M.cheraghi shehni CALL

CALL:
Typology
Theoretical approaches
Philosophical foundations
M.Cheraghi Shehni

CALL:
Typology
Content
 Interface
 Theoretical approaches to CALL and SLA
 Role of theory in CALL
 Theories in CALL
 Theoretical foundations for CALL research
 The interaction account of SLA
 Theory in CALL practice
 Current trends and future directions
 Current Philosophy of CALL

CALL:
Typology
 Interface
Seeking to answer how and to what end technology facilitates learning,
triangulated research designs that analyze both the product and process
of learning, by investigating issues such as:
1.How learners negotiate meaning (González-Lloret, 2003)
2. How they differ in their acquisitional rates (Heift, 2008)
3.How they make use of the different help features of a program (Cárdenas-Claros
& Gruba, 2009 for a review)
4.How technology affects their identity (Ushioda, 2011),
5.How it promotes learning autonomy (Schwienhorst, 2008)

CALL:
Typology
 Interface

CALL:
Typology
We use the term CALL theory to represent the set of perspectives, theoretical models,
frameworks and specific theories.
CALL researchers have also proposed their own accounts of SLA theories that are relevant for
CALL:
“voiced need to re-unite SLA theory with technology-mediated language education”
(Thorne &Smith, 2011, p. 269).

CALL:
Typology
“CALL designers and language teachers are predominantly in the role of consumers as far as
theory is concerned …they review, select, and apply theories of language learning produced by
others.”
Levy and Stockwell (2006, p. 139)

CALL:
Typology
 Theoretical sources in CALL
4 primary sources for the theories:
The CALICO Journal, during 1983 to 2007, Hubbard (2008)
(1) Language learning–centered extensions of
human-computer interaction or technology in
education theories
(2) Technology-centered extensions of second
language acquisition theories
(3) Learning theories from psychology and
education
(4) Linguistic theories

CALL:
Typology
 Interface

CALL:
Typology
To understand the role of theory in CALL :
Not enough to focus on their number and the diversity of their sources,
And how these theories are co-opted, combined as a result of being applied in an environment
they were not originally conceived for.

CALL:
Typology
Hubbard (2009) framework for categorizing the type of theoretical presence in CALL: (Typology)
 Theory borrowing
 Theory instantiation
 Theory adaptation
 Theory ensemble
 Theory synthesis
 Theory construction
 Theory refinement

CALL:
Typology
 Theory borrowing is :
The simplest and most direct of theory in a CALL study.
process of taking a theory from another domain such as linguistics, psychology, education,
human-computer interaction and especially second language acquisition and plugging it in to
the CALL environment without any changes. Like:
computer-mediated communication (CMC)
Theory borrowing,
used as a frame to test the environment, and the theoretical construct (i.e. negotiation of
meaning) remains untouched.

CALL:
Typology
 Theory instantiation is :
Accommodating studies that take general purpose learning theories such as activity theory
and situate them in a language learning environment where the technology and language
can both be explicitly recognized as elements for analysis.
e.g.; Activity theory to analyze and interpret student-reported contradictions in a three-country
telecollaboration

CALL:
Typology
 Theory adaptation is :
Transforming the borrowed theory (process that starts with borrowing but then transforms
the borrowed theory).
Hubbard (2012) discusses a number of such examples where the results of the CALL study have
shown that the traditional ‘face-to-face’ theory requires some emendation and CMC formulated.

CALL:
Typology
 Theory ensemble
(Absent from the Hubbard (2009) typology)
Ensemble is akin to an adaptation, but transforming the initial theory, enriched with additional
sources, either before or after the study.
Ensemble: because of growing use of multiple theories within a single study to capture a range of
perspectives. Levy and Stockwell (2006)
Example of this process: combining the differing perspectives and theoretical traditions of language
learning and gaming in a coherent way.

