Toward an Ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991)

BARBARA A. LAFFORD Arizona State University School of International Letters and Cultures P.O. Box 870202 Tempe, AZ 85287-0202 Email: barbara.lafford@asu.edu This introduction to the 2009 Modern Language Journal Focus Issue uses the lens of an ecological perspective on the acquisition of second languages to provide additional insights into the contributions by various computer-assisted language learning (CALL) scholars to this update on Garrett (1991), Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. After providing a thematic overview of the trends and issues discussed by Garrett (1991, this issue) and the other contributors, I discuss the most salient themes and controversies mentioned by the Focus Issue authors, including CALL and second language acquisition theory, empirical research and CALL, creation and use of CALL materials and technologies, social networking, assessment, the need for teacher training, and professional rewards. This introduction concludes with a section on the future of CALL as an independent eld and with a look at future research and practical applications of CALL.

THE THEME OF THE FIRST MODERN LANguage Journal (MLJ ) Focus Issue (91, 2007), Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997), focused on ideas raised by Firth and Wagner (1997) regarding the theme of cognitive versus social approaches to the study of second language acquisition (SLA). In my introduction to that issue, I suggested that the adoption of a dialectical approach (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Lantolf, 2007) that calls for a unied organic synthesis of the insights derived from both cognitively and socially oriented SLA research (Lafford, 2007a, p. 751) would allow scholarship from both traditions to inform what we know about the dynamic interplay of multiple factors that affect an individuals acquisition of a second language (L2) in various contexts of learning. In that same Focus Issue, Block (2007) discussed two elds of study that could assist SLA scholars in their investigation of the cognitive and social factors involved in language acquisition: reThe Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue, (2009) 0026-7902/09/673696 $1.50/0 C 2009 The Modern Language Journal

search on language learning in study-abroad contexts and computer-mediated communication. The rst of these topics was explored by the next addition to the MLJ Focus Issue/Monograph series, Celeste Kingingers (2008) monograph Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Studies of Americans in France . This study used both formal assessments (quantitative test scores of general language abilities from the Test de Franc ais International, role-plays, and a Language Awareness Interview) and qualitative data from journals, interviews, and researcher observations to investigate the relationship among particular linguistic outcomes, individual factors, and the sociocultural context. This 2009 Focus Issue explores an issue related to the second topic discussed by Block computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and revisits issues brought to light by Nina Garrett in her 1991 article Technology in the Service of Language Learning: Trends and Issues. Egberts (2005) denition of CALL as learners learning language in any context, with, through, and around computer technologies (p. 4) seems to reect the usage of this term by most Focus Issue authors. Garrett (this issue) also notes the use of the term technology-enhanced language learning

674 to include handheld communication devices that have joined conventional computers. However, Garrett (this issue) is quick to point out that a more expanded, nuanced view of CALLthat is, the full integration of technology into language learning (p. 720)is called for. She then states, We need constantly to remind ourselves and those outside the eld that CALL is not shorthand for the use of technology but designates a dynamic complex in which technology, theory, and pedagogy are inseparably interwoven (p. 720). The integration of these three elements constitutes one of the central themes found in the pages of this Focus Issue. While both the 2007 and 2009 focus issues concentrate on themes raised by touchstone articles published in the MLJ and their implications for present-day scholarship and practice, they differ in their relative focus on theory and practice. The rst Focus Issue (2007) had a decidedly theoretical bent, as did the original article (Firth & Wagner, 1997). In contrast, the 2009 Focus Issue centers mostly on the application of theory to practice, specically on issues surrounding the use of technology to facilitate L2 acquisition. This follows Garretts (1991) lead, whose original article constituted an excellent resource and guide for foreign language practitioners interested in exploring the use of various forms of technology (e.g., videodisks, computers) and attendant issues (i.e., the efcacy and evaluation of CALL materials, testing, authoring, research, and professional rewards). Even though most of the contributions to this Focus Issue are nontheoretical in nature, after analyzing the contributions by Garrett (this issue) and the other authors, it became clear to me that the use of an ecological theoretical framework as a lens with which to view the important trends and issues mentioned in this issue by CALL scholars and practitioners would be appropriate. The following section characterizing this perspective draws on ideas found in the work of Lam and Kramsch (2003), Leather and Van Dam (2003), and van Lier (2003, 2004).

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) which it comes into contact (van Lier, 2004, p. 3) to characterize the language learning process. van Lier referred to the language learning environment as a complex adaptive system and to ecological linguistics as the study of the relations between language use and the world within which language is used (p. 44). Although ecological linguistics rejects the reductionism inherent in a structuralist view of language (e.g., based on assumptions of Chomsky, 1965, Saussure, 1916, and others who would divorce the study of language from its context), it does not reject the study of cognitive processes in SLA. In fact, the recent metaphor of ecology attempts to capture the interconnectedness of psychological, social, and environmental process in SLA (Lam & Kramsch, 2003, p. 144). An ecological approach to the study of language extends the ideas of Haugen (1972), Vygotsky (1978), and Halliday (1978) and shares characteristics of other theoretical models that also ultimately draw on ideas expressed in their work (e.g., Sociocultural Theory, Chaos/Complexity Theory); however, signicant differences obtain among all of these models of SLA (see van Lier, 2004, for discussion). The basic tenets of an ecological approach to language and language learning include the following: 1. Language must be studied as a phenomenon situated in context. van Lier (2004) proposed that ecological linguistics sees language learning as emerging from the formation of a community of practice of language learners who draw on the affordances of the learning context to carry out various activities. A recognition of the complex factors and relationships at work within and across various nested linguistic ecosystems1 (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) demands detailed observation of participants and attention to nonlinguistic parameters that may affect communication (e.g., kinesics). 2. An ecological linguistic analysis uses an emic approach, in which the perspectives of both the learners and language practitioners (e.g., teacher voice) are used to contextualize the data. Individual differences among learners (variability) must be recognized and taken into account during linguistic analysis. The emphasis on process over product in this type of analysis is often evidenced by the use of longitudinal, descriptive, and interpretive work (e.g., ethnographies) in which conversation analysis and discourse analysis are often carried out on data gathered from narratives, conversations, autobiographies, and journals. 3. Language is seen as a system of relations rather than a collection of objects (van Lier, 2004, p. 5). Language mediates relationships between

ECOLOGICAL VIEW OF LANGUAGE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING Instead of using the image of the mind as a computer that processes information (input ) and produces output (see Lam & Kramsch, 2003, for discussion), proponents of an ecological perspective on language learning use the biological metaphor of ecology , or the totality of relationships of an organism with all other organisms with

Barbara A. Lafford people and the world, and language learning involves acquiring the capacity to relate more effectively to people in the world (van Lier, 2004). Language learning occurs through socialization that is, through the negotiation of power and identity through language. It involves becoming a member of a community of practice through dialogical interaction (Bakhtin, 1986) in the process of carrying out various activities. 4. Learners acquire language by taking advantage of various affordances , or a relationship between an organism (a learner, in our case) and the environment that signals an opportunity for or inhibition from action (van Lier, 2004, p. 4). 5. Language use is contingent on the communicative needs of the participants in particular speech situationsin particular, times and places. Language emerges as learners use the semiotic systems at their disposition to co-construct meanings with different interlocutors. 6. As language use is contingent and dynamic, feedback given to learners and the evaluation of their linguistic abilities also need to be (a) exible and adaptive to what learners produce and (b) based on criteria created to appropriately evaluate linguistic outcomes and cultural competence in given contexts. 7. Second language acquisition research and language learning activities should be ecologically valid; these enterprises should reect real-world tasks that learners will encounter outside the classroom (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). 8. An ecological perspective on language, language learning, and education is value-laden and potentially interventionist (i.e., change-oriented and critical). van Lier (2004) proposed that science is a critical and moral enterprise and that there is a need to examine to what extent our societal and personal goals and ideals are furthered by certain educational practices. These ecological perspectives on language learning will emerge often in the discussion of major trends and issues in CALL by Focus Issue authors. The next two sections discuss CALL themes addressed by Garrett (1991) (reprinted as the rst contribution to this issue) and her update on trends and issues in CALL (Garrett, this issue). MAJOR ISSUES ADDRESSED IN GARRETT (1991) According to Nina Garrett, her 1991 article Technology in the Service of Language Learn-

675 ing: Trends and Issues served two purposes: (a) to provide teachers who did not utilize technology to any great extent with an overview of current technological resources available to support language learning and (b) to explore important issues surrounding their use. Garrett began her discussion with the issue of efcacy that is, whether using a computer can help students learn and communicate in another language. Garrett noted that researchers wanting to carry out a valid study of the efcacy of CALL could not ask this question in a general way but rather would need to investigate the complex, interrelated research variables that factor into the learning process, such as what kind of software, integrated how into what kind of syllabus, at what level of language learning, for what kind of language learners, is likely to be effective for what specic learning purposes? (p. 75). In her 1991 article, Garrett explored in depth newer, less familiar technologies available at the time to aid language instruction: satellite video containing authentic materials (including SCOLA [Satellite Communications for Learning Worldwide]), videotapes and videodisks of authentic broadcasts made available through the PICS (Project for International Communication Studies) project at the University of Iowa, and computers. Garrett then proceeded to describe current uses of interactive audio and video resources and discuss in detail issues surrounding the use of computer software to teach languages. She then took a detailed look at various types of computer software and hardware to teach and practice the four skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and how to design and evaluate them intelligently and effectively. Later in her article and in an appendix, Garrett provided very detailed and valuable information on CALL resources, such as professional organizations and journals that served as outlets for CALL research, books with information on CALL, and CALL workshops and teacher training programs. Garrett (1991) also explored issues related to the topics of computer testing and authoring. In the section on testing, Garrett discussed the range of computer testing, from the computerized administration of conventional tests to the use of computer-adaptive testing (CAT), in which computers use the learners responses to determine the level of difculty of the next question to diagnose a learners level of ability. In the authoring section, Garrett critically explored authoring tools that evidenced a wide range of the amount

676 of control that teachers had when creating CALL materials. In her General Issues section, Garrett (1991) pointed out that recent SLA theory and empirical research had made clear the need for CALL to go beyond the prevailing drill-and-kill exercises for learning vocabulary and grammar to create an environment for communication. Garrett also proposed that CALL could assist in the individualization of learning by allowing students to choose activities that match their preferred learning styles (e.g., audio vs. visual). In addition, she noted that the use of hypertext and hypermedia, accompanied by programs that tracked student choices, could bring insights to the study of cognitive and educational psychology. The last two topics treated by Garrett (1991) were those of CALL research and professional rewards for CALL scholars. The section on research pointed out the usefulness of the computer for providing insights into the process as well as the products of SLA and the fact that technology-based classroom research could help shape our pedagogy as well as contribute to SLA theory. However, Garrett also noted that CALL researchers and practitioners often have difculties getting their work to be understood by traditional promotion and tenure committees. Garrett (1991) noted that computer-based language instruction was still primarily using technology to carry out traditional language learning exercises and that researchers had only just begun to explore its potential to exploit new ways of implementing and testing theoretical SLA principles. However, Garrett stressed that the most important potential of technology for language learning would be for the integration of the study of language, culture, and literature to ease the transition that learners experience when graduating from oral and written pedagogical materials to authentic discourse. Garrett concluded her 1991 article with a list of language learning priorities for the next decade that could be strongly supported by intelligent uses of technology (p. 95): (a) focus on the individual learner; (b) true integration of the teaching of language, literature, and culture; and (c) bridging the gap between theory and classroom practice. However, she noted that these [priorities] will not be accomplished unless and until teachers themselves take the initiative to think through what the technology should be able to do for them and for their students and make their needs known (p. 95).

