Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning: Framework and Tracking Users’ data

Authors

  • Qing Ma The Hong Kong Institute of Education

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.230-243

Keywords:

Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning, tutor, tool, tracking, user actions.

Abstract

It is proposed that CAVL applications can be divided into two broad categories: lexical programs/tasks and lexical resources/aids. There are three major types of lexical resources/aids: open Google searches, electronic dictionaries and lexical concordancers; they provide learners with access to meaning and other lexical information about the unknown items encountered during the learning process. Lexical programs/tasks can be further divided into four types: incidental learning with lexical glosses, CMC lexical-based tasks, computerized vocabulary exercises, and dedicated CAVL programs. Such a distinction is made based on the prominence each gives to vocabulary learning in terms of tool/tutor, implicit/explicit learning and meaning/form focusing. Equally important is the user tracking system built into each application, as tracking data can reveal how learners actually interacted with the learning system (Fischer, 2007; 2012). A review of tracking systems used in CAVL shows that multiple technologies/means have been used in tracking user actions and further research needs to focus on the identification of the key user actions related to learning outcome. Only with a good tracking system, can CALL effectiveness be proven, useful design features be identified and the appropriate programs be selected.

Author Biography

  • Qing Ma, The Hong Kong Institute of Education
    Assistand Professor, Department of linguistics and morden  language studies

References

Abdel Latif, M. M. (2008). A state-of-the-art review of the real-time computer-aided study of the writing process. International Journal of English Studies, 8(1), 29–50.

Allum, P. (2004). Evaluation of CALL: Initial vocabulary learning. ReCALL, 16(2), 488-501.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Chapelle, C. (2005). Computer-assisted language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of second language teaching and learning (pp. 743–755). Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.

Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acqui-sition. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198.

Cobb, T. (1997). Is there measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301-315.

De la Fuente, M. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the ef-fects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47-81.

Decoo, W., Heughebaert, E., Schonenbert, N., & Van Elsen, D. (1996). The standard vo-cabulary programs of Didascalia: In search of external versatility and didactic optimisation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(4), 319-338.

De Ridder, I. (2002). Visible or invisible links: Does the highlighting of hyperlinks affect incidental vocabulary learning, text comprehension, and the reading process? Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 123-146.

Desmarais, L., Duquette, L., Renié, D., & Laurier, M. (1997). Evaluating learning and interaction in a multimedia environment. Computers and the Humanities, 31, 327-349.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring stu-dents’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409-442.

Fischer, R. (2012). Diversity in learner usage patterns. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning diversity in research and practice (pp. 14-32). Cam-bridge University Press.

Garrett, N. (1995). ICALL and second language acquisition. In V. M. Holland, J. D. Ca-plan, & M. K. Sams (Eds.), Intelligent language tutors: Theory shaping technol-ogy (pp. 345–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Garrett, N. (1998). Where do research and practice meet? Developing a discipline. Re-CALL, 10(1), 7–12.

Goodfellow, R. (1995). A review of the types of CALL programs for vocabulary instruc-tion. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 8(2-3), 205-226.

Goodfellow, R. (1999). Evaluating performance, approach and outcome. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design, and applications (pp. 109-140). Lisse: The Neth-erlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2010). From memory palaces to spacing algorithms: Approaches to second-language vocabulary learning [Emerging technologies]. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 4-11.

Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 4(1), 60-81.

Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in profes-sional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 303-318.

Hegelheimer, V., & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analyzing student interaction in an authentic classroom. System, 32, 185-205.

Hémard, D. (2004). Enhancing online CALL design: The case for evaluation. ReCALL, 16(2), 502-529.

Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interac-tive on-line database. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 90-110.

Hubbard, P. (2001). The use and abuse of meaning technologies. Contact, 27, 82-86. Re-trieved August 5, 2012, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/phil/MT.pdf.

Hulstijn, J., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental learning by advanced for-eign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 327-339.

Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. J. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Jour-nal, 86(4), 546-561.

Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 285-299.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Tech-nology, 3(2), 58-76.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Liddell, P., & Garrett, N. (2004). The new language centers and the role of technology: New mandates, new horizons. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 27–40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ma, Q. (2007). From monitoring users to controlling user actions: A new perspective on the user-centred approach to CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 297-321.

Ma, Q. (2008). Empirical CALL evaluation: The relationship between learning process and learning outcome. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 108-122.

Ma, Q. (2009). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Bern: Peter Lang.

Ma, Q., & Kelly, P. (2006). Computer assisted vocabulary learning: Design and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 15-45.

O’Rourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learn-ing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 227-251.

Pérez-Paredes, P., Sánchez-Tornel, M., Calero, A. J. M., & Jiménez, P. A. (2011). Track-ing learners’ actual uses of corpora: Guided vs. non-guided corpus consultation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 233-253.

Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Stud-ies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 365-398.

Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of the missing self-repair. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 85-103.

Smith, B. (2012). Eye-tracking as a measure of noticing: A study of explicit recasts in SCMC. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 53-81.

Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wible, D., Liu, A. L.-E., & Tsao, N.-L. (2011). A browser-based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learn-ing, 27, 530-543.

Downloads

Published

2013-06-12

How to Cite

Ma, Q. (2013). Computer Assisted Vocabulary Learning: Framework and Tracking Users’ data. CALICO Journal, 30, 230-243. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.230-243

Most read articles by the same author(s)