Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-sd5qd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:11:26.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating a web-based video corpus through an analysis of user interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2013

Catherine G. Caws
Catherine G. Caws*
Affiliation:
Department of French, PO Box 3045 STN CSC, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8W 3P4, Canada (email: ccaws@uvic.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As shown by several studies, successful integration of technology in language learning requires a holistic approach in order to scientifically understand what learners do when working with web-based technology (cf. Raby, 2007). Additionally, a growing body of research in computer assisted language learning (CALL) evaluation, design and development, has indicated that analysis of learners’ behaviours is an essential element to implementing high-quality technology (e.g., Chapelle, 2001; Levy & Stockwell, 2006). Hence, carefully evaluating the effectiveness of CALL by collecting empirical data on user interactions while focusing on the process of learning is integral to a holistic understanding of students’ behaviours (e.g. Felix, 2005; Hémard, 2006).

This article examines a design-based research that seeks to analyse and understand the dynamics of user interactions with a specific web-based CALL tool in the context of a French as a second language (FSL) course. To this end, we present a sample of results based on an analysis of specific tasks carried out with this CALL tool that is designed in part to encourage students’ integration of critical and electronic literacies. By way of conclusion, we identify the steps that are necessary to enhance this particular CALL system and help users better achieve their learning goals. In particular, we explain the process of recycling our results in the next design phase of the CALL tool in a continuous improvement effort.

Keywords

User interactioneducational ergonomicslearner behaviourelectronic literacyCALL effectivenessvideo corpus

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 85 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bernardini, S. (2004) Corpora in the classroom: an overview and some reflections on future developments. In: Sinclair, J. (ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertin, J. C.Gravé, P. (2010) In favor of a model of didactic ergonomics. In: Bertin, J. C., Gravé, P. and Narcy-Combes, J. P. (eds.), Second language distance learning and teaching: theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, IGI Global USA, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, S. (2005) From pedagogically relevant corpora to authentic language learning contents. ReCALL, 17(1): 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caws, C. (2009) Contexte et culture en enseignement du FLS: de la création d'un corpus à son exploitation linguistique. Mélanges CRAPEL, 31: 205–222.Google Scholar
Chalmers, P. (2003) The role of cognitive theory in human–computer interface. Computers in human behaviour, 19: 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2001) Computer applications in second language acquisition: foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colaric, S.Jonassen, D. (2001) Information equals knowledge, searching equals learning, and hyperlinking is good instruction. Computers in the school, 17(3): 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colpaert, J. (2006) Toward an ontological approach in goal-oriented language courseware design and its implications for technology-independent content structuring. Computer assisted language learning, 19(2): 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005) Analysing recent CALL effectiveness research -Towards a common agenda. Computer assisted language learning, 18(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. (2007) How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer assisted language learning, 20(5): 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M. J.Caws, C. (2010) Usability Tests in CALL Development: Pilot Studies in the Context of the Dire autrement and FrancoToile. CALICO Journal, 27(3): 491–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hémard, D. (2003) Language learning online: Designing towards user acceptability. In: Felix, U. (ed.), Language learning online: towards best practice. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 21–46.Google Scholar
Hémard, D. (2006) Evaluating hypermedia structures as a means of improving language learning strategies and motivation. ReCALL, 18(1): 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P. (2005) A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer assisted language learning, 18(5): 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Marra, R. M.Crismond, D. (2008) Meaningful learning with technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981) The problem of activity in psychology. In: Wertsch, J. V. (ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 37–71.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (2002) CALL by Design: discourse, products and processes. ReCALL, 14(1): 58–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M.Stockwell, G. (2006) CALL Dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum A.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1991) Cognitive artifacts. In: Carroll, J. M. (ed.), Designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–38.Google Scholar
Rabardel, Pierre. (1995) Les hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
Raby, F. (2007) A user-centered ergonomic approach to CALL research. In: Egbert, J. L. and Petrie, G. M. (eds.), CALL Research Perspectives. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum A, 179–190.Google Scholar
Scapin, D.Bastien, J. (1997) Ergonomic criteria for evaluating ergonomic quality of interface systems. Behaviour and information technology, 16: 220–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selber, S. (2004) Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Strickland, A.W. (2006) ADDIE. Idaho State University College of Education, Science, Math & Technology Education. http://ed.isu.edu/addie/Google Scholar
Verillon, P.Rabardel, P. (1995) Cognition and artifacts: a contribution to the study of thought in relation to instrumented activity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 10(1): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2000) The changing global economy and the future of English teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3): 511–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar