Evolution Of CALL

CALL has evolved gradually over the last 30 years.This evolution is actually classified according to three different stages: behaviouristic CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Though each phase succeeded the other, the introduction of the new phase does not necessarily turn down the programs and methods of the previous;instead the old is included in the new born.Furthermore the phases were adopted slowly and unequally Warschauer (1996).
I.2.2.1-Behaviouristic CALL
Behaviouristic CALL- the first phase of CALL -was conceptualised in the 1950sbut it was until the 1960s and 70’s that it was employed. Based on the then –prevalent behaviourist theories of learning, its programs included repetitive language drills or what commonly was

PLATO system was amongst the most refined ones. It ran on its own special PLATO hardware, including computersand terminals.The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, short grammar definitions and drills, and translations tests at diverse intervals (Ahmad, Corbett, Rogers, and Sussex 1985)
The early 1980s was marked by the rejection of behaviouristic approaches to language learning at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level.This era was also characterised by the institution of the microcomputer which allowed a whole new array of possibilities.These two factors contributed to weakenbehaviouristic CALL.

I.2.2.2-Communicative CALL
The second stage of CALL is known as communicative. As its name suggests, communicative CALL is based on the communicative approach to language teaching which was prominent in the late 1970s and 1980s.Advocates of this approach condemned the drill and practice programs which preceded them for not offering the learners enough authentic communication opportunities.
John Underwood, a prominent figure of this new approach, suggested in 1984 a series of ‘Premises for Communicative’ CALL. According to Underwood (1984: 52), communicative CALL: -focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;
-Teaches grammar implicitly rather than

Put differently, the dividing line between behaviouristic and communicative CALL does not only have to do with which software is used , but also how the software is put in use by both the teacher and the learners.
Although on the face of things communicative CALL looks like an important advance over its predecessor.By the end of 1980s ; many scholars perceivedthat CALL was still disappointing to fulfil its potential (Kenning&Kenning ,1990; Pusack&Otto,1990; Ruschoff,1993) .Many critics noticed that the computer is in an unplanned incoherent fashion and consequently “finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal rather than to central elements” of the language teaching process ( Kenning &Kenning, 1990:90).
These judgments of CALL matched with noticeable rethinking of the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer convinced with teaching disunite skills and structures ( evenif taught in a communicative manner), several teachers were searching for ways to teach in a more integrative way, for example using task-or project-based