field of technology, and what has been done so far, we have to face up to two very large challenges. The first is recognizing and understanding (and then acting on the understanding) that computers really do represent an altogether new medium. To date there has been a pervasive failure to grasp that novelty, let alone to understand its full impact or all its ramifications. The second challenge is every bit as grave, but it constitutes a much older and in many ways more difficult set of concerns. Simply put (though hardly a simple matter), this is foreign-language pedagogy. The very newness of the medium we face in the computer makes it more important than ever for us to be able to state our educational goals clearly. Only if we have evaluated with precision and care what we want and need to teach and how best to achieve our objectives is there any hope that we can make appropriate and effective use of new media.

The Novelty of the Medium. Statements about computers being a new medium are apt to be greeted with a ho-hum shrug of the shoulders and a "So what?" response. Yet having given lip service to acknowledging the point, too few teachers look at the consequences of the computer medium or analyze what their acknowledgement should mean. Moving from books to computer programs is not like moving from easy books to more difficult books or the reverse. Much less is the move from a microcomputer, even with a television, to interactive videodiscs a simple one with self-evident connections. Each such move — into the world of technology and then from one kind of technology to another (however related) — requires a quantum leap. Perhaps the apparent familiarity of the computer keyboard is, in subtle ways, a disadvantage. Remembering Marshall McLuhan's claim that color television is a different medium from black-and-white television may serve as an indication of the fine distinctions that need to be made.

Because extreme cases present the clearest examples, and because interactive videodiscs right now seem destined to offer the most exciting possibilities, I would like to look briefly at one such project already well under way. I will then review some of the factors that will determine the answer to practical questions about tapping the potential of this medium for foreign-language instruction.

Junius Bennion and others at the David O. McKay Institute of Education (at Brigham Young University) have been working from some time on "Montevidisco," an interactive videodisc program for students of Spanish. (Editor's Note: See the article on Montevidisco by Larrie Gale in this issue.) The basic format is a four-phase one of shoe, freeze, choose, and branch. Students have an opportunity to choose from among options for answers to questions raised by one of the characters in the film being shown. At present, those options are presented on the screen of the computer terminal where the student is working, in English; the student gives the Spanish version of the option selected, orally (it is recorded on a cassette tape), and then watches the TV screen as a "surrogate student" continues that segment of the film with the correct version of the chosen response. Numerous branching possibilities exist and immediate feedback is available (capabilities of the medium are being utilized), and the peculiarities of the language are taken into account (both male and female "surrogate students" have been filmed so that correct gender ending and cultural references can be required.) But as the "Montevidisco" team would e quick to admit, despite the clever twists to the story that unquestionably add fun and motivation, the repetitious aspects of the program may well bore students before mastery of any segment has been attained. Additional

pedagogical concerns have to do with the way the answers are stimulated (as it now stands, students are confronted with what amounts to a translation exercise) and with the built-in limitations and the length of the required responses. Finally, the costs in time, money, and personnel have been enormous. A critical point has been reached with the development of a general purpose programming template; it remains to be seen, however, how transportable any of this commendable effort will turn out to be. In the meantime, there is no question that "Montevidisco" is fun — and that it represents a major step forward.

That interactive video has great potential is obvious to anyone who has worked with it or even just seen a demonstration, particularly for the teaching of specific skills. The American Heart Association, for example, uses a thirty-minute interactive videodisc program to teach CPR; various programs have also been developed to train airplane pilots by simulating real situations that let the novice pilots "see" and respond to the consequences of their choice(s) of action. But beyond recognizing that interactive video is truly a new and different medium (among other things, because of the compression of information that the medium allows, using visual technology requires a team effort and lots of time — the "Montevidisco" project exemplifies this), those who wish to exploit the potential of interactive video have to deal with several other factors. In a very helpful and clearly written article, Willard Thomas of Organizational Media Systems (Fort Worth, Texas) gave a list of such factors, including these: the integration of visual logic into programmed instruction methods, the evolution of a visual syntax, the development of specialized high programming algorithms and language for handling visual syntax and images, and the use of digital video signals for recording images as well as controlling playback sequence and rate. More research, highly specialized at that, is needed. In particular, we need to figure our how to relate research results to our practical efforts as developers of educational materials. As Thomas goes on to point out, "If we are going to segment material into coherent but 'branchable' frames, we must use the same procedures that successful programmed instruction writers use. However just as the text of a book is not suitable as the script for a videotape, the programmed instruction procedures are not directly adaptable to visual instruction." We have to modify our methods to match the medium.

