Thinking Activity: History of CALL and MALL and also my experience of using mobile phone for learning and teaching.

 Hello readers!

Welcome  to my  blog. This blog  related  to the History  of CALL  and MALL. And also about  my experience  of using  mobile  phone for learning  and teaching. 

☆ History of  CALL :

CALL's origins can be traced back to the 1960s. Up until the late 1970s CALL projects were confined mainly to universities, where computer programs were developed on large mainframe computers.Traditional CALL programs presented a stimulus to which the learner had to provide a response. In early CALL programs the stimulus was in the form of text presented on screen, and the only way in which the learner could respond was by entering an answer at the keyboard. Some programs were very imaginative in the way text was presented, making use of colour to highlight grammatical features (e.g. gender in French and case endings in German) and movement to illustrate points of syntax (e.g. position of adjectives in French and subordinate clause word order in German). Discrete error analysis and feedback were a common feature of traditional CALL, and the more sophisticated programs would attempt to analyse the learner's response, pinpoint errors, and branch to help and remedial activities. A typical example of this approach is the CLEF package for learners of French, which was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s by a consortium of Canadian universities. A Windows version of CLEF has recently been released:

☆  About  my experience  of  using mobile phone for learning  and teaching:

Mobile learning is undergoing rapid evolution. While early generations of mobile learning tended to propose activities that were carefully crafted by educators and technologists, learners increasingly motivates  by their personal learning needs, including those arising from greater mobility and frequent travel. At the same time, it is often argued that mobile devices are particularly suited to supporting social contacts and collaborative learning - claims that have obvious relevance for language learning.A review of publications reporting mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) was undertaken to discover how far mobile devices are being used to support social contact and collaborative learning.In particular, we were interested in speaking and listening practice and in the possibilities for both synchronous and asynchronous interaction in the context of online and distance learning. We reflect on how mobile language learning has developed to date and suggest directions for  future , for instance).Having defined mobile learning (m-learning) in the next section, this paper then offers an overview of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) research, describing and critiquing the approaches taken. We ask whether MALL can currently successfully support collaborative listening and speaking activities. Based on the findings of earlier studies, we suggest areas for further research.

☆What is mobile learning?

Mobile learning is undergoing rapid evolution. Early generations of mobile learning projects tended to propose formally-designed activities, carefully crafted by educators and technologists, and using emerging technologies that were not yet widely accessible well understood. Current, widespread ownership of mobile and wireless devices means that learners are increasingly in a position to take the lead and engage in activities motivated by their personal needs and circumstances of use, including those arising from greater mobility and travel .

☆An Overview of Mobile Assisted Language: 

 Learning 275Although mobile phones were developed to allow oral interaction, MALL rarelyseems to make use of this affordance, at least in published research. Exceptions arefound in a study at Stanford University (Tomorrow’s Professor Listserv, 2002) and inthe learning and teaching of Irish as a Second Language (ISL), as reported by Clooney& Keogh (2007). In the Stanford research, native speakers of the target language (L2)coached learners via mobile phone. This approach was abandoned when scheduling difficulties intervened. A second activity requiring oral interaction was also tested atStanford University, where learners used their mobile phones to take part in automaticvoice-controlled grammar and vocabulary quizzes. Although these were accessible at any time and from any location (provided there was mobile phone network coverage),the activity was abandoned, primarily because of problems with voice recognition software. Although this study promoted oral production, like many other documentedMALL activities, it used the mobile device to deliver materials, albeit materials to which the learner could respond rather than receive passively.

☆  Kukulska-Hulme & Lesley Shield :participated, and the time available was restricted to one week (the length of a summer school) so the final, collaborative activities – creating blogs and wikis – did not happen.Despite these issues, analysis of the data obtained revealed several points worthy further investigation. Learners:•  needs time to learn how to use the new devices and software. When interviewed after taking part in the research, the majority were unaware the devices were multifunctional;• use devices in unpredictable ways. Although given advice about how they might use the devices, learners did not necessarily follow this. One of the activities at residential schools requires them to interview local residents using L2. Tutors suggested these interviews could be recorded to supplement any notes taken. Nostudent took this advice, preferring instead to record each other using L2 andar to take photographs of items, such as shop windows, that they considered representative of the target culture. Anecdotally, however, one Spanish tutor reported that students who had used the devices went on to make more oral contributions in class than those who had not;• do not use devices they consider intrusive. Mini-camcorders were used less often than voice recorders because learners considered the former “got in the way”.

. Mobile phones Naismith et al. (2004) refer to the fact that a web-based Japanese system for English language learning – Pocket Eijiro – receives more than 100,000 hits per day. Thissystem was designed for access via WAP-enabled mobile phones. Morita (2003) also draws attention to the popularity of this material and emphasises the necessity to redesign web-based material for mobile access. Web- and mobile-based learners may have different needs, he suggests:“A WBT [web-based training] system assumes that learners will prepare time to study in front of a computer, but a MBL [mobile-based learning] system ought to assume that learners will not prepare time to learn with MBL; instead the learning takes place in their spare-time such as during their waiting time." 

Thank you...