CALL has been promoted for nearly 30 years essentially on the basis, not of fact, but of the myth, that it demonstrably produces positive language learning outcomes. In reality, there is no reliable evidence to support such claims. If the effectiveness of CALL is to move beyond the stage of myth to that of demonstrably “certified” fact, development in the field needs a clear theoretical base from which to operate. SLA theory can provide insights and help ensure that we are at least asking the right questions. Likewise, it has reliable research methodologies available to properly frame hypotheses and evaluate the results of CALL efforts. No less so, however, SLA theory very much needs the kind of “hard” language learning input which CALL can deliver. Collaboration in the design of CALL programmes offers a valuable means of eliciting linguistic data essential to the testing of SLA hypotheses. Even more importantly for SLA theory construction, the ability of computer-based programmes to unobtrusively track the behaviour of learners, offers a unique “window of observation” on the processes underlying observed performance. Despite much promise, and nearly three decades of efforts by CALL enthusiasts, effective exploitation of educational technology in language teaching remains to be achieved.
(1995) Project CyberBuch: A hypermedia approach to Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Journal of Educational and Hypermedia 4,1:95–116.
Clark, R.
(1983) Reconsidering research on learning from the media. Review of Educational Research 53,4:445–459.
Clark, R.
(1991) When researchers swim upstream: Reflections on an unpopular argument about learning from media. Educational Technology, Feb.:34-40.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and M. Long
(1991) An Introduction to second language acquisition research. London and New York, Longman.
Liddell, P.
(1994) Learners and second language acquisition: A union blessed by CALL?Computer Assisted Language Learning 7.2:163–173.
Marty, F.
(1981) Reflexions on the use of computers in second language acquisition-I. System 9,2:85–98.
Ng, K. and W. Olivier
(1987) Computer Assisted Language Learning: An investigation on some design and implementation issues. System 15,1:1–17.
Otto, S. and J. Pusack
(1988) Calculating the cost of instructional technology: An administrator’s primer. ADFL Bulletin 19,3:18–22.
Cited by
Cited by 6 other publications
Bai, Yu, Di Mo, Linxiu Zhang, Matthew Boswell & Scott Rozelle
2016. The impact of integrating ICT with teaching: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial in rural schools in China. Computers & Education 96 ► pp. 1 ff.
Gallardo del Puerto, Francisco & Eider Gamboa
2009. The evaluation of computer‐mediated technology by second language teachers: collaboration and interaction in CALL. Educational Media International 46:2 ► pp. 137 ff.
Gruba, Paul
1997. The role of video media in listening assessment. System 25:3 ► pp. 335 ff.
Arezoo Hajimaghsoodi & Mina Saghaieh Bolghari
2019. From Collective Activity to Autonomous Learning: Fostering Learner Autonomy in Light of Activity Theory. International Journal of Research in English Education 4:4 ► pp. 40 ff.
Lasagabaster, David & Juan Manuel Sierra
2006. Learning English with Computers at University Level. In Information Technology in Languages for Specific Purposes [Educational Linguistics, 7], ► pp. 157 ff.
Nesbitt, Dallas
2013. Student evaluation of CALL tools during the design process. Computer Assisted Language Learning 26:4 ► pp. 371 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.