Citation for published version:

Smith, M & Mccurrach, D 2020, 'An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL', Kwansei Gakuin
University Journal of International Studies, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 83-95.

Publication date:
2020

Link to publication

Publisher Rights
Unspecified

University of Bath

Alternative formats
If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact:
[email protected]
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.

Download date: 19. Feb. 2021

 An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

Michael D. SMITH*, David MCCURRACH**

CALL の利点とリミテーションに関する研究

マイケル ディーン スミス・デイビッド マカラク

Abstract :
As demonstrated by the global, COVID-19-induced turn to educational technologies, the
role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is continually evolving, leading to a require-
ment for evaluation of the medium in terms of both historical and contemporary perspectives.
Traditionally, CALL manifests per three phases of development, namely, the structural, commu-
nicative, and integrative phases. Through this paradigm shift, it is shown that contemporary
CALL practices influence several pedagogical factors. For institutions, CALL offers flexibility,
enhanced accessibility, and location independence, but suffers from assessment and mediational
issues. The role of the practitioner is also significantly impacted, perhaps necessitating adapta-
tional strategies and a reevaluation of teacher positionality given the reduction of in-situ presence
and potential absence of technological capacity or interest. Learners were ultimately identified as
the most significant consideration on the basis that digital environments foster increased personal
interactions, digital literacy and, if implemented correctly, higher cognitive development. Those
learners in socioeconomically or technologically deprived areas are at most risk of disadvantage
−although this disparity is decreasing as networked technologies become increasingly prevalent.
The authors stress that teacher-learner interaction remains vital, however, emphasizing the value
of a holistic approach that takes into consideration the needs of all stakeholders.

要旨：COVID-19 の最近の影響により、コンピューターの支援による言語学習（CALL）
が増加し、常に進化している。そのため、今までの教育方法を見直す必要がある。教育学
に影響を与える「構造」、「コミュニケーション」、「統合」の 3 つの段階がある。教育機関
にとって、CALL は柔軟性、アクセシビリティ、リモート学習を含むいくつかの利点を提
供するが、評価を困難にする。教師の役割も、テクノロジーへの彼らの興味とアクセス環
境に応じて影響を受ける。彼らは適応するための戦略を必要とするであろう。テクノロジ
ーを通じて、相互作用、リテラシー、認知能力の向上が図られるため、学習者は最も重要
な考慮事項である。ただし、教師と学習者の相互作用は依然として重要である。

Key words : Computer-assisted Language Learning, Educational Technologies, SLA, FLA.

────────────────────────────────────────────
*School of International Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University
**School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University

― ８３ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

Background
The scope of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) is both vast and inherently multidisciplinary,
with its application in the reinforcement and expansion of knowledge, literacy, and interactivity tak-
ing many forms. Due to this increasing prevalence, there has emerged an expectation for practitio-
ners to not only utilize digital tools to support learning (Fotos & Browne, 2004), but to observe the
intersection of theory, practice, and reflection with regards to the practical application of educational
technologies. This expression of this praxis-orientated approach is none more visible than within the
sphere of applied linguistics, where digitally-mediated approaches have visibly impacted the do-
mains of language processing, sociolinguistics, and second and foreign language acquisition (SLA &
FLA, respectively) (Kumaresen et al., 2012). More specifically, there is a growing body of literature
(e.g., Cutrim Schmid, 2006 ; Reinders & Hubbard, 2013) that reflects the broader social and peda-
gogical applications of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) due to the extensive dissemina-
tion of digital technologies and their emergence as a viable medium for inclusive, task-orientated
education.
Put simply, CALL may be described as “the use of a computer in the teaching or learning of a
second or foreign language” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p.110), with this definition commonly ex-
tended to incorporate the use of specialized educational tools, including corpora and concordancing
software and an array of general pedagogical interventions, such as smartphone applications, virtual
learning environments, and interactive whiteboards, within language learning settings. Traditionally
an area of relevance only to those within specialist linguistic communities (Shaalan, 2005), contem-
porary research into CALL is connected not only to broader areas of study within applied linguistics
(Beatty, 2010), but often general trends in education, including learner empowerment, interactivity,
and multiculturalism. Despite this increasing prevalence, however, CALL remains a young and often
reactionary branch of learning, frequently bound to continually evolving pedagogical context, dy-
namic social and technological innovation (Beatty, 2010), and divergences in the advancement of
digital literacy between learners and educators (Prensky, 2001).
Given the recent and sudden attention paid to online delivery methods, it is appropriate that this
inquiry focus entirely on the digital components of CALL−i.e., computer-based information and
communication technologies (Selwyn, 2017). Be as that may, it is not the aim of this inquiry to pro-
vide a comprehensive analysis of TEL ; rather, this paper serves to present CALL as an exemplar
of its broadening parent field and to establish its status as a powerful learning tool that retains the
capacity to frame how learners absorb language and interact with the world. An awareness of the
contextual factors surrounding the utilization of CALL is crucial in understanding the pedagogical
implications associated with the approach. It is thus the purpose of this paper to first present a con-
cise overview of CALL’s historical and theoretical stages of development, and follow this with a
critical examination of the benefits and apprehensions inherent to the approach that is appreciative
of contemporary trends of CALL analysis. In doing so, this inquiry aims to explore the manner by
which these factors impact upon the institution, educator, and learner during the conjunction of digi-
tal content and language acquisition, and to ultimately assess CALL’s suitability as a vehicle for ex-
plorative language education.

