2.3.4 Communicative CALL

The tendency to take a behavioral approach to CALL declined as did disenchantment with the Audio-Lingual Method and with behavioral psychology. During the seventies and particularly in the eighties, interest grew in Communicative Language Teaching. Krashen's language acquisition theory, along with a growth in socio-linguistics led to a greater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The shift in focus paved the way for an evolution in CALL during the seventies and eighties towards what we can refer to as phase two of CALL: Communicative CALL. Underwood, (1984) developed a comprehensive set of principles for Communicative CALL. He argues that such an approach to language teaching:

1. focuses on communication rather than on the form and avoids drill;
2. teaches grammar implicitly through the lesson rather than explicitly;
3. allows and encourages the student to generate original utterances rather than merely manipulate prefabricated language;
4. does not judge or evaluate everything the student does;
5. avoids telling students they are wrong;
6. does not reward students with congratulatory messages, lights, bells whistles: success is sufficient reward;
7. does not try to be "cute";
8. uses the target language exclusively;
9. is flexible and avoids having only one response;
10. allows the student to explore the subject matter by providing an environment in which to play with language or manipulate it;
11. creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural;
12. does not try to do anything that a book could do just as well;
13. is fun, attractive, optional, supplementary: students explore, experiment and learn without being evaluated.

Hubbard (1987) identifies three categories of approaches to second-language teaching and, for each approach, provides a list of descriptors which can be applied to the evaluation of CALL software. CALL software will be representative of a particular approach to the extent that it meets certain criteria in relation to the underlying principles of the approach. The Communicative Approach or CLT is subsumed under the "acquisition approach" which Hubbard describes as follows:

1. provides meaningful communicative interaction between the learner and the computer;
2. provides comprehensible input at a level just beyond that currently acquired by the learner;
3. promotes a positive self-image in the learner;
4. motivates the learner to use the software;
5. motivates the learner to learn the language;
6. provides a challenge but does not produce frustration or anxiety;
7. does not include overt error correction;
8. allows the learner the opportunity to produce comprehensible output;
9. acts effectively as a catalyst to promote learner-learner interaction in the target language.

Computer tools such as word-processors and desk-top publishers might serve as a model of Communicative CALL. The role of the computer in Communicative CALL could also be referred to by Higgen's (1986,1988) computer-as-pedagogue. In this role, the computer "waits until summoned, responds to requests and serves". Although knowing the truth, the pedagogue patiently provides only the requested information or activities in order to lead to exploration and discovery on the part of the student (Backer, 1995, p.3). Legenhausen and Wolff (1987) in their typology of CALL focus on how classroom activities relate to real-world activities outside of the classroom. Using their typology, we can describe the role of the computer in Communicative CALL as simulator of reality. While the applications are still didactically motivated as in Behavioral CALL, the simulations provide opportunities for a focus on communication. Although, as the authors argue, the dichotomy between classroom and real world is not overcome.

The types of computer programs using a communicative approach might still include those of the drill and practice type. The difference with Communicative CALL however is that student choice, control and interaction play a more important role (Warschauer, 1996a). Other types of Communicative CALL programs rely on the model of computer-as-stimulus (Taylor Perez, 1989). "In this case, the purpose of the CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather to stimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking" (Warschauer, 1996a, p.3). As Waschauer cautions however: "...the dividing line between Behaviouristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software is used, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students" (p.3). Thus this second phase of CALL does not distinguish itself totally from the first phase. Instead, it serves moreso as a bridge to what could will be referred to the third phase of CALL.