TESOL / TESL Issues through CALL – LELB Society

Asynchronous Communication in Language Learning Explained

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 07:17:33 +0000

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has transformed how languages are taught and learned in online environments. From real-time voice interaction to reflective, text-based exchanges, digital tools offer unique pedagogical affordances for L2 learners. This article explores synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes, including VoIP, discussion forums, blogging, and podcasting, highlighting their educational benefits, limitations, and implications for collaborative language learning in technology-enhanced contexts.

Video of Asynchronous Communication in Language Learning

Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication

Synchronous Voice Communication (VoIP)

Synchronous Voice Communication. VoIP is a communication tool that converts sound from analog into digital and sends the digitalized sound over Internet network between the caller who initiates the communication with a microphone plugged into the computer and the receiver hearing synchronous voice messages through the speakers or headphones plugged into the computer (Manning & Johnson, 2011). VoIP allows the students to experience real-time or synchronous communication overseas like using the telephone, which is ideal for holding discussion classes because, in most VoIP tools, the students can simultaneously exchange text messages and share files with each other (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; Kinoshita, 2008; Manning & Johnson, 2011).

As Stanley (2013) states, “CMC using voice is an ideal medium for collaborative learning and is perhaps one of the most exciting possibilities that technology can offer the language teacher and learners” (p. 147). According to Arcos and Sánchez (2006), audio-graphic software programs, such as Skype, allow for real-time group voice communication over the Internet, a trait that unfolds countless possibilities for interaction by making L2 learners independent of time and space.

Limitations of VoIP-Based Communication

Regardless of the numerous advantages of VoIP software programs, even those that are integrated with video conferencing, Kinoshita (2008) enumerates some criticism that VoIP could receive in this way:

The learners do not experience actual physical contact.
Visual cues, including eye contact and facial expressions, might not be noticed since the learners look at their screens rather than directly at the camera.
Non-facial gestures are missing as the learners generally expose merely their heads and shoulders.
The quality of the video can affect communication, especially when the frame rate and synchronization of the video with audio do not allow the learners to experience real-life face-to-face interaction.

Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (ACMC)

If the data and language products are collected and stored for numerous sorts of analyses, such as self-corrections, pause-time, dictionary look-up use, reflection, feedback, etc., then we are dealing with an asynchronous type of CMC (Gass & Selinker, 2008; Smith, 2004). Asynchronous CMC can be used in language learning contexts, particularly when the Internet connection is slow (Gorjian, Moosavinia, Ebrahimi Kavari, Asgari & Hydarei, 2011).

Asynchronous Learning for Busy Language Learners at LELB Society

In ACMC, participants are not under pressure to actually speak in real time. Instead, they engage in conversations in slow motion, while enjoying the advantage of more processing time before responding (Beauvois, 1992, as cited in Smith & Gorsuch, 2004; Swan & Shea, 2005; Wells, 1990). In other words, the participants can access previous messages and reflect upon them while still staying in a virtual conversation, something that interlocutors in actual face-to-face conversations cannot do, and this particular characteristic is fairly ideal for practicing self and peer-assessment (Hadjistassou, 2008; Swan & Shea, 2005).

L2 learners in ACMC can actually have a voice and no particular student can dominate the entire conversation. Even the teacher’s sense of directiveness gets normalized (Swan & Shea, 2005). Moreover, ACMC in the form of online forums offers an “interactive medium to students to re(create) the conditions of learning in L2 writing” (Hadjistassou, 2008, p. 356). Asynchronous CMC in the form of email lists and discussion boards is an effectual medium for exchanges among distant groups of students in collaborative learning projects (Simpson, 2002).

Discussion Forums in Asynchronous CMC

Hadjistassou (2008) conducted a study on the impact of asynchronously-mediated forums in the form of online collaborative discussion boards among 17 ESL learners in a university level writing course in which the students could present and share paper topics and raise critical questions to help their peers to think more critically about the assigned writing tasks.

The results indicated that participation in ACMC forums could encourage the students to implement narrating and describing strategies to provide their peers with necessary feedback, and in so doing, the students improved their writing skills through developing more formal and sophisticated language.

Hadjistassou’s (2008) findings are in agreement with what Sengupta (2001) proposed on the efficiency of CMC as a powerful tool in developing literacy in L2 learners because its text-based nature fosters sustained reflection upon classroom exchanges.

Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) contend that encouraging the students to participate in online discussion forums can increase the level of students’ involvement in communicative exchanges. According to Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), learners with different proficiency levels can utilize discussion boards because of the fact that they can participate in the forums at their own pace and convenience.

Kern (1995) contends that the utilization of discussion forums can reduce the students’ anxiety, boost their motivation, and consequently, increase their active participation and interaction, particularly on the part of reserved and reticent students who, for a variety of reasons, prefer not to attend oral discussions.

Porter (2004) states that online bulletin boards or discussion forums can furnish the teacher and the students with a well-written history or log of class activities. Furthermore, the learning community members can determine the immediacy attribute of posted comments, forums and replies, thanks to the date and time stamps on discussion forums.

Reflective Learning Through Online Forums

Good quotes for discussion forum for ESL students at LELB Society

Lamy and Goodfellow (1999) carried out a study in the Open University of the United Kingdom in an online asynchronous course in French based on discussion forums to ascertain whether conscious reflection/reflectiveness was necessary in an interactive learning environment.

The findings showed that reflective conversations in which the learners carefully, consciously and reflectively plan their language products in the discussion forums fulfill the conditions for language learning in interaction and partnership with other language learners worldwide. According to Kinoshita (2008), the employment of discussion boards can provide the learners with ample opportunities to plan and analyze their linguistic production retrospectively.

Managing and Moderating Discussion Forums

Persian forum to learn Farsi online asynchronously in our online community

Palloff and Pratt (2007) propose that the teacher should constantly monitor the activities on discussion forums and make certain that the students are posting to the appropriate discussion boards in order to prevent information overload due to poorly managed or organized information.

On the other hand, Palloff and Pratt (2007) maintain that the teacher is expected to organize the discussion forums in a way that having entered the discussion forums, the participants could feel that they have entered an active and lively conversation.

