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. 89–113

CALL design and research

Taking a micro and macro view

| University of Queensland, Australia
ORCID logo | University of Victoria, Canada
This chapter aims to explore two areas of computer assisted language learning (CALL) work that have proved problematic over time. The first area relates to our understanding of the broader contextual factors that influence CALL activity; the second relates to our understanding of the nature of interactions when those interactions are mediated via technology in some way. Thus, we aim to consider external factors and their influence on CALL and internal factors as they pertain to mediated interactions in CALL contexts. In both cases, we argue that insights and techniques drawn from the fields of HCI and engineering can enrich our understandings and practices, especially in focusing areas of research and development more effectively, and in conceptualizing research and practice in the first place.
Keywords: CALL activity, CALL design, micro/macro view, normalization, sustainability
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.2.05lev
References (47)
References
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bax, S. (2003). CALL – past, present, future. System, 31, 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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
Buckingham, D. (2007). Beyond technology: Children’s learning in the age of digital culture. 
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.Google 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
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34, 465–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debski, R. (1997). Support of creativity and collaboration in the language classroom: A new role for technology. InR. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith(Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. 41–65). Melbourne, Australia: ALAA and the Horwood Language Centre.Google Scholar
Fishman, B., Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gartner Inc. (2015). Gartner Hype Cycle . Retrieved from <[URL]>
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
Hardisty, D., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Computer assisted language learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hémard, D. (1997). Design principles and guidelines for authoring hypermedia language learning applications. System, 25(1), 9–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Enhancing online CALL design. ReCALL, 16(2), 502–519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Evaluating hypermedia structures as a means of improving language learning strategies and motivation. ReCALL, 18(1), 24–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hillier, V. (1990). Integrating a computer lab into an ESL program. CAELL Journal, 1(1), 23-24.Google Scholar
Huang, H. (2013). E-reading and e-discussion: EFL learners’ perceptions of an e-book reading program. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 258-281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. InS. Fotos & C. Browne(Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the Internet. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Barnett, S. (2005). Aspects of the sequential organization of mobile phone conversation. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 147–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Tanna, V. (2008). Aspects of sequential organization in text message exchange. Discourse and Communication, 2(2), 143–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
INCOSE (2015). Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities.Compiled and edited byWalden, D., Roedler, G, Forsberg, K., Hamelin, R. D. and Shortell, T. Google Scholar
Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2009). Sustainability and CALL: Factors for success in a context of change. Computer assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 445–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lafford, B. (2009). Towards an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). The Modern Language Journal, 93, 673–696. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lanham, R.A. (2006). The economics of attention: Style and substance in the age of information. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (1997). Computer assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: Questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL, 12(2), 170-195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). CALL by design: Products, processes and methods. ReCALL, 14(1), 129–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Climate change in CALL: From realigning the goals and technology options to breaking the “hype cycle.” Plenary Address. Japan Association for Language Teaching (CALL SIG), 1–3June, 2007, Waseda University, Japan.Google Scholar
Levy, M., & Gardner, R. (2012). Liminality in multitasking: Where talk and task collide in computer collaborations. Language in Society, 41(5), 557–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. (Kindle ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication and language learning. Computer assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Using eye-tracking to investigate gaze behaviour in synchronous computer-mediated communication for language learning. InM. Dooly & R. O’Dowd(Eds.), Researching online foreign language interaction and exchange: Theories, methods and challenges (pp. 305–341). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google 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
Robinson, G. (1991). Effective feedback strategies in CALL: Learning theory and empirical research. InP. Dunkel(Ed.). Computer assisted language learning and testing (pp. 158–165). New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. The Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). The cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: 
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1(3), 185–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Cognition and tasks. InP. Robinson(Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 85–103.Google Scholar
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G.J. (2004). Synchronous computer-mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32(4), 553–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steel, C., & Levy, M. (2013). Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25(3), 306–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tono, Y. (2011). Application of eye-tracking in EFL learners’ dictionary look-up process research. International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 124–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Lier, L. (1998). All hooked up: An ecological look at computers in the classroom. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 281–301.Google Scholar
Ward, M. (2006). Using software methods in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(2–3), 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Dey-Plissonneau, Aparajita
2021. CHAT framework to study affordances in CALL environments. The EuroCALL Review 29:2 ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Susan Y. H.
2021. Using patterns-based learning design for CALL tasks. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34:8 ► pp. 1061 ff. DOI logo
Mei, Bing, Gavin T. L. Brown & Timothy Teo
2018. Toward an Understanding of Preservice English as a Foreign Language Teachers’ Acceptance of Computer-Assisted Language Learning 2.0 in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Educational Computing Research 56:1 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 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.