― ８４ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

The Historical Development of CALL

Technology-enhanced education has been utilized by language learning practitioners for over
half a century, with the discipline commonly recognized (Warschauer & Healey, 1998 ; Yang,
2010) as being chronologically and structurally divided into three phases of development. It should
be noted, however, that the realization of one stage does not necessarily result in the discontinuation
of the methods and learning objectives that preceded it. Preferably, that which has been established
may be incorporated into the latest advancement (Beatty, 2010 ; Warschauer, 1996), resulting in a
holistic approach that is inclusive of multiple learning paradigms.

Phase 1 : Structural CALL (the 1950s-1970s)

Initial forays into CALL materialized during the 1950s and focused on the application of auto-
mated “computer-as-a-tutor” instructional paradigms in an effort to elicit linguistic habit formation
(Warschauer & Healey, 1998). Early advancements in the field included the development of the
University of Illinois’ Programmed Logic/Learning for Automated Teaching Operations (PLATO)
system, employed initially, if not exclusively, in the “explicit teaching of [Russian] grammar by util-
izing linear and repetitive drill-and-practice techniques via the grammar-translation method” (Smith
& Kim, 2017, p.324). CALL’s early reliance on behaviorist interventions aligned with the theory’s
increased prominence during this period, guided primarily by B.F. Skinner’s (1957) inquiries into
operant conditioning. It should be noted, however, that the association between FLA and behaviorist
methodologies holds historical precedence, with Richards & Rogers (2014) describing the
behaviorist-affiliated grammar-translation approach as the dominant European model for language
instruction in the century preceding the advent of CALL.
In accordance with Skinner (1957), initial CALL exercises were firmly linear, requiring learners
to accurately complete a series of linguistic progressions that increased gradually in their complex-
ity. Feedback was immediate, providing positive reinforcement “in the form of points and advance-
ment for correct answers” (Beatty, 2010, p.19), with these activities a visible representation of the
programmed instruction (Saettler, 1990) and audio-lingual methods. Nevertheless, while early CALL
exercises were concurrent with the predominant psychological school of the period, they were fun-
damentally digital adaptations of textbook-based learning activities and thus failed to exploit the
emerging pedagogical opportunities offered by TEL. This concern was abated somewhat by the de-
velopment of more sophisticated computer simulations that allowed learners to explore the target
language via branching choice selection. Subsequently, simulation-based exercises represent the
genesis of a constructivist-aligned, explorative CALL that would see learners “bring what they un-
derstood about the world to the task(s)” (Beatty, 2010, p.19).
Consistent with broader educational movements, enthusiasm for structural CALL archetypes be-
gan to diminish throughout the 1960s, with Noam Chomsky’s (1959) critique of the behaviorist
school playing a pivotal role in the rise of what would come to be termed the cognitive revolution
(Harnish, 2002). While this paradigm shift would ultimately lead to the widespread rejection of be-
haviorist approaches to language education on both the theoretical and pedagogical levels (Yang,
2010, p.909), structural CALL would persist throughout the decade. The approach does hold several
pedagogical merits, however. Most notably, such activities are relatively simple to execute for large

― ８５ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

groups in the presence of appropriate learning infrastructure. Further, the computer-as-a-tutor model
allows language learners to engage content at an individual pace, with the mechanical nature of
feedback providing an educational environment that is free from judgment (Warschauer & Healey,
1998, p.57), thereby acknowledging, if not explicitly, the affective considerations of the learner.
Thus, while being overtly behaviorist, structural CALL exhibits connectivity with the humanistic in-
structional archetype that was to disseminate in the wake of the cognitive revolution.
Nonetheless, the disadvantages inherent in structural CALL and, indeed, all forms of behaviour-
istic education are well documented. Behaviourism is notably constrained by its inability to exploit
high-order cognitive processes faithfully, potentially leaving learners unprepared for language acqui-
sition tasks that utilize problem-solving or creative thinking. Indeed, behaviorist CALL is unable to
account fully for linguistic proficiencies developed as a result of alternative instructional paradigms,
most notably those which occur in the absence of positive or negative reinforcement. The one-
dimensional nature of behaviorism thereby limits its capacity for understanding learner behaviors,
including free will, feelings, and moods, or indeed “how learning takes place and how knowledge is
constructed within the human mind” (Selwyn, 2017, p.77).

Phase 2 : Communicative CALL (the 1970s-1990s)

Following increased affordability and availability of microprocessors, the late 1970s witnessed
a hitherto unprecedented circulation of low-cost personal computers. This technological revolution
coincided with a linear transition in pedagogical context, supported by an expansion of cognitive-
based theories of learning. Proponents of what would come to be termed communicative CALL con-
tend that the practical use of linguistic forms should take precedence over the forms themselves, that
grammar is best taught implicitly, and that learners should exploit existing linguistic schemata to
generate original utterances, as opposed to manipulating predetermined phrases (Yang, 2010, p.909).
Thus, while structural CALL had identified language as a passively-developed system, this emerging
phase maintained that language acquisition is an actively-constructed, internal phenomenon, best
achieved via a process of meaningful exploration and discovery (Warschauer & Healey, 1998).
Tasks associated with communicative language teaching (CLT) are “focused on all of the com-
ponents of communicative competence and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence”
(Brown, 1994, p.245). As a consequence, communicative CALL emphasizes comprehensive social
interaction within the learning process to stimulate discussion, critical thinking, and the meaningful,
non-predictive use of the target language. Activities that conform to the communicative approach
make use of the intelligence of learners rather than computers, while simultaneously employing the
latter as authentic providers of language. That is, rather than positioning computers as rule-bound
knowledgeable informants ; devices provide consistent patterning of the target language for learners
to explore and acquire collaboratively. In doing so, communicative CALL provides opportunities for
the development of general cognitive abilities transferrable to other domains of study (Gilquin &
Granger, 2010). For example, learners may undergo processes where, for inductive learning, they
cooperatively observe content, make hypotheses and derive generalizations in and of the target lan-
guage, or, during deductive learning, apply previously formed linguistic knowledge to confirm the
validity of their progress via digital content. In this context, the CALL dynamic transitions from the
computer-as-a-tutor model toward computer-as-a-tool, leading to an explicit “deviation in agency

― ８６ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

towards the learner” (Smith & Kim, 2017, p.325).

Activities that foster learner autonomy include digital language learning portfolios, self-directed
research tasks, or indeed any CALL enterprise that promotes learner reflection with regards to the
realization of specific learning goals. Naturally, the autonomous regulation of language acquisition
fosters learner empowerment, potentially increasing intrinsic motivation (Ballard & Butler, 2011).
Nevertheless, while the synergy between communicative language acquisition and computer-
mediated learning presents several advancements over its behaviorist-orientated predecessor (War-
schauer, 1996), communicative CALL is not without its criticisms. Kenning & Kenning (1990), for
example, call attention to the ad hoc and disconnected nature of its implementation throughout this
period. While the introduction of personal computing allowed for enhanced incorporation of class-
room technologies, CALL during this period was customarily segregated from authentic language
learning environments in the form of specialized computer labs. The failure to integrate communica-
tive CALL into broader curricula thereby resulted in content “making a greater contribution to mar-
ginal rather than to central elements” of the language acquisition process (Kenning & Kenning,
1990, p.90).

Phase 3 : Integrative CALL (the 1990s-present)

While the progression from behaviorist to communicative CALL represents an acute paradigm
shift in terms of pedagogical and theoretical foci, the transference towards integrative CALL was de-
cidedly less severe. Integrative CALL manifests per a socio-cognitive process of language acquisi-
tion, exhibiting a fluid evolution to the view that language is, predominantly, a cognitive mecha-
nism. As noted by Warschauer & Healey (1998), integrative CALL attempts to improve upon its
successor by integrating both TEL and the various features of communicative competence more ex-
tensively into the language acquisition process. This development was aided significantly by ad-
vancements in the provision of digital content and communication−namely, multimedia and the In-
ternet. In this context, CALL provides a “greater emphasis on language use in authentic social con-
texts” (Warschauer & Healey, 1998, p.58), acting as a vehicle for dynamic socio-cultural learning by
fostering communication and interactivity between local and global learners.
By identifying language acquisition in terms of its socio-cognitive demand, integrative CALL
represents a Vygotskyan approach to language education (Fotos & Browne, 2004), in which empha-
sis is placed on authentic discourse within meaningful linguistic contexts. Thus, increased attention
is paid to the provision of collaborative learning infrastructures (Coskun, 2011). Learners may, for
example, utilize existing linguistic schemata to support and complement one another to realize those
language acquisition goals that may have otherwise been too difficult to achieve autonomously
(Smith & Kim, 2017, p.330) ; a separation which Vygotsky (1978) terms “the zone of proximal de-
velopment” (p. 86). Given the presence of internet-driven computer-mediated communication
(CMC), integrative CALL offers an enhanced foundation for observing the processes by which
learners negotiate meaning during the formation and extension of linguistic competencies. Central to
this approach is the mode of interaction between technology and the learner ; specifically, integra-
tive CALL shifts its perspective from learner-device toward learner-learner via the device, provid-
ing a more authentic vehicle for interactivity. CMC applications appropriate to integrative language
learning include e-mail, instant messaging services, and a host of cross-platform social media appli-