Criticisms of Asynchronous Discussion Forums

Learning on Your Time: How Asynchronous Learning Boosts Second Language Acquisition (SLA)

In ACMC, the communicators do not have access to nonverbal and vocal cues; as a result, there have been some controversies as to whether asynchronous environments can foster the development of intimacy and social learning communities (Hiltz & Goldman, 2005).

Salaberry (2001) argues that text-based CMC, including discussion forums, does lack audiovisual information, for instance, tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language.

Another criticism in response to discussion forums is that, according to Kinoshita (2008), in discussion forums, the learners cannot negotiate turn-taking due to the fact that overlaps and interruptions do not actually occur in this mode of communication.

Blogging as an Asynchronous CMC Tool

Blogging. A blog, weblog or a personal website updated frequently is an online journal where posted information from both teacher and students is organized and archived in reverse chronological order (Bender & Waller, 2013; Palloff & Pratt, 2005; Stanley, 2013).

The dividing line between a webpage and a weblog is that the former is static and the latter is dynamic and interactive as students can leave comments and make a social contribution to the content.

Blogging can provide ample opportunities for the students and the teacher to work individually or en masse to develop and publish content on specified topics and create a battery of links interactively. Blogs can provide educationally ideal opportunities for both teachers and students to build virtual communities in the online world.

Technical and Social Features of Blogs

Blogs are highly accessible worldwide as students can log in to their accounts on their personal computers, laptops, tablets, mobile devices, etc. as long as they simply have an Internet connection. One of the defining features of a blog is that it is perfectly syndicated through Really Simple Syndication (RSS).

Both teacher and students can leave posts, and each post can have comments and replies on a blog. WordPress and EduBlogs are perfect examples of pioneer blogging systems in the world.

Podcasting in Language Learning

Podcasting. A podcast is a video or audio multimedia clip about a particular topic characteristically in the format of a radio talk show. When students subscribe to podcasts, they can receive upcoming podcast episodes regularly.

Podcasts can be a great source of authentic listening for students of English. Creating and using podcasts can augment the level of autonomy in the L2 learners if they are invited to take part in creating podcasts (coursecasting).

References

Arcos, B. D. I., & Sánchez, I. A. (2006). Ears before eyes: Expanding tutors’ interaction skills beyond physical presence in audio-graphic collaborative virtual learning environments. In P. Zaphiris & G. Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 74-93). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-750-8.ch004
Bender, W. N., & Waller, L. B. (2013). Cool tech tools for lower tech teachers: 20 tactics for every classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman. 211 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gorjian, B., Moosavinia, S. R., Ebrahimi Kavari, K., Asgari, P., & Hydarei, A. (2011). The impact of asynchronous computer assisted language learning approaches on English as a foreign language high and low achievers’ vocabulary retention and recall. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 383-391. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.552186
Hadjistassou, S. K. (2008). Emerging feedback in two asynchronous ESL writing forums. In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language 216 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Hiltz, S. R., & Goldman, R. (2005). Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05445.x
Kinoshita, Y. (2008). Using an audio-video chat program in language learning. In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 507-520). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/9781599048956.ch030
Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Reflective conversation in the virtual language classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 43-61.
Manning, S., & Johnson, K. E. (2011). The technology tool belt for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 223 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Porter, L. R. (2004). Developing an online curriculum: Technologies and techniques. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. 224 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39-56. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00096
Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning & Teaching, 5(1), 103-134.
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365-398. doi:10.1017/s027226310426301x
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553-575. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.012
Simpson, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication. ELT Journal, 56(4), 414-415. doi:10.1093/elt/56.4.414
Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swan, K., & Shea, P. (2005). The development of virtual learning communities. In S. R. Hiltz & R. Goldman (2005), Learning together online: Research on asynchronous learning networks (pp. 239-261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 227 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Wells, R. A. (1990). Computer-mediated communications for distance education and training: Literature review and international resources. Boise, ID: Boise State University.

ICT and Synchronous Communication in Language Learning

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 07:22:51 +0000

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has transformed language learning by providing access to authentic materials, interactive tools, and online communication platforms. From general-purpose software to advanced Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) programs, ICT offers learners and teachers opportunities to improve language skills effectively. Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) and instant messaging platforms allow real-time interaction, enhancing collaboration, self-correction, and speaking practice for L2 learners. This post explores the role of ICT and SCMC in modern language education, highlighting research findings and practical applications.

Video of ICT and Synchronous Communication

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) refers to a wide variety of technologies that move well beyond general-purpose generic computer tools, such as emails, word processors and databases of different kinds (Levy & Hubbard, 2005). ICTs have made a strong and positive influence on the language teaching classrooms and combined with the resources available through the World Wide Web and the Internet embrace many of the technologies that are frequently used by language teachers and learners.

The Web as a Source of Authentic Materials

The Web is a comprehensive source of content as a window to the wider world outside the class, thus it is an available collection of authentic materials (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007). In addition, the technology needed to use the Internet for educational purposes is reasonably limited, and the odds of encountering major problems in using the Web for learning are relatively weak. Furthermore, as stated by Dudeney and Hockly (2007), the students do not necessarily have to rely upon a constantly stable Internet connection as they can save local copies of the located content on their computers or other digital devices. Also the students can simply print out useful pages for later use.

ICT vs. CALL

Levy and Hubbard (2005) maintain that ICT and CALL are not exactly interchangeable. They believe that ICTs are limited to the goals and needs of the language classroom, and fail to reflect the research, design and development arms of CALL and the work that goes into making and evaluating new language learning tutors and tools. Furthermore, ICTs represent well-established mainstream technologies generally designed for the native speakers of English. However, CALL makes a good contribution especially to non-native speakers of English, and even other languages.

Features of Effective CALL Programs

Distance Learning and CALL in Modern Language Education

Kecskés (1986) undertook a study in Hungary to evaluate the performance of three types of computer programs developed in English and Russian to account for both accuracy and fluency. The results of the study illuminated this point that any computer program on the premise of communicative CALL must have at least the following three features to achieve optimum success: (1) the program must be complex, cyclical and generative (CCG), (2) it must make preparatory adjustments to help the learners fulfil compensatory competency, and (3) it must offer real communicative work to accommodate requisite interaction.

Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (SCMC)

Synchronous CMC refers to real-time interaction between people over either a local or wide area network (Smith, 2004). In this mode of communication, messages are typed, sent and received instantaneously and the communicators are supposed to interact with each other in the same session. It has been argued that SCMC interactions provide learners with more additional processing and planning time than face-to-face interactions. In addition, SCMC may provide learners with enhanced visual saliency of complex or low-salience forms (Smith, 2003; Smith, 2010, as cited in Mackey, 2012; Vandergriff, 2006). Furthermore, Lai and Zhao (2006) noticed that online chat interactions result in more occurrences of learner self-correction in comparison to face-to-face interactions, with 10 out of 12 participants providing more self-correction during the online tasks.

Research on SCMC and Communication

Vandergriff (2006) carried out a study to compare face-to-face and synchronous CMC to ascertain how the communication medium affects grounding or the collaborative efforts of two or more communicators to establish shared information or beliefs. The results indicated that SCMC promotes negotiation by affecting the communicative interaction among L2 learners and encouraging them to play a greater role in managing the discourse. Furthermore, according to Chapelle and Jamieson (2008), computers can trigger communication between teachers and students and among students through providing appropriate input, particularly by facilitating oral communication.

Voice-Based SCMC and Speaking Skills

Alastuey (2011) conducted a study on the impact of synchronous voice-based CMC (SVCMC) on the level of achievement obtained by L2 students of English. The results indicated that SVCMC can help the students to improve their speaking skills because Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) tools provide L2 learners with ample opportunities to practice negotiation of meaning.

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and Instant Messaging

Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or Instant Messaging is a text-based synchronous communication tool to send and receive short messages among online users, which requires them to install a client program, namely Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, Google Talk, etc. (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; Manning & Johnson, 2011). In recent instant messaging software programs, namely Skype, e-learners can exchange files and hold voice conferences besides chatting. However, IRC was initially used for group meetings in many online courses before the emergence of video and voice conferencing (Manning & Johnson, 2011).

Educational Benefits of Chat Programs

Chat programs are becoming increasingly popular in educational institutions (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008). Using chat for educational purposes can strongly motivate the learners because, on the one hand, it is real-time communication, and on the other hand, chatting opens up the possibility of accommodating even overseas students throughout the entire globe (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007). Examining the logs from chat sessions can help teachers to recycle language that students interactively generate in order to create a variety of different exercises (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008).

References

Alastuey, M. C. B. (2011). Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 419-432. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.574639
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman. 211 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Kecskés, I. (1988). Computer programs to develop both accuracy and fluency. System, 16(1), 29-35. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(88)90007-3 218 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing in text-based online chat. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL ‘‘CALL’’? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143-149. doi:10.1080/09588220500208884
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Manning, S., & Johnson, K. E. (2011). The technology tool belt for teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00072-6
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365-398. doi:10.1017/s027226310426301x
Vandergriff, I. (2006). Negotiating common ground in computer-mediated versus face-to-face discussions. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 110-138. 228 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) in Language Learning

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 21:20:32 +0000

Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) has become a fundamental component of modern language teaching and learning. This post examines how CMC environments, tools, and strategies support interaction, collaboration, and authentic language use. By reviewing definitions, historical developments, instructional techniques, and influential research studies, readers will gain a clear understanding of how CMC reshapes second language pedagogy and enhances learners’ communicative competence across digital platforms.

Video of Computer-Mediated Communication in Language Learning

Definition and Scope of Computer-Mediated Communication

Historical Background of CMC

Distance Learning and CALL in Modern Language Education

About the history of computer-mediated communication, it is interesting to note that CMC was first considered a sub-field of business communication; however, the blending of multimedia in the traditional business environment is deteriorating this distinction, as mediated communication is immersed in almost any business communication context, perhaps even coming to take control of certain areas as public relations (Jackson, 2007).

CMC and Language Learning

Sokolik (2001) defines CMC in this way:

The most common use of networked computers is as a tool of communication between users. This makes it a natural choice as a tool for language learning. Many researchers have argued that CMC presents an opportunity for authentic language use, making it an excellent tool in the language classroom (p. 483).

Instructional Techniques in CMC Environments

The following two techniques can be implemented in order to teach second languages to students in computer-mediated environments (AbuSeileek, 2007):

Collaborative Computer-Mediated Communication Technique (ColCMC)

Collaborative Computer-mediated Communication Technique (ColCMC): A computer is used as a tool for communication between the teacher and class. That is to say, it is based on using the teacher to whole class (collective) method of learning in a computer-mediated fashion. It has nothing to do with students interacting with other classmates in groups or pairs. In other words, each student individually receives the questions, listens to the text, thinks of an answer and responds to the teacher.

Cooperative Computer-Mediated Communication Technique (CopCMC)

Cooperative Computer-mediated Communication Technique (CopCMC): Students are divided into small groups or pairs to perform a task through using the computer as a means for communication between the pairs or members of the group. The use of this technique in learning oral skills (listening and speaking) is supposed to enable the students to work at their own pace.

Empirical Research on CMC

Smith (2003)

Smith (2003) conducted a study on the use of communication strategies in task-based computer-mediated communication. The results indicated that an appropriate CMC environment in which learners are encouraged to have social interaction with each other can assist them with utilizing a wide variety of communication strategies and improving their communicative competency.

Smith (2004)

Smith (2004) undertook an experimental study, testing the Interaction Hypothesis in a computer-mediated communicative environment in which 24 intermediate non-native speakers of English interacted with one another in a synchronous mode over a local area network (LAN), attempting to jointly complete jigsaw and decision-making tasks seeded with largely unknown target lexical items. The data suggested that the level of negotiated interaction increases when the learners are exposed to unknown lexical items. This hypothesis was also confirmed that previously unknown lexical items that were fairly negotiated were subsequently retained significantly better.

