levy 2009.pdf

Technologies in Use for SecondLanguage LearningMIKE LEVYGriffith UniversityNathan Campus170 Kessels Road, NathanBrisbane, Queensland 4111, AustraliaEmail: [email protected]

This article describes the technologies in use for second language learning, in relation to themajor language areas and skills. In order, these are grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing,pronunciation, listening, speaking, and culture. With each language area or skill, the relevanttechnologies are discussed with examples that illustrate how practitioners have employed thetechnological tool to help assist the language learner. In each case, the examples are chosen tohighlight current points of focus and priorities, to give an indication of successful applications,and, in some cases, to draw attention to areas in which further work is required before a viableapplication is achieved.

IT IS INSTRUCTIVE FROM THE PERSPECTIVEof the technologies in use to compare and re-flect upon the technologies described in Garrett’s(1991) seminal article with those in use today. In-evitably, much has changed, especially with theintroduction of multimedia, mobile technologies,and the advent of the Internet. These technolo-gies, in turn, have led to new forms of communi-cation, text production, collaboration, and socialnetworking. At first glance, today’s technologicalenvironment appears to have changed beyondrecognition compared to that described by Gar-rett. However, when looking a little closer, andwith language learning and teaching as the focus,it is by no means entirely a question of difference.For example, according to Garrett, broadly speak-ing, language teachers still lack a “major voice”in determining which technologies are chosenfor their use and technology integration remainsan issue. There are also similarities and paral-lels today with Garrett’s discussion of the valueof generic applications for second language (L2)learning in addition to special-purpose languagelearning software. Garrett’s article also involved

The Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue, (2009)0026-7902/09/769–782 $1.50/0C©2009 The Modern Language Journal

comparisons and contrasts between the technolo-gies that at that time were well established andaccepted and those that were relatively new andjust beginning to be adopted and used regularly:Such a perspective is equally relevant today (Levy& Stockwell, 2006). These points will be taken upin the discussion section after a review of the tech-nologies currently in use.

Like Garrett (1991), I take a modular approachto the language areas and skills. This is helpful,partly because such a division is familiar to lan-guage teaching professionals but especially be-cause it provides an effective structure for rep-resenting the scope and range of technologies inuse. With a more holistic approach it would bevery easy to overlook important areas of techno-logical application to language learning. A mod-ular approach also generally requires developersand users to be more explicit in describing theirgoals for learning and the concomitant role ofthe technology leading to a beneficial focus onlanguage learning rather than simply languageuse. At the same time, this approach also has itslimitations. By placing a technology in a categoryas I have done here, by discussing podcasts un-der listening, for example, readers may be led tobelieve that this technology can only be used forlistening and not other language areas and skills,such as culture learning. However, as long as this

770 The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

limitation is recognized, the modular approach ishelpful.

In the discussion, each section lists the tech-nologies in use with the skills or subskills theytarget in the various language learning applica-tions. A small number of examples are includedto exemplify the relationship between the area orskill and the technology. Unfortunately, there isinsufficient space to include a detailed theoreti-cal exposition and review of the research findingsin relation to each area and skill and its atten-dant technologies. As the purpose of this articleis to focus on technologies in use, the theoreticalbase and review of research findings in relationto each language skill or area will necessarily belimited.

THE LANGUAGE AREAS AND SKILLS

Grammar

In the early days, grammar-oriented tutorialexercises were perceived as one of the most valu-able applications in computer-assisted languagelearning (CALL). In recent years, sentence-based,grammar-oriented tasks created by teachers fortheir own learners using commercially producedCALL software or authoring software remain acomponent of many language learning programs,although generally they are now more firmlyembedded in a communicative context (Chan &Kim, 2004). Grammar-focussed activities are alsocommon on language learning Web sites, includ-ing pay Web sites (e.g., English Town, http://www.englishtown.com/online/home.aspx). Inaddition, there are a number of grammar tutorialactivities that involve conscious reflection onnot only form but also meaning and usage (seeHubbard & Bradin Siskin, 2004, for a discussion).Still, these activities tend to be rudimentary interms of the computer program’s analysis oflearner errors and in the feedback provided. Asa result, there has been a continuing interest indeveloping software that is able to generate betterinformed analysis and feedback (Dodigovic, 2005;Heift & Schulze, 2007).

Improving error analysis, diagnosis, and feed-back has been of continuing interest in the areaof natural-language processing (NLP), “parser-based CALL,” and intelligent CALL (ICALL;Nerbonne, 2003). Here, researchers and devel-opers are aiming at emulating some of the qual-ities of an expert teacher, such as the abilityto assess the importance of an error or to pro-vide more nuanced feedback (Dodigovic, 2005;

Heift & Schulze, 2007). Thus, for example, Heiftand Schulze described The German Tutor , whichfeatures an “Error Priority Queue” that ranksstudent errors and provides a single feedback mes-sage when multiple errors occur. By keeping adetailed record of student performance, modernparser-based CALL systems are able to developsophisticated student models that shape subse-quent student–computer interactions, especiallyin terms of feedback, assessment, and remedia-tion (Heift & Schulze, 2007). A wide range oftechnologies is increasingly becoming involved.For example, in relation to NLP and CALL,Nerbonne included concordancing, text align-ment, speech recognition and synthesis, syntac-tic processing, and machine translation in hisdiscussion.

Concordancing and corpus studies are wor-thy of special note in the recent develop-ment of ICALL and parser-based NLP systems(Granger, Kraif, Ponton, Antoniadis, & Zampa,2007; Vannestal & Lindquist, 2007). Of special in-terest is the learner corpus, an electronic collec-tion of texts produced by L2 learners in whichlearner errors are tagged and categorized intogroups. Thus, in a parser-based NLP system, whena learner error is identified, the learner can notonly be offered feedback in the usual sense butcan also be referred to the learner corpus inwhich errors of a similar kind may be reviewedin their various contexts. Such systems are fur-ther enhanced by the possibilities of annotationand error categorization according to certain cri-teria (e.g., errors from learners who share thesame first language [L1]). Thus, any feedbackmay be evaluated in the light of a representa-tive set of similar examples, giving the learnermore of a sense of the degree to which the feed-back may be extended and applied in other situ-ations. Granger et al. (2007) concluded that thiscombination of technologies is especially benefi-cial for raising language awareness and focus onform.

This enrichment of the context within whichfeedback is given may be further enhanced bya multimodal concordancer and corpus, whichallow the learner to retrieve segments of videoand audio from a tagged corpus (see Ackerley& Coccetta, 2007). Although there are many ex-isting prospects for more sophisticated programsfor grammar learning, they do not yet appear tohave reached the wider language education mar-ket, and it is fair to say that most grammar pro-grams are still very basic in the ways they processlearner input, diagnose errors, and provide feed-back.

Mike Levy 771

Vocabulary

Vocabulary, alongside grammar, has been oneof the traditional areas of focus in CALL (Levy,1997). Vocabulary continues to attract attentionbecause of the sheer size of the task for the learner,its obvious importance for students with varyinggoals and proficiency levels, and the inherent ca-pabilities of the computer that are more attunedto dealing with the more discrete aspects of lan-guage learning. Not surprisingly, the range oftechnologies is broad and includes courseware(commercial and self-developed), online activ-ities, dictionaries, corpora and concordancing,and computer-mediated communication (CMC)technologies (Stockwell, 2007a).

