183

APPENDIX A

LIST OF SKILLS FOR USING A VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (MOODLE)

(from the ict4lt.org website)

The following skills list is taken from the ict4lt.org documentation website and it is part of a larger document, available online.

The document contains “can do” lists for different applications, “selected according to their usefulness for teaching foreign languages” and topics of interest, namely: Windows; Word; Browsers; Email software; PowerPoint; Excel; Anti-virus and security software; Web authoring software; CALL authoring software; Text reconstruction software; CD-ROMs and DVDs; CD-Audio discs; DVD-Video discs; Image editing software; Audio recording and editing software; Video recording and editing software; Reference tools: electronic dictionaries and encyclopedias; Concordancers; Translation software; Virtual Learning Environments (Moodle); Interactive whiteboards (IWBs); Discussion lists, blogs, wikis, social networking; Virtual worlds: Second Life; Understanding copyright.

The document is also designed for “ICT trainers, to enable them to identify the strengths and weaknesses of teachers of foreign languages undergoing training in ICT”. This excerpt contained a can do list for Virtual Learning Environments (VLE), i.e. online teaching platforms, in particular Moodle, which is probably the most used VLE.

A piece of software is described through a series of tasks, e.g. “Power Point” > “Align text to the left, right or centre of a slide”.

Users are requested to rate their ability with a piece of software on a scale from 1 to 3; then, they are requested to tick a box to indicate whether they can or cannot perform a particular task. Notice tasks are collected in categories, which vary among the different applications.

APPENDIX A

184

I would describe my ability to use a VLE such as “Moodle” (1–3)Now indicate what you can do: tick for “yes”, leave blank for “no”. I can:Administrative functions and settingsLog into MoodleLog out of MoodleEnroll as a course studentUn-enroll from a course where I was a studentSet/change my email display settings in my profileSet/change my email digest type in my profileWrite/change my personal description in my profileAdd/change my profile picture/photoSave changes I have made to my profileForums and Online CommunicationRead a forum postReply to a forum postStart a new forum discussion/postRead and respond to a Moodle messageMove an entire discussion to a different forum (when I am a teacher in the course)Split a discussion into two parts (when I am a teacher in the course)Delete or edit accidental or inappropriate forum posts (when I am a teacher in the course)Course Authoring and Editing – the BasicsTurn the editing tools on or offSet a password (enrolment key) on my course to restrict access.Change the number of sections on my course pageAdd a Web page resource to give instructions or other material to my studentsChange how a Web page resource appears to my students (e.g. new window, same window, etc.)Add a label resource to my Moodle course to make it easier for my students to navigate around my courseAdd a link resource to an external website for my students to listen to, read or watchAdd a link resource to a file stored on my MoodleAdd a folder of resources using the Display a directory function

LIST OF SKILLS FOR USING A VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (MOODLE)

185

Add a forumEdit the settings for a resource or activity I have previously addedDelete a resource or activity I have previously addedShow or hide a resource or activity from students which I have previously added Move a resource, activity or whole topic section to a different part of the courseHide or highlight a topic sectionCourse Authoring and Editing – IntermediateAdd an activity such as chat, wiki or choiceSet up an assignment so my students can send me workEnter marks and feedback in the gradebook Change the mark scheme from the default 1–100 to a scale of my own choiceUse “groups” to filter my classes in the gradebookEmbed a movie or mp3 file in a Webpage resource using the multimedia filtersUse a text page resource to embed code from external sites like Google mapsEssential things that I understand:It is better to navigate around Moodle using the “breadcrumbs” trail at the top of the Web page than using the back and forward buttons in my Web browserWhen writing longer forum postings or information to students it is better to type into Notepad, then paste into Moodle to avoid losing work if the internet connection is lost.When setting up resources for students it is better to make them open in a new window to avoid the student accidentally losing Moodle when closing the resource with the XDeleting an uploaded resource from the course page only deletes the link. It is still available in the course files for me to reuse another timeWhere using images from the web it is better to save and upload them to my Moodle than copy and paste them straight into my course to avoid losing if the site is down.

© Graham Davies 2012 under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

187

APPENDIX B

SIX CRITERIA FOR CALL TASKS EVALUATION

(from Chapelle, 2001)

In her volume, called Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition (2001), Chapelle defines, among others,1 a punctual and technical model for the evaluation of CALL tasks, which has been very successful in this field. The model presented by the author, resumed among others by Compton for training online language teachers,2 is rather articulated, more than is sometimes reported in later literature, which sometimes is content with reducing it to the six criteria for the evaluation of linguistic tasks (see infra).

The model is proposed in the chapter dealing with CALL3 and (point 1) it takes as its starting point Skehan’s important contribution (1998), which identifies the cognitive4 conditions necessary for language learning within a context of task-based5 language education:

1. choosing a series of target-structures on the grounds of research results and, in particular, according to the principle of learning sequences;

2. choosing tasks which satisfy the usefulness condition. The usefulness condition prescribes that a given form be useful for carrying out a given task;

3. choosing the tasks and putting them into a sequence, in order to obtain a harmonic and well-balanced development among the areas of linguistic production: (a) fluency, (b) accuracy, and (c) complexity;

4. maximising the chance of focus on form. This phrase indicates the shift of attention, during a task (which, by definition, will be meaning-oriented), onto the linguistic form;6

5. increasing learner’s sense of responsibility as to reflection on forms to be used. This criterion is necessary because there is no explicit formulation of the forms to be used in task instruction.

Further on (point 2), a series of principles is defined on how to implement an evaluation of CALL tools and tasks; among these, the need to carry out a double evaluation: before (judgemental analysis), where the software is evaluated and expectancies from the task are defined, and after (empirical analysis), where an evaluation is made as to whether the task has given the expected results. Another principle is that according to which evaluation criteria should come exclusively from research on linguistic appropriation.

These are followed (point 3) by a description of the three evaluation levels: (a) software evaluation, (b) task evaluation (both these being before) and

APPENDIX B

188

(c) evaluation of task execution (after). In practice, at level number two a result is theorised on the grounds of linguistic research results, and at level three we check whether the result is the expected one.

The six criteria of the evaluation model are:

1. Language Learning Potential. This criterion indicates in what measure a task is able to foster learning, from an exquisitely interactionist viewpoint (Chapelle, 2009). The level of this potential is given by the number of opportunities, within the task, to promote focus on form as described by Skehan (ibid.)7 (see Skehan’s criteria nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4).

2. Learner fit. The task should be designed so that learners have the opportunity, according to their level and competences, to carry out the task utilising their own resources and develop their linguistic system (see Skehan’s criteria nos. 1 and 3).

3. Meaning focus. The task is meaning-oriented; that is to say, it is oriented to the usage of language to solve real problems (i.e. tasks) and, consequently, the subject’s attention is focused on meaning. When the form/meaning system goes into a crisis, that is, when there is a problem of communication due to the imperfect mastery of a form, we have focus on form, which is one of the factors that determine linguistic appropriation from an interactionist standpoint.

4. Authenticity. This criterion, partially related to the previous one, establishes that the more a task (thence the language used to carry it out) resembles real-life tasks, i.e. situations which may occur outside learning contexts, the greater the motivation and, therefore, the wish to communicate (see no. 20).

5. Positive impact. This criterion collects all the benefits of a task that are not strictly speaking linguistic, for instance metalinguistic competency (cf. Skehan’s criterion no. 5). This criterion actually refers to some aspects, such as socialisation, which, if seen within a historic-cultural perspective, are central.

6. Practicability. The last criterion indicates the level of technological difficulty to carry out a given task in a given context, for example which machinery is needed.

Chapelle’s is a framework for the evaluation of tasks, since it applies criteria that pertain to language teaching research in order to assess the effectiveness of CALL tasks. This characteristic substantially differentiates it from the model proposed by Egbert and Hanson-Smith, which defines CALL tasks from the departure point of general didactic criteria. It is a clear example of the shift in perspective illustrated by Garret: the need to evaluate CALL tasks is in fact proof of the maturity and autonomy reached in this field: technologies are no longer confined to the execution of tasks designed outside their specific ambits, but rather, they play an active and integrated role in the evaluation process.

As an example, we may consider the matching task proposed by Johns (1994), in which learners from a course of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) consulted a corpus of information using a specific programme to answer linguistic doubts which emerged during discussion – for example, which is the difference between therefore and hence?

SIX CRITERIA FOR CALL TASKS EVALUATION

189

Table B.1. Chapelle’s model applied to concordancing tasks

Descriptor Value

Language learning potential Good – task focus is on form only Learner fit Good – task language was the one used in the course

(English for Academic Purposes)Meaning focus No – focus is only on formAuthenticity No – the language is authentic, but the way it is used is

notPositive impact Positive – it develops metalinguistic reflection and

language analysis strategiesPracticability Good – it is simple to use

NOTES

1 This volume has a wide perspective and does not deal solely with CALL in a strict sense, but also with testing and research on technology-supported language intake, thence its title, often collected in the acronym CASLA.

2 On Compton’s model for online language teaching, see §7.3.2.3 As already mentioned Chapelle’s work deals with different uses of technology in language teaching:

CALL is one of these uses, another one is, for instance, language testing.4 It should be remarked that the authoress refers also to social-affective conditions, but these are

limited to the concept of Willingness to Communicate, which is important in order to stimulate communication, through which learning will occur: this perspective is quite different from the socio-cultural one.

5 On the notion of task see Richards and Rogers (2001), p. 224.6 Literature on focus on form, which is rich and articulate, presents too vast an overview to be even

fleetingly dealt with here.7 The complete list of conditions is: interaction modification, output modification, urgency of execution

(the more the hurry, the less attention to form), modalities (written or spoken; the written mode makes attention to form more likely), support (the more the linguistic helps available, the more attention will be lent to form), surprise (unexpected elements diminish attention to form), control and interests.

191

APPENDIX C

CALL APPLICATIONS

Although technology is the great protagonist of CALL, the definition of taxonomy into which to arrange the various technologies still remains an unsolved problem even though, it should be said, it is neither the most severe nor the most studied in this sector. This paragraph is not meant to offer a solution to this issue, but rather provide trainers with a tentative list of some of the most common CALL tools and their use. Here to follow, therefore, we present the types of applications which emerge from different syllabi of experts in this sector. The word “applications” here does not mean specific technologies, but, rather generically, functional nuclei, in which technology and Teacher Education are integrated. The proposed categories, therefore, have a pedagogic function; that is to say, they do not describe programmes, but topics dealt with in the CALL syllabus.

For greater completeness, each application is preceded by a brief summary describing some usage examples and samples of what could be taught.

Exercises Creation

• Usage examples: Creation of language exercises.• What to teach: Building language activities; reflecting on technical individual

features;1 reflecting on the possible linguistic uses of the various activities.

Applications for the realisation of language exercises form the basic structure of many CALL courses. Although structural exercises seem not to enjoy such a good reputation in research (but not so bad a one either…) exercise-creation programmes

Figure C.1. Matching exercises following the Lexical Approach (the exercise is taken from Lewis, 2000, p. 99)

APPENDIX C

192

present various good qualities. Firstly, they are “recognisable”; that is to say, they are part of the previous knowledge of teachers, who can appreciate them because they immediately understand their use; in other words, they may offer excellent more suitable point of departure with respect to more sophisticated or less immediate applications (for example, concordancers or Computer Mediated Communication).

Furthermore, these programmes are generally flexible because they are based on templates which may be used in different pedagogical contexts: literature on the Lexical Approach, for example, is rich in examples of “traditional” exercises (like matching exercises) from a lexical viewpoint.

Language exercises, which are at the core of many language activities (hence their central role in language education), can generally be exported and embedded into e-learning platforms or other Content Management Systems (CMS) together with multimedia and text, thus constituting an easy and immediate tool for language teachers.

Content Production

• Usage examples: Content creation, editing and management. Content consists of audio, video, images, presentations, info graphics etc.

• What to teach: programme functions; integration among different programmes; content editing;

In spite of the fact that programmes for exercises are nothing but applications for content production, the latter software applications deserve a separate analysis. In this paragraph we shall, instead, focus on the programmes for the production of multimedia content. This is a vast category including, among others, applications for image, audio or video editing, software applications for presentations etc. Such products usually converge into language tasks of which they are a part, for instance audio files for listening activities or images for text-image matching exercises.

Software applications in this category are usually more complex than those for creating exercises, and they often envisage competences that are external to the ambit of language teaching whilst, as we have seen, teachers are somehow prepared (at least from a theoretical point of view) for, say, a gap filling exercise, as they know what it is. For example Audacity, a well-known and diffused tool for audio editing, contains a great number of functions whose usage implies a certain degree of knowledge of audio processing. The same is true for many image editing programmes, which have numerous functions, for the usage of which specific and often complex competences are needed. For example, many image-editing tools contain ready-made filters to apply special effects to an image; resizing and resamplig, however, may (as occurred in the author’s experience) prove challenging, for they imply concepts such as aspect ratio, cropping, etc., which are often unknown to non-skilled technology users.

However, as concerns language pedagogy, it does not seem necessary to have functions that are too complex and we may restrict ourselves, in most cases, to

CALL APPLICATIONS

193

the basic ones, which are useful for the production of the most common language activities. The most advanced functions may be considered a preserve of professional figures other than teachers: such is the case of the CALL Specialist.2

Figure C.2. From the rough image to exercise. The original image (1) was processed through a photo-editing programme (2), and then integrated into a match exercise

(3) relating to vocabulary on a ship’s watertight compartments. The parts of the compartment were removed and substituted with a letter, which was

later used in the match exercise. (Image source: Wikimedia)3

Therefore, given the high number of products and their potential complexity, choices need to be made: it is either possible to draw an overview of the main uses and functions of different programmes (e.g. Audacity, Gimp, and Avidemux), or restrict analysis to some of them, studying them more in depth.

Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)

• Usage examples: Coursework management; content delivery; cooperative and collaborative work; testing;

• What to teach: Course management; realisation of language tasks; integration of multimedia content; realisation of language tests;

Virtual learning Environments, or e-learning platforms, constitute a very useful tool, for the simple reason that they were designed to easily and effectively manage online teaching proper, both as regards content management (and delivery) and interaction among learners and tutors. In short, e-learning platforms can manage and support a great part of coursework. Furthermore, even though today the most diffused VLE is Moodle, the very notion of VLE is rather vague and can be applied to a number of tools from institution managed e-learning platforms, to autonomously managed web log platforms (like Wordpress) through which teachers can interact with their students and deliver content.

Owing to their flexibility and wealth of usages, VLEs have been dealt with by a copious literature, to which we refer the reader for deeper knowledge. Here, we limit ourselves to recalling some facts which seem relevant as regards Teacher Education. First of all, VLEs, although in some cases they may be rather complex tools from the administrative/logistic viewpoint (as to the management of Teacher Education

APPENDIX C

194

within them), are often relatively simple (although in some cases very rich4 in functions, as with Moodle) and economical from a technical stance; that is to say, they require but little work and expense in terms of infrastructures. The second element is that platforms can support coursework in different ways and may be utilised both for complex projects, such as whole distance courses,5 and for parts of coursework, e.g. online extensions, or even language tests. Thirdly, different learning environments are based on different mechanisms; it is, therefore, necessary also in this case to develop competences that are transferable from one context to another and from one system to another, e.g. how to embed content or how do communication tools work.

Owing to their potentially low economic cost,6 to their relatively easy setting up7 and to their didactic potential, platforms are powerful tools, especially in contexts where investments in technology are lower.8

Computer Mediated Communication

• Usage examples: Online interaction (with other learners, with mother tongue speakers etc.); online tasks;9

• What to teach: How to design an online task; observing linguistic phenomena emerging from online discussions; managing online interaction; dealing with technical issues;

We have dealt with CMC above; therefore we refer the reader to the previous chapters on this subject. From the viewpoint of training for the use of these tools, it should be noted that they generally are not so much technical; for this reason training may focus on pedagogical and linguistic aspects such as social-skills management, task design and choice of communication means.10

Although simple, however, CMC tools present some technical features that require particular attention and that should not be neglected during training. Communication tools, in particular audio-video conferencing tools may undergo technical problems related to, for instance, connection speed: these issue can have negative effects on the execution of an activity. Technical problems are particularly serious in this area and may cause stress and concern, for instance if many learners are connected and are waiting to work.

Mobile Technology and Social Networks

• Usage examples: engaging learners also outside classroom/study time; increasing access to language and communication; production and sharing of content;

• What to teach: mobile applications; social networks; using social networks for language learning;

Researchers have identified in Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) a number of foci of interest, e.g. learner autonomy (Godwin-Jones, 2011) or expanding the learning time beyond school time (Stockwell, 2013). As Burston (2013) notes

CALL APPLICATIONS

195

“for as long as formal instruction has existed there has been an interest in freeing learning from the constraints of time and place” (p. 157). Also because of technical issues (e.g. screen size, input methods etc.), MALL has a quite limited use, although it is becoming a primary area of interest in CALL because of the diffusion of mobile technology and its connection with social networking tools and content sharing.

The possibility of accessing content independently of time and place is certainly appealing, but it implies knowledge of some technical issues (e.g. responsive design), while, on the other hand, teachers should know that learners access social networks mostly through mobile technology (this is why the both are treated together). In the literature there are no examples of Teacher Education for the use of mobile devices or social networks; however, considering the increasing role of such tools, it is advisable for them to be presented to teachers, so that they are informed of any extra-institutional linguistic activities learners may undertake through them.

HyperText Markup Language (HTML)

• Usage examples: Input enrichment; text captions management; embedding of multimedia items into texts (e.g. in weblog); modifying a resource’s code;

• What to teach: HTML bases; reference sources (e.g. the Barebones guide,11 which contains the whole list of tags); managing HTML code (e.g. embedding a youTube video);

HTML (HyperText Markup Language) represents one of the most controversial items in educational technology. Though very simple and often hurriedly described as a formatting language (which it is not), this language is anyhow vast, and presents complex technical aspects: here, however, we ought not to discuss its difficulty, but rather, its usefulness. In fact, as it is very simple (at least as far as its fundamentals are concerned), it is not infrequent for it to be included in educational technology courses. In spite of this, it comes naturally, on one side, to wonder whether the space devoted to it is sufficient to lead to the understanding of its most important functions at least; on the other, and most importantly, whether it is at all useful to teach it.

Generally speaking, illustrating HTML is rather simple: it is a formatting language with open and closed tags and, among these, there is one which allows links with other pages/resources, for each source has a specific address:

Figure C.3. HTML code. The <strong> tag makes the text bold, while the <a> tag is used to create links to other pages

APPENDIX C

196

The strongest criticism to teaching HTML is the often quoted one made by Bennett and Marsh (2002): “to be good online tutors it is not sufficient (…) to know which HTML code to write in order to insert an image into a page”.

This question may be interpreted through the distinction made previously, between procedure and technology: knowing the whole of HTML language is not useful for a teacher, but knowing its mechanisms and some of its individual features is, for through such procedures certain teaching techniques may be implemented. For example, let us take the case of input-based methods. By working on an LMS, there is an opportunity to insert texts through HTML language, and if the latter is well-known, they can be manipulated successfully. A classical case is that presented by Jourdenais et al. (1995), where the study related to whether English-speaking Spanish learners would notice verb forms that had been highlighted by means of typographic conventions.

Figure C.4. Input enriched through HTML language in Moodle

The HTML language also offers tools for the insertion of captions into texts12 through, for instance, the <abbr> tag, which makes it possible to associate a portion of text with an added text, which will be shown if the cursor is passed over the text.

Figure C.5. <abbr> tag to insert captions into the text. The definition is taken from http://www.larousse.fr

These two rather simple examples illustrate the potentials of HTML language for language pedagogy. What is really necessary, then, is not a deep and professional knowledge of all the different online writing languages and their developments, but

CALL APPLICATIONS

197

rather, to be able to research the possible ways to use that language for realising linguistic tasks (or a part of them). It should not be forgotten that HTML is useful for working online, for example within didactic platforms, which employ this language in their output pages.

Online Tools

• Usage examples: Contents finding; online extensions; contents creation;• What to teach: How to upload contents; how to realise contents and integrate

them, for example in a blog

A classic subject for CALL syllabi is that of online tools. Some online tools are: dictionaries, conjugators, websites containing language exercises/original contents/multimedia contents (e.g. youTube), applications for contents creation (e.g. cartoons, exercises), applications for pedagogical content management and delivery.

In general, the technical level is rather low (as generally occurs with web-based applications), but the usefulness of these tools is beyond doubt, just like their immediate usability; this is, therefore, an important subject, and one which is likely to interest teachers.

Interactive Whiteboard

• Usage examples: Interactive presentations; support to classroom activities;• What to teach: How to use the software; how to create presentations and complex

teaching activities;

The introduction of the interactive board into language classes is a very topical subject for research, and represents an important innovation at the level of technological infrastructure. Unlike the applications illustrated previously, this tool involves a rather high cost both for installing and for maintenance; the interactive board, therefore, requires an institutional effort and may not always be available, at least with the present state of things, in all contexts.

The interactive board is a composite tool made up of various equipments: a computer, a projector, an interactive screen and proprietary software, which is included in the package (Cutrim Schmid, 2006). This tool represents an expansion of the classical presentation (e.g. slides), which it allows to become, precisely, interactive: for example, by inserting videos or language tasks. In this sense, the interactive board as a tool sums up several of the applications seen previously, affording them with a new dimension: for instance, showing a video and proposing an activity to the whole class.

Considering the variety of its applications, and since these boards work with special software that can neither be chosen nor changed, the technical level is rather high. Furthermore, given the cost of such a tool, it is impossible to train for its usage

APPENDIX C

198

outside the lesson of the Technology Course and, in this case also, the activities are individual; nor is it to be excluded that the institution in charge of the courses may be lacking the necessary equipment.

Applications: A Review

The list presented here is rather generic and, above all, far less technical than other taxonomies; the reason being the already mentioned one, of a didactic perspective, so that there is no list of technologies, but rather, a list of significant nuclei of technologies which can be applied to language teaching. This choice was also determined by the fact that the most frequent syllabus is the breadth-first one,13 that is to say, those general courses which present the subject as a whole, and those proposed are some of the most common and easily accessible applications for those approaching them for the first time.

As will be seen in the following paragraphs, however, the breadth-first curriculum is only one of the possibilities; in fact, depending on the curriculum, contents and processes vary dramatically. The following paragraph, then, presents a range of possible scenarios among those hypothesized in Hubbard-Levy’s model; such variety will make quite clear the richness of potential of CALL curriculum.

NOTES

1 For instance, in the HotPotatoes match exercises, the drag & drop modality is not suitable for all screens(for the exercise may be bigger than the screen itself, thus making dragging difficult.

2 On CALL specialist, see §5.2.4 and §9.3.3; this professional knows the advanced functions of a given area because he is specialized in a given sector of linguistics: e.g., an expert in phonetics needs to know well the ways in which an audio can be modified.

3 The image was retrieved at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_floodability#/media/File:Parts_of_a_water-tight_compartment_%28Seaman%27s_Pocket-Book,_1943%29.jpg

4 Especially if they are compared with tools such as programmes for language tasks creation, which were taken as a basis and point of departure for the development of technical and procedural competencies.

5 About online Language Teacher Education, see Torsani (2009) and Lamy (2013).6 It is, in fact, possible to unload Open Source platforms and install them on free Web spaces.7 Special competencies are obviously necessary in order to install a platform and maintain) a platform.

However, many hosting or web services providers offer ready-made tools that can be used without specific technical competences.

8 See §4.3 about the weight of the political dimension on this sector.9 Tasks are seen in SLA research, especially within research on Task-based Learning, as “pivot

point[s] for stimulation of input-output practice, negotiation of meaning, and transactionally focused conversation” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001: 229).

10 See §7.3 on the competencies necessary for online language teaching.11 The guide may be found at http://werbach.com/barebones/12 On the usage of captions in computer-assisted language activities, see, among others, the interesting

experimentations carried out by yoshii (2006) and yanguas (2009).13 About approaches in CTE, see Chapter 6.

199

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. I. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 7(2), 157–167.

Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 269–307.

Akbiyik, C. (2012). A comparison of demonstration and tutorials in photo editing instruction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 298–309.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2015). Contextualized views of practices and competencies in CALL teacher education research. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 1–9.

Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2007). Virtual communities of practice in teacher education. In M. Kassen, R. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 103–132). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.

Artigal, J. M. (1992). Some considerations on why a new language is acquired by being used. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 221–240.

Aydin, Z., & yildiz, S. (2014). Using Wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language, Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160.

Aydin, Z., & yildiz, S. (2014). Using Wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language, Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160–180.

Balboni, P. E. (2011). Verità, conoscenza ed etica nell’educazione linguistica. Perugia: Guerra.Bangou, F. (2006). Intégration des Tice et apprentissage de l’enseignement: une approche systémique.

Alsic. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d’Informationet de Communication, 9.Barson, J. (1999). Dealing with double evolution: Action-based learning approaches and instrumental

technology. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer assisted language learning (pp. 11–32). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Bauer-Ramazani, C. (2006). Training CALL teachers online. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 183–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28.Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education.

International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1–15.Beach, K. (2003). Consequential transitions: A developmental view of knowledge propagation through

social organizations. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & y. Engeström (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 39–62). Bingley, UK: Earli.

Beatty, K. (2010). Teaching & researching: Computer-Assisted language learning. New york, Ny: Routledge.

Beauvois, M. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computers and the Humanities, 28(1), 177–190.

Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198–217.

Biesenbach-Lucas, S., & Weasenforth, D. (2001). E-mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 135–165.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.

Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(02), 377–395.

Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

REFERENCES

200

Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.

Botti, T. J. (2006). Envy of the world: A history of the US economy & big business. New york, Ny: Algora Publishing.

Bowerman, C., Eriksson, A., Huckvale, M., Rosner, M., Tatham, M., & Wolters, M. (1999). Tutorial design for web-based teaching and learning. MATISSE-ESCA/SOCRATES Workshop on Method and Tool Innovations for Speech Science Education, London, UK.

Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-aided translation technology: A practical introduction. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (2007). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Brücher, K. H. (1993). On the performance and efficiency of authoring programs in CALL. CALICO Journal, 11(2), 5–20.

Burns, A., & Richards, J. C. (2009). The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning: A selected annotated bibliography of implementation studies 1994–2012. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 157–224.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34(4), 465–479.Chang, M. M. (2010). Effects of self-monitoring on web-based language learner’s performance and

motivation. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 298–310.Chao, C. C. (2015). Rethinking transfer: Learning from CALL teacher education as consequential

transition. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 102–118.Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.

Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New york, Ny: Cambridge

University Press.Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age

of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Chapelle, C. (2006). Foreword. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL

(pp. vii–viii). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted

language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 741–753.Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for using CALL. White Plains, Ny: Pearson Education.Chen, I. J., & Chang, C. C. (2011). Content presentation modes in mobile language listening tasks:

English proficiency as a moderator. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 451–470.Chen, W. C., Shih, y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z. (2015). Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-

institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 285–305.Chwo, G. S. M. (2015). Empowering EIL learning with a Web 2.0 resource: An initial finding from the

cross campus Storybird feedback study. Computers & Education, 84, 1–7.Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 345–360.Colpaert, J. (2006). Pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning. CALICO Journal,

23(3), 477–497.Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles,

and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.Corbel, C., & Gruba, P. (2004). Teaching computer literacy. Sydney, NSW: National Centre for English

Language Teaching and Research.Council of Europe (Language Policy Unit, Strasbourg). (2001). Common European framework of

reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

201

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47–62.

Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010). Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2), 159–172.

Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249–277.

Davies, G. (2012). ICT “can do” lists for teachers of foreign languages. In G. Davies (Ed.), Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT). Slough: Thames Valley University [Online]. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/ICT_Can_Do_Lists.doc

Davies, G., & Higgins, J. (1985). Using computers in language learning: A teacher’s guide. London: CILT.

Davies, G., Walker, R., Rendall, H., & Hewer, S. (2012). Introduction to Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Module 1.4. In G. Davies (Ed.), Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT). Slough: Thames Valley University [Online]. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-4.htm

Davies, G., Otto, S., & Rüschoff, B. (2013). Historical perspectives on CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 19–39). London: Bloomsbury.

Debski, R. (2000). Exploring the re-creation of a CALL innovation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4–5), 307–332.

Debski, R. (2006). Theory and practice in teaching project-oriented CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 99–115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Dekhinet, R., Topping, K., Duran, D., & Blanch, S. (2008). Let me learn with my peers online!: Foreign language learning through reciprocal peer tutoring. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(3), 2.

Delcloque, P. (2000). The history of Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Web exhibition [Online]. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdf

Desjardins, F., & Peters, M. (2007). Single-course approach versus a program approach to develop technological competencies in preservice language teachers. In M. A. Kasse, R. Z. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 3–21, CALICO Monograph Series Volume 6). Texas State University, San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Desjardins, F. J., Lacasse, R., & Bélair, L. (2001). Toward a definition of four orders of competency for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. In Computers and advanced technology in education: Proceedings of the Fourth IASTED International Conference (pp. 213–217). Calgary: ACTA Press.

Dettori G., & Torsani S. (2014). yahoo! Answers as a space for informal language learning. Social Sciences, 3, 841–853.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language students’ pronunciation? Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 66.

Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New york, Ny: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Egbert, J. (1999). Classroom practice: Creating interactive CALL activities. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-

Smith (Eds.), CALL environments. Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 27–40). Alexandria: TESOL.

Egbert, J. (2006). Learning in context. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 167–181). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Egbert, J., Chao, C. C., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced language learning environments. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments. Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 1–17). Alexandria: TESOL.

REFERENCES

202

Egbert, J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, y. (2002). The impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108–126.

Egbert, J. L., & Petrie, G. M. (Eds.). (2005). CALL research perspectives. New york, Ny: Routledge.Ellis, R. (1986). Activities and procedures for teacher training. ELT Journal, 40(2), 91–99.Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Engeström, y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental

research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Engeström, y. (1999). Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowledge creation in

practice. In y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 377–406). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368–387.

Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85–100.

Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understanding of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5), 485–497.

Fuchs, C. (2006). Exploring German preservice teachers’ electronic and professional literacy skills. ReCALL, 18(2), 174–192.

Galloway, J. P. (1997). How teachers use and learn to use computers. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 1997, 857–859.

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 74–101.

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 719–740.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies, blogs, and wikis: Environments for online collaboration.

Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12–16.Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies: Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and

assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 7–13.Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies autonomous language learning. Language Learning &

Technology, 15(3), 4.Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Emerging technologies: Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning

& Technology, 15(2), 2–11.Graves, K. (2009). The curriculum of second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards

(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 115–124). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Grgurović, M. (2013). Blended learning in an ESL class: A case study. CALICO Journal, 29(1), 100–117.Gruba, P. (2004). Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),

Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 623–648). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through

reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(02), 166–185.Guichon, N. (2012). Versl’intégration des TIC dansl’enseignement des langues. Paris: Didier.Guichon, N., & Hauck, M. (2011). Editorial: Teacher education research in CALL and CMC: More in

demand than ever. ReCALL, 23(03), 187–199.Haines, K. J. (2015). Learning to identify and actualize affordances in a new tool. Language Learning &

Technology, 19(1), 165–180.Hampel, R. (2003). Theoretical perspectives and new practices in audio-graphic conferencing for

language learning. ReCALL, 15(01), 21–36.

REFERENCES

203

Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 66–82.

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326.

Hanson-Smith, E. (2006). Communities of practice for pre-and in-service teacher education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hardisty, D., & Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social networking sites and language

learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 109–124.Hatasa, K. (1999). Technological literacy for foreign language instructors. In R. Debski & M. Levy

(Eds.), World CALL: Global perspectives on computer assisted language learning (pp. 339–353). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hauck, M., & Stickler, U. (2006). What does it take to teach online? CALICO Journal, 23(3), 463.Healey, D. (1999). Classroom practice: Communicative skill-building tasks in CALL environments.

In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 116–136). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Hegelheimer, V. (2006). When the technology course is required. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 117–133). Amsterdam: 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(02), 432–447.

Heift, T. (2010). Developing an intelligent language tutor. CALICO Journal, 27(3), 443–459.Herranz, S., Díez, D., Díaz, P., & Hiltz, S. R. (2012). Classifying communities for design. In From

research to practice in the design of cooperative systems: Results and open challenges (pp. 97–110). London: Springer.

Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (Vol. 39). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Using situated learning and multimedia to investigate higher-order thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(4), 401–422.

Hertz, R. (1988). Computers in the language classroom. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.Hirschel, R., & Fritz, E. (2013). Learning vocabulary: CALL program versus vocabulary notebook.

System, 41(3), 639–653.Hong, K. H. (2010). CALL teacher education as an impetus for L2 teachers in integrating technology.

ReCALL, 22(1), 53–69.Hubbard, P. (1988). An integrated framework for CALL courseware evaluation. CALICO Journal, 6(2),

51–72.Hubbard, P. (1992). A methodological framework for CALL courseware development. In

M. C. Pennington & V. Stevens (Eds.), Computers in applied linguistics: An international perspective (pp. 39–65). Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Hubbard, P. (1996). Elements of CALL methodology: Development, evaluation, and implementation. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 15–32). Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Hubbard, P. (2008). CALL and the future of language teacher education. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 175–188.

Hubbard, P. (2009). A general introduction to computer assisted language learning. In P. Hubbard (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning (Vol. I–IV). New york, Ny: Routledge.

Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 3–20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ide, N. M. (1987). Computers and the humanities courses: Philosophical bases and approach. Computers and the Humanities, 21(4), 209–215.

Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79–98.

Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. Language and Computers, 42(1), 107–117.

REFERENCES

204

Johnson, E. M. (2002). The role of computer-supported discussion for language teacher education: What do the students say? CALICO Journal, 59–79.

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New york, Ny: Routledge.

Jones, C., & Fortescue, S. (1987). Using computers in the language classroom. Harlow: Longman.Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the teacher’s role in promoting learner autonomy. CALL-EJ Online, 3(1).Jourdenais, R. (2009). Language teacher education. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook

of language teaching (pp. 647–658). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Keirns, J. (1992). Does computer coursework transfer into teaching practice? A follow up study of

teachers in a computer course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 8(4), 29–34.Kennedy, M. (1999). Ed schools and the problem of knowledge. In J. D. Raths & A. C. McAninch (Eds.),

Advances in teacher education: What counts as knowledge in teacher education (Vol. 5, pp. 29–45). Stamford, CT: Ablex publishing Corp.

Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260.

Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 32–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173–188.

Kessler, G. (2010). When they talk about CALL: Discourse in a required CALL Class? CALICO Journal, 27(2), 376–392.

Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269–282.

Kim, H. K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 241–259.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2008). Asynchronous forums in EAP: Assessment issues. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 49–70.

Kötter, M. (2003). Negotiation of meaning and code switching in online tandems. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 145–172.

Kozlova, I., & Priven, D. (2015). ESL teacher training in 3D virtual worlds. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 83–101.

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179–211.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(02), 157–165.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to advancements in

technology for teaching and learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 247–254.Lafford, B. A., Lafford, P. A., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre dicho y hecho…: An assessment of the application

of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 427–529.

Lai, C., & Zhao, y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102–120.

Lam, y. (2000). Technophilia v. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 389–420.

Lamy, M. N. (2013). Distance CALL online. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 141–158). London: Bloomsbury.

Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). ‘Reflective Conversation’ in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43–61.

Lamy, M. N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

205

Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(02), 232–244.

Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(02), 212–227.

Lee, L. (2011). Blogging: Promoting learner autonomy and intercultural competence through study abroad. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 87–109.

Levy, M. (1996). A rationale for teacher education and CALL: The holistic view and its implications. Computers and the Humanities, 30(4), 293–302.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 769–782.

Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL “CALL”? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143–149.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. New york, Ny: Routledge.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.Lewis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach. Hove:

Language Teaching Publications.Lewis, A., & Atzert, S. (2000). Dealing with computer-related anxiety in the project-oriented CALL

classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4–5), 377–395.Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2

writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135–156.Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and

SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120–147.Liu, M. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge and competencies:

In-service program perspectives. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 119–138.Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie

& T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in second language acquisition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(01), 35–54.Margenot, F. (2000). L’intégration des TIC dans une perspective systémique. Langues Modernes, 94(3),

38–45.McCarthy, B. (1996). Fully integrated CALL: Mission accomplished. ReCALL, 8(02), 17–34.McCarthy, B. (1999). Integration: The sine qua non of CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 1(2), 1–12.McMeniman, M., & Evans, R. (1998). CALL through the eyes of teachers and learners of Asian languages:

Panacea or business as usual? On-CALL Online, 12(1).McNeil, L. (2013). Exploring the relationship between situated activity and CALL learning in teacher

education. ReCALL, 25(2), 215–232.Mercurio, M., Torre, I., & Torsani, S. (2014). Seamless integration of desktop and mobile learning

experience through an ontology-based adaptation engine: Report of a pilot-project. In S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. J. Meima, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice–Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands (pp. 225–229). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.

Meskill, C., & Quah, J. (2013). Researching language learning in the age of social media. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 39–54). London: Bloomsbury.

Meskill, C., & Sadykova, G. (2011). Introducing EFL faculty to online instructional conversations. ReCALL, 23(3), 200–217.

Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-Van Strander, S., Tseng, C. H., & you, J. (2006). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 283–291). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

REFERENCES

206

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

Montoro, C., & Hampel, R. (2011). Investigating language learning activity using a CALL task in the self-access centre. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(3), 119–135.

Morrel, P. D., & Carroll, J. B. (2010). Conducting educational research. Rotterdam: Sense publishers.Motteram, G., Slaouti, D., & Onat-Stelma, Z. (2013). Second language teacher education for CALL: An

alignment of practice and theory. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 55–71). London: Bloomsbury.

Murray, L., & Hourigan, T. (2008). Blogs for specific purposes: Expressivist or socio-cognitivist approach? ReCALL, 20, 82–97.

Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2009). Language curriculum design. New york & London: Routledge.Nerbonne, J. A. (2003). Computer-assisted language learning and natural language processing. In

R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 670–698). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Dowd, R. (2005). Negotiating sociocultural and institutional contexts: The case of Spanish–American telecollaboration. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 40–56.

O’Dowd, R. (2013). Telecollaboration and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 210–236). London: Bloomsbury.

O’Dowd, R. (2015a). Supporting in-service language educators in learning to telecollaborate. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 64–83.

O’Dowd, R. (2015b). The competences of the telecollaborative teacher. The Language Learning Journal, 43(2), 194–207.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software [Online]. Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/ what-is-web-20.html

Parks, S., Huot, D., Hamers, J., & Lemonnier, F. H. (2003). Crossing boundaries: Multimedia technology and pedagogical innovation in a high school class. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 28–45.

Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching (pp. 59–86). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, M. (2006). Developing computer competencies for pre-service language teachers. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 153–166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303–321.

Peyton, J. K. (1999). Theory and research: Interaction via computers. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments. Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 17–26). Alexandria: TESOL.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527.

Pincas, A. (1994). The educational potential of computer conferencing. ReCALL, 6(01), 15–18.Polisca, E. (2006). Facilitating the learning process: An evaluation of the use and benefits of a virtual

learning environment (VLE)-enhanced independent language-learning program (ILLP). CALICO Journal, 23(3), 499–515.

Porcelli, G. (2004). Comunicare in lingua straniera. Il lessico. Torino: UTET.Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New york, Ny: Vintage Books.Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.Reinders, H. (2009). Technology and second language teacher education. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards

(Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 230–238). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second language teacher education. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (1982). Method: Approach, design, and procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 16(2), 153–168.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

207

Rickard, A., Blin, F., & Appel, C. (2006). Training for trainers: Challenges, outcomes, and principles of in-service training across the Irish education system. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 203–218). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rivens Mompean, A. (2010). The development of meaningful interactions on a blog used for the learning of English as a foreign language. ReCALL, 22(03), 376–395.

Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335–347). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005). Task design for audiographic conferencing: Promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 417–442.

Sadler, R., & Dooly, M. (2013). Language learning in virtual worlds: Research and practice. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 183–200). London: Bloomsbury.

Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39–56.

Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 104–107.

Sasaki, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). EFL students’ metalinguistic awareness in e-mail tandem. In M. Levy, F. Blin, C. B. Siskin, & O. Takeuchi (Eds.), World CALL: International perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 55–69). New york, Ny: Routledge.

Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2010). Investigating L2 performance in text chat. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 554–577.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition, 237–326.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New york, Ny: Basic books.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Slaouti, D., & Motteram, G. (2006). Reconstructing practice: Language teacher education and ICT. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 81–98). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Smerdon, B., Cronen, S., Lanahan, L., Anderson, J., Iannotti, N., & Angeles, J. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 33–58.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning: Introduction to a general theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Stickler, U., & Hampel, R. (2013). CyberDeutsch: Language production and user preferences in a Moodle virtual learning environment. CALICO Journal, 28(1), 49–73.

Stockwell, G. (2007a). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105–120.

Stockwell, G. (2007b). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365–383.

Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL, 20(03), 253–270.

Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: Teaching teachers to educate themselves. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 99–112.

Stockwell, G. (2013). Mobile-assisted language learning. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 201–216). London: Bloomsbury.

REFERENCES

208

Stockwell, G., & Harrington, M. (2003). The incidental development of L2 proficiency in NS-NNS email interactions. CALICO Journal, 337–359.

Stoks, G. (1993). Integrating new technologies into the modern languages curriculum. CALICO Journal, 11(1), 76–93.

Sugerman, D. A. (2000). Reflective learning: Theory and practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Sun, y. C., & yang, F. y. (2015). I help, therefore, I learn: service learning on Web 2.0 in an EFL

speaking class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 202–219.Tai, S. J. D. (2015). From TPACK – in – action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency developed

and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 139–164.TESOL International Association. (2010). TESOL/NCATE standards for the recognition of initial TESOL

programs in P-12 ESL teacher education. Alexandria, VA: Author.Thomas, M. (2012). Task-based language teaching and CALL. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, &

M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 341–358). London: Bloomsbury.

Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (2013). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning: The role of digital media and incremental change. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.) Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 1–13). London: Bloomsbury.

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifact and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.

Thorne, S. L., & Smith, B. (2011). Second language development theories and technology-mediated language learning. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 268–277.

Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 802–821.

Tochon, F. V., & Jeffrey Black, N. (2007). Narrative analysis of electronic portfolios: Preservice teachers’ struggles in researching pedagogically appropriate technology integration (PATI). In M. A. Kasse, R. Z. Lavine, K. Murphy-Judy, & M. Peters (Eds.), Preparing and developing technology-proficient L2 teachers (pp. 295–320, CALICO Monograph Series Volume 6). Texas State University, San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.

Torsani, S. (2009). La didattica delle lingue in rete. Fasano: Schena.Torsani, S. (2014). La controversia storiografica sulle glottotecnologie. Una rivisitazione. Educazione

Linguistica – Language Education, 8, 259–278.Torsani, S. (2014). Un esempio di didattica in rete della traduzione assistita. Testi e Linguaggi,

8, 77–86.Torsani, S. (2015a). L’integrazione come obiettivo della preparazione alle glottotecnologie. Uno studio di

caso. Educazione Linguistica – Language Education (EL.LE). Manuscript submitted for publication.Torsani, S. (2015b). Linguistics, procedure and technique in CALL teacher education. Jalt CALL Journal,

11(2), pp. 155–164Torsani, S. (in press). La simulazione nella preparazione degli insegnanti di lingua alle tecnologie. In

M. Rui, L. Messina, T. Minerva (Eds.), Proceedings della Multiconferenza EM&M ITALIA 2015.Tseng, J. J. (2014). Investigating EFL teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge: Students’

perceptions. In S. Jager, L. Bradley, E. J. Meima, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL design: Principles and practice–Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conference, Groningen, The Netherlands (pp. 379–384). Dublin: Researchpublishing.net.

Tsubota, y., Dantsuji, M., & Kawahara, T. (2004). An English pronunciation learning system for Japanese students based on diagnosis of critical pronunciation errors. ReCALL, 16(01), 173–188.

Traxler, J. (2005). Institutional issues: Embedding and supporting. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 173–188). London: Routledge.

Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 49–78.

Van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective (Educational Linguistics). New york, Ny: Springer.

Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES

209

Wang, y. (2007). Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. Calico Journal, 591–630.

Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41–58). New york, Ny: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos International. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 29–46). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 470–481.

Warschauer, M. (1998). CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in the language classroom. In Proceedings of the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research Information Technology Research Forum. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English Teachers’ Journal, 53(1), 61–67.

Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 41–51). New york, Ny: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–23.

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31(2), 57–71.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whyte, S. (2014). Bridging gaps: Using social media to develop techno-pedagogical competences in pre-service language teacher education. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité – Cahiers de l’APLIUT, 33(2), 143–169.

Williams, L., Abraham, L. B., & Bostelmann, E. D. (2014). A discourse-based approach to CALL training and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 47(4), 614–629.

Wong, L., & Benson, P. (2006). In-service CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 251–266). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

yanguas, I. (2009). Multimedia glosses and their effect on L2 text comprehension and vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 48–67.

yoshii, M. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 85–101.

Zourou, K. (2012). On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: A look at the state of the art. Alsic. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d’Information et de Communication, 15(1).

211

INDEX

AAction research, 78, 81–83, 157, 172,

174Activity Theory, 27, 52–54, 56, 80,

108n27, 164Affordance, 3, 22, 27, 36–38, 91, 126,

130, 135Artificial intelligence, 6, 10, 13, 31

BBlog, 12, 30, 32–34, 36–38, 60, 78, 83,

104, 107n9, 126–128, 135, 139, 141, 144, 167, 183, 195, 197

Breadth-first approach, 111, 113, 122, 167, 169, 198

CCALL competences,

evolving during CALL courses, 80, 95

in frameworks and standards, 13, 41, 100–106

Guichon & Hauck’s list of techno-pedagogical competences, 77, 86, 89–92

Hubbard-Levy’s model of, 88, 89, 92, 98

integration (as a complex ability), 61, 64, 67,–70, 84n7, 86–92, 96, 106, 137

as professional competences, 70, 76, 77, 123, 124

for telecollaboration for online teaching, 82, 96, 97, 129–137

transferable across different contexts, 59, 107, 123

Case study, as research method, 78, 79, 81, 82,

84n7, 90, 114as traning activity, 57, 107, 116, 137,

140, 147, 156, 170, 173–178Chat, 9, 12, 24, 35–37, 96, 100, 107n9,

127, 128, 131, 138, 145, 159n5Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages (CEFR), 29, 30, 42, 43n23, 101, 104

Communicative CALL, 4, 5, 6, 24–26Communicative Competence, 42n, 92,

96, 101, 125, 128, 153, 154, 157Communicative language teaching, 5,

6, 11, 12, 41, 55, 65n, 66n, 96, 130–134

Community of practice, 60, 75, 121, 124n13, 138

Complexity,and Activity Theory, 53of CALL, 15, 27and CALL Teacher Education, 57,

63, 68, 74, 78, 139and experiential learning, 61, 70, 114of integration, 28, 48–52, 79, 88,

106, 119, 123and language teaching, 74, 98, 99of normalisation, 56of Second Language Teacher

Education, 73and telecollaboration, 99

Computational linguistics, 10, 13, 31, 41n6, 43n26

Computer-mediated communication (CMC, see also telecollaboration), 6–9, 33, 124–126

INDEX

212

affordances of, 36–38asynchronous, 12, 36and communicative competence,

128definition of, 34diffusion of the term, 17n32potential, 34and reflective learning, 118, 145as research topic, 12, 35simulation of, 120synchrnonous, 9, 36tools, 36–38training for, 136, 137, 145, 147,

167, 170, 172–174, 177Consequential transition, 58, 59,

96, 164Content delivery, 4, 14, 108n25, 128,

139, 167, 172, 193, 197

DDesign,

in the Approach, Design and Procedure model, 25, 42

CALL course design, 161, 162CALL curriculum design, 92, 97, 98,

161–164, 178, 182content and materials design, 4,

12, 14, 15, 21, 103, 105, 126, 168, 170

guided design (training activity), 152, 153

pedagogy-driven design, 22research design, 79–83task design, 7, 12, 13, 21, 32, 90,

91, 105, 131–133, 141, 153, 154, 171–176

tutorial design, 110, 111Digital skills (see skills, technical)Distance language learning and

teaching, 12, 113, 127, 128, 136–139

EEcological change, 47, 60, 91Effectiveness of CALL training, 57, 69,

70, 77, 78, 93–96, 123, 161, 181 European Profile for Language Teacher

Education (EPOSTL), 101–103, 105

Evaluation,as a CALL skill, 133, 134, 179n3in CALL training, 75, 162, 168, 182of competences, 103course, 48in project work, 156, 157self-evaluation, 102, 117of situatedness, 115, 116tasks, courseware and technology,

21, 25, 26, 76, 90, 107, 107n6, 168

as a training activity, 147, 158, 170–176

Expert course, 94

FFishbowl activity (see observation)Forum, 6, 12, 36–37, 96, 103, 108n27,

116, 121, 127–128, 132, 144, 166

HHistorical phases of CALL, 4–6Holistic course, 94

IIn depth approach, 111, 112, 122

examples of, 167Integrated approach, 112

example of, 163Integration (as a competence) (see

CALL competences)Interactionist hypothesis, 6, 9, 12, 21,

26, 35, 42n18, 126, 127, 129, 170, 172–174, 177

INDEX

213

Interview (data collection method), 50, 61, 78–83, 86, 123, 164

JJournal (data collection method), 80, 81

LLanguage exercises, 39, 54, 78, 148,

151–155communicative exercises, 5, 51, 96design of, 167, 191, 192pattern drill, 4, 5software for, 16n3, 16n20, 104,

179n6structural, 5, 30, 31, 39, 158vocabulary, 58

MMentoring, 22, 120, 123, 124n9, 137Mixed methods, 79, 82Mobile assisted language learning

(MALL), 2, 12, 31, 72, 110, 125, 126, 141

training for, 138–141, 167, 174, 177Mobile technology,

and comunication, 31, 36 diffusion of, 6, 17n24, 50 and normalisation, 43n30and social networks, 38–40training for, 167

Motivation, learner’s, 9, 14, 33, 34, 40, 52,

128, 129teacher’s towards technology, 49–52,

61, 71, 111

NNatural Language Processing, 31, 41n6Needs analysis,

in CALL Teacher Education, 74, 98, 162, 165, 166, 171, 182

in language teaching, 90

Normalisation, 5, 10, 15, 19, 28, 35, 40, 41n3, 43n30, 54–57, 62–64

and diffusion of technology, 48, 49and disappearance of CALL, 41n3,

69, 97and integration 48, 49, 57, 59, 61,

62and reconstruction, 61, 62 and teacher development, 61

OObstacles to CALL Teacher training,

72, 73Observation (or fishbowl), 78, 148,

173

PPeculiarities of CALL Teacher

Education, 70, 71Podcast, 30, 32, 38, 43Procedural vs. technical skills, 99, 100Project-based learning, 78, 82, 114, 115,

117, 119, 120, 122, 156, 157

QQualitative methods in research (see

also case study), 9, 48, 53, 54, 56, 78–82, 107n2, 127, 168

Quality of CALL training (see effectiveness of CALL training)

Quantitative methods in research, 48, 78, 79, 81, 82, 98

Questionnaire (data collection method), 48, 50, 78–83, 117

RReflection,

linguistic, 37, 42n13, 127in Teacher Education (or reflective

practice), 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 68, 74, 75, 78, 80, 83, 87, 115–120, 123, 136–139, 144–148, 154

INDEX

214

Reflective practice (see reflection in Teacher Education)

Reflective writing, 33

SScaffolding, 65n13, 101, 112, 115,

116, 121Second Language Teacher Education

(SLTE), 49, 67, 73–75, 98, 118, 119, 161, 178, 181

Self-directed learning, 121–123Simulation (as a training activity), 99,

117, 120, 137, 138, 145, 147, 148, 158, 159, 168, 170, 172–174

Situated learning, 52, 68, 70, 74, 76, 77, 95, 97, 107, 111, 113, 115–120, 124n9, 149, 151

Skills, linguistic, 9, 29–31, 37, 43n24, 51,

60, 112, 117, 146, 154, 170, 172, 173

pedagogical (teaching) skills, 129–132, 134

technical (generic), 29–31, 37, 45, 50–52, 60, 68, 69, 75, 80, 86, 88, 89, 92, 94, 98, 109–112, 114, 116, 117, 126, 128, 133, 146, 158, 161–168, 181

Social networks, 8, 10, 12, 31, 33, 36, 38–40, 104, 125–129

training for, 139–141, 167, 170, 174, 179

Socio-Cultural Theory, 6, 9, 24–26, 28, 34, 42n19, 52–54, 58, 60, 65n13, 73, 74, 76, 92, 96, 98, 99, 115, 121, 170, 172–174, 177

TTechnology integration,

competences for, 68, 74, 86–92complexity of, 74, 106 (see also

factors influencing)definitions of, 47evolution of the notion of, 62–64factors influencing, 50–52, 69–71as a goal for teacher training, 29,

49, 57, 64, 79, 85, 86horizontal and vertical, 48overlapping with normalisation,

49, 54 and reflective learning, 119, 136and situated learning, 116, 117,

123stages of personal, 60, 61

Telecollaboration (see also CMC), 9, 82, 99, 134, 135

TESOL Technology Standards Framework, 3, 41, 101, 103–106, 168, 182

TPACK model, 86–88, 98Transfer, 58, 59, 96, 158

critique to the notion of, 98Tutorial,

model of language instruction, 47, 128

training activity, 100, 110, 111, 113, 114, 124n8, 137, 144, 149–151, 168, 170–176

WWeb 2.0, 20, 32, 33, 56, 90, 126Wiki, 24, 32–34, 36, 104, 126,

127, 135