Contributions of Tracking User Behavior to SLA Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.256-262Keywords:
tracking data, user behavior, SLA, CALLAbstract
This commentary discusses how tracking user behavior in CALL environments can contribute to SLA research. Despite the fact that data documenting what learners actually do in CALL activities can provide valuable insights into both second language acquisition and pedagogical design, a surprisingly large proportion of CALL studies do not report on tracking data. Key benefits of collecting and analyzing such data include ascertaining precisely what learners do or do not do and determining whether there is a relationship to learning; documenting the L2 learning process; and providing guidance to learners about how best to use CALL materials for SLA. Common reasons for not incorporating such analyses are the sheer quantity of available data and the time required to process and analyze them. For the future, as it becomes easier and to some extent automatic to collect such data, the challenge will be to refine data mining tools so that meaningful information and patterns can be discerned. This information will provide a more complete picture of how L2 learning transpires.
References
Bland, S., Noblitt, J., Armington, S., & Gay, G. (1990). The naïve lexical hypothesis: Evi-dence from CALL. Modern Language Journal, 74(4), 440-450.
Chun, D. M. (2001). L2 reading on the web: Strategies for accessing information in hyper-media. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(5), 367-403.
Chun, D. M. (2011). Computer-assisted language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, Vol. 2 (pp. 663-680). New York: Routledge.
Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acqui-sition. Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 183-198.
Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitory students’ 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/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, R., & Farris, M. (1999). The Libra multimedia authoring environment and CALL multimedia courseware. CALICO Journal, 17(1), 59-82.
Glendinning, E., & Howard, R. (2003). Lotus ScreenCam as an aid to investigating student writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 31-46.
Heift, T. (2002). Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers, and adamants. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 295-313.
Heift, T. (2003). Drag or type, but don’t click: A study on the effectiveness of different CALL exercise types. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 69-87.
Hwu, F. (2003). Learners’ behavior in computer-based input activities elicited through tracking technologies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 5-29.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., and Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Smith, B. (2008). Methodological hurdles in capturing CMC data: The case of themissing self-repair. Language Learning and 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.
Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 38–67.
Thorne, S. L., & Smith, B. (2011). Second language development theories and technology-mediated language learning. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 268-277.
Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41-51). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.