Discrete-point activities for vocabulary learningpractice are common and have been employedfor many years. The well-known Hot Potatoes(http://hotpot.uvic.ca/) software is a good ex-ample, which includes six straightforward tutorialactivities for vocabulary and grammar learning.Although the six activities are discrete and con-ceptualised conceptualized largely around theword and the sentence, which some teachersmay consider a limitation, there is a considerableamount of flexibility provided within the defaultformats, such as the option of including a simpleFlash audio player to play sound files so that learn-ers may listen to new vocabulary items separatelyand in context.

Much vocabulary learning software makes useof the simple keyword hyperlink, which typicallyconnects the user directly to a dictionary defi-nition, a translation, or an image. Multimediaannotations incorporating audio and video areincreasingly common (Yeh & Wang, 2003). Agood example of a commercial program thathas this function is WordChamp (http://www.wordchamp.com), an online vocabulary-buildingtool that may be activated to apply to any selectedWeb page. When the user clicks on any word,the dictionary function provides a standard def-inition, an audio pronunciation of the word, anda translation into another language, as required.The system also enables the user to build person-alized word lists. The drawbacks of such programsas WordChamp concern the use of word-by-wordtranslation rather the more accurate translationthat potentially could be provided by a more so-phisticated parsing system. However, the programdoes contain well-constructed tasks that focus onbuilding content vocabulary when learners exam-ine authentic Web sites designed for native speak-ers; as a result, the program remains a particularly

versatile aid to have readily available in thebackground.

Beyond simple links to resources andmechanical practice, L2 vocabulary learningrequires systematic recycling of new items atoptimal intervals, recontextualization, memorysupport to promote recall, and production andfeedback opportunities. A valuable example ofa vocabulary learning site is the Lexical Tutor(http://www.lextutor.ca/), which illustrates wellthe breadth of online vocabulary applicationsthat have been created. In vocabulary learning,multiple meanings of high-frequency vocabularyneed to be addressed. Technologies invoked to ad-dress these challenges include software developedby Nakata (2006) to provide optimal schedul-ing of feedback and rehearsal opportunities toimprove the effectiveness and efficiency of vo-cabulary learning. Computer-based lexical activ-ities are also being developed using carefully for-mulated design principles drawn from insightsfrom current research in cognitive psychology,psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. A good ex-ample is the in the work of Lafford, Lafford, andSykes (2007), who have proposed 10 design fea-tures to underpin the creation of Spanish CALLmaterials for lexical acquisition. Such work isaimed at engaging learners in deep processingand in furthering their understanding of the lay-ers of meanings associated with lexical items in dif-ferent contexts. With broadly similar intent, usinga depth of lexical processing scale, Loucky (2006)described how a wide range of CALL tools couldbe used to promote learners’ receptive and pro-ductive vocabulary development.

To date, vocabulary learning has also been afocus for developing applications and materialsfor the mobile phone (Kennedy & Levy, 2008;Stockwell, 2007b; Thornton & Houser, 2002).Like the computer, the mobile phone is a mul-tifunction device, and with recent innovationssuch as the iPhone, it is to be expected thatfurther applications will quickly emerge to ad-dress other areas and skills of language learn-ing. Common features of these devices includeInternet access, voice messaging, short messageservice (SMS) text messaging, photography, andvideo recording. An example of recent work onthe use of CALL to acquire vocabulary is by Levyand Kennedy, who exploited SMS messaging forlearning Italian (Kennedy & Levy, 2008; Levy &Kennedy, 2005). From a practical point of view,vocabulary items can be presented through shortdefinitions and examples that suit the screen di-mensions and general handling capabilities of the


mobile phone. The particular advantage of thistechnology is its ubiquity and, with a message dis-tribution system, the capacity to plan recycling ofnew terms and to prepare messages in advancefor delivery later at specific times. Thus, messagescan be distributed at the time they are requiredto complement face-to-face work in class and thecurriculum.

Although these advantages are of considerablepotential value, the material constraints of the mo-bile phone such as the screen size still currentlylimit its use for language learners, as demon-strated in a research study by Stockwell (2007b).In this study, participants could choose to com-plete their assigned vocabulary learning tasks viathe phone or the computer, and in the findings,the student access log data clearly showed a pref-erence for the computer over the phone. Moredetailed analysis showed that this preference wasrelated to both material and contextual factors,including screen size, ease of use, the expense ofthe service (in Japan), and ambient noise while intransit (Stockwell, 2007b, p. 378). Similar kinds ofdrawbacks are also likely to be encountered withother mobile devices such as personal digital as-sistants, MP3 players, and digital voice recorders,which are increasingly being tested and used inthe teaching and learning of vocabulary for En-glish, French, Spanish, and Chinese (Born, 2007;Chinnery, 2006). The challenge for developers, asis so often the case in CALL, is to work effectivelywithin known constraints.

Reading

According to Chun (2006), the CALL technolo-gies in use for L2 reading are:

electronic dictionaries, software that provides tex-tual, contextual and/or multimedia annotations,computer-based training programs that aim to accel-erate and automatize word recognition, Web-basedactivities that seek to teach a variety of components(from text structures and discourse organization toreading strategies) and the Internet as a source ofmaterials for extensive reading. (p. 69)

Broadly speaking, these technologies are appliedto assist the reader with further information or ex-emplification or to provide practice and exposureto extended texts.

Al-Seghayer (2007) examined the role of or-ganizational devices in readers’ construction ofmental representations of hypertext content andfound that well-structured hypertext was espe-cially important for less proficient readers. Hedescribed organizational devices that support cog-nitive processes and direct learners’ attention to

what is important and relevant. An alternativeapproach is to create a system for evaluating textsfor vocabulary or reading difficulty or to provideadditional tools to assist the learner. Huang andLiou (2007) described such an environment thatused new software to search a corpus of read-ings for recurring words, with the aim of locatingpassages that gave learners the best opportunitiesto encounter new words repeatedly; the programthen used frequency lists to place the texts in or-der of difficulty. Cobb (2007) used a text modifi-cation approach and lexical tools to accomplish asimilar goal.

With electronic dictionaries, research findingshave shown that even when a variety of informa-tion sources is made available, most students optfor simple definitions, or translations, or both(Laufer & Hill, 2000). Chun (2006) observedthat the “pedagogical issue is then to determinewhether and how to encourage readers to use themultimedia glosses available to them, particularlywhen vocabulary acquisition is one of the con-comitant goals of reading” (p. 78). Making multi-ple annotation types available is one thing; gettinglearners to use them and to use them appropri-ately is quite another. Sometimes excellent anno-tations or dictionary definitions are available, butthey cannot be accessed readily and the learn-ers do not know how to use them optimally. Tocounter these potential deficiencies, usability andlearner training are crucial. Resources need to bereadily available in a way that is timely and intu-itive for the user, and the learner needs to knowwhen it is most effective and useful to access theseresources. Additionally, as far as possible, the pro-gram needs to be designed to match the individualstudent’s preferred learning style and proficiencylevel. Chun showed the importance of incorpo-rating individual differences in a research studythat examined look-up behavior with glosses forvocabulary acquisition and reading comprehen-sion. For developers, this is significant because itmeans that although certain technological appli-cations (video annotations) may be effective withsome learners, this may not prove to be the casewith others (Jones, 2003; Plass, Chun, Mayer, &Leutner, 1998).

