A Constructivist Framework for

Computer-Assisted Language Learning Software Design

Xu Jiajin

Beijing Foreign Studies University

1. Introduction

The increasing number of computers and ready access to the Internet at schools and homes make it possible to use computers and the Internet to facilitate foreign language teaching and learning. To meet the immediate needs of foreign language teaching and learning in such a climate, Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) software[1] is mushrooming. For instance, CD-ROMs, as companions to printed textbooks, and language learning websites are intimately within our reach. However, good CALL programs are not very easy to design. One of the problems is that theoretical considerations of linguistics, language learning etc are not fully implemented in designing CALL software. Writing this thesis is an initiative to reflect the development boom of CALL enterprise as well as to formulate a workable framework for the design of CALL software. This CALL software design framework is set for self-directed language learning. Such are the primary motivation underlying this thesis.

1.1 Objectives

The objectives of this paper are: a) to sketch a brief history of CALL and CALL software design; b) to conduct a study of the design principles for CALL software and to put forward an integrated framework based on constructivist learning theory, a dominant epistemology in CALL research since about a decade ago. And the framework will be extended to researches on language input, individual learner differences and the interaction between the two factors and among learners as well. Language input as the subject matter can never be attached more importance. And the reason why individual learner differences have a role to play is that the past researches did not give enough attention to learner variables, because they are usually too complex to control. However, in self-directed learning, learner factors are more than necessary to be covered. Interaction, a prominent strength of CALL is discussed to bridge language content and language learners.

1.2 Methods

The object of study is CALL software (primarily for self-access learning of college level students). Attention is focused on the individual learners as well as the social dimension of language learning. The individual and social perspectives are two fundamental positions held by most constructivists. Constructivist approach is taken to investigate the issue of CALL software design in a unified principled way. Although the research is under the rubric of constructivism, the majority of this study is benefited from the research findings in linguistics and second language acquisition (SLA). Technical problems are not studied in detail in this thesis except for cases that technology plays a predominantly enhancing role.

In the next part, existing works on CALL software design are summarized, accompanied by a historical perspective. We have a study of approaches from the CALL literature demonstrating the diverse perspectives (e.g. behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism etc). Constructivism will be given a detailed account in the review of the related literature. In the following parts, constructivist language input, interactive language learning environment and individual learner differences will be examined respectively. By looking at the factors as a whole, an integrated framework is generated. Finally, we will outline some implications of the proposed model for the design of CALL software. And in the discussion of limitations, user acceptance of CALL and CALL software is addressed as a critical open issue in CALL practice. The directions for future research are outlined.

2. Approaches to CALL Design

Many researches have been carried out in the over forty-year development of CALL, but we still lack systematic frameworks for CALL. In CALL design we are “still in search of research paradigms. …A glance through the computer-assisted language learning (CALL) literature of the 1990s reveals the profession’s quest for principled means of designing and evaluating CALL” (Chapelle, 1997).

2.1 Facts about CALL and CALL software

2.1.1 CALL

CALL refers to the use of computer in the teaching and learning of a second or foreign language (Richards et al, 1998). CALL may “take advantage of diverse and rapidly expanding spectrum of computer technologies that assist the teaching and learning process.” CALL applications “include guided drill and practice exercises, computer visualization of complex objects, and computer-facilitated communication between students and teachers” (CAI, 1998).

To put it differently, presentation of new language information, discussion among language learners, assessment of learners’ progress can all be automatically done with computer and network. Language education is no longer time bound or space bound. The priorities of modern CALL can be best seen from the following table:

	Textbooks	OHP	LL	CALL
Audio	﹣	-	+	+
Video	﹣	﹣	-	+
Huge storage of data	﹣	﹣	-	+
Word-processing ability	﹣	﹣	-	+

Table 2.1 Comparison of instructional aids

(Revised from 杨惠中，1998)

(OHP = overhead projector LL = language lab)

From the table we can see that the content in the printed textbooks is mainly texts and images, and they are presented to the readers in a static manner, without sound, animation etc. The primary equipment in an LL is a tape recorder, which provides sound information but not text or image.

In terms of word-processing ability, it seems to teachers that this function is optional, and for some even unnecessary in most language learning. While in writing, automatic spell checker, grammar checker, and search of synonyms and antonyms in CALL programs can really enhance self-directed learning. Additionally, advanced functions like compiling word list according to word frequency, generating concordances from large corpora etc can also find place in language learning.

Printed textbooks cannot provide audio information, so audio tapes are very often accompanied. As stated earlier, LL is just the opposite in this respect. CALL however integrates text, video, sound, graphics, animation etc. Web-based courseware provides opportunities for synchronous and asynchronous message exchange and collaboration.

2.1.2 CALL software and its classification

In Table 1.1, CALL outdoes other instructional aids mostly in its multimedia priorities. Actually the integration of multimedia technology only makes part of CALL software. CALL software provides enough opportunities for learners to work more independently. The self-paced learner control of learning process gives rise to the reform in foreign language learning.

At present, commercially available CALL software can be roughly classified into five types. 谢幼如(1999) outlines six types of Computer-assisted Instruction (CAI) software, but “Experiment simulation” does not fit in language learning software.

l Classroom demonstration

l Self-directed learning

l Practice and exercise

l Instructional games

l Electronic dictionaries and reference books

The self-directed learning software mentioned above is similar to the CALL software in question. But given the cost-effectiveness and the market, CALL software, for the most part, is not in such a clear-cut classification. That is to say, the producers are more concerned about their sales and profits. Less attention has been devoted to the usability and applicability of the software, because as a rule of thumb, a multi-functional or multi-purposeful product can be accepted and purchased by more. Fortunately, like researchers in other facets of Applied Linguistics, CALL researchers and developers have started their quest for principled means of designing CALL (e.g. Chapelle, 1997). The pros and cons of the new medium of language teaching and learning are investigated in reaction to research of cognitive psychology, communication theory, linguistics and SLA. This paper will mainly look at three most influential theoretical approaches – behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism – for CALL software design.

2.2 Approaches to CALL design

For the past decade (1990s), the study of learning has been engaged in a paradigm shift. Many of the assumptions of behaviorist and cognitive theories of learning have been challenged by a combination of more socially and constructively oriented theories (Hoven, 1999; Warschauer, 1996). Next this change in CALL research will be reviewed.

2.2.1 Behavioristic CALL design

2.2.1.1 Behaviorism

Behaviorism is the school of psychology that defines psychology as the study of observable behavior and studies relationships between stimuli (S) and responses (R). Within a decade after Watson’s 1913 article Psychology As the Behaviorist Views It, behaviorism became the dominant school in North American psychology until the mid 1960s (Rathus, 1993). Stern (1983) describes the period of 1960s as characterized by “pedagogically audiolingualism, psychologically behaviorism, linguistically structuralism”.

Of the many behaviorists who succeeded Watson, by far the most famous is B. F. Skinner, who developed a new kind of device for studying learning in animals and a new way of describing the learning process. In language teaching practice, the Audiolingual Approach is based on behaviorism and structuralism, which emphasizes the spoken rather than the written form and presented the learner with a carefully graded series of habit-forming modes of learning (车文博，1998; Kern et al, 2000).

2.2.1.2 Behavioristic CALL design

While carrying out theoretical research, Skinner also tried to integrate behaviorism with teaching practice. In the 1960s, with the development of computer science, Skinner explored the possibilities of applying behaviorism in CAI and produced a teaching model called linear model (see Figure 2.1). This linear model was influenced by audiolingualism. The psychological basis of audiolingualism is behaviorism by its nature; in other words, audiolingualism is the best manifestation of behaviorism in language teaching (章国英，1995).

		Correct

Figure 2.1 The linear model (章国英，1995)

In the 1960s and 1970s the first form of CALL was implemented and characteristic of repetitive language drills, the so-called drill-and-practice method, that follows the linear model mentioned above. It was based on the behaviorist learning model and as such computer was viewed as a mechanical tutor that never got tired. Behaviorist CALL was first designed and implemented in the era of the mainframe and the best-known tutorial system PLATO. It was mainly used for extensive drills, explicit grammar instruction, and translation tests (Warschauer, 1996; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; 章国英，1995).

2.2.2 Cognitive CALL design

2.2.2.1 Cognitivism

By about 1960 behaviorism began to lose its dominance in psychology and language. From the 1960s to today, cognitive psychology has increased in influence, and for the following two decades it has been considered the dominant approach. Cognitivism views language as a mentally constructed system. Language learning is understood to develop through the operation of innate cognitive ability or language input. Therefore, the language education is oriented towards cognitive processes involved in the learning and use of language (Kern et al, 2000).

2.2.2.2 Cognitive CALL design

Cognitive CALL emerged in the 1970s and 1980s as a reaction to the behaviorist approach to language learning. Proponents of cognitive CALL rejected behaviorist approaches at both the theoretical and pedagogical level. They stressed that CALL should focus more on using (my emphasis) forms rather than on the forms per se. Grammar should be taught implicitly and students should be encouraged to generate original utterances instead of manipulating prefabricated forms. This form of computer-based instruction corresponded to cognitive theories which recognized that learning was a creative process of discovery, expression, and development. The mainframe was replaced by personal computers that allowed greater possibilities for individual work. Popular CALL software in this era included text reconstruction programmers and simulations (Warschauer, 1996; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; 章国英，1995).

2.2.3 Constructivist CALL design

2.2.3.1 Constructivism in general

In the theoretical search for CALL models, more and more researchers in the field agree that constructivism is in considerable agreement with the inherent characteristics of CALL. Unfortunately no operational constructivist model has been proposed for CALL design to date.

Constructivism is often mentioned in contrast to the behaviorism, and at once viewed as a furtherance of cognitivism. In teaching and learning practices, behaviorism “centers on students’ efforts to accumulate knowledge and on teachers’ efforts to transmit it. It therefore relies on a transmission, instructional approach which is largely passive, teacher-directed and controlled”. On the other end of the spectrum, constructivism stresses that knowledge is seen as relative, varying according to time and space. Constructivism basically means that as we experience something new, we understand it with the aid of our past experiences. A constructivist views learners as actively engaged in making meaning, and constructivist learning design concentrates on what learners can analyze, investigate, collaborate, share, build and generate based on what they already know, rather than what facts, skills, and processes they can parrot (何高大，2001).

Like behaviorism and cognitivism, constructivism as well takes on varying forms, such as radical, cognitive, social, physical, evolutionary, postmodern constructivism, social constructionism, and information-processing constructivism (何高大，2001). Different as they are, they share some fundamental considerations, say, individual construction of knowledge and the role of social interaction in learning, which are the two positions held by most constructivists. Also these two positions correspond to the basic tenets of cognitive constructivism and social constructivism respectively. In this paper therefore cognitive constructivism pioneered by Jean Piaget, and social constructivism initiated by Lev Vygotsky will be taken as theoretical bases for our framework.

2.2.3.2 Cornerstones of constructivism

Constructivism is in fact not a completely new concept. It has its roots in philosophy and has been applied to sociology and anthropology, as well as cognitive psychology and education. The development of constructivist theories cannot be ascribed to one single scholar. Some researchers trace the beginning of constructivism back to Giambatista Vico’s thesis in 1710 that “one only knows something if one can explain it”. German philosopher Immanual (sic) Kant is another important figure often mentioned in the history of constructivist philosophy. He asserted that human beings are not passive recipients of information. Learners actively acquire knowledge, associate it with previously learned knowledge and make it theirs by constructing their own interpretation (何高大，2001). However, Jean Piaget, Swiss developmental psychologist, is regarded as the father of constructivism who provided the foundation for modern day constructivism. Therefore we will first have a look at Piaget’s view of cognitive development, and then Vygotsky’s social constructivism.

l Piaget’s theory of cognitive development

In Piaget’s view, intelligence consists of two interrelated processes, organization and adaptation. People organize their thoughts so that they make sense, sorting out thoughts and connecting one idea to another. At the same time, people adapt their thinking to include new ideas, for new experiences provide additional information. This adaptation occurs in two ways, through assimilation and accommodation. In the former process, new information is simply added to the existing cognitive organization. In the latter, the intellectual organization has to change somewhat to adjust to the new idea (“Piaget”, 2001).

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development proposes that humans cannot be “given” information which they immediately understand and use. Instead, humans must “construct” their own knowledge. They build their knowledge through experience. Experiences enable them to create schemata – mental models in their heads (“Piaget”, 2001).

l Piaget’s theory of learning

Piaget’s theory of learning is a cornerstone of modern understanding as to how humans learn. Piaget postulated that there are mental structures that determine how data and new information are perceived. If the new information makes sense to the existing mental structure, then the new information is incorporated into the structure.

If the information is very different from the existing mental structure, it will not be incorporated into the structure. The new information is either rejected, assimilated or transformed so that it will fit into the structure. For instance, a person will probably reject a concept. If he or she is forced to do something with the information that the meaning is not understood.

To sum up, there are two key Piagetian principles for learning (“Piaget”, 2001):

1) Learning is an active process: Direct experience, making errors, and looking for solutions are vital for the assimilation and accommodation of information. How information is presented is important. 2) Learning should be whole, authentic, and real. Learners are more likely to learn if they are engaged in meaningful activities.

Lev Vygotsky’s contribution to constructivism is next to Piaget in the development the constructivist theory.

l Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development

Vygotsky believed everything is learned on two levels. First, through interaction with others, and then integrated into the individual’s mental structure. Therefore, social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition.

Another aspect of Vygotsky’s theory is the idea that the potential for cognitive development is limited to a “zone of proximal development (ZPD)” which is probably his best-known concept. It argues that learners can, with help from adults or children who are more advanced, master concepts and ideas that they cannot understand on their own (“Vygotsky”, 2001).

l Vygotsky’s theory of learning

Vygotsky shared many of Piaget’s assumptions about how children learn, but he placed more emphasis on the social context of learning. In Vygotsky’s theories teachers and/or more experienced learners also have their role to play in learning, thereby interaction or collaboration can be achieved.

There is a great deal of overlap between cognitive constructivism and social constructivism. For Vygotsky the culture gives the child the cognitive tools needed for development. The type and quality of those tools determine to some extent, the pattern and rate of development. The kind of cultural tools include cultural history, social context, and language used by the learner. Today we can add electronic forms of information access as a more powerful tool. In this case, we can say PC to Piaget is like WWW (World Wide Web) to Vygotsky (PC to Piaget is like WWW to Vygotsky, 2001).

In this paper, we propose to use computer and network technology to connect learners in social or group settings. That would be a good trial to do social constructivism justice. A constructivist instructional designer should create a context for learning in which learners can become engaged in interesting activities that encourages or facilitates learning. A well-designed CALL program may guide learners as they solve problems, may encourage them to work in groups to work out questions.

2.3 Summary

In this part, we have reviewed three major theoretical movements in CALL and CALL design. This three-phase development roughly corresponds to the advances in computer technology from mainframe to PC and to the Internet. Constructivism has been recognized to best suit CALL research and practice. As Kern et al (2000) stated, when we look around at aspects of SLA, socio-cognitive perspective has been gaining popularity. Constructivism in general is such a socio-cognitively oriented theory. Hence, it is chosen for the discussion of CALL software design in this paper.

