Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T08:17:06.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Call–English as a Second Language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Carol A. Chapelle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

CALL for English as a second language1 is an interdisciplinary area of inquiry which has been influenced primarily by educational technology (Reiser, 1987) but also by fields such as computational linguistics2 and recently by applied linguistics as well. These related fields contribute diverse epistemologies which shape CALL research questions and methods. The diversity in CALL research can also be explained in party be the current variety of approaches to CALL development and use. Through the 1970s and early 1980s, pedagogical objectives in CALL were focused primarily, although not exclusively, on improving specified areas of learner's grammatical knowledge through approaches borrowed from educational technology (Hart 1981, Hope, Taylor and Pusack 1984, Wyatt 1984). Today, in contrast, CALL is used for a variety of pedagogical objectives through many different types of software such as microworlds (Coleman 1985, Papert 1980), grammar checkers (Hull, Ball, Fox, Levin and McCutchen 1987), pronunciation feedback systems (Anderson-Hseih 1994, Pennington 1991), intelligent tutoring systems (Chanier, Pengelly, Twidale and Self 1992), concordancer programs (Johns 1986, Tribble and Jones 1990), word processing (Pennington 1993), and software for computer-mediated communication (Kaye 1992). These diverse approaches to CALL are predicated on different beliefs about teaching and learning (Higgins 1995, Kenning and Kenning 1990, Sanders and Kenner 1983, Stevens 1992). Rather than reviewing these “CALL philosophies,” this article will focus on the evolution of research traditions dedicated to the empirical study of CALL use for ESL. Accordingly, the term CALL research is employed to refer to empirical research on the use of CALL.

Type
Technology in Language Instruction
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 16 , March 1996 , pp. 138 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, R. 1985. Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly. 19, 689–702.Google Scholar
Abraham, R. and Liou, H-C.. 1991. Interaction generated by three computer programs: Analysis of functions of spoken language. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and Practice. New York: Newbury House. 85–109.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. 1988. Observation in the language classroom. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Allwright, D. and Bailey, K. M.. 1991. Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson-Hsieh, J. 1994. Interpreting visual feedback on suprasegmentals in computer assisted pronunciation instruction. CALICO Journal. 11. 4. 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. and Palmer, A. S.. In Press. Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailin, A. and Levin, L. (eds.) 1989. Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Instruction. [Special issue of Computers and the Humanities. 23. 1.]Google Scholar
Bland, S. K., Noblitt, J. S., Armington, S. and Gay, G.. 1990. The naive lexical hypothesis: Evidence form computer-assissted language learning. Modern Language Journal. 74. 440–450.Google Scholar
Brown, G. and Yule, G.. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B., Michaels, S. and Watson-Gegeo, K. A.. 1987. Final report: Microcomputers and literacy project. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. [Grant No. G-83-0051.]Google Scholar
Chanier, T., Pengelly, M., Twidale, M. and Self, J.. Conceptual modelling in error analysis in computer-assisted language learning systems. In Swartz, M. L. and Yazdani, M. (eds.) Intelligent tutoring systems for foreign language learning. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 125–150.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. 1990. The discourse of computer-assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly. 24. 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. 1994b. Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research. 10. 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. and Jamieson, J.. 1986. Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as second language. TESOL Quarterly. 20. 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. and Jamieson, J.. 1989. Research trends in computer-assisted language learning. In Pennington, M. (ed.) Teaching language with computers: The state of the art. San Francisco: Athelstan Publishing. 47–59.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. and Jamieson, J.. 1991. Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House. 37–57.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. and Jamieson, J. and Park, Y.. Forthcoming. Second language classroom research traditions: How does CALL fit? In Pennington, M. (ed.) The power of CALL.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. and Jamieson, J.. and Mizuno, S.. 1989. Students' strategies with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal. 7. 2. 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E. 1985. Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 1. 137–148.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E. 1994. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development. 42. 2. 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. W. 1985. TERRI: A CALL lesson simulating conversational interaction. System. 13. 247–252.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1988. Designing a BASIC parser for CALL. CALICO Journal. 6. 1. 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crook, C. 1987. Computers in the classroom: Defining a social context. In Rutkowska, J. and Crook, C. (eds.) Computers, cognition and development. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 35–53.Google Scholar
Crook, C. 1994. Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culley, G., Mulford, G. and Milbury-Steen, J.. 1986. A foreign language adventure game: Progress report on an application of AI to language instruction. CALICO Journal. 4. 2. 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, C., Avner, A. and Provenzano, N.. 1981. Computer-based analysis of individual learning characteristics. Studies in Language Learning. 3. 201–213.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. 1987. Relating second-language acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In Smith, W. F. (ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. 133–167.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. 1992. Computer applications in second language acquisition research: Design, description, and discovery. In Pennington, M. and Stevens, V. (eds.) Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 127–154.Google Scholar
Duff, P. 1993. Tasks and interlanguage performance: An SLA perspective. In Crookes, G. and Gass, S. M. (eds.) Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. 57–95.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. 1994. Perception, proficiency and prowess: Factors that affect the diffusion of CALL among ESL teachers and students. Paper presented at the Computers in Applied Linguistics Conference. Ames, IA, 06 8–13, 1994.Google Scholar
Esling, J. 1991. Researching the effects of networking: Evaluating the spoken and written discourse generated by working with CALL. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House. 111–131.Google Scholar
Fulk, J., Schmitz, J. and Schwarz, D.. 1992. The dynamics of context-behavior interactions in computer-mediated communication. In Lea, M. (ed.) Contexts of computer-mediated communication. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 7–29.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. 1982. In search of interlanguage: A study of second language acquisition of German syntax. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, R. and Laurillard, D.. 1994. Modeling learning processes in lexical CALL. CALICO Journal. 11. 3. 19–46.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R. 1986. Test validation and cognitive psychology: Some methodological considerations. Language Testing. 3. 159–185.Google Scholar
Hart, B. and Daisley, M.. 1994. Computers and composition in Japan: Notes on real and virtual literacies. Computers and Composition. 11. 37–47.Google Scholar
Hart, R. S. 1981. Language study and the PLATO system. Studies in Language Learning, 3. 1–24.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. and Perrett, G.. 1994. Learning to function with the other tongue: A systemic functional perspective on second language teaching. In Odlin, T. (ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 179–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henri, F. 1992. Computer conferencing and content analysis. In Kaye, A. R. (ed.) Collaborative learing through computer conferencing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 117–136.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. 1995. Computers and English language learning. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Higgins, J. and Johns, T.. 1984. Computers in language learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Hirst, G. 1991. Does conversation analysis have a role in computational linguistics? Computational Linguistics. 17. 212–227.Google Scholar
Hope, G., Taylor, H. and Pusack, J.. 1984. Using computers in teaching foreign languages. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanocich.Google Scholar
Hus, J. 1994. Computer assisted language learning (CALL): The effect of ESL students' use of interactional modifications on listening comprehension. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Hull, G., Ball, C., Fox, J., Levin, L. and McCutchen, D.. 1987. Computer detection of errors in natural language texts: Some research on pattern matching. Computers and the Humanities. 21. 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J. and Chapelle, C.. 1987. Working styles on computers as evidence of second language learning strategies. Language Learning. 37. 523–544.Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1986. Micoro-Concord, a language learner's research tool. System. 14. 151–162.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. 1991. Second language and content learning with computers: Research in the role of social factors. In Dunke, P. (ed.) Computer assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House. 61–83.Google Scholar
Kaye, A. R. (ed.) 1992. Collaborative learning through computer conferecing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenning, M. -M. and Kenning, M. J. 1990. Computers and language learning: Current theory and practice. West Sussex, UK: Ellis Horwood Limited.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kumpulainen, K. 1994. Collaborative writing with computers and children's talk: A cross-cultural study. Computers and Composition. 11. 263–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A. and Schwalb, B. J.. 1986. The effectiveness of computer-based adult education: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2. 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, F. S. and Pennington, M. C.. 1995. The computer vs. the pen: A comparative study of word-processing in a Hong Kong secondary classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 8. 1. 75–92.Google Scholar
Legenhausen, L. and Wolff, D.. 1990. CALL in use—Use of CALL: Evaluating CALL software. System. 18. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, L., Evans, D. and Gates, D.. 1991. The Alice system: A workbench for learning and using language. CALICO Journal. 9. 1. 27–56.Google Scholar
Liou, H-C. 1991. Development of an English grammar checker: A progress report. CALICO Journal. 9. 1. 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, H-C. 1993. Investigation of using text-critiquing programs in a process oriented writing class. CALICO Journal. 10. 4. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1980. Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning. 30. 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition theory. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley MA: Newbury House. 377–393.Google Scholar
Loritz, D. 1986. An introductory LISP parser. CALICO Journal. 4. 4. 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., Gilbert, P. and Frohlich, D. (eds) 1990. Computers and conversation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mandinach, E. B. and Linn, M. C.. 1986. The cognitive effects of computer learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2. 114–427.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1993. Genre and literacy—Modeling context in educational linguistics. In Grabe, W. et al. , (eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13. Teaching and learning language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 141–172.Google Scholar
Mason, R. 1992. Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In Kaye, A. R. (ed.) Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 105–116.Google Scholar
Olson, C. P. 1987. Who computes? In Livingtone, L. W. (ed.) Critical pedagogy and cultural power. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. 179–204.Google Scholar
Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Papert, S. 1987. Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher. 16. 1. 22–23.Google Scholar
Park, Y. 1994. Incorporating interactive multimedia in an ESL classroom enviroment: Learners' interactions and learning strategies. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Pennington, M. 1991. Computer-assisted analysis of English dialect and interlanguage prosodics. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House. 133–154.Google Scholar
Piper, A. 1986. Conversation and the computer: A sutdy of the conversational spin-off generated among learners of English as a second language working in groups. System. 14. 187–198.Google Scholar
Reiser, R. A. 1987. Instructional technology: A history. In Gagne, R. M. (ed.) Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 11–48.Google Scholar
Renie, D. and Chanier, T.. 1995. Collaboration and computer-assisted acquisition of a second language. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 8. 1. 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D. and Kanner, R.. 1983. Whither CAI? The need fopr communicative courseware. System. 11. 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. 1991. Error analysis in purely synatactic parsing of free input: The example of German. CALICO Journal. 9. 1. 72–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, T., Cole, M. and Engel, M.. 1992. Computers in education: A cultural constructivist perspective. Review of Research in Education. 18. 191–251.Google Scholar
Scott, V. M. and New, E.. 1994. Computer aided analysis of foreign language writing process. CALICO Journal. 11. 3. 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. McH. and Coulthard, R. M.. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teacher and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 1992. Second language acquisition strategies and task-based learning. Thames Valley University Working Papers in English Language Teaching. 1. 178–208.Google Scholar
Stevens, V. 1992. Humanism and CALL: A coming of age. In Pennington, C. M. and Stevens, V. (eds.) Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. 11–38.Google Scholar
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Gass, S. M. and Madden, C. G. (eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 235–253.Google Scholar
Tribble, C. and Jones, G.. 1990. Concordances in the classroom: A resource book for teachers. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Underwood, J. 1984. Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher, Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the learner. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Watson-Gegeo, K. A. 1988. Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly. 22. 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. 1985. Vygotsky and the social formation of the mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wyatt, D. 1984. Computers and ESL. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar