Technologies in Use for Second

Language Learning
MIKE LEVY
Griffith University
Nathan Campus
170 Kessels Road, Nathan
Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia
Email: michael.levy@griffith.edu.au

This article describes the technologies in use for second language learning, in relation to the
major language areas and skills. In order, these are grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing,
pronunciation, listening, speaking, and culture. With each language area or skill, the relevant
technologies are discussed with examples that illustrate how practitioners have employed the
technological tool to help assist the language learner. In each case, the examples are chosen to
highlight current points of focus and priorities, to give an indication of successful applications,
and, in some cases, to draw attention to areas in which further work is required before a viable
application is achieved.

IT IS INSTRUCTIVE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
of the technologies in use to compare and re-
flect upon the technologies described in Garretts
(1991) seminal article with those in use today. In-
evitably, much has changed, especially with the
introduction of multimedia, mobile technologies,
and the advent of the Internet. These technolo-
gies, in turn, have led to new forms of communi-
cation, text production, collaboration, and social
networking. At first glance, todays technological
environment appears to have changed beyond
recognition compared to that described by Gar-
rett. However, when looking a little closer, and
with language learning and teaching as the focus,
it is by no means entirely a question of difference.
For example, according to Garrett, broadly speak-
ing, language teachers still lack a major voice
in determining which technologies are chosen
for their use and technology integration remains
an issue. There are also similarities and paral-
lels today with Garretts discussion of the value
of generic applications for second language (L2)
learning in addition to special-purpose language
learning software. Garretts article also involved
The Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue, (2009)
0026-7902/09/769782 $1.50/0

C 2009 The Modern Language Journal
comparisons and contrasts between the technolo-
gies that at that time were well established and
accepted and those that were relatively new and
just beginning to be adopted and used regularly:
Such a perspective is equally relevant today (Levy
& Stockwell, 2006). These points will be taken up
in the discussion section after a review of the tech-
nologies currently in use.
Like Garrett (1991), I take a modular approach
to the language areas and skills. This is helpful,
partly because such a division is familiar to lan-
guage teaching professionals but especially be-
cause it provides an effective structure for rep-
resenting the scope and range of technologies in
use. With a more holistic approach it would be
very easy to overlook important areas of techno-
logical application to language learning. A mod-
ular approach also generally requires developers
and users to be more explicit in describing their
goals for learning and the concomitant role of
the technology leading to a beneficial focus on
language learning rather than simply language
use. At the same time, this approach also has its
limitations. By placing a technology in a category
as I have done here, by discussing podcasts un-
der listening, for example, readers may be led to
believe that this technology can only be used for
listening and not other language areas and skills,
such as culture learning. However, as long as this
770
limitation is recognized, the modular approach is
helpful.
In the discussion, each section lists the tech-
nologies in use with the skills or subskills they
target in the various language learning applica-
tions. A small number of examples are included
to exemplify the relationship between the area or
skill and the technology. Unfortunately, there is
insufficient space to include a detailed theoreti-
cal exposition and review of the research findings
in relation to each area and skill and its atten-
dant technologies. As the purpose of this article
is to focus on technologies in use, the theoretical
base and review of research findings in relation
to each language skill or area will necessarily be
limited.
THE LANGUAGE AREAS AND SKILLS
Grammar
In the early days, grammar-oriented tutorial
exercises were perceived as one of the most valu-
able applications in computer-assisted language
learning (CALL). In recent years, sentence-based,
grammar-oriented tasks created by teachers for
their own learners using commercially produced
CALL software or authoring software remain a
component of many language learning programs,
although generally they are now more firmly
embedded in a communicative context (Chan &
Kim, 2004). Grammar-focussed activities are also
common on language learning Web sites, includ-
ing pay Web sites (e.g., English Town, http://
www.englishtown.com/online/home.aspx). In
addition, there are a number of grammar tutorial
activities that involve conscious reflection on
not only form but also meaning and usage (see
Hubbard & Bradin Siskin, 2004, for a discussion).
Still, these activities tend to be rudimentary in
terms of the computer programs analysis of
learner errors and in the feedback provided. As
a result, there has been a continuing interest in
developing software that is able to generate better
informed analysis and feedback (Dodigovic, 2005;
Heift & Schulze, 2007).
Improving error analysis, diagnosis, and feed-
back has been of continuing interest in the area
of natural-language processing (NLP), parser-
based CALL, and intelligent CALL (ICALL;
Nerbonne, 2003). Here, researchers and devel-
opers are aiming at emulating some of the qual-
ities of an expert teacher, such as the ability
to assess the importance of an error or to pro-
vide more nuanced feedback (Dodigovic, 2005;
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
Heift & Schulze, 2007). Thus, for example, Heift
and Schulze described The German Tutor , which
features an Error Priority Queue that ranks
student errors and provides a single feedback mes-
sage when multiple errors occur. By keeping a
detailed record of student performance, modern
parser-based CALL systems are able to develop
sophisticated student models that shape subse-
quent studentcomputer interactions, especially
in terms of feedback, assessment, and remedia-
tion (Heift & Schulze, 2007). A wide range of
technologies is increasingly becoming involved.
For example, in relation to NLP and CALL,
Nerbonne included concordancing, text align-
ment, speech recognition and synthesis, syntac-
tic processing, and machine translation in his
discussion.
Concordancing and corpus studies are wor-
thy of special note in the recent develop-
ment of ICALL and parser-based NLP systems
(Granger, Kraif, Ponton, Antoniadis, & Zampa,
2007; Vannestal & Lindquist, 2007). Of special in-
terest is the learner corpus, an electronic collec-
tion of texts produced by L2 learners in which
learner errors are tagged and categorized into
groups. Thus, in a parser-based NLP system, when
a learner error is identified, the learner can not
only be offered feedback in the usual sense but
can also be referred to the learner corpus in
which errors of a similar kind may be reviewed
in their various contexts. Such systems are fur-
ther enhanced by the possibilities of annotation
and error categorization according to certain cri-
teria (e.g., errors from learners who share the
same first language [L1]). Thus, any feedback
may be evaluated in the light of a representa-
tive set of similar examples, giving the learner
more of a sense of the degree to which the feed-
back may be extended and applied in other situ-
ations. Granger et al. (2007) concluded that this
combination of technologies is especially benefi-
cial for raising language awareness and focus on
form.
This enrichment of the context within which
feedback is given may be further enhanced by
a multimodal concordancer and corpus, which
allow the learner to retrieve segments of video
and audio from a tagged corpus (see Ackerley
& Coccetta, 2007). Although there are many ex-
isting prospects for more sophisticated programs
for grammar learning, they do not yet appear to
have reached the wider language education mar-
ket, and it is fair to say that most grammar pro-
grams are still very basic in the ways they process
learner input, diagnose errors, and provide feed-
back.
Mike Levy
Vocabulary
Vocabulary, alongside grammar, has been one
of the traditional areas of focus in CALL (Levy,
1997). Vocabulary continues to attract attention
because of the sheer size of the task for the learner,
its obvious importance for students with varying
goals and proficiency levels, and the inherent ca-
pabilities of the computer that are more attuned
to dealing with the more discrete aspects of lan-
guage learning. Not surprisingly, the range of
technologies is broad and includes courseware
(commercial and self-developed), online activ-
ities, dictionaries, corpora and concordancing,
and computer-mediated communication (CMC)
technologies (Stockwell, 2007a).
Discrete-point activities for vocabulary learning
practice are common and have been employed
for many years. The well-known Hot Potatoes
(http://hotpot.uvic.ca/) software is a good ex-
ample, which includes six straightforward tutorial
activities for vocabulary and grammar learning.
Although the six activities are discrete and con-
ceptualised conceptualized largely around the
word and the sentence, which some teachers
may consider a limitation, there is a considerable
amount of flexibility provided within the default
formats, such as the option of including a simple
Flash audio player to play sound files so that learn-
ers may listen to new vocabulary items separately
and in context.
Much vocabulary learning software makes use
of the simple keyword hyperlink, which typically
connects the user directly to a dictionary defi-
nition, a translation, or an image. Multimedia
annotations incorporating audio and video are
increasingly common (Yeh & Wang, 2003). A
good example of a commercial program that
has this function is WordChamp (http://www.
wordchamp.com), an online vocabulary-building
tool that may be activated to apply to any selected
Web page. When the user clicks on any word,
the dictionary function provides a standard def-
inition, an audio pronunciation of the word, and
a translation into another language, as required.
The system also enables the user to build person-
alized word lists. The drawbacks of such programs
as WordChamp concern the use of word-by-word
translation rather the more accurate translation
that potentially could be provided by a more so-
phisticated parsing system. However, the program
does contain well-constructed tasks that focus on
building content vocabulary when learners exam-
ine authentic Web sites designed for native speak-
ers; as a result, the program remains a particularly
771
versatile aid to have readily available in the
background.
Beyond simple links to resources and
mechanical practice, L2 vocabulary learning
requires systematic recycling of new items at
optimal intervals, recontextualization, memory
support to promote recall, and production and
feedback opportunities. A valuable example of
a vocabulary learning site is the Lexical Tutor
(http://www.lextutor.ca/), which illustrates well
the breadth of online vocabulary applications
that have been created. In vocabulary learning,
multiple meanings of high-frequency vocabulary
need to be addressed. Technologies invoked to ad-
dress these challenges include software developed
by Nakata (2006) to provide optimal schedul-
ing of feedback and rehearsal opportunities to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of vo-
cabulary learning. Computer-based lexical activ-
ities are also being developed using carefully for-
mulated design principles drawn from insights
from current research in cognitive psychology,
psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics. A good ex-
ample is the in the work of Lafford, Lafford, and
Sykes (2007), who have proposed 10 design fea-
tures to underpin the creation of Spanish CALL
materials for lexical acquisition. Such work is
aimed at engaging learners in deep processing
and in furthering their understanding of the lay-
ers of meanings associated with lexical items in dif-
ferent contexts. With broadly similar intent, using
a depth of lexical processing scale, Loucky (2006)
described how a wide range of CALL tools could
be used to promote learners receptive and pro-
ductive vocabulary development.
To date, vocabulary learning has also been a
focus for developing applications and materials
for the mobile phone (Kennedy & Levy, 2008;
Stockwell, 2007b; Thornton & Houser, 2002).
Like the computer, the mobile phone is a mul-
tifunction device, and with recent innovations
such as the iPhone, it is to be expected that
further applications will quickly emerge to ad-
dress other areas and skills of language learn-
ing. Common features of these devices include
Internet access, voice messaging, short message
service (SMS) text messaging, photography, and
video recording. An example of recent work on
the use of CALL to acquire vocabulary is by Levy
and Kennedy, who exploited SMS messaging for
learning Italian (Kennedy & Levy, 2008; Levy &
Kennedy, 2005). From a practical point of view,
vocabulary items can be presented through short
definitions and examples that suit the screen di-
mensions and general handling capabilities of the
772
mobile phone. The particular advantage of this
technology is its ubiquity and, with a message dis-
tribution system, the capacity to plan recycling of
new terms and to prepare messages in advance
for delivery later at specific times. Thus, messages
can be distributed at the time they are required
to complement face-to-face work in class and the
curriculum.
Although these advantages are of considerable
potential value, the material constraints of the mo-
bile phone such as the screen size still currently
limit its use for language learners, as demon-
strated in a research study by Stockwell (2007b).
In this study, participants could choose to com-
plete their assigned vocabulary learning tasks via
the phone or the computer, and in the findings,
the student access log data clearly showed a pref-
erence for the computer over the phone. More
detailed analysis showed that this preference was
related to both material and contextual factors,
including screen size, ease of use, the expense of
the service (in Japan), and ambient noise while in
transit (Stockwell, 2007b, p. 378). Similar kinds of
drawbacks are also likely to be encountered with
other mobile devices such as personal digital as-
sistants, MP3 players, and digital voice recorders,
which are increasingly being tested and used in
the teaching and learning of vocabulary for En-
glish, French, Spanish, and Chinese (Born, 2007;
Chinnery, 2006). The challenge for developers, as
is so often the case in CALL, is to work effectively
within known constraints.
Reading
According to Chun (2006), the CALL technolo-
gies in use for L2 reading are:
electronic dictionaries, software that provides tex-
tual, contextual and/or multimedia annotations,
computer-based training programs that aim to accel-
erate and automatize word recognition, Web-based
activities that seek to teach a variety of components
(from text structures and discourse organization to
reading strategies) and the Internet as a source of
materials for extensive reading. (p. 69)
Broadly speaking, these technologies are applied
to assist the reader with further information or ex-
emplification or to provide practice and exposure
to extended texts.
Al-Seghayer (2007) examined the role of or-
ganizational devices in readers construction of
mental representations of hypertext content and
found that well-structured hypertext was espe-
cially important for less proficient readers. He
described organizational devices that support cog-
nitive processes and direct learners attention to
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
what is important and relevant. An alternative
approach is to create a system for evaluating texts
for vocabulary or reading difficulty or to provide
additional tools to assist the learner. Huang and
Liou (2007) described such an environment that
used new software to search a corpus of read-
ings for recurring words, with the aim of locating
passages that gave learners the best opportunities
to encounter new words repeatedly; the program
then used frequency lists to place the texts in or-
der of difficulty. Cobb (2007) used a text modifi-
cation approach and lexical tools to accomplish a
similar goal.
With electronic dictionaries, research findings
have shown that even when a variety of informa-
tion sources is made available, most students opt
for simple definitions, or translations, or both
(Laufer & Hill, 2000). Chun (2006) observed
that the pedagogical issue is then to determine
whether and how to encourage readers to use the
multimedia glosses available to them, particularly
when vocabulary acquisition is one of the con-
comitant goals of reading (p. 78). Making multi-
ple annotation types available is one thing; getting
learners to use them and to use them appropri-
ately is quite another. Sometimes excellent anno-
tations or dictionary definitions are available, but
they cannot be accessed readily and the learn-
ers do not know how to use them optimally. To
counter these potential deficiencies, usability and
learner training are crucial. Resources need to be
readily available in a way that is timely and intu-
itive for the user, and the learner needs to know
when it is most effective and useful to access these
resources. Additionally, as far as possible, the pro-
gram needs to be designed to match the individual
students preferred learning style and proficiency
level. Chun showed the importance of incorpo-
rating individual differences in a research study
that examined look-up behavior with glosses for
vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehen-
sion. For developers, this is significant because it
means that although certain technological appli-
cations (video annotations) may be effective with
some learners, this may not prove to be the case
with others (Jones, 2003; Plass, Chun, Mayer, &
Leutner, 1998).
Writing
Since the early 1980s with the spread of the
microcomputer, the word processor has undoubt-
edly become one of the most widely accepted
technologies for writing. Its central function
to facilitate the flexible manipulation of text
enables drafting and redrafting to occur easily,
and the eventual product may be presented to
Mike Levy
a professional standard (see Pennington, 2004;
Pennington & Brock, 1992).
Yet the word processor is not without its com-
plications for L2 learners, especially in relation
to the resource tools that typically accompany it,
such as spelling and grammar checkers (see Heift
& Schulze, 2007, pp. 8488, for a discussion). Typ-
ical problems occur because these commercial
applications have been designed for native, not
nonnative, speakers (NNSs) and so often do not
correctly identify and respond to L2 learner er-
rors. Consequently, one avenue of development
work has been to create specialised checkers such
as FipsOrtho, a spell checker specifically designed
for learners of French that utilises a corpus of
learner errors to obtain a sample of specific lan-
guage errors for reference (LHaire, 2007).
Another approach to developing grammatical
accuracy in L2 writing is the use of the interac-
tive iWRITE system, a multimodal, corpus-based
online grammar resource (Hegelheimer, 2006;
Hegelheimer & Fisher, 2006). Ho and Savignon
(2007) described an approach to the use of the
Track Changes function in Microsoft Word in
the context of computer-mediated peer review
via email. Such an approach provides for context-
specific feedback and illustrates well a collabora-
tive approach to writing. Collectively, these tools
variously address central problems in the devel-
opment of the writing skill, including the need
for accuracy, production, multiple drafts, chan-
nels for context-sensitive feedback and correc-
tion, peer editing, reflection, and a record of
the process. Importantly, all projects described
in this paragraph recognise the substantial limi-
tations of generic commercial products for teach-
ing and learning writing, such as the problem of
a language learner taking advice from a grammar
checker designed for native speakers when the ad-
vice given assumes the knowledge base of a native
speaker. In contrast, the projects described in this
section set out to provide custom-designed tools
with the appropriate teaching strategies to assist
the L2 learner.
A key differentiating factor among the tech-
nologies used for writing hinges on the level of for-
mality expected or required. Whereas the kinds
of academic writing discussed by Hegelheimer
(2006) are formal and require appropriate tools
to address issues of accuracy and appropriacy,
other tools are readily available for more personal,
informal kinds of writing. Web logs or blogs fit well
into this category, and there are many examples
in contemporary CALL (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008;
Fellner & Apple, 2006). A blog is a Web page with
regular diary or journal entries, using text, audio,
or video. With regard to writing, particular areas
773
of focus have been self-expression, creativity, own-
ership, and community building. For example,
Ducate and Lomicka described two blog projects
in intermediate university-level French and Ger-
man. The projects were designed such that learn-
ers moved from readers of native-speaker blogs
to writers of their own blogs. Blogs have many
strengths, especially in terms of encouraging self-
expression through informal writing, but they
do tend to require considerable monitoring and
moderation from the teacher to operate success-
fully over time in an educational setting. Differ-
ent blog programs also offer varying degrees of
functionalityfor instance, in terms of levels of
interactivity, levels of access, and visual capacity
and so it may be advantageous to review a number
of systems before finally settling on a particular
blog provider.
Beyond word processing tools, learner corpora,
and email to enable collaborative writing and
peer review, numerous other technological tools
have been employed in L2 writing. These in-
clude student-designed webpages, photo-editing,
PowerPoint presentations, weblogs, and wikis
(Murray & Hourigan, 2006, p. 149). Godwin-Jones
(2008) mentioned many more under the heading
Emerging technologiesWeb-Writing 2.0: En-
abling, documenting and assessing writing on-
line. Many of these technologies relate to the
online construction of texts (word and image)
and social networking. Although the word writ-
ing remains in the titles of these recent works, the
sense in which this skill is understood has broad-
ened, reflecting contemporary thinking in mul-
tiliteracies and the combination of the word and
the image in the creation of multimodal texts (see
Gonglewski & DuBravac, 2006, for a discussion).
It is also appropriate under writing to include
text chat, a form of synchronous CMC (SCMC).
As far as chat is concerned, until fairly recently,
most CALL projects concentrated on interac-
tions via typed text (e.g., Negretti, 1999; Tudini,
2003). Now, however, voicechat is increasingly
being employed, thus blurring the role of chat
in terms of its categorization within the writing
and speaking domains (see the later section on
speaking). The tools used to facilitate text chat
are varied, and some examples include ChatNet
IRC and the Virtual Classroom component of
BlackBoard. The choice of chat tool may de-
pend on the language of the chat sessions. Xie
(2002), for example, adopted an internet relay
chat (IRC) program called mIRC as a part of
teaching his Chinese classes, as it allowed the par-
ticipants to input and read Chinese characters,
something that was not possible in many other
IRC programs.
774
Pronunciation
In an overview of computer-aided pronun-
ciation training (CAPT) pedagogy, Pennington
(1999) assessed its potential, its limitations, and
likely directions for the future (see also Neri,
2007). The strengths of CAPT included the abil-
ity to motivate and to raise awareness of indi-
vidual difficulties using technologies that were
quick, precise, tuned to the individual learner,
and highly salient; the main limitation at that
time concerned the fact that certain aspects of
pronunciation do not show up well in the vi-
sual representations of the speech analysis such
as (simplified or modified) waveforms and so
cannot generally be trained by such represen-
tations (Pennington, 1999, p. 431). Almost a
decade later Chun (2008) noted technological
advances in acoustic phonetic software have the
potential to help learners improve their pronun-
ciation and speaking competence but that sound
pedagogically-based feedback beyond simply dis-
playing pitch curves is still lacking, yet essential
(p. 17; see also Engwall & Balter, 2007). Turning
a simple display into an effective tool for learning
is by no means straightforward, and in some ways,
CAPT software is still a matter of potential rather
than realization. Nonetheless, progress is being
made in the design of pronunciation software ei-
ther by targeting the design to a homogeneous
student group (L1 or L2) or by more nuanced
approaches to input evaluation and feedback.
Commercial ventures such as Carnegie Speech
(http://www.carnegiespeech.com/), which de-
veloped from Carnegie Mellon Universitys
SPHINX speech recognition project, also provide
good examples of the state of the art.
An excellent example of a package that pro-
vides more detailed learner feedback on pro-
nunciation was provided by Tsubota, Dantsuji,
and Kawahara (2004) for Japanese learners of
English. The software identifies the aspects of
English pronunciation with which the learners
are experiencing difficulties, specifically search-
ing for 10 areas predicted as being problematic for
Japanese learners. After identifying the areas in
which the students require more practice, the soft-
ware then automatically provides feedback and
practice in those areas in which errors were de-
tected. Aimed at a student group similar in back-
ground and goals, Shudong, Higgins, and Shima
(2005) described an Internet-based support sys-
tem that makes use of a corpus of sample data
from native speakers (see also Campbell,
McConnell, Meinardi, & Richardson, 2007). The
system identifies specific difficulties and then pro-
vides a number of interactive approaches and
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
activity types to address them. Very detailed and
precisely targeted feedback is a feature of this
system.
As with many of the more tutorial approaches to
CALL, the precise nature and timing of feedback
is critical (see Heift & Schulze, 2007). Despite
the greater technical sophistication of feedback-
providing pronunciation software packages, the
question of which type of feedback is more ef-
fective in improving student pronunciation is still
contentious (Hew & Ohki, 2004). Engwall and
Balter (2007) provided a detailed examination
of the challenges of feedback design in CAPT.
Based on data from learner and teacher inter-
views and on observations focussing on the ways
teachers give feedback in the classroom and the
errors that should be corrected, the authors cre-
ated a computer-animated pronunciation coach
that pays special attention to the particular prob-
lems that should be corrected and the way in
which the feedback should be given. The system
targets a narrower range of pronunciation diffi-
culties than is typically encountered while provid-
ing a wider range of feedback strategies to suit
individual learner preferences.
Listening
Digitized audio and video have made their way
into all aspects of educational computing. On the
Internet, streaming audio and video allow the
learner access to a vast quantity of audio mate-
rial of all kinds. Audio and video files may be
stored, managed, and distributed to provide for
easy access for learning using conventional means
plus more recent technologies such as MP3 play-
ers. Listening materials may be manually or auto-
matically downloaded to a computer or portable
media players for later study and use through sim-
ple file transfer, podcasts, and Web casts. There
are also numerous CDs, DVDs, and Web sites
available for many languages that provide listen-
ing materials. Readily available programs such
as Media Player enable the learner to examine
sound and video files in flexible ways for learn-
ing, by adjusting the speed to slow down the
stream of language or to pause and repeat key
segments.
In listening, learners initially need to distin-
guish and learn the sounds of the L2the prosody
of the language, including intonation, rhythm,
and stressto extract meaning. They need to sam-
ple and understand authentic, natural speech in
a variety of contexts to the point they can identify
patterns and predict what comes next without nec-
essarily having to hear it (Frommer, 2006). CALL
technologies for listening have been applied to
Mike Levy
address these learning goals to facilitate segmen-
tation, repetition, speed regulation, interactivity,
and links to further information (Jones, 2003;
Zhao, 1997). Specific types include advanced or-
ganizers and prelistening/viewing tools to activate
learners prior knowledge and learning strategies,
annotated information links (text, image, etc.),
and captioned video to enhance comprehensible
input (Jones, 2006). An excellent example of mul-
timedia CALL software developed to address the
listening skill specifically is described by Hulstijn
(2003). Using connectionist models of language
processing, the software is designed to help the
learner analyse the continuous speech stream in
real time and convert meaningless tiny bits of
acoustic information into meaningful units, such
as speech sounds, syllables and words (Hulstijn,
2003, p. 414). The 123LISTEN software is de-
signed for this task whereby the optimal use is
for the learner to play a listening text, fragment
by fragment, reconstruct the utterance, and then
check his/her prediction by displaying the subti-
tles (Hulstijn, 2003).
A new technology that is also gaining much in-
terest for the development of listening skills is
the podcast (McCarty, 2005; OBryan & Hegel-
heimer, 2007; Rosell-Aguilar, 2007). A podcast is
an audio/video file that can be broadcast via the
Internet with sound files that are pushed to
subscribers, often at regular intervals. A podcast-
ing blog is also an option (see McCarty, 2005),
and learners may create their own podcasts (see
Rosell-Aguilar, 2007). In current work in L2 learn-
ing, there is a particular focus on successfully
designing the structure and content of a pod-
cast suite and integrating it effectively into the
curriculum. Chan, Chen, and Dopel (2008) de-
scribed their use of podcasts in a beginner-
level German language program. Key objectives
were a fully integrated series of podcasts, prac-
tice and extension, curriculum review, increased
opportunities for exposure to listening texts,
and cultural content and further development
of learning strategies. At an average length of
13 minutes, the typical structure and content
of a podcast included a preview, musical inter-
ludes, listening and culture material, learning
strategies, and metainformation such as greet-
ings, content overviews, summaries, and links
between segments. It is the weighting and se-
quencing of subcomponents that is of special note
in this study because this profile reflects a mix
of content with pedagogy within each podcast.
The pedagogical component is aimed at learner
motivation and engagement so that the podcast
activity is not one in which the learner remains
775
passive and only has to listen to a passage. Chan
et al. also indicated that this profile changes as
learners progress through the semester: For ex-
ample, there is a shift from a lighter to a length-
ier and more demanding listening and speaking
component. In addition, the learning strategies
built into the pedagogical content of each pod-
cast become more sophisticated as the learners
gradually gain familiarity and confidence with the
approach. Also key is regular student feedback so
that the design may be refined and improved.
Speaking
Of the language areas and skills, attending
to the oral skill has perhaps attracted the most
diverse range of CALL technologies and ap-
proaches. These include applications that en-
able the computer to mediate communication
via voice, to transmit audio or video through
audio and video conferencing, or to facilitate
user participation and interaction via text chat,
voice chat, audioblogs, or voiced bulletin boards.
Learners may also send or post sound files us-
ing voiced emails or simply have a conversation
via a VoIP (Voice-over Internet Protocol) such
as Skype, which enables the computer to operate
like a telephone. This program is normally free of
charge and provides good sound quality as long
as there is a high-speed Internet connection avail-
able to link the participants. Skype remains just a
tool, however, and its value in language learning
will depend on effective pedagogies to accompany
it. An excellent example of its sustained use in
task-based language learning, with a detailed dis-
cussion of strengths and weaknesses, is described
by Mullen, Appel, and Shanklin (2009) in a 2-year,
Skype-based tandem language learning project.
Although text chat has value for writing, as dis-
cussed earlier, it is also employed to enhance oral
production (Okuyama, 2005; Payne & Whitney,
2002). Payne and his colleagues have conducted a
number of studies that demonstrate that real-time
conversational exchange via text may indirectly
develop L2 speaking ability (Payne & Ross, 2005).
In this work, Levelts (1989) model of cognitive
processing provides an important theoretical ar-
gument for bridging the gap, and explaining the
relationship, between oral and written production
(see also Payne & Whitney, 2002). Sykes (2005)
elaborated this domain further, also with refer-
ence to Levelts model, in a research study mea-
suring the effects of three types of synchronous
discussionstext chat, oral chat, and face-to-face
discussionin the context of pragmatic develop-
ment.
776
Recent options for spoken interaction online
involve various forms of audio interaction such
as audioblogs and voice email. Hsu, Wang, and
Comac (2008) used audioblogs to manage oral
assignments, to interact with learners, and to eval-
uate performance outcomes (p. 181). Oral as-
signments were recorded through mobile phones,
and the audioblog was used to submit and archive
oral assignments. The pedagogical design of this
study showed some similarities, noted by the au-
thors, with that of Volle (2005), who required stu-
dents to complete two types of voiced audio email
assignments: a read-aloud passage and a grammar
drill. The authors advocated these technologies
because of their ease of use, their general func-
tionality, and easy archiving of assignments for
evaluation.
Applications designed to enable learners to de-
velop their oral skills at a distance are also preva-
lent now that broadband technologies enable
real-time speech to be handled reliably. These in-
clude virtual learning environments (VLEs) that
employ audio and video conferencing (Hampel
& Hauck, 2004). One example is the Collabo-
rative Cyber Community (3C), a combination of
SCMC technologies that combine a shared inter-
active whiteboard and audio, video, and text chat
for developing oral skills in Mandarin Chinese
(Levy, Wang, & Chen, 2008). Typically, a lesson
in progress can have a number of technologies in
simultaneous use: For example, the tutor might
be using the whiteboard while explaining a teach-
ing point through audio/video while the students
are listening and using text chat to communi-
cate with one another about the lesson. This po-
tential for simultaneous, multimodal interaction
through parallel channels is an important area for
future research. In addition, breakout rooms of-
fer venues for further oral interaction in pairs or
small groups.
Finally, speech recognition and synthesis tech-
nologies are growing steadily in sophistication and
usability, now involving talking dictionaries and
talking texts, as well as being embedded in various
kinds of ICALL systems. More recent examples in-
clude a dialogue system called Lets Chat for social
conversations that employs recognition and text-
to-speech technologies (Stewart & File, 2007).
Chiu, Liou, and Yeh (2007) described speech in-
teractions enhanced by automatic speech recog-
nition via a conversational environment called
CandleTalk. In addition, software developments
in speech recognition and text-to-speech synthe-
sis are leading to programs that employ chat-
terbots as conversational partners for language
learners (Coniam, 2008; Handley & Hamel,
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
2005). A chatterbot (or chatbot) is a type of com-
puter program designed to simulate a conversa-
tion with one or more human users via auditory or
textual methods. Some chatbots interact only via
text, whereas more ambitious chatbot interfaces
utilise voice recognition and voice synthesis and
an avatar a virtual, animated humanas a con-
versational participant. In seeking to establish the
best computer conversationalist, Coniam system-
atically evaluated the language resources of five
chatterbots available on the Internet. Although
significant advances have been made recently with
chatbots for conversation practice, Coniam con-
cluded that reliable programs of this type are still
some way off being a reality (p. 98).
Culture
Culture may be conveyed through receptive
and productive means. Simply accessing an L2
Web site can expose learners to numerous aspects
of the target culture, and much knowledge may be
acquired through reading, listening, and observ-
ing. Here, authentic materials play an especially
important role because they are designed by na-
tive speakers for native speakers and, therefore,
provide real data for any exploration of the L2
culture. Learners may also engage with the L2
culture more productively, and there are many
technologies that may be employed with this goal
in mind. In broad terms, they include CMC and
telecollaboration, intercultural exchanges, or key-
pal projects. More specifically, they feature email,
chat, discussion forums (e.g., BlackBoard), wikis,
video conferencing, and Web-based projects of
various kinds (Abrams, 2006; Furstenberg, Levet,
English, & Maillet, 2001; Guth, Davies, & Helm,
2008). Many of the projects are theory-driven, tak-
ing their inspiration from Vygotsky, sociocultural
theory, or the notion of intercultural competence
(see Byram, 1997; Lomicka, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978).
As well as enabling contact and interaction with
native speakers, these learning environments for
culture provide students with the opportunities to
reflect on both their own culture and the culture
of the language they are learning, and the most
successful projects develop into fully functioning
online communities of practice (see Darhower,
2007).
The vast majority of intercultural collaborative
projects place special emphasis on the pedagogy
or methodology. Although this should always be
the case for all language areas and skills, perhaps
it emerges with more urgency in cross-cultural ex-
changes because of the recognized possibilities
of failed communication across cultures and the
Mike Levy
risks to which learners and teachers may be ex-
posed (see Belz, 2005; Gonglewski & DuBravac,
2006; ODowd & Ritter, 2006). Managing this risk
requires a well-conceived pedagogy and careful
selection of technologies to match purpose (see
Levy, 2007). For example, in the well-known Cul-
tura Project, the pedagogical approach is central
and one of the guiding principles is that the con-
versations on the forums are always asynchronous
to allow time for reflection and analysis (Levet &
Waryn, 2006). Specific technologies are chosen
for the affordances they provide (see Darhower,
2007). Another example is the Interculture Wiki
project hosted by the University of Padova, Italy.
A wiki is essentially a collaborative Web space. In
this case, the university hosts a series of telecollab-
oration projects for which students develop wiki
pages that focus on different aspects of culture
and intercultural competence (Guth, Davies, &
Helm, 2008). Wiki technology provides for the
easy creation and editing of pages by students col-
laboratively, and new tools such as fora or blogs
can be added incrementally as the need arises (see
also Murray & Hourigan, 2006).
Drawbacks with wikis are somewhat similar to
blogs (discussed earlier), in that there is a signifi-
cant load on the language teacher or moderator
of the wiki to ensure ordered input, development,
and feedback in ways that really benefit individual
language learners. Such roles as these for the lan-
guage teacher in technology-mediated learning
environments are often assumed, without reflec-
tion on the associated increase in workload. This
consideration is essential so that CALL activities
are not merely a one-off novelty but are sustain-
able and become fully integrated into the curricu-
lum over the long term.
Opportunities to experience another culture
are also available online in virtual worlds such as
Active Worlds (http://www.activeworlds.com/)
and Second Life (http://www.secondlife.com/).
Second Life is a richly articulated example of
a virtual world, in which avatars that represent
individual users can interact with one another in
a wide variety of situations, including dedicated
spaces for language learning (see Stevens, 2006).
Another virtual world developed specifically for
language learning has been created by Julie Sykes
(Sykes, 2009). She has developed a synthetic im-
mersive environment (SIE) named Croquelandia
(http://sites.google.com/site/croquelandia/)
for strategy development and practice in Spanish
pragmatics (see also Belz, 2007; Sykes, Oskoz, &
Thorne, 2008).
Although these virtual worlds and learning en-
vironments do provide potentially valuable spaces
777
for rehearsal, they can be very time-consuming to
learn and understand and, at a deeper level, as
Sykes, Oskoz, and Thorne (2008) pointed out,
there is the danger of learning the pragmatics
of the space and not necessarily skills of the L2
itself (p. 539). Although one might argue there
is some benefit in using the L2 to engage suc-
cessfully in the virtual world, for many students
the advantage lies in being able to transfer the
linguistic skills acquired in the virtual world to
the real one. More research is needed to inves-
tigate this issue in a rigorous way. It is also ap-
propriate to mention here multiplayer gaming,
which uses the motivation of the game to en-
gage the learner in the L2 culture. A good exam-
ple is Zon (http://enterzon.com/), an interactive
multiplayer online role-playing game for learning
Mandarin Chinese.
DISCUSSION
This review illustrates the range and number
of technologies now being applied to the key ar-
eas and skills of language learning compared to
the time when Garrett wrote her 1991 article. As
the options multiply, it is easy to become over-
whelmed by the diversity. The need to be able
to select and to match tool to task with clarity
and foresight is becoming even more demand-
ing for all users. Increasingly, language teachers
will need to know the difference between tech-
nologies in relation to their optimal use in lan-
guage learning. There are already many informa-
tive discussions in the literature, such as those that
compare the relative merits of text chat and voice
chat (Jepson, 2005; Okuyama, 2005), a podcast
and an audioblog (Hsu et al., 2008), or a blog
and wiki (Murray & Hourigan, 2006). In parallel,
learners will need to make informed choices con-
cerning the technologies they use for language
learning. In this new and evolving technology-
rich environment, teacher education and learner
training are paramount (Hubbard, 2004; Hub-
bard & Levy, 2006; Kassen, Lavine, Murphy-Judy,
& Peters, 2007).
What may be accomplished with any techno-
logical tool depends more on the users under-
standing and expertise than the inherent capa-
bilities of the technology itself (Norman, 1998).
In other words, it is the teachers or learners
understanding of what a technology can accom-
plish that is critical in practice. A good exam-
ple is provided in the word processing program
Word. Although many understand its central
role and function, for producing and manipulat-
ing text, fewer understand and use its numerous
778
component technologiessuch as Comment,
Track Changes, Bookmark, and Hyperlinkand
appreciate the ways in which these tools may be
employed for language learning. That is why the
article by Ho and Savignon (2007), discussed ear-
lier, on the use of Track Changes in the context of
computer-mediated peer review for collaborative
writing is helpful. There are similar examples with
other applications, such as knowing how to make
optimal use of the play speed settings in Media
Player, knowing how to use the language tools in
Google, or knowing how to make optimal use of
annotation tools when reading a text on the Inter-
net (Hubbard, 2004; Loucky, 2006; Robin, 2007,
respectively). It is not then necessarily a question
of learning a new technology but learning an old
technology more comprehensively or learning to
apply existing techniques and strategies in new
contexts.
That knowledge and understanding is required
at different levels also impacts the requirements
for normalization, the stage when the technology
becomes invisible, embedded in everyday prac-
tice and hence normalized (Bax, 2003, p. 23). in terms of goals, outcomes, and levels of com-
Education and training is needed if the poten-
tial of the technology . . . for integration is to
be realized (Garrett, 1991, p. 95). Again, there
are important implications for language learn-
ers. In one example, in a detailed examination
of two students, Conole (2008) found over 30 dis-
tinct technologies in use for study and contact
with friends and family. Email, MSN, Word, Black-
Board and the phone performed central roles;
then progressively a wide range of technologies
was used with decreasing frequency as the pur-
pose became more specific (e.g., an online dictio-
nary, concordance software). Conole noted that
students appear to place greater value on tech-
nologies they have discovered or selected for
themselves. Ownership, personalisation and ap-
propriation of technologies are overarching
themes that emerge from the data (p. 136).
In almost all instances, each technology had
been ascribed a fairly distinctive role by the user;
in other words, by using each technology reg-
ularly, the individual had reached a personal
understanding of that specific technologys pur-
pose and function. This understanding was not
achieved through received information or train-
ing from others but via a personal understanding
acquired gradually through repeated use. This
approach is advantageous in some respects but
problematic in others. Although it gives the in-
dividual a high level of control over the tech-
nologies in use, it does not necessarily ensure
that each technology is being used efficiently
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
or to best effect, especially in an educational
setting.
Although adept with the generic technologies
used in the wider world, Conole (2008) empha-
sized that students did encounter problems in an
educational setting, especially with the more spe-
cialized technologies in use for language learning.
This is a critical point with three important im-
plications. First, widespread acceptance and use
of new communication technologies in the world
at large does not necessarily point to effective-
ness or value in the educational domain. Effec-
tive transfer depends, to a large degree, on the
affordances of the particular technology and the
ways its strengths and limitations may be coordi-
nated and managed as a pedagogical tool. Affor-
dances here are taken to mean the opportunities
and constraints provided by a technology in a spe-
cific context for L2 learning (Gibson, 1979; Levy,
2006). Second, when learning technologies are in-
troduced to students, learner training is essential
because the default position of users is different
from that of learners. This applies most especially
mitment. Third, when technologies that students
already use for social purposes are introduced for
learning, language educators will need to be sen-
sitive to existing priorities of use and potential
disconnects between individual expectations and
educational goals for L2 learning. This is evident
in the work of Murray, Hourigan, and Jeanneau
(2008), in which they consider reorienting social
media usage from leisure activities to educational
purposes. Kennedy and Levy (2008) had similar
experiences with the introduction of the mobile
phone for learning Italian, noting considerable
variation from one participant in the project to
the next in terms of acceptance and preferences.
In the introduction to this article, we also made
note of Garretts (1991) observation that language
teachers lacked a major voice in the selection of
new technologies for language learning. In many
settings, such an observation is still accurate, es-
pecially with regard to an institutions choice over
its Learning Management System (LMS) (e.g.,
BlackBoard, Moodle). Although these systems of-
fer a suite of software tools that facilitate a range
of learning management functions and learning
activities, typically there is minimal consultation
with language teaching faculty. Moreover, there
appears to be little appreciation of the differing
subject needs across the disciplines. In a detailed
critique, Naidu (2006) identified LMSs as lacking
the tools and capability to engage learners and
teachers in the development of complex cognitive
and social skills (p. 45).
Mike Levy
Although the LMS can perform basic functions
and although customization is certainly possible,
much specialized programming work would be re-
quired to enable a typical LMS to perform many
of the functions described in this article. Addi-
tionally, although the LMS may be perceived as
a technological solution to the institution-wide
challenge of technology integration across the
campus, this solution will be considered unsat-
isfactory if it does not meet the pedagogical aspi-
rations of faculty and local needs, such as those
required in L2 teaching and learning.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps Garretts (1991) most important and
relevant observation for technology in language
learning today was made clear in her title that the
technology is there to serve language learning, not
vice versa. This sentiment was repeated at a re-
cent CALL conference, when Kohn said we need
to guard against the caravan effect, a metaphor
in which the travellers (technology enthusiasts)
stop for a while to drink from the waterhole (the
latest technology) until they have had their fill;
then they move on to the next waterhole to drink
again (Kohn & Hoffstaedter, 2008). Garretts arti-
cle was important because it provided a thought-
provoking and carefully argued examination of
the technologies in use at that time. This involved
a careful reflection on pedagogy and a close anal-
ysis of existing, well-established technologies as
well as those on the horizon.
We need to continue to reflect on pedagogy
in technology-mediated language learning envi-
ronments and assess the extended use and value
of older technologies, as well as those that are
state of the art, which can remain highly relevant
for language learning. This is one major reason
why CALL exists as a group with specialist inter-
ests with dedicated journals and conferences. An-
other is that computers, unlike the book or video,
are multipurpose, multifunctional technologies
that involve layers of complexity and application
in L2 learning that are unique among the tech-
nologies of the modern world. Although they still
pose an ongoing and substantial challenge for lan-
guage teachers and specialists in CALL, what we
are now able to say with confidence is that much
larger numbers of committed professionals are
dedicated to addressing these issues. The need for
teacher education and learner training in the area
is increasingly becoming regarded as essential. Al-
though much remains to be done, much also has
been achieved since the time Garrett wrote her
article almost 20 years ago.
779
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. I. (2006). From theory to practice: Intracul-
tural CMC in the L2 classroom. In L. Ducate & N.
Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and
research to new directions in foreign language teaching
(pp. 181210). CALICO Monograph Series Vol-
ume 5, Texas State University. San Marcos, TX:
CALICO Publications.
Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (2007). Enriching language
learning through a multimedia corpus. ReCALL
Journal , 19 (3), 351370.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2007). The role of organizational de-
vices in readers construction of mental represen-
tations of hypertext content. CALICO Journal , 24,
531559.
Bax, S. (2003). CALLpast, present and future. System,
31, 1328.
Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and
tension in Internet-mediated language learning
partnerships. Language and Intercultural Commu-
nication, 5, 339.
Belz, J. (2007). The role of computer mediation in
the instruction and development of L2 pragmatic
competence. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,
27 , 4575.
Born, C. J. (2007). LingvoSoft Dictionary English
Japanese (KanjiKana) for Palm OS. CALICO Jour-
nal , 24, 755763.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural
communicative competence. Clevedon, UK: Multilin-
gual Matters.
Campbell, D. F., McConnell, C., Meinardi, M., &
Richardson, B. (2007). The need for a speech cor-
pus. ReCALL Journal , 19 (1), 320.
Chan, W. M., Chen, I. R., & Dopel, M. (2008, August).
Learning on the move: Applying podcasting technolo-
gies to foreign language learning . Paper presented
at WorldCALL 2008, Fukuoka, Japan.
Chan, W. M., & Kim, D.-H. (2004). Towards greater
individualization and process-oriented learning
through electronic self-access: Project e-daf.
Computer Assisted Language Learning , 17 (1), 83
108.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies
Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1),
916.
Chiu, T.-S., Liou, H.-C., & Yeh, Y. (2007). A study of
Web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic
speech recognition for EFL college learning. Com-
puter Assisted Language Learning , 20, 209234.
Chun, D. M. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 read-
ing. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on
CALL: From theory and research to new directions
in foreign language teaching (pp. 6998). CALICO
Monograph Series Volume 5. Texas State Univer-
sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Chun, D. M. (2008, AugustSeptember). Integrating re-
search results into the design and development of
780
CALL materials. Practice-based and practice-oriented
CALL research: Proceedings of the 13th International
CALL Conference. Antwerp, Belgium: Linguapolis.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands
of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology,
11(3), 3864.
Coniam, D. (2008). Evaluating the language resources
of chatbots for their potential in English as a sec-
ond language. ReCALL Journal , 20(1), 98116.
Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The
ever-changing landscape of technology use for lan-
guage students. ReCALL Journal , 20(2), 124140.
Darhower, M. (2007). A tale of two communities: Group
dynamics and community building in a Spanish
English collaboration. CALICO Journal , 24, 561
590.
Dodigovic, M. (2005). Artificial intelligence in second lan-
guage learning: Raising error awareness. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the
blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers.
Computer Assisted Language Learning , 21, 928.
Engwall, O., & Balter, O. (2007). Pronunciation feed-
back from real and virtual language teachers. Com-
puter Assisted Language Learning , 20, 235262.
Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing flu-
ency and lexical complexity with blogs. JALT CALL
Journal , 2(1), 1526.
Frommer, J. (2006). Wired for sound: Teaching listen-
ing via computers and the World Wide Web. In
R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Chang-
ing language education through CALL (pp. 6794).
Oxford: Routledge.
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K.
(2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent lan-
guage of culture: The Cultura project. Language
Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55102.
Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of lan-
guage learning: Trends and issues. Modern Lan-
guage Journal , 75, 74101.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to perception.
London: Houghton-Mifflin.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies
Web-Writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting and as-
sessing writing online. Language Learning & Tech-
nology, 12(2), 713.
Gonglewski, M., & DuBravac, S. (2006). Multiliteracy:
Second language literacy in the multimedia envi-
ronment. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling
on CALL: From theory and research to new directions
in foreign language teaching (pp. 4368). CALICO
Monograph Series Volume 5. Texas State Univer-
sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Granger, S., Kraif, O., Ponton, C., Antoniadis, G., &
Zampa, V. (2007). Integrating learner corpora
and natural language processing: A crucial step
towards reconciling technological sophistication
and pedagogical effectiveness. ReCALL Journal ,
19 (3), 252268.
Guth, S., Davies, G., & Helm, F. (2008, August). The inter-
culture wiki project. Paper presented at WorldCALL
2008, Fukuoka, Japan.
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective
use of audioconferencing in distance language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1),
6682
Handley, Z., & Hamel, M-J. (2005). Establishing a
methodology for benchmarking speech synthesis
for computer-assisted language learning (CALL).
Language Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 99120.
Hegelheimer, V. (2006). Helping ESL writers through
a multimodal, corpus-based online grammar re-
source. CALICO Journal , 24, 532.
Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, writing
& technology: A sample technology-supported ap-
proach to teaching grammar and improving writ-
ing for ESL learners. CALICO Journal , 23, 257
280.
Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence
in computer-assisted language learning: Parsers and
pedagogues. New York: Routledge.
Hew, S.-H., & Ohki, M. (2004). Effect of animated
graphic annotations and immediate visual feed-
back in aiding Japanese pronunciation learning: A
comparative study. CALICO Journal , 21, 397420.
Ho, M.-C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and
computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing.
CALICO Journal , 24, 269290.
Hsu, H.-Y., Wang, S.-K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using au-
dioblogs to assist English language learning: An in-
vestigation into student perception. Computer As-
sisted Language Learning , 21, 181198.
Huang, H.-T., & Liou, H.-C. (2007). Vocabulary learning
in an automated graded reading program. Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 11(3), 6482.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use
of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New
perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms
(pp. 4568). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hubbard, P., & Bradin Siskin, C. (2004). Another look at
tutorial CALL. ReCALL Journal , 16 (2), 448461.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006) (Eds.). Teacher education
in CALL. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hulstijn, J. (2003). Connectionist models of language
processing and the training of listening skills with
the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted
Language Learning , 16 , 413425.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversationsand negotiated
interactionin text and voice chat rooms. Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 7998.
Jones, L. C. (2003). Supporting listening comprehen-
sion and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia
annotations: The students voice. CALICO Journal ,
21, 4165.
Jones, L. C. (2006). Listening comprehension in mul-
timedia environments. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold
(Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and research
to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp.
99125). CALICO Monograph Series Volume 5.
Texas State University. San Marcos, TX: CALICO
Publications.
Kassen, M. A., Lavine, R. Z., Murphy-Judy, K., &
Peters, M. (2007). (Eds.). Preparing and devel-
oping technology-proficient L2 teachers. CALICO
Mike Levy
Monograph Series Volume 6. Texas State Univer-
sity. San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Kennedy, C., & Levy, M. (2008). Litaliano al telefonio:
Using SMS to support beginners language learn-
ing. ReCALL Journal , 20(2), 141161.
Kohn, K., & Hoffstaedter, P. (2008, AugustSeptember).
Authenticated language learning with do-it-yourself
corpora. Paper presented at the 13th International
CALL Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.
Lafford, B. A., Lafford, P. A., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre
dicho y hecho . . .: An assessment of the applica-
tion of research from second language acquisition
and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL
materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal ,
24, 497530.
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
& Technology, 4(2), 5876.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to artic-
ulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2006). Using the Web to de-
velop students in-depth understanding of foreign
cultural attitudes and values. In. R. Donaldson &
M. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education
through CALL (pp. 95118). Oxford: Routledge.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning:
Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Levy, M. (2006). Effective use of CALL technologies:
Finding the right balance. In R. Donaldson &
M. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education
through CALL (pp. 118). Oxford: Routledge.
Levy, M. (2007). Culture, culture learning and new tech-
nologies: Towards a pedagogical framework. Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 11(2), 104127.
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via
mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler
(Eds.), Mobile technologies for teaching and learn-
ing (ODL series; pp. 7683). London: Kogan
Page/Taylor & Francis.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Op-
tions and issues in computer-assisted language learn-
ing . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levy, M., Wang, Y., & Chen, N. -S. (2008). Developing the
skills and techniques for online language teach-
ing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching ,
3, 1734.
LHaire, S. (2007). FipsOrtho: A spell checker for learn-
ers of French. ReCALL Journal , 19 (2), 137161.
Lomicka, L. (2006). Understanding the other: Inter-
cultural exchange and CMC. In L. Ducate & N.
Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory and
research to new directions in foreign language teaching
(pp. 211236). CALICO Monograph Series Vol-
ume 5. Texas State University. San Marcos, TX:
CALICO Publications.
Loucky, J. P. (2006). Maximizing vocabulary develop-
ment by systematically using a depth of lexical pro-
cessing taxonomy, CALL resources and effective
strategies. CALICO Journal , 23, 363399.
781
McCarty, S. (2005). Spoken Internet to go: Popular-
ization through podcasting. JALT CALL Journal ,
1(2), 6774.
Mullen, T., Appel, C., & Shanklin, T. (2009). Skype-
based tandem language learning and web 2.0. In
M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0
and second language learning (pp. 101118). Her-
shey, PA: Igi Global.
Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2006). Using micropublish-
ing to facilitate writing in the foreign language. In
L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL:
From theory and research to new directions in foreign
language teaching (pp. 149180). CALICO Mono-
graph Series Volume 5. Texas State University. San
Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Murray, L., Hourigan, T., & Jeanneau, C. (2008, August
September). The re-evaluation of MFL learners ob-
jectives in re-orienting social media usage from leisure
activities to educational purposes: Invasion or invi-
tation? Paper presented at the 13th International
CALL Conference, Antwerp, Belgium.
Naidu, S. (2006). E-learning: A guidebook of principles, pro-
cedures and practices (2nd ed.). New Delhi: Com-
monwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.
Nakata, T. (2006). Implementing optimal spaced learn-
ing for English vocabulary learning: Towards im-
provement of the Low-First Method derived from
the reactivation theory. JALT CALL Journal , 2(2),
1936.
Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A con-
versation analysis research approach. Language
Learning & Technology, 3(1), 7587.
Nerbonne, J. (2003). Computer-assisted language learn-
ing and natural language processing. In R. Mitkov
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational lin-
guistics (pp. 670698). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Neri, A. (2007). The pedagogical effectiveness of ASR-based
Computer-assisted pronunciation training . Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation. Radboud University,
Nijmegan, The Netherlands.
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer . Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
OBryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Integrating
CALL into the classroom: The role of podcast-
ing in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL
Journal , 19 (2), 162180.
ODowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and
working with failed communication in tellecol-
laborative exchanges. CALICO Journal , 23, 623
642.
Okuyama, Y. (2005). Distance language learning via
synchronous computer mediated communication
(SCMC): Eight factors affecting NSNNS chat in-
teraction. JALT CALL Journal , 1(2), 320.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC,
working memory, and L2 oral proficiency devel-
opment. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (3),
3554.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing
L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC:
782
Output, working memory, and interlanguage de-
velopment. CALICO Journal , 20, 732.
Pennington, M. (1999). Computer aided pronunciation
pedagogy: Promise, limitations, directions. Com-
puter Assisted Language Learning , 12, 427440.
Pennington, M. (2004). Electronic media in second lan-
guage writing: An overview of tools and research
findings. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New
perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms
(pp. 6992). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennington, M., & Brock, M. N. (1992). Process and
product approaches to computer-assisted compo-
sition. In M. Pennington & V. Stephens (Eds.),
Computers in applied linguistics (pp. 79109). Cleve-
don, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner,
D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learn-
ing preferences in a second language multimedia
learning environment. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 90, 2536.
Robin, R. (2007). Commentary: Learner-based listening
and technological authenticity. Language Learning
& Technology, 11(1), 109115.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2007). Top of the podsin search
of a podcasting pedagogy for language learning.
Computer Assisted Language Learning , 20, 471492.
Shudong, W., Higgins, M., & Shima, Y. (2005). Teach-
ing English pronunciation for Japanese learners
of English online. JALT CALL Journal , 1(1), 39
47.
Stevens, V. (2006). Second life in education
and language learning. TESLEJ , 10(3). Re-
trieved November 25, 2008, from http://tesl-
ej.org/ej39/int.html
Stewart, I., & File, P. (2007). Lets chat: A conversa-
tional dialogue system for second language prac-
tice. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 20, 97
116.
Stockwell, G. (2007a). A review of technology choice
for teaching language skills in areas in the CALL
literature. ReCALL Journal , 19 (2), 105120.
Stockwell, G. (2007b). Vocabulary on the move: Investi-
gating an intelligent mobile phoned-based vocab-
The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)
ulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning ,
20, 365383.
Sykes, J. (2005). Synchronous CMC and pragmatic devel-
opment: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO
Journal , 22, 399431.
Sykes, J. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining
the potential of multiuser virtual environments for
L2 pragmatic acquisition. In L. Lomika & G. Lord
(Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and
online collaboration (pp. 199234). CALICO Mono-
graph Series Volume 8. Texas State University. San
Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, syn-
thetic immersive environments, and mobile re-
sources for language education. CALICO Journal ,
25, 528546.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2002). M-learning: Learn-
ing in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), The changing face of
CALL: A Japanese perspective (pp. 229243). Lisse,
The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Tsubota, Y., Dantsuji, M., & Kawahara, T. (2004). An En-
glish pronunciation learning system for Japanese
students based on diagnosis of critical pronuncia-
tion errors. ReCALL Journal , 16 (1), 173188.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 141159.
Vannestal, M. E., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning En-
glish grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with
concordancing in a university grammar course. Re-
CALL Journal , 19 (3), 329350.
Volle, L. M. (2005). Analysing oral skills in a voice e-
mail and online interviews. Language Learning &
Technology, 9 (3), 146163.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Xie, T. (2002). Using Internet relay chat in teaching
Chinese. CALICO Journal , 19 , 513524.
Yeh, Y., & Wang, C.-W. (2003). Effects of multimedia
vocabulary annotations and learning styles on vo-
cabulary learning. CALICO Journal , 21, 131144.
Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners control of
speech rate on second language comprehension.
Applied Linguistics, 18, 4968.