Can Computers Teach Languages

Can Computers Teach Languages?
Husain A. Dhalf University of Bahrain In the 1960s the scene of foreign-language teaching was invaded by the
spread of language laboratories as the most effective answer for most of
the problems facing learners of foreign languages, a move which was
initiated by the behaviouristic theory in learning and reinforced by the
audiolingual approach in language teaching. Since the 1970s and with the
rapid development in educational technology, it seems that the computer has
taken up a similar role in foreign-language teaching, especially in western
countries and some of the affluent countries in the third world. Supported
by the behaviouristic theory in language learning and learner-centred
pedagogy, the computer has surfaced as a possible substitute for classroom
conditions with its structured procedures.
There has recently been a surges of papers, seminars, and research work
devoted to highlighting the positive role the computer can play in the
teaching and learning process in general, and in learning languages in
particular. So much so that the versatility and accessibility of the
computer has in fact led some people to suggest that the computer may one
day replace the teacher. Although such a view might be overambitious, the
truth is the computer has become a highly sophisticated addition to the
classroom situation, and has captured the love and admiration of the
learners. This article will examine this state of affairs in the light of
recent developments in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and will
discuss a number of related issues. Historical perspective
Although computers have been with us since the 1940s, when they were used
in commerce and government administration in America, they were not used
for educational purposes until the 1960s. The 1960s and 1970s witnessed the
evolution of CALL as a result of development in research related to the use
of computers for linguistic purposes and for creating viable language-
learning conditions. In America the computer-based introductory Russian
course at Stanford in the 1960s was one of the pioneering projects in CALL,
and was referred to as Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). Another project
was developed simultaneously at the University of Illinois. This project
was called Programmed Logic for Automated Operations (PLATO) and was
developed to teach a range of subjects at the university. Here also a
computer based Russian course marked the move towards CALL, and was mainly
concerned with translation of written Russian into English. It concentrated
on dealing with grammar and the written form of the language.
In the early 1970s a number of CALL programs were developed at Dartmouth
College in New Hampshire to teach a range of languages which included
Danish, French, German, Latin, and Spanish. The 1980s have witnessed the
spread of computers both in educational institutions and in people's homes.
Since the beginning of the '80s computers have also found their way into
many primary schools. This has been the result of two factors, namely, that
computers and computing time have become cheaper, and that many new and
less complicated computers have been developed. CALL packages have also
become more readily available on the market." The computer laboratory has
become an integral component of foreign-language-learning programs in most
educational institutions.
From a theoretical point of view, the evolution of CALL was greatly
influenced by developments in four areas of research: (a) individualization
of instruction, (b) experiments in programmed instruction, (c) developments
in computational linguistics, (d) work on machine translation in the 1950s. CALL and the concept of artificial intelligence
Cook and Fass (n. d.) indicate that the current CALL techniques can be
divided into three categories: word-guessing games such as storyboards
exercises, traditional techniques such as structural drills, and discussion
stimulation whereby the computer presents a text to develop conversation
between the learners which usually ends up in making a decision.
However, many teachers and programmers involved in using or producing CALL
materials have always felt that CALL techniques should be made more
communicative. That is to say, an our aim is to teach language for
communication, CALL programs should employ a communicative methodology that
will involve the learner in a more meaningful interaction with the
computer, and not merely in manipulating language structures.
Research into creating communicative CALL programs was based on the
concept of "artificial intelligence" (AI). AI aims to create computer
programs that "exhibit behaviour that we call intelligent behaviour when we
observe it in human beings" (Slagle 1971:1). Theoretically, the basic
concept in AI is the setting up of problem-solving situations where the
computer applies techniques similar to those employed by human beings in
solving those problems, and where the performance of the computer improves
through experience. The term "experience" here is meant to refer to the
information that the user provides the computer in the course of the
interaction. Higgins and Johns (1984:61) suggest that as a result of
research into the artificial intelligence theory, we can now program
computers "to generate and respond to language appropriately, provided that
the language relates to knowledge of a restricted world." A good example of
this is provided in a program called DOCTOR, which is based on a computing
program known as the ELIZA program developed by Weizenbaum in 1966. In this
program the computer assumes the role of a psychotherapist and manipulates
the user's input sentences.
CALL programs based on the ELIZA technique aim to engage the learner in a
series of plausible exchanges that resemble a natural conversation. As Cook
(in Brumfit et al. 1985:17) puts it, these programs "attempt to fools the
user that the computer is 'understanding' far more than it is." ELIZA
operates by matching the user's input against a list of key words. Once the
match has been identified, the program either manipulates the user's input
to generate a further exchange, as in Weizenbaum's DOCTOR
Student: My mother hates me. Program: Is it because your mother hates you
that you came to see me? Or uses the match to trigger a pre-set response. Thus in Cook's STATION
(See Appendix II) the word leave in the question "When does the next train
to London leave?" will elicit the response "It leaves at half past ten."
However, other simple approaches can be adopted to turn otherwise" dry
conventional dialogues into a more personal and thus more interesting
interaction. Using the same principle employed in the ELIZA technique, for
example, I wrote a program in LOGO called STRANGER, which consists of the
following exchanges: Program: What's your name?
Student: Husain.
P: Hello, Husain, and where do you come from?
S: Bahrain.
P: Oh, really? I had a friend once who came from the south of Bahrain. And
how old are you, Husain?
S: 40.
P: Oh, you don't look 40. And what are you doing in Britain, Husain?
S: Visiting some friends.
P: I see. And how long have you been here?
S: Three weeks.
P: Aha, and how do you like the weather here, Husain?
S: It's very cold.
P: Well, it hasn't always been like this, you know. And how long are you
going to stay in Britain?
S: Until the end of this month.
P: Well, I hope you enjoy your stay here.
S: Thanks.
P: I've got to go now. Nice talking to you, Husain. See you some time. CALL and the learner's communicative competence
In order to discuss the effect of the computer in general and the ELIZA
type material in particular in developing the learner's ability to use
language for communication, it might be helpful to consider what that
ability entails. To have a communicative command of the language, the
learner must be able to produce appropriate utterances and make appropriate
interpretations of utterances in the context given. In other words, the
learner should have a communicative competence, which Campbell and Wales
(1970:247) define as "the ability to produce or understand utterances which
are not so much grammatical but, more important, appropriate to the context
in which they are made" (their emphasis). It is perhaps interesting to note
that Campbell and Wales emphasise appropriateness over grammaticality in
their definition, since it would be wrong to assume that grammatical
competence would automatically lead to communicative competence.
Using language for communication, or developing the learner's
communicative competence, involves much more than manipulating sentence
patterns to produce grammatical utterances in a controlled situation. It
includes acquiring rules of use as well as rules of usage. The concern with
appropriacy of the utterance involves studying how interactions are
specified in certain situations and how sentences operate in a certain
discourse. Teaching language communicatively, then, extends beyond syntax
to semantics, and takes into account not only the form of language but also
other aspects related to the use of language, such as the purpose of the
utterance.
It is true that programs developed on the ELIZA technique such as
CHATTERBOX (Cook and Hamilton 1984) may sound, at face value, as offering
meaningful interaction. However, the dialogues that the user develops in
using any of these programs, no matter how sophisticated they may become,
cannot be considered a real interaction but rather a superfici