Writing

Since the early 1980s with the spread of themicrocomputer, the word processor has undoubt-edly become one of the most widely acceptedtechnologies for writing. Its central function—to facilitate the flexible manipulation of text—enables drafting and redrafting to occur easily,and the eventual product may be presented to

Mike Levy 773

a professional standard (see Pennington, 2004;Pennington & Brock, 1992).

Yet the word processor is not without its com-plications for L2 learners, especially in relationto the resource tools that typically accompany it,such as spelling and grammar checkers (see Heift& Schulze, 2007, pp. 84–88, for a discussion). Typ-ical problems occur because these commercialapplications have been designed for native, notnonnative, speakers (NNSs) and so often do notcorrectly identify and respond to L2 learner er-rors. Consequently, one avenue of developmentwork has been to create specialised checkers suchas FipsOrtho, a spell checker specifically designedfor learners of French that utilises a corpus oflearner errors to obtain a sample of specific lan-guage errors for reference (L’Haire, 2007).

Another approach to developing grammaticalaccuracy in L2 writing is the use of the interac-tive iWRITE system, a multimodal, corpus-basedonline grammar resource (Hegelheimer, 2006;Hegelheimer & Fisher, 2006). Ho and Savignon(2007) described an approach to the use of theTrack Changes function in Microsoft Word inthe context of computer-mediated peer reviewvia email. Such an approach provides for context-specific feedback and illustrates well a collabora-tive approach to writing. Collectively, these toolsvariously address central problems in the devel-opment of the writing skill, including the needfor accuracy, production, multiple drafts, chan-nels for context-sensitive feedback and correc-tion, peer editing, reflection, and a record ofthe process. Importantly, all projects describedin this paragraph recognise the substantial limi-tations of generic commercial products for teach-ing and learning writing, such as the problem ofa language learner taking advice from a grammarchecker designed for native speakers when the ad-vice given assumes the knowledge base of a nativespeaker. In contrast, the projects described in thissection set out to provide custom-designed toolswith the appropriate teaching strategies to assistthe L2 learner.

A key differentiating factor among the tech-nologies used for writing hinges on the level of for-mality expected or required. Whereas the kindsof academic writing discussed by Hegelheimer(2006) are formal and require appropriate toolsto address issues of accuracy and appropriacy,other tools are readily available for more personal,informal kinds of writing. Web logs or blogs fit wellinto this category, and there are many examplesin contemporary CALL (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008;Fellner & Apple, 2006). A blog is a Web page withregular diary or journal entries, using text, audio,or video. With regard to writing, particular areas

of focus have been self-expression, creativity, own-ership, and community building. For example,Ducate and Lomicka described two blog projectsin intermediate university-level French and Ger-man. The projects were designed such that learn-ers moved from readers of native-speaker blogsto writers of their own blogs. Blogs have manystrengths, especially in terms of encouraging self-expression through informal writing, but theydo tend to require considerable monitoring andmoderation from the teacher to operate success-fully over time in an educational setting. Differ-ent blog programs also offer varying degrees offunctionality—for instance, in terms of levels ofinteractivity, levels of access, and visual capacity—and so it may be advantageous to review a numberof systems before finally settling on a particularblog provider.

Beyond word processing tools, learner corpora,and email to enable collaborative writing andpeer review, numerous other technological toolshave been employed in L2 writing. These in-clude “student-designed webpages, photo-editing,PowerPoint presentations, weblogs, and wikis”(Murray & Hourigan, 2006, p. 149). Godwin-Jones(2008) mentioned many more under the heading“Emerging technologies—Web-Writing 2.0: En-abling, documenting and assessing writing on-line.” Many of these technologies relate to theonline construction of texts (word and image)and social networking. Although the word “writ-ing” remains in the titles of these recent works, thesense in which this skill is understood has broad-ened, reflecting contemporary thinking in mul-tiliteracies and the combination of the word andthe image in the creation of multimodal texts (seeGonglewski & DuBravac, 2006, for a discussion).

It is also appropriate under writing to includetext chat , a form of synchronous CMC (SCMC).As far as chat is concerned, until fairly recently,most CALL projects concentrated on interac-tions via typed text (e.g., Negretti, 1999; Tudini,2003). Now, however, voicechat is increasinglybeing employed, thus blurring the role of chatin terms of its categorization within the writingand speaking domains (see the later section onspeaking). The tools used to facilitate text chatare varied, and some examples include ChatNetIRC and the “Virtual Classroom” component ofBlackBoard. The choice of chat tool may de-pend on the language of the chat sessions. Xie(2002), for example, adopted an internet relaychat (IRC) program called mIRC as a part ofteaching his Chinese classes, as it allowed the par-ticipants to input and read Chinese characters,something that was not possible in many otherIRC programs.


Pronunciation

In an overview of computer-aided pronun-ciation training (CAPT) pedagogy, Pennington(1999) assessed its potential, its limitations, andlikely directions for the future (see also Neri,2007). The strengths of CAPT included the abil-ity to motivate and to raise awareness of indi-vidual difficulties using technologies that werequick, precise, tuned to the individual learner,and highly salient; the main limitation at thattime concerned the fact that “certain aspects ofpronunciation do not show up well in the vi-sual representations of the speech analysis suchas (simplified or modified) waveforms and socannot generally be trained by such represen-tations” (Pennington, 1999, p. 431). Almost adecade later Chun (2008) noted “technologicaladvances in acoustic phonetic software have thepotential to help learners improve their pronun-ciation and speaking competence but that soundpedagogically-based feedback beyond simply dis-playing pitch curves is still lacking, yet essential”(p. 17; see also Engwall & Balter, 2007). Turninga simple display into an effective tool for learningis by no means straightforward, and in some ways,CAPT software is still a matter of potential ratherthan realization. Nonetheless, progress is beingmade in the design of pronunciation software ei-ther by targeting the design to a homogeneousstudent group (L1 or L2) or by more nuancedapproaches to input evaluation and feedback.Commercial ventures such as Carnegie Speech(http://www.carnegiespeech.com/), which de-veloped from Carnegie Mellon University’sSPHINX speech recognition project, also providegood examples of the state of the art.

An excellent example of a package that pro-vides more detailed learner feedback on pro-nunciation was provided by Tsubota, Dantsuji,and Kawahara (2004) for Japanese learners ofEnglish. The software identifies the aspects ofEnglish pronunciation with which the learnersare experiencing difficulties, specifically search-ing for 10 areas predicted as being problematic forJapanese learners. After identifying the areas inwhich the students require more practice, the soft-ware then automatically provides feedback andpractice in those areas in which errors were de-tected. Aimed at a student group similar in back-ground and goals, Shudong, Higgins, and Shima(2005) described an Internet-based support sys-tem that makes use of a corpus of sample datafrom native speakers (see also Campbell,McConnell, Meinardi, & Richardson, 2007). Thesystem identifies specific difficulties and then pro-vides a number of interactive approaches and

activity types to address them. Very detailed andprecisely targeted feedback is a feature of thissystem.

As with many of the more tutorial approaches toCALL, the precise nature and timing of feedbackis critical (see Heift & Schulze, 2007). Despitethe greater technical sophistication of feedback-providing pronunciation software packages, thequestion of which type of feedback is more ef-fective in improving student pronunciation is stillcontentious (Hew & Ohki, 2004). Engwall andBalter (2007) provided a detailed examinationof the challenges of feedback design in CAPT.Based on data from learner and teacher inter-views and on observations focussing on the waysteachers give feedback in the classroom and theerrors that should be corrected, the authors cre-ated a computer-animated pronunciation coachthat pays special attention to the particular prob-lems that should be corrected and the way inwhich the feedback should be given. The systemtargets a narrower range of pronunciation diffi-culties than is typically encountered while provid-ing a wider range of feedback strategies to suitindividual learner preferences.

Listening

Digitized audio and video have made their wayinto all aspects of educational computing. On theInternet, streaming audio and video allow thelearner access to a vast quantity of audio mate-rial of all kinds. Audio and video files may bestored, managed, and distributed to provide foreasy access for learning using conventional meansplus more recent technologies such as MP3 play-ers. Listening materials may be manually or auto-matically downloaded to a computer or portablemedia players for later study and use through sim-ple file transfer, podcasts, and Web casts. Thereare also numerous CDs, DVDs, and Web sitesavailable for many languages that provide listen-ing materials. Readily available programs suchas Media Player enable the learner to examinesound and video files in flexible ways for learn-ing, by adjusting the speed to slow down thestream of language or to pause and repeat keysegments.

In listening, learners initially need to distin-guish and learn the sounds of the L2—the prosodyof the language, including intonation, rhythm,and stress—to extract meaning. They need to sam-ple and understand authentic, natural speech ina variety of contexts to the point they can identifypatterns and predict what comes next without nec-essarily having to hear it (Frommer, 2006). CALLtechnologies for listening have been applied to

Mike Levy 775

address these learning goals to facilitate segmen-tation, repetition, speed regulation, interactivity,and links to further information (Jones, 2003;Zhao, 1997). Specific types include advanced or-ganizers and prelistening/viewing tools to activatelearners’ prior knowledge and learning strategies,annotated information links (text, image, etc.),and captioned video to enhance comprehensibleinput (Jones, 2006). An excellent example of mul-timedia CALL software developed to address thelistening skill specifically is described by Hulstijn(2003). Using connectionist models of languageprocessing, the software is designed to help thelearner analyse the continuous speech stream inreal time and convert “meaningless tiny bits ofacoustic information into meaningful units, suchas speech sounds, syllables and words” (Hulstijn,2003, p. 414). The 123LISTEN software is de-signed for this task whereby the optimal use isfor the learner to play a listening text, fragmentby fragment, reconstruct the utterance, and thencheck his/her prediction by displaying the subti-tles (Hulstijn, 2003).

A new technology that is also gaining much in-terest for the development of listening skills isthe podcast (McCarty, 2005; O’Bryan & Hegel-heimer, 2007; Rosell-Aguilar, 2007). A podcast isan audio/video file that can be “broadcast” via theInternet with sound files that are “pushed” tosubscribers, often at regular intervals. A podcast-ing blog is also an option (see McCarty, 2005),and learners may create their own podcasts (seeRosell-Aguilar, 2007). In current work in L2 learn-ing, there is a particular focus on successfullydesigning the structure and content of a pod-cast suite and integrating it effectively into thecurriculum. Chan, Chen, and Dopel (2008) de-scribed their use of podcasts in a beginner-level German language program. Key objectiveswere a fully integrated series of podcasts, prac-tice and extension, curriculum review, increasedopportunities for exposure to listening texts,and cultural content and further developmentof learning strategies. At an average length of13 minutes, the typical structure and contentof a podcast included a preview, musical inter-ludes, listening and culture material, learningstrategies, and metainformation such as greet-ings, content overviews, summaries, and linksbetween segments. It is the weighting and se-quencing of subcomponents that is of special notein this study because this profile reflects a mixof content with pedagogy within each podcast.The pedagogical component is aimed at learnermotivation and engagement so that the podcastactivity is not one in which the learner remains

passive and only has to listen to a passage. Chanet al. also indicated that this profile changes aslearners progress through the semester: For ex-ample, there is a shift from a lighter to a length-ier and more demanding listening and speakingcomponent. In addition, the learning strategiesbuilt into the pedagogical content of each pod-cast become more sophisticated as the learnersgradually gain familiarity and confidence with theapproach. Also key is regular student feedback sothat the design may be refined and improved.

Speaking

Of the language areas and skills, attendingto the oral skill has perhaps attracted the mostdiverse range of CALL technologies and ap-proaches. These include applications that en-able the computer to mediate communicationvia voice, to transmit audio or video throughaudio and video conferencing, or to facilitateuser participation and interaction via text chat,voice chat, audioblogs, or voiced bulletin boards.Learners may also send or post sound files us-ing voiced emails or simply have a conversationvia a VoIP (Voice-over Internet Protocol) suchas Skype, which enables the computer to operatelike a telephone. This program is normally free ofcharge and provides good sound quality as longas there is a high-speed Internet connection avail-able to link the participants. Skype remains just atool, however, and its value in language learningwill depend on effective pedagogies to accompanyit. An excellent example of its sustained use intask-based language learning, with a detailed dis-cussion of strengths and weaknesses, is describedby Mullen, Appel, and Shanklin (2009) in a 2-year,Skype-based tandem language learning project.

Although text chat has value for writing, as dis-cussed earlier, it is also employed to enhance oralproduction (Okuyama, 2005; Payne & Whitney,2002). Payne and his colleagues have conducted anumber of studies that demonstrate that real-timeconversational exchange via text may indirectlydevelop L2 speaking ability (Payne & Ross, 2005).In this work, Levelt’s (1989) model of cognitiveprocessing provides an important theoretical ar-gument for bridging the gap, and explaining therelationship, between oral and written production(see also Payne & Whitney, 2002). Sykes (2005)elaborated this domain further, also with refer-ence to Levelt’s model, in a research study mea-suring the effects of three types of synchronousdiscussions—text chat, oral chat, and face-to-facediscussion—in the context of pragmatic develop-ment.


Recent options for spoken interaction onlineinvolve various forms of audio interaction suchas audioblogs and voice email. Hsu, Wang, andComac (2008) used audioblogs to “manage oralassignments, to interact with learners, and to eval-uate performance outcomes” (p. 181). Oral as-signments were recorded through mobile phones,and the audioblog was used to submit and archiveoral assignments. The pedagogical design of thisstudy showed some similarities, noted by the au-thors, with that of Volle (2005), who required stu-dents to complete two types of voiced audio emailassignments: a read-aloud passage and a grammardrill. The authors advocated these technologiesbecause of their ease of use, their general func-tionality, and easy archiving of assignments forevaluation.

