REQUISITOS PARA LA ELABORACIÓN DE PROCESOS TÉRMICOS

Researchers (Collentine, 1998; Schulze, 1998; Egbert and Hanson Smith, 1999, 2007; Hwu, 2004; Rosa and Leow, 2004; Heift and Schulze, 2007; Rousell, 2008; Chapelle, 2009, 2009a; De La Fuente, 2012) have called for more studies that look into whether L2 acquisition theories in terms of input type are useful in CALL environment and for CALL materials design. I review some studies that have tackled this question either directly or indirectly.

Manning’s (1996) study is mainly about evaluating the merits of exploratory learning as opposed to testing explicit vs. implicit approaches in presenting input (see Chapter Two). Manning carried out her study on a group of 30 UK learners of French in secondary schools, on gender agreement rules using a specifically designed CALL program. The research mainly involved an intact language learning environment. Part of the study showed that an implicit approach to learning the gender agreement rules was inefficient. The first experiment was through traditional tests but not a CALL test

91

at this stage. Then, computer software was developed to compare the merits of implicit, explicit and exploratory teaching. The design was as follows:

1. Implicit mode: examples, exercises and revision. 2. Explicit mode: explanations, examples, and exercises 3. Exploratory mode: a choice of access to either.

To measure progress, identical pre- and post- tests were given to each learner in each of the modules and each of the three modes. L The answers were recorded manually and electronically and also a record was kept of the learners’ reactions to different features of the programme. The results showed that the exploratory mode was faster and more efficient, better in terms of rule acquisition and considered more flexible and enjoyable by learners. However, this mode created problems in navigation and decision making and was more suitable for learners with more developed learning strategies. Moreover, it did not work for the more difficult rules for any of the learners, where the explicit mode was more efficient. Manning therefore suggested training all learners to use the exploratory facilities and giving particular attention to helping learners develop more learning strategies.

Zhao (1997) investigated the interaction between speech rate and listening

comprehension and the effect of giving control to learners over their input, particularly control over audio input. One group was given control over selecting the speech rate they preferred before they listened; the other group was given control while listening by clicking on a ‘faster’ or ‘slower’ button. Zhao concluded that when given control, the participants’ listening comprehension improved.

A particularly interesting study, as it is relevant to the present study, is Schulze (1998). His study is mainly about interlanguage grammar and how grammar checking software (Textana) can help parsing an interlanguage variety. The software is a grammar checker which can be used in any writing process but is not intended to be used as a grammar teaching package. Schulze describes how the software helps to facilitate focus on form by providing a grammar checker at the post-editing stage of writing. In other words, grammar instruction is provided in meaningful communicative tasks; therefore, learners will concentrate more on the linguistic form. The research basically shows that L2 acquisition theories in terms of input type are useful when designing CALL software or using existing software.

92

Collentine (1998) outlines principles with which CALL educators can design effective input-oriented tasks targeting grammar instruction. He describes how cognitive principles can operate in a CALL environment by describing a software prototype that targeted the instruction of the Spanish subjunctive within a modified version of

VanPatten’s (1993, 1997) Input Processing/IP model. Collentine’s discussion is about how input theories inspire CALL designers and IP includes some of the features which, in his view, should be included in an input-based CALL task. This conclusion is echoed in Chapelle’s list (Table 3.2 above) and her call for more interdisplinary research. One of the main assumptions is that in input-oriented tasks requiring students to focus on the message conveyed by the language input, they will indeed engage such structures provided that items representing the target structure possess stimulus novelty. Another assumption is that highlighting a target structure is not only useful to enhance reading and listening skills but also productive skills. The aim of this is to increase the probability that learners will detect the target structure and also ensure that learners engage in meaning-form connections. A technique that is claimed by VanPatten to be effective in promoting the intake of target structures that are not redundancy-dependent is to present learners with two situations, typically in the form of illustrations or

cartoons. After studying each situation learners are provided with a sentence containing the target structure and then asked to determine the situation which the sentence

describes. For example to teach the simple past, one might give learners two cartoons of a woman playing baseball, under one cartoon is the caption ‘last week’ and under the other ‘right now’. Learners then hear or read a sentence such as ‘Mary played baseball’ and are prompted to indicate to which cartoon the sentence refers. In such a context, CALL applications are highly meaningful as they can be used to present structured- input tasks. Collentine concludes by suggesting that CALL applications can be particularly effective at facilitating the intake of grammatical structures that normally have little communicative value in input.

Collentine (1998) proposed that CALL materials designers and educators explore mind- centred theories, such as those that recognize the importance of providing learners with comprehensible input. Collentine’s study used computerized conscious-raising tasks to train and test 40 L2 learners of Spanish on indirect speech. He used user-behaviour tracking technologies to identify which aspects of the instruction contributed to improvement in the participants’ performance. His findings indicated that learners underutilised some of the instructional features provided to them. The results also

93

showed that audio events correlated highly with instructional benefit. His findings corroborate Chapelle’s (1998) call at the time that SLA theory and research might be consulted to suggest approaches to multimedia CALL design.

Hulstijn (2000) reports on four studies conducted in the Netherlands which used computers for both data collection and language training. Technology-aided tools involved word and sentence recognition tasks, response time and speed measurements, data recording using log files and online dictionaries. The main aim was to investigate the automaticity of word recognition and reading processes of participants. Hulstijn highlights the fact that the use of software (on laptops) was the obvious choice to conduct such studies. The use of log files meant that the researchers obtained a full unobtrusive observation of the participants’ behaviour. The way Hulstijn programmed the log files was invaluable in revealing what no other technique can easily reveal; that is, which, when and in which order the learners processed the lexical items.

Pellettieri’s (2000) study was on negotiation of meaning, and her results show clear instances of this through interaction in network-based synchronous communication. She found that in text chats learners tend to correct themselves and others as well, and thus, engage in form-meaning negotiations that, she argues, help them notice the forms. Pellettieri did not, however, measure noticing or its effect. Similarly, Blake (2000) has found that written synchronous online exchanges contain episodes of meaning

negotiation held to be essential for the enhancement of learners’ interlanguage.

Individual learners’ control of input through technology is a topic several researchers have taken up. Shea (2000) investigated how comprehension can be enhanced by learner control of L2 input which is offered in TELL environments. In a study on captioned interactive video and SLA, Shea found that being able to control the pace of language captions during a computer-based language activity was beneficial for those language learners classified as weaker. Fogg (2003) also discusses this, referring to it as the principle of ‘tailoring’ in educational technology. By this he means that

technology helps in providing information tailored to each learner’s individual needs, interests and personality, usage, context and other individual factors.

Similar to Collentine’s (1998) findings referred to above, Hwu (2004) concluded that to create a potentially effective input application for grammar instruction, CALL designers

94

need to consult other relevant areas in addition to considering SLA theory. One such example is Knutsson, Cerratto and Severinson (2003) who emphasize that NLP (Natural Language Processing) tools are particularly important and useful when trying to direct learners’ attention to form through an FoF approach.

Another issue raised during this decade of research is that of exposure under different task conditions. Rosa and Leow (2004) examined whether exposure to L2 data under different computerized task conditions had an impact on learners' ability to recognize and produce the target structure immediately after exposure to the input and over time. They used recognition and controlled production tasks to assess learners’ L2

development. They manipulated the degree of explicitness by combining three features: (a) a pre-task explicit grammatical information, (b) feedback concurrent with input processing, and (c) variation in the nature (i.e., implicit or explicit) of the feedback in those cases in which it was provided. The results showed advantages of processing input under explicit conditions; these advantages were more visible for production than recognition.

Heift and Schulze (2007) were more concerned with how technology can help in error recognition and analysis. They reported on the ‘German Tutor’, a programme based on intelligent parser-based systems. It prioritizes errors and provides single instances of feedback to the learner even when multiple errors occur in a task. By keeping a record of all learners’ performances, the Tutor analyses errors and develops a model that informs subsequent feedback, assessment and remediation.

A study which addressed amount of input and how learners deal with input is Rousell’s (2008). It compared the performance of listeners under three different conditions: the learner listened once, listened twice, and the learner controlled their own listening. The dependent variable was recall of idea units. The learners were able to recall more idea units when they controlled the listening section. In a later study, Rousell (2008) investigated the effects of the ability to control listening on processing. L2 learners of German had the ability to control listening input by using a computer mouse. Rousell recorded the physical movements of the mouse to measure metacognitive activity. The results showed that the ability to control information, i.e. audio input, improved all participants’ information processing.

95

De la Fuente (2012) investigated a number of the issues considered in the studies described above, namely the effects of the medium of aural input during listening tasks on noticing and type of comprehension: top-down or bottom-up. L2 learners of Spanish were exposed to focus on form listening tasks in a technology-enhanced classroom using two media of delivery of input: learner-manipulated mobile assisted language learning and instructor- manipulated language learning. Immediate post-tests were used to measure participants’ reported noticing and type of comprehension. De la Fuente operationalised noticing using think-aloud protocols. The findings of the study indicated that learners in the learner- manipulated group showed significantly higher levels of noticing, bottom-up comprehension, and top-down overall comprehension than learners in the instructor- manipulated group. At the end of the study de la Fuente recommended that instructors take a principle-oriented approach to the use of

technology where technology serves a clear pedagogical purpose and does not interfere with - but rather facilitates - learners’ attentional and language processing mechanisms.

From the above studies, it is apparent that the features of technology that are relevant to SLA research are timing, multimodality, access to help and feedback and directing attention in relation to input (Chapelle, 2009a). All the above studies highlight the potential of technology in ISLA research and stress the need for more research that investigates the applicability of existing ISLA theories and models to TELL

environments. The previous discussion mainly focused on the integration of technology in ISLA and SLA research and studies. I move now to consider the integration of ISLA models and theories in CALL/TELL practice.