This is the first part of my dissertation for the CALL option component of my MA in Applied Linguistics at Essex University in May 1989. Although dated, it may be of some historical interest. The second part involved an experimental study of using a basic French word processor in a secondary school.

Second Part

Bibliography

'Word processor' is popularly conceived of as an item of hardware; a machine called a word processor. Yet this is a misconception which fails to take account of recent developments in both hardware and software. In the early stages of the development of personal computers (PCs), the distinction between these computers and word processing machines, in terms of cost and availability, was considerable. Thus the distinction arose between, on the one hand, the word processor as a machine with limited occupational applications, on the desk of the secretary or the professional writer and, on the other hand, the computer as a machine confined to 'high-tech industry' or military applications. While it is true that sophisticated word processors as hardware are still being manufactured, the gap in availability, cost and technical accessibility between these machines and PCs is narrowing. Yet there remains a considerable difference between their relative capabilities. This has been brought about by rapid advances in developments in PCs, provoked by intense commercial competition and a proliferation of companies competing for the PC market. The result has been that these machines have become increasingly sophisticated while, at the same time, less expensive and easier to use; more 'user friendly'.

While these developments in hardware have taken place, there has been a similar revolution in the creation of software: for games, business applications and word processing. It is important, therefore, to distinguish between word processors as hardware and word processing programs as software for PCs, since it is the latter which would seem to offer the greater flexibility, combined with the vast capabilities of the modern PC, and potential for exploitation in language teaching. It should be remembered, however, that while word processing software, like that for other applications, is becoming increasingly powerful and sophisticated, a parallel trend in the merchandising of the software has resulted in programs which are less complicated to use. It can therefore be argued that the more sophisticated the technology becomes, the more scope there is for manufacturers to produce both hardware and software for an increasingly varied range of user and application. Thus we see the recent introduction of powerful yet accessible word processing software specifically designed, not only for use in schools, but also specifically for foreign language learners.

This potential, although not fully developed or universally recognized, can only be hindered by the notion of the word processor as a simple extension of the typewriter. This paper is an attempt to investigate the rationale behind the use of word processing programs in language teaching and the ways in which such programs might be exploited, supported by observations made in the use of a word processing program (FOLIO) in a particular teaching situation. Throughout, 'word processor' will be used to refer to word processing software rather than word processing machines.

The language teaching potential of the word processor has been described by Phillips (1987), a little prematurely perhaps, in terms of 'paradigmatic status'. He identifies three models of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) which "are currently competing for the status of paradigm". In his taxonomy, the 'Games Model' represents an approach in which CALL programs take on the pattern of the computer game; examples cited include "Flash Rogers", "London Adventure", "Storyboard" and "Fast-food". The 'Expert System' or 'Artificial Intelligence' model incorporates the notion of 'intelligent CALL', involving computer systems with the capability, however limited, of making judgements and processing natural language. Phillips' third model, that which he feels most deserves the status of paradigm, is one which "raises few of the design difficulties that must be faced if imaginative programs are to be designed within the games model (and) avoids the potential ethical complications of the expert system paradigm". The ethical problem is identified as the risk of ascribing too central and directive a role to the computer and can be related to criticisms of CALL which question the theoretical base of programs which have been assumed to embrace an approach to language teaching similar to that of the behaviourist model and programmed instruction. Thomas's (1986) criticism that CALL programs "are based on teaching methods which run counter to desirable teaching practice and which bear little relation to what we know about second language acquisition" is one which has not been satisfactorily answered, yet which, it is hoped, may be shown not necessarily to apply to thoughtful use of the word processor.

This third, "prosthetic paradigm" subsumes the exploitation of software systems not originally designed for CALL purposes, including the database, concordancer and the word processor. The adoption of these 'non-CALL' systems for language teaching has been justified, albeit in a somewhat undeveloped and tentative fashion by others in terms of specific benefits to learners. It is interesting, however, that Phillips' argument for their exploitation is based on a more fundamental view of the characteristics of the software itself.

Thus, he sees them as representing a "more modest approach (which) may well prove to be of greater worth to CALL". The reason for this belief is that this third model is based on the acknowledgement of a very fundamental role of the computer: "its function as a tool". The reference to a 'modest approach' would seem to answer the charges of "bothersome pomposity" (Hirvela 1988) and "bombast" (Thomas 1986) levelled at some advocates of CALL, yet Phillips is not specific as to the nature of this "greater worth" or how it might be deployed. His general observation, however, is appealing: "It is the instrumental uses of the computer which are exploited. This is to take advantage of...its natural role and the one which has allowed it to become so firmly established in society". Thus he sees this third 'paradigm' as the most powerful since it is "the most faithful to the social role of computers and the least peripheral to the task of language learning"; the word processor in particular offers "an extraordinarily powerful tool to the language teacher".

Yet, while extravagant claims are made and a set of interesting activities exploiting word processing software outlined, the argument would seem to be based on a premise which can often be detected in other advocates of the use of word processors and other non-CALL software. One frequently finds that their proposals arise from a dissatisfaction with the software specifically created for CALL. Reference is often made to the slow progress in the development of courseware and the quality of programs is criticized in the light of the promising beginnings of CALL. The impression is sometimes given that the arguments for adopting such software as word processors are made 'by default' and have therefore taken the form of suggestions to do with the periphery of CALL, or tentative proposals for future applications. Such reserved proposals are commonly accompanied by recommendations for the exploitation of the word processor more as an aid to teachers in the keeping of records, storing of texts or production of materials than a focus for language learning activities.

Thus, for Kenning and Kenning (1983), word processors are seen as "other aspects, which have so far remained to some extent in the background". They concede that these aspects "may gain in significance as time goes on", yet they "deserve a brief mention" only. Critics have also voiced the complaint that , as Ng and Olivier (1987) suggest, "despite the rather ambitious pioneering endeavours and the growing computer activities in language learning, little has been done in the development of a theoretical framework for the use of computers in the discipline". Cook (1988) refers to the incompatibility that exists between, on the one hand, CALL programs which typically reflect the role of the computer as drill sergeant, playmate and oracle and, on the other, "the models of language at present most common among teachers and linguists" and suggests that "this might be justified by pointing out the limitations of the computer...computers cannot engage in meaningful interaction".

While these typical CALL programs suffer from limitations, word processors are now able to exploit optimally the considerable 'number-crunching' and memory capacities of the modern PC, referred to below by Ahmad et al. (1985) as the computer's 'special capabilities', in a way which other types of software have been unable to do. An advantage of the word processor is that it is an established and relatively familiar phenomenon, whereas the field of natural language processing (see Cook and Fass, 1986; Cook, 1988, above; Phillips, 1987, above) is still being developed and has yet to fulfill its potential "to yield techniques that do not conflict with the goals of language teaching shared by most teachers or by the concepts of language held by most linguists" (Cook, 1988). Similarly, Ahmad et al. (1985) recognize that, because "CALL programs are not yet intelligent enough to cope adequately with the complexities of natural-language processing", spontaneous interaction with the computer is ruled out and CALL is forced to concentrate on the written medium. This leads them, again with a certain degree of reluctance, one feels, to the conclusion that we are forced "to explore ways of expanding our language-teaching activities using the computer's special capabilities".

While dissatisfaction with developments in CALL software may have been fruitful in directing attention to the possibilities of word processing, the value or otherwise of applying such software to language teaching can only be determined by taking a more positive view of what the word processor can do, rather than what other software can't do and by banishing the false analogy of the word processor as a 'hi-tech' typewriter. Recently there has been some interesting input from work in the area of the use of word processors with both adult and child native language learners (Leonard, 1985, 1987; Piper, 1986; ALBSU and CILT publications). Phillips (1986) observes that "reports of experience in the British school system in the field of mother- tongue teaching suggest that word processing is a powerful stimulus to write". It seems reasonable to suppose that reports also have relevance to second language teaching for, as Higgins and Johns (1984) point out, "If native speakers can benefit from this (the motivation to write inspired by the word processor), so too can the foreign learner". These recent publications have concentrated on how teaching methods and learner activities can be adapted to a wider range of language skills than might at first be expected from the use of wordprocessor as a teaching aid. These methods and activities are examined below.

