Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:43:29.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Trends in Online Language Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2011

Robert J. Blake
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Online language learning (OLL) can take place in Web-facilitated, hybrid, or fully virtual classes. These formats are beginning to attract serious attention from the language profession and, in particular, the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). This article traces recent studies of online learning and then focuses in on its application to language learning through tutorial CALL, social computing, and games for language learning. I strive to show that tutorial CALL and computer-mediated communication can complement each other in the service of modern language instruction, along with the inclusion of language games. Although assessment studies of OLL remain sparse, the evidence is steadily mounting that shows that these new formats can provide learning environments conducive to successful second language development when properly integrated into the curriculum.

Type
SECTION A: SECOND LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 31 , March 2011 , pp. 19 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrieved from the Babson Survey Research Group Web site: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/indexGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2010a). Developing an intelligent language tutor. CALICO Journal, 27, 443–459.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online games. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

REFERENCES

Amaral, L., & Meurers, D. (2009). Little things with big effects: On the identification and interpretation of tokens for error diagnosis in iCALL. CALICO Journal, 26, 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J., & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.). (2006). Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2009). The use of technology for second language distance learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 822–835.Google Scholar
Blake, R., Wilson, N., Pardo Ballester, C., & Cetto, M. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning and Technology, 12, 114–127.Google Scholar
Brown, S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire. Open education, the long trail, and learning 2.0. Educause, 43, 17–32.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2008). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98–114.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 81–98). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 5). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 38–63.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. (2008). Commentary: Response to McQuillan and Krashen (2008). Language Learning & Technology, 12, 109–114.Google Scholar
Cohen, A., & Sykes, J. (2010). Language learner strategies and their effect on speech act performance. Applied Linguistics Forum, 30. Retrieved from http://www.tesol.org//s_tesol/article.asp?vid=142&DID=13196&sid=1&cid=695&iid=13190&nid=2857Google Scholar
Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A., & Strik, H. (2008). The effectiveness of computer-based corrective feedback for improving segmental quality in L2-Dutch. ReCALL, 20, 225–243.Google Scholar
Darhower, M. (2007). A tale of two communities: Group dynamics and community building in a Spanish-English telecollaboration. CALICO Journal, 24, 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study of the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukkink, R. G., Hulstijin, J., & Simis, A. (2005). Does training of second language word recognition skills affect reading comprehension? An experimental study. Modern Language Journal, 89, 54–75.Google Scholar
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K, & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5, 55–102.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74–101.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Goodfellow, R., & Lamy, M-N. (Eds.). (2009). Learning cultures in online education. London, UK: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
Grgurovic, M. (2007). Research synthesis: CALL comparison studies by language skills/knowledge. Retrieved from http://tesl.engl.iastate.edu:591/comparison/synthesis.htmGoogle Scholar
Hample, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 88, 166–182.Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2010b). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94, 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P., & Bradin Siskin, C. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL, 16, 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. G., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., & Salen, K. (2009). Moving learning games forward: Obstacles, opportunities & openness: An educational arcade paper. Retrieved from http://education.mit.edu/papers/MovingLearningGamesForward_EdArcade.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, A. (2008). Formats of distance learning. In Goertler, S. & Winke, P. (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (pp. 11–42). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 7). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 73, 440–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafford, B. (2004). Review of Tell Me More. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 21–34.Google Scholar
Lafford, B., Lafford, P., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre el dicho y hecho . . .: An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24, 497–529.Google Scholar
Lafford, P., & Lafford, B. (2005). CMC technologies for teaching foreign languages: What's on the horizon? CALICO Journal, 22, 679–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamy, M.-N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. (2007). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 53–72.Google Scholar
LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (2005). On the net: Vocabulary support for independent online reading. Language Learning & Technology, 9, 3–7.Google Scholar
Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Intercultural exchange and CMC. In. Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 211–236). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 5). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (Eds.). (2009). The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 8). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Meskill, C. (2009). CMC in language teacher education: Learning with and through instructional conversations. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3, 51–63.Google Scholar
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Nagata, N. (2010). Some design issues for an online Japanese textbook. CALICO Journal, 27, 460–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nation, P., & Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In Schmitt, N. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition, and pedagogy, (pp. 6–19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, J. A. (2003). Computer-assisted language learning and natural language processing. In Mitkov, R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 670–698). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O'Dowd, R. (2006). The use of videoconferencing and e-mail as mediators of intercultural student ethnography. In Belz, J. & Thorne, S. L. (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 86–119). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. (2009). Learners’ feedback in online chats: What does it reveal about students’ learning? CALICO Journal, 27, 48–68.Google Scholar
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 65, 8679–8896.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2010). Computerized games and simulations in computer-assisted language learning: A meta-analysis of research. Simulation & Gaming, 41, 72–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prensky, M. (2000). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Purushotma, R., Thorne, S. L., & Wheatley, J. (2008). 10 Key principles for designing video games for foreign language learning. Paper produced for the Open Language & Learning Games Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education Arcade. Retrieved from http://knol.google.com/k/10-key-principles-for-designing-video-games-for-foreign-language-learning#Google Scholar
Ranalli, J. (2008). Learning English with The Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 441–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranalli, J. (2009). Prospects for developing L2 students’ effective use of vocabulary learning-strategies via Web-based training.CALICO Journal, 27, 161–186.Google Scholar
Remote and online instruction at the University of California: A report from the Academic Senate Special Committee on remote and online instruction and residency. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/HP_MGYreRpt_Spec_Cte_Online_Remote_Instruction_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sanders, R. (2005). Interaction and online learning communities. In Crawford, C., Willis, D., Carlsen, R., Gibson, I., McFerrin, K., Price, J., & Weber, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, 2005 (pp. 2320–2325). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. (2006). The “imponderable bloom”: Reconsidering the role of technology in education. Innovate, 2. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=232Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2008). Strategic use of modality during synchronous CMC. CALICO Journal, 27, 101–117.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96–120.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–58.Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2009). Revealing the nature of SCMC interaction. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), (Multiple perspectives on interaction (pp. 197–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Soares, D. (2010). Second language pragmatic socialization in World of Warcraft. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119.Google Scholar
Sørensen, B. H., & Meyer, B. (2007). Serious games in language learning and teaching: A theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of the 2007 Digital Games Research Association Conference (pp. 559–566). Tokyo, Japan: Digital Games Research Association.Google Scholar
Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35, 19–29.Google Scholar
Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2004). Harnessing the power of games in education. Insight, 3, 5–33.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2004). Learning in massively multiplayer online games. In Kafai, Y. B., Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Nixon, A. S., & Herrera, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 521–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Why game (culture) studies now? Games and Culture, 1, 97–102.Google Scholar
Sydorenko, T. (2010). Modality of input and vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 50–73.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatic acquisition. In Lomika, L. & Lord, G. (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration (pp.199–234). CALICO Monograph Series (Vol. 8). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M. (2011). Multi-user virtual environments: User-driven design and implementation for language learning. In Vincenti, G. & Braman, J. (Eds.), (Teaching through multi-user virtual environments: Applying dynamic elements to the modern classroom (pp. 283–305). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2009). Learner perception and strategies for pragmatic acquisition: A glimpse into online learning materials. In Dreyer, C. (Ed.), Language and linguistics: Emerging trends (pp. 99–135). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Google Scholar
Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25, 528–546.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 38–67.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Transcultural communication in open Internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In Magnan, S. (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 305–327). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. (2007). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133–160.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Black, R., & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal, 93, 802–821.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/netp.pdfGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdfGoogle Scholar
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. M. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89, 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 48–67.Google Scholar
Yanguas, I. (2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It's about time. Language Learning & Technology, 14, 72–79.Google Scholar
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2007). The Proteus effect: The effect of transformed self-representation on behavior. Human Communication Research, 33, 271–290.Google Scholar