Aligning Second Language Learning and CALL

8/3/2019 Aligning Second Language Learning and CALL

1/17

Aligning Second Language Learning and

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Networking the

Language Class, Tandem Learning and e-moviesSatomi Kawaguchi, University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia

Bruno Di Biase, University of Western Sydney, NSW, Australia

Abstract: Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is fast becoming a normal part of second

language (L2) learning both inside and outside classroom thanks to advancements in communication

technology. However, technological availability, rather than pedagogical objectives, tends to dictate

the choice of CALL activities (Miyamoto 2001) in L2 learning. This paper presents three multimedial

activities introduced as part of a blended learning project in Japanese L2 and other languages at the

University of Western Sydney, aiming to align second language learning and CALL as well as gauging

learner satisfaction. These are: (a) social networking using BEBO, (b) tandem learning using MSNand (c) a short e-movie production. We will show how we align pedagogical goal and CALL activities

(Levy 2007). We also show that CALLs capabilities may, for instance, be used to enhance language

input and learner output both of which are crucial for language acquisition (c.f., Krashen 1985, Long

1996, Swain 1985). CALL can be used for real-time interaction, production and feedback. Further,

using an analysis of language produced in tandem learning activities based on Processability Theory

(PT, Pienemann 1998, Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi 2005) we address the question does CALL

activity promote language learning?. Results suggest that there are vast individual differences in

students learning outcomes. This justies close monitoring to promote overall linguistic development

e.g. by using a reliable developmental measure such as PT.

Keywords: Aligning CALL and L2 Learning Objectives, CALL, Second Language Learning, Social

Networks, Tandem Learning, Processability Theory

ENTHUSIASM FOR TECHNOLOGICAL innovation in language learning may

blur the primary aim of language learning itself (both the process and product) and

minimize or ignore the alignment of technological tools with language learning ob-

jectives. Traditional approaches to language teaching, on the other hand, tend to be

skeptical about, hence avoid, the use of innovations altogether, thus missing out on the

considerable advantages offered by available communication technologies. How to avoid

the two extremes? Further, evaluations of the use andeffects of technology tend to emphasize

student satisfaction tending to gloss over, again, language learning objectives. In reporting

on the implementation of blended learning in an intermediate Japanese L2 class at the Uni-

versity of Western Sydney (UWS) this paper argues for the importance of aligning second

language learning objectives and ComputerAssisted Language Learning (Levy& Stockwell,

2006). At the same time we argue for gauging not only learner satisfaction but also language

learning itself. So, we will illustrate a range of multimedia on-line activities and show how

they can be aligned with language learning objectives and thus enhance their potential to

support second language acquisition. We will then show (a) evaluations of students percep-

The International Journal of Learning

Volume 16, Number 10, 2009, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494

Common Ground, Satomi Kawaguchi, Bruno Di Biase, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:[email protected]


2/17

tion and satisfaction on blended learning experiences and (b) how to measure language de-

velopment through one on-line activity, i.e., tandem learning.

Second Language Acquisition and CALL

The use of computer technologies in second language classrooms is moving towards norm-

alisation (Chambers& Bax, 2006). Computer assisted language learning (CALL) in second

language education enhances language input, language output and learner interaction, all of

which are crucial for language acquisition (cf. Krashen, 1985; Long, 1996; Swain, 1985).

Also, CALL canpromote learners motivation (Levy & Stockwell, 2006), autonomy (Lewis,

2005) and collaboration (Finkbeiner, 2001). In line with the Levelt (1989) Speech Processing

Model, Payne & Whitney (2002) propose that synchronous, computer-mediated communic-

ation using chat mayachieve betteroutcomes than face-to-faceactivities because the language

processing of the former, though similar, is slower. Therefore, CALL may be expected to

promote success in language learning while making the learning experience more enjoyable

and closer to learners time management needs and technological preferences.

However, when it comes to classroom situation, many educators are skeptical about the

effectiveness of computer-based activity for language learning particularly given the import-

ance of real-time interaction, oral production, and immediacy of feedback. CALL can also

be seen as a way to reduce face-to-face teaching time as well as cost. Yet, blended learning1

has many advantages. In fact, blended learning can achieve even better outcomes than ex-

clusively face-to-face learning, as we will attempt to show.

