The Influence of SLA Training in Curricular Design among Teachers in Preparation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.28.2.522-545Keywords:
Teacher Preparation, Second Language Acquisition Theory, Curricular DesignAbstract
This study reports on how language teachers in preparation integrate key concepts from second language acquisition (SLA) theory into CALL curricular design. The need for language teachers who have had SLA coursework to receive orientation to student-centered learning in a CALL context has been identified previously (Kessler, 2010). This research is intended to provide insight into the ways that students can more effectively design CALL environments with activities that are based on SLA-informed pedagogy. The suggestion is made that in order to successfully integrate SLA theories and CALL, not only is it beneficial for SLA principles to be incorporated into CALL courses but also for SLA theory courses to address the opportunities that CALL may offer for integrating SLA principles within the language classroom.
References
Barrette, C. M. (2001). Students’ preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal, 19, 5-35. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=449
Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 289-308). New York: McGraw Hill.
Blake, R. (2008). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bloch, J. (2008). Technologies in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chao, C. C. (2007). Theory and research: Language learning strategies. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 295-304). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chapelle, C. (1991). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on teaching and research in the age of information and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computerassisted language learning. New York: Pearson Longman.
Chapelle, C., & Liu, H. (2007). Investigating authenticity. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 111-129). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context: Situating language teacher learning in CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), CALL teacher education (pp. 167-181). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Egbert, J., & Jessup, L. M. (1996). Analytic and systemic analyses of computer-supported language learning environments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Egbert, J., Hanson-Smith, E., & Chao, C. C. (2007). Introduction: Foundations for teaching and learning. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 1-18). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Egbert, J., Paulus, T., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on language classroom technology use: A foundation for rethinking CALL teacher education? Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/pdf/egbert.pdf
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Goodfellow, R. (1999). Evaluating performance, approach and outcome in the design of CALL. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design & applications (pp. 109-140). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In M. Levy & P. Hubbard (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117-133). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hegelheimer, V., Reppert, K., Broberg, M., Daisy, B., Grgurovic, M., Middlebrooks, K., & Liu, S. (2004). Preparing the new generation of CALL researchers and practitioners: What nine months in an MA program can (or cannot) do. ReCALL, 16, 432-447.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives in CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175-188. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=683
Iwabuchi, T., & Fotos, S. (2004). Creating course-specific CD ROMs for interactive language learning. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp.149-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals, 25, 441-454.
Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 173-188. doi: 10.1080/09588220701331394
Kessler, G. (2009). Student initiated attention to form in wiki based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79-94. Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf
Kessler, G. (2010). When they talk about CALL: Discourse in a required CALL class. CALICO Journal, 27, 376-392. Retrieved from https://www.calico.org/memberBrowse.php?action=article&id=801
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23, 41-58.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2001). Incorporating ESOL learners’ feedback and usability testing into instructor-developed materials. TESOL Journal, 10(2), 15-20.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 269-282.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall.
Lam, Y., & Lawrence, G. (2002). Teacher-student role redefinition during a computer-based second language project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 295-315.
Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html
Levy, M. (2002). CALL by design: Discourse, products and processes. ReCALL, 14, 58-84. doi:10.1017/S0958344002000617
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lewis, A., & Atzert, S. (2000). Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 377-395.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindahlen, K. M., Fox, N. P., Markovic, J., Tomas, Z., & Farrelly, R. (2009). A collaborative approach to materials design. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Language Documentation and Conservation (ICLDC), USA. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10125/5089
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2009). Introduction to social networking, collaboration, and web 2.0 tools. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 1-12). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task based syllabus design. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207-227.
Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of suggestopedy. New York: Gordon & Breach.
Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks and second language acquisition. ELT Journal, 47, 203-210.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9-31.
Nunan, D. (2002). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Okan, Z. (2008). Computing laboratory classes as language learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 11, 31-48. doi:10.1007/s10984-007-9035-y
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155-177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peyton, J. K. (Ed.). (1990). Students and teachers writing together: Perspectives on journal writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Pica, T. (1987). Interlanguage adjustments as an outcome of NS-NNS negotiation interaction. Language Learning, 38, 45-73.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1, 48-72.
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.
Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 737-758.
Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-224). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81-97). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-254). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). “New” mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836.
Tiene, D., & Luft, P. (2001). Classroom dynamics in a technology-rich learning environment. Learning and Leading with Technology, 29(4), 10-13.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Louberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yildiz, S. (2007). Critical issues: Limited-technology contexts. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 145-162). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
