LINGUISTICS 189/289 - STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Linguistics and the Teaching of English
as a Second/Foreign Language
CALL Mini-Course
Unit 6: CALL Research
OVERVIEW
So far, we have been going through this course with the implicit assumption that CALL works, that teaching language using computers in some way makes learning "better." But what exactly is "better?" Here are some possible interpretations:
There are no doubt other ways of defining "better," but if we just consider these, a question arises: What are we comparing these to? Presumably, we are comparing a CALL activity to some corresponding non-CALL activity to see which gives us superior results for a given language learning target. This comparative approach has strong face value: language teachers and program administrators are reasonable in wanting evidence that CALL is worthwhile before putting time and expense into it, and comparative research seems the only way to provide definitive answers. Unfortunately, after two decades CALL researchers have not been able to provide those answers, and a number of influential researchers long ago came to the conclusion that the type of study that pitted CALL against non-CALL was a dead end, just as happened with "method comparison" (e.g., audio lingual vs. TPR) in the 1970s and 80s. Ultimately, the more interesting and answerable questions were not about the computer, but about specific applications, specific features of applications, specific environments, and specific characteristics of learners.
There are many areas of CALL that have been looked at, and we'll be able to cover just a few of them here. Check the references at the end for resources to continue your CALL research review. It should be noted before continuing that CALL research has long been burdened by a problem which has not plagued most classroom-based SLA research: the technology adds a dimension of complexity and it is constantly changing; consequently definitive answers in any area don't seem to exist.
EARLY CALL RESEARCH
From Dunkel (1991), most CAI (computer-assisted instruction) and early CALL research focused on comparing computer users with a control group typically using traditional methods. The results were mixed, often showing no significant difference, sometimes favoring the computer users, and occasionally favoring the traditional approaches.
CURRENT TRENDS
Away from comparative research, though it's still done.
Toward ethnographic research (Warschauer 2000)
Chapelle's (2001) approach: link CALL to SLA research results and build CALL research accordingly.
Egbert & Hanson-Smith (1999) link research and practice to eight conditions for optimal language learning
SAMPLE RESEARCH RESULTS
Pellettieri (2000) showed that task-based online chat can lead to significant amounts of negotiation of meaning, leading to modifications requiring a focus on form, though she cautions that the task must be set up appropriately to elicit this interactional behavior. Note that other CMC research has often showed much weaker results with respect to negotiation, suggesting her emphasis on the specific task may be the most important point here.
[MORE TO COME]
SURVEY OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
In the summer of 2002, I sent a survey to 120 CALL professionals around the world asking them to articulate one research question in the field that they would like to see answered. I received 64 responses. A writeup of the results and the actual questions proposed by the contributors can be viewed at www.stanford.edu/~efs/callsurvey
REFERENCES
Chapelle, Carol. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing, and Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dunkel, Patricia. (1991). “The Effectiveness Research on Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice. New York: Newbury House/Harper Collins.
Egbert, Joy. & Hanson-Smith, Elizabeth. (eds.) (1999). CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Pellettieri, Jill (2000). "Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence." In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, Mark (2000). "Online learning in second language classrooms: an ethnographic study." In M. Warschauer and R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.