Structure of the Unit of Study Language Skills 203: Listening and

Speaking

Blended learning was recently introduced to languages units at UWS, Australia. Here, we

will focus on an intermediate level language unit of study called Language Skills 203:

listening and speaking which is an umbrella unit involving the ve languages currently

taught, namely Arabic, Chinese, Italian, Japanese and Spanish, through a one hour lecture

in English (on how to develop skills and achieve success in L2 learning) and a two and a

half hour language-specic, face-to-face, tutorial. The subject aims to promote listening and

speaking skills based on grammatical knowledge gained previously. Multimedia used in this

class was: (a) Bebo social networking; (b) tandem language learning through instant text

messaging; and (c)an e-movie project. These were utilisedgenerally as out-of-class activities

aiming at consolidating the learning objectives (both grammatical and situational) covered

in the face-to-face session each week. We will now illustrate these language activities and

show how we align activities and learning objectives. The Japanese L2 class, which used

the full range of media, will provide the focus for this illustration.

Bebo Social Networking (http://www.bebo.com/)

Bebo is a friendly website for children and adults of all ages. Though mostly used for com-

ment and chat among friends, it can also be utilized for studies. There are many social net-

1 According to the New South Wales Department of Education Blended Learning is learning which combines

online and face-to-face approaches.

288

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING


3/17

working systems such as Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn, to name just a few. However, Bebo

was selected because of its variety of functions and capacity to handle non-alphabetic char-

acters. Bebo can handle Arabic, Chinese and Japanese texts without any difculties or text

encoding, so it was chosen because the subject taught (Languages Skills 203) comprised 5

languages, as explained earlier, with between 15 and 25 students each. Short video clips and

picture slide shows can be easily uploaded on the Bebo site, which is also relativelyprotected

from mass advertising intrusion. This is a crucial factor in choosing a social networking

system in educational contexts. We created one Bebo site per language tutorial exclusively

within the group. In order to illustrate Bebo as a L2 learning tool, part of the Japanese pages

are shown as examples in (1), (2) and (3). The screen in (1) is the tutors home page where

a photo and self introduction in Japanese are uploaded. Every student in a group has his/her

own homepage linked to everybody elses. Thus every student can view the homepage of

the tutor and his/her colleagues, send comments, and participate in quiz or opinion polls

created by others. The screen in (2) shows some video clips which the tutor uploaded as a

weekly listening quiz. Students also uploaded their own video clips as part of required tasks.The screen in (3) shows the results of one student-generated opinion poll. The table in (4)

summarises activities using various Bebo functions paired up with all four language skills

speaking, listening, writing and reading as well as real time communication skills using

on-line text chat and cultural activities such as the creation of culture-oriented quizzes.

(1) Screenshot of Bebo Homepage Showing User Prole

289

SATOMI KAWAGUCHI, BRUNO DI BIASE


4/17

(2) Screenshot of Video Clip (With Listening Quiz) on Bebo

(3) A Student-generated Opinion Poll: Which Food Do You Like Best, German, Italian or

French?

290



5/17

(4) Bebo Activities and Language Skills Summary

Examples of activities using BeboLanguage skills

BlogWriting

Comments; reading friends sitesReading

Creation of video clipsSpeaking

Listening quizzes; Youtube clipsListening

On-line chat; commentsCommunicating through text

exchange and collaboration

Creation of cultural quizzesCultural understanding

Friendly peer language correctionsLanguage awareness

Next, we show how we align teaching objectives with on-line activities. Recall that Bebowas used as weekly homework to reinforce teaching objectives introduced in the in-class

lesson. The table in (5) below displays examples of weekly teaching objectives aligned with

on-line activities.

(5) Aligning Teaching Objectives with On-line Activities Using Bebo (Excerpt)

Weekly Online Homework (to be Done

in Japanese)

Topic of In-class Lesson and

Learning Objectives

Week in the

Semester

Set up your Bebo siteTalkabout yourself, your family and

friends

4

Upload your personal prole. Describe

yourself using various adjectives.Adjective inection formsInvite all your classmates as friendsJapanese word processing

Upload a video clip on your show &

tell.

Show & Tell: describe items of

sentimental value to you.

5

Listening comprehension quizzes based

on the tutors show & tell video clip.

