Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 294-310

  Cerezo, Luis ^a   Baralt, Melissa ^b   Suh, Bo Ram ^c   Leow, Ronald P ^d  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Seoul National University   (South Korea)

^d GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

CALL; CMC; e tutors; FTF; meta analysis; online instruction; research methodology; synthesis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902876701     PISSN: 09588221     EISSN: 17443210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2013.839569     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. AbuSeileek, A.F. (2009). The effect of using an online-based course on the learning of grammar inductively and deductively. Journal of the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 319-336.
2. AbuSeileek, A.F., & Rababah, G.A. (2007). The effect of computer-based grammar instruction on the acquisition of verb tenses in an EFL context. The JALT CALL Journal, 3(1-2), 59-80.
3. Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 1-37.
4. Barker, P. (2002). On being an online tutor. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 3-13.
5. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish development. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136.
6. Blake, R. (2009). The use of technology for second language distance learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 822-835.
7. Böhlke, O. (2003). A comparison of student participation levels by group size and language stages during chatroom and face-to-face discussions in German. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 21(1), 67-87.
8. Bowles, M.A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at a L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(3), 359-387.
9. Camblor, M. (2006). Type of written feedback, awareness, and L2 development: A computer-based study (PhD doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
10. Cerezo, L. (2010). Talking to avatars: The computer as a tutor and the incidence of learner's agency, feedback, and grammatical form in SLA (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
11. Cerezo, L. (2012). Beyond hybrid learning: A synthesis of research on e-tutors under the lens of SLA theory. In F. Rubio & J.J. Thoms (Eds.), AAUSC Volume 2012: Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 50-66). Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning.
12. DeKeyser, R.M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25.
13. Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? Journal of the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 269-288.
14. Fernández-García, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 19, 279-294.
15. Goertler, S.E. (2011). Blended and open/online learning: Adapting to a changing world of language teaching. In N. Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 471-502). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
16. Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C., & Shelley, M. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. Journal of the European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 165-198.
17. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (in press). Exploring learner perception and use of task-based interactional feedback in FTF and CMC modes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
18. Heift, T., & Chapelle, C. (2012). Language learning through technology. In S.M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London: Routledge.
19. Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Parsers and pedagogues: Errors and intelligence in computer assisted language learning. London: Routledge.
20. Hsieh, H.C. (2007). Input-based practice, feedback, awareness and L2 development through a computerized task (PhD doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
21. Iwasaki, J., & Oliver, R. (2003). Chatline interaction and negative feedback. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 17, 60-73.
22. Kim, D.-H., Cowan, R., & Choo, J. (2006). CALL models for SLA feeback research. Paper presented at the Joint American Association of Applied Linguistics and Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Montreal.
23. Kulik, J.A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in colleges and universities: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
24. Lado, B. (2008). The role of bilingualism, type of feedback and cognitive capacity in the acquisition of non-primary languages: A computer-based study (PhD doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
25. Lai, C., Fei, F., & Roots, R. (2008). The contingency of recasts and noticing. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 26, 70-90.
26. Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing in text-based online chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10, 102-120.
27. Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83-100.
28. Leow, R.P. (1999). The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach & F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic linguistics: Papers from the second. Hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 60-71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
29. Leow, R.P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113-155.
30. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 769-782.
31. Lin, H.J. (2009). Bilingualism, feedback, cognitive capacity, and learning strategies in L3 development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
32. Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chat room: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
33. Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C. Ritchie & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press.
34. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
35. Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S.M. (2012). Interactionist approach. In S.M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 7-23). London: Routledge.
36. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). 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
37. Medina, A.D. (2008). Concurrent verbalization, task complexity, and working memory: Effects on L2 learning in a computerized task (PhD doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
38. Moreno, N. (2007). The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in CALL (PhD doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
39. Morgan-Short, K., & Bowden, H.W. (2006). Processing instruction and meaningful output-based instruction: Effects on second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 31-65.
40. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 330-339.
41. Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 14, 53-75.
42. Nagata, N. (1998a). Input vs. output practice in educational software for second language acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 1, 23-40.
43. Nagata, N. (1998b). The relative effectiveness of production and comprehension practice in second language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(2), 153-177.
44. Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
45. Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2010). Research timeline: Research synthesis. Language Teaching, 43(4), 461-479.
46. Nutta, J.W. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures? Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 16, 49-62.
47. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Arnold.
48. Petersen, K.A. (2010). Implicit corrective feedback in computer-guided interaction: Does the mode matter? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
49. Robinson, P. (Ed.) (2011). Second language task complexity, the cognition hypothesis, language learning, and performance. Researching task complexity: Task demands, task-based language learning and performance (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50. Rosa, E.M., & Leow, R.P. (2004). Computerized task-based instruction in the L2 classroom: The effects of explicitness and type of feedback on L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88(2), 192-216.
51. Sachs, R. (2011). Individual differences and the effectiveness of visual feedback on reflexive binding in L2 Japanese (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
52. Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197-227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54, 35-78.
54. Schmidt, R.W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 165-179.
56. Shekary, M., & Tahririan, M.H. (2006). Negotiation of meaning and noticing in text-based online chat. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 557-573.
57. Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532.
58. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.
59. Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33-58.
60. Sykes, J.M. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 19, 399-431.
61. Torlaković, E., & Deugo, D. (2004). Application of a CALL system in the acquisition of adverbs in English. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 203-235.
62. Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141-159.
63. VanPatten, B. (Ed.) (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 5-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64. Watts, C. (1989). Interactive video: What the students say. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 7(1), 17-20.
65. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium Journal, 21(1), 7-27.