Paran, Furneaux and Sumner (2004)

Paran, Furneaux and Sumner (2004) undertook a CMC-based study on M.A. students of TEFL who used email discussion lists and boards. Data were collected from 63 open-ended questionnaires and six in-depth interviews with the students in a qualitative mode. The results revealed that with the intention of increasing the level of interactivity among the students in online environments, CALL program leaders may need to give more consideration to learner training and CALL program restructuring.

Abrams (2001)

Abrams (2001) carried out a study to compare and contrast CMC contexts with traditional group journals to examine whether the former could promote the adoption of a wider array of participant roles that can prepare the learners better for authentic interactive situations compared to the latter. The findings revealed that CMC contexts are more effective than traditional group journals in encouraging the learners to develop the necessary scholastic skills to co-construct the discourse of their interactions, to actively take on a vast array of requisite participant roles so that the learners could be successful participants and authors of what occurs in the classroom, as opposed to being solely reactors to the teacher’s directions.

Pedagogical Implications of CMC

CMC provides a novel way for teachers to run classroom conversations, particularly when the goal is to get students to participate by using language to negotiate meaning, and when learners need opportunities to produce the target language so as to develop more fluency in their interactive activities, CMC class discussions may be practically ideal (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008). According to a comparison made by Simpson (2002) between CMC and face-to-face classes, it became clear that “levels of learner participation and turn-taking initiation are greater in the computer mode” (p. 415).

Furthermore, according to this comparison, it is more difficult for any participant (including the teacher) to become dominant in a CMC program because, in a CMC program, “the teacher’s role shifts from that of an authoritative disseminator of knowledge to that of a guiding e-moderator” (Simpson, 2002, p. 415).

CMC as a Multidimensional Learning Environment

CMC has expanded the pedagogical and technological arena of L2 learning and teaching by providing multidirectional and multidimensional socially-constructed learning environments that encourage collaborative network communities often based on goal-oriented activities, situated learning, reflected discourse, and a give-and-take of ideas and values (Hadjistassou, 2008).

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 589-503. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(01)00041-0
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493-514. doi:10.1080/09588220701746054
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman. 211 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Hadjistassou, S. K. (2008). Emerging feedback in two asynchronous ESL writing forums. In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language 216 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Harrington, M., & Levy, M. (2001). CALL begins with a “C”: Interaction in computer-mediated language learning. System, 29, 15-26. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00043-9
Herring, S. (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social and cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Jackson, M. H. (2007). Should emerging technologies change business communication scholarship? Journal of Business Communication, 44(1), 3-12. doi:10.1177/0021943606295781
Kinoshita, Y. (2008). Using an audio-video chat program in language learning. In F. Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer-enhanced language acquisition and learning (pp. 507-520). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/9781599048956.ch030
Paran, A., Furneaux, C., & Sumner, N. (2004). Computer-mediated communication in distance MA programmes: The student’s perspective. System, 32(3), 337-355. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.02.007
Simpson, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication. ELT Journal, 56(4), 414-415. doi:10.1093/elt/56.4.414
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00072-6
Smith, B. (2004). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction and lexical acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 365-398. doi:10.1017/s027226310426301x
Sokolik, M. (2001). Computers in language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 477-488). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. 226 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL

Advantages of CALL in Second Language Learning

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:36:41 +0000

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has revolutionized the way students acquire and practice new languages. Unlike traditional classroom settings, CALL environments provide learners with individualized instruction, authentic materials, and instant feedback. This post explores the major advantages of CALL, such as motivation, skill integration, record keeping, and authentic learning experiences. By combining theory and empirical research, the section highlights how technology enhances autonomy, engagement, and proficiency among second and foreign language learners.

Video of CALL Advantages

CALL Advantages

CALL programs have a number of potential advantages over real classroom instruction. First of all, according to Beatty (2003), the computer is a patient tutor. That is to say, the student can repeat exercises as often as necessary to gain mastery, something that is not always feasible in a face-to-face classroom. On the other hand, e-learners can gain instant, individualized feedback on their performance, often with a diagnostic report on where additional practice is needed. Beatty (2003) adds that computers have the advantage of providing the learner with a private space for practicing their English, something which is valued by shy and inhibited students.

Individualization, Record Keeping, and Answer Judging

Among various benefits derived from implementing CALL-oriented programs, according to Chapelle and Jamieson (1986), individualization, record keeping and answer judging are of primary importance. Individualization in CALL refers to the fact that the computer enables L2 learners to work alone and at their own pace (AbuSeileek, 2007; Chapelle & Jamieson, 1986; Leahy, 2008; Warschauer, 1996). In the light of individualized instruction, poor students can attain additional practice outside of the classroom. Therefore, the teacher does not need to slow down the pace of instruction for the whole class. On the other hand, individualization can allow the teacher to maintain the interest of good students by providing them with advanced materials.

All the data that is collected and analyzed in interaction between the student and computer can be collected, stored and processed in depth, something that is technically referred to as record keeping. Record keeping is also beneficial for providing both the teacher and the students with the profile of L2 learners’ mastery of the materials. Furthermore, data could be collected to search for patterns in students’ learning (Chapelle & Jamieson, 1986).

Answer judging takes place after L2 learners respond to a question posed by the computer. Then the computer notifies the learner if their answer is right or wrong. Afterwards, the computer classifies students’ wrong answers to save this information as students’ records and provide them with appropriate remedial activities (Chapelle & Jamieson, 1986).

Authenticity in CALL

Since the 1980s, communicative pedagogies have stressed the significance of teaching authentic texts used by native speakers in culturally authentic contexts of use, rather than purely pedagogical and academic texts (Kramsch, A’Ness & Lam, 2000). It is believed that authentic materials and activities can be appropriately realized in CALL programs by giving L2 learners access to an unlimited database of real-life materials through hypertext, multimedia and the World Wide Web.

The utilization of computers for second/foreign language learning has made it more feasible to implement authentic assessment (Provenzo, Brett & McCloskey, 2005) because when the students are provided with this opportunity to develop a portfolio that includes their own educational activities, such as essays, comments, forums, questions, podcasts, etc. plus their corresponding responses from the teacher and the other students, they automatically take cognizance of their own sense of promotion or perhaps demotion.

Nowadays, the Internet is providing truly authentic materials for English learners all around the world (Kern, 2013). For instance, the learners can chat with native speakers. Furthermore, it is perfectly feasible to simulate target situations more realistically, thanks to social networking and Web 2.0 tools that allow students to immerse themselves in online professional communities and either access authentic materials or give teachers the means to create materials and lessons that are of practical use. Simulation programs are suggested as group learning materials (e.g., activating problem solving, discussion, role play, teamwork, etc.) which lead to authentic language use (Ng & Oliver, 1987).

Semantic encoding and presenting stimuli ought to be on the premise of authentic materials and resources from the native community. In this regard, according to Lambropoulos, Christopoulou and Vlachos (2006), using multimedia programs, including artifacts, photographs, audio and video files, games, and so forth, could furnish the L2 learners with fairly authentic materials.

Motivation and Engagement in CALL

In a study conducted by Stevens (1991), it became clear that generally the e-learners enjoy using computers to improve their English. One of the reasons for student motivation and interest in using computers is that it is fairly easy and fast to locate information on computers in comparison to traditional ways. Another reason is that the majority of e-learners are young people who have an insatiable appetite for using technology in education.

Stanley (2013) enumerates some unique features of e-learning in conjunction with SLA that are so crucial for increasing the level of motivation in L2 learners, such as awarding badges, class weekly learning podcasts, embedded audio and video files, word games and puzzles, online classroom guests, and so forth. In a study carried out by Jones (1986), it was attempted to confirm the hypothesis that computer simulations exercises provide an excellent source of speaking practice. The results supported the hypothesis. It became clear that “it is indeed the factor of motivation which chiefly justifies the use of the computer” because “the computer keeps the discussion going by constantly providing new data” (Jones, 1986, p. 186).

Cooper (2007) conducted a study focusing on the issues that are pertinent to the use of Computer-based Learning (CBL) materials for entrepreneurship education at university level. The results elicited from interviews indicated that there was a positive correlation between a high level of motivation in the students and the personal freedom that was given to them regarding the time of learning (67%), pace of learning (51%), and the route taken through the material (66%).

According to the findings obtained in a study conducted by Beatty and Nunan (2004), in approaching a task, when the learners take an inventory of what they already know and map out appropriate strategies for approaching the task, they are better positioned to engage collaboratively in an investigation of the task and boost the level of their motivation and autonomy to develop their best to the course in comparison to the other learners who do not bother to determine their expertise. As stated by Kecskés (1986), “communication types of computer programs are intended to stimulate classroom conversation with the participation of the teacher and the students” (p. 33).

Skinner and Austin (1999) conducted a study on the impact of computer conferencing and real-time synchronous discussions in an EFL course on the level of motivation in L2 learners. The findings revealed that computer conferencing did increase the level of motivation in the L2 learners in the following three ways: (1) providing an opportunity for real communication, (2) improving personal confidence, and (3) encouraging the students to overcome writing apprehension.

Skill Integration through CALL

A lot of scholars in the field of CALL, to mention a few, (Abrams, 2001; Ewing, 2000; Levy, 1997; Warschauer, 1996) believe that CALL can provide L2 learners with ample opportunities to develop their four basic language skills which are not equally available in traditional L2 classrooms. According to Abrams (2001), computer-assisted learner-learner interactions in various social group constellations automatically inspire the learners to adopt and develop a large battery of prerequisite scholastic skills and participant roles in a more relatively learner-centered fashion in order to be successful communicators.

The L2 learners can practice all of the four skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing) naturally and interactively, thanks to computer-based multimedia, which is the combination of graphics, animation, audio, video, and other relevant elements into a single program or system (Provenzo et al., 2005; Wang & Munro, 2004) because, for instance, the learners can hold online conferences to practice oral skills. Likewise, they can correspond to each other electronically in order to practice reading and writing. The availability of multimedia in CALL has given rise to a growing interest in ways of improving L2 learners’ pronunciation skills with the help of computer-based techniques (Wang & Munro, 2004).

Metcalfe, Laurillard and Mason (1996) conducted a study on the students of a discrete-point class in which French was taught online. The primary purpose of the class was to provide the students with ample opportunities to speak French. At the end of the study, it became clear that the students lost their accuracy in writing in French with its complicated verb conjugation system. The researchers suggested that an explicit reference to written French verbs at an early stage of learning could be beneficial. They strongly advocated a holistic and integrative approach to teaching second languages in which all the four skills are practiced.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the advantages of CALL extend far beyond technological novelty. CALL supports individualized and self-paced learning, enhances motivation, and allows for authentic interaction and assessment. Through multimedia integration, learners can improve all four language skills while teachers benefit from accurate record keeping and diagnostic tools. As research consistently indicates, CALL creates a dynamic, interactive, and learner-centered environment that bridges the gap between traditional pedagogy and the digital age of education.

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29(4), 589-503. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(01)00041-0
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493-514. doi:10.1080/09588220701746054
Beatty, K. (2003). Computers in language classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 247-266). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Beatty, K., & Nunan, D. (2004). Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32(2), 165-183. doi:10.1016/j.system.2003.11.006
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted language earning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 27-45. doi:10.2307/3586387
Cooper, B. (2007). Central issues in the use of computer-based materials for high volume entrepreneurship education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 201-217. doi:10.1177/1469787407081887 212 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Ewing, M. (2000). Conversations of Indonesian language students on computer-mediated projects: Linguistic responsibility and control. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(4), 333 – 356. doi:10.1076/0958-8221(200012)13:4-5;1-e;ft333
Jones, G. (1986). Computer simulations in language teaching—The Kingdom experiment. System, 14(2), 179-186. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(86)90007-2
Kecskés, I. (1988). Computer programs to develop both accuracy and fluency. System, 16(1), 29-35. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(88)90007-3 218 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Kern, N. (2013). Technology-integrated English for specific purposes lessons: Real-life language, tasks, and tools for professionals. In G. Motteram (Ed.), Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching (pp. 89-116). London, UK: British Council.
Kramsch, C., A’Ness, F., & Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in the computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning and Technology, 4(2), 78-104.
Lambropoulos, N., Christopoulou, M., & Vlachos, K. (2006). Culture-based language learning objects. In P. Zaphiris & G. Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 22-44). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. doi:10.4018/9781591407508.ch002
Leahy, C. (2008). Learner activities in a collaborative CALL task. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 253-268. doi:10.1080/09588220802090295
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Metcalfe, P., Laurillard, D., & Mason, R. (1996). French is not a language—it’s a subject: Verb learning and CALL in a mixed-ability environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(2–3), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822960090206
Ng, K. L. E., & Oliver, W. P. (1987). Computer assisted language learning: An investigation on some design and implementation issues. System, 15(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(87)90043-1
Provenzo, E. F., Brett, A., & McCloskey, G. N. (2005). Computers, curriculum and cultural change: An introduction to teachers (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing – does it motivate EFL students? ELT Journal, 53(4), 270-279. doi:10.1093/elt/53.4.270
Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stevens, V. (1991). A study of student attitudes toward CALL in a self-access student resource centre. System, 9(1), 289-299. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(91)90053-r
Wang, X., & Munro, M. J. (2004). Computer-based training for learning English vowel contrasts. System, 32(4), 539-559. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.011 229 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.

History and Evolution of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Thu, 06 Nov 2025 20:02:13 +0000

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has revolutionized language education since its emergence in the 1960s. This comprehensive review explores the evolution of CALL across three major stages — behavioristic, communicative, and integrative — highlighting how technology has transformed teaching and learning practices in second or foreign language education. From grammar drills and syntax exercises to interactive multimedia platforms and socio-collaborative environments, CALL reflects a dynamic integration of technology, pedagogy, and theory. Learn how CALL evolved into a theory-driven field shaping modern language learning.

Video of History and Evolution of CALL

History of CALL

Computers have been utilized for second/foreign language learning and teaching from the 1960s (Lamy & Hampel, 2007; Lee, 2000; Ng & Oliver, 1987; Wyatt, 1983). This lengthy period of time can technically be divided into the following three main stages: behaviorist, communicative, and integrative CALL. In the 1960s, computer assisted language instructional projects in the U.S.A. were conducted experimentally to assess the efficacy of computer assisted instruction (CAI) vis-à-vis traditional instructional modes that mainly consisted of grammar and syntax drills translation and dictation exercises (Ng & Oliver, 1987).

The widespread use of Local Area Networks (LANs) in the early 1990s made it possible for learners to transcend the computer-learner interaction phase and enter the learner-learner interaction one, thanks to the existence of networked computers (Chapelle, 2001). In early CALL programs, computers adopted the role of tutors, interacting with the learners in a computer-human communication mode. Nevertheless, CMC caused a paradigm shift, altering the computer-human interaction mode to a human-human one (Simpson, 2002).

Behavioristic CALL

CALL has undergone different phases in its history (Chapelle, 2001; Lamy & Hampel, 2007; Warschauer, 1996). Warschauer (1996) argues that the first phase of CALL is a behavioristic one consisting of repeated drill and practice. These drills and exercises (usually reading and writing ones) are provided by the computer, and the L2 learners generally practice them individually. Warschauer (1996) offers the following reasons for labeling the first phase of CALL behavioristic:

Repeated exposure to the same material is both beneficial and essential for learning.
A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine does not get bored with presenting the same material, and since it can provide immediate and non-judgmental feedback.
A computer can present such materials on an individualized basis, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class time for other activities.

van den Branden (2006) criticizes the behavioristic phase of CALL for the following:

The employed subject matters are usually insufficiently interesting and relevant when compared to the needs of the students. The curriculum design is basically driven by considerations related to the linguistic complexity of the content.
This phase of CALL is problematic when used to justify the use of a computer in a task-based approach.
Most of the time, a functional context is completely absent. Consequently, the immediate feedback provided is very much targeted toward the linguistic correctness of the expected answer.
The learner is not in control of the interaction. The order in which material is presented and the way it is presented are not determined by the user’s preferences, but by the program’s internal logic, the latter again being dictated by a structure-based view of language.

Communicative CALL

Distance Learning and CALL in Modern Language Education

There are basically two recent orientations toward CALL: (1) communicative CALL, and (2) integrative CALL. The key distinction between communicative CALL and integrative CALL is that, in the former, learner’s choices and managerial activities are driven by task-based approaches to syllabus design. However, a syllabus in an integrative CALL represents a dynamic blueprint where learning occurs through accidents generated by projects (Barson, 1999, as cited in Gruba, 2004).

In the 1980s, thanks to the spread of the Internet in communicative teaching, more interactive approaches to second/foreign language teaching were adopted by CALL in which greater student control and choice was encouraged. (Kukulska-Hulme, 1988; Lamy & Hampel, 2007). Communicative CALL is based on cognitive theories of learning where problem-solving and hypothesis testing approaches are encouraged. In this phase of CALL, grammar is taught implicitly rather than explicitly. The most recent development is based on the socio-cultural theory where various language skills (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing) are practiced in the interactive integrated social environments (Tokuda, 2002).

Unlike behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL placed more emphasis upon listening and speaking. However, machine-learner interaction was still more dominant than leaner-learner CMC (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). In communicative CALL, the learner participates actively in the acquisition of knowledge by communicating or interacting with the source rather than merely the teacher in a more autonomous fashion and acquiring an understanding of the second/foreign language.

Underwood (1984) lists a set of features of communicative CALL in this way:

It uses the target language exclusively and creates an environment in which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen.
It does not judge and evaluate everything the students do, or reward them with congratulatory messages, lights or bells, as we used to see in behavioristic CALL.
It focuses on the use of linguistic forms rather than on the forms themselves.
It allows and encourages learners to generate original utterances rather than just manipulate pre-fabricated languages.
Its approach to teaching grammar is implicit rather than explicit.
It avoids straightforward error correction and is flexible to a variety of student responses.

van den Branden (2006) defines communicative CALL in this way:

Communicative CALL programs that seem better suited for task-based purposes are those in which the computer functions as a stimulus for the students’ self-regulated and exploratory learning. The aim of these programs is not to have students discover the right answer, but to stimulate discussion, writing and problem solving. This type of software typically includes programs that have not been specifically designed for language learners, but in which language is used to reach a goal that motivates the learner (pp. 139-140).

Integrative CALL

From the 1990s, CALL has been carrying the integrative label, thanks to the widespread use of multimedia products and the democratization of Internet use (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). In this genre of CALL, a variety of media, including graphics, text, hypertext, animation, video, sound, etc. became accessible in an integrated mode from a multimedia-networked computer (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). Unlike communicative CALL, in integrative CALL, the concept of L2 teaching and learning took a more relatively group-based form as a result of more emphasis being placed upon sociocultural considerations in education (Lamy & Hampel, 2007).

According to Gruba (2004), socio-collaborative approaches to teaching and learning are replacing communicative ones in CALL to account for more learner autonomy, collaborative project design and appropriate assessment practices. Gruba (2004) lists some of the most important potential developments for integrative CALL educators:

Assist students to overcome anxieties fostered by extensive computer usage.
Initiate and sustain student activity and interaction through computers; encourage and creative autonomous learning.
Design new criteria for assessment that ensures equitable marking of group projects, accounts for computer skills and contends with individual learning goals.
Take an active role in research and evaluation projects.
Consider the sociopolitical impact of computer usage beyond the classroom.
Acquire electronic literacy skills, including multimedia texts interpretation, basic materials design and production.

A tangible example of an integrative CALL program is the A to Z of Grammar program, which is based on the principle that a well-designed integrated approach to CALL needs to play a role in encouraging L2 learners to take responsibilities for their own learning as early as possible (McBride & Seago, 1996). The A to Z Grammar is a language learning program that brings together a range of resources or tools with a particular focus on assisting L2 learners in their acquisition and practice of grammatical structures and developing their linguistic awareness. It encourages the learners to select information and relate it to their individual needs to develop their self-confidence in solving an investigation and an ability to work independently.

Theory-Driven CALL

We can divide CALL specialists into two categories: (1) those who pay more attention to the technological dimension of CALL (e.g., Robb, 2006), and (2) those who consider its pedagogical dimension to be more important. About the former category, it is of primary importance to be familiar with all the current technologies that are available and feasible in the field of CALL. The teachers are highly recommended to update their information on how to use state-of-the-art technology in their online classes (Robb, 2006; Ward, 2006).

The view that CALL should be theory-driven is advocated by a number of authors and CALL practitioners in the CALL literature. Not surprisingly, given the range of CALL activities, and the evolving nature of the field, the theoretical motivation for CALL has been diverse. Theories emerging from cognitive psychology and SLA are a common point of departure (Farmer & Gruba, 2006; Hubbard, 2009; Kessler & Plakans, 2008; Levy, 1997; Stockwell, 2009).

Conclusion

The history of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) demonstrates a remarkable evolution from mechanical drill-based exercises to interactive, collaborative, and theory-driven environments. Each phase—behavioristic, communicative, and integrative—reflects the pedagogical and technological advancements of its time. Today, CALL integrates multimedia, artificial intelligence, and global connectivity, creating learner-centered experiences that promote autonomy, interaction, and critical thinking. As technology continues to advance, the success of CALL will increasingly depend on its ability to balance innovation with sound pedagogical theory, ensuring meaningful, context-rich language learning for diverse learners worldwide.

References

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farmer, R., & Gruba, P. (2006). Towards model-driver end-user development in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(2), 149-191. doi:10.1080/09588220600821529
Gruba, P. (2004). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 623-648). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470757000.ch25
Hubbard, P. (2009). Educating the CALL specialist. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 3-15. doi:10.1080/17501220802655383
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282. doi:10.1080/09588220802090303
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (1988). A computerized interactive vocabulary development system for advanced learners. System, 16(2), 163-170. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(88)90030-9
Lamy, M. N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lee, K. W. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(12).
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McBride, N., & Seago, K. (1996). The A to Z of grammar: An integrated CALL project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(1), 45-61. doi:10.1080/0958822960090103
Ng, K. L. E., & Oliver, W. P. (1987). Computer assisted language learning: An investigation on some design and implementation issues. System, 15(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(87)90043-1
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 335-347). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Simpson, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication. ELT Journal, 56(4), 414-415. doi:10.1093/elt/56.4.414
Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: Teaching teachers to educate themselves. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 3(1), 99-112. doi:10.1080/17501220802655524
Tokuda, N. (2002). New developments in intelligent CALL systems in a rapidly internationalized information age. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 319-327. doi:10.1076/call.15.4.319.8268
Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computer and the language teacher: A communicative approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
van den Branden, K. (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, M. (2006). Using software design methods in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(2-3), 129-147. doi:10.1080/09588220600821487
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Wyatt, D. H. (1983). Computer-assisted language instruction: Present state and future prospects. System, 11(1), 3-11. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(83)90003-9

Distance Learning and CALL in Modern Language Education

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Thu, 30 Oct 2025 18:22:12 +0000

This article explores the evolution of distance learning and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in higher education. It examines how technological advancements have transformed traditional teaching into dynamic, learner-centered environments. By outlining key definitions, features, and classifications, the post highlights the pedagogical, engineering, and practical aspects of CALL and the role of integrated virtual learning environments in enhancing online education. This resource benefits educators, researchers, and students in applied linguistics and educational technology.

Video of Distance Learning and CALL in Modern Language Education

Distance Learning

Higher education is experiencing a noticeable paradigm shift from pedagogy to learning, creating an opportunity to implement new strategies within both traditional and virtual learning atmospheres. To be more specific, the emerging technologies are considered to be the key platform to achieving innovative delivery and assessment methods. In this regard, the new integrated learning environments look to provide distributed access to a unique network of course materials and relevant information sources (Broad, Matthews & McDonald, 2004).

