A comparison of the linguistic and interactional features of language learning websites and textbooks

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-55

  Kong, Kenneth ^a  

^a HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Discourse analysis; Language of instruction; Self access; Textbook; Web based learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 60649084761     PISSN: 09588221     EISSN: 17443210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09588220802613799     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Armbruster, B.B., & Anderson, T.H. (1984). Producing 'considerate' expository text: Or easy reading is damned hard writing. Reading Education Report, No. 46. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
2. Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M., & Jetton, T.L. (1994). The role of subject-mattter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 201-252.
3. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holqusit, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
4. Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Volume IV: Class, codes and control. London and New York: Routledge.
5. Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson Education.
7. Biesenbach-Lucas, S., & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 135-165.
8. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Bruce, B., & Rubin, A. (1988). Readability formulas: Matching tools and task. In A. Davison & G.M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered (pp. 5-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Corbel, C., & Gruba, P. (2004). Teaching computer literacy, Teaching with new technology. Sydney: NCELTR.
11. Chafe, W.L. (1984). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Chafe, W.L. (1985). Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In D.R. Olson (Ed.), Literacy, language and learning (pp. 105-123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Chafe, W.L., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 83-113). New York: Academic Press.
14. Chun, D.M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hypermedia. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.
15. Dail, J.S. (2004). Reading in an online hypertext environment: A case study of tenth-grade English students (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2003).
16. Davies, F.I. (1999). Textbooks. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. (pp. 337-343). New York: Elsevier.
17. Donovan, C.A., & Smolkin, L.B. (2002). Considering genre, content and visual features in the selection of trade books in science instruction. The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 502-520.
18. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Longman.
19. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
20. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London & New York: Routledge.
21. Garcia, M.R., & Arias, F.V. (2000). A comparative study in motivation and learning through printoriented and computer-oriented tests. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4-5), 457-465.
22. Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. John Wiley and Sons.
23. Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24. Halliday, M.A.K. (1990). Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25. Halliday, M.A.K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M.A.K. Halliday & J.K. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). London: Falmer.
26. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition) (revised by C.M.I.M. Matthiessen). London: Edward Arnold.
27. Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.
28. Hemard, D. (2003). Language learning online: Designing towards user acceptability. In U. Felilx (Ed.), Language learning online: Towards best practice (pp. 21-42). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger B. V.
29. Herbert, T. (1997). The New Literacy?: The challenges of hypertextual discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(5), 479-489.
30. Hirata, Y. (2004). Computer assisted pronunciation training for native English speakers learning Japanese pitch and durational contrasts. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(3/4), 357-376.
31. Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 351-368.
32. Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
33. Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning. London: Routledge.
34. Kong, K.C.C. (under preparation). Users' preferences on printed and online language teaching texts.
35. Liou, H.C. (1997). The impact of WWW texts on EFL learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(5), 455-478.
36. Lesikin, J. (2000). Complex text in ESL grammar textbooks: Barriers or gateways? Reading in a Foreign Language, 13, 431-447.
37. Lomicka, L.L. (1998). To gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension online. Language Learning & Technology, 1(2), 41-50.
38. Mayer, R., (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. McNabb, M.L., Hassel, B., & Steiner, L. (2002). Literacy learning on the Net: An exploratory study. Reading Online, 5(10). Retrieved June 20 2007 from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art-index.asp?HREF=mcnabb/index. html.
40. Morkes, J., & Nielsen, J. (1997). Concise, scannable, and objective: How to write for the Web. Retrieved May 14 2003 from http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting/writing.html.
41. Morrison, S. (2002). Interactive language learning on the web. Retrieved May 27 2006 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0212morrison. html.
42. Murray, D.E. (1988). The context of oral and written language: A framework for mode and medium switching. Language in Society, 17(3), 351-373.
43. Murray, D.E. (1995). Knowledge machines: Language and information in a technological society. London: Longman.
44. Murray, D.E., & McPherson, P. (2004). Using the Web to support language learning. Sydney: NCELTR.
45. Murray, D.E., & McPherson, P. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for reading the web. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 131-156.
46. Nielsen, J. (1997). Be succinct! (Writing for the Web). Retrieved May 14, 2003, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9703b.html.
47. Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 484-498.
48. Reinking, D., (Ed.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a posttypographic world. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
49. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
50. Selinker, L., & Kinahan, C. (1999). Educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics (pp. 361-363). New York: Elsevier.
51. Shield, L., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2006). Are language learning Websites special? Towards a research agenda for discipline-specific usability. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 349-369.
52. Snyder, I. (2002). Silicon literacies. London: Routledge.
53. Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662-669.
54. Swales, J., Ahmad, U.K., Chang, Y.Y., Charvez, D., Dressen, D.F., & Seymour, A.P. (1998). Consider this: The role of imperatives in scholarly writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 97-121.
55. Web Accessibility Initiative (2000). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Retrieved August 19, 2007 from http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/ WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20001107.html.
56. Wiley, J., & Hemmerich, J. (2003). Literacy: Learning from multimedia sources. Encyclopedia of education (pp. 1493-1497). New York, NY: Macmillan Press.
57. Yates, S. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S.C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29-46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
58. Yeung, A.S., Jin, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). Cognitive load and learner expertise: Split-attention and redundancy effects in reading with explanatory notes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(1), 1-21.