CALL:
Typology
 Theory synthesis
Two or more sources are combined into a single theoretical entity.
The outcome of a synthesis is an object of sorts – a new theory, framework or model.
Plass and Jones (2005)
Example of synthesis: integrating elements of Chapelle’s interactionist account for CALL with Mayer’s
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia to produce a unified theoretical framework for using multimedia in
second language teaching

CALL:
Typology
 Theory construction
In contrast to previous theories, Relatively rare to date, where a ‘Native CALL’ theory is
produced.
White’s (2005) proposal for a learner-based theory of distance language learning.

CALL:
Typology
 Theory refinement is
The idea in line with other scientific tradition, theories improve as more data come to
support or refute them.
As technology becomes more integrated and normalized, the need for separate ‘theories of
CALL’ may disappear.
(Bax 2003, 2011)
Egbert, Hanson-Smith and Chao (2007) claim ‘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’ (p. 3).

CALL:
Typology
Variety of SLA theoretical approaches deserve consideration by CALL researchers and developers.
4 general orientations related to theories and models :
1.Cognitive linguistic (e.g. universal grammar)
2.Psycholinguistic (e.g. input processing)
3.Human learning (e.g. skill acquisition theory)
4.Language in social context (e.g. complexity theory)
Chapelle (2009)

CALL:
Typology
Frameworks and models have been used to motivate CALL projects and to provide a basis for
research and evaluation can be divide as:
1. the interaction account
2. sociocultural theory
3. constructivism
Chapelle (2009)

CALL:
Typology
The interaction account (IA)
A number of CALL researchers have argued IA as an appropriate foundation for CALL research.
Chapelle (1998, 2005)
For example:
The IA construct of ‘input modification’ has been associated with actions from computer programs
such as:
- providing subtitles for listening
- definitions from electronic dictionaries
- glossaries on demand from the learner

CALL:
Typology
IA referenced as a theoretical base in CMC-based CALL such as :
- Email
- Chat
- Text-chat
- Voice-chat
- Virtual worlds and games
as a basis for learner interaction and exchange.
(Darhower 2002)

CALL:
Typology
Theory is used for teaching and CALL, used as
a guide rather than as a prescription.
According to typology presented
previously, CALL theory in practice is more
likely to be : - Ensemble (like a adaptation)
- Synthesis (are combined into a single theoretical )

CALL:
Typology
 Current trends and future
directions
To understand how CALL trends of multiple
theories is being realized, we can refer to :
CALL explores current uses of technology to
facilitate the teaching and assessment of second
languages :
Digital Games for Language Learning
Cornillie, Thorne and Desmet 2012
In other words, ‘gamification’
(Will discuss in future )

CALL:
Typology
directions
Number of other uses for computers in second
language learning and teaching:
1- Online learning
2- computer-based assessment
3- Learner training and autonomy
4- Teacher Education
5- intelligent CALL

CALL:
Typology
directions
ROBOT-ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
(RALL)
Some common characteristics in robots which
might facilitate language learning and
teaching:
Chang, J-H. Lee, P-Y. Chao, C-Y. Wang, and G-D. Chen, (2010)

CALL:
Typology
 Theoretical Framework of RALL in SLA
Applications of RALL in SLA has different beneficial aspects.
Example :
In ALM focus was on
memorizing and manipulating, substituting, transforming and applying drills
These features of ALM are in line with the RALL theoretical framework
The robots could lead students to recite vocabulary and sentences
to imitate the pronunciation, intonation
same rate of speaking of the robots

CALL:
Typology
The philosophy of CALL is:
The lessons should allow the learners to learn on their own using structured and/or unstructured
interactive lessons.
Student-Centered
CALL is a middle-aged multidisciplinary field with a lot of experiences from different parts
of the world (Warschauer, 2013)

CALL:
Typology
To conclude
 Language development and use in CALL is mediated by computational technologies. In
computer-mediated communication (Kelsey & St. Amant, 2008), learners interact with other
learners, instructors, and L1 speakers via digital artifacts; in tutorial CALL (Heift &
Schulze,2015), learners interact directly with socially, culturally, and cognitively imbued digital
artifacts.
 Scholars have long critiqued the lack of a solid theoretical foundation in much of CALL
research. They have presented different classifications of theoretical approaches, but most
coincide in presenting a basic distinction between cognitive and socially oriented approaches.

