Egbert (2005) - Reaction

Egbert tries to explain that there has been a misconception in the operational definition of CALL. In a glance, however, one may perceive that CALL might refer to some computer-based skills which a learner should be familiar with, Egbert argued that CALL is used as a tool to develop the interactive process of learning and teaching in order to make the students be involved in authentic tasks and the process of interaction, rather than to its technological aspects. Egbert’s ideas in fact relies on the issue that computer can be used alongside, or probably as an alternative tool to the classic instrument of learning such as pencils, notebook, books, and blackboards. Overall, according to Egbert, computer and any technological tools can be used to facilitate the process of learning alongside their usage in the areas of skill-based approaches.
In my opinion, partly Egbert’s ideas can be very important. Indeed, CALL resources must be considered as tools for learning rather than the skills by themselves. I would strongly favor Egbert’s idea which states that the term learning should be considered as a greater interest comparing to the familiarity with the skills linked to the technological resources. However, I assume that Egbert has overstated the interactive aspect of CALL. CALL can assist and facilitate the process of language learning. But, as language is a process of communication and integration of thoughts, it seems like CALL will not be able to compensate the face to face approaches of learning of language.