1 / 24

Making CALL Research Count : Criteria for identifying productive research agendas

Making CALL Research Count : Criteria for identifying productive research agendas. Mike Levy Griffith University. CALL as a research enterprise. Key characteristics A rapidly expanding research literature (CALL, ReCALL, CALICO, LL&T) Driven by: Theories, frameworks and models

gabrielle
Download Presentation

Making CALL Research Count : Criteria for identifying productive research agendas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Making CALL Research Count:Criteria for identifying productiveresearch agendas Mike Levy Griffith University

  2. CALL as a research enterprise Key characteristics • A rapidly expanding research literature (CALL, ReCALL, CALICO, LL&T) • Driven by: • Theories, frameworks and models • New technologies (hardware/software capabilities) • Practical opportunities & constraints • Perception that CALL lacks coherence • Growing interest in improving research quality & value

  3. CALL Research Perspectives(Egbert & Petrie (eds.), 2005) • Sociocultural perspectives * • Interactionist SLA * • Metacognitive knowledge/strategies • Systemic/functional linguistics perspective • Visuality • Flow • Culture-oriented • Situated learning • Design-based • A user-centred ergonomic approach

  4. CALL – Research-new-data(n=47)

  5. Potential modes for language learning Audio Video

  6. Metaphor for CALL research - 1 To replace…

  7. To replace… More general research goals: • What is the role of the new technology? • What aspects of language learning can it address? • The 4 skills? • Language areas? • Grammar • Vocabulary etc. • Content • Focus on attitudes/beliefs • Use of surveys • Problems of novelty • Value of research: • Mainly local interest • Shorter term

  8. Metaphor for CALL research - 2 To build…

  9. To build… More specific research goals, research questions & hypotheses: • Requires knowledge of others’ work • Values collaboration • Grounded in previous work • Quantitative & qualitative approaches • Theory-driven • Value of research: • Wider interest • Longer term

  10. Some examples of longer termCALL research • Researching language learning through chat at a distance • Researching intercultural learning through a collaborative email exchange • Researching L2 reading on the web • Researching student use of feedback and help • Experimental research: Choosing the most effective annotation design

  11. Second language learning theories(Mitchell & Myles, 2004) • Universal Grammar • Cognitive approaches • Functional/pragmatic approaches • Input & interaction * • Sociocultural perspectives * • Sociolinguistic perspectives • Theory • No dominant theory to guide CALL • Multiple theories in Second Language Acquisition  • Multiple theories in CALL

  12. Theory & the researcher • Theory is used to focus a study • Theory is used to highlight and pinpoint specific data elements for analysis • Different theories foreground and background different factors held to impact upon language learning  • Consider in CALL: • The value of combining theoretical approaches and methods • Language learning goal(s) • Language competencies

  13. Theory:Two frameworks, one datatype… Consecutive CALICO Journal (19/2, 2002) articles: • Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous CMC in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. • Fernández-Garcia, M. & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in NNS-NNS synchronous discussions.

  14. Where they were similar… • A focus on: • Spanish learners • Language learning in a technology context • Task-oriented • Utilising online chat (synchronous CMC) • NNS-NNS interactions • Selective analysis and interpretation of transcript data

  15. Darhower Social Sociocultural Shared context Collaborative discourse Interactional features Discussion Identity Mediation Role play Environment Community Autonomy Fernández-Garcia & Martínez-Arbelaiz Negotiation Negotiation of meaning Input Modified output Interactions Exchanging (ideas) Response Discourse (moves/structure) Routines Target language SLA Where they were different…Two lexicons

  16. Where they were different II… • Darhower • A social orientation, naturalistic • Longitudinal • More open task • Research basically descriptive; a search for patterns • Appeals to Vygotskian theoretical framework • Fernández-Garcia & Martínez-Arbelaiz • An academic context • Cross-sectional • Closed task • Analysis in terms of discourse functions • Appeals to a model of foreign talk discourse structure

  17. Naturalistic vs controlled • Darhower • Relatively naturalistic (9 week chat period) • Broad task framework provided (movies), but… • Off-task discussion permitted • Off-task utterances occurred in every episode (p. 261) • 25% of chat episodes included ‘significant’ off-task discussion • Ranged from 15%-48% of chat episode • Researchers analysed off-task discussion (e.g. topics etc.) • Fernández-Garcia & Martínez-Arbelaiz • A closed task • Academic context • Relating to assignments

  18. Theories as complementaryBreen (2001) • ‘There is growing evidence that a broader socio-affective perspective on task work in the classroom can reveal much that is missed in a focus upon interaction alone.’ (p. 125) • A tentative conclusion: ‘the seeming irreconcilability of psycholinguistic and social-affective perspectives on the LL process by arguing for a complementary relationship in the future.’ (p. 181)

  19. Phil’s review of subject characteristics (2005): Recommendations • Generally more value in: • Studies with larger number of subjects • More sessions  longitudinal studies • Recommendations • Report known data (participants, procedures, task design, instruments) • Report student background, including computer literacy • Limit novelty effects  • Be cautious in use of questionnaires/surveys • Value longer studies • Study experienced users • Build learner training into CALL sessions & record • Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 5, 351-368.

  20. Mike’s general recommendations • Cautionary notes • Comparative studies • Two kinds: broad vs specific comparisons • Advice • Evaluate & build on what has been done before • Replicate/extend previous research • Collect from different data sources • Use quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection & analysis • Consider the explanatory goals of good theory/theories • Look beyond the observed data to cause & effect

  21. CELEA member presentations - 1 (n=85)

  22. Two counts Constructivism Listening Advanced level English teaching Chinese context Distance education One count Streaming Language labs Web 2.0 Cognitive styles HCI Podcasting One count Reading Textbooks Materials design Classroom-focussed Interpreter training Survey Case study Bilingualism Media effects Culture ESP Motivation Oral proficiency development CELEA member presentations - 2(n=85)

  23. Further observations/recommendations • Those working in similar areas closely collaborate • Build on the interests/goals of CALL in China • Interest in: • Concordancing/corpus work • Evaluation • Web • Using technology to address challenges of large classes • Other context-driven issues and CALL • What can you contribute to CALL researchers in other countries around the world? • Reaching beyond the local…

  24. To boldly go… Photography: Oliver Meckes & Nicole Ottawa

More Related