― ８７ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

cations−with all mediums allowing learners to contribute to global real-time interaction. In doing
so, integrative CALL exploits the learner’s intrinsic motivation for communication to enhance cul-
tural awareness, collaboration, and the authenticity of its language learning context.
Throughout the integrative process, the classroom serves as a space in which learners explore
and creatively exploit the target language. As a consequence, the role of the educator is to facilitate
proactive, autonomous, and reflective communication, and to enhance the learning environment via
student-centered interactions. Moreover, their presence is critical in “giving students stimulating sup-
porting materials, focusing on particular linguistic expressions, and generally knowing how to chan-
nel the students’ reactions into constructive analytical patterns” (Blake, 2013, p.103). Feedback
should be structured in such a manner that it provokes reflection concerning the appropriateness and
effectiveness of language use and, following Bloom (1956), stimulates high-order cognitive proc-
esses, such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Bax, 2003, p.21).
Finally, integrative is a term not only used to describe the enhanced synergy between cognitive
-based instructional archetypes and CALL but the increased presence of digital infrastructures within
formal and non-formal learning environments. As noted by Selwyn (2017), post-digital TEL charac-
terizes itself by the emergence of “networking logic” (p. 15), in which Internet-capable devices,
such as smartphones, tablets, and personal computers, synchronously and asynchronously connect
learners to content and each other. Thus, the diffusion of technology has restructured CALL into a
holistic language learning platform. Where once, a learner would relocate to an institution’s dedi-
cated CALL or IT laboratory, digital devices are now present in almost every room. Classrooms
have become reconfigurable spaces with CALL’s presence transcending the boundaries of traditional
education, supporting mass socialization via interactivity irrespective of user location or demo-
graphic.

Contemporary Issues in CALL

As noted by Beatty (2010), CALL should not be interpreted as an exclusively positive agent of
change ; as with any other learning instrument, it is also open to scrutiny and criticism. Indeed,
given the impact of digital tools on a post-COVID-19 landscape, educational practitioners must
maintain a firm understanding of both the advantages and limitations characteristic of the approach
if they are to implement TEL within their specific contexts successfully. As a consequence, this sec-
tion will present a critical analysis of digitally-mediated language education that is appreciative of
broader trends in inquiry within both applied linguistics and non-specialized TEL.

The Status of the Learning Institution

As described previously, CALL, in its current manifestation, generates attention via the flexible
provision of digitally-networked, socio-cognitive-based learning infrastructures. CALL’s capacity for
collaborative, asynchronous education, therefore, represents a potential disruption to fundamental
conventions regarding the nature of formal language instruction. Kozma (as cited in Selwyn, 2017,
pp.33-34) anticipates a digitally-driven reimagining of the educational institution, in which places of
learning eschew functional isolationism in favor of integrating more fully within society. Jandric´
(2014) goes further, describing the potential for non-institutionalized, two-way TEL infrastructures
to surpass traditional schooling. Nevertheless, while reports detailing the potential redundancy of

― ８８ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

conventional educational institutions may appear, at this stage, premature ; social media and freely-
accessible learning platforms, such as podcasts and massive open online courses (MOOCs), retain
the capacity to shape personal learning environments, defined here as spaces in which “the user is
connected with teachers, mentors, and other learners” (Friesen & Lowe, 2012, p.186).
With regard to CALL, the International Education Service’s Massive Open Online English
Course (MOOEC) facilitates a blended pedagogic model of English language instruction. Specifi-
cally, learners affiliate and participate in language education both online and at self-access centers
both prior to and post-face-to-face enrollment at a traditional place of learning (MOOEC, 2017).
This convergence of in-house and distributed methods of instruction provides users with several
benefits. Most notably, multimodal instructional paradigms facilitate enhanced learner agency and
autonomy regarding the “pace, place, and mode” (Gordon, 2014, p.4) of their language learning
contexts. Moreover, the face-to-face component of the blend retains the capacity for the advanced
pastoral and linguistic support potentially absent within strictly e-learning environments. These fac-
tors may be especially beneficial to non-traditional learners, such as mature students, professionals,
and parents, who a) may have been removed from structured education for prolonged periods, and
b) are required to accommodate learning around busy schedules. Nevertheless, one should note that
“digital immigrant” (Prensky, 2001) language learners may, in some cases, lack the requisite techni-
cal skills to benefit initially from this approach. In this instance, it is imperative that local practitio-
ners ensure that learners are acclimatized gradually to the digital systems in play, and not cogni-
tively overloaded by their efforts to advance technological and linguistic proficiencies contempora-
neously.
Virtual learning platforms in unison with complementary CMC accommodates the access, inte-
gration, and promotion of interest-driven personal learning ecosystems. Consequently, integrative
CALL links itself to the concept of connected learning, in which the achievements, relationships,
and personal interests of learners integrate holistically within a distinctly peer-supported, open-
networked learning process. The interaction between online language learning and social media plat-
forms links linguistic progress and “the support of friends, caring adults, and/or expert communities”
(Kumpulainen & Sefton-Green, 2014, p.10). Subsequently, the interconnectedness of social media
provides an outlet for dialogue and multi-sourced, collaborative linguistic production, while also dis-
regarding the hierarchical structures typically associated with formal learning settings. Given that
CALL permits continued access to learning materials, students may, by way of example, elect to
share a language generation quandary amongst trusted peers or learning groups via social media or
collaborative services, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams, outside of formal schooling. Reinforcing
or corrective feedback is thus received in a relaxed, humanistic space, thereby interlinking affective
and cognitive benefits while concurrently enriching a linguistic community of practice.
Nonetheless, formal attempts to measure CALL-derived learning must take into account the dis-
advantages coupled to online pedagogies. Whilst peer-to-peer interaction is appropriate within the
context of self-determined learning, the assessment of individual progress during cooperative prac-
tices can prove challenging. Specifically, concerns over plagiarism may occur when content is dis-
cussed online, where the division between collaboration and support may become distorted. How-
ever, as noted by Gordon (2014), “legislating and penalizing such behaviors ignores the trend to-
wards shared knowledge and social media” (p.18). The practitioner must thereby provide effective

― ８９ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

assessment measures that account for the effects of digitally-mediated cooperative learning infra-
structures. Possible resolutions include a reduction in “traditional” testing models in favor of digital
assessment methods, such as Wiki entries, online portfolios, video discussion chains, or blog activi-
ties, which permit specific review of individual contributions. Regardless of approach, however, one
must ensure that flexible routes of assessment exhibit equivalency with established methods with re-
gards to practicality and the degree of learner contribution.
Given the range of factors presented here, it is evident that any discussion regarding the appli-
cation of CALL should abandon binary distinctions with regard to provision. The hybridization of
TEL with more conventional forms of instruction offers institutions a flexible, interest-driven foun-
dation for language acquisition that similarly recognizes the benefits of face-to-face interaction and
its associated methodologies. Indeed, given the growing utilization of CMC as a collaborative space
for learners to process and discuss content (Gordon, 2014), one could argue that formal learning is
becoming increasingly blended, making either/or distinctions functionally redundant. CALL thereby
affords institutions the opportunity to not only embrace emergent forms of pedagogy but a new and
dynamic type of learner, also.

The Status of the Educational Practitioner

The emergence of CALL as a vehicle for learner-centered education has provoked a re-
assessment of the role of language teachers. Where once, the practitioner inhabited the part of a di-
dactic transmitter of knowledge, cognitive-based paradigms in conjunction with the diffusion of in-
formation technologies have expedited a transition toward facilitator of learning archetypes. Given
that such philosophies inherently promote learner autonomy and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982), some
commentators hold the belief that automated instruction may come to assume the majority of teach-
ing functions (Beatty, 2010). Unsurprisingly, the analogy of the computer-as-a-teacher has drawn
fierce criticism ; Williams (1998, pp.162-163), for instance, argues that such comparisons reinforce
false conceptualizations apropos of what computers are, what they offer and, crucially, the processes
by which educators and learners interact with one another.
In the case of integrative CALL, emphasis is placed on reciprocal dialogue between all partici-
pants. During this process, teachers act to not only stimulate communication, but provide compre-
hensible input, set content, address errors in language generation, monitor and review learning, pro-
vide reassurance and pastoral support, and guide learners toward their appropriate learning dynamics
as they interact with CALL. These factors are particularly significant during preliminary learning
when students are developing the requisite linguistic and technical scaffolds to navigate CALL con-
tent effectively. Thus, the elimination of teacher presence would remove a stimulant vital to initial
and continued language learning processes. Moreover, while experiential approaches to TEL are dis-
tinguished by their interest-driven nature, a reduction in face-to-face contact with peers and formal
educational practitioners may result in demotivation or a deviation from productive learning. This
dynamic is especially pertinent when accounting for demographics of age, with younger learners, in
particular, susceptible to distraction. The lack of immediacy may also impact upon error correction
and contextual language usage, particularly with reference to spontaneous language production.
Accordingly, it should be noted that even highly-specialized linguistic programs frequently
struggle to account for non-predictive language generation, such as idiomatic and colloquial phras-

