O n f e r e n c e

The many contexts of CALL 
There are an 
enormous number of “contexts” for CALL use. The contexts involve, on the 
one hand, the technology itself, from the material artefact (e.g., mobile phone, laptop, 
tablet) through to the CALL software application (dictionary app, pronunciation software), 
and on the other hand, the particular contexts of use, from the autonomous user to the 
language class or laboratory to the online community. An immense number of contextual 
factors come into play depending on the circumstances and these factors are only just 
beginning to be explored. Let us briefly consider three studies that exemplify some of the 
challenges. 
The first study is by Smith (2008) who examined computer-mediated communication 
(CMC) between pairs of students learning German. 
Smith’s study is salien
t here because 
of its methods of data collection and analysis. Instead of only using a chat log file, this 
study captured a video file of the whole interaction on screen. While the chat log file 
collected some of the examples of repair, it did not capture the 
history
of the 
construction. As Smith (2008: p. 85) says: ‘many CALL studies do not make use of 
existing technology in their data collection and analysis methods, which can severely limit 
the impact and relevance of their findings.’ 
The study is sign
ificant in Smith’s alertness to the particularities of context. The CALL 
context in this example is uniquely different from the FtF context. The FtF context does 
not require or impose a two-step process as far as output is concerned: it is the 
technological design itself that imposes this constraint upon the user in text chat. This 
makes the communication process in the CALL context different and the researcher has 
to be very cautious in assuming findings in one context and apply unequivocally/directly 
to the other. This study also illustrates the immense value of using a data collection 
device or instrument that is capable of capturing a richer and more in-depth picture of 
the phenomena in focus.

---

-231- 
2014 CALL Conference 
LINGUAPOLIS
www.antwerpcall.be 
The second study is by Tono (2011) who uses eye-tracking of students perusing a 
dictionary entry. The study indicates just how much work users complete in tracking 
down the particular meaning of a word and separating it out from a number of 
alternatives when a single word has many meanings. Tracking software, video capture 
and eye-tracking techniques are being used increasingly in CALL research studies for 
precisely this reason, that is to record a more complete picture of what students actually 
do at the computer (see Levy & Stockwell 2006: p. 153). 
Though not a 
focus in this study, the study is of interest because of the learners’ patterns 
of engagement with the text. It is highly likely, though yet to be proven, that incidental 
vocabulary learning may occur as learners read through and evaluate the different sense 
meanings of the key word (the example was with the different sense meanings of the 
word “make”, Tono, 2011: 144
-5). Eye-tracking is also likely to be of increasing 
importance as one of the ways to assess the users interaction with the electronic 
interface, particularly for example, in better understanding the multimodal interface, and 
the user’s pattern of movement between open windows, menus and links in relation to a