Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T18:22:32.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TECHNOLOGY AND SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Carol A. Chapelle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Computer technology provides learners with new and varied options for language learning through interactive tasks delivered through CD-ROMs, Web pages, and communications software on the Internet. Researchers need to reconsider any approach to second language acquisition (SLA) concerned with explaining how language development is prompted by exposure to the target language in view of the dramatic differences in language experience learners engage in due to computer technology. Virtually all theories are concerned with the role of linguistic input or the environment (VanPatten & Williams, 2007), and therefore technology needs to be considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 27 , March 2007 , pp. 98 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68–117.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL Research. In Egbert, J. & Petrie, G. (Eds.), Research perspectives on CALL (pp. 53–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on teaching and research in the age of information and communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google 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
Hulstijn, J. H. (2000). The use of computer technology in experimental studies of some techniques and some ongoing studies. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (2), 32–43.Google Scholar
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

OTHER REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13 (2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68–117.Google Scholar
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53 (4), 591–648.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. J., & Zyzik, E. C. (2003). Who's helping whom?: Learner/heritage-speakers' networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 519–544.Google Scholar
Borrás, I., & Lafayette, R. C. (1994). Effects of multimedia courseware subtitling on the speaking performance of college students of French. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research agendas? Language Learning & Technology, 1 (1), 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning, 2 (1), 22–34.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chun, D. C., & Payne, J. S. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory and look-up behavior. System 32 (4), 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J., Belkada, S., & Okamoto, T. (2004). How a Web-based course facilitates acquisition of English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 33–49.Google Scholar
de Graaff, R. (1997). The experanto experiment: Effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study of the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (1), 47–81.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 50–80.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1987). Relating second-language acquisition theory to CALL research and application. In Smith, W. F. (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 133–167). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., Chao, C-C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environment: An overview. In Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.), Computer-enhanced language learning (pp. 1–13). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Petrie, G. (Eds.). (2005). Research perspectives on CALL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fernández-Garciá, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonnative speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous discussions. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Garciá, M., & Martínez-Arbelaiz, A. (2003). Learners' interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversation. ReCALL Journal, 15 (1), 113–136.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In Gass, S. & Maden, C. (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Grace, C. A. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from context and sentence-level translations: Implications for the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 533–544.Google Scholar
Guillory, H. G. (1998). The effects of keyword captions to authentic French video on learner comprehension. CALICO, 15 (1–3), 89–108.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, G. A. G. (2003). Beyond interaction: The study of collaborative activity in computer-mediated tasks. ReCALL Journal, 15 (1), 94–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, L. K. (1994). Constructs and measurement in parameter models of second language acquisition. In Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M., & Cohen, A. D., (Eds.), (Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 61–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google 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
Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign language learners look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. Modern Language Journal, 77 (2), 139–147.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (1997). Second language acquisition research in the laboratory: Possibilities and limitations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C. A., & Preiss, S. (2005). CALL evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students, CALICO Journal, 23 (1), 93–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 79–98.Google Scholar
Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. Modern Language Journal, 86, 546–561.Google Scholar
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners' discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (2), 143–166.Google Scholar
Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and codeswitching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 145–172.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learning of Spanish. ReCALL Journal, 13 (2), 232–244.Google Scholar
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2007). CALL Dimensions. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mislevy, R. J. (1996). Test theory reconceived. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33 (4), 379–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77 (3), 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1995). An effective application of natural language processing in second language processing in second language instruction. CALICO Journal, 13 (1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (1), 75–87.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 89 (3), 317–327.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence in the virtual foreign language classroom. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R., (Eds.). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, E. (2007). Manipulating L2 learners' online dictionary use and its effect on L2 word retention. Language Learning & Technology, 11 (2), 36–58.Google Scholar
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1 (1), 48–72.Google Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction. In Crookes, G. & Gass, S. (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory & practice. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2001). The success of task type in facilitating oral language production in online computer mediated collaborative projects. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of English, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer assisted study. Language Learning, 54 (1), 35–78.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365–398.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Warner, C. N. (2004). It's just a game, right? Types of play in foreign language CMC. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (2), 69–87.Google Scholar
Yoshii, M., & Flaitz, J. (2002). Second language incidental vocabulary retention: The effect of text and picture annotation types. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning, & Technology, 7 (2), 38–67.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumental, and critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 757–761.Google Scholar