Noun modication,adjectiveconnec-

tions.

Vocabulary of shapes, colours, pat-

terns, etc.

Upload opinion poll. Ask three ques-

tions and write the result of your opinion

Best 3 in my class

Distinguish better than~ and best

among ~.

6

poll (best and better) on your blog

site.

Blog what do you want to become in

the future? Support your plan with an

indication of your abilities

Job interview: expressing your abil-

ities

Potential form, permission and

must

10

291



6/17

Friendly peer corrections of your

classmates grammatical errors on their

Express your opinion

I think~, it may be ~, you should

~

11

Bebo site (send comments to two

classmates).Upload quiz related to Japanese people,

language, culture, society, history, etc.

In Week 4, the topic of the lesson is talking about yourself, your family and friends with

a grammatical focus on adjective inections. Also, word processing using Japanese characters

is introduced. Bebo homework for this week is to set up the students Bebo site and upload

a personal prole (about yourself, your pet, family and friends) using various adjectives.

For example, a student wrote:

(verbatim)(I am short and my hair and eyes are brown. I think I am gentle and cheerful but

sometimes I am quiet and cool).

To do this task the student used various adjectives involving polite and connective forms.

In Week 5, the topic of the lesson was show and tell: describing belongings of sentimental

value to you. The grammatical focus was noun sentential modication with vocabulary of

shapes, colours, patterns and other variables. Bebo homework this week was to listen to a

teachers video clip on show and tell on Russian dolls, where she explained why she had

a sentimental attachment to them. The teachers video clip was used as comprehension

practice for the students, who were then required to upload a short video clip about their

own show & tell this week. Examples of show & tell are a dog given by a girl friend

and a soft toy grandmother made. One student showed a single-lens reex camera and some

photos in her video clip. Then she offered some information about them. She explained:

(verbatim)

(I bought this camera ve years ago when I went back to Hong Kong. I could carry

this camera with me everywhere and taking photos was fun. Here are three photos which

are photos I took when I was a high school student.)

Thus this student successfully and purposefully used various noun modications. The table

in (5) also lists Week 6, 10 and 11 activities where creation of opinion polls, blogging, and

friendly peer language corrections were selected as homework. From these examples, we

can see that teaching objectives are aligned with on-line Bebo activities each week. Data

from students work above clearly show that such activities signicantly help achieve the

weeks teaching objectives. We also used Bebo to promote cultural awareness and under-

standing. One such Bebo activity was the creation of cultural quizzes; an example taken

from one students site is shown in (6) (English translations have been added in brackets).

By both creating and answering cultural quizzes, all students in the group benet from, and

promote, cultural understanding in a fun way.

292



7/17

(6) (What is Tanabata?)

1. (A letter writing your wish)

2. (A special item of clothing)

3. (The festival of the stars.)4. (A reworks festival)

There are a number of advantages and great potential in using social network platforms in

L2 teaching and learning. First, it increases motivation in students by using technologies

closer to the students lifestyle (i.e., time- and location-independent design). Second, it in-

creases students opportunity for guided, autonomous self-study. Third, it maximizes students

input (both in reading and listening) and output (speaking and writing) outside face-to-face

classes. Furthermore, it promotes collaboration among students and it provides authentic

contexts (such as opinion polls, self descriptions) while engaging students innovative, cre-

ative and/or artistic ability.

Tandem Language Learning Via Instant Messaging

Another multimedial instrument, instant text messaging through the popular MSN, was used

for tandem language learning.2

25 intermediate Japanese L2 students at UWS and 23 rst

year English L2 students at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), Japan, parti-

cipated in tandem learning. Tandem pairs were matched based on mutual interests. Students

engaged in three one-hour chat sessions (30 minutes in English and 30 minutes in Japanese

at each session) over a semester. Thus each student plays the role of language tutor using

his/her native language as well as the role of a language learner when using the other language.

The rst session, organized within class time, introduced students to MSNMessenger andhad them nd out about each other. The second session had students nd out about their

partners university life while for the third session students found out about their partners

culture and/or controversial current issues. Students were required to organize two chat

session times to submit reections and transcripts after each session. Students were also

asked to send their partner some language corrections and suggestions after each chat.

