Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interactions in an authentic classroom

Abstract Recent CALL research has started to go beyond the comparison of CALL versus non-CALL environments to explore what learners do while going through CALL activities. One important strand within that area has focused on the use and utility of providing learners with opportunities to request modified input. While many studies have carried out research in a laboratory setting or through structured observation, this study explores learners' interactions within a CALL program in an authentic setting. The results indicate large variation in the use of options available. While teacher-introduced and mandated options were utilized more frequently, the data revealed that some options were either used infrequently (e.g., access to a textual gloss), or completely ignored by half of the learners (i.e., simultaneous repetition of text and audio). However, the study also found that access to options that provide added redundancy were significant predictors of success, more so than the time spent interacting with the CALL program. While low proficiency students chose dual input (audio and textual), they appeared to be less able to effectively utilize it. Higher proficiency students mainly focused on audio repetition only. (184 words)

[1]  Diana C. Issidorides.  The discovery of a miniature linguistic system: Function words and comprehension of an unfamiliar language , 1988 .

[2]  Shu Ching Yang,et al.  Language Learning on the World Wide Web: An Investigation of EFL Learners' Attitudes and Perceptions , 2001 .

[3]  Dorothy M. Chun,et al.  Effects of Multimedia Annotations on Vocabulary Acquisition , 1996 .

[4]  Volker Hegelheimer,et al.  Methodological Issues in Research on Learner-Computer Interactions in CALL , 2000 .

[5]  R. Dekeyser,et al.  BEYOND EXPLICIT RULE LEARNING , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[6]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be Learned from Research on Instructed SLA , 1998 .

[7]  Dustin E. Tower.  A quantitative interaction analysis of an authentic CALL environment: New Dynamic English , 2000 .

[8]  Michael H. Long,et al.  An introduction to second language acquisition research , 1990 .

[9]  J. Frommer,et al.  Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice , 1991 .

[10]  Johanna Klassen,et al.  Enhancing English Language Skills Using Multimedia: Tried and Tested , 1999 .

[11]  E. Ziegel,et al.  Linear Statistical Models: An Applied Approach. , 1992 .

[12]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Exploratory Learning Environments: What are They and Do Students Explore? , 1993 .

[13]  Carol A. Chapelle,et al.  Computer applications in second language acquisition : foundations for teaching, testing and research , 2001 .

[14]  Patricia G. Wojahn,et al.  Teaching College Composition with Computers , 1990 .

[15]  Rick de Graaff,et al.  THE EXPERANTO EXPERIMENT , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[16]  T. Pica.  Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal about Second-Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes?. , 1994 .

[17]  Talmy Givón,et al.  BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF CONTROLLED LABORATORY STUDIES OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[18]  P. Robinson.  GENERALIZABILITY AND AUTOMATICITY OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING UNDER IMPLICIT, INCIDENTAL, ENHANCED, AND INSTRUCTED CONDITIONS , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[19]  M. Swain,et al.  Explicit and Implicit Negative Feedback , 1993, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[20]  Ying Xue Zhong,et al.  Where is the technology-induced pedagogy? Snapshots from two multimedia EFL classrooms , 2002, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[21]  Robert DeKeyser,et al.  Learning Second Language Grammar Rules , 1995, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[22]  Stephen A. Bernhardt,et al.  Teaching College Composition with Computers , 1989 .

[23]  Jing-Fong Jane Hsu.  Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL): the effect of ESL students' use of interactional modifications on listening comprehension , 1994 .

[24]  Lara Lomicka,et al.  TO GLOSS OR NOT TO GLOSS: AN INVESTIGATION OF READING COMPREHENSION ONLINE , 1998 .

[25]  Garold L. Murray.  Exploring Learners' CALL Experiences: A Reflection on Method. , 1999 .

[26]  Chui Kian Kon,et al.  The influence on outcomes of ESL students' performance strategies on a CALL listening comprehension activity , 2002 .

[27]  James N. Davis,et al.  Computers and L2 Reading: Student Performance, Student Attitudes , 1997 .

[28]  Shannon Sauro,et al.  The success of task type in facilitating oral language production in online computer mediated collaborative projects , 2001 .

[29]  J. Schofield.  Computers and classroom culture , 1995 .

[30]  Susan Kesner Bland,et al.  The Naive Lexical Hypothesis: Evidence from Computer-Assisted Language Learning. , 1990 .

[31]  Isabel Borrás.  Developing and assessingPracticing Spoken French: A multimedia program for improving speaking skills , 1993 .

[32]  Thomas J. Garza,et al.  Evaluating the Use of Captioned Video Materials in Advanced Foreign Language Learning , 1991 .

[33]  Robert C. Duncan,et al.  Virtual Dialogues with Native Speakers: The Evaluation of an Interactive Multimedia Method , 1999 .