Cover not available
Part of
Becoming and Being an Applied Linguist: The life histories of some applied linguists
Edited by Rod Ellis
[Not in series 203] 2016
► pp. 275–300

My Two Problems in Applied Linguistics

Published online: 3 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.203.12cha
References (90)
References
Abraham, R., & Chapelle, C. (1992). The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. Modern Language Journal, 76(4), 468–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A. (1988). Field independence: A source of language test variance? Language Testing, 5(1), 62–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1989). Using intelligent computer‑assisted language learning. Computers and the Humanities, 23, 59–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). The discourse of computer‑assisted language learning: Toward a context for descriptive research. TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 199–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1994a). CALL activities: Are they all the same? System, 22(1), 33–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1994b). Are C‑tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research, 10(2), 157–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A. (1996). Validity issues in computer-assisted strategy assessment. Applied Language Learning, 7(1), 47–60.Google Scholar
. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research agendas? Language Learning &Technology, 1(1), 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998a). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar
. (1998b). Construct definition and validity inquiry in SLA research. In L.F. Bachman & A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Second language acquisition and language testing interfaces (pp. 32–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Winner of the 1998 International Language Testing Association Best Article Award).Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A. (1999). Validity in language assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 254–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000a). Is network based language teaching CALL? In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 204–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000b). Communication, interaction, et apprentissage des langues secondes en ELAO. In T. Chanier, L. Duquette, & M. Laurier (Eds.), L’enseignement-apprentissage de la L2 dans des environments multimédias (pp. 19–51). Montréal: Les Éditions Logiques.Google Scholar
. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Translated into Arabic, 2007) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology (Language Learning & Language Teaching 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2004). Technology and language learning: Expanding methods and agendas. System, 23(4), 593–601. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005a). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL Research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 53–64). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. (2005b). Computer assisted language learning. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 743–756). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. (2005c). CALL the Canadian Way. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 62(1), 207–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005d). CALICO at center stage: Our emerging rights and responsibilities. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 5–16.Google Scholar
. (2006). L2 vocabulary acquisition theory: The role of inference, dependability and generalizability in assessment. In M. Chalhoub-Deville, C.A. Chapelle, & P. Duff (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (Language Learning & Language Teaching 12) (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007a). Challenges in evaluation of innovation: Observations from technology research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 30–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007b). Computer assisted language learning. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics, (pp. 585–595). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2007c). Learning through online communication: Findings and implications from second language research. In R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), Handbook of elearning research (pp. 371–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
. (2007d). Technology and second language acquisition. In N. Markee (Ed.), Annual review of applied linguistics (pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2008a). The TOEFL validity argument. In C. Chapelle, M. Enright, & J. Jamieson, (Eds.), Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language (pp. 319–352). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2008b). Utilizing technology in language assessment. In Encyclopedia of language education (2nd ed., vol. 7, pp. 123–134). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009a). The relationship between SLA theory and CALL. Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 742–754.Google Scholar
. (2009b). Computer assisted language teaching and testing. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching (pp. 628–644). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009c). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching. 43(1), 66–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009d). A hidden curriculum in language textbooks: Are beginning learners of French at U.S. universities taught about Canada? Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 139–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In Kaplan, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 2nd Edition, (pp. 539–547). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2010). If intercultural competence is the goal, what are the materials? In Proceedings of Intercultural Competence Conference (Vol.1, pp. 27–50). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
. (2012a). Seeking solid theoretical ground for the ACTFL-CEFR crosswalk. In E. Tschirner (Ed.), Aligning frameworks of reference in language testing (pp. 35–48). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
. (2011). Validation in Language Assessment. In E. Hinkle (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 717–730). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2012b). Conceptions of validity. In G. Flucher, & F. Davidson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language testing (pp. 21–33). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2012c). Validity argument for language assessment: The framework is simple… Language Testing, 29(1), 19–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Ed.). (2013). The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (10 volumes). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2014a). Afterword: Technology-mediated TBLT and the evolving role of the innovator. In M. González-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (Task-based Language Teaching 6) (pp. 323–334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2014b). Five decades of Canadian and Québec content in French textbooks in the United States. American Review of Canadian Studies, 44(4), 415–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2016). Second language learning online. In C. Haythornthwaite, A.R. Richard, J. Fransman, & M. Kazmer (Eds.), Advances in e-learning research: 2nd edition of the Sage handbook of e-learning research, (pp. 371–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Abraham, R. (1990). Cloze method: What difference does it make? Language Testing, 7(2), 121–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Brindley, G. (2001). Assessment. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. X–Y). Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Chung, Y.-R., & Xu, J. (Eds.). (2008). Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Chung, Y-R. (2010). The promise of NLP and speech recognition technologies in language assessment. Language Testing (Special Issue), 27(3), 301–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Chung, Y-R., Hegelheimer, V., Pendar, N., & Xu, J. (2010). Designing a computer-delivered test of productive grammatical ability. Language Testing, 27(4), 443–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Compton, L., Kon, E., & Sauro, S. (2004). Theory, research & practice in CALL: Making the links. In L. Lomicka, & J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.), Teaching with technology (pp. 189–208). Boston, MA: Heinle.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Diagnostic assessment with automated writing evaluation: A look at validity arguments for new classroom assessments, Language Testing, 32(3) 385–405 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Douglas, D. (1993). Foundations and directions for a new decade of language testing. In D. Douglas & C. Chapelle (Eds.), A new decade of language testing research (pp. 1–22). Arlington, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar
. (2006). Assessing language through computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Enright, M. & Jamieson, J. (Eds.). (2008a). Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Enright, M.E., & Jamieson, J. (2010). Does an argument-based approach to validity make a difference? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(1), 3–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., Grabe, W., & Berns, M. (1997). Communicative language proficiency: Definition and implications for TOEFL‑2000 (TOEFL-2000 Monograph Series). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second language acquisition research. Language Learning, 42(1), 47–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2004). The English Language Teacher in the 21st Century. In S. Fotos & C. Browne, (Eds.), New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms (pp. 297–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1981a). ESL on PLATO. Selected Papers from Mid West TESOL, 1, 93–98.Google Scholar
. (1981b). ESL spelling errors. TESL Studies, 4, 29–36.Google Scholar
. (1983). Recognition of student input in computer‑assisted language lessons. CALICO Journal, 1(3), 7–9.Google Scholar
. (1985). Intelligent computer‑assisted language learning: What does it mean? Proceedings from the 1985 Rocky Mountain Regional Conference (pp. 34–53).
. (1986a). Authoring systems for courseware development: What should beginners look for? CALICO Journal, 3(3), 14–19.Google Scholar
. (1986b). Computer‑assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1989). Research trends in computer‑assisted language learning. In M. Pennington (Ed.), Teaching language with computers: The state of the art (pp. 47–59). Houston, TX: Athelstan.Google Scholar
. (1991). Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer‑assisted language learning and testing – Research issues and practice (pp. 37–59). New York, NY: Harper & Row – Newbury House.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., Jamieson, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2003). Validation of a Web-based ESL test. Language Testing, 20(4), 409–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C., Jamieson, J., & Park, Y. (1996). Second language classroom research traditions: How does CALL fit? In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. X–Y). Houston, TX: Athelstan.Google Scholar
Chapelle C.A., & Lui, H-M. (2007). Theory and research: Investigation of “authentic” CALL tasks. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL Environments (2nd ed., pp. 111–130). Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Students’ strategies with learner‑controlled CALL. CALICO Journal, 7(2), 25–47.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Field independence and ambiguity tolerance as predictors of success in acquiring English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C.A., & Voss, E. (2013). Evaluation of language testing through validation research. In A. Kunnan, (Ed.), Companion in language assessment, (pp. 1–13). Oxford: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (forthcoming). Twenty years of technology and language assessment in Language Learning & Technology. Language Learning & Technology.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., Chapelle, C.A., & Duff, P. (Eds.). (2006). Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple perspectives (Language Learning and Language Teaching 12). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, D., & Chapelle, C. (Eds.) (1993). A new decade of language testing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C.A., & Shelley, M.C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL Journal, 25, 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hegelheimer, V., & Chapelle, C.A. (2000). Methodological issues in research on learner-computer interactions in CALL. Language Learning and Technology, 4(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
Heift, T., & Chapelle, C.A. (2012). Language learning through technology. In S.M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 555–569). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Hsu, J., Chapelle, C., & Thompson, A. (1993). Exploratory learning environments: What are they and do students explore? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9(1), 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C.A. (1984). Prospects in CALL. California Occasional Papers, 10, 1–22.Google Scholar
. (1987). Working styles on computers as evidence for second language learning strategies. Language Learning, 37(4), 523–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1988). Using CALL effectively: What do we need to know about students? System, 16, 151–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38, 357–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C.A., & Preiss, S. (2004). Putting principles into practice. ReCALL Journal, 16(2), 396–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). CALL evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 93–138.Google Scholar
McCormick, J.M., Chapelle, C.A. (2011). Measuring whether Canadian Studies courses make a difference in knowledge of Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies. 41(4), 448–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education / Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R., Chapelle, C.A., Chung, Y-R. & Xu, J. (2008). Options for adaptivity in computer-assisted language learning and assessment. In C.A. Chapelle, Y.-R. Chung, & J. Xu (Eds.), Towards adaptive CALL: Natural language processing for diagnostic language assessment (pp. 9–23). Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Pendar, N., & Chapelle, C.A. (2008). Investigating the promise of learner corpora. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 189–206.Google Scholar
Read, J., & Chapelle, C.A. (2001). A framework for second language vocabulary assessment. Language Testing, 18, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoynoff, S., & Chapelle, C.A. (2005). ESOL tests and testing: A resource for teachers and program administrators. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar