Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Department of Education at The University of York. I
would also like to thank Dr. Catherine Walter, Department of Education, University of
Oxford for her insightful comments on measuring CAF.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman
Blake, R. (2009). Potential of text-based internet chats for improving oral fluency in a
second language. The Modern Language Journal, 93(ii): 227-240
Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: appraising the developing language of
learners. In Willis, J. & Willis, D. (eds.). Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.
134-146). London: Heineman.
Bygate,M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of language, In
M.Bygate, P.Skehan & M.Swain (eds.). Task-based learning: language teaching, learning
and assessment (pp.23-48). London: Longman.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cziko, G. A., & Park, S. (2003). Internet audio communication for second language
learning: A comparative review of six programs. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1),
15-27.
Donaldson, R. & Haggstrom, M. (2006). Changing language education through CALL.
London: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency,
complexity, and accuracy in oral L2 production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 474-509.
-173-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
Guo, J. (2001). A Brief Study of the English Education in China. Journal of Foshan
University (Social Science), 19(2), 50-56.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. A. (1991). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
In Horwitz, E. & Young, D. (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to
classroom implications (pp. 27
–
36). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL Dimensions: Options and issues in computer-
assisted language learning. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
National Capital Language Resource Center (2000). High School Foreign Language
Students’ Perceptions of Language Learning S
trategies Use and Self-Efficacy. Department
of Education,Washington, DC.
Peterson, M. (2010). Task-based language teaching in network-based CALL: An analysis
of research on learner interaction in synchronous CMC. In Thomas, M. & Reinders, H.
(eds.). Task-based language learning and teaching with technology (pp. 41-62).London:
Continuum.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for
second language instruction. Reprinted in Van den Branden, K., Bygate, M., & J. M.
Norris (2009; Eds), Task-based language teaching (pp.171-192). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Rosenstiel, E., Taaffe, J., & Thomas, L. (2009). The Graduate Preparation Program at the
Ohio State University. In Andrade, M. & Evans, N. (eds.). International students:
Strengthening a critical resource. (pp. 147-151). Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Satar, H. M. & Ozdener, N. (2008). The effects of synchronous CMC on speaking
proficiency and anxiety: Text versus voice chat. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 595-
613.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition.
Studies in second language acquisition, 26: 365-398.
Yanguas, I (2010). Oral computer-
mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about
time! Language Learning & Technology, 14(3): 72-93
-174-
2014 CALL Conference
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |