Language Learning &
Technology
Vol. 2, No. 1, July 1998, pp. 22-34
FROM RESEARCH ON INSTRUCTED SLA
Carol A. Chapelle
Iowa State University
ABSTRACT
This paper suggests that some design features and evaluation criteria for multimedia CALL might be developed on the basis of hypotheses about ideal conditions for second language acquisition (SLA). It outlines a relevant theory of SLA and enumerates the hypotheses it implies for ideal conditions such as input saliency, opportunities for interaction, and learner focus on communication. Implications of each hypothesis for multimedia CALL design and evaluation are outlined and exemplified.
INTRODUCTION
CALL software designers look to research and principles from a variety
of cross-disciplinary sources. Despite the potential value of diverse perspectives,
SLA theory and research might also be consulted to suggest CALL design
and to guide research on effectiveness. Figure 1
illustrates the desired relationship between CALL design based on hypotheses
about SLA, and CALL evaluation based on focused observation seeking evidence
about those hypotheses. This paper outlines hypotheses relevant to CALL
design and describes how they might be implemented and evaluated in CALL
activities.
Figure 1. The interdependence of design and evaluation of CALL learning
activities
RELEVANT HYPOTHESES ABOUT SLA
The SLA literature contains work representing a variety of objectives and
approaches for investigating the process of second language development.
For example, the recently published Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
(Ritchie & Bhatia, 1996) contains chapters documenting 19 different
approaches to SLA research. Standard texts on SLA (e.g., Ellis, 1994) include
diverse perspectives. When addressing applied questions such as design
and evaluation of multimedia CALL, it is necessary to select from the many
approaches those that are relevant.
Identifying Relevant Hypotheses about SLA
Historically, many applied linguists and teachers have been reluctant to
make any application of research to second language teaching, but
more recently Pica (1997) has shed light on the complex issue of relationships
between research and practice. She categorizes approaches to SLA research
on the basis of their interface with teaching: Some SLA research coexists
with L2 teaching while having little if any intellectual interface. Other
SLA research collaborates with L2 teaching when teachers and researchers
work together toward similar goals within the classroom and the sociopolitical
environment of education. A third type of SLA research, which is most significant
for CALL design, complements L2 instruction. Pica (1997) describes
these classroom experiments in the following way:
In classroom experiments that illustrate. . .complementarity, theoretically grounded learning materials and strategies to facilitate L2 learning are selected or developed by researchers. The researchers then work with participating teachers toward classroom use of these materials and strategies, followed by classroom research on their impact on students' learning. (p. 54)
In applying the idea of complementarity to CALL, the "materials"
refer to software and other materials supporting CALL activities. As Doughty
(1987, 1992) has pointed out, these materials can be designed to operationalize
conditions that researchers hypothesize as creating positive conditions
for SLA. A theoretical approach that is useful in supporting such complementarity
is the "interactionist" perspective on SLA theory and research
(Pica, 1994).
A Useful Model of SLA
The SLA model of interest hypothesizes that target language input acts
as the potential starting point for acquiring aspects of the L2. The model
expands considerably on Krashen's (1982) idea that a lot of comprehensible
input is what is needed for SLA. It attempts to articulate what makes input
comprehensible and how it is processed to influence the development of
the learner's linguistic knowledge (Long, 1996). The model illustrated
in Figure 2 is a simplified version of the one
outlined by Gass (1997). It summarizes a consensus view among interactionist
SLA researchers.
Figure 2. Basic components in the SLA process in interactionist research
INPUT at the left of Figure 2 refers to the target
language that the learner is exposed to. Much target language input goes
over the learners' head but only that which is apperceived has the potential
to be acquired. An important aspect of the learners' APPERCEPTION is their
noticing aspects of the input. Therefore, one concern for designing instructional
materials may be to include features that prompt learners to notice important
aspects of the language.
The next box, COMPREHENSION, represents the hypothesis that understanding of the semantic content of a message can be accomplished either with or without any comprehension of the syntax. Semantic comprehension is not expected to help in the acquisition of the syntactic system because it may be accomplished through the recognition of isolated lexical items and interpretation of non-linguistic cues. When comprehension takes place through a combination of semantic and syntactic processing, the linguistic characteristics of the input can become INTAKE, that is, comprehended language that holds the potential for developing the learners' linguistic system.
