Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T11:55:10.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Replication research in computer-assisted language learning: Replication of Neri et al. (2008) and Satar & Ӧzdener (2008)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2017

Zöe Handley
Zöe Handley*
Affiliation:
Department of Education, University of York, UKzoe.handley@york.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that key findings from computer-assisted language learning (CALL) research need to be replicated to permit the construction of a valid and reliable evidence-base which can inform the design of future CALL software and activities, together with language teachers’ decisions about their adoption. Through the critical examination of two key studies, the limitations of much current CALL research with respect to the construction of such an evidence-base are highlighted and approaches to replication which may overcome these limitations are discussed. Like much CALL research, both papers are experimental studies. Key issues raised by the two studies are the need to: (1) conduct replications focused on attributes and affordances which transcend multiple technologies which might be employed in CALL, (2) collect process data to increase the explanatory power of studies, and (3) link CALL research to relevant second language acquisition (SLA) theory and research to increase the explanatory power of studies and integrate the findings from individual studies into the CALL and SLA evidence-base more broadly. Emphasis is also placed on the need to conduct replications with different populations in different settings in order to demonstrate the validity and reliability of current findings.

Type
Replication Studies
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 2018 , pp. 417 - 429
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Ahmadian, M. J., Tavakoli, M. & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). The combined effects of online planning and task structure on complexity, accuracy and fluency of L2 speech. The Language Learning Journal 43.1, 41–56.Google Scholar
Andon, N. & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the teacher's point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19.3, 286–310.Google Scholar
Aydin, B. (2001). Konuşma ve yazma derslerinde yabani dil öğrenimindki kaygi nedenleri [Reasons for anxiety in foreign language learning in speaking and writing courses]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andalou University, Turkey, no. 1265.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication (CMC): Technology for improving speaking and writing. In Bush, M. D. & Terry, R. M. (eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company, 165–184.Google Scholar
Carless, D. (2007). The suitability of task-based approaches for secondary schools: Perspectives from Hong Kong. System 35.4, 595–608.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. (1990). Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice. New York: Newbury House, 37–59.Google Scholar
Chun, D. (2012). Review article: Replication studies in CALL research. CALICO Journal 29.4, 591–600.Google Scholar
Cincarek, T., Gruhn, R., Hacker, C., Nöth, E. & Satoshi, N. (2009). Automatic pronunciation scoring of words and sentences independent from the non-native's first language. Computer Speech and Language 23.1, 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L., Morrison, K., & Bell, R. (2011). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Compton, L. (2002). From chatting to confidence: A case study of the impact of online chatting on international teaching assistants’ willingness to communicate, confidence level and fluency in oral communication. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of English, Iowa State University, Ames.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30.4, 474–509.Google Scholar
Eskenazi, M. (2009). An overview of spoken language technology for education. Speech Communication 51, 832–844.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two decades of research? ReCALL 20.2, 141–161.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post-task activity: The effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of second language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review 69.3, 249–273.Google Scholar
Foster, P. & Wigglesworth, G. (2016). Measuring accuracy in second language performance: The case for a weighted clause ratio. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 1–19.Google Scholar
Foster, P. Tonkyn, A. & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). A unit for all reasons: The analysis of spoken interaction. Applied Linguistics 21.3, 354–374.Google Scholar
Fujii, A. & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task-based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47.3–4, 267–301.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal 75, 74–101.Google Scholar
Gerosa, M. & Giuliani, D. (2004). Preliminary investigations in automatic recognition of English sentences uttered by Italian children. In Delmonte, R., Delcloque, P. & Tonelli, S. (eds.), Proceedings of NLP and speech technologies in advanced language learning systems symposium, Venice, Italy. Padova: Unipress, 9–12.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL 25.2, 165–198.Google Scholar
Handley, Z. (2014). Constructing an evidence-base for future CALL design with ‘engineering power’: The need for more basic research and instrumental replication. EUROCALL Review 22.2, 46–56.Google Scholar
Hewitt, E. & Stephenson, J. (2012). Foreign language anxiety and oral exam performance: A replication of Phillip's MLJ study. The Modern Language Journal 96.2, 170–189.Google Scholar
Horwitz, E, Horwitz, M. & Cope, J. (1991). Foreign language classroom anxiety. In Horwitz, E. & Young, D. (eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 27–36.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 36, 205–229.Google Scholar
Macaro, E., Handley, Z. & Walter, C. (2012). A systematic review of CALL in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. Language Teaching 45.1, 1–43.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2012). Why (or why not), when and how to replicate research. In Porte, G. K. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–69.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. J. (2007). Can educational experiments both test a theory and inform practice? British Educational Research Journal 33.4, 565–588.Google Scholar
Marsden, E. J. & Mackey, A. (2014). IRIS: A new resource for second language research. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4.1, 125–130.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. & Chaikit-Mongkol, W. (2007). Teachers' and learners' reactions to a task-based EFL course in Thailand. TESOL Quarterly 41.1, 107–132.Google Scholar
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C. & Strik, H. (2008a). The effectiveness of computer-based speech corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2 Dutch. ReCALL 20.2, 225–243.Google Scholar
Neri, A., Mich, O., Gerosa, M. & Giuliani, D. (2008b). The effectiveness of computer assisted pronunciation training for foreign language learning by children. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21.5, 393–408.Google Scholar
Park, S. (2010). The influence of pre-task instructions and pre-task planning on focus on form during Korean EFL task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research 14.1, 9–26.Google Scholar
Pederson, K. (1987). Research on CALL. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation. Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook Company, 99–131.Google Scholar
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on students’ oral test performance and attitudes. The Modern Language Journal 76.1, 14–26.Google Scholar
Philp, J., Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2006). The impact of planning time on children's task-based interactions. System 34.4, 547–565.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 116–132.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2015). Quantitative considerations for improving replicability in CALL and applied linguistics. CALICO Journal 32.2, 232–244.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). Replication in published applied linguistics research: A historical perspective. Porte, In G. (ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–91.Google Scholar
Polio, C. & Gass, S. (1997). Replication and reporting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 499–508.Google Scholar
Porte, G. (2013). Who needs replication? CALICO Journal 30.1, 10–15.Google Scholar
Probst, K., Ke, Y. & Eskénazi, M. (2002) Enhancing foreign language tutors – in search of the golden speaker, Speech Communication 37.3–4, 161–174.Google Scholar
Révész, A. (2014). Towards a fuller assessment of cognitive models of task-based learning: Investigating task-generated cognitive demands and processes. Applied Linguistics 35, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-based language learning: A review of the issues. Language Learning 61.1, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satar, H. M. & Ӧzdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. The Modern Language Journal 92.4, 595–613.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49.1, 93–120.Google Scholar
Slimani-Rolls, A. (2005). Rethinking task-based language learning: What we can learn from the learners. Language Teaching Research 9.2, 195–218.Google Scholar
Stockwell, G. (2012). Diversity in research and practice. In Stockwell, G. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 147–163.Google Scholar
Torgerson, C. J. & Torgerson, D. J. (2003). The design and conduct of randomised controlled trials in education: Lessons from health care. Oxford Review of Education 29, 67–80.Google Scholar
van den Branden, K. (2009). Mediating between predetermined order and chaos: The role of the teacher in task-based language education. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19.3, 264–285.Google Scholar
Wachowicz, K. A. & Scott, B. (1999). Software that listens: It's not a question of whether, it's a question of how. CALICO Journal 16.3, 253–276.Google Scholar
Zheng, X. & Borg, S. (2014). Task-based learning and teaching in China: Secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Teaching Research 18.2, 205–221.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2015). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38.3, 1–34.Google Scholar