Constructivism mentioned here combines Piaget’s cognitive constructivism and Vygotsky’s social constructivism. Cognitive constructivism emphasizes the individual effort, while social constructivism the collaborative work. But they have common grounds to anchor on. These agreed characteristics of constructivist learning are summarized as four C’s: context, collaboration, conversation and construction. One basic notion of constructivism is that learners actively construct their knowledge rather than receive ideas preached by teachers. Further, constructivist learning is based on learners’ active participation in problem-solving and critical thinking in learning activities. The activities should be “situated” in real-world contexts, including the physical, cultural and social issues. The collaboration among learners via conversation (in a broad sense) should be encouraged. As a result, the knowledge is constructed as a natural product of the learners’ mind.

However, these constructivist principles are merely some theoretical assumptions. They do not provide a model for implementation from a general learning paradigm to CALL software design. A constructivist software CALL design model is possible, because constructivism provides a set of guiding principles to help designers create learner-centered, collaborative environments (Hung, 2001). Next, how constructivist principles can be adapted to suit CALL software design will be approached from language input, interactivity and individual learner differences.

3. A Constructivist Framework for CALL software Design

After an in-depth analysis of the characteristics of the design of constructivist learning software, it comes to be very natural to develop a design model. Before that, we will first look at the prototype of learning material development.

3.1 A prototypical process of learning material development

Generally, the material development follows the process diagrammed below:

Figure 3.1 The learning material development triangle

The Goal in the diagram represents what is the material specially targeted for, and what kind of syllabus with which the material complies. Design is the core procedure in the process, and it is usually guided by the goal. Production is largely technology-driven. This part will propose a working CALL design model for a self-directed language learning environment. The model is grounded on constructivist theory of learning, and takes account of linguistic input, interactivity and individual learner differences.

3.2 The CALL material development cycle

In the previous parts, we have examined the three aspects in CALL design: language input, interaction and learner factors. In a CALL software application, the three aspects are of essential relevance. It is very important for CALL developers to be clear on exactly what is meant by each of the aspects and how they can be realized onto CALL software.

A learner-driven design, therefore, will incorporate the focuses on what kind of language input is most suitable to learners, what kind of feedback and interaction, and what kind of leaner control in self-access learning. The four C’s, context, collaboration, conversation, and construction, can be best reflected in our CALL design framework. Within the framework, we place special emphasis on the accommodation of contextualized linguistic input, various types of interactions, and individual learner differences.

In the model, the key point we want to make is that the entire CALL package should be tailored to learners’ ability, needs and learning styles. Therefore, in a revised learning material development process, we add needs analysis to accommodate learners’ needs and characteristics. Needs analysis in language learning is “the process of determining the needs for which a learner requires a language and arranging the needs according to priorities. A needs analysis is normally required before a design is started (Richards et al, 1998). Needs analysis helps set the goal for CALL design, such as the target users and their language proficiency etc.

	DESIGN

Figure 3.2 An extended learning material development cycle

Taking account of the three features to be included in a constructivist framework for CALL software design, we will in the following section examine how the three components will be combined together to generate a working model.

3.3 A constructivist framework for CALL design

In devising such models, it is important that we keep in mind the theories and findings from mainstreams of second language pedagogy and SLA. At the same time, we have to be aware of the presence of new technology, and means of using it, such as, advances in multimedia and Computer-mediated Communication (CMC). The following model is developed in light of both theories of education in general (constructivism), of SLA and findings in CALL and CMC. The diagram below is the zoom-in of the design (Design in shade, referring to CALL design in a narrow sense) section of the extended model (see Figure 3.2). The small design is the design in a narrow sense. The big design, that is design in a broad sense, still includes an evaluation phase.

