CALL in the 1980s

Background
In the 1960s and early 1970s developments in CALL were taking
place against a background of empiricist theory which provided a
well-defined, structured approach to language teaching and learning.
However, in the late 1970s these strands that had been woven
together so successfully, began to unravel. As a result, instead of the
set of optimal prescriptions for language teaching that was used in
the 1950s and 1960s, views became more circumspect reflecting the
complexity of language teaching and learning and the attributes and
needs of the individual learner. Notable amongst the new methods
that began to appear in the 1970s were the new humanistic methods
such as Community Language Learning (Curran 1976) and Total
Physical Response (Asher 1977). Humanistic methods and
techniques engaged the whole person, their emotions and feelings,
the affective dimension (see Moskowitz 1978: 2). But the most far-
reaching approach to language teaching to emerge at this time was
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Richards and Rodgers
characterize CLT as an approach rather than a method which ‘aims to (a)
make communicative competence the goal of language teaching and (b)
develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills that
acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication’
(Richards and Rodgers 1986: 66). That said, the communicative
approach to language teaching is open to a number of interpretations, and
as Long points out, CLT practice has not been derived from the results of
SLA research (Howatt 1984: 279; Long 1988: 115). It remains a label
that is widely used by language teachers, however, and clearly it has
meaning for practitioners.
Whilst significant change was occurring in theories of language,
language learning, and language teaching, rapid change was also taking
place in computing. In 1973 the microcomputer was invented, the Scelbi
8-H based upon the 8-bit 8008 chip, but it was not until 1975 that
computer clubs began to form around the USA (Smarte and Reinhardt
1990: 369). In 1976 Apple Computer was formed and the Apple I
released. In the following year the Commodore PET, the Apple II, and
the Radio Shack TRS-80 were released and these machines were the first
really to make inroads into the population at large in the USA. In 1977
the first serious educational applications appeared (Hofmeister and
Maggs 1984: 1-17). It was some years later, however, before the impact
of the microcomputer became apparent in the wider educational context,
with the introduction of the Apple II in the USA (1977), the Sinclair
ZX80 (1980), and the BBC micro in the UK (1982), and in Australia in
about 1983 with the introduction of the Apple lie. At this time the interest
in CALL grew dramatically and much software was produced, but
without a unified theory supporting its structure and content.
The early 1980s saw a boom in computer-assisted language learning
largely due to the introduction of the microcomputer. Intro4uctorybooks
on the topic began to appear, including O'Shea and Seirfl9^3)f Kenning
and Kenning (1984), Wyatt (1984c), Higgins and Johns (1984), Ahmad
etal. (1985), Davies and Higgins (1982; 1985), and specialized CALL
journals, such as the CALICO Journal first appeared (1983).
It was in the early 1980s that the language teacher-programmer became
prominent. With the widespread availability of inexpensive
microcomputers, often supplied with a version of BASIC, the motivated
language teacher could write simple CALL programs. Programming in
BASIC for language teachers was encouraged through texts such as
Higgins and Johns (1984), Kenning and Kenning (1984), and Davies
(1985), which contained fragments of BASIC, or complete programs in
the language. Prior to microcomputer CALL, most software development
had resulted from well-funded team efforts because of the complexity of
the task and limited access to mainframe computers. The programming
component of these projects was completed by specialists in the field.
Now, in theory at least, language teachers were free to develop their own
conceptualization of CALL on the microcomputer, the only major
constraint being their programming ability. The range of software written
by teacher-programmers at this time was broad. It was often centred
around a single activity and examples included text reconstruction, gap-
filling, speed-reading, simulation, and vocabulary games (Wyatt 1984c;
Underwood 1984).
In developing CALL software for the microcomputer in the 1980s,
teacher-programmers often chose to learn a high-level programming
language such as BASIC to design materials from scratch. Other
language teachers produced CALL materials using authoring programs
such as Storyboard. Two other possible approaches to authoring were the
use of authoring systems and authoring languages.
An authoring system that has had a resounding influence across
educational computing is HyperCard, becoming well known when
released for the Macintosh computer in 1987. HyperCard is a good
example of how long-standing concepts can suddenly find expression
and widespread acceptance on the computer, though they have existed for
many years. The non-linear approach to text production and consumption
was derived from the work of Ted Nelson who first coined the word
'Hypertext' in 1965 (see Nelson 1967, 1981). This work itself was derived
from the idea of the 'memex' first outlined by Vannevar Bush in 1945.
Other manifestations of the concept include Notecards by Xerox PARC,
Intermedia at Brown University, and Guide 2X the University of Kent,
which was the first commercial * implementation of hypertext (Cooke
and Williams 1993: 80). More recently, of course, the phenomenal
growth in the use of hypertext started when the NCSA Mosaic browser
was released early in 1993, and the hypertext concept has in part been
responsible for the extraordinary growth of the Internet and the World
Wide Web ever since.
The language teacher has not only played a role in developing CALL
materials, but also in using them effectively with students. Many CALL
commentators have stressed the importance of carefully integrating
CALL work into the broader curriculum (e.g. Farrington 1986; Hardisty
and Windeatt 1989; Garrett 1991). In achieving successful integration,
the teacher's role is central, not only in choosing materials to incorporate
into the programs, but also in integrating the computer activity into the
lesson as a whole (Jones, C. 1986). This point is emphasized in Jones's
influential paper 'It's not so much the program, more what you do with it:
the importance of methodology in CALL' (Jones, C. 1986). Jones stresses
the intelligent combination of class work away from the computer with
work on the computer, achieved by coordination and advanced planning
by the teacher. Thus, CALL materials are not intended to stand alone, but
to be integrated into broader schemes of work (see also Hardisty and
Windeatt 1989).
The development of word processing on microcomputers must be
mentioned also because of its widespread use in language teaching
(Wresch 1984). In 1978 MicroPro announced WordMaster, the precursor
to WordStar, and Word and WordPerfect for a variety of micros followed
in 1983 and 1984 respectively (Smarte and Reinhardt 1990).