Evaluating CALL courseware: My thoughts on Hubbard's (1988) framework

Just as I was getting to grips with the some of the ideas presented in Levy's (1997) article regarding the CALL courseware development process that we read about in Week 5, I came across the word 'evaluation' in the title of this week's reading article and the first thing that came to mind was "Oh no, not now, please." (lol) You see, up until a little while ago, I still hadn't decided which piece of technology or courseware would form the focus of my EN6482 assignment let alone think about how I would develop and implement it. So, to think about 'evaluation' seemed like, at first, a step ahead too far for me. Later I realized, however, that I had misinterpreted 'evaluation' as meaning the evaluation of students' learning as result of CALL courseware implementation instead of the courseware itself. (Obviously I should have read the title of Hubbard's article more carefully!).

Let's be honest, when it comes to evaluating CALL courseware, no evaluation scheme can possibly be more comprehensive and more flexible than the evaluation framework that was put forward by a linguistics expert from Stanford University named Philip Hubbard (1988) more than two decades ago. It is comprehensive in that it contains sections that cover every possible angle as far as the evaluation of computer-assisted language learning and teaching is concerned, including 'operational description', 'learner fit' and 'teacher fit', all of which themselves have a number of distinct components which need to be looked at in any courseware evaluation procedure. The evaluation framework is also flexible because, as Hubbard explains, it provides the tool through which the courseware evaluator can create his or her own questions or build some other evaluation scheme according to the evaluator's needs.

Some courseware evaluators may be put off by the apparent complexity of Hubbard's evaluation framework (with all those arrows and boxes drawn in) and may also harbour worries about the the length of time it takes to evaluate a single courseware package. "Fear not," I would say to them, for the author provides the reassurance that it is only those that need to compose reviews of a package that doesn't appear to be suitable who need to go through the full evaluation procedure. Ordinary teachers like you and me just need to use the framework as a guiding tool to quickly weed out courseware packages that do not fit the bill. As Hubbard's mentions, even if we just address the question of whether the courseware fits our students' needs and interests, it will go a long way toward making an informed decision. Flexible it is indeed.