Foreign-Language Pedagogy. Among the earliest uses of computers in foreign-language instruction were programs in Spanish at Dartmouth College, done on a time-sharing basis for simple drill and practice. The fact that Dartmouth continues to use the computer extensively now, especially in German, has more to do with the continuity provided since 1970 by Bruce Duncan's ongoing interest than with further sophistication of the programs. What is done at Dartmouth is tied to one textbook, even where the drills are supplemental and is still a pretty routine sort of practice, though random access at least means this is not just a workbook on a computer.

Numerous other examples exist of instructors in both high schools and colleges preparing materials for one sort of practice or another for computers. David Gill at Upper Arlington High School near Columbus, Ohio, for instance, has turned his attention, with the help of a colleague in mathematics, to using computers for vocabulary development in particular. Starting with the vocabulary in the textbooks his students are using, he has now expanded his computer dictionary well beyond that. Students can be assigned words to study either by chapter, or be sections of the alphabet — and either in a set pattern or randomly. He has begun to spread the word, as he has developed the program to the point where it can be utilized by others and for other languages with relative ease. Although Gill does not have statistically reliable data yet, he does have at least some evidence that the availability of vocabulary practice on the computer has increased both the speed with which most students learn the vocabulary, and — more importantly — the level of retention. In one sense, Gill's work is not very sophisticated, but it appears that the programs accomplish what they set out to do.

Another Ohio language instructor, Roger Neff at Otterbein College in Westerville, has also begun to make extensive use of out-of-class computer drills, first for Spanish and now also for French and German students. He has supplemented commercial programs, most of which he finds lacking at least in some of their technical features, with his own "home-grown" materials, developed by him to accompany specific textbooks. This is thy typical pattern followed by most instructors who get interested in using computers with their students. Neff has not run any experiments to determine the degree of effectiveness, but points out that since use of the computer materials is completely optional and the number of students who avail themselves of the opportunity is growing, the students, at least, must think they are beneficial. Also like many others, Neff's interests have expanded no to include computer-assisted video instruction; his first materials of this sort are being given their initial introduction to students in 1982-1983. Convinced that "CAVI offers can even greater potential for foreign language instruction," Neff also realizes that costs are likely to be a hindrance to any immediate significant expansion.

Beyond the rather run-of-the-mill drill-and-practice exercises being developed and used by more and more students and teachers, the most common use of the computer in foreign-language classes, as elsewhere, seems to be for games. Many of the "drills" in use are in fact self-consciously made game-like. In the popular view of computers, games come to mind before anything else. "Pac-Man" and "Adventure" haunt us all. When the FLINT Conference was reported in the Monterey Peninsula Herald, the only presentation specifically referred to was the one on games. Yet for all Ruth Sander's efforts to make SPION into an "intelligent game," what is most easily comprehended is that it is a game. Sanders has tried to go beyond a purely "fun and games" approach, but she is the first to admit that her program works only if one is willing to accept it as a mage and work within certain artificial limitations — the "rules" of the game.

Probably the chief reason so many instructors and programmers have turned to the game mode is the motivation games are thought to provide. Yet there

are problems with using either apparent or supposed student motivation via games as a major criterion for the development of programs. In the first place, this is unlikely to work on a long-term basis. Even in the short run, we are about to face a generation of students who know far more about computers than we do, and who have had far more experience with highly sophisticated games than the ones we are thrusting in front of them. What we think will motivate students may very well appear laughable to them; the thrill, if any, will wear off fast. What we present to our students must be of pedagogical value and not merely entertaining, if we are to be true to our task.

An example of the attempt to take advantage of the current fascination with computer games is the 1983 catalog of "Selective Audio Visual Teaching Materials" put out by Wible Language Institute, Inc. Special attention is drawn on the cover of the catalog to "Exciting Instructional Games…for your APPLE II Computer." On the page referred to "Game Features" is highlighted more dramatically than even the name of the language for which the materials are intended. Such catchy phrases as "creative and Interesting Games," "Students love to play Schoolhouse games and they learn faster and better," and "Randomization presents a new game each time it is played" along with the reassuring "Teachers need no computer skills" are bound to attract a lot of people. One wonders whether they will come away satisfied and whether students will assess the games favorable after the first use. These offerings are aimed more at the quick fix than at sound educational benefits.