Something rather more than dissatisfaction is expressed by Hirvela (1988) who puts the case against CALL in general in his overview of recent critical literature. His own objections to CALL derive overtly from humanistic and health concerns, yet much of his argument presents pedagogical and practical objections, central to which is his contention that "computers have unquestionably improved immensely; CALL itself seemingly has not...little of any real value is occurring in the CALL classroom, yet the field continues to grow at an extraordinary rate". Allusion is also made to Thomas's (1986) charge that CALL operates "in an absence of guiding principles" (see above), as well as the widespread concern about the quality of programs being developed: "While these new programs, or software, are appearing continually, they remain terribly limited in scope". Yet Hirvela would seem to represent that category of commentator, mentioned above, who appear to recommend word processors 'by default'. For amid the catalogue of criticisms of CALL, there is a grudging recognition of the potential of the wordprocessor in which Pierson (1987) is cited: "Word processing alone, in my view, is the one computer application that can be easily and permanently integrated into a language learning program" yet Hirvela's conclusion is confusing: "In essence, then, CAI and CALL, by providing no more than word processing, are merely more sophisticated forms of typewriting". This would appear to betray both a lack of familiarity with the nature and variety of many CALL programs and a failure to appreciate the range of activities offered by the word processor and their potential for language learning and teaching.

Many of these criticisms are addressed by Higgins in his reply to Hirvela (1988) in which he, like Phillips, ascribes a more positive role to the word processor in particular: "on the contrary significant progress has already been made, e.g. with word processing and concordancing. (And by the way I would not accept the description of word processing as 'merely a more sophisticated form of typewriting')". Although the role of the word processor is not described in detail, Higgins' conclusions, while overtly a defence of CALL on theoretical grounds, also represent the foundations on which advocates of the word processor (Leonard, 1987; Chaika, 1982) have based their more developed argument: "I truly believe that certain uses of the computers can help people learn better and enjoy learning more...The computer is a responsive device, and in much of the best software it is the student who initiates, requests answers, guesses and speculates, or simply controls a process. This has nothing to do with behaviourism, everything to do with independence and choice". Word processing, particularly in the context of the kind of activities outlined below, would seem to derive more from a cognitive, task-based approach to language teaching rather than a behaviourist model. In fact, it might be argued that an enlightened approach to word processing activities in the classroom would be consistent with the aims of the communicative model of language teaching and learning.

The empirical studies carried out by Ng and Olivier (1987) revealed interesting data and recommendations pertinent to the discussion of both the theoretical basis of CALL and the implications for word processing: "For meaningful computer application in language learning it is vital that CALL materials be designed on a theoretical basis, founded upon an understanding of language and language learning...by having CALL materials designed upon a linguistically theoretical basis, ideas for experimentation can be greatly enriched...For instance, an awareness of the communicative function of language has already led to very interesting attempts in recent years such as the projects on writing environments, and conferencing". This relates directly to their findings in which word processing as a group activity figures prominently among six activities "working best with the computer in the language classroom". Their data leads them to the hypothesis that, in answer to the question, 'What aspects of language and language learning can computer technology best address?', in designing and implementing software, it is useful to consider "creating a genuine writing environment, providing heuristic guidance, and cultivating an awareness of good writing through the process rather than the product".

This approach, when considered alongside that of Chaika (1982) concerning the "collaborative learning" potential of the word processor for language students and the affective considerations presented by others (particularly Papert, 1980), may lead us to a view of the use of the word processor as perhaps more theoretically sound than can be confidently claimed for other types of CALL software. Thus it might be claimed that the word processor offers a unique synthesis of, on the one hand, 'process' whereby guided activities combine a cognitive and communicative learning environment and, on the other, 'product' whereby these activities can be seen as leading to a tangible objective, or result of the learning process analogous to the final printout of perfect copy which is culmination of the physical process itself.

It is not surprising, when one considers the original occupational roles ascribed to word processors mentioned earlier, that discussion of the exploitation of word processors in teaching language has concentrated almost exclusively on their use in the teaching of writing skills. The relative affective aspects of teaching assisted by the word processor and traditional methods has been the matter of much that has been published on the subject; less work has been done on the relationship between these aspects, teaching methods and language learning outcomes. This is not to say that learner attitudes and motivation are not fundamentally important in language teaching, or less worthy of research. How these variables influence learner achievement, however, remains unclear, particularly in a CALL context; it is often the case that a connection has been assumed between the affective aspects of using the word processor and the benefits to the language learner.

As suggested earlier, the analogy with the typewriter masks the true potential of the word processor. It is important to consider why this is so. Higgins and Johns (1984) suggest that the word processor has indeed come to be seen as something more. To a much greater extent than a typewriter, using a word processor taps into the aesthetic consciousness of the user, "as a result, they (word processors) seem to be affecting the quality as well as the quantity of what is written on them". Thus, their exploitation in teaching composition skills to native speakers has been identified as a force in changing the attitude of learners who may previously have hated the writing class. In particular, the pleasure of getting instant 'clean copy' of one's corrected (or rather 'edited') text or spontaneous thoughts can generate a positive attitudinal shift in the learner of writing skills, since it creates a "powerful new motivation to write". Sophisticated as word processors may be, it is important to realize that such advantages are not restricted to advanced learners who may be expert computer users; lower levels of learner may benefit as much, if not more, from the motivating power of using the program whether they have computer skills or not. Chaika (1982) maintains that "what, perhaps, computer novices are unprepared to find is that the new machinery, used correctly, actually unleashes creativity, both in writers and in teachers...This does not sound like the stuff of revolutions, in teaching or otherwise, but it is".

Huffman and Goldberg (1987) describe the creative potential of the word processor to motivate beginners: "Foreign students with other alphabets...after some practice, can peck out a legible first draft in a shorter period of time with the computer...Once beginners realize that they can alter anything entered into the computer's memory banks, they write with less inhibition and don't try to turn out a perfect copy in the first draft. They get their ideas down faster and hold off their internal editor until time for revision". The dimension of personality types as a variable in students' approach to writing can, in their view open up new possibilities for learning with a computer, since "the anonymity of these computers makes their use easier for shy, Far Eastern students. The transitoriness of the material, whether written on the screen or in memory, promotes the flow of ideas and encourages more frequent revision." They maintain that the intellectual dynamic of the learner can be accessed in a way that is not available to conventional writing methods: "Since writing is dynamic, new ideas will occur during the writing process. Student writers can enter their discoveries right into the present draft".

How the acquisition of writing skills, assisted by the word processor, affects the self image of the learner is discussed in Papert (1980), with particular reference to children yet might be seen as no less true for all language learners. He maintains that traditionally, writing for the learner can be so slow and laborious, and rewriting even moreso, that the first draft is often the final copy with the result that the learner does not acquire the skill of critical rereading. "This changes dramatically when children have access to computers capable of manipulating text...Corrections are made easily. The current copy is always neat and tidy. I have seen a child move from total rejection of writing to an intense involvement (accompanied by rapid improvement in quality) within a few weeks of beginning to write with a computer. Furthermore, he sees this deployment of the computer as representing a fundamentally different educational philosophy to that represented by more mechanistic types of instructional programs, offering the learner to become more like "advanced professionals, in their relationship to their intellectual products and to themselves". In similar terms, Huffman and Goldberg (1987) refer to what is perhaps the most powerful and most cited (Hope, Taylor and Pusack, 1984; Jones and Fortescue, 1987) motivating aspect of using the word processor, that "high speed printers make it possible for foreign students to produce professional-looking compositions which they can compare more objectively with professional models. The pride in their workmanship thus gained promotes more writing". What is perhaps just as crucial is that recent developments in word processing software permits a wider range of learner, from the beginner to the advanced student, to experience this important sense of pride and achievement.

A drawback of the word processor is that it cannot recognize or correct errors automatically, yet this can hardly be seen as a drawback in a language learning context. As Hope, Taylor and Pusack (1984) point out, "having errors corrected is probably not nearly as crucial as having and keeping the motivation to write". They, in common with Jones and Fortescue (1987), see the word processor as encouraging a variety of both guided and free writing activities, the former involving the creation of texts which can be built up from simple written responses to stored prompts to the manipulation of paragraphs and larger units. Central to the approach is the idea that the students make their own corrections thereby developing the skill of copyreading. This goes some way to answering the 'ethical' concerns of Phillips and Hirvela (see above) in that "at least we know that an intelligence higher than the computer's is at work".

Thus the word processor places the computer in that role category identified by Jones and Fortescue (1988) as 'the computer as unintelligent workhorse'. The skill of proof reading is given similar prominence by Higgins and Johns (1984) who, like Papert (1980), recognize the negative effects on learners of the traditional way in which their work is corrected: "If the teacher collects the written work and corrects all the errors, then it is the teacher who develops proof-reading skills while the students do not. Some teachers demand that students make a fair copy, but more often they only demand this of those below a certain standard, and the students so singled out perceive this as a punishment". Similarly, Jones and Fortescue (1988) claim that correcting that is done by the teacher can become "not he last stage in the activity, but merely an interim stage"; using the word processor, the learner can perfect his/her work using the teachers comments "which are no longer regarded as criticism of his work, but as the helpful guidance they were always intended to be".

Yet, as previously suggested, the attitudinal effects of working with a word processor, although considered by Jones and Fortescue to be its "real value", constitute only part of the analysis of its implications for language teaching. Ahmad et al. (1985) set out the three points which current thinking emphasizes in any consideration of "how human beings learn language:

1. Provide the learner with an opportunity to use language 'to mean'.

2. Encourage a positive attitude on the part of the learner.

3. Provide opportunities for learning without anxiety.

It has been argued that the adoption of the word processor in language teaching could sustain the second and third of these criteria. The first is more difficult to demonstrate since, as pointed out earlier, less work has been done on the relationship between, on the one hand, word processing activities and, on the other, specific methodologies and language learning outcomes. Piper's (1986) report is based on observation rather than empirical data, yet her experience with using the word processor with ESL students leads her to conclude that "the ability of computers to facilitate writing is likely to be one of their most important potential contributions to learning". Yet she also warns against "the loose claim that CALL generates a lot of talk" which would appear to undermine the conventional view of interaction among learners involved in CALL tasks as a tenuous connection between CALL and the communicative model of language learning. Clearly more empirical work is demanded by the uncertainty surrounding the value of this kind of interaction.

Yet the quantity of conversation is not the whole measure of interaction or communication. Chaika (1982) and Fortescue and Jones (1988) have emphasized the importance of cooperation among learners as a valuable input to the learning process. Of the advantages of using the word processor set out by Jones and Fortescue (1987), one is particularly relevant to this aspect of learner behaviour. It is that "the screen provides a more satisfactory focus of attention for group writing than a small piece of paper (which for some students in the group is inevitably upside down); and because all group members can become usefully involved in the discussion, fruitful cooperation is much more likely to occur". Chaika (1982) identifies the same phenomenon as 'collaborative learning' in which "an excellent atmosphere for learning is created", whereby the teacher, instead of lecturing, "need only direct students at the keyboard in making certain changes, allowing students to discuss with each other the consequences". The learning is described as collaborative because, since only one of the group can use the keyboard at any one time, the students are forced to collaborate. Students who might normally feel inhibited about voicing their thoughts about language to the teacher or to a whole class, would feel less inhibited as part of a small group, thus the discussion "stimulates the students above and beyond the class exercise". The advantage of using the word processor is that even the most reticent learner "discusses language, style and grammaticality...That cannot happen with a blackboard, overhead projector, worksheets or handbook. Students are focused on language and talking, even arguing about it" while the teacher is free to observe and give guidance. The argument here is that there is a kind of 'spread' or generalization of learning, for which the writing task is a starting point, whereby "students quickly realize that language does have grammar, grammar that they are capable of discovering, and that the professor's criticisms are not arbitrary or mean", but important elements in a productive process.

A further advantage of using the word processor mentioned by Chaika is that correction and insertion can be performed more rapidly, as well as more elegantly, than with pen and paper which "allows one's writing to keep up with one's mental process...the students get visual reinforcement of mental processes. As they move words around and insert new ones, they see the changes almost instantly". She maintains that the functions of the word processor are suited to such activities as paraphrasing and revising sentences whereby students, through collaboration with each other and occasional guidance from the teacher, are led to discover for themselves rules of grammar and discourse. With the word processor, the activity can be seen to be constructive in that there is an objective which is the culmination of the process: the printing out of a perfect, professional-looking text. This aspect is given further point when the students determine the subject matter of the texts and initiate the first draft themselves. In similar terms, Piper (1986) sees it as a great advantage of the word processor that it "allows the learner to experiment with English at all levels of the language - words, verb and noun phrases, sentences, paragraphs". Despite her seemingly ambiguous views on the value of 'spin-off conversation' among students involved in the tasks, she suggests that it "must be part of the process of composing and thus include the exchange and working out of ideas and also that well known feature of communicative classrooms, the information gap", which is similar to the views on learner interaction expressed by Chaika.

