Current trends in online language learning

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Volumn 31, Issue , 2011, Pages 19-35

  Blake, Robert J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b University of California Consortium for Language Learning and Teaching   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864642337     PISSN: 02671905     EISSN: 14716356     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1017/S026719051100002X     Document Type: Review

References (84)

1. Amaral, L., & Meurers, D. (2009). Little things with big effects: On the identification and interpretation of tokens for error diagnosis in iCALL. CALICO Journal, 26, 580-591.
2. Belz, J., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
3. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136.
4. Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Blake, R. (2009). The use of technology for second language distance learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 822-835.
5. Blake, R., Wilson, N., Pardo Ballester, C., & Cetto, M. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning and Technology, 12, 114-127.
6. Brown, S., & Adler, R. P. (2008).Minds on fire. Open education, the long trail, and learning 2.0. Educause, 43, 17-32.
7. Chapelle, C. A. (2008). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98-114.
8. Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741-753.
9. Chun, D. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 81-98). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 5). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
10. Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 38-63.
11. Cobb, T. (2008). Commentary: Response to McQuillan and Krashen (2008). Language Learning & Technology, 12, 109-114.
12. Cohen, A., & Sykes, J. (2010). Language learner strategies and their effect on speech act performance. Applied Linguistics Forum, 30. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s-tesol/article.asp?vid=142&DID=13196&sid= 1&cid=695&iid=13190&nid=2857
13. Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A., & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2-Dutch. ReCALL, 20, 225-243.
14. Darhower,M. (2007). A tale of two communities: Group dynamics and community building in a Spanish-English telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 24, 561-589.
15. de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study of the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47-81.
16. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
17. Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijin, J., & Simis, A. (2005). Does training of second language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. Modern Language Journal, 89, 54-75.
18. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K, & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 55-102.
19. Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74-101.
20. Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Goodfellow, R., & Lamy,M-N. (Eds.). (2009). Learning cultures in online education. London, UK: Continuum Books.
22. Grgurovic, M. (2007). Research synthesis: CALL comparison studies by language skills/knowledge. Retrieved from http://tesl.engl.iastate.edu:591/ comparison/synthesis.htm
23. Hample, R.,&Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 88, 166-182.
24. Heift, T. (2010b). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94, 198-216.
25. Hubbard, P., & Bradin Siskin, C. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16, 448-461.
26. Kern, R. G., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27. Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness: An educational arcade paper. Retrieved from http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward- EdArcade.pdf
28. Kraemer, A. (2008). Formats of distance learning. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (pp. 11-42). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 7). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
29. Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440-464.
30. Lafford, B. (2004). Review of Tell Me More. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 21-34.
31. Lafford, B., Lafford, P., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre el dicho y hecho . . . : An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24, 497-529.
32. Lafford, P., & Lafford, B. (2005). CMC technologies for teaching foreign languages: What' on the horizon? CALICO Journal, 22, 679-710.
33. Lamy,M.-N.,& Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Lee, L. (2007). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 53-72.
35. LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2005). On the net: Vocabulary support for independent online reading. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 3-7.
36. Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Intercultural exchange and CMC. In. L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 211-236). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 5). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
37. Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (Eds.). (2009). The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 8). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
38. Meskill, C. (2009). CMC in language teacher education: Learning with and through instructional conversations. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 51-63.
39. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
40. Nagata, N. (2010). Some design issues for an online Japanese textbook. CALICO Journal, 27, 460-476.
41. Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42. Nation, P.,&Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage andword lists. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy, (pp. 6-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Nerbonne, J. A. (2003). Computer-assisted language learning and natural language processing. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 670-698). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
44. O'Dowd, R. (2006). The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography. In J. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86-119). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
45. Oskoz, A. (2009). Learners' feedback in online chats: What does it reveal about students' learning? CALICO Journal, 27, 48-68.
46. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47. Peters, M., Weinberg, A., & Sarma, N. (2009). To like or not to like! Student perceptions of technological activities for learning French as a second language at five Canadian institutions. Canadian Modern Language, 65, 8679-8896.
48. Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79-103.
49. Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 72-93.
50. Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
51. Purushotma, R., Thorne, S. L., & Wheatley, J. (2008). 10 Key principles for designing video games for foreign language learning. Paper produced for the Open Language & Learning Games Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education Arcade. Retrieved from http://knol.google.com/ k/10-key-principles-for-designing-video-games-for-foreignlanguage-learning#
52. Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 441-455.
53. Ranalli, J. (2009). Prospects for developing L2 students' effective use of vocabulary learning-strategies via Web-based training.CALICO Journal, 27, 161-186.
54. Remote and online instruction at the University of California: A report from the Academic Senate Special Committee on remote and online instruction and residency. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/ reports/HP-MGYreRpt-Spec-Cte-Online-Remote-Instruction-FINAL.pdf
55. Sanders, R. (2005). Interaction and online learning communities. In C. Crawford, D. Willis, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, & R. Weber (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2005 (pp. 2320-2325). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
56. Sanders, R. (2006). The "imponderable bloom": Reconsidering the role of technology in education. Innovate, 2. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=232
57. Sauro, S. (2008). Strategic use of modality during synchronous CMC. CALICO Journal, 27, 101-117.
58. Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96-120.
59. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-58.
60. Smith, B. (2009). Revealing the nature of SCMC interaction. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), (Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 197-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61. Soares, D. (2010). Second language pragmatic socialization in World of Warcraft. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
62. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82-119.
63. Sørensen, B. H., & Meyer, B. (2007). Serious games in language learning and teaching: A theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of the 2007 Digital Games Research Association Conference (pp. 559-566). Tokyo, Japan: Digital Games Research Association.
64. Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35, 19-29.
65. Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2004). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3, 5-33.
66. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 521-528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006).Why game (culture) studies now? Games and Culture, 1, 97-102.
68. Sydorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 50-73.
69. Sykes, J. M. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatic acquisition. In L. Lomika & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration (pp.199-234). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 8). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
70. Sykes, J. M. (2011). Multi-user virtual environments: User-driven design and implementation for language learning. In G. Vincenti&J. Braman (Eds.), (Teaching through multi-user virtual environments: Applying dynamic elements to the modern classroom (pp. 283-305). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
71. Sykes, J. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2009). Learner perception and strategies for pragmatic acquisition: A glimpse into online learning materials. In C. Dreyer (Ed.), Language and linguistics: Emerging trends (pp. 99-135). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
72. Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25, 528-546.
73. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 38-67.
74. Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open Internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 305-327). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
75. Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. (2007). Language and literacy development in computermediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133-160.
76. Thorne, S. L., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802-821.
77. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/netp.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/ eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
78. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71-90.
79. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 90-105.
81. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.
82. Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 48-67.
83. Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It's about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72-79.
84. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed selfrepresentation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271-290.