Figure 3.3 A constructivist model for CALL design

3.3.1 General characteristics of the model

: First of all, this model takes constructivism, the dominant theory in learning research, as the guiding principle of our CALL software design. Constructivist theory of learning is in accordance with communicative learning, and learner-centeredness. That is why we ground our design on the constructivist paradigm. Both cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives of constructivism entail learners’ involvement in real-world learning content and tasks. Socio-cultural constructivism especially calls for interaction in learning process. Thus, learning materials and learners and the learning community at large are intimately connected via interactions of different kinds.

: Constructivism concerns mainly methodical assumptions for design. And those assumptions have to be implemented in CALL practice. Then, as discussed previously, input quality (e.g. level of difficulty, authenticity etc) is of primary importance for all CALL applications. Constructivist language input is put in real-world contexts and tasks. Moreover, since individual learners differ in their actual levels of language ability, graded language should be presented. Language content can be presented in different modes with the assistance of computer. Whatever means of language input are used must meet learners’ needs of learning.

: According to constructivism, learning is a process of exploration and negotiation of knowledge. In this process, learners have to communicate with other learners or more capable peers. They must encounter problems. And they also need to know whether their work is correct or not. Therefore, the integration of interaction in CALL software will be a good means of motivating learners and enhancing learning. With such feedback, learners are able to solve learning problems on their own and ask for help when in need. With such feedback, they can assess themselves to the accuracy of a certain answer and also their progress in learning. Alternatively, in a network-based setting, such interaction can involve collaboration in solving problems.

: Only when computers are used in learning, the “teaching students in accordance with their aptitude – 因材施教” advocated by Confucius becomes realistic to a large extent. In traditional one-to-many mode of language instruction, the variation in learners’ ability, learning styles etc are not appropriately treated. Teachers cannot afford the time and energy. In autonomous CALL, it is all up to learners to manage their learning.

3.3.2 Practical design features of the model

With regard to the design of a self-directed CALL software package, the following design features should be included.

1) Input

a) Meaningful language input with learning assistance like grammar books, dictionaries, pre-recorded sample pronunciation etc.

b) Flexible learning materials in terms of level of difficulty of language, and diversified modes of presentation.

2) Interactivity

a) Interactive language learning exercises and activities, pertaining to the language learning objectives.

b) A content map for free navigation, and also for learners to be informed of their progress and the final goal.

c) Feedback and assessment for learners to know the errors they committed and progress they made.

d) CMC in the target language with other people on a network basis.

3) Individual learner differences

a) Use attractive screen layout, color, and font etc to allow for motivational factors. Edutainment – learning is designed as education within entertainment – is a case in point.

b) Provide training module of meta-cognitive strategies for awareness-raising in adopting effective learning strategies.

In summary, it is no surprising to find the above features hold true in conventional language classroom and for conventional self-directed learning materials. However, with computer and network, the functions and applicability of the designated features will play an enhancing role in computer-assisted language learning environment. That is why some researchers (e.g. Hoven, 1999) use Computer-Enhanced Language Learning (CELL) in preference to CALL.

3.3.3 Other aspects of the model

3.3.3.1 Relations between the components of the model

The constructivist theory of learning provides the guiding principles on which the proposed model is based. Therefore, the three major components in the model, though standing in isolation, are unified under the umbrella of constructivism. In other words, constructivist is on the top of the hierarchy.

Because constructivist theory of learning stresses the learner and learning in SLA practice, the learner- and learning-driven individualized interactive learning environment is the goal of the design. Thus it is no surprising to see some similar conviction and treatment in the recount of the three components of the paper. For example, learner control, as an intrinsic feature of constructivism, is mentioned. In a word, the three components are not mutually exclusive.

3.3.3.2 Evaluation of CALL software

As is usually the case with learning material design (see Figure 3.2), more attention is devoted to the blueprint and implementation than to the evaluation. Evaluation is actually a critical part of design. The criteria for CALL evaluation are the same with those of CALL design. But “practice is the sole criterion for truth.” Any CALL product without testing or evaluation procedure cannot be labeled a quality one. Such a diagnostic act will either confirm the design principles or address suggestions for modifications.