Cover not available
Part of
Language-Learner Computer Interactions: Theory, methodology and CALL applications
Edited by Catherine Caws and Marie-Josée Hamel
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 2] 2016
► pp. 17–40

CALL ergonomics revisited

ORCID logo | University of Victoria, Canada
| University of Ottawa, Canada

This chapter revisits the field of educational ergonomics in the light of the current state of learner-computer interactions (LCI) and within the specific context of language learning. The discussion starts by defining the elements that constitute ergonomics in computer assisted language learning (CALL) as a methodological and theoretical framework, reviewing key concepts and principal theories upon which CALL ergonomics is based. The discussion focuses on the motives behind this innovative approach before exploring specific examples of engineering methods that can be applied to CALL research. We argue that methods inherited from human-computer interaction (HCI) or human-­centred design (HCD) offer an excellent complement to CALL research and that, vice-­versa, CALL ergonomics constitutes a framework that is closely related to HCI research, in that the user plays a central role in influencing the interactions, providing rich data that can be recycled in many ways.

Keywords: CALL research, design, ergonomics, learner-centred research
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.2.02caw
References
Bærentsen, K.B., & Trettvik, J
(2002) An activity theory approach to affordance. Proceedings of NordiCHI 2002 (pp.51–60). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Bax, S
(2011) Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benedyk, R., Woodcock, A., & Harder, A
(2009) The hexagon-spindle model for educational ergonomics. Work,32(3), 237–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertin, J.C., & Gravé, P
(2010) In favor of a model of didactic ergonomics. InJ.C. Bertin, P. Gravé, & J.-P. Narcy-Combes(Eds.), Second language distance learning and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics (pp. 1 –36). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bevan, N
(1999) Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality. Journal of Systems and Software, 49(1), 9–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Extending quality in use to provide a framework for usability measurement. In M. Kurosu (Ed.), Human Centered Design (pp. 13–22). Proceedings of HCI International 2009, San Diego, California, USA. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bijker, W
(1997) Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Towards a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, P
(2003) The role of cognitive theory in human–computer interface. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 593–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C
(2001) Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colpaert, J
(2006) Toward an ontological approach in goal-oriented language courseware design and its implications for technology-independent content structuring. Computer 
Assisted Language Learning, 19(2), 109–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caws, C
(2013) Evaluating a web-based video corpus through an analysis of user interactions. ReCALL, 25(1), 85-104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caws, C., & Hamel, M.-J
(2013) From analysis to training: Recycling interaction data into learning processes. OLBI Working Papers, 5, 25-36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., & Goodyear, P
(2010) Students’ experiences of e-learning in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Felix, U
(2005) E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85-100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R
(2007) How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behaviour in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guichon, N
(2007) Recherche-développement et didactique des langues. Les Cahiers de 
l’ACEDLE, 4(1), 37–54.Google Scholar
Guth, S
(2009) Personal learning environments for language learning. InM. Thomas(Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 451–471). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M.-J
(2012) Testing aspects of the usability of an online learner dictionary prototype: A product- and process-oriented study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 339-365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Questionnaires to inform user tests in CALL. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 56–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M.-J., & Caws, C
(2010) Usability tests in CALL development: Pilot studies in the context of the Dire autrement and FrancoToile projects. CALICO, 27(3), 491–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Handley, Z., & Hamel, M.-J
(2005) Establishing a methodology for benchmarking speech synthesis for computer assisted language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 9(3), 99–120. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Hauck, M
(2005) Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 65–86). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hémard, D
(2003) Language learning online: Designing towards user acceptability. In
U. Felix(Ed.)Language learning online: Towards best practice (pp. 21–42). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
(2006) Design issues related to the evaluation of learner-computer interaction in a web-based environment: Activities v. tasks. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(2–3), 261–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornbæk, K
(2006) Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 9–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huh, K., & Hu, W
(2005) Criteria for effective CALL research. InJ.L. Egbert & G.M. Petrie(Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 9–24). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization
n.d.). Standards. Retrieved from [URL]
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L
(2008) Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laville, A
(1976) L’ergonomie. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Leontiev, A.N
(1981) The problem of activity in psychology. InJ.V. Wertsch(Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
Levy, M
(2013) Design-based research and the quest for normalization in CALL. In
J. Rodriguez & C. Pardo-Ballester(Eds.), Design-based research in CALL (Vol. 11, pp.31–40). CALICO Monograph Series. San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J
(1993) Usability engineering. Cambrige, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rabardel, P
(1995) Les hommes et les technologies: Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris, France: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Raby, F., Baillé, F., & Bressoux, P., & Chapelle, C
(2003) Ergonomic theory and practice: What language learners do in a self-access room. Asp enligne, 41–42. Retrieved from [URL] doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raby, F
(2005) A user-centered ergonomic approach to CALL research. InJ.L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie(Eds.), CALL Research Perspectives (pp. 179–190). New York, NY: Lawrence 
Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sanders, M., & McCormick, E
(1987) Human factors in engineering and design. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Scapin, D., & Bastien, J
(1997) Ergonomic criteria for evaluating ergonomic quality of interface systems. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 220–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selber, S
(2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Vérillon, P., & Rabardel, P
(1995) Cognition and artefacts: A contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1), 7–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. 
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Hamel, Marie-Josée
2019. Bilingues, francophiles et citoyens du web ! / Bilinguals, Francophiles and Web Citizens!. CALICO Journal 36:3 ► pp. 162 ff. DOI logo
Hamel, Marie-Josée, Jill Landry & Louis-David Bibeau
2022. Language instructors on their emergency remote teaching pedagogy during the pandemic. In Intelligent CALL, granular systems and learner data: short papers from EUROCALL 2022, ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Lightbourn, Ryleigh & Catherine Caws
2021. Une analyse sociocritique de l’usage de Twitter pour le développement de compétences socio-interactionnelles et numériques. Éducation et francophonie 49:2 DOI logo
Seffah, Ahmed, Mohammad Amin Kuhail & Joao Negreiros
2021. 2021 9th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET), ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.