Developing an Intelligent Language Tutor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.3.443-459Keywords:
Intelligent Computer-assisted Language Learning (ICALL), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Parsing, German as a Second LanguageAbstract
This article discusses the development and functionalities of an intelligent computer-assisted language learning (ICALL) system. By way of example, we describe E-Tutor, an ICALL system for L2 learners of German that has been in use for a decade. Based on advancements in technology, user studies with L2 learners of German as well as feedback provided by language instructors, students, and researchers, the system has undergone several system updates since its initial implementation in 1999. This article focuses on the pedagogical benefits of ICALL systems by also providing reflections on the development of such systems that resulted from the lessons we have learned in building and maintaining E-Tutor.
References
Amaral, L. (2009, March). Automatic input processing for activities with target answers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of CALICO, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Amaral, L., & Meurers, D. (2007, June). Conceptualizing student models for ICALL. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on User Modeling, Corfu, Greece.
Bationo, B. D. (1992). The effects of three feedback forms on learning through a computer-based tutorial. CALICO Journal, 10, 45-52. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Borin, L., & Dahllöf, M. (1999). A corpus-based grammar tutor for education in language and speech technology. In EACL’99. Computer and Internet Supported Education in Language and Speech Technology. Proceedings of a Workshop Sponsored by ELSNET and the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 36-43). Bergen: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bowles, M. (2005). Effects of verbalization condition and type of feedback on L2 development in a CALL task (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Braun, S. (2005). From pedagogically relevant corpora to authentic language learning contents. ReCALL, 17, 47-64.
Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning. CALICO Journal, 23, 477-497. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Di Donato, R., Clyde, M., & Vansant, J. (2004). Deutsch, Na Klar! An Introductory German Course. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Dickinson, M., Eom, S., Kang, Y., Lee, C., & Sachs, R. (2008). A balancing act: How can intelligent computer-generated feedback be provided in learner-to-learner interactions? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 369-382.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
Granger, S. (2003). Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO Journal, 20, 465-480. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Harbusch, K., Itsova, G., Koch, U., & Kuhner, C. (2008). The Sentence Fairy: A natural-language generation system to support children. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 14.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16, 416-431.
Heift, T., & Nicholson, D. (2001). Web delivery of adaptive and interactive language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 310-325.
Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196-213.
Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in CALL. Parsers and pedagogues. New York: Routledge.
Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 1-23). London: Longman.
Meurers, D. (2009, March). How about meaning in ICALL? Paper presented at the annual meeting of CALICO, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. CALICO Journal, 14, 53-75. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28, 337-347.
Nerbonne, J. A. (2003). Computer-assisted language learning and natural language processing. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 670-698). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, M., Weinberg, A., Sarma, N. (2009). To like or not to like! Student perceptions of technological activities for learning French as a second language at five Canadian institutions. Canadian Modern language Review, 65, 869-896.
Pujolà, J.-T. (2001). Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners’ use of feedback. ReCALL, 13, 79-98.
Rosa, H. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness, type of feedback, and Spanish L2 development. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 192-216.
Schulze, M. (2008). AI in CALL—Artificially inflated or almost imminent? CALICO Journal, 25, 510–527. Retrieved from https://calico.org/page.php?id=5