Applications designed to enable learners to de-velop their oral skills at a distance are also preva-lent now that broadband technologies enablereal-time speech to be handled reliably. These in-clude virtual learning environments (VLEs) thatemploy audio and video conferencing (Hampel& Hauck, 2004). One example is the Collabo-rative Cyber Community (3C), a combination ofSCMC technologies that combine a shared inter-active whiteboard and audio, video, and text chatfor developing oral skills in Mandarin Chinese(Levy, Wang, & Chen, 2008). Typically, a lessonin progress can have a number of technologies insimultaneous use: For example, the tutor mightbe using the whiteboard while explaining a teach-ing point through audio/video while the studentsare listening and using text chat to communi-cate with one another about the lesson. This po-tential for simultaneous, multimodal interactionthrough parallel channels is an important area forfuture research. In addition, “breakout rooms” of-fer venues for further oral interaction in pairs orsmall groups.

Finally, speech recognition and synthesis tech-nologies are growing steadily in sophistication andusability, now involving talking dictionaries andtalking texts, as well as being embedded in variouskinds of ICALL systems. More recent examples in-clude a dialogue system called Let’s Chat for socialconversations that employs recognition and text-to-speech technologies (Stewart & File, 2007).Chiu, Liou, and Yeh (2007) described speech in-teractions enhanced by automatic speech recog-nition via a conversational environment calledCandleTalk. In addition, software developmentsin speech recognition and text-to-speech synthe-sis are leading to programs that employ chat-terbots as conversational partners for languagelearners (Coniam, 2008; Handley & Hamel,

2005). A chatterbot (or chatbot) is a type of com-puter program designed to simulate a conversa-tion with one or more human users via auditory ortextual methods. Some chatbots interact only viatext, whereas more ambitious chatbot interfacesutilise voice recognition and voice synthesis andan avatar—a virtual, animated human—as a con-versational participant. In seeking to establish thebest computer conversationalist, Coniam system-atically evaluated the language resources of fivechatterbots available on the Internet. Althoughsignificant advances have been made recently withchatbots for conversation practice, Coniam con-cluded that reliable programs of this type are “stillsome way off being a reality” (p. 98).

Culture

Culture may be conveyed through receptiveand productive means. Simply accessing an L2Web site can expose learners to numerous aspectsof the target culture, and much knowledge may beacquired through reading, listening, and observ-ing. Here, authentic materials play an especiallyimportant role because they are designed by na-tive speakers for native speakers and, therefore,provide real data for any exploration of the L2culture. Learners may also engage with the L2culture more productively, and there are manytechnologies that may be employed with this goalin mind. In broad terms, they include CMC andtelecollaboration, intercultural exchanges, or key-pal projects. More specifically, they feature email,chat, discussion forums (e.g., BlackBoard), wikis,video conferencing, and Web-based projects ofvarious kinds (Abrams, 2006; Furstenberg, Levet,English, & Maillet, 2001; Guth, Davies, & Helm,2008). Many of the projects are theory-driven, tak-ing their inspiration from Vygotsky, socioculturaltheory, or the notion of intercultural competence(see Byram, 1997; Lomicka, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978).As well as enabling contact and interaction withnative speakers, these learning environments forculture provide students with the opportunities toreflect on both their own culture and the cultureof the language they are learning, and the mostsuccessful projects develop into fully functioningonline communities of practice (see Darhower,2007).

The vast majority of intercultural collaborativeprojects place special emphasis on the pedagogyor methodology. Although this should always bethe case for all language areas and skills, perhapsit emerges with more urgency in cross-cultural ex-changes because of the recognized possibilitiesof failed communication across cultures and the

Mike Levy 777

risks to which learners and teachers may be ex-posed (see Belz, 2005; Gonglewski & DuBravac,2006; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). Managing this riskrequires a well-conceived pedagogy and carefulselection of technologies to match purpose (seeLevy, 2007). For example, in the well-known Cul-tura Project, the pedagogical approach is centraland one of the guiding principles is that the con-versations on the forums are always asynchronousto allow time for reflection and analysis (Levet &Waryn, 2006). Specific technologies are chosenfor the affordances they provide (see Darhower,2007). Another example is the Interculture Wikiproject hosted by the University of Padova, Italy.A wiki is essentially a collaborative Web space. Inthis case, the university hosts a series of telecollab-oration projects for which students develop wikipages that focus on different aspects of cultureand intercultural competence (Guth, Davies, &Helm, 2008). Wiki technology provides for theeasy creation and editing of pages by students col-laboratively, and new tools such as fora or blogscan be added incrementally as the need arises (seealso Murray & Hourigan, 2006).

Drawbacks with wikis are somewhat similar toblogs (discussed earlier), in that there is a signifi-cant load on the language teacher or moderatorof the wiki to ensure ordered input, development,and feedback in ways that really benefit individuallanguage learners. Such roles as these for the lan-guage teacher in technology-mediated learningenvironments are often assumed, without reflec-tion on the associated increase in workload. Thisconsideration is essential so that CALL activitiesare not merely a one-off novelty but are sustain-able and become fully integrated into the curricu-lum over the long term.

Opportunities to experience another cultureare also available online in virtual worlds such asActive Worlds (http://www.activeworlds.com/)and Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/).Second Life is a richly articulated example ofa virtual world, in which avatars that representindividual users can interact with one another ina wide variety of situations, including dedicatedspaces for language learning (see Stevens, 2006).Another virtual world developed specifically forlanguage learning has been created by Julie Sykes(Sykes, 2009). She has developed a synthetic im-mersive environment (SIE) named Croquelandia(http://sites.google.com/site/croquelandia/)for strategy development and practice in Spanishpragmatics (see also Belz, 2007; Sykes, Oskoz, &Thorne, 2008).

Although these virtual worlds and learning en-vironments do provide potentially valuable spaces

for rehearsal, they can be very time-consuming tolearn and understand and, at a deeper level, asSykes, Oskoz, and Thorne (2008) pointed out,there is “the danger of learning the pragmaticsof the space and not necessarily skills of the L2itself” (p. 539). Although one might argue thereis some benefit in using the L2 to engage suc-cessfully in the virtual world, for many studentsthe advantage lies in being able to transfer thelinguistic skills acquired in the virtual world tothe real one. More research is needed to inves-tigate this issue in a rigorous way. It is also ap-propriate to mention here multiplayer gaming,which uses the motivation of the game to en-gage the learner in the L2 culture. A good exam-ple is Zon (http://enterzon.com/), an interactivemultiplayer online role-playing game for learningMandarin Chinese.

