Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:19:02.435Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The spread of computer-assisted language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2009

Carol A. Chapelle
Carol A. Chapelle*
Affiliation:
Iowa State University, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that the vertical spread of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), i.e., a spread throughout language materials and curricula, makes it difficult to draw a clear distinction between CALL and other language materials. In view of the emphasis that teachers, researchers, and administrators have placed on evaluating CALL, I argue that some valuable lessons about materials evaluation can be drawn from reflection on issues in CALL evaluation. In particular, I discuss the opportunities for professionals to reconsider assumptions held about comparative research, draw upon research perspectives and methods from applied linguistics in materials evaluation, and include critical perspectives which examine the opportunities that materials offer language learners to engage in language and culture learning.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 66 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allum, P. (2002). CALL in the classroom: The case for comparative research. ReCALL 14.1, 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auerbach, E. R. (1995). The politics of the ESL classroom. In Tollefson, J. W. (ed.), Power and inequality in language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–33.Google Scholar
Barnard, R. & Randall, M. (1995). Evaluating course materials: A contrastive study in text book trialling. System 23.3, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL 13.2, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology 7.2, 68–117.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Introduction: Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education and the intercultural speaker. In Belz, J. A. & Thorne, S. (eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle, iix–xxv.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology 4.1, 120–136.Google Scholar
Chambers, F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. ELT Journal 5.1, 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology 2.1, 22–34.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2007). Challenges in evaluation of innovation: Observations from technology research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1.1, 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). A hidden curriculum in language textbooks: Are beginning learners of French at U.S. universities taught about Canada? The Modern Language Journal 93.2, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. & Lui, H-M. (2007). Theory and research: Investigation of ‘authentic’ CALL tasks. In Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (eds.), CALL environments (2nd edn.). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications, 111–130.Google Scholar
Chenoweth, N. A. & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal 20.2, 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology 7.3, 50–80.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1998). The evaluation of communicative tasks. In Tomlinson (ed.), 217–328.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M. (2007). Database of comparison studies: Computer-assisted vs. classroom second/foreign language instruction. http://tesl.engl.iastate.edu:591/comparison/main.htm.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Shelley, M. in preparation. Effectiveness of CALL: A meta-analysis and research synthesis.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. In Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, 313–334.Google Scholar
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C. A. & Preiss, S. (2005). CALL evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students. CALICO Journal 23.1, 93–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, A. (1998). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In Tomlinson (ed.), 190–216.Google Scholar
Masuhara, H. & Tomlinson, B. (2008). Materials for general English. In Tomlinson (ed.), 17–37.Google Scholar
McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT: A teacher's guide (2nd edn.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 99–132.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E. & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology 90.1, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. P., Rivers, W. P. & Brecht, R. D. (2006). Speaking foreign languages in the United States: Correlates, trends, and possible consequences. The Modern Language Journal 90.4, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanaoui, R. & Lapkin, L. (1992). A case study of an FEL senior secondary course integrating computer networking. Canadian Modern Language Review 48.3, 525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (2006). The challenge of assessing cultural understanding in the context of foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals 40.1, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scida, E. E. & Saury, R. E. (2006). Hybrid courses and their impact on student and classroom performance: A case study at the University of Virginia. CALICO Journal 23.3, 517–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal 42.4, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (1998). Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (2003a). Materials evaluation. In Tomlinson (ed.) (2003b), 16–36.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2003b). Developing materials for language teaching. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B. (ed.) (2008). English learning materials: A critical review. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, B., Dat, B., Masuhara, H. & Rubdy, R. (2001). ELT courses for adults. ELT Journal 55.1, 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar