context” (Martens, 2003). Thus, an ITS can,
depending on the underlying learner model, make
adaptation to the learner’s progress, decisions and/or
prior knowledge and expertise. Adaptation can take
place regarding the content, the navigation elements,
and the presentation style. This overwhelming
amount of flexibility comes with comparably high
development costs and time Consequently, ITS is
nice to have, but often not realized by companies due
to cost.
Chou and Hillman, et. al. describe ILE as
involving the interactions of “learner-content,
learner-learning, learner-instructor, and learner
interface” within a software (as referenced in Wang,
et. al., 2009). However, system adaptation is not
always present in ILE software. In general ILE is a
niche development, which realizes only some aspects
of ITS.
ILE and ITS are, in most cases, are individual
learner focused. However, in the context of language
learning where communication is the focus, we find
the following software types:
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL)
Network Based Language Training (NBLT)
CMC is described by Stockwell and Tanaka-Ellis
as “distance environments” or “blended learning
environments” (Stockwell and Tanaka-Ellis, 2012).
In these settings the software provides the connection
between the user, instructor, content and assessments.
One common representation of this format is
language schools, university departments or
institutions offering classes or seminars online. Blake
describes CMC as utilizing “social computing tools”
like forums, blogs, emails, Skype, or instant
messenger programs. In most forms, thus, we find a
combination between computer-based settings (or
CMC) and the presence of teachers and learners (e.g.
classroom) (Blake, 2011).
Scott, C. and Engal describe CSCL as a “cultural
constructivist approach” (Scott, C. and Engal, 1992).
Chapelle describes it as a software or platform
through which users interact and collaborate with
each other or an instance where users in the same
room or through local area network connections
interact and collaborate (Chapelle, 2001).
NBLT is characterized as taking place on a “local
area network” or “wide area network”. (Chapelle
2001). Additionally, Chapelle categorizes
pedagogical activities included in NBLTs as
Microworlds, Grammar Checkers, Pronunciation
Feedback Systems, ITS, Concordances Programs and
Word Processors (Chapelle, 2001).
1.2 Educational Framework
CALL software systems also differ in how
Behaviourist, Cognitivist and Constructivist
educational theories influence them.
Behaviourists educational elements can be
identified with Skinner’s research into “drill and
practice integrated learning systems”. The tasks
within these systems are scaffolded in a hierarchical
structure based on complexity and managed
according to a “stimulus/response feedback loop” (as
referenced in Niederhauser and Stoddart, 2001). The
feedback the user receives in these systems is
immediate and based the “correctness” of their input.
Egenfeldt-Nielsen further explains the reliance of
these systems on rewards (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006).
The cognitivist educational psychology is evident
in these systems by the prevalence of differing tools,
activities or formats that promote higher order
thinking (Stockwell, 2012). Interestingly, these
manifestations often mimic Bloom’s Taxonomy and
require users to predict, produce and reflect on their
language input.
In CALL systems influenced by constructivist
learning theory, users manipulate, discover and
explore content within the system (Hogle, 1996,
Niederhauser and Stoddart, 2001). They may
incorporate micro-worlds (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, 2006)
or the support of peer-peer interaction (Becta, 2001,
referenced in Mitchell and Saville-Smith, 2004).
With all of this insight into the complexity of
language software systems the question remains:
what CALL software systems are available
nowadays? Furthermore, what elements are found in
these software systems?
2 BACKGROUND
An initial investigation of linguistic and computer
science research specified what form our evaluation
must take. The following is a short explanation of the
research behind our questions.
2.1 Research Questions
Martens describes an adaptive system as flexible to
any changes in the learner’s development or in the
condition of the user’s input into the system (Martens,
2004). Similarly, Brusilovsky expresses that an
adaptive system modifies its feedback to the user’s