CALL:
Typology
To conclude
 Two of the more influential views are in CALL:
1-Chapelle (2001), who links the design and evaluation of CALL tasks to a set of principles derived
primarily from the research base of the interactionist perspective of second language acquisition
(SLA).
2- Bax (2003), who views “normalization” as the defining direction for the field, a state where
technology is fully integrated into language learning/teaching and ceases to be special or unusual,
much like the textbook, pen, and blackboard of the traditional classroom.

CALL:
Typology
 References
Bax, S. (2003) ‘CALL – Past, present, and future’, System, 31(1): 13–28.
Bax, S. (2011) ‘Normalization revisited: The effective use of technology in language education’, International Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching,
1(2): 1–15.
C-W. Chang, J-H. Lee, P-Y. Chao, C-Y. Wang, and G-D. Chen, "Exploring the Possibility of Using Humanoid Robots as Instructional Tools for Teaching a Second Language
in Primary School", J.Educ. Technol. Soc., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 13-24, 2010.
Chapelle, C. (1998) ‘Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA’, Language Learning & Technology, 2(1): 22–34.
Chapelle, C. (2005) ‘Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research’, in J.L. Egbert and G.M. Petrie (eds),
CALL Research Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum: 53–64.
Chapelle, C. (2009) ‘The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning’, The Modern Language Journal, 93: 741–753
Cornillie, F., Clarebout, G. and Desmet, P. (2012) ‘Between learning and playing? Exploring learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback in an immersive game for English
pragmatics’,ReCALL, 24(3): 257–278.

CALL:
Typology
 References
Cornillie, F., Thorne, S. L. and Desmet, P. (2012) ‘Digital games for language learning: From hype to insight?’ReCALL, 24(3): 243–256
Darhower, M. (2002) ‘Interactional features of synchronous CMC in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study’, CALICO Journal
Egbert, J. , Hanson-Smith, E. and Chao, C. (2007) ‘Introduction: Foundations for teaching and learning’, in J. Egbert and E. Hanson-Smith (eds), CALL Environments: Research, Practice and
Critical Issues, 2nd edn, Alexandria, VA: TESOL: 1–14.
Farr, F., & Murray, L. (Eds.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. Routledge.19(2): 249–277
Hubbard, P. (2009) ‘Developing CALL theory: A new frontier’, in M. Thomas (ed), New Frontiers in CALL: Negotiating Diversity, Japan: JALT CALL SIG: 1–6.
Hubbard, P. (2008) ‘Twenty-five years of theory in the CALICO Journal’, CALICO Journal, 25(3): 387–399.
Hubbard, P. (2012) ‘Exploring the impact of technology implementations on theories and models of language learning’, in J. Burston, D. Tsagari and F. Doa (eds), Foreign Language Instructional
Technology: Theory & Practice, Nicosia, Cyprus: University of Cyprus Press: 6–19
Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. (2006) CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Plass, J. and Jones, L. (2005) ‘Multimedia learning in second language acquisition’, in R. Mayer (ed), The
Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press: 467–488
Steinberg, E. R. (1991). Computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of theory, practice, and technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Tafazoli, D., & Gómez Parra, M. E. (2017). Robot-assisted language learning: Artificial intelligence in second language acquisition. In F. Nassiri Mofakham (Ed.), Current and future
developments in artificial intelligence (pp. 370-396). Sharjah, UAE: Bentham Science Publishers.
Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014). Balancing the oneto-one equation: Equity and access in three laptop programs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(1), 46-
62
White, C. (2005) Towards a learner-based theory of distance language learning: The concept of the learner-context interface. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley and C. White
(eds) Distance Education and Languages: Evolution and Change (pp. 5571). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters

M.cheraghi shehni CALL

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to M.cheraghi shehni CALL

Similar to M.cheraghi shehni CALL (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

M.cheraghi shehni CALL