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) GARRETTS (2009) UPDATE Whereas a large part of Garretts original 1991 article focused on descriptions of the technology available to teach foreign languages, Garretts update, Computer-Assisted Language Learning Trends and Issues Revisited: Integrating Innovation, (hereafter referred to as Garrett, this issue) pays more attention to general issues related to CALL and proposes ways to move the eld forward. Garrett (this issue) rst reconsiders some of the areas addressed in her 1991 article, including technology infrastructure, efcacy, copyright concerns, software, and evaluation of CALL materials. She then points out how the earlier belief in the primacy of pedagogy over technology has given way to a more egalitarian view that none of the three major components of CALLpedagogy, theory, or technologyshould dominate the others (this issue, p. 721). She also proposes that CALL infrastructurethe environments that affect the way the other three components work be considered a fourth component in the CALL equation. In 1991, the issue of the efcacy of CALL was of prime importance for teachers and administrators who sought proof that technology-based language learning was worth the cost of implementation. Garrett (this issue) points out that current administrators in the United States are no longer questioning the value of computers to the learning process but rather are concerned with the cost of running language centers, hiring CALL specialists to run them, and maintaining the infrastructure needed to integrate CALL into the curriculum. Garrett reiterates her view that the efcacy of CALL can only be addressed by exploring the complex, interrelated research variables involved in its use. The next two topics treated in Garretts update are those of copyright concerns and categories of software. Garrett asserts that although the 1991 concern about pirating software is less of an issue now due to the use of licensing procedures and password protections, many teachers and students still lack an understanding of the types of Web-based materials that can be used for their teaching and pedagogical projects and should attend institutional workshops on copyright issues. In her update, Garrett proposes three current categories of CALL: (a) tutorial, (b) engagement with authentic materials, and (c) communication. Garrett notes that tutorial drill-and-kill CALL with restricted programmed answers and feedback has

Barbara A. Lafford been surpassed by intelligent CALL (iCALL, a parser-based application that gives more nuanced feedback to learners). She then explores the use of CALL to annotate authentic text, audio, and video materials found on the Web but states that this type of CALL also needs to incorporate tutorial CALL to teach students strategies to understand unannotated authentic materials. Garrett states that her views on the evaluation of CALL materials have not changed substantially since 1991, except that the evaluation of activities and Web sites have, in large part, replaced reviews of standalone software packages. The author also notes that communication CALL, based on computermediated communication (CMC), has been taken to a new level by recent Web 2.0 applications2 (e.g., telecollaboration and social networking). Garrett (this issue) also explores issues relevant for CALL in 2009: (a) new demands on language education (as outlined in a recent report from the Modern Language Association [MLA, 2007] and a white paper by Jackson & Malone, 2009); (b) rethinking grammar instruction (in light of the need for students to acquire a solid foundation in grammatical skills from the outset, to allow them to reach advanced prociency levels and/or to relearn the language later in life); (c) online learning (taking into account the student support needed as online learning initiatives expand along a continuum of teacher involvement); (d) social computing (the use of CMC to interact in virtual spaces with native speakers and learners of the target language); (e) teacher training and professional development (including substantive grounding in SLA theory and in the pedagogical context and rationale for technology use); and (f) research (in light of the normalization of CALL and the resulting difculty in distinguishing CALL research from mainstream SLA research using technological affordances). Garrett concludes her update with suggestions for three new initiatives to help promote the use of CALL to meet the new demands on language educationinstitutional language centers, professional organizations, and a national CALL center to support the expanded integration of CALL into foreign language curricula and serve the language learning needs of different populations. Following Garretts insightful update on her views on themes addressed in her original article and her suggestions for new initiatives to advance the eld of CALL, several invited CALL experts provide their own contemporary perspectives on themes mentioned by Garrett (1991), current controversies surrounding CALL, and on the future of the eld. THEMATIC OVERVIEW OF FOCUS ISSUE TRENDS AND ISSUES IN CALL

677

The Focus Issue contributions by scholars invited to address the CALL themes appearing in Garrett (1991) are organized into four main sections: (a) CALL Research , which contains articles by Chapelle on the relationship between SLA theory and CALL and by Egbert, Huff, McNeil, Preuss, and Sellen on integrating teacher voice and experience into CALL empirical research; (b) CALL Technologies and Authorship , which includes a contribution by Levy on technologies in use for L2 learning and an article by Otto and Pusack on CALL authoring issues; (c) Beyond the Boundaries: Social Networking and Distance Learning , which contains a contribution by Thorne, Black, and Sykes on the use of Web 2.0 technologies for social computing and a piece by Blake on the use of technology for L2 distance learning; and (d) Assessment of Student Outcomes and CALL Scholarship , which includes articles by Ockey on computer-based testing (CBT), a contribution by Cummins and Davesne on the use of electronic (e-)portfolios for language assessment, and an article on the evaluation of CALL scholarly activity by Smith and Lafford. CALL Research Chapelle opens her chapter by referring to Garretts (1991) question concerning the relationship between a theoretically and empirically based understanding of the language learning process and the design and implementation of technology-based materials (Garrett, 1991, p. 74). Chapelle rightly notes that the eld of CALL has not been overly occupied with theoretical concerns and has focused more on the practical implications and applications of SLA theories, models, and hypotheses for addressing issues that go into the design and evaluation of technology and technology-based products for learning languages. To compare various theoretical approaches to SLA and their implications for the development of CALL materials, the assessment of learning outcomes via technology, and the study of social and contextual factors surrounding CMC, Chapelle provides an overview of theories that fall into four categories: cognitive linguistic approaches, psycholinguistic approaches, general human learning, and approaches that study language in social context. She notes that choosing a single theory to inform CALL would be limiting and misguided. Instead, Chapelle suggests a more

678 holistic approach to exploring the relation of SLA theory to CALLfor example, by using Complexity Theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) to understand the ways in which multiple factors work together simultaneously when learners avail themselves of technological affordances during the SLA process. Chapelle notes the need for frameworks and guidelines for evaluating the extent to which technology-based materials and tasks provide theoretically grounded opportunities for L2 acquisition to take place. Echoing Chapelle (2001), she proposes six criteria that could be used to evaluate CALL materials: (a) language learning potential (quality of input, interaction, and practice); (b) meaning focus; (c) learner t; (d) authenticity; (e) positive impact (benets derived that may go beyond language learning); and (f) practicality. She then discusses the iterative process of extrapolating principles from SLA theory that are then made incarnate in CALL materials and will be judged using the same theoretically based perspectives. Chapelles commitment to CALL and student efcacy is seen in her suggestion to redene communicative competence to include:
the ability to communicate using readily accessible L2 technology aids (such as online bilingual dictionaries and grammar checkers), the ability to make appropriate linguistic choices in face-to-face, remote, written, and oral modes, and the ability to choose appropriate technologies for communication and language learning. (p. 751)

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) teacher perspectives were taken into account during the research design, data collection, and data analysis phases of this research and make concrete suggestions for involving instructors in the execution of empirical research and the interpretation of the ndings. The CALL empirical research review is organized into four major categories: (a) grammar (concordancing, CALL vs. traditional grammar teaching, feedback and error correction); (b) teacher voice in CALL reading research (explorations of design and use preferences, student attitudes, reading comprehension studies); (c) issues of teacher voice in CALL speaking and listening (hybrid contexts, context comparisons, multimodality); and (d) capturing teacher data in writing studies (feedback studies, academic writing and CALL, email and writing). In each section the authors acknowledge CALL research that has involved teacher voice and point out ways in which other studies could have beneted in various ways from the incorporation of the knowledge and perspectives of the instructor. Throughout their article, Egbert et al. explore ways in which teachers knowledge and understanding of the context in which research is carried out can be useful for the contextualization and interpretation of CALL empirical research ndings. For instance, instructors can provide information on students abilities, progress over time, motivations, and behavior, interpret student responses, and provide other types of data to verify student self-assessments about their own linguistic progress. Teachers can also provide information on the local context of learning, such as problems with or novelty effects of the technology, the history of the use of certain tools, instructor involvement in the adaptation and application of technology to their particular situations, and the cultural and individual inuences that play a role in the classroom. As teachers technological prociency and attitudes toward CALL can also inuence students attitudes, it is imperative that researchers also investigate these factors. Egbert et al. make specic methodological suggestions to incorporate teacher voice into CALL research: (a) the use of a heuristic approach in which research questions arise from teacher experience; (b) the use of case studies and longitudinal data to help increase the credibility of the ndings; and (c) a qualitative approach to the data that provides researchers with a means to validate the ndings of empirical studies through triangulation with data gathered from rich sources of contextual knowledge (e.g., teachers observations and perceptions of student attitudes and

In addition, Chapelle points out that socially based theories can provide perspectives on strategy use, the acquisition of intercultural competence, and ways in which learners perceptions of their agency and identities may affect opportunities for learning. Finally, the author notes that technology has much to offer SLA research in providing multiple opportunities for input and interaction and in facilitating an unprecedented amount of efcient data collection and subsequent analysis. As a result, the eld of CALL has pushed for practice-relevant theory that can inform the design and evaluation of technologybased materials (p. 751). Egbert et al.s (this issue) contention that the role and perspectives of the teacher have been overlooked to a great extent in the CALL literature is based on their critical review of CALL empirical research, which explored the use of technology to learn English as a second or foreign language during the 20002008 period. In their article, these authors focus on the extent to which