DISCUSSION

This review illustrates the range and numberof technologies now being applied to the key ar-eas and skills of language learning compared tothe time when Garrett wrote her 1991 article. Asthe options multiply, it is easy to become over-whelmed by the diversity. The need to be ableto select and to match tool to task with clarityand foresight is becoming even more demand-ing for all users. Increasingly, language teacherswill need to know the difference between tech-nologies in relation to their optimal use in lan-guage learning. There are already many informa-tive discussions in the literature, such as those thatcompare the relative merits of text chat and voicechat (Jepson, 2005; Okuyama, 2005), a podcastand an audioblog (Hsu et al., 2008), or a blogand wiki (Murray & Hourigan, 2006). In parallel,learners will need to make informed choices con-cerning the technologies they use for languagelearning. In this new and evolving technology-rich environment, teacher education and learnertraining are paramount (Hubbard, 2004; Hub-bard & Levy, 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy,& Peters, 2007).

What may be accomplished with any techno-logical tool depends more on the users’ under-standing and expertise than the inherent capa-bilities of the technology itself (Norman, 1998).In other words, it is the teacher’s or learner’sunderstanding of what a technology can accom-plish that is critical in practice. A good exam-ple is provided in the word processing program“Word.” Although many understand its centralrole and function, for producing and manipulat-ing text, fewer understand and use its numerous


component technologies—such as Comment,Track Changes, Bookmark, and Hyperlink—andappreciate the ways in which these tools may beemployed for language learning. That is why thearticle by Ho and Savignon (2007), discussed ear-lier, on the use of Track Changes in the context ofcomputer-mediated peer review for collaborativewriting is helpful. There are similar examples withother applications, such as knowing how to makeoptimal use of the play speed settings in MediaPlayer, knowing how to use the language tools inGoogle, or knowing how to make optimal use ofannotation tools when reading a text on the Inter-net (Hubbard, 2004; Loucky, 2006; Robin, 2007,respectively). It is not then necessarily a questionof learning a new technology but learning an oldtechnology more comprehensively or learning toapply existing techniques and strategies in newcontexts.

That knowledge and understanding is requiredat different levels also impacts the requirementsfor normalization, “the stage when the technologybecomes invisible, embedded in everyday prac-tice and hence ‘normalized’” (Bax, 2003, p. 23).Education and training is needed if the “poten-tial of the technology . . . for integration” is tobe realized (Garrett, 1991, p. 95). Again, thereare important implications for language learn-ers. In one example, in a detailed examinationof two students, Conole (2008) found over 30 dis-tinct technologies in use for study and contactwith friends and family. Email, MSN, Word, Black-Board and the phone performed central roles;then progressively a wide range of technologieswas used with decreasing frequency as the pur-pose became more specific (e.g., an online dictio-nary, concordance software). Conole noted that“students appear to place greater value on tech-nologies they have ‘discovered’ or selected forthemselves. Ownership, personalisation and ap-propriation of technologies are overarchingthemes that emerge from the data” (p. 136).

In almost all instances, each technology hadbeen ascribed a fairly distinctive role by the user;in other words, by using each technology reg-ularly, the individual had reached a personalunderstanding of that specific technology’s pur-pose and function. This understanding was notachieved through received information or train-ing from others but via a personal understandingacquired gradually through repeated use. Thisapproach is advantageous in some respects butproblematic in others. Although it gives the in-dividual a high level of control over the tech-nologies in use, it does not necessarily ensurethat each technology is being used efficiently

or to best effect, especially in an educationalsetting.

Although adept with the generic technologiesused in the wider world, Conole (2008) empha-sized that students did encounter problems in aneducational setting, especially with the more spe-cialized technologies in use for language learning.This is a critical point with three important im-plications. First, widespread acceptance and useof new communication technologies in the worldat large does not necessarily point to effective-ness or value in the educational domain. Effec-tive transfer depends, to a large degree, on theaffordances of the particular technology and theways its strengths and limitations may be coordi-nated and managed as a pedagogical tool. Affor-dances here are taken to mean the opportunitiesand constraints provided by a technology in a spe-cific context for L2 learning (Gibson, 1979; Levy,2006). Second, when learning technologies are in-troduced to students, learner training is essentialbecause the default position of users is differentfrom that of learners. This applies most especiallyin terms of goals, outcomes, and levels of com-mitment. Third, when technologies that studentsalready use for social purposes are introduced forlearning, language educators will need to be sen-sitive to existing priorities of use and potentialdisconnects between individual expectations andeducational goals for L2 learning. This is evidentin the work of Murray, Hourigan, and Jeanneau(2008), in which they consider reorienting socialmedia usage from leisure activities to educationalpurposes. Kennedy and Levy (2008) had similarexperiences with the introduction of the mobilephone for learning Italian, noting considerablevariation from one participant in the project tothe next in terms of acceptance and preferences.

In the introduction to this article, we also madenote of Garrett’s (1991) observation that languageteachers lacked a major voice in the selection ofnew technologies for language learning. In manysettings, such an observation is still accurate, es-pecially with regard to an institution’s choice overits Learning Management System (LMS) (e.g.,BlackBoard, Moodle). Although these systems of-fer a suite of software tools that facilitate a rangeof learning management functions and learningactivities, typically there is minimal consultationwith language teaching faculty. Moreover, thereappears to be little appreciation of the differingsubject needs across the disciplines. In a detailedcritique, Naidu (2006) identified LMSs as lacking“the tools and capability to engage learners andteachers in the development of complex cognitiveand social skills” (p. 45).

Mike Levy 779

Although the LMS can perform basic functionsand although customization is certainly possible,much specialized programming work would be re-quired to enable a typical LMS to perform manyof the functions described in this article. Addi-tionally, although the LMS may be perceived asa technological solution to the institution-widechallenge of technology integration across thecampus, this solution will be considered unsat-isfactory if it does not meet the pedagogical aspi-rations of faculty and local needs, such as thoserequired in L2 teaching and learning.

CONCLUSION

Perhaps Garrett’s (1991) most important andrelevant observation for technology in languagelearning today was made clear in her title that thetechnology is there to serve language learning, notvice versa. This sentiment was repeated at a re-cent CALL conference, when Kohn said we needto guard against the “caravan effect,” a metaphorin which the travellers (technology enthusiasts)stop for a while to drink from the waterhole (thelatest technology) until they have had their fill;then they move on to the next waterhole to drinkagain (Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2008). Garrett’s arti-cle was important because it provided a thought-provoking and carefully argued examination ofthe technologies in use at that time. This involveda careful reflection on pedagogy and a close anal-ysis of existing, well-established technologies aswell as those on the horizon.

We need to continue to reflect on pedagogyin technology-mediated language learning envi-ronments and assess the extended use and valueof older technologies, as well as those that arestate of the art, which can remain highly relevantfor language learning. This is one major reasonwhy CALL exists as a group with specialist inter-ests with dedicated journals and conferences. An-other is that computers, unlike the book or video,are multipurpose, multifunctional technologiesthat involve layers of complexity and applicationin L2 learning that are unique among the tech-nologies of the modern world. Although they stillpose an ongoing and substantial challenge for lan-guage teachers and specialists in CALL, what weare now able to say with confidence is that muchlarger numbers of committed professionals arededicated to addressing these issues. The need forteacher education and learner training in the areais increasingly becoming regarded as essential. Al-though much remains to be done, much also hasbeen achieved since the time Garrett wrote herarticle almost 20 years ago.

