Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output

Authors

  • Karina Collentine Northern Arizona University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.46-65

Keywords:

input, SCMC, CALL features, tracking technologies, tasks

Abstract

With more integration of CALL in the language classroom, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the impact of CALL features on L2 performance. Tracking technologies provide an unobtrusive glimpse into learners’ behaviors in CALL (Fischer, 2007). Collentine (2011) employed tracking technologies to study the relationship between learners’ exploratory behaviors in a task-based 3D world and the linguistic complexity of their SCMC production. Yet, learners’ exploratory behaviors actually increased their exposure to input, and the combination of exploratory behaviors and input was hypothesized to yield more complexity in output. This study uses tracking technologies to focus explicitly on this input-output relation. A total of 60 third-year university learners of Spanish participated in CALL tasks entailing a 3D world – containing embedded tracking technologies – to discover clues about a crime; then, dyads chatted in SCMC to solve the crime. The study employed three regression analyses to study the relationship between linguistic complexity in input from the 3D world and SCMC production. The results suggest that, for learners to produce linguistic complexity while engaged in task-based CALL, learner input must contain both certain linguistic features and generous amounts of information.

Author Biography

  • Karina Collentine, Northern Arizona University
    Dr. Karina Collentine is Assistant Professor of Spanish and Secondary Spanish Education at Northern Arizona University where she coordinates the Secondary Education program for her department. Her research interests include task-based language teaching, second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and CALL.

References

Asención-Delaney, Y., & Collentine, J. (2011). A multidimensional analysis of a written L2 Spanish corpus. Applied Linguistics, 32, 299-322.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlan-guage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136.

Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41-71.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied lin-guistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2013). A corpus approach to studying structural conver-gence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. In A. Mackey and K. McDonough (Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings . New York: John Benjamins.

Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Lan-guage Learning & Technology, 15, 50-67.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

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

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University.

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

Garrett, N. (2009). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 93, 697-718.

Heift, T. (2002). Learner control and error correction in ICALL: Browsers, peekers, and adamants. CALICO Journal, 19, 295-313.

Hwu, F. (2007). Learners’ strategies with a grammar application: The influence of language ability and personality preferences. ReCALL, 19, 21-38.

Hwu, F. (2012). A review of the use of script-based tracking in CALL research for data sharing: Applications providing meaning aids. Computer Assisted Language Learning, doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.678010

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Jour-nal, 79, 457-476.

Lafford, B. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Modern Lan-guage Journal, 93, 673-696.

Lee, J. (1987). Comprehending the Spanish subjunctive: An information processing per-spective. Modern Language Journal, 71, 50-57.

Leow, R. (1995). Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 79-90.

Leow, R., Egi, T., Nuevo, A. M., & Ya-Chin, T. (2003). The roles of textual enhancement and type of linguistic item in adult L2 learners’ comprehension and intake. Ap-plied Language Learning, 13, 93-108.

Lightbown, P. (2004). Commentary: What to Teach? How to Teach? In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 65-78). Mah-wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lluna-Mateu, F. (2007). Development of spanish L2 competence in a synchronous CMC (chat room) environment: The role of visually-enhanced recasts in fostering grammatical knowledge and changes in communicative language use. (Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

Nelson, W., Bueno, K., & Huffstutler, S. (1999). If you build it, they will come. But how will they use it? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32, 270-286.

Pujolà, J. T. (2002). CALLing for help: Researching language learning strategies using help facilities in a web-based multimedia program. ReCALL, 14, 235-262.

Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring inter-actions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.

Salaberry, R. M. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediat-ed communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5-27.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38-62.

Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38-57.

Yanguas, I. (2010), Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 72-93.

Yanguas, I. (2012). Task-based oral computer-mediated communication and L2 vocabulary acquisition. CALICO Journal, 29(3), 507-531.

Downloads

Published

2013-06-12

How to Cite

Collentine, K. (2013). Using tracking technologies to study the effects of linguistic complexity in CALL input and SCMC output. CALICO Journal, 30, 46-65. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.46-65