It can be seen that the case for the exploitation of the word processor in language teaching would appear to rest on firmer theoretical grounds than has been suggested by those who have turned their attention to it only in the face of dissatisfaction with the present state of CALL software. Unlike many of these programs, it avoids the charge of being out of step with current views on language or of reflecting an unsound approach to language teaching and learning. For the word processor does not embody any particular model of language or language teaching. Unlike most CALL software, which stand or fall according to the characteristics of the program alone, the effectiveness or otherwise of the word processor depends on the combination of the program and the way it is used by the teacher and learner. The reason for this lies in the flexibility of the software itself and its capacity to make optimal use of the capabilities of the computer, partly due to the financial investment available for research and development which has been denied to the design of CALL software. This flexibility allows the teacher and the student more latitude in the management of learning yet demands more input from the teacher than purpose-designed courseware. Yet, as the following study demonstrates, specially adapted word processors are being designed specifically for the mother tongue and foreign language learner in schools. Such initiatives deserve investigation by those disillusioned with the state of CALL software since they represent developments which, if supported by more learner-based research may help give CALL the direction it appears to lack.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AHMAD K., CORBETT G., ROGERS M. and SUSSEX R. (1985) 'Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching'. CUP.

BRUMFIT C., PHILLIPS M. AND SKEHAN P. (1985) 'Computers in English Language Teaching'. Pergamon Press.

CHAIKA E. (1982) 'Computers, Linguistics, and Basic Writing', in Williams S. 'Humans and Machines': 236-248. New Jersey. Ablex.

COOK V.J. (1988) 'Natural language processing as interface between CALL and computing', in Mackiewicz (ed.) 'Neue Technologien und Fremdsprachen-Ausbildung an den Hochschulen'. Ruhr-Universitaat Bochum.

DRAGE C. (1989) 'Child's play', in 'Times Educational Supplement' 7th April.

HIGGINS J. (1988) 'Response to Hirvela's article 'Marshall McLuhan and the case against CAI'". System 16/3: 313-317.

HIGGINS J. and JOHNS T. (1984) 'Computers in Language Learning'. Collins.

HIRVELA A. (1988) 'Marshall McLuhan and the case against CAI'. System 16/3: 299-311.

HOPE G.R., TAYLOR H.F. and PUSACK J.P. (1984) 'Using Computers in Teaching Foreign Languages'. Harcourt Brace Johanovich.

HUFFMAN D.T. and GOLDBERG J.R. (1987) 'Using wordprocessing to teach EFL composition'. System 15/2: 169-175.

JONES C. and FORTESCUE S. (1987) 'Using Computers in the Language Classroom'. Longman.

KENNING M.J. and KENNING M-M. (1983) 'An Introduction to Computer Assisted Language Teaching'. Oxford UP.

LAST R. (1984) 'Language teaching and the microcomputer'. Blackwell.

LEECH G. and CANDLIN C.N. (1986) 'Computers in English Language Teaching and Research'. Longman.

LEONARD J. (1987) 'Word processing and language skills: a practical handbook for ABE tutors'. ALBSU.

NG K.L. amd OLIVIER W.P. (1987) 'Computer Assisted Language Learning: an investigation on some design and implementation issues'. System 15/1: 1-17.

PAPERT S. (1980) 'Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas'. Harvester.

PARKE T. (1989) 'High-tech communication', in 'Times Educational Supplement', 7th April.

PHILLIPS M. (1985) 'Logical possibilities and classroom scenarios for the development of CALL', in Brumfit C., Phillips M. and Skehan P. (eds), 'Computers in English Language Teaching' (ELT Documents 122): 25-46. Pergamon Press.

PHILLIPS M. (1987) 'Potential paradigms and possible problems for CALL'. System 15/3: 275-287.

PIPER A. (1986) 'Computers and the literacy of the foreign language learner: a report on EFL learners using the word-processor to develop writing skills'. University of East Anglia Papers in Applied Linguistics.

WILLIAMS S. (1982) 'Humans and Machines'. New Jersey. Ablex.

WINDEATT S. (1986) 'Observing CALL in action', in Leech G. and Candlin C.N. (eds.) 'Computers in English Language Teaching and Research'. Longman.

Software:

FOLIO, EUROPEAN FOLIO (FRENCH)............. Tedimen Software

Kevin Wilkinson MAY 1989

 e-mail Kevin Wilkinson