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracul-tural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N.Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory andresearch to new directions in foreign language teaching(pp. 181–210). CALICO Monograph Series Vol-ume 5, Texas State University. San Marcos, TX:CALICO Publications.

Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (2007). Enriching languagelearning through a multimedia corpus. ReCALLJournal , 19(3), 351–370.

Al-Seghayer, K. (2007). The role of organizational de-vices in readers’ construction of mental represen-tations of hypertext content. CALICO Journal , 24,531–559.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System,31, 13–28.

Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery andtension in Internet-mediated language learningpartnerships. Language and Intercultural Commu-nication, 5, 3–39.

Belz, J. (2007). The role of computer mediation inthe instruction and development of L2 pragmaticcompetence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,27 , 45–75.

Born, C. J. (2007). LingvoSoft Dictionary English ↔Japanese (Kanji–Kana) for Palm OS. CALICO Jour-nal , 24, 755–763.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing interculturalcommunicative competence . Clevedon, UK: Multilin-gual Matters.

Campbell, D. F., McConnell, C., Meinardi, M., &Richardson, B. (2007). The need for a speech cor-pus. ReCALL Journal , 19(1), 3–20.

Chan, W. M., Chen, I. R., & Dopel, M. (2008, August).Learning on the move: Applying podcasting technolo-gies to foreign language learning . Paper presentedat WorldCALL 2008, Fukuoka, Japan.

Chan, W. M., & Kim, D.-H. (2004). Towards greaterindividualization and process-oriented learningthrough electronic self-access: Project “e-daf.”Computer Assisted Language Learning , 17(1), 83–108.

Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies—Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted languagelearning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1),9–16.

Chiu, T.-S., Liou, H.-C., & Yeh, Y. (2007). A study ofWeb-based oral activities enhanced by automaticspeech recognition for EFL college learning. Com-puter Assisted Language Learning , 20 , 209–234.

Chun, D. M. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 read-ing. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling onCALL: From theory and research to new directionsin foreign language teaching (pp. 69–98). CALICOMonograph Series Volume 5. Texas State Univer-sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Chun, D. M. (2008, August–September). Integrating re-search results into the design and development of


CALL materials. Practice-based and practice-orientedCALL research: Proceedings of the 13th InternationalCALL Conference . Antwerp, Belgium: Linguapolis.

Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demandsof L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology,11(3), 38–64.

Coniam, D. (2008). Evaluating the language resourcesof chatbots for their potential in English as a sec-ond language. ReCALL Journal , 20(1), 98–116.

Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: Theever-changing landscape of technology use for lan-guage students. ReCALL Journal , 20(2), 124–140.

Darhower, M. (2007). A tale of two communities: Groupdynamics and community building in a Spanish–English collaboration. CALICO Journal , 24, 561–590.

Dodigovic, M. (2005). Artificial intelligence in second lan-guage learning: Raising error awareness. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in theblogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers.Computer Assisted Language Learning , 21, 9–28.

Engwall, O., & Balter, O. (2007). Pronunciation feed-back from real and virtual language teachers. Com-puter Assisted Language Learning , 20 , 235–262.

Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing flu-ency and lexical complexity with blogs. JALT CALLJournal , 2(1), 15–26.

Frommer, J. (2006). Wired for sound: Teaching listen-ing via computers and the World Wide Web. InR. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Chang-ing language education through CALL (pp. 67–94).Oxford: Routledge.

Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K.(2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent lan-guage of culture: The Cultura project. LanguageLearning & Technology, 5(1), 55–102.

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of lan-guage learning: Trends and issues. Modern Lan-guage Journal , 75, 74–101.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to perception.London: Houghton-Mifflin.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies—Web-Writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting and as-sessing writing online. Language Learning & Tech-nology, 12(2), 7–13.

Gonglewski, M., & DuBravac, S. (2006). Multiliteracy:Second language literacy in the multimedia envi-ronment. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Callingon CALL: From theory and research to new directionsin foreign language teaching (pp. 43–68). CALICOMonograph Series Volume 5. Texas State Univer-sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Granger, S., Kraif, O., Ponton, C., Antoniadis, G., &Zampa, V. (2007). Integrating learner corporaand natural language processing: A crucial steptowards reconciling technological sophisticationand pedagogical effectiveness. ReCALL Journal ,19(3), 252–268.

Guth, S., Davies, G., & Helm, F. (2008, August). The inter-culture wiki project . Paper presented at WorldCALL2008, Fukuoka, Japan.

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effectiveuse of audioconferencing in distance languagecourses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1),66–82

Handley, Z., & Hamel, M-J. (2005). Establishing amethodology for benchmarking speech synthesisfor computer-assisted language learning (CALL).Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 99–120.

Hegelheimer, V. (2006). Helping ESL writers througha multimodal, corpus-based online grammar re-source. CALICO Journal , 24, 5–32.

Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, writing& technology: A sample technology-supported ap-proach to teaching grammar and improving writ-ing for ESL learners. CALICO Journal , 23, 257–280.

Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligencein computer-assisted language learning: Parsers andpedagogues. New York: Routledge.

Hew, S.-H., & Ohki, M. (2004). Effect of animatedgraphic annotations and immediate visual feed-back in aiding Japanese pronunciation learning: Acomparative study. CALICO Journal , 21, 397–420.

Ho, M.-C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face andcomputer-mediated peer review in EFL writing.CALICO Journal , 24, 269–290.

Hsu, H.-Y., Wang, S.-K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using au-dioblogs to assist English language learning: An in-vestigation into student perception. Computer As-sisted Language Learning , 21, 181–198.

Huang, H.-T., & Liou, H.-C. (2007). Vocabulary learningin an automated graded reading program. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 11(3), 64–82.

Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective useof CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), Newperspectives on CALL for second language classrooms(pp. 45–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hubbard, P., & Bradin Siskin, C. (2004). Another look attutorial CALL. ReCALL Journal , 16(2), 448–461.

Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006) (Eds.). Teacher educationin CALL. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hulstijn, J. (2003). Connectionist models of languageprocessing and the training of listening skills withthe aid of multimedia software. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning , 16 , 413–425.

Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiatedinteraction—in text and voice chat rooms. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79–98.

Jones, L. C. (2003). Supporting listening comprehen-sion and vocabulary acquisition with multimediaannotations: The students’ voice. CALICO Journal ,21, 41–65.

Jones, L. C. (2006). Listening comprehension in mul-timedia environments. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold(Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and researchto new directions in foreign language teaching (pp.99–125). CALICO Monograph Series Volume 5.Texas State University. San Marcos, TX: CALICOPublications.

Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K., &Peters, M. (2007). (Eds.). Preparing and devel-oping technology-proficient L2 teachers. CALICO

Mike Levy 781

Monograph Series Volume 6. Texas State Univer-sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2008). L’italiano al telefonio:Using SMS to support beginners’ language learn-ing. ReCALL Journal , 20(2), 141–161.

Kohn, K., & Hoffstaedter, P. (2008, August–September).Authenticated language learning with do-it-yourselfcorpora. Paper presented at the 13th InternationalCALL Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.

Lafford, B. A., Lafford, P. A., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entredicho y hecho . . .: An assessment of the applica-tion of research from second language acquisitionand related fields to the creation of Spanish CALLmaterials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal ,24, 497–530.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical informationdo L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and howdoes it affect word retention? Language Learning& Technology, 4(2), 58–76.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to artic-ulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). Using the Web to de-velop students’ in-depth understanding of foreigncultural attitudes and values. In. R. Donaldson &M. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language educationthrough CALL (pp. 95–118). Oxford: Routledge.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning:Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Levy, M. (2006). Effective use of CALL technologies:Finding the right balance. In R. Donaldson &M. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language educationthrough CALL (pp. 1–18). Oxford: Routledge.

Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new tech-nologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104–127.

Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian viamobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler(Eds.), Mobile technologies for teaching and learn-ing (ODL series; pp. 76–83). London: KoganPage/Taylor & Francis.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Op-tions and issues in computer-assisted language learn-ing . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Levy, M., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. -S. (2008). Developing theskills and techniques for online language teach-ing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching ,3, 17–34.

L’Haire, S. (2007). FipsOrtho: A spell checker for learn-ers of French. ReCALL Journal , 19(2), 137–161.

Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Inter-cultural exchange and CMC. In L. Ducate & N.Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory andresearch to new directions in foreign language teaching(pp. 211–236). CALICO Monograph Series Vol-ume 5. Texas State University. San Marcos, TX:CALICO Publications.

Loucky, J. P. (2006). Maximizing vocabulary develop-ment by systematically using a depth of lexical pro-cessing taxonomy, CALL resources and effectivestrategies. CALICO Journal , 23, 363–399.

McCarty, S. (2005). Spoken Internet to go: Popular-ization through podcasting. JALT CALL Journal ,1(2), 67–74.

Mullen, T., Appel, C., & Shanklin, T. (2009). Skype-based tandem language learning and web 2.0. InM. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0and second language learning (pp. 101–118). Her-shey, PA: Igi Global.

Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2006). Using micropublish-ing to facilitate writing in the foreign language. InL. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL:From theory and research to new directions in foreignlanguage teaching (pp. 149–180). CALICO Mono-graph Series Volume 5. Texas State University. SanMarcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Murray, L., Hourigan, T., & Jeanneau, C. (2008, August–September). The re-evaluation of MFL learners’ ob-jectives in re-orienting social media usage from leisureactivities to educational purposes: Invasion or invi-tation? Paper presented at the 13th InternationalCALL Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.

Naidu, S. (2006). E-learning: A guidebook of principles, pro-cedures and practices (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Com-monwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.

Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learn-ing for English vocabulary learning: Towards im-provement of the Low-First Method derived fromthe reactivation theory. JALT CALL Journal , 2(2),19–36.

Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A con-versation analysis research approach. LanguageLearning & Technology, 3(1), 75–87.

Nerbonne, J. (2003). Computer-assisted language learn-ing and natural language processing. In R. Mitkov(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational lin-guistics (pp. 670–698). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Neri, A. (2007). The pedagogical effectiveness of ASR-basedComputer-assisted pronunciation training . Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation. Radboud University,Nijmegan, The Netherlands.

Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer . Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

O’Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). IntegratingCALL into the classroom: The role of podcast-ing in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALLJournal , 19(2), 162–180.

O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding andworking with “failed communication” in tellecol-laborative exchanges. CALICO Journal , 23, 623–642.

Okuyama, Y. (2005). Distance language learning viasynchronous computer mediated communication(SCMC): Eight factors affecting NS–NNS chat in-teraction. JALT CALL Journal , 1(2), 3–20.

Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC,working memory, and L2 oral proficiency devel-opment. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3),35–54.

Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). DevelopingL2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC:


Output, working memory, and interlanguage de-velopment. CALICO Journal , 20 , 7–32.

Pennington, M. (1999). Computer aided pronunciationpedagogy: Promise, limitations, directions. Com-puter Assisted Language Learning , 12, 427–440.

Pennington, M. (2004). Electronic media in second lan-guage writing: An overview of tools and researchfindings. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), Newperspectives on CALL for second language classrooms(pp. 69–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pennington, M., & Brock, M. N. (1992). Process andproduct approaches to computer-assisted compo-sition. In M. Pennington & V. Stephens (Eds.),Computers in applied linguistics (pp. 79–109). Cleve-don, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner,D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learn-ing preferences in a second language multimedialearning environment. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 90 , 25–36.

Robin, R. (2007). Commentary: Learner-based listeningand technological authenticity. Language Learning& Technology, 11(1), 109–115.

Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). Top of the pods—in searchof a podcasting “pedagogy” for language learning.Computer Assisted Language Learning , 20 , 471–492.

Shudong, W., Higgins, M., & Shima, Y. (2005). Teach-ing English pronunciation for Japanese learnersof English online. JALT CALL Journal , 1(1), 39–47.

Stevens, V. (2006). Second life in educationand language learning. TESL–EJ , 10(3). Re-trieved November 25, 2008, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej39/int.html

Stewart, I., & File, P. (2007). Let’s chat: A conversa-tional dialogue system for second language prac-tice. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 20 , 97–116.

Stockwell, G. (2007a). A review of technology choicefor teaching language skills in areas in the CALLliterature. ReCALL Journal , 19(2), 105–120.

Stockwell, G. (2007b). Vocabulary on the move: Investi-gating an intelligent mobile phoned-based vocab-

ulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning ,20 , 365–383.

Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic devel-opment: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICOJournal , 22, 399–431.

Sykes, J. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examiningthe potential of multiuser virtual environments forL2 pragmatic acquisition. In L. Lomika & G. Lord(Eds.), The next generation: Social networking andonline collaboration (pp. 199–234). CALICO Mono-graph Series Volume 8. Texas State University. SanMarcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, syn-thetic immersive environments, and mobile re-sources for language education. CALICO Journal ,25, 528–546.

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2002). M-learning: Learn-ing in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing face ofCALL: A Japanese perspective (pp. 229–243). Lisse,The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Tsubota, Y., Dantsuji, M., & Kawahara, T. (2004). An En-glish pronunciation learning system for Japanesestudents based on diagnosis of critical pronuncia-tion errors. ReCALL Journal , 16(1), 173–188.

Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 7(3), 141–159.

Vannestal, M. E., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning En-glish grammar with a corpus: Experimenting withconcordancing in a university grammar course. Re-CALL Journal , 19(3), 329–350.

Volle, L. M. (2005). Analysing oral skills in a voice e-mail and online interviews. Language Learning &Technology, 9(3), 146–163.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Xie, T. (2002). Using Internet relay chat in teachingChinese. CALICO Journal , 19 , 513–524.

Yeh, Y., & Wang, C.-W. (2003). Effects of multimediavocabulary annotations and learning styles on vo-cabulary learning. CALICO Journal , 21, 131–144.

Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners’ control ofspeech rate on second language comprehension.Applied Linguistics, 18, 49–68.

levy 2009.pdf

Documents