CALL = SLA = TESTING METHODS?

I couldn't believe how much in common Hubbard's article has with the materials that I came into contact with one course I took and one that I am taking: Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Testing and Evaluation, respectively. In the "Teacher fit" (approach) section, Hubbard talks about how an evaluator, or teacher, "needs to be in touch with his or her assumptions about learning in general and language learning in particular". Those assumptions are further broken down into two types: internal (the learner's age, motivation, L1 interference etc.) and external (teachers, classrooms, the media etc.). No matter the courseware, a teacher's view of language learning and teaching are independent of any computer program. Indeed, in my SLA course, I learned that amongst all the theories of language learning, none is absolute and that a balanced approach is key. The bahaviorist, explicit learning and communicative approaches that Hubbard talks about is nothing new to MATESL students but I was surprised at that fact that those theories have to come into play even in CALL. Of course, as responsible language instructors, we must ensure that the computer as a delivery system gives meaningful rather than mechanical practice and accepts alternative answers in certain contexts, which brings me to the other course that I am taking.

In Testing Methods and Evaluation, we have to analyze test and exam papers to ensure their reliability and validity. Along the way, we must decide whether or not the rubrics are clear and judging criteria fair. For example, would more than one answer be accepted and would spelling and lower case letter play a role in scoring. Also, would hints be given in context and would the distractors in multiple choice questions draw enough answers. That echoes with Hubbard's presentational schemes and input judging.

As I was reading along, I discovered even more eerie similarities as Hubbard actually mentions field dependence/independence and intrinsic/instrumental motivation in the "learner fit" (design) section as strategy variables that need to be considered when formulating an appropriate courseware for students. Again, those terms featured prominently in the aforementioned SLA course and ring a familiar tune. Meanwhile, in the same section, Hubbard surmises that program focus, language difficulty and program difficulty are also key in terms of meeting the syllabus requirements for CALL courseware. Carrying over to the appropriate judgment section, Hubbard asks readers to consider whether a courseware is effective and efficient before implementation. That is, can learners practice or learn some area of the target language called for by the syllabus, be it grammar or phonetics and would it be worthwhile for students to use it when there are better and more economical options available? That is exactly what I am learning in Testing Methods as a good exam paper should test what is supposed to be tested and be worthwhile for a student to attempt.


While their similarities are uncanny, it is no surprise that CALL evaluation echoes theories found in both SLA and Testing. Computers and technology are only there to supplement language teaching and learning so a learner's disposition and a teacher's SLA beliefs. Simultaneously, evaluators should never randomly put together courseware just because they are cheap and readily available. Rather, instructors should carefully evaluate and judge whether or not they are efficient, effective and reflect the skills required to be taught on the syllabus. More often than not, teachers just copy and paste materials from various textbooks and websites onto so-called test papers and this practice must stop, even in CALL. If your school has no room for CALL, then better leave it alone then forcing it in, eventhough the evaluation framework proposed by Hubbard could be refined and adjusted.