According to Schweinhorst (2003), tandem learning promotes bilingualism, reciprocity

and learner autonomy. Other benets include: fostering intercultural competence (Woodlin,

2003), language coaching and modeling (Brammerts & Calvert, 2003), motivation through

autonomy and fostering integrative motivation as well as cooperative learning and language

awareness (Finkbeiner, 2001). Payne and Whitney (2002) demonstrate that on-line chat can,

indirectly, improve L2 oral prociency. Chat can lead to greater learner noticing of problem-

atic L2 language than in face-to-face communication (Lai & Zhao, 2006). Our students

language development through tandem learning is presented below.

2In tandem learning a group of students learning a second language engages in a learning interaction with another

group of students who are native speakers of the language. These, in turn, are also learners of a second language

which is the native language of the rst group. So, each group is, alternatively, learning from, or teaching the other

group. In our case the groups were learners of Japanese L2 in an Australian university, and learners of English L2

in a Japanese university.

293



8/17

E-movie Project

The third multimedia activity used in this unit is a group-prepared e-movie. Typically,

between four and six students formed a group to do this task. The tasks undertaken for this

project are:

1. Outline the story and its cultural relevance

2. Write a script in Japanese

3. Make a video using Windows Movie Maker or any similar program

As a rst step the students conduct an investigation of the culture they are learning about,

then choose a topic/situation, construct conversation using appropriate speech levels and -

nally, collaboratively, make a 10- to 15-minute e-movie with a theme/story behind it. Com-

ponent A and B above should be submitted halfway through the semester so that students

receive feedback in time (from peers and the tutor) and have an opportunity to improve the

story/script. Students are encouraged to use their ownL2 grammatical structures and expres-sions learned in the tutorials as much as possible. Video shooting and editing were independ-

ently organised by the students. Unsurprisingly, none of the students reported technical

problems or sought technical help from the teaching staff. The movie viewing session was

organised in the last tutorial of the semester. Among the e-movie topics used by the students

there were childrens folk stories in which cultural values and historical background are in-

tegrated. One group, after investigating childrens stories, created an e-movie titled Mo-

motaroo, about a peach boy who was found in a large peach as a baby by an old childless

couple and was raised as their child. Peach Boy fought against devils who lived in

Onigashima (the isle of devils) located to the north of Japan with some help from Japanese

native animals such as a dog, a pheasant and a monkey. The devils were defeated by them.Peach Boy brought back lots of treasures retrieved from the devils and returned them to the

people, who lived happily ever after. The devils and the treasure in this story respectively

symbolize feudal authority in Japan and tax (such as rice) unreasonably conscated by the

authorities.

Another e-movie was High School Grafti. It is a story of a teenage boy who moved to

a new high school somewhere in Japan. The story takes up a serious social problem both in

Japan and in Australia: bullying. The story tells how and why this boy was bullied by new

classmates, how the problem was ignored by his teacher, and how he overcame the problem.

The story also captures how he developed new friendships at the high school. The group

which created this e-movie conducted a thorough investigation of Japanese high school and

teenage student culture.What is particularly worth noticing about our students movie scripts was the many collo-

quial and xed expressions which they managed to incorporate, which, on reection, they

would have had little opportunity to learn or practice in exclusively face-to-face tutorial

settings. Laufer & Hulstijn (2001) propose three major factors affecting learning and retention

of new L2 words: (a) degree of need; (b) degree of search; and (c) degree of evaluation.

Regarding degree of need, it is mild when the task is introduced by the teacher, while

it is strong when the needs are created by the learners themselves. Degree of search be-

comes stronger when the student checks a word in the dictionary or asks for the meaning of

the L2 word from the teacher/native speaker (rather than the word and its meaning being

294



9/17

just given unrequested by the teacher or listed in a textbook). Degree of evaluation is

higher when the student has an opportunity to compare the meaning of a L2 word with other

words such as synonyms and nds out the best word according to the context. L2 words are

best remembered and retained when the involvement load of the above three factors is

higher. As can be appreciated, writing an e-movie script requires high involvement load on

all three factors as it is designed to maximise students learning outcomes and retention of

L2 words and expressions.

Evaluation of Blended Learning

According to Miyamoto (2001), introduction of multimedia in L2 teaching and learning

should be evaluated from multiple aspects. One aspect concerns learners perceptions, such

as learner characteristics (motivation and computer orientation), usability of on-line tasks

and learner satisfaction. Evaluation on this aspect is even more important for on-line activities

than face-to-face activities as the former largely rely on the learners autonomous learning:if the evaluation by the students on this aspect is low, they simply are not engaging in these

on-line activities. Another aspect is students linguistic development. This aspect is equally

important. L2 learning through multimedia may be fun and appealing to young students, but

if the linguistic outcome is poor we cannot evaluate the on-line activities as successful L2

learning and teaching tools. Beyond these, we propose that further aspects to be evaluated

include development of cultural awareness and communication skills. As a rst step in

evaluating our blended learning project, we investigated learner perception through question-

naire and language development by analyzing transcripts of tandem language production

over the semester.

Students Perceptions

A questionnaire on blended learning experience was administered in Week 10 (towards the

end of the semester). The questionnaire consists of both Likert scale and open questions.

The graphs in (7) to (9) show results of Likert scaling questions on students perception of

CALL, their preferred learning mode (i.e., face-to-face, on-line, or blended learning) and

satisfaction level respectively. The scaling range is: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree,

3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree. Students perceptions are deemed positive if the average

score is higher than (neutral) 3 and negative if it is lower than 3. Then (10) presents a

selection of open comments.

295



10/17

(7) Perception of CALL

Q1 I like using computers for study

Q2 I prefer to study without computers

Q3 On-line activities helped me learn at my own pace

Q4 Using the computer helped me learn the language more effectively

(8) Preference on Learning Mode: Face-to-face, On-line, or Blended Learning?

Q1 I prefer the on-line activities

Q2 I prefer face-to-face language learning activities

Q3 I think computers should replace face-to-face teaching

Q4 I prefer a mix of face-to-face and on-line language learning activities

296



11/17

(9) Satisfaction Level

Q1 I nd the on-line activities easy to do

Q2 I nd the on-line activities very useful

Q3 I nd the on-line activities motivating

Q4 At this moment I am very enthusiastic about learning this language

Q5 At this moment I am satised with my study

(10) Some Typical Open-question Answers (Verbatim) on Face-to-face/Blended Learning

liked best least

Liked leastLiked best

Feedback and correctionsTime and space management

Very difcult to receive feedback and correc-

tions, and understand it.

You could practice what you had learnt at

your own pace and as many times as you

Not being able to ask for help from your

teacher or friends.

liked, as well as being able to listen to words

or dialogues.

The ability to practice in my own time. It was

interactive so therefore more stimulating and

Technical issues

Too much time, and due to other studies

found it difcult to access theon-line compon-

ent all the time

motivating. It combined many components

from understanding to pronunciation, reading,

and writing. Can be difcult when stuck on an activity

Personally i would prefer face to face classes,

but i did enjoy how convenient it was when

it came to time

Others

It takes time to do

297



12/17

It can be time-consuming, leaving less time

for study

Technical issues

That its endless and you choose how far you

want to delve into it. Nothing

They are always there to look back on.Motivation

I agreed with teachers use of technology in

encouraging L2 acquisition. It was fun, inter-

active & offered classmembers the opportun-

ity to get to know each other beyond class

environ.

It was fun, and it was a way of speaking to

classmates. This non face-to-face way of

communication reduces the need for cond-

ence, and also gives you a little more time to

think about your response, or search for newnecessary vocabulary.

Others

Enjoyed learning colloquial Japanese, espe-

cially slang, which cannot be found in the

textbook. and wanted to learn more

The Bebo site was a fun

Kills time when bored, and can practice

whenever.

The students evaluation can be summarized this way. First, regarding students perceptionof CALL, intermediate Japanese students like using the computer for study; they believe

on-line activities help them study more effectively and, crucially, at their own pace. As for

learning mode preference, our students found both on-line and face-to-face components

useful. However, they do not want the computer to replace face-to-face. Their preferred

learning mode is, unequivocally, blended learning. Students rating regarding satisfaction

level indicates that intermediate students found on-line activities easy to do and useful and

they are relatively satised with their study. It is worthwhile noting that obligatory UWS-

wide teaching evaluation administered at the end of semester revealed that, compared to

other units taught at UWS, our students rated their satisfaction level with this unit signicantly

higher than the UWS mean in all question items. The question asking whether their interest

in learning increased as a consequence of this class was rated highly positively.

Language Development

Even where satisfaction levels are high we must still ask whether (and measure what) students

have actually learnt. To do this, ve students3 text messages in the three tandem sessions

over the semester were analysed in terms of lexical and syntactic development. Lexical

3These ve students were selected for focused analysis because they completed all tandem sessions, with the same

pair student, exchanged e-mails to give feedback to their pair, thus we can more coherently and consistently trace

their language development and metalinguistic awareness.

298



13/17

learning is a key component of language learning (Nation, 2001). Also, syntax is lexically

driven (Bresnan, 2001) and L2 learners syntactic structure is a crucial indicator of their

current level of language acquisition (Pienemann, 1998; Pienemann, Di Biase & Kawaguchi,

2005) evaluated through language-specic developmental measurements (cf. Kawaguchi,

2005 for Japanese L2).

(11)

(12)

Here we show the results of the ve students, Clarence, Jan, Dani, Lee and Charlie, who

participated in all three tandem sessions with the same tandem partner and completed all

required tasks. Lexical analysis shows, in (11), the number of words produced per sessionand, in (12), the cumulative word-types produced per session. All ve learners increased

the number of tokens in the second session compared to the rst session, but some of them

decreased in number in the third session. We believe that text exchanging slowed down in

speed due to task difculty in the third session (i.e., cultural and controversial issues). On

the other hand, (11) shows that all ve learners uniformly increased cumulative word type

with each session. This indicates that all learners used a number of new vocabulary items

in each session. Assignment of conversation topics for each session mighthave hada positive

effect in encouraging students to use a range of vocabulary items. However, in spite of lex-

ical growth, signicant individual differences are found in these students in the production

of types and tokens in each session. Comparing Clarence and Charlie, whose lexical produc-

299



14/17

tion were the smallest and the largest respectively among the ve students, the difference in

both number of tokens and types produced is, remarkably, over 1:5.

(13) Japanese L2 Learners Sentence Patterns

Session 3Session 2Session 1

CanonicalCanonicalCanonicalClarence

CanonicalCanonical, Adverbial

clause (conditional: -ba

and tara if)

CanonicalDani

Adverbial clause (-toki

when)

Passive

sentential modication

for noun

CanonicalCanonicalCanonicalCharlie

Adverbial clause (-kara

because)

Sentential modication

for object noun

Complement clause (-to

omoimasu I think that)

Adverbial clauses (-kara

because)

Complement clauses (-to

omoimasu I think that)

Sentential modication

for noun

Adverbial clause (- toki

when)

Conditional (-tara if)

Benefactive

Conditional (-tara if)

OBJ topicalisation

Similar results are obtained with the analysis of sentence patterns produced by the same ve

Japanese L2 learners. Here we selected three students whose lexical productions are thelowest (Clarence), the middle (Dani) and the highest (Charlie), as (13) shows. Clarence

produced canonical sentences only, which is Subject-Object-Verb order in Japanese, from

Session 1 to Session 3. No other sentence patterns were produced by him. Dani, on the other

hand, showed dramatic progress. He also produced canonical sentences only in Session 1,

just like Clarence. However, by Session 2 he produced adverbial clauses and by Session 3

passive and sentential modication of the noun. Charlie was already able to produce such

sentence patterns as adverbial and complement clauses in Session 1. Yet he too produced

new structures in each session: conditional and benefactive in Session 2; sentential modic-

ation of noun and object topicalisation in Session 3. Again, we found large individual differ-

ences in terms of grammatical development. In summary, two learners (Dani and Charlie)

expanded their sentence structures from one session to the next. However, one student

(Clarence) did not develop his Japanese L2 syntax as he continued to produce only canonical

sentences through to the end of the semester. Further, Clarence produced far fewer text

messages compared to other students. This justies close monitoring of the students by the

teacher when using on-line activities.

Conclusion

While reporting on the introduction of blended learning in an intermediate L2 Japanese class

in Australia this paper demonstrates that socio-pedagogical and motivational objectives

300



15/17

pursued through the introduction of new communication technologies should, crucially, be

aligned with linguistic objectives because CALL by itself may be insufcient in promoting

language development. CALL is shown to have the capacity to support the input hypothesis

(Krashen, 1985; Long, 1996) as well as the Output (Swain, 1985) and the interaction (Gass

& Mackey, 2007) hypotheses. Motivation appears to be enhanced by the autonomous

learning afforded by the new technologies. All three CALL activities introduced allow the

less condent, less procient and shy students to interact, possibly more so than face-to-face

interaction, and perhaps achieve better outcomes and greater benets. However, CALL is

not free from problems. Analysis of text production reveals enormous individual differences

in lexical and syntactic development. Results from one student show only small progress

with lexical learning and no development of syntax over the semester. This suggests that the

language teacher using CALL should monitor students performance using reliable measures.

Future research should also capture changes in students goals and motivations over the

course of their study (Levy & Stockwell, 2006) as well as changes in cultural and linguistic

awareness. We also show here that CALL is not simply a replacement of face-to-face assome teachers seem to believe, but it offers far greater opportunities than the traditional

language classroom for self-paced language production and comprehension. In face-to-face

interaction many language students aredisadvantaged by having to comprehend and produce

immediately (i.e., in a time-constrained mode) in the language they are learning. Technology

allows asynchronous interaction, which gives students time to perceive, construct andproduce

their message at their own pace. Paradoxically, many of these activities could not be enter-

tained face-to-face.

Acknowledgemnts

The Authors wish to thank the UWS Learning and Teaching Action Plan (LTAP) and the

School of Humanities and Languages for supporting the Blended Learning project on which

this paper is based.

References

Brammerts, H. & Calvert, M. (2003). Learning by communicating in tandem. In T. Lewis & L.

Walker (Eds), Autonomous language learning in tandem. Shefeld: Academy Electronic

Publications, 45-60.

Bresnan, J. (2001). Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34, 465-479.

Finkbeiner, C. (2001). One and all in CALL? Learner-moderator-researcher. Computer Assisted Lan-guage Learning. 14(3-4), 339-361.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In

B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds), Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 175-200).

London: LEA.

Kawaguchi, S. (2005).Processability theory and Japanese as a second language.Journal of Acquisition

of Japanese as a Second Language, 8, 83-114.

Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: issues and implications. New York: Longman.

Lai, C. & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology , 10(3),

102-120.

Laufer, B. & Hulstijn, J. (2001). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in second language : The construct

of task-induced involvement. Applied Linguistics , 22(1), 1-26.

301



16/17

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language

learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, T. (2005). The effective learning of languages in tandem. In J. A. Coleman & J. Klapper (Eds),

Effective learning and teaching in modern languages (pp. 165-172). London: Routledge.Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C.

Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Miyamoto, S. (2001).( Development

and evaluation of multimedia language learning resources: theory and practice). Tokyo:

Keisuisha.

Nation, P. (2001).Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral prociency through synchronous CMC:

Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal , 20(1), 7-32.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability

Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., and Kawaguchi, S. (2005). Extending Processability theory. In M.

Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp.199-252). Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Schweinhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem language learning: Putting principles into

practice in synchronous and asychronous telecommunications environments. Computer As-

sisted Language Learning, 16(5), 427-443.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Someroles of comprehensible input and comprehensible

output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds), Input in second language

acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Woodlin, J. (2003). Encouraging intercultural competence in tandem learning. In T. Lewis & L.

Walker (Eds), Autonomous language learning in tandem. Shefeld: Academy Electronic

Publications, 131-143. ]

About the Authors

Dr. Satomi Kawaguchi

Satomi Kawaguchi teaches Japanese and second language acquisition at the University of

WesternSydney. She is also the coordinator of Honours Program in Languages andLinguist-

ics. She has published many articles on Processability Theory and language learning, partic-

ularly Japanese L2. She is interested in developing theory-practice connections in language

learning.

Dr. Bruno Di Biase

Bruno Di Biase is the Acting Head, School of Humanities and Languages, University of

Western Sydney. He teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Second Language

Acquisition as well as Grammatical concepts and Italian L2. His research interests and

publications focus on language learning and theory construction in Processability Theory.

302



17/17

Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Aligning Second Language Learning and CALL

Documents

Transcript of Aligning Second Language Learning and CALL