INTEGRATION is comprised of the processes for using or holding the intake
in short term memory to influence the development of the linguistic system,
which in turn affects the L2 OUTPUT that the learner produces. The output
is an observable result of the process, but it is also considered an important
contributor to linguistic development in at least two ways. First, producing
linguistic output forces learners to use the syntactic system and therefore
to develop this aspect of their ability. Second, it elicits subsequent
input from interlocutors, some of which may contain indications of problems
with the learner's output which will result in the learner's noticing aspects
of the linguistic form, making new hypotheses, and producing more output.
This process, referred to as negotiation of meaning, is believed
to facilitate L2 development (Long, 1996).
Seven Hypotheses Relevant for Developing Multimedia CALL
Based on the model of SLA in Figure 2 and its supporting theory and research,
hypotheses about ideal conditions for SLA can be articulated (Long, 1996;
Pica, 1994) in terms that are relevant for developing multimedia CALL.
These hypotheses are reviewed here and some of their empirical and/or theoretical
bases are noted.
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made
salient.
Current theory advances beyond Krashen's (1982) idea that all target language
input facilitates L2 acquisition by distinguishing between useless target
language noise and target language input that may influence language development.
The latter is different from the former because it is apperceived by the
learner. Qualitative research has revealed that a learner's noticing of
linguistic input plays an important role in making unknown target language
forms into known and used forms (Schmidt & Frota, 1986). Experimental
research has shown that highlighting input in materials to prompt learners
to notice particular syntactic forms positively influenced their acquisition
(Doughty, 1991). Reviews of work in this area conclude that the depth of
the "noticing" issue extends to complexities of consciousness
and memory, but it also seems clear that task demands that can be manipulated
through instruction can increase the likelihood of noticing (Robinson,
1995; Schmidt, 1990). In other words, development of principles for CALL
design methods require effective "input enhancement" (Sharwood
Smith, 1991). Even though there may be factors internal to the learner
that influences the likelihood of apprehension, instructional materials
should facilitate apperception of input.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and
syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
Input can be defined as "the potentially processable language data
which are made available by chance or by design, to the language learner"
(Sharwood Sharwood Smith, 1993, p. 167). Only a subset of all "the
potentially processable language data" that the learner receives is
actually useful for the learner's language development (p. 167). The input
that would be useful to the learner is problematic for the same reason
that it is valuable: It contains linguistic forms that the learner does
not know. As a consequence, the learner needs help with specifics of the
input in order to comprehend it both semantically and syntactically. This
help, sometimes referred to as "modification" of the input, can
consist of such features as simplification, elaboration, or added redundancy
(Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991).
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
Like input, which can be either uncomprehended noise or valuable for acquisition,
output can be produced mindlessly or it can be created by the learner under
conditions that facilitate acquisition. The latter type of production is
called "comprehensible output" (Swain, 1985). It is learner language
that is intended to convey meaning to an interlocutor while stretching
the learner's linguistic resources. In other words, not all production
qualifies as valuable comprehensible output. It may be important that learners
have an audience for the linguistic output they produce so that they attempt
to use the language to construct meanings for communication rather than
solely for practice.
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
A second hypothesized value of output relates to the importance of noticing
linguistic features of the target language. Swain and Lapkin (1995) describe
the hypothesis as follows:
In producing the L2, a learner will on occasion become aware of (i.e., notice) a linguistic problem (brought to his/her attention either by external feedback (e.g., clarification requests) or internal feedback). Noticing a problem 'pushes' the learner to modify his/her output. In doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode than might occur in comprehension. (p. 373)
This hypothesis states that the syntactic mode of processing helps learners
to internalize new forms (Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989)
and to improve the accuracy of their existing grammatical knowledge (Nobuyoshi
& Ellis, 1993). The process of noticing can occur through learners'
own reflection and monitoring or through triggers provided by others.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
When errors are recognized in comprehensible output, the process of the
learner's self-correction is also believed to be beneficial particularly
because the linguistic items for which self-correction occurs may be those
for which learners' knowledge is fragile. Error correction affords the
opportunity to "focus on form" (Long, 1988). Focus on form is
expected to be beneficial when it occurs during the process of attempting
to construct meanings. In other words, it is important that the language
containing the noticed error be used in communication rather than for merely
displaying examples of the target language. Corrections can come from learners'
own hypothesis testing, from their requests for assistance from others,
or from explicit correction.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure
can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
Negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996) refers to the process of comprehending
input with less than perfect comprehension, producing output with less
than perfect success, identifying instances of imperfect communication
and trying to resolve them. This process occurs when the normal conversational
interaction is modified because of communication breakdowns. Miscommunication,
as evidenced by modified interaction, focuses learners' attention on language,
and through the resolution of miscommunication, makes input comprehensible.
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) summarize this view of interactional modifications:
Modification of the interactional structure of conversation or of written discourse during reading. . .is a [good] candidate for a necessary (not sufficient) condition for acquisition. The role it plays in negotiation for meaning helps to make input comprehensible while still containing unknown linguistic elements, and, hence, potential intake for acquisition. (p. 144)
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities
for good interaction.
Research attempting to examine how learning activities can best be constructed
to produce ideal input, output and interaction has pointed out the importance
of particular task features. Several approaches have been taken to define
significant L2 task characteristics (e.g., Skehan, 1996); however, the
most useful from the perspective of input, output, and interaction appears
to be that of Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993). Based on a review of research
on L2 communication tasks, they identified two task features that play
a role in prompting valuable interactions in L2 tasks. They categorized
these features under two variables--interactional activity and communication
goal--as presented in Table 1. The features
included under interactional activity and communication goal define the
characteristics of L2 tasks expected to influence learners' language in
significant ways. For example, "interactant relationship" refers
to whether the task requires a "two-way" information exchange
for goal completion rather than requiring information to travel only "one-way"
(Long, 1985). When the tasks require a "two way" interactant
relationship, the quality of the interaction is superior.
Table 1. L2 Task Features and Their Definitions
| Categories & Features | Definitions |
| Interactional activity | |
| Interactant roles | What are the participants' roles relative to the information that must be exchanged (i.e., who holds, and needs the information)? |
| Interactant relationship | What is the relationship among participants in terms of how information flows among them? |
| Interaction requirement | Does the task goal require request and suppliance of information? |
| Communication goal | |
| Goal orientation | Do learner use information to work together to meet a goal? |
| Outcome options | How many outcome options exist for the task? |
This work which shows the significance of extralinguistic task characteristics in creating positive conditions for at least apprehension, comprehension, intake, and output argues for an expanded model of SLA--a model which includes relevant task characteristics. Because extralinguistic features can be devised by the instructor or materials developer, they are placed in a separate box in the revised model. The model shown in Figure 3 includes the same linguistic (input and output) and learner knowledge and processes (apprehension, comprehension, intake, integration, and linguistic system) as the model in Figure 1. However, this particular model adds to the psycholinguistic perspective (Figure 2) a means of expressing the task demands which influence psycholinguistic process and knowledge.
Figure 3. SLA model that separates the observable language from learner processes, and that includes task characteristics
IMPLICATIONS FOR MULTIMEDIA TASK DESIGN
The hypotheses outlined above are supported by theory and research on SLA
tasks in experimental settings in which L2 learners interact with other
learners or proficient target language users. They are not guaranteed to
apply directly to design of CALL activities; but they may provide a valuable
starting point to look for principles to apply to CALL. This section describes
CALL in a way that facilitates application of the hypotheses outlined above.
Two hypothetical multimedia CALL activities are used to show how the hypotheses
can be implemented in the design of multimedia CALL.
CALL Software as a Participant in L2 Tasks
CALL developers need to consider how software can provide learners with
opportunities believed to facilitate SLA. In other words, it is useful
to view multimedia design from the perspective of the input it can provide
to learners, the output it allows them to produce, the interactions they
are able to engage in, and the L2 tasks it supports. Because CALL software
can actually play a role in input and interaction, it is useful to consider
it as a participant in L2 tasks. The metaphorical perspective of the computer
as a participant provides a means for extending the hypotheses outlined
above to CALL.
Examples of Multimedia CALL
To illustrate how CALL materials might be constructed to support these
positive linguistic conditions for learners, examples from two hypothetical
cases of multimedia CALL are given. The first example is intended for high
intermediate learners of French as a second language. T