Barbara A. Lafford use of technology, instructor journals, interviews, or think-aloud protocols for teachers). The authors also advocate strong collaboration between instructors and researchers and the incorporation of teachers in the design process, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of the results of CALL studies. CALL Technologies and Authorship This section focuses on issues related to the use and authorship of various computer-based technologies to learn languages. Levys article, Technologies in Use for Second Language Learning, provides an overview of the technologies currently utilized to facilitate the acquisition of an L2, whereas Sue Otto and James Pusack explore how the concept of authorship has changed since 1991 in their contribution titled ComputerAssisted Language Learning Authoring Issues. Levy organizes his discussion of technologies in use by language area and skill: grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, pronunciation, listening, speaking, and culture. For each area, he chooses examples of tools that illustrate successful applications and draws attention to those that require further development to affect the achievement of learner outcomes. Levy discusses the way in which the eld of CALL has evolved since the early days, when it relied almost exclusively on use of grammaroriented tutorial exercises (e.g., drill-and-kill) to facilitate the acquisition of grammatical competence, to the present day, with the development of more sophisticated ways of carrying out error analysis, making diagnoses, and giving feedback, through tools that are informed by research and development in the elds of natural language processing, parser-based CALL, and iCALL. He also reviews the use of concordancers and learner corpora to raise the learners language awareness and focus on the use of grammatical form within various contexts. In his discussion of the use of technology to facilitate lexical acquisition, Levy reviews software designed for discrete-point activities to test comprehension of individual lexemes, multimedia annotations of certain vocabulary words in a written text, and Web sites dedicated to lexical acquisition. The author notes that mobile phones, personal digital assistants, MP3 players, and digital voice recorders can be exploited for vocabulary learning (e.g., using SMS messaging for learning Italian; see Levy & Kennedy, 2005). Levy then discusses tools that allow learners to practice their L2 reading, writing, pronunciation,

679 listening, and speaking skills. Throughout his discussion of these areas, he pays particular attention to innovative technologies that cater specically to the needs of L2 learners, such as the use of multimedia glosses for L2 texts; spell checkers based on learner corpora, blogs, wikis, text and voice chat, the iWRITE system (a multimodal, corpusbased online grammar resource used for writing); computer-aided pronunciation training software; programs such as Media Player that manipulate the speed and repetition of key segments of aural texts; and chatterbots that serve as conversation partners for language learners by simulating a dialogue among interlocutors via oral or textual methods. Levy then reviews the use of technology to facilitate the acquisition of intercultural competence through the use of (a) Internet-based authentic listening and reading materials, (b) CMC and telecollaboration projects in which L2 learners are able to share their views with members of the target culture, (c) collaborative wiki pages, and (d) virtual environments to teach culture and pragmatics to L2 learners. Finally, Levy notes the need for teacher education and learner training on technologies to be used to teach L2s. The author explains that it is not always a question of learning new technologies but of becoming familiar with new ways of exploiting features of existing technologies to serve language learning. Otto and Pusack point out that the emergence of Internet technologies has broadened the denition of authorship far beyond what this concept entailed and implied in 1991. At that time, Garrett characterized the development options in CALL along a continuum of xed (unmodiable) lessons, templates, authoring systems, authoring languages, and generic programming languages. Unfettered creativity in CALL authorship was often the purview of those who knew how to use programming languages. However, Otto and Pusack propose that in current Web 2.0 environments, both instructors and students become authors and co-construct identities as they engage in ecologically valid tasks to facilitate language learning. Otto and Pusack also point out that the prior dichotomous categorization of the computer as either a tutor (to substitute for the teacher) or a tool (to help the teacher or the student enhance his/her work) has given way to a view of computers as easily carrying out both functions within the gamut of possible authoring choices afforded to potential creators of CALL materials. The authors note that CALL development must be both a top-down and bottom-up process that

680 examines the potential of technology through the lens of SLA theory (Otto & Pusack, this issue, p. 786). Otto and Pusack then propose six characteristics of the best foreign language courseware tools: (a) suitability (CALL activities specically designed to facilitate the attainment of certain linguistic goals); (b) interactivity (to provide motivating activities and helpful support and feedback to learners); (c) media (to allow students to interact with authentic materials); (d) record keeping (to track learner progress and provide appropriate feedback); (e) ease of use (to provide instructors with tools to make easier their use of the technology; e.g., good documentation, training, and examples of best practice); and (f) accessibility (to have access to Web-based tools for development and dissemination of new CALL materials). Despite teacher interest in creating CALL materials and the encouragement of administrators to use technology-based instruction, Otto and Pusack note several barriers to CALL authorship stemming primarily from inadequate infrastructure and institutional support. Otto and Pusack propose three dimensions to evaluate the usefulness of a given tool: ease of use, exibility, and power. The authors then provide a critical overview of the advantages and disadvantages of various tools for CALL authoring, which include those that allow custom programming, productivity software, course management systems, general-purpose instructional development tools, authoring systems, and Web-based templates. One of the most helpful features of this article is a table that critically compares the purpose, interaction types, strengths, and weaknesses of various authoring tools. Beyond the Boundaries: Social Networking and Distance Learning In this section the use of CMC in environments outside the foreign language classroom is explored. Research on the use of social networking (Web 2.0 technologies) as a tool to acquire L2s is reviewed in depth by Steven Thorne, Rebecca Black, and Julie Sykes in their contribution to this issue, Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Gaming. This is followed by Robert Blakes contribution, The Use of Technology for Second Language Distance Learning, which explores the post-1991 changes that have taken place in technologies used for teaching L2s beyond the connes of the L2 classroom. The Thorne et al. contribution focuses on Garretts (this issue) category of communication

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) CALL that is, the use of the computer to establish and maintain social networks with nonnative and native speakers of the target language for various forms of professional, academic, and social activity. The two major themes discussed in this article are the use of Internet interest groups (including Web-based fan ction and diaspora communities) and the use of online gaming and multiplayer virtual environments to form communities and interact using a combination of the native, target, and other languages. The authors rst explore the use of Internet interest communities and remix cultures as tools for fostering learner creativity, bonding with speakers of the target language, and establishing a discursive construction of identity using both native and target languages. The authors note the hybridizing the process of taking existing linguistic, semiotic, and/or cultural materials and recombining them to create new meanings (p. 804)is a process taking place in todays online afnity spaces. Modern technologies can facilitate remixing in fan ction environments so that learners can use their creativity and agency to transform and edit existing images, les, and texts by adding content, visuals, and even phrases or commentary from other languages. The authors conclude their discussion of remixing in fan ction by exploring ways in which the learners become part of larger L2 discourse communities and take on identities of competent L2 interlocutors. Thorne et al. also explore the use of online local and global social networks to connect diaspora youth. These online meeting spaces allowed L2 learners of the same cultural background (e.g., Chinese) to use the target language (e.g., English) with each other and avoid the stress of communicating with native speakers of the target language (Lam, 2004). This type of activity has been shown to empower learners and help them take on new identities as creative and effective communicators in the L2. The authors then go into detail about the use of virtual environments (VEs) and online gaming spaces to facilitate language acquisition. The environments discussed include open social virtualities , open virtual spaces for spontaneous interaction within a given context (e.g., Second Life), massively multiplayer online (MMO) games, or commercial 3D fantasy gaming spaces designed around interactive tasks (e.g., World of Warcraft), and synthetic immersive environments , or pedagogically designed online environments (e.g., Croquelandia). Thorne et al. also recognize challenges and questions about the use of VEs that still need to

Barbara A. Lafford be addressednamely choosing appropriate theoretical models of language and SLA that best apply to these contexts and deciding how to integrate participation in these environments with L2 instructional practices. As technological mediation shapes more of our everyday human interaction, the authors contend that it is imperative that L2 educational applications reect these signicant changes in societal communicative practice. Blake sets the stage for his discussion of distance learning (DL) by reviewing Garretts (1991) promotion of CALL to support a learner-centered pedagogy, whose focus on process over product would encourage interactivity and foster students ability to construct meaning in a technological environment. Blake shares Garretts frustrations with research that seeks to test the efcacy of CALL by comparing the linguistic outcomes of learners taught with technology with those of learners taught in traditional classrooms. As the validity of this type of research (CALL vs. non-CALL) is compromised by a myriad number of factors that are impossible to control (e.g., teacher style and knowledge of technology, student control over and access to technology, learning styles), Blake concurs with Garretts assertion that CALL materials must be judged only in light of a particular technologys ability to help learners carry out a given task in a given context. According to Blake, the switch from notions of interactivity that focus on learnercomputer interactions to CMC between learners and native speakers and with other learners is foremost among the post-1991 changes that have taken place in CALL. Although Blake asserts that students need to interact with native speakers in face-to-face communicative situations in order to reach advanced levels of prociency in an L2, the use of current technologies in DL environments allows students opportunities to build foundational L2 knowledge by interacting with their instructors, their peers, and even native speakers of the target language. Blake then presents the reader with a review of the affordances offered by both asynchronous and synchronous DL formats. The author pays particular attention to studies of telecollaboration (e.g., Furstenberg, Levet, English, & Maillet, 2001) and notes that researchers (Ware & ODowd, 2008) have found that e-tutoring (exchanges in which participants have been trained to give each other feedback) yielded better results than e-partnering (exchanges among participants without such training). Blake also notes that drilland-kill tutoring exercises have been surpassed by tools that take a context-sensitive and exible approach to giving appropriate feedback to student

681 responses, in the form of iCALL or parser-based CALL. Blake then discusses the challenges inherent in carrying out research on the efcacy of DL formats for language learning, including the array of different DL formats and environmental factors characteristic of various institutions, teachers styles and attitudes, and learner variables (e.g., learning styles, attitudes, aptitudes). In addition, the lack of proximity to DL learners for testing purposes, their high dropout rates, and the inherent requirement that they be disciplined and independent learners complicate the comparison of the nal skewed group of distance learners with average FL classroom learners. In his section on the importance of teacher training, Blake notes that language instructors teaching in a DL format must be aware of the need to acquire new technological skills through self-directed learning and to leverage the new interest in social computing on the part of their students by creating collaborative tasks that maximize student agency and engagement. Assessment of Student Outcomes and CALL Scholarship The last section of this Focus Issue explores the use of CBT to assess student outcomes (Developments and Challenges in the Use of ComputerBased Testing for Assessing Second Language Ability by Gary Ockey), the use of e-portfolios for L2 assessment (Using Electronic Portfolios for Second Language Assessment by Patricia Cummins and C eline Davesne), and the ways in which CALL scholarship is assessed by the academy (The Evaluation of Scholarly Activity in Computer-Assisted Language Learning by Bryan Smith and Barbara Lafford). Ockey explores the way that computer technology has been used to assess language skills since Garretts (1991) article and discusses the challenges that have limited CBT development. When discussing various forms of delivery for CBT, Ockey notes that assessments housed on secure computer systems and CDROMS are giving way to Web-based testing (WBT), whose advantages include the familiarity of test takers with the Internet, easy storage of data on one central server, and cost savings. Ockey then reviews the advantages and challenges of computer adaptive testing (CAT), a form of assessment that adjusts the level of difculty of successive test questions according to the answers given by the learners. Whereas Garrett (1991) proposed that CAT could be useful for

682 large-scale placement and certication purposes, Ockey notes that various challenges have limited CATs potential in this regard, with respect to its reliance on the assumptions of item response theory (IRT)unidimensionality and local independence of test itemsa lack of agreement on appropriate scoring algorithms for various tests, the need for a large bank of questions at various difculty levels, and the dearth of personnel trained in statistics to create such instruments. In partial response to these challenges, Ockey notes that scholars have created semiadaptive WBT assessments that are not based on IRT assumptions. After discussing issues of CBT security, such as item banking, test-taker identity, and the storage of tests and scores (the need to guard against computer hackers), Ockey devotes most of his attention to the discussion of the innovative use of CBT for assessing language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing). Ockey also proposes that performance-based writing assessmentsthose in which learners produce authentic written discourseare more valid indicators of writing ability in real-world contexts than tests that measure writing components separately (e.g., grammatical knowledge). He then describes the development of and controversies surrounding the use of automated essay scoring (AES) systems that could lessen the need for costly human raters. Ockey also notes that assessments of speaking skills that require spoken discourse are more authentic indicators of linguistic ability than discrete-item tests (e.g., ll-in-the-blank dialogues). He then discusses the use of integrated skills testing to assess speaking and listening (e.g., Versant English Test), an approach that is closely aligned with language tasks that learners will encounter in the real world. Although Ockey admits that CBT has gone far beyond the computerized administration of conventional tests described by Garrett (1991, p. 88) with the incorporation of more authentic tasks (e.g., storytelling), the eld still faces challenges regarding test security, the assessment of multidimensional language constructs, and the creation of scoring systems that take the humanness (meaning and feeling) of human discourse into account. Cummins and Davesne provide an overview of the use of e-portfolios as an alternative to CBT for assessing L2 abilities. After noting some limitations of the use of quantitative, computerized CBT and CAT for L2 assessment, especially the lack of any human element in the interpretation and evaluation of L2 skills, the authors propose that a more qualitative, human-based assessment

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) involving the use of e-portfolios be used to complement CBT results. In their review of literature, Cummins and Davesne present an overview of research carried out on assessment using e-portfolios, which have been dened by Al Kahtani (1999) as a purposeful collection of a students work that is made available on the World Wide Web or a recordable CD ROM (p. 262). This research builds on the work of Dewey (1933), who advocated using portfolios to reect on and summarize what was learned and to monitor the learners progress over time. The research reviewed by the authors highlights that the process of reection helps to develop learners metacognitive skills; this recognition has led to the inclusion of self-assessment tools as part of e-portfolio templates. In their contribution, Cummins and Davesne describe the evolution of the use of e-portfolios for L2 assessment in Europe and the United States. The rst e-portfolios were based on the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which referenced the CEFR (Common European Frame of Reference) scale to evaluate L2 abilities. The American adaptations of the ELP are the K 12 level LinguaFolio (LF), which references the American National Standards and the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) prociency scale, and the universitylevel Global Language Portfolio, which references both the CEFR and the American National Standards/ACTFL prociency scale. Self-assessment tools (e.g., ELP, DIALANG; LF, self-assessment grid) are also used in all three e-portfolio formats. The authors then review the ELP three-part format for e-portfolios, which has been adopted by its American counterparts: a language passport, a language biography, and a dossier; this format builds on earlier research on portfolios and L2 assessment. After this review, Cummins and Davesne explore the affordances offered by electronic portfolios (e.g., storage of text, audio, video, and graphic les to attest to learner progress; easy navigation among the three e-portfolio components; availability of concrete samples of learner abilities to potential employers; enhancement of learner collaboration and social skills from working together on e-portfolio projects). Two notable affordances of e-portfolios include their ability to (a) attest to learners linguistic skills by the inclusion of text-, audio-, graphic-, and video-based artifacts that evidence their ability to carry out linguistic functions in real-life situations or simulated real-life situations (authentic assessment) and (b) provide evidence of learners intercultural competence via the results of cultural tests

Barbara A. Lafford as well as intercultural reections in the language biography section of the e-portfolios. Finally, Cummins and Davesnes discussion of research on the effectiveness of portfolios as an assessment tool evidences mixed results, although much of that research is just beginning. They conclude their article with a discussion of future directions for e-portfolio research and development for language learning. Smith and Lafford respond to the issue of the problems that CALL scholars face in the promotion and tenure process. According to the authors, the goals of this research were to provide guidance for CALL researchers as they decide where best to channel their scholarly energy (e.g., determining which types of scholarly activities to focus on and the most appropriate publishing venues for their work) and to inform decision makers from other disciplines attempting to evaluate the scholarly activity of CALL scholars for promotion and tenure. After reviewing other work that has addressed the quality of linguistic scholarship (Egbert, 2007; Magnan, 2007; VanPatten & Williams, 2002), the authors present the results of a survey sent to prominent researchers in the eld of CALL that asked respondents to provide information about the following: (a) criteria used to judge journals in which CALL scholarship appears; (b) relative ranking of CALL-specic, educational technology, and applied linguistics/SLA journals; (c) the relative importance of certain types of scholarly activities for promotion and tenure; and (d) advice to junior CALL scholars. First, the 35 survey respondents were presented with a list of possible criteria to judge the quality of CALL journals and were asked to identify the factors that they would use to evaluate them. Interestingly, the criteria often used by university personnel committees to judge the quality of journals in which CALL scholars place their work (e.g., citation analysis, readership, impact factor, acceptance rate, time to publication) were not considered by CALL scholars to be as important as the quality of articles that appear in the journals and the signicance of journal contributions to the eld of CALL. Survey respondents were asked to rank the quality of certain CALL-specic, education technology, and applied linguistics/SLA journals. Statistical analysis illustrated that the journals rankings naturally fell into four divisions, with Language Learning & Technology ranked the highest, forming its own category. Placement of scholarly work in the following applied linguistics/SLA journals was also considered to be benecial when coming up for promotion and tenure: CALICO Jour-

683 nal, Computer Assisted Language Learning, Language Learning, Language Learning & Technology, Language Testing, The Modern Language Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, and TESOL Quarterly . Smith and Lafford also focus on other issues related to the promotion and tenure of CALL scholars: (a) attitudes toward online journals of CALL researchers and their home departments (e.g., CALL scholars rated these journals more highly than did institutions); (b) the relative importance of various forms of published creative activity (e.g., refereed articles are valued more than textbooks, conference proceedings, or software reviews); and (c) advice for junior CALL scholars for publishing and succeeding in academia (e.g., nd a mentor, publish in mainstream as well as CALL-specic journals, educate senior faculty about the nature of CALL scholarship). THEMES AND CONTROVERSIES Several common themes based on Garretts (1991) original core issues emerged as key concerns in various contributions to this Focus Issue; they include SLA theory, empirical research and CALL, creation and use of CALL materials and technologies, social networking, assessment, the need for teacher training, and professional rewards. This section will review the treatment of these themes by Focus Issue authors and discuss current controversies relevant to each of these topics. SLA Theory, Empirical Research, and CALL Several Focus Issue authors (Garrett, Chapelle, and Thorne et al.) observed an interest on the part of CALL scholars in using more socially oriented theories (e.g., sociocultural and ecologically based theories) in CALL research. These theoretical frameworks, characteristic of the social turn in SLA (Block, 2003), lend themselves more easily to the study of the construction of identity, the process of acculturation into social networks, and the acquisition of intercultural competence (all themes of interest in recent CALL studies) than more traditional cognitively based SLA models. In line with the ideas expressed by various scholars in the rst MLJ Focus Issue (Lafford, 2007b), Chapelle (this issue) points out the need for looking at both cognitive and social factors in SLA; she also notes the potential for complexity theory (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; LarsenFreeman, 1997) to play a role in moving the eld forward toward a more nuanced understanding of the individual, social, and environmental

684 factors involved in acquiring an L2 (i.e., toward an ecological perspective of SLA). van Lier (2004) proposed that ecological linguistics sees language learning as emerging from the formation of a community of practice of language learners who draw on the affordances of the learning context to carry out various activities. Thus, it would seem that an ecological framework would lend itself to describing the contingent use of multiple linguistic resources in a global multilingual reality, described by Kramsch and Whiteside (2007) and Canagarajah (2007) in the rst Focus Issue and reported by Thorne et al. (this issue) in their review of social computing in virtual environments. In fact, Thorne et al. do discuss a new socially based theoretical frameworkthe linguistics of communicative activity , proposed by Thorne and Lantolf (2007)that is very much in line with an ecological approach to language study. The use of technology by scholars from diverse cognitive and socially based theoretical frameworks to carry out empirical SLA studies was noted by Garrett (this issue), Egbert et al., and Blake. The ecological focus on the process of SLA (e.g., the tracking analysis of CMC interactions in chat rooms and virtual worlds to study student output and the effects of feedback; the construction of identity; the development of learner agency; and the study of the complexity of the learning situation using an ethnographic, case study approach) over the products of L2 acquisition (e.g., linguistic outcomes) in current CALL research was pointed out by Garrett, Blake, and Thorne et al. The need for incorporating teacher voice in an ecologically emic perspective on CALL research was noted by Garrett (this issue) and formed the basis of the contribution by Egbert et al. One of the major controversies mentioned by Garrett (this issue), Blake, and Cummins and Davesne regards research into the efcacy of CALL. Both Garrett and Blake assert that research on the efcacy of CALL that compares the linguistic abilities of students in CALL versus non-CALL environments presents several threats to validity. This is due to the fact that many variables in such research cannot be properly controlled, such as teachers styles and attitudes, learner variables (e.g., learning styles, attitudes, aptitudes), the array of different CALL/DL formats and environmental factors characteristic of various institutions, the lack of proximity to DL learners for testing purposes, the frequent self-selection of more motivated and disciplined learners into DL (CALL) contexts, and the variable technological expertise of students in CALL settings.

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) In addition, as technology becomes more ubiquitous and invisible, it is extremely difcult to nd a true control group that uses no technology to learn an L2. Moreover, Garrett (this issue) and Blake agree that broad research questions inquiring about the effectiveness of a CALL versus nonCALL approach need to be replaced with more specic questions about what type of technology is effective for realizing what types of outcomes in a given context (e.g., whether drill-and-kill activities are more or less effective than CMC negotiations for the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar). Cummins and Davesne pointed out similar problematic issues in carrying out research on the overall effectiveness of electronic portfolios without taking into account various affordances of different e-portfolio platforms and the variation inherent in local contexts of learning. Creation and Use of CALL Materials and Technologies In her 2009 update, Garrett asserts that a comparison of todays CALL technologies with those in use for language learning in 1991 would be moot, due to the sea change that has taken place in technology over the past 18 years. For instance, Blake, Garrett (this issue), and Otto and Pusack note that standalone CDs and videodisks to facilitate language learning have been supplanted by readily available sounds and images from the target culture, which can be retrieved from the Internet at any time or place (with wireless connectivity) via the use of various mobile devices (e.g., iPods, phones, laptop computers), and by various forms of CMC in the target language. The use of CALL technologies used to teach the four skills, vocabulary, grammar, and/or intercultural competence were treated by Levy, Ockey, Garrett (this issue), and Blake. It is important to note that several Focus Issue authors (Blake, Garrett, Levy, and Otto) echo Levy and Stockwells (2006) warning against the pitfalls of getting on the bandwagon of a new emergent technology (e.g., chat rooms, social networking) and cavalierly throwing away older, more traditional and established uses of CALL (e.g., drill-and-kill grammatical exercises). These Focus Issue authors take a more holistic, ecological view and recognize the value of presenting learners who possess a wide range of learning styles with a variety of affordances to accomplish various goals in given contexts and acquire target language skills and intercultural competence. Due to the current increased student agency (the power to take meaningful action and

Barbara A. Lafford see the results of ones decisions and choices [Warschauer, 2005, p. 45]) in technological environments, Blake, Otto and Pusack, Thorne et al., and Cummins and Davesne agree that the definition of CALL authoring has become more inclusive. With each student having access to the Internet, where they can post their own thoughts and images using blogs, social networking sites, and YouTube, and participate in the remix cultures of fan ction, CALL authorship is no longer just the purview of CALL experts and programmers, as was the case in 1991. These Web 2.0 activities reect a postmodern (ecological) model of language, as described by Graddol (1994) and Lam and Kramsch (2003), in which authors use various semiotic systems (e.g., language, graphics, music, pictures) to create texts. Van Lier (2004) suggested that using more open composing tools, fostering creativity, and encouraging project work will result in a heightened sense of empowerment and agency among teachers and students. Despite teacher interest in creating CALL materials and the encouragement of administrators to use technology-based instruction, Otto and Pusack note several barriers to CALL authorship. These include lack of time (in light of other academic and personal responsibilities), lack of professional rewards (especially important during the critical pretenure probationary period for CALL scholars), scarce infrastructure and personnel resources for software development (especially in these current troubled economic times), the short shelf life of software that needs to be updated when new platforms emerge, and the need for CALL training for graduate students and future teachers. Interaction and Social Networking Several Focus Issue authors discuss the use of CMC technologies to carry out SLA research on various aspects of learner interactions. For instance, Chapelle and Blake note the use of computers to carry out CALL research in psycholinguistic and interactionist frameworks to study the role of feedback and uptake in SLA and their effect on linguistic outcomes, whereas Egbert et al. look at the effects of providing training to e-tutors in various ways of giving feedback to learners. Several Focus Issue authors (Thorne et al., Blake, and Otto and Pusack) note the recent worldwide explosion of Web 2.0 technologies that students use in their daily lives to communicate with family and friends (e.g., Facebook, blogs, Twitter). Echoing the ecological perspective that language is a system of relations and that language learning occurs through socialization, Blake and

685 Thorne et al. propose that we leverage learner interest in vernacular social computing to help facilitate their L2 acquisition. To accomplish this, Thorne et al. discuss the use of bridging activities , which are grounded in principles of language awareness and the concept of multiliteracies and couple students digital vernacular interests with instructor guidance to explore structural, functional, and pragmatic dimensions of living language use (Thorne et al., p. 814; see Thorne & Reinhardt, 2008, for further discussion). New opportunities for social computing have brought about a qualitative change in the way language learners acquire their target language and culture. For instance, Blake, Otto and Pusack, and Thorne et al. propose that the ability learners have to post their ideas as public documents on the Internet (e.g., blogs) and participate in various social communities (e.g., Facebook) has increased their sense of agency and the likelihood that they will come to view themselves as competent members of various discourse communities. In addition, participation in worldwide virtual communities such as Second Life allows students to participate in extensive situated learning with native speakers of the target language an experience once only attained through a sojourn abroad. Their involvement with these social communities of practice mediated by technology helps raise language students awareness that they are part of a global multilingual reality. Even though some language scholars may mistakenly dismiss the use of online gaming as a frivolous activity, the research on online gaming reported in Thorne et al. shows that learner participation in MMO platforms such as World of Warcraft can be extremely motivating for students and may encourage learners to perfect their L2 skills to present themselves as competent players of the game on a global scale. Assessment The use of computer-based tools for assessment is discussed by Ockey and Cummins and Davesne. As mentioned earlier, Ockey commented on the affordances and limitations of quantitatively based CBT and CAT for assessing language skills. Ockey also describes the use of CAT and iCALL to provide contingent, exible, dynamic, adaptive, localized feedback to learners hallmarks of an ecological approach to language learning. One of the major testing controversies involves the use of computers or humans to score extended L2 discourse. For instance, Ockey discusses the use of an AES system called e-Rater .

686 Despite the high correlation shown between eRater scores and those of trained evaluators (Attali & Burnstein, 2006), several scholars criticize this approach, saying that good writing cannot be evaluated simply with quantitative metrics and that only humans can really appreciate the value and meaning of a text (Condon, 2006). To address this issue, Ockey notes that both the Graduate Record Exam and the Graduate Management Admissions Test use a combination of human raters and an AES system to assign scores to essays. This type of computerhuman hybrid approach includes the human element in rating written language production while reducing costs associated with human raters. Automated computer assessments for evaluating speaking skills have not progressed as much as AES systems due to the added complication of needing to recognize unpredictable spoken discourse. However, recent development in CBT integrated skills assessments (e.g., listening and speaking) shows that test developers are trying to add more authentic, ecologically valid examination items that reect real-world uses of language. Another important aspect of CBT concerns the type of linguistic ability that we choose to measure. For years, CBT has been measuring linguistic progress in classroom environments in terms of linguistic outcomes (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary). However, in the age of social networking and technologically enhanced ways of interacting with other learners and native speakers of the target language in semi-immersive virtual environments, perhaps other criteria should be used to measure learner progress. Similar to what Lafford and Collentine (2006) found when trying to assess the progress of study abroad learners, Lam and Kramsch (2003) pointed out the futility of measuring learner progress by using classroombased criteria solely focused on linguistic structures and suggested taking factors into account that students do develop as they become socialized into L2 learning environments, including the increase in self-condence, the acquisition of a medium-appropriate register of [English], the skillful representation of self, the ability to play multiple roles and adopt multiple voices, as well as the ability to command empathy and respect in a foreign language (p. 156). The acquisition of these skills could be evaluated in part through the use of qualitative assessments of artifacts found in e-portfolios (e.g., journals, interviews). Cummins and Davesne propose that e-portfolio language assessment as developed in Europe

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) presents a learner-empowering alternative to CBT. However, research to date has shown that students do not consider portfolio use to be motivating; many consider it busywork rather than a valuable tool to develop metacognition and reective abilities. Clearly, more research is needed on the use and effectiveness of e-portfolios to facilitate language acquisition. Need for Teacher Training The need for training language teachers in the use of new and innovative uses of technology is noted by Garrett (this issue), Blake, Levy, Otto and Pusack, and Cummins and Davesne. As Garrett notes, the MLA (2007) report only made brief mention of this topic in the context of teaching graduate students and made no suggestions that established language faculty receive such training. Blake notes that teachers (at all levels) are crucial to the successful implementation of CALL, but many of them are not as technologically savvy as the students they mentor. Blake and Egbert et al. point out that often teachers are only willing to implement new technologies in their classroom with which they are already familiar from use in other contexts (e.g., PowerPoint). In addition, teachers only integrate technologies into their curriculum after they have been convinced of their usefulness. Blake suggests leveraging teachers familiarity with certain alreadyestablished tools (e.g., Google) to make them aware of new applications and affordances in more recent expanded versions of those same tools that are appropriate for creating Web-based language learning activities (e.g., Google Maps, which can provide students with detailed maps and photographs of various cities in countries where the L2 is spoken, including street-level panoramic views). In addition, seasoned teachers may not be familiar with new Web 2.0 mobile technologies, social networking, or the virtual worlds in which many of their students navigate with ease. However, as Facebook becomes more popular as a social computing site among young people, these language teachers may nd themselves opening up a Facebook account to connect with younger members of their family and then, incidentally, reconnect with old friends who have also joined that virtual community. As these instructors become more familiar with Web 2.0 social computing technologies (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs, virtual environments) as a result of communicating with other individuals outside an academic setting,

Barbara A. Lafford language instructors may feel more comfortable integrating their use into their language learning curricula. However, instructors should evaluate the affordances of various social networking sites and choose one that will suit the needs of their students and accommodate the tasks they are given. For example, Facebooks viral quality may not make it the best tool to use for homework assignments; students may not want their educational institution intruding on their private life, nor to allow classmates and teachers to get access to their Facebook personal pages. One social networking site that may prove promising for educational use is Ning (www.ning.com), a platform that allows the formation of restricted local social networks focused on given topicsa feature that makes it more secure and better suited to the needs of classroom learners. Another great challenge to the implementation of CALL related to providing technological training for language teachers is the need for the establishment of national and local institutional support structures to sustain the momentum built up by a faculty members attendance at a technology workshop put on by CALL experts outside the teachers home institution (e.g., summer workshops sponsored by the National Foreign Language Resource Centers). It is encouraging to report, however, that some of the cost of supporting the training of teachers in the use of new technologies may be coming down directly as a result of the implementation of those tools to provide the training itself. For instance, this past summer of 2009, the Language Acquisition Resource Center (2009) offered a free online social media summer institute, Going on Safari with Digital Natives, that showcased 10 different technology workshops related to the use of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching languages. This type of affordable, open training for language teachers is meant to empower language learning and collaboration (n.p.) among large numbers of language professionals (and their support personnel), and it will certainly have the potential to facilitate the implementation of social technologies into the foreign language curricula at the participants home institutions around the country or around the globe. Even so, this type of teacher training does not ensure that instructors will implement that training into their curriculum. In addition, teachers are often not motivated to receive and implement technological training in the absence of incentives and professional rewards for activities related to technologically based materials development and utilization. Professional Rewards

687

Several Focus Issue authors note the lack of professional rewards for doing CALL research (Blake; Garrett, 1991, this issue; Otto & Pusack; Smith & Lafford), which can present disincentives for CALL development and scholarly investigation in this eld. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed at institutional and national levels so that scholars wishing to focus their investigative energies on the factors surrounding the use of technology to facilitate the acquisition of languages can receive fair and informed assessments of their work. One key issue on which Focus Issue authors agree is the need to educate the decision makers at various levels in educational institutions who are responsible for the evaluation of CALL scholars for promotion and tenure. For instance, language department personnel committees are often composed of literary scholars who may not understand or appreciate the theoretical grounding and analytical skills necessary to carry out empirical CALL research. In addition, as theirs is a book culture, literary scholars and Humanities researchers who serve on department-, Dean-, or Provost-level committees may not understand why multiple authorship is often necessary to carry out SLA and CALL research. For this reason, department heads must be made aware of the norms of CALL research and need to seek outside reviewers who are well aware of these issues. Language department chairs will usually choose linguists from other institutions to judge a CALL scholars work, but not all linguists understand what is involved in SLA, applied linguistics, or CALL research. For instance, theoretical linguists or quantitatively focused sociolinguists may not appreciate qualitative, in-depth case studies on identity formation in virtual environments that might involve only a handful of subjects. It is hoped that these administrators would seek professional guidance when creating a list of established CALL scholars on which they can rely for outside reviews. Additionally, at the Dean and Provost level of review for promotion and tenure, scholars from the quantitatively focused elds of the natural and social sciences may not understand that qualitative approaches are sometimes more appropriate for exploring the complex factors involved in SLA and CALL. They may also be looking for funding acquisition in a CALL scholars record; however, according to van Lier (2004), the traditional hegemony of quantitative research in the natural and social sciences may make it more difcult for more

688 recent, ecologically based SLA and CALL studies to be funded at the national level. In addition, as mentioned earlier, Smith and Lafford (this issue) point out that CALL scholars and the university decision makers who will decide their promotion and tenure cases do not use the same criteria to judge the quality of CALL journals in which CALL scholars place their work. As a result, it is imperative that professional organizations (e.g., Association of Departments of Foreign Languages, ACTFL, MLA) (a) put on workshops for language administrators (the rst level of review for CALL scholars) that would familiarize them with the premier journals in the eld of CALL, applied linguistics, and SLA (see Smith & Lafford); (b) provide a list of established CALL scholars in the eld willing to serve as outside mentors or reviewers for junior CALL scholars coming up for promotion and tenure; and (c) explain to them that applied linguistics, SLA, and CALL research often requires teams of researchers to work together to analyze corpora and large data sets, which would naturally lead to coauthorship. Administrators also need to be aware of some of the necessary attendant costs to carrying out high-quality research using technology (e.g., the need for appropriate materials, infrastructure such as hardware, software, and Internet access, and personnel needed to help create instruments, collect and analyze data, and provide technological support). Position papers on the evaluation of applied linguistics, SLA, and/or digital media and CALL scholarship have been put forth by the MLA (2002), the European Association for ComputerAssisted Language Learning (jointly with CALICO and IALL, 1999), and the University of California Consortium for Language Learning and Teaching (2009). In addition, the MLA Committee on Information Technology (n.d.) also puts on workshops and panels on issues surrounding the use of technology in language teaching and the evaluation of digital media and (by extension) CALL research at the annual MLA meeting, which language administrators can attend. At the local level, senior and junior CALL scholars should make sure that the chairs and other decision makers at their universities are provided with copies of these national-level position papers, representative samples of theoretically grounded CALL research, and copies of studies of the empirical research on the evaluation of SLA, applied linguistics, and CALL that has been carried out over the past few years (Egbert, 2007; Magnan, 2007; Smith & Lafford, this issue; VanPatten & Williams, 2002). Perhaps once these decision makers realize

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) that the intellectual base of SLA/CALL theory often draws on the work of scholars who also inform literary theory (e.g., Bakhtin, 1986) and that the validity of empirical research on SLA and CALL can be enhanced through the use of technology, CALL will receive the respect it deserves within the academy. THE FUTURE OF CALL AS AN INDEPENDENT FIELD In Garretts update, she highlights the symbiotic relationship that currently exists among SLA theory, pedagogy, and technology (CALL): At every step in the development of CALL, technological innovations have encouraged us to engage learners in ways never before available, and research on that experimentation has changed our understanding of language learning (p. 721). Indeed, many renowned CALL scholars (Bax, 2003; Blyth, 2008; Kern, 2006; Warschauer, 1999) view the separation of these factors as an unsustainable model and, consequently, predict the demise of CALL as a separate eld of study. This inevitability is due primarily to two factors: the integration of the affordances of CALL technologies into mainstream currents of SLA theory and empirical research, and the normalization of CALL in pedagogical practice. Integration of CALL Technologies Into SLA Theory and Empirical Research The fact that CALL technologies have been incorporated into mainstream SLA research is not at all surprising. These technologies afford many advantages to the SLA researcher: (a) They provide a mechanism to collect and store L2 products (written and oral data), which may include corpora of extended learner monologistic discourse (e.g., essays, oral monologues, class presentations) as well as dialogistic interactions with other nonnative speakers or with native speakers of the target language; (b) they provide opportunities for the collection of information about the processes involved in SLA (e.g., eye-gazing data to track attention to form in the composition process, videocams and screen captures to record paralinguistic cues such as gestures and changes in body posture during synchronous CMC [SCMC] sessions, SCMC data to understand the complexities involved in negotiating form and meaning, SCMC data from interaction in virtual worlds that can inform our knowledge about the formation of identity and learner agency in L2 online social cultures); and (c) they provide tools for the

Barbara A. Lafford analysis of these data (e.g., eye-tracker software programs, keystroke tracking programs, concordancers). Thus, as Garrett (this issue) points out, the normalization of the use of such tools for researching language learning (along with the publication of CALL studies in mainstream SLA and applied linguistics journals; see Smith & Lafford, this issue) has blurred the distinction between SLA and CALL research. Extending Meskills (2005) use of metaphors to describe the role of the computer in CALL (and, by extension, SLA) research, Petrie (2005) discussed the maps that have been drawn so far by different theoretical traditions and empirical research to form a cartography of CALL. The information from these maps tells us what we know about the territory that has been explored (i.e., the way learners acquire language in technologically mediated contexts). Petrie encouraged more exploration of unknown territory that lies beyond the connes of the existing maps (e.g., the discovery of new factors that might affect language acquisition), and it is clear that the use of technology and its application to language learning can assist SLA scholars in navigating these uncharted waters by nding new ways to generate and analyze L2 data and, thus, inform SLA theory. The interrelationship of SLA and CALL is also seen in the use of various SLA theories to frame CALL research. CALL scholars working in different theoretical traditions pose research questions that derive from their assumptions about language and related models of language learning. The studies cited below are merely representative samples of CALL research within various SLA traditions. For more in-depth coverage and discussion of this topic, see Chapelle (2005; this issue), Egbert and Petrie (2005), and Levy and Stockwell (2006). CALL scholars working within a cognitive framework have asked questions that fall within the purview of psycholinguistic and interactionist SLA research. For instance, psycholinguistic concerns have been addressed by ORourke (2008), who used eye-tracking software to capture data from L2 learners about their attention to form in their own output during chat sessions, Chun and Payne (2004), who made use of tracking tools to investigate the relationship of learners working memory and look-up behavior as they read online texts, and Smith and Gorsuch (2004), who utilized video technology and screen captures to collect information on utterances, gestures, and changes in body posture in the context of SCMC. Those CALL scholars working within an interactionist

689 framework have used SCMC technologies to investigate the type of items (lexical or grammatical) that trigger the most negotiation (Gonz alezLloret, 2003), the effect of task type on negotiated interaction (Blake, 2000), and the relationship of paralinguistic phenomena and L2 production (Smith & Gorsuch, 2004). Chapelle (this issue) suggests that although psycholinguistic concerns have been a mainstay in SLA research, technology has made possible the expansion of SLA to look at questions regarding the social aspects of language learning. For example, CALL researchers working within socially based traditions (e.g., Sociocultural Theory) have investigated the effects of the institutional context and teacher beliefs on teaching and learning activities (Warschauer, 1999); the effects of telecollaboration on the development of intercultural competence (e.g., Cultura project, described by Bauer, deBenedette, Furstenberg, Levet, & Waryn, 2005, and Furstenberg et al., 2001); cultural inuences on the use of various communication tools (email vs. instant messenger) by L2 learners (Thorne, 2003); the use of synthetic immersive environments to develop learners pragmatic competence (Sykes, 2008); and learners use of a combination of linguistic resources in task-based activities to negotiate new identities that facilitate their acculturation into online communities (Lam, 2003). Although much CALL research has been carried out within a sociocultural framework, not as much work has been done using an ecological perspective. Some examples of ecologically based CALL studies include van Lier (2003), which investigated the complex contextual factors that affect the efcacy of technology in project-based learning, Shin (2006), which examined how context is congured in students language learning practices through CMC, and Zheng, Young, and Wagner (2009), which analyzed chat logs and other artifacts of a virtual world, to explain how avatar-embodied collaboration provided resources for English language acquisition. The growing awareness among CALL scholars of the nuanced view of SLA afforded by an ecological approach to the study of technologically enhanced language learning will certainly generate more ecologically based CALL research in the future. Normalization of CALL in Pedagogical Practice Due to inequities in infrastructure and teacher training that have limited the ubiquity of CALL (i.e., the digital divide), we cannot yet say that CALL has been completely normalized in pedagogical practice, but it is certainly well underway

690 in many U.S. institutions of higher education. In large part, this has resulted from signicant changes in the eld of foreign language education brought about by access to the Internet and to other technological affordances over the past two decades. Indeed, computer-based technologies have not only expanded the repertoire of possible task types and given learners more immediate access to authentic materials and speakers of the target language, but they have also made us rethink the way we teach grammar, vocabulary, the four skills, and cultural competence. For instance, due to their ability to raise metalinguistic awareness in L2 learners and provide students with a tireless tutor, traditional drill-and-kill exercises and engaging games (crossword puzzles, matching exercises, click-and-drag activities) are still used to teach grammar and vocabulary; however, their gravitation from CDROM formats to the Internet allows for an expansion of task types (e.g., the inclusion of links to Web sites to help students complete crossword puzzles) and for immediate instructor access to computer-graded student work (e.g., textbook-related exercises on iLrn). In addition, innovative technologically mediated ways to learn grammar and vocabulary may be realized by having L2 learners use text- or video-based multimodal concordancers to examine corpora of target language authentic written and oral texts to see grammar in action and to understand nuanced interpretations of target language lexical items that appear in various contexts (Ackerley & Coccetta, 2007; Huang & Liou, 2007). Before Internet technologies were widely available to L2 learners, the ability to listen to and read authentic texts from the target culture was limited to ones access to (sometimes outdated) books, periodicals, music CDs, DVDs, and CD ROMs containing that type of material. Access to the Internet, however, has made engaging authentic materials for learning language, literature, and culture widely available. For example, learners may now read and download target language books, pictures, and news stories, as well as audio and video les from popular Web sites (e.g., iTunes and YouTube) onto their computers or mobile handheld devices (e.g., Kindles, iPods, mobile phones). This easy access to authentic target language materials in familiar formats has the potential to enhance student engagement with the target culture in ways that were not possible with the use of pre-Internet tools. The use of CALL for computer-mediated oral and written communication has already been normalized to the extent that Chun (2008) has sug-

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) gested that CMC tools for language learning are now in their second generation. For instance, Chun pointed out that rst-generation asynchronous CMC tools have gravitated from email and text or audio-based discussion boards and forums (e.g., Wimba Voice Boards) to secondgeneration blogs, wikis, and social networking sites for communicating and sharing text, audio, and videos (e.g., Facebook, YouTube). Similarly, Chun also suggested that rst-generation SCMC technologies, such as IRC chats, MUDS, MOOS, one-to-one instant text messaging, and desktop videoconferencing (e.g., CU-SeeMe), have been superseded by second-generation Internet phones (e.g., VoIP) and audio and video conferencing. Even newer SCMC technologies, which might be considered yet a third generation of innovation, include Web 2.0 applications such as audio-based Skype, chatterbots, text-based Twitter (made possible through advances in handheld mobile computing devices, e.g., phones and iPods), and L2 gaming applications in virtual worlds (e.g., Second Life, World of Warcraft), which can include participants from the target culture. The widespread personal use of these new generations of CMC technology by L2 learners has opened up the possibility of reconceptualizing how we teach communicative competence (or how we actually dene this term; see Chapelle, cited in this article, p. 678, and this issue). By inviting learners to extend their use of familiar technologies to L2 settings, we are empowering them and giving them the opportunity to develop their sense of agency and authorship, as well as to construct their identities as competent speakers of the target language. Access to Web 2.0 technologies has also brought about new ways of acquiring target culture competence. Where once the only means language learners had to acquire an understanding of the contemporary worldviews of members of the target culture was through extensive reading of weeks-old newspapers and magazines in their institutional libraries and by spending time abroad, Web 2.0 applications have made possible immediate access to current target culture attitudes and beliefs through telecollaboration projects and social networking. Steps Toward Normalization Although many recent advances in the use of CALL have signicantly increased the use of technological affordances by L2 teachers and learners in U.S. university settings, the authors of this Focus Issue agree that there is much to be done to

Barbara A. Lafford bring about the complete normalization of the use of technology-enhanced tools for language learning and research. According to Bax (2003), the normalization of CALL will have taken place when the technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice and hence normalized (p. 23). As we do not speak of PALL (pen-assisted language learning) or BALL (book-assisted language learning) due to their complete integration into educational practice, Bax pointed out that the mere existence of the acronym CALL gives testimony to its not-yet-normalized state. In addition, Bax asserted that one criterion of CALLs successful integration into language learning will be that it ceases to exist as a separate concept and eld for discussion. CALL practitioners should be aiming at their own extinction (p. 23). A review of Bax (2003), Levy and Stockwell (2006), and the contributions by established CALL scholars in this Focus Issue has inspired the following specic suggestions on how to hasten the invisibility and normalization of CALL: (a) Identify critical factors required for normalization . This would include support at the national, regional/state, and local levels in the form of more workshops and panels on CALL and CALL research at the national meetings of languageassociated professional organizations (e.g., MLA, ACTFL, AAAL, CALICO, IALL), national grants for innovative CALL initiatives (including K16 partnerships), affordable and accessible teacher training by National Language Resource Centers on the use of innovative technologies, and the establishment of a national CALL center (proposed by Garrett, this issue). Additionally, more support for CALL must be found at the institutional level in the form of easy access to appropriate technologies, reliable and willing partners for collaborative projects, support from administrators to provide for the maintenance of a solid CALL infrastructure (e.g., reliable technologies, including portable laptops as well as language center computers, software, technical support, and technological training of faculty and students), and acceptance by faculty and students that CALL activity is a normal practice that utilizes CALL materials relevant to the goals and needs of students. (b) Use these criteria to audit pedagogical practices in varied teaching contexts , and (c) adjust our current practice to encourage normalization . One of the most promising tools that can be used to promote the normalization of CALL is Web 2.0 technology. New communication technologies used daily by digital nativesthat is, those born after the mid-1980s who have grown up with digital literacies and communicative prac-

691 tices (Prensky, 2001; Thorne & Payne, 2005) have already become somewhat invisible to them, and it behooves language practitioners to leverage learners interest in and knowledge of those technologies into carrying out innovative CALL activities. For instance, Ning pages could be created for L2 language classes that invite known native speakers to participate in posting the kinds of routine messages normally found on these social networking sites (e.g., textual description of current activities, photos, videos); depending on the goal of the activity and the type of learner (e.g., foreign language or heritage), more than one language could be used in this type of forum to create and maintain online bilingual or multilingual identities. Such pages could also be created between students going abroad and their potential host families; the rst- and second-level social relationships (Isabell -Garcia, 2006) that they would build in this social virtuality prior to going abroad would certainly help ease their integration into the target culture once they arrive. The friendships that they create while abroad could also be maintained via online social networking once they return home, thus facilitating lifelong learning and interest in the target culture. In addition, learners interest in online MMO gaming can be leveraged into having them complete negotiated tasks with native speakers of the target language in a virtual-world environment (e.g., Second Life, World of Warcraft). Moreover, learners already interested in social virtualities may also be enticed to participate in simulated immersive environments (e.g., Croquelandia) to acquire new skills (e.g., pragmatic competence). Twitter accounts also could be set up so that students could communicate efciently in the target language to carry out group projects outside of class; those who would disparage this new technology should remember the summer of 2009, when its use to organize demonstrators in Tehran may have put a crack in the armor of tyranny around the world. In addition, YouTube videos from that struggle made the world aware of the reality behind the fac ade that dictators did not want the global community to see; this type of awareness is crucial to the creation of an ecological consciousness in our students about their potential role in nding solutions to the plight of the worlds oppressed and suffering. FUTURE RESEARCH AND APPLICATION OF CALL As ecological research is value-laden and potentially interventionist, this introduction draws

692 on the observations of the contributing authors to suggest directions for future CALL research that would provide insights into the how languages are learned and how these insights can be used to address practical linguistic issues: 1. Replace generalized studies comparing the use of a CALL versus non-CALL approach with qualitative case studies of certain aspects of CALL used in given local contexts. For instance, research could be conducted on how the incorporation of teacher voice and the gathering of information on teacher attitudes can inform the analysis and understanding of L2 learner data in a given context. Application questions: To what extent do teacher attitudes affect their evaluation of L2 learners success? How does the incorporation of teacher voice allow the researcher to understand L2 learners linguistic behavior in the local context? 2. Continue to carry out research to track the attention learners pay to certain parts of the online input and their own output and to understand the complex paralinguistic factors that may affect the online composition process. Application questions : How can software applications be visually effectual and engage the learners attention during the L2 acquisition process? What kinds of online tasks or interlocutors (native or nonnative speakers) cause more stress to L2 learners and how is that stress reected in the way L2 learners compose written texts or engage in CMC? What environmental factors could also be contributing to learner anxiety? 3. Compare and contrast the relative affordances of different types of quantitative (e.g., CBT, CAT) and qualitative (e.g., e-portfolio) approaches to the assessment of communicative and cultural competence. Application questions : Which CALL assessment technologies are most appropriate for assessing specic linguistic outcomes and cultural knowledge of graduating language majors? What factors affect attitudes of students toward portfolio use? 4. Explore the attitudes and abilities (other than the attainment of linguistic outcomes) developed in learners who participate in virtual environments (e.g., self-condence, pragmatic competence). Application question : Can CALL be used to help learners be more active participants in the learning process? 5. Explore the relative affordances of different authoring tools to create task-based activities, intelligently evaluate learner responses, and provide contingent feedback on the acquisition of specic L2 outcomes. Application question : Which authoring tools are best suited for creating applications that will

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009) help learners practice and assess which specic types of L2 competencies (e.g., pronunciation, lexical knowledge, grammar, pragmatics, cultural knowledge)? 6. Carry out more ethnographic case studies of how different types of learners (e.g., nonnative speaker vs. heritage) use technological affordances in virtual worlds to establish identities and acquire linguistic and cultural knowledge while interacting with nonnative and native speakers of the target language. Application questions: How can CALL applications be tailored to meet the specic needs of heritage and other kinds of learners participating in social networking environments? How can the National Standards construct of communities be reconceptualized in light of the availability of virtual environment technologies in which students communicate with native speakers of the target language around the globe? 7. Conduct more studies of the use of Web 2.0 communication technologies and on the most efcient applications for sharing information (e.g., Evernote). Application question: How can language policy advocates use technology to share information and communicate with other stakeholders and decision makers? 8. Carry out more emically based qualitative case studies to understand the stages that learners go through when entering into social networks (e.g., peripheral participation may precede active engagement in social networks). Application question: How can language tasks be ordered so as to maximize participation in social networking? 9. Conduct ethnographic case studies of individual learners acquiring languages in distance learning environments to understand the relative success of certain types of language learning strategies to facilitate the acquisition of the target language. Application questions: How can certain aspects of an L2 be acquired effectively in a given type of distance learning (CMC) format environment? How does telecollaboration with native speakers of the target language affect student attitudes toward the target culture? 10. Conduct research on the efcacy of various ways of training instructors to use technology and on their motivation to do so. Application question: What factors lead the instructor to move from training to implementation? 11. Carry out research via surveys and interviews of decision makers at various levels about their evaluation of CALL scholars for promotion and tenure. Application questions : What criteria do decision makers use for promotion and tenure decisions for CALL scholars? What is the expertise prole of outside evaluators of CALL research in a promotion and tenure case?

Barbara A. Lafford CONCLUSIONS The contributions in this 2009 Focus Issue have shown that, in large part, Garretts (1991) list of language learning prioritiesfocus on the individual learner; true integration of the teaching of language, literature, and culture; and bridging the gap between theory and classroom practice has been strongly supported in the development of CALL applications over the past 18 years. However, her caveat still stands: These [priorities] will not be accomplished unless and until teachers themselves take the initiative to think through what the technology should be able to do for them and for their students and make their needs known (Garrett, 1991, p. 95). Recent approaches to CALL that reect an ecological perspective toward the study of language and language learning can help language teachers as they go through this thought process and assess which technological affordances would be most benecial for the development of specic competencies in their studentsin particular, local contexts. Through the use of ecologically valid, technologically enhanced activities that simulate real-world contexts, students can gain the condence they need to prepare themselves for authentic communication with native speakers of the language. Moreover, access to Web 2.0 technologies can also help language learners realize that they are part of a larger, worldwide, interconnected, multilinguistic ecosystem that demands that they possess sufcient linguistic resources to communicate and collaborate with others around the globe to meet the real-world challenges that humanity must face in the coming years.
2

693
Web 2.0 technologies (those that belong to the second generation of the World Wide Web) include Internet tools and processes such as blogging, collaborative writing and composition environments, le sharing (photo, video, audio) and tagging, and social utility and networking sites (Thorne, Black, & Sykes, this issue, Note 1).

REFERENCES Ackerley, K., & Coccetta, F. (2007). Enriching language learning through a multimedia corpus. ReCALL Journal , 19 , 351370. Al Kahtani, S. (1999). Electronic portfolios in ESL writing: An alternative approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 12 , 261268. Attali, Y., & Burstein, J. (2006). Automated essay scoring with e-rater V.2. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment , 4 (3). Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/vol4/3/ Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays . Austin: University of Texas Press. Bauer, B., deBenedette, L., Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., & Waryn, S. (2005). The Cultura project. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 3162). Boston: Thomson Heinle. Bax, S. (2003). CALLpast, present, and future. System , 31, 1328. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120136. Blake, R. J. (2009). The use of technology for second language distance learning. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 822835. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition . Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University. Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research: Post Firth and Wagner (1997). In B. Lafford (Ed.), Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) . Modern Language Journal , 91(Suppl. 1), 863876. Blyth, C. (2008). Research perspectives on online discourse and foreign language learning. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 47 70). Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist , 32 , 513531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenebrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive ndings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specic environments (pp. 344). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank Nina Garrett and the other 2009 Focus Issue authors for their outstanding contributions to this project. I am also very appreciative of the feedback provided by the CALL scholars who served as outside reviewers for the contributions in this Focus Issue. Finally, thanks go to The Modern Language Journal editors, Leo van Lier and Elana Solon, and to WileyBlackwell for their support during the creation of this update on trends and issues in CALL.

NOTES
1 See Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993) for an explanation of the metaphor of educational contexts as nested, interrelated micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-ecosystems. These ecosystems have been succinctly summarized by van Lier (2003, pp. 5253).

694
Canagarajah, S. (2007). Lingua franca English, multilingual communities, and language acquisition. In B. Lafford (Ed.), Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) . Modern Language Journal , 91(Suppl. 1), 923 939. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA Theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 5364). New York: Erlbaum. Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computerassisted language learning. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 741753. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chun, D. (2008). Computer-mediated discourse in instructed environments. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 1545). Phildelphia: Benjamins. Chun, D. M., & Payne, J. S. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory and look-up behavior. System , 32 , 481503. Condon, W. (2006). Why less is not more: What we lose by letting a computer score writing samples. In P. Ericsson & R. Haswell (Eds.), Machine scoring of student essays: Truth and consequences (pp. 209 220). Logan: Utah State University Press. Cummins, P. W., & Davesne, C. (2009). Using electronic portfolios for second language assessment. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 848867. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reective thinking to the educative process (Rev. ed.). Boston: D.C. Heath. Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 38). New York: Erlbaum. Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly , 41, 157 171. Egbert, J., Huff, L., McNeil, L., Preuss, C., & Sellen, J. (2009). Pedagogy, process, and classroom context: Integrating teacher voice and experience into research on technology-enhanced language learning. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 754 768. Egbert, J., & Petrie, G. M. (2005). CALL research perspectives . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics: Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics , 27 , 558589. European Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning. (1999). EuroCALL Research Policy Statement: Joint policy statement arising from a seminar on CALL. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.eurocall-languages.org/ research/research_policy.html

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal , 81, 285 300. Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language of culture: The Cultura Project. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 55102. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/ furstenberg/default.html Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal , 75 , 74101. Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 719740. Gonz alez-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction. En busca de esmeraldas , 7 , 86104. Graddol, D. (1994). Three models of language description. In D. Graddol & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media texts: Authors and readers (pp. 121). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic . London: Arnold. Haugen, E. (1972). The ecology of language: Essays by Einar Haugen (A. S. Dil, Ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Huang, H. -T., & Liou, H. -C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 64 82. Isabelli-Garc a, C. (2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation, and attitudes: Implications for SLA. In M. DuFon & E. Churchill (Eds.), Language learners in SA contexts (pp. 231258). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Jackson, F., & Malone, M. (2009). Building the foreign language capacity we need: Toward a comprehensive strategy for a national language framework . Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved June 21, 2009, from http://www.cal.org/resources/ languageframework.pdf Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40 , 183210. Kinginger, C. (Ed.). (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal Monograph , 92 . Kramsch, C., & Whiteside, A. (2007). Three fundamental concepts in second language acquisition and their relevance in multilingual contexts. In B. Lafford (Ed.), Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) . Modern Language Journal , 91(Suppl. 1), 907922. Lafford, B. (2007a). Second language acquisition reconceptualized?: The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). In B. Lafford (Ed.), Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner (1997) . Modern Language Journal , 91(Suppl. 1), 735756.

Barbara A. Lafford
Lafford, B. (Ed.). (2007b). Second language acquisition reconceptualized? The impact of Firth and Wagner ( 1997). Modern Language Journal , 91(Suppl. 1). Lafford, B., & Collentine, J. (2006). The effects of study abroad and classroom contexts on the acquisition of Spanish as a second language: From research to application. In R. M. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 103 126). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lam, W. S. E. (2003). Second language literacy and identity formation on the Internet . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (3), 4465. Lam, W. S. E., & Kramsch, C. (2003). The ecology of an SLA community in a computer-mediated environment. In J. Leather & J. Van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition (pp. 141158). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Language Acquisition Resource Center. (2009). Going on safari with digital natives . Online summer institute, August 1014, 2009. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University. Lantolf, J. (2007). Dialectics and L2 prociency . Manuscript submitted for publication. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos-complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics , 18 , 141165. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leather, J., & Van Dam, J. (Eds.). (2003). Ecology of language acquisition . Boston: Kluwer. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 769782. Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005). Learning Italian via Mobile SMS. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile technologies for teaching and learning (ODL series, pp. 7683). London: Kogan Page/Taylor & Francis. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning . New York: Routledge. Magnan, S. (2007). Commentary: The promise of digital scholarship is SLA research and language pedagogy. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 152 155. Meskill, C. (2005). Metaphors that shape and guide CALL research. In J. L. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 2540). New York: Erlbaum. MLA (Modern Language Association). (2002). Guidelines for evaluating work with digital media in the modern languages . Retrieved July 25, 2009, from http://www.mla.org/resources/documents/rep_ it/guidelines_evaluation_digital

695
MLA (Modern Language Association). (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world . Retrieved July 25, 2009, from http://www.mla.org/pdf/forlang_news_pdf.pdf Modern Language Association Committee on Technology. (n.d.). Reports. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.mla.org/rep_it Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and challenges in the use of computer-based testing for assessing second language ability. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 836847. ORourke, B. (2008). The other C in CMC: What alternative data sources can tell us about text-based synchronous computer mediated communication and language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 21, 227251. Otto, S. E. K., & Pusack, J. P. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning authoring issues. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 784801. Petrie, G. M. (2005). Toward a cartography of CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 193196). New York: Erlbaum. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning . St. Paul, MN: Paragon House. Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique g en erale . (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.), with the collaboration of A. Riedlinger. Paris: Payot. Shin, D. S. (2006). ESL students computer-mediated communication practices: Context conguration. Language Learning & Technology, 10 (3), 65 84. Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System , 32 , 553575. Smith, B., & Lafford, B. A, (2009). The evaluation of scholarly activity in computer-assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 868 883. Sykes, J. (2008). A dynamic approach to social interaction: Synthetic immersive environments and Spanish pragmatics . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 3867. Thorne, S. L., Black, R. W., & Sykes, J. M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming. Modern Language Journal , 93 (s1), 802 821. Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. P. (2007). A linguistics of communicative activity. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 170195). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Thorne, S., & Payne, S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal , 22 , 371 397.

696
Thorne, S. L., & Reinhardt, J. (2008). Bridging activities, new media literacies and advanced foreign language prociency. CALICO Journal , 25 , 558 572. University of California Consortium for Language Learning and Teaching. (2009). Considerations for evaluation of applied linguistics in language, literature, and culture departments in the UC system (White paper). Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://uccllt.ucdavis.edu/white-papers/ evaluation-mwhite-paper5.15.pdf van Lier, L. (2003). A tale of two computer classrooms: The ecology of project-based language learning. In J. Leather & J. Van Dam (Eds.), Ecology of language acquisition (pp. 4963). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning . New York: Kluwer Academic. VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2002). Research criteria for tenure in second language acquisition: Results from a

The Modern Language Journal 93 (2009)

survey of the eld . Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at Chicago. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . (M. Cole, V. JohnSteiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ware, P., & ODowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12 (1), 4363. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education . New York: Erlbaum. Warschauer, M. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 4151). New York: Erlbaum. Zheng, D., Young, M., & Wagner, M. (2009). Negotiation for action: English language learning in gamebased virtual worlds. Modern Language Journal , 93 , 489511.