This is not to say that games cannot serve pedagogical functions; of course, they can. Still, both David Weible (University of Illinois at Chicago) and Frank Otto (Brigham Young University) have stressed — albeit in rather different ways — the importance of making sure before we use computers to "entertain" our students that we are helping rather then distracting or possibly even annoying them. Weible feels that while computers may make it possible for the best students to learn faster, weaker students have even greater needs for strategies and techniques than for entertainment of gimmicks; Otto suggests that we should perhaps use games as a bonus for students who achieve satisfactorily in a given time and who want the game rather than as primary techniques for carrying the burden of our course content.

Like James Pusack at the end of the conference, Michael DeBloois spent his time before the FLINT audience talking about the need to develop new concepts for instructional design along with the improved tools that technology is providing us. His rapid-fire list of pedagogical assumptions we need to alter and his insistence that "Foreign language instructors are by and large not using what they already know about foreign language instruction" were both a ringing indictment and a challenge to members of the profession, thanks to technology. We now have capabilities we could not even have dreamed of five years ago; accordingly, we need to create new models for materials design and development. As Willard Thomas is fond of saying, "we have jet-age technology but an educational system that is still in the age of railroads. The problem is that you cannot land a 747 on a railroad track."

And so it comes back again to a matter of needing to know where we are trying to go before we decide which mode of transportation to use. Computers can probably be made to do anything we want them to do, but we still need to think through the purpose before we grab at new means for each and every learning activity. Once again, an excellent analysis of the problems, the challenges, and the pedagogical principles comes from James Pusack. Although he knows that "the computer cannot master the complex grammar structure of a natural language," he is also confident that "Foreign Languages are by nature an area where computer-assisted instruction should thrive." In a brief paper where he makes these comments, Pusack gives the best short course I know of on how to use computers effectively for the different kinds of tasks the foreign language instructor faces. Those who fancy they would like to "do a little software work" would do well first to study that paper carefully.

If all of this sounds like an insistence that we all go back to school for a refresher course on methodology, let me hasten to add that while I definitely think some re-evaluation and further analysis of our objectives are in order, I am also certain that real excitement and challenge await us. Voice recognition and voice simulation are two areas where work has been done that has potentially very great significance for the teaching and learning of languages. "Translating machines" are still a popular goal for some researchers. While I am skeptical about how soon even the most sophisticated computer programs can be developed to cope with all the intricacies and nuances that separate natural languages from artificial ones and from each other, I am confident that right now a program could be developed where the computer would generate a "translation" of a passage into the student's native language (so that the student is in a reasonable position to evaluate its possible accuracy) as a tool for helping students develop greater linguistic sophistication and sensitivity. If the student had to "correct" the computer until an adequate sentence or passage emerges, the student would have had to think very carefully about why a word can be translated in one way for one context, but "means" something quite different elsewhere. Such an exercise, where students are interacting with the language itself in an unthreatening setting rather than with the instructor or the native speaker, is one of the kinds of uses to which machines might sensibly be put.

Yet even that, though it has not to my knowledge been done, is still a pretty mundane use of technology that takes advantage of only some of the capabilities potentially offered by a computer. We ought to be able to dream much more creatively, and to work towards pedagogical tools that will give us all of the benefits together that we are only just beginning to utilize separately. An interactive videodisc program with a vast library of discs that could be retrieved instantaneously to provide students with access to socio-cultural subject matter and geographic settings of their choice, an extensive system of techniques for immediate feedback in all relevant areas (voice recognition and syntax/grammar correction), coupled with audio-video recordings so that students could truly become part of the lesson they are studying (and thus helping to create) — that would be a teaching machine worthy of the jet age technology we are acquiring . But it would be of little use if we had not sorted out the pedagogy adequately before imposing it on our students.

Finally, it may be that the most important thing to remember right now it that we do not really have any idea how much we may be able to accomplish. If we look carefully, thoughtfully, and openly enough at what our options are, we might even discover, as Dr. Doug Richards of the Dolphin Language Project at the University of Hawaii has predicted, that "we're going to end us redefining language, essentially." If so, foreign language specialists had better be on hand to help — and they had also better be prepared to use computers and other products of modern technology.

Endnotes

Fred M. Hechinger, The New York Times, December7, 1982, p.9.