― ９０ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

ing. High-quality software packages that apply to the socio-cultural context of a specific language
may be prohibitively expensive or difficult to source. That is not to say that CALL, whether facili-
tated via CMC, community-generated content, or AI is unable to account for the factors listed here.
However, due to time zone or scheduling conflicts, synchronous CMC may be realistically unattain-
able ; user-generated content may be prepared by those inexperienced in pedagogical theory ; and
AI, in its current manifestation, is unable to account sufficiently for the affective and cognitive con-
siderations unique to individual language learners. The educator, if appropriately skilled, can con-
solidate the above with the additional benefits of immediacy and a physical, reassuring presence.
Rather than displacing face-to-face instruction, CALL should be viewed as a complementary instru-
ment that, if used both creatively and appropriately, will relieve educators of laborious functions,
thereby enabling “students to receive individualized attention from both teachers and machines”
(Ravichandran, 2000, p.87).
While reluctance to embrace digital pedagogies may stem from a lack of understanding over
the status of technology, an increasingly digitalized society is calling for a reconciliation between
the educator and TEL. Proficiency in the use of established techniques is no longer sufficient when
accounting for the omnipresence of network technologies and sustained growth in “digital native”
(Prensky, 2001) language learners. It is the contemporary practitioners’ responsibility to not only fa-
cilitate digitally-mediated language acquisition but also to prepare learners for the application of net-
worked technologies beyond the confines of the classroom (Hubbard, 2004). The advancement of
learner digital literacy is undeniably a broad and holistic endeavor, yet deficiencies in the technical
and theoretical knowledge of educators present a significant barrier to the practical application of
CALL. As noted by Prensky (2001), divergences in teacher digital proficiency may stem from the
generational gap between contemporary learners, who grew up surrounded by networked technolo-
gies, and those teachers who did not. For instance, given that pre-integrative CALL was typically
excluded from language classrooms, it is perhaps understandable that “digital immigrant” language
educators continue to place their trust in conventional instructional devices, such as textbooks. Nev-
ertheless, the suspicion that “the use of computers threatens traditional literacy skills since such are
heavily tied to books” (Patnaik & Venugopal, 2008, p.325) is not only fundamentally flawed, but
damaging to the socio-contextual features of FLA, including cultural awareness, pragmatics and
phonology, and thus, communicative competence as a whole.
Bax (2003) categorizes an alternative psychological distance, in which a combination of fear
and awe, interspersed with exaggerated expectations with regards to applications of technology, in-
hibits educators from implementing CALL successfully. Specifically, the “sole agent fallacy” relies
on the “assumption that the key or only factor in successful implementation of the technology is the
technology itself” (Bax, 2003, p.25). Regardless of the educator’s inclination to employ TEL, how-
ever, measures must be taken to enhance professional development and collaboration amongst lan-
guage educators. Laurillard (2012), for instance, envisions teachers working alongside and indeed
working as researchers to effect and disseminate reflective practice. While issues of workload and
budgets present noticeable barriers to such an approach, more practical “design patterns” offer edu-
cators the opportunity to externalize solutions to recurrent pedagogical issues via the distribution of
semi-structured methodologies. In essence, teachers and faculties distribute resources throughout the
FLA community, contributing to the cooperative development of “resources and tools for supported

― ９１ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

independent learning” (Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017, p.12). Given that teaching, whether at the mi-
cro or macro levels, is a constant collaborative process, design patterns should, in theory, represent
an adaptation of pre-existing professional competency and thus be relatively simple to adopt.

The Status of the Learner

When evaluating the potential implications of CALL, the most significant considerations are
undeniably those tied directly to the learner. For instance, given the inherent fluidity of the medium,
CALL exhibits the potential to support independent learning via provision of individualized content
that is adaptive to the specific preferences of the user. Notable in this approach is the opportunity
for inhibited or underachieving students to enhance their levels of performance, communication, and
participation via learner-centered language activities embedded within personally relevant or familiar
contexts. Moreover, during such tasks, high-achieving students may realize their full language learn-
ing potential without impeding peers from processing content at their own pace. This dynamic may
foster positive attitudinal changes amongst the majority of learners, with particular regard to learning
motivation and self-efficacy. As a consequence, learners are “less dependent on a teacher and have
more freedom to experiment on their own with natural language in natural or semi-natural settings”
(Barani, 2013, p.512). CALL, therefore, offers a compelling medium for fostering both learner in-
clusivity and autonomy−with these factors enhanced further in the presence of socially interactive
activities that facilitate communication, collaboration, and experimentation (Blake, 2013).
One significant outcome of integrative CALL is the shifting notion of the individual, specifi-
cally learner identity (Gordon, 2014). As established by White (2007), “identity is… constructed,
negotiated, and maintained to a significant extent through language and discourse” (p. 101). Thus, if
language learning is to be truly impactful, it requires an approach that accounts for the inherent
complexity and distinctiveness of language learners, their respective social contexts, and the proc-
esses by which participants view themselves and others within the context of the target language
and culture (Harklau, 2007). This heterogeneity of the self extends beyond “physical” and “digital”
personas ; it encompasses divergences in consciousness with regards to the sociolinguistic context
of each language. Indeed, language is a fundamental representation of culture ; each instance pro-
vides a unique lens by which to view the world or, as famously stated by Charlemagne, “to have
another language is to possess a second soul.” In this context, CALL ecologies that mediate social
interaction and the exploration of target cultures not only accommodate but nurture the discursive,
pluralistic nature of learner identity and self-growth.
Nonetheless, Laurillard & Kennedy (2017) note that the transnational nature of education has,
more often than not, compelled international learners to adapt to the cultural and pedagogical con-
texts of their host institution. By contrast, ex-situ CALL content, such as MOOCs, exhibit the poten-
tial to situate the culture of the target language within the context of the learner, providing an edu-
cational setting more receptive to diverse socio-contextual paradigms (Laurillard & Kennedy, 2017),
while contemporaneously enhancing both first and second language competencies. As a conse-
quence, the potential for inclusive learning is, perhaps, the defining benefit of CALL. The approach
offers a tangible medium with which to combat socio-educational inequality, including variances in
provision with regards to gender, age, location, physical capability, socio-economic status, and a va-
riety of additional factors. Access to digital language learning platforms enhances not only linguistic

