Challenges and Directions of Script-Based Tracking in Tutorial CALL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v30i0.246-255Keywords:
standard tracking interface, tracking, tracking taxonomy, tutorial CALLAbstract
The script-based tracking refers to using computer codes to log learners’ actions with computer-based activities. For decades, researchers have advocated using this type of data to advance CALL research. However, the amount of effort and time required to collect and analyze such data may have contributed to their limited use in tutorial CALL. This paper aims to describe the technical and methodological challenges researchers face and present corresponding solutions. The first step of the solutions includes defining a tracking taxonomy and a standard tracking interface. A model in which these two sets of information can be used by the related parties in the CALL field, including researchers, software companies, and programmers, to create solutions for existing challenges and empower non-programmer researchers to conduct research using tracking data will be discussed.
References
Arneil, S., & Holmes, M. (1999). Juggling hot potatoes: Decisions and compromises in creating authoring tools for the Web. ReCALL, 11, 12–19.
Blackboard Inc. (2012). Monitoring student activity. Retrieved from http://help.black-board.com/instructor/index.htm
CALICO, EUROCALL, & IALLT. (1999). Scholarly activities in computer-assisted lan-guage learning: Development, pedagogical innovations, and research. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/page.php?id=506
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer application in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C., & Mizuno, S. (1989). Student’s strategies with learner-controlled CALL. CALICO Journal, 7, 25–47.
Collentine, J. (2000). Insights into the construction of grammatical knowledge provided by user-behavior tracking technologies. Language Learning & Technology, 3,44–57.
Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80, 183–198.
Curtin, C., Avner, A., & Provenzano, N. (1981). Computer-based analysis of individual learning characteristics. Studies in Language Learning, 3, 201–213.
Davis, J., & Lyman-Hager, M. (1997). Computers and L2 reading: Student performance, student attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 58–72.
De Ridder, E. (2000). Are we conditioned to follow links? Highlights in CALL materials and their impact on the reading process. Computer Assisted Language Learning,13, 183–195.
Desmarais, L., Laurier, M., & Renié, D. (1998). The analysis of navigation patterns in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11, 309–315.
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.
Fischer, R. (2008). Introduction to the special issue. CALICO Journal, 25, 377–384.
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. (1987). A psycholinguistic perspective on grammar and CALL. In W. F. Smith, (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation(pp. 169–196). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Mod-ern Language Journal, 75, 74–101.
Garrett, N. (1995). ICALL and second language acquisition. In V. M. Holland, J. D. Caplan, & M. K. Sams (Eds.), Intelligent language tutors: Theory shaping technology(pp. 345–358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garrett, N. (1998). Where do research and practice meet? Developing a discipline. ReCALL, 10, 7–12.
Goodfellow, R., & Laurillard, D. (1994). Modeling learning processes in lexical call. CAL-ICO Journal, 11, 19–46.
Hwu, F. (2003). Learners’ behaviors in computer-based input activities elicited through tracking technologies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 5–29.
Hwu, F. (2007). Learners’ strategies with a grammar application: The influence of language ability and personality preferences. ReCALL, 19, 21–38.
Hwu, F. (2012a). 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
Hwu, F. (2012b, May). A review of the use of script-based tracking in grammar applica-tions for data sharing. Paper presented at the 15th International CALL Research Conference, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. (1987). Working styles on computers as evidence of second language learning strategies. Language Learning, 37, 523–544.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vo-cabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. 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, 58–76.
Liou, H. (1997). Research of on-line help as learner strategies for multimedia CALL evalu-ation. CALICO Journal, 14, 81–96.
Liou, H. (2000). Assessing learner strategies using computers: New insights and limita-tions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 65–78.
Plass, J., Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a second-language multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 25–36.
Stone, L. (2012, December 1). Continuous partial attention. Retrieved from http://lindas-tone.net/qa/continuous-partial-attention/
Thibeault, T. (2012). FLAn [Software]. Downloaded from http://www.redhotwords.com/downloads.html
Weinberg, A. (2005). Les Chansons de la francohonie web iste and its two web-usage-tracking systems in an advanced listening comprehension course. CALICO Journal, 22, 251–268.
Weinberg, A. (2007). Web tracking and students’ work patterns in language-learning activi-ties. CALICO Journal, 25, 31–47.