This list, the result of a computer search done on materials from the last five years, is available from Mark W. Seng, Associate Professor of Curriculum & Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712. A few titles from that list will make the range I am talking about more clear: Ahmad et al., "On the Teaching of Russian Numerals by Using an Outline Computer"; Bhatia, "Computer-Based Hindi Pedagogy"; Borg, "Preparing Student-Computer Dialogs: Advice to Teachers"; Clement, "Affective Considerations in Computer Based Education"; Collett, "A Tenses Computer Program for Students of French"; Franco, "How to Design a CAI Course for Mexican-American Migrant Students"; Hall, "Microcomputer-Controlled Audio Playback and Programs for Listening Comprehension"; Hendrickson, "individualized Spanish Materials: A First-Year College Program"; Keller, "Vocabulary Flashcards on the Microcomputer"; Lacey, "Report of Competency-Based Learning in Individualized Latin at the Ohio State University"; Lavine and Fechter, "Computer-Assisted Instruction in the ESL Curriculum"; Rosenbaum, "The Computer as a Learning Environment of Foreign Language Instruction"; Taylor, "Student Reactions to Computer-Assisted Instruction in German"; and Tesch, "Determining the Success of Self-Paced Programmed Material for Learning English Grammar and Usage on a Business Communication Course."

Strength Through Wisdom: A Critique of U.S. Capability was the final report to President Jimmy Carter from the Commission he appointed in 1978. This report was released, along with another volume of Background Papers and Studies, by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in November 1979. The work of the commission and its report spawned a considerable literature. For one view of why there may have been more talk than action, see this author's "Assessing the Assessment: A Review of the President's commission Report," in Foreign Language Annals, February 1981, vol. 14, pp. 11-15.

James H. Soper, "Computer-Assisted Instruction in Foreign Languages: Past, Present, and Future." See the Official Program, ACTFL/AATF/AATG Joint Annual Meeting, 25-27 November 1982, p. 74.

Geoffrey Hope, "Elementary French Computer-Assisted Instruction," in Foreign Language Annals, October 1982, Vol. 15, p.349.

Hope, loc. cit. James Soper (v. n.4 (agrees on this point; he said during his ACTFL presentation that Apple at present has a near monopoly for foreign languages.

James P. Pusack, Dasher: A Natural-Language Answer Processor (Iowa City, IA: conduit, 1982).

Private conversation, January 14, 1983.

Hope, loc. cit.

See the Official Program, ACTFL/AATF/AATG Joint Annual Meeting, 25-27 November 1982, pp. 14, 24, 64, and 32 respectively.

Glyn Holmes, "Template or Free-Form Systems: A Look at the Issues," presented at the FLINT Conference in Monterey, CA, September 1982.

From the "Presentation Briefs" for the FLINT Conference (v. supra, n.11).

Edward Schneider, "Considerations on the Use of Technology in the Learning of Foreign Languages," presented at the FLINT Conference (v. supra, n.110).

Alex Heard, "Congressional Report Assesses Use of Technology," in Education Week, December 22, 1982, p.10.

Heard, loc. cit.

Gary Hanauer, "How Video Component Systems Stack Up," in Passages, December 1982, p. 53.

Junius Bennion, "Montevidisco: An Experiment in Interactive Second Language Dialogue Using Videodiscs," presented at the FLINT Conference (v. supra. n.11).

Willard Thomas, "Interactive Video," in Instructional Innovator, February1981, p.19.

Thomas, op. cit. p.20

David B. Gill and Pete Steva, "computer-Assisted Instruction for Vocabulary Teaching and Reinforcement, " presented at the Sixth Annual Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, October 23, 1982.

Personal letter from Roger Neff, January 6, 1983. Neff also ran a workshop, "Getting Started with the Microcomputer," at the Conference in Youngstown (v. supra, n. 20).

Monterey Peninsula Herald, September 24, 1982, p.1.

Wible Language Institute, Inc., 1983 Selective Audio Visual Teaching Materials, p.12.

David M. Weible (University of Illinois at Chicago), "Computer Managed Instruction — Pros and Cons" and Frank Otto (Brigham Young University), "How Teacher-Independent Can CAI Courseware Be?" Both were presented at the FLINT Conference (v. supra, n. 11).

Michael DeBloois (Utah State University), "Improved Approaches for Designing Foreign Language Instruction," presented at the FLINT Conference (v. supra, n.11).

Private conversation, January 19, 1983.

James P. Pusack, "Computer-Assisted Instruction in Foreign Language," in Pipeline, Fall 1981, p. 5.

Paul Froiland, "Understanding Dolphins," in Passages, December 1982, p.48.

CALL (Call Assisted Language Learning)

Pages

Selasa, 21 Desember 2010

CALL related to literature 1

1.The Foreign Language Teacher As Course-ware Author

2. FIRST STEPS TO COMPUTER LITERACY*

3. Ethics And Computers: The "Oil And Water" Mix Of

The Computer World?

4. Foreign Language Instructional Technology: The State

Of The Art

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Sample Page