LINGUISTICS DEPARTMENT - STANFORD UNIVERSITY

An Invitation to CALL

Foundations of Computer-Assisted Language Learning

Home | Unit 1 | Unit 2 | Unit 3| Unit 4| Unit 5| Unit 6 | Unit 7 | Unit 8 | Supplement

Click here for PDF

An Invitation to CALL

Unit 6: CALL Theory and Research

Arguably, any applied field is defined by three dimensions: theory, research, and practice. The bulk of this course focuses on practice, but in this unit we will also briefly consider the role of theory and examine some of the types of research that have been conducted, along with a few example results.

The TESOL Technology Standard most closely allied to this unit is Goal 2, Standard 4: "Language teachers use relevant research findings to inform the planning of language learning tasks and activities that involve technology." While it is natural to extend face-to-face classroom research to the CALL domain, much more relevant sources can be found within the field itself. Scholars have been studying CALL technology, materials, tasks, environments, and interactions for more than 30 years, yet many teachers who use technology and even present their experiences with it at major conferences seem to know little or nothing of this literature. The purpose of this unit is to offer an introduction to CALL theory and research to provide you with a foundation and some resources for further exploration on your own.

THEORY    

What is CALL theory? Egbert & Hanson Smith (2007) claim that "CALL theory" is unneeded: “... educators do not need a discrete theory of CALL to understand the role of technology in the classroom; a clear theory of SLA and its implications for the learning environment serves this goal” (2007, p. 3). The key term for me there is "the learning environment". I argue that what the computer brings to the learning environment as a mediating actor is significant enough that any attempt to characterize such an environment without a deep understanding of how technology impacts that environment--and the learning process--will be incomplete. I have defined CALL theory elsewhere as follows.

Collectively, CALL theory is the set of perspectives, models, frameworks, and specific theories that offer generalizations to account for phenomena related to the use of computers and the pursuit of language learning objectives, to ground relevant research agendas, and to inform effective CALL design and practice.... a CALL theory is a set of claims about the meaningful elements and processes within some domain of CALL, their interrelationships, and the impact that they have on language learning development and outcomes (Hubbard, 2009: 3).

There is an interesting gap in the area of theory for CALL. Unlike the case of second language acquisition in general, CALL does not have a dedicated theory yet and based on current trends it is unclear whether it will ever have a comprehensive one. Instead, CALL theory comprises the "set" mentioned above, a set drawn from a number of sources including SLA theories, general learning theories, linguistic theories, and human-computer interaction theories. Hubbard (2009) proposes a typology for the relationship of theory to CALL research and practice. Much of CALL in the past has been atheoretical, produced without reference to any specific theory or framework, although that is changing. When theory is referenced, by far the most common approach is simple theory borrowing, where a theory from some other domain such as SLA or general education is used without any changes. A more interesting form is theory adaptation. In this case, a theory is modified or enhanced to accommodate the differences inherent in the computer versus the face-to-face environment. A relatively rare occurrence is theory synthesis, where two or more theories from different sources are combined to accommodate the special qualities of the computer-mediated language learning environment. CALL has witnessed only a few examples of theory creation, following the description for "a CALL theory" above. Examples of each of these may be found in Hubbard (2009). Two other categories are introduced in Hubbard & Levy (2016). One is theory instantiation, where a theory like Activity Theory that explicitly has a place for both the technology and language learning is incorporated in a study. The second is theory ensembles, where perspectives from two or more theories are combined without synthesizing them into a unitary entity.

There is a great deal of variety in theoretical underpinnings to CALL. As an example, I researched all the instances of the word theory  in 25 years of CALICO journal articles (Hubbard, 2008). Across those several hundred CALICO articles (3-4 issues per year), there were 113 distinct theory references. Only 17 of these were mentioned in three or more articles, and there were no dominant ones. Of specific theories (as opposed to general types like "learning theory", which was mentioned in 20 articles), the two leaders were schema theory and item-response theory, the latter only applying to designing assessments.

In terms of general theoretical approaches these days, the influence of both cognitive theories (e.g., information processing) and sociocultural theories (e.g., Activity Theory) is evident. Within that division, there is a tendency toward quantitative approaches for research in the cognitive tradition and qualitative approaches for sociocultural studies, although mixed methods are increasingly valued.

RESEARCH

There are two kinds of research in CALL. One is descriptive and exploratory, looking to see what happens when language learners engage in CALL to see what, if anything, happens differently. The second kind, which represents the majority of CALL research, looks at what might be "better" about using particular instances of CALL. But what exactly is "better?" Here are some possible interpretations:

• learners pick up language knowledge or skills faster or with less effort (learning efficiency)
• learners pick up what is targeted, retain language knowledge or skills longer, and/or learn more of what they need (effectiveness)
• learners can get materials or experience interactions that would otherwise be difficult or impossible (access)
• learners can learn with more or less equal effectiveness across a wider range of times/places (convenience)
• learners enjoy the language learning process more or are willing to engage in it more (motivation)
• learners require less space, less teacher time, or less expensive materials (institutional efficiency)

Beyond learners, we can also research CALL elements such as teaching efficiency, teaching effectiveness, and effective teacher education.

There are no doubt other ways of defining "better," but if we just consider these, a question arises: What are we comparing these to? Presumably, we are comparing a CALL activity to some corresponding non-CALL activity to see which gives us superior results for a given language learning target. This comparative approach has strong face value: language teachers and program administrators are reasonable in wanting evidence that CALL is worthwhile before putting time and expense into it, and comparative research seems the only way to provide definitive answers. Unfortunately, after two decades CALL researchers have not been able to provide those answers, and a number of influential researchers long ago came to the conclusion that in most cases the type of study that pitted CALL against non-CALL was a dead end, just as happened with "method comparison" (e.g., audiolingual vs. Total Physical Response) in the 1970s and 80s. Ultimately, the more interesting and answerable questions were not about the computer vs. its absence, but about specific applications, specific features of applications, specific types of activities, specific environments, and specific characteristics of learners.

As with other areas of second language learning, there are two ways for teachers to approach CALL research. One is  as a research consumer; the other is as a classroom or action researcher. Each of these is briefly discussed below. As with other units, the objective here is to just give a taste of what is an enormous and constantly growing area. Those with more serious research interests are encouraged to consult the reference list. It should be mentioned before continuing that not all CALL research is aimed primarily at improving language teaching and learning with technology. In some cases, researchers may simply want to observe how the technology environment influences or changes the way humans interact with one another, without necessarily judging whether or not it's "better".  Although such basic research is important to social scientists and may lead to more applied hypotheses, it does not directly impact teaching and learning and so will not be explicitly addressed here.

CALL RESEARCH TRENDS

As suggested above, most CAI (computer-assisted instruction) and early CALL research focused on comparing computer users with a control group typically using traditional methods. The results were mixed, often showing no significant difference, sometimes favoring the computer users, and occasionally favoring the traditional approaches (see Dunkel 1991).

Over time researchers began to argue against comparative research (see for example Chapelle and Jamieson 1989), stating that the number of variables was too great. There are now many areas being researched using a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods (although interest in comparative research remains, particularly in comparing face-to-face interaction with CMC). The results vary widely, and according to several research reviews (Felix 2005; Hubbard 2005; Huh and Hu 2005) the field is hampered by widespread problems with research designs and reporting.

Research has continued in all areas of CALL but recently has focused on several identifiable areas, such as:

• Computer mediated communication; especially, interaction in synchronous chat settings and email in tandem settings
• Visual, text and sound annotation to promote comprehension and vocabulary acquisition
• Effectiveness of online constructivist activities, including development of communities and collaborative writing
• See also LLT special issues on learner autonomy (http://www.lltjournal.org/collection/col_10125_35919), gaming (http://www.lltjournal.org/collection/col_10125_35926), and mobile learning (http://www.lltjournal.org/collection/col_10125_35924)

For a more recent overview of the development and state of research in a number of areas, see the review articles in the 20th Anniversary Issue of Language Learning & Technology (June 2016): http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2949 (technology & SLA research), http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2950 (technology & language assessment), http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2951 (technology & the four skills), http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2952 (technology & autonomy).

Below are a few specific example studies. Keep in mind that these and other studies are generally conducted on small groups in specific settings and may suffer from methodological limitations of various sorts. As with all research, proceed with caution in connecting any findings to your own setting.

First, here are a few studies from the early 2000s

Compare these with the following later studies, many of which point to the need for more learner training and/or support. (see Unit 7)

Thanks to students in my 2020 course for the following!

There are many areas of CALL that have been looked at, and we only cover a few of them here. Check the "locating research studies" at the end for resources to continue your CALL research review. It should be noted before continuing that CALL research has long been burdened by a problem which has not plagued most classroom-based SLA research: the technology adds a dimension of complexity and  it is constantly changing; consequently definitive answers in any area don't seem to exist.

SURVEY OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN CALL RESEARCH

One of the major concerns that scholars seem to have upon entering this field, particularly if they are trying to develop a project for a master's or doctoral thesis, is what sorts of research questions to study. To address that problem, in the summer of 2002, I sent a survey to 120 CALL professionals around the world asking them to articulate one research question in the field that they would like to see answered. I received 64 responses. A writeup of the results and the actual questions proposed by the contributors can be viewed at www.stanford.edu/~efs/callsurvey. You may submit your own question or comment on those there.7

SUBJECT CHARACTERISTICS IN CALL RESEARCH

In 2004 I carried out a study of research articles found in four CALL journals over a 2-3 year period, focusing on subject characteristics. The overall conclusion was that "CALL research as a whole is unbalanced in the direction of the study of novices working on novel tasks or using novel applications" (Hubbard 2005: 363). Among other recommendations, I suggested that more studies be done using experienced and/or trained learners (see Unit 7) so that we can get a more complete idea of the potential effectiveness of specific CALL software and tasks. This should not be taken as a general criticism of more basic observational research (i.e., what do students do naturally when left on their own in a CALL environment), which is also quite important--the point is that the CALL research domain should be more balanced than it currently seems to be. Results from an unpublished followup study looking exclusively at CMC research reached a similar conclusion: see www.stanford.edu/~efs/pacslrf06.

DOING RESEARCH

As noted in the introduction, this course is largely aimed at classroom teachers interested in beginning or expanding their use of CALL, and teachers can take the role of researchers themselves.  identifying a learning gap, creating a possible solution for it--in this case using technology--and then doing research on the effectiveness of that solution. There are several avenues available to teachers in the role of researchers of their own classroom or students.

• Observation. When your students are using software or doing a computer-based task in a lab or other venue where you can--watch them.  You can look over their shoulder, check their interactions, and make brief notes of what you notice. Interact with the students as they interact with the software. This can give you feedback on the effectiveness of a given piece of software, CALL exercise, or CALL task, and it can also help you determine student training needs.
• Tracking. Some software has built-in tracking features. If you are using a discussion board, all student posts can be reviewed. Some chat programs also allow the sessions to be logged for later review.
• Student surveys. Ask specific questions about usage--note that it's best to do this as soon as possible after a CALL session sense memories fade rapidly.
• Pre- and post-testing to evaluate outcomes of the use of technology.
• Student journals. Getting students to keep a reflective journal of their experiences with software or other CALL activities is useful both for them and to the teacher.

LOCATING RESEARCH STUDIES

A search through Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com) using appropriate keywords is one way to find research materials on a CALL topic. However, a problem is that many of the sources discovered in this manner will not be freely available. If your library does not carry journals such as Computer Assisted Language Learning, ReCALL, or System, then the two most useful sites to search are the CALICO Journal (http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/CALICO), where articles over three years old are freely available, and Language Learning & Technology (https://www.lltjournal.org/), where all the journal articles are freely available. Both sites have internal search features.

REFERENCES

Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. (1989). "Research Trends in Computer-Assisted Language Learning." in Pennington, M. (ed.) Teaching Language with Computers. La Jolla: Athelstan.

Dunkel, P. (1991). “The Effectiveness Research on Computer-Assisted Instruction and Computer-Assisted Language Learning." In Dunkel, P. (ed.) Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practice. New York: Newbury House/Harper Collins.

Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (eds.) (2005). CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (eds.) (2007). CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues, Second Edition. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Felix, U. (2005). "Analyzing recent CALL effectiveness research: Towards a common agenda." CALL Journal 18.1-2.

Hubbard, P. (2003). "A Survey of Unanswered Questions in CALL." CALL Journal 16.2-3.

Hubbard, P. (2005). "A Review of Subject Characteristics in CALL Research." CALL Journal 18.5

Hubbard, P. (2008). "Twenty-five Years of Theory in the CALICO Journal". CALICO Journal 25.3. https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/CALICO/article/view/23086

Hubbard, P. (2009). “Developing CALL Theory: A New Frontier.” Proceedings of the JALTCALL Conference, Nagoya, Japan, May 2008.

Hubbard, P. & Levy, M. (2016). "Theory in Computer Assisted Language Learning Research and Practice." In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.) Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology. New York: Routledge.

Huh, K and Hu, W. (2005). Criteria for effective CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (eds.) (2005). CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Home | Unit 1 | Unit 2 | Unit 3| Unit 4| Unit 5| Unit 6 | Unit 7 | Unit 8 | Supplement