Research on CALL and Distance Learning: A Briefly Annotated ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En Busca de Esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 86-104. (http://llt.msu.edu) Keywords: materials development Summary: Outlines steps needed to create effective CALL materials, based on core second language acquisition principles; evaluates one particular program in light of SLA-based criteria Goodfellow, R., Lamy, M.-N., & Jones, G. (2002). Assessing learners’ writing using lexical frequency. ReCALL, 14 (1), 133-145. Keywords: writing, vocabulary, French Summary: Finds mixed results in using lexical frequency measure to assess vocabulary; tool appears better for selfassessment but is of limited pedagogical value as currently employed Gorsuch, G. (2004). Test takers’ experiences with computer-administered listening comprehension tests: Interviewing for qualitative explorations of test validity. CALICO Journal, 21 (2), 339-371. (https://www.calico.org/p-5-CALICO Journal.html) Keywords: listening, assessment, English Summary: Uses qualitative interviews with six test-takers to examine reliability (and thus validity) of a computerized listening test Grace, C. (1998a). 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 (4), 533-544. Keywords: vocabulary, French, software Summary: Argues for use of sentence level first-language translations to aid lower proficiency learners inferences about second language vocabulary Grace, C. (1998b). Personality type, tolerance of ambiguity, and vocabulary retention in CALL. CALICO Journal, 15 (1-3), 19-45. (https://www.calico.org/p-5-CALICO Journal.html) Keywords: vocabulary, French, software Summary: Differences in personality type do not appear to influence vocabulary acquisition in a CALL program that provides first-language translations at the sentence level Grace, C. (2000). Gender differences: Vocabulary retention and access to translations for beginning language learners in CALL. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (2), 214-224. Keywords: vocabulary, French, software Summary: No gender differences found for short-term or long-term retention of vocabulary learned through sentence-level L1 glosses, nor for amount of time spent on lookup between genders Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 465-480. file://localhost/(https/::www.calico.org:p-5-CALICO Journal.html) Keywords: grammar, French, corpora Summary: Describes use of tagged learner corpora to diagnose and treat common errors Grant, L., & Ginther, A. (2000). Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 123-145. Keywords: assessment, writing, grammar, English, tagging software Summary: Tagging software found to reveal many differences between essays rated at different proficiency levels, although human coding needed to completely identify all significant differences 42
Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S.-A. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal (ALL), 32 (1), 38-44. Keywords: interactive whiteboards Summary: Explores positives and negatives of using interactive whiteboards in the language classroom Green, A., & Youngs, B. (2001). Using the Web in elementary French and German courses: Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19 (1), 89-123. (https://www.calico.org/p-5-CALICO Journal.html) Keywords: French, German, hybrid learning Summary: No significant differences observed between hybrid or conventional students over two semesters Greene, D. (2000). A design model for beginner-level computer-mediated EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (3), 239-252. Keywords: writing, English Summary: Explores how practical considerations bridged the divide between theory and practice in developing a CALL-based writing course Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative email exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 46-70. (http://llt.msu.edu) Keywords: writing, English, email Summary: Surveys students in Hong Kong about email collaboration with American teenagers; Hong Kong students report general satisfaction with project, but some frustration that it did not help them prepare for highstakes EFL testing Greenman, C. (2004). Coaching academic English through voice and text production models. ReCALL, 16 (1), 51-70. Keywords: speaking, writing, English, English for academic purposes Summary: Describes a system used to mark both spoken and written E glish-for-academic-purposes texts Grgurović, M. (2007). <strong>Research</strong> synthesis: CALL comparison studies by language skills/knowledge. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from http://tesl.engl.iastate.edu:591/comparison/synthesis.htm Keywords: database Summary: Database of comparison studies with short summaries. Grgurović, M., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Help options and multimedia listening: Students’ use of subtitles and the transcript. Language Learning & Technology, 11 (1), 45-66. (http://llt.msu.edu) Keywords: listening, English Summary: Students used subtitles significantly more than transcripts; often did not interact with help features when help features were activated on screen Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 60-81. (http://llt.msu.edu) Keywords: vocabulary, English, software Summary: Describes a software system that identifies keywords based on frequency and presents them in various conditions to learners 43
Page 1 and 2: Research on CALL a
Page 3 and 4: Abrate, J., & Bowling, T. (2000). P
Page 5 and 6: Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2002). A n
Page 7 and 8: Bangs, P. (2002). Authoring, pedago
Page 9 and 10: Bednar, A. K., & Charles, M. T. (19
Page 11 and 12: Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2005). Commun
Page 13 and 14: Böhlke, O. (2003). Adjective produ
Page 15 and 16: Britsch, S. J. (2005). But what did
Page 17 and 18: Cartes-Enriquez, N., Rodriguez, M.