― ９２ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

but psychological variables, including self-efficacy and esteem, via the realization of linguistic goals
that may, in turn, scaffold other domains of study.
The provision of CALL to disadvantaged groups presents an appreciable opportunity for self-
betterment and the improvement of opportunity. Nevertheless, the digital divide remains an all-too-
real social and economic inequity that impacts individuals, families, and geographical areas within
developing and developed nations alike. The relative scarcity of high-speed internet infrastructures
within economically disadvantaged settings, in conjunction with a lack of acceptance for TEL within
specific cultures, present noticeable barriers to equitable CALL participation. Nevertheless, as digital
technologies continue their dissemination, the divide is gradually narrowing. The Pew Research
Center (2018), for instance, notes that American smartphone ownership has risen to 77%, a consid-
erable increase on the 35% that was recorded by the same organization in a previous study (Zickuhr,
2011). Such devices promote further digital equity, acting as key drivers of inclusive education by
granting access to target languages and cultures to traditionally disadvantaged populations−with
Pew (2018) noting that the use of smartphones as a principal means of online access is “especially
common among younger adults, non-whites and lower-income Americans.”

Conclusion
The continued migration of language education to network-based solutions has provoked a re-
configuration of FLA environments into settings in which digital and linguistic competencies ad-
vance per collaborative, experiential processes. With this in mind, integrative CALL offers a com-
pelling vision for FLA, and for observing how social, cognitive, and affective factors impact the
flow of knowledge during the conjunction of digital content and linguistic acquisition. Most notably,
CALL in its current manifestation holds the potential to make significant contributions to student-
centeredness, learner interaction, achievement, motivation, self-efficacy, and global understanding ;
and for fostering learning environments in which students can develop digital literacy via creative
processes and, by association, multidisciplinary high-order cognitive mechanisms. Nevertheless, it
should be noted that empirical evidence proving the potential of CALL remains relatively underde-
veloped ; educators should be cautious to distinguish the functional veracity of the medium and to
reject the assumption that the presence of CALL alone is sufficient to facilitate FLA. Integrative
CALL, while versatile, does not provide a complete facsimile of learner-mentor interaction. Educa-
tors should thereby embed their pedagogical knowledge into digital activities that maintain and pro-
mote autonomously-driven learning, while also providing the opportunity for individual student con-
tact.
To conclude, engaging in digitally-mediated language instruction is a persistent challenge that
requires the constant reappraisal of one’s pedagogical methods. However, as the population of “digi-
tal native” learners increases, so too does the requirement for−and, indeed, confidence in−techno-
logical learning interventions. This paper, in presenting the respective advantages and limitations of
CALL, calls for language educators to embrace a flexible and adaptive approach to language acqui-
sition that provides infrastructures for cooperative and explorative learning, while also exhibiting the
potential to facilitate positive affectual and language acquisition changes in disadvantaged demo-
graphics. The continued and vertiginous rise of networked technologies is currently redefining the
roles and identities of educators and learners alike ; it is thus consistent that language educators

― ９３ ―
 関西学院大学国際学研究 Vol.10 No.1

adapt their technical and pedagogical competencies to meet local and global educational imperatives
and, crucially, the diverse language learning modes of their students.

References
Ballard, J., & Butler, P. (2011). Personalized learning : Developing a Vygotskian framework for e-learning. International
Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 7(2), 21-366.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
https : //doi.org/10.1037/0003-066 X.37.2.122
Barani, G. (2013). The impact of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) on vocabulary achievement of Iranian univer-
sity students EFL learners. International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research, 2(5), 531-537.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL−past, present, and future. System, 31, 13-28. https : //doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Beatty, K. (2010). Teaching & researching computer-assisted language learning (2nd ed.). Longman (Pearson Education).
Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom (2nd ed.). Georgetown University Press.
Bloom, B. S. & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of learning objectives. Handbook 1 : Cognitive domain. Longman.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles : An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Prentice Hall.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language, 35, 26-58.
Coskun, A. (2011). Investigation of the application of communicative language teaching in the English language classroom−
A case study on teachers’ attitudes in Turkey. Journal of Linguistics & Language Teaching, 2(1), 85-109.
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the Use of Interactive Whiteboard Technology in the Language Classroom through
the Lens of a Critical Theory of Technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62.
https : //doi.org/10.1080/09588220600804012
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2004). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), ESL & Ap-
plied Linguistics Professional Series. New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms (pp.3-14). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education : Connective learning & the com-
mercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 183-194.
https : //doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.x.
Gilquin, G., & Granger, S. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching? In A. O’Keeffe, & M.
McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.359-370). Routledge.
Gordon, N. (2014). Flexible pedagogies : Technology-enhanced learning. The Higher Education Academy.
Harklau, L. (2007). “The adolescent language learner : Identities lost & found.” In J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.), Inter-
national Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp.640-653). Springer.
Harnish, R. M. (2002). Minds, brains, computers : An historical introduction to the foundations of cognitive science. Black-
well.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), ESL & Applied Linguistics
Professional Series. New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms (pp.45-67). Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates.
Jandric´, P. (2014). Deschooling virtuality. Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 84-98.
https : //doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2014.965193
Kenning M. M., & Kenning M. J. (1990). Computers & language learning : Current theory & practice. Ellis Horwood.
Kumaresan, K., Balamurugan, K., & Thirunavukkarasu, S. (2012). Computer-assisted language learning. The International
Journal of Management Research & Review, 2(12), 2083-2086.
Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning & how to research it? International Journal of
Learning & Media, 4(2), 7-18. https : //doi.org/10.1162/IJLM_a_00091
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science. Routledge.
Laurillard, D., & Kennedy, E. (2017). The potential of MOOCs for learning at scale in the Global South (Centre for Global
Higher Education Working Paper Series Number 31). Retrieved from
http : //www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp31.pdf

― ９４ ―
 Michael D. SMITH・David MCCURRACH：An Examination of the Relative Benefits & Limitations of CALL

Lievrouw, L., & Livingstone, S. (2002). Handbook of new media : Social shaping & social consequences. Sage.
MOOEC. (2017). About−Massive open online English course. Retrieved from https : //mooec.com/about
Patnaik, L. M., & Venugopal, K. R. (2008). Proceedings second international conference on information processing. IK In-
ternational.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Mobile fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved From
http : //www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
https : //doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816.
Ravichandran, T. (2000). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the perspective of interactive approach : Advan-
tages & apprehensions. Proceedings : National Seminar on CALL (pp.82-89.). Anna University.
Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2013). CALL and learner autonomy : Affordances and constraints. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders,
& M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning (pp.359-376). Continuum.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches & methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (4th ed.). Longman
(Pearson Education).
Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Libraries Unlimited.
Schamroth Abrams, S. (2014). Integrating virtual & traditional learning in 6-12 classrooms : A layered literacies approach
to multimodal meaning making. Routledge.
Selwyn, N. (2017). Education & technology : Key issues & debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury.
Shaalan, K. F. (2005). An intelligent computer-assisted language learning system for Arabic learners. Computer Assisted Lan-
guage Learning, 18 (1 & 2), 81-108. https : //doi.org/10.1080/09588220500132399
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith, M. D., & Kim, D. Y. (2017). On the applications of computer-assisted language learning in a military English context.
The Mirae Journal of English Language & Literature, 22(2), 321-338.
Thomas, M. (2012). Universal grammar in second-language acquisition : A history. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society : The development of higher mental processes. Harvard University Press
Warschauer, M., (1996). Computer-assisted language learning : An introduction. In Fotos, S. (Ed.), Multimedia Language
Teaching (pp.3-20). Logos International.
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers & language learning : An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
https : //doi.org/10.1017/S 0261444800012970
White, C. (2007). Innovation & identity in distance language learning & teaching. Innovation in Language Learning &
Teaching, 1(1), 97-110. https : //doi.org/10.2167/illt 45.0
Williams, N. (1998). Educational multimedia : Where’s the interaction? In M. Montreith (Ed.), IT for Learning Enhancement
(pp.153-170). Swets & Zeitlinger.
Yang, Y. (2010). Computer-assisted foreign language teaching : Theory & practice. Journal of Language Teaching & Re-
search, 1(6), 909-912. https : //doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.909-912
Zickuhr, K. (2011). Generations & their gadgets. Pew Research Center. Retrieved From
http : //www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/03/generations-and-their-gadgets/

― ９５ ―