Becka603.02 presentationpart3


Published on

Limitations and References

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Becka603.02 presentationpart3

  1. 1. Becka Barker University of Calgary 603.02 L02 Spring 2010 Part 3
  2. 2. • results may not represent how ELLs use English in online social contexts ‘in the wild’ POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UP : content analysis comparing English use online in a class-based context vs. purely social context
  3. 3. • defining social context of language use is problematic; platform design is not culturally-neutral POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UP : comparing interaction on Korean-based sites (eg. Naver Blog, Daum Café, Cyworld) vs. Western-based sites (such as those explored here).
  4. 4. • TOEIC score ability may not be the best indicator of L2 communicative skill prior to testing period. POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UP : comparing pre- and post-test TOEIC scores to see whether online social communication in L2 helps boost TOEIC performance
  5. 6. Bax, S. (2003). CALL – Past, present, and future. System, 31 (1). 13-28. Belz, J. A. & Vyatkina, N. (2005). Learner corpus analysis and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked inter-cultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes 62 (1). 17-48. DOI – doi: 10.3138/cmlr.62.1.17 Duncum, P. (2004). Visual culture isn’t just visual: Multiliteracy, multimodality, and meaning. Studies in Art Education, 45 (3). 252-264. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5 (1). 93-116.   Heckman, R. & Annabi, H. (2005). A content analytic comparison of learning processes in online and face-to-face case study discussions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (2), article 7.   Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338-376). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Fellner, T. & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2 (1). 16-26.
  6. 7. Williamson, A. & DeSouza, R. (2002). Creating Online Discursive Space that Legitimate Alternative Ways of Knowing. Proc. ASCILITE2002 Annual Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education , Auckland, 2 ,. 731-739. Unsworth, L. (2006). Towards a metalanguage for multiliteracies education: Describing the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5 (1). Warschauer, M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29 (1). 68-88. Montero, B., Watts, F., & García-Carbonell, A. (2007). Discussion forum interactions: Text and context. System, 35 (1). 566-582. Raffaella, N. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3 (1). 75-87. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 457-482. Stommel, W. (2008). Conversation analysis and community of practice as approaches to studying online community. Language@Internet, 5 (1). 1-22.
  7. 8. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.