Page 19 and 20: Chapelle, C. A. (2004). Technology
Page 21 and 22: Chun, D. M., & Payne, J. S. (2004).
Page 23 and 24: Corbeil, G. (2007). Using the Frenc
Page 25 and 26: Cziko, G. A., & Park, S. (2003). In
Page 27 and 28: Davies, G. (2003b). ICT and modern
Page 29 and 30: Delmonte, R. (2003). Linguistic kno
Page 31 and 32: Dooly, M. (2007). Joining forces: P
Page 33 and 34: Egbert, J., & Yang, Y.-F. D. (2004)
Page 35 and 36: Farmer, R., & Gruba, P. (2006). Tow
Page 37 and 38: Finkbeiner, C. (2001). One and all
Page 39 and 40: Fuentes, A. C. (2004). The use of c
Page 41: Gillespie, J. H., & Barr, J. D. (20
Page 45 and 46: Hager, M., Rieper, A., Schmitt, E.,
Page 47 and 48: Hardy, I. M., & Moore, J. L. (2004)
Page 49 and 50: Hemard, D., & Cushion, S. (2000). F
Page 51 and 52: Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of di
Page 53 and 54: Huifen, L., Tsuiping, C., & Dwyer,
Page 55 and 56: Jancewicz, B., & MacKenzie, M. (200
Page 57 and 58: Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002)
Page 59 and 60: Kawai, G., & Hirose, K. (2000). Tea
Page 61 and 62: Kitajima, R. (2002). Enhancing high
Page 63 and 64: Kupetz, R., & Ziegenmeyer, B. (2005
Page 65 and 66: Larson, J. W. (2000). Testing oral
Page 67 and 68: Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based ins
Page 69 and 70: Lewis, T. (2006). When teaching is
Page 71 and 72: Littlemore, J. (2001). Learner auto
Page 73 and 74: Luke, C. L., & Britten, J. S. (2007
Page 75 and 76: Martin, B. (2006). Using a tablet P
Page 77 and 78: Menzel, W., Herron, D., Moton, R.,
Page 79 and 80: Mills, N., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P
Page 81 and 82: Muniandy, A. V. A. (2002). Electron
Page 83 and 84: Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., & Strik,
Page 85 and 86: Nikolova, O. R. (2004). Effects of
Page 87 and 88: O’Hara, K., & Sellen, A. (1997).
Page 89 and 90: Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J., &
Page 91 and 92: Peterson, M. (2001). MOOs and secon
Page 93 and 94:
Potts, D. (2005). Pedagogy, purpose
Page 95 and 96:
Reinhardt, J., & Nelson, B. K. (200
Page 97 and 98:
Rogerson-Revell, P. (2005). A hybri
Page 99 and 100:
Saba, P. (2005). Critical issues in
Page 101 and 102:
Sawaki, Y. (2001). Comparability of
Page 103 and 104:
Seferoglu, G. (2005). Improving stu
Page 105 and 106:
Shaughnessy, M. (2003). CALL, comme
Page 107 and 108:
Simpson, J. (2005). Learning electr
Page 109 and 110:
Smith, B. (2005). The relationship
Page 111 and 112:
Sotillo, S. (2005). Corrective feed
Page 113 and 114:
Stevenson, M., Schoonen, R., & de G
Page 115 and 116:
Sullivan, K., & Lindgren, E. (2002)
Page 117 and 118:
Teeler, D., & Gray, P. (2000). How
Page 119 and 120:
Torlakovic, E., & Deugo, D. (2004).
Page 121 and 122:
Tsubota, Y., Dantsuji, M., & Kawaha
Page 123 and 124:
Verdugo, D. R., & Belmonte, I. A. (
Page 125 and 126:
Wade-Stein, D. & Kintsch, E. (2004)
Page 127 and 128:
Warner, C. N. (2004). It’s just a
Page 129 and 130:
Web-based Education Commission .(20
Page 131 and 132:
Winkler, B. (2001). English learner
Page 133 and 134:
Young, S., & Bloothooft, G. (Eds.).
Page 135:
Zic Fuchs, M. (2002-2003). Communic
show all

Research on CALL and Distance Learning: A Briefly Annotated ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?