Hall and Knox (2009) contend that distance learning is where there is no or relatively minimal requirement for learners to physically attend the institution where they are studying. The term distance learning was first used in reference to “traditional paper-based distance courses delivered by mail” (Dudeney & Hockly, 2007, p. 136). However, nowadays distance learning refers to learning via technology, including the Internet, CD-ROMs, and portable devices. According to Dudeney and Hockly (2007), although distance learning and e-learning are almost interchangeable, the latter is a more recent term.

Key Characteristics of Distance Learning

Mood (1995) outlines the main four characteristics of distance learning in this way:

Teachers and learners are physically separate from each other.
An organized educational institution must influence or control courses.
Media are regarded as channels of communication that give rise to student involvement.
Communication is two-way and adopts various forms.

Broad et al. (2004) conducted a study on the effectiveness of an Integrated Virtual Learning Environment (IVLE) and came to this conclusion that there is value in using the Web as a means of enhancing learning and teaching. Their study lends some support to the notion that the Web is more than just a passing fad and has the potential to play a significant role in emerging learning and teaching strategies.

Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

Alternative Terms Related to CALL

It is so elusive to define CALL that it has received some other terms and acronyms, which are all related to each other (Beatty, 2003):

Computer-aided Instruction (CAI)
Computer-assisted Learning (CAL)
Computer-assisted Language Instruction (CALI)
Computer-assisted Language Teaching/Testing (CALT)
Computer Adaptive Teaching/Testing (CAT)
Computer-based Training (CBT)
Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)
Computer-mediated Interaction (CMI)
Intelligent Computer-assisted Language Learning (ICALL)
Network-based Language Teaching (NBLT)

Growth and Recognition of CALL Research

The number of research studies in CALL has increased remarkably over the last decades, and as technology becomes more integrated into language teaching, we can expect the pace to continue (Greene, 1998; Hubbard, 2005; Leahy, 2008; Levy, 1998). Levy and Hubbard (2005) did a study on the rationale for the dominance of the term, CALL, over the above-mentioned alternatives. They came to this conclusion that there must be a strong case for the use of the term, CALL, as a general label because of the following three points:

The distinctiveness and complexity of language as an object for learning,
The need for a global term that can be relatively employed to describe what we do, and
The de facto existence of a substantial and international group of individuals and established professional organizations that have continued to use the term for more than two decades, such as CALL Journal, EuroCall and its journal ReCALL, the CALL Interest Section of TESOL, Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), Japan Association of Language Teachers CALL Interest Group (JALTCALL), Asia Pacific Association for CALL (APACALL) and Pacific CALL Association (PacCALL).

Key Research Questions in CALL

According to Chapelle and Jamieson (1986), the three major questions that are frequently posed in the field of CALL are:

Do students like it?
Do students use it?
Does it work?

They contend that these three questions should be substituted for the following two ones:

What kind of students like and use a particular type of CALL?
Do those students who use CALL achieve greater success in the second language?

Three Major Communities of CALL

The world of CALL seems to be really multifaceted by nature. Some scholars contend that the arena of CALL is basically divided into the following three communities (Colpaert, 2002):

The Research Community: It is an interdisciplinary field of science in which the major challenge for the researchers is to retrieve relevant facts and findings in all related disciplines and to translate them into usable concepts.
The Engineering Community: It is currently dominated by two approaches: (1) the Rapid Application Development approaches, which are systematic and holistic, and (2) the more traditional, generic and systematic models which focus on analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation as consecutive stages with their own required expertise, methodology and expected outcomes.
The Practice Community: It stands for all the places in the world where CALL tools and courseware are being used in classroom and self-study situations.

Qualities of a Successful CALL Program

Chapelle (2001) lists some specific qualities that a successful CALL program should possess (pp. 499–501):

Language learning potential: The extent to which a CALL activity can be expected to be beneficial for language learning.
Learner fit: The appropriate fit of CALL materials to learners’ linguistic ability level and individual characteristics.
Meaning focus: The direction of learners’ attention primarily toward the meaning of the language required to accomplish the task.
Authenticity: The degree of correspondence between a CALL task and the language use the learner is likely to engage in outside the classroom.
Positive impact: The effects of a CALL task beyond its language learning potential.
Practicality: How easily learners and teachers can implement the CALL task within the particular constraints of a class or language program.

References

Beatty, K. (2003). Computers in language classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 247-266). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Broad, M., Matthews, M., & McDonald, A. (2004). Accounting education through an online-supported virtual learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 135-151. doi:10.1177/1469787404043810
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted language earning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 27-45. doi:10.2307/3586387
Colpaert, J. (2002). The world of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 437-439. doi:10.1076/call.15.5.437.13469
Decoo, W. (2003). Language methods and CALL: Redefining our relations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 269-274. doi:10.1076/call.16.4.269.23410
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Greene, D. (1998). LATCH: A syllabus design for EFL instruction in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(4), 381-396. doi:10.1076/call.11.4.381.5668
Hall, D. R., & Knox, J. S. (2009). Language teacher education by distance. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 218-229). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 351-368. doi:10.1080/09588220500442632
Leahy, C. (2008). Learner activities in a collaborative CALL task. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 253-268. doi:10.1080/09588220802090295
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levy, M. (1998). Review of computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 17-18.
Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL ‘‘CALL’’? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143-149. doi:10.1080/09588220500208884
Mood, T. A. (1995). Distance education: An annotated bibliography. Englewood, IL: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

The Significance of Social Presence in Integrative CALL

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:31:44 +0000

The rapid growth of online education has transformed the way languages are taught and learned worldwide. With the continuous advancement of technology and the increasing reliance on digital platforms, understanding the role of social presence in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has become crucial. This article highlights the significance of fostering social and communicative interaction in integrative CALL environments. By doing so, it sheds light on how online learners, teachers, and CALL practitioners can enhance engagement, collaboration, and overall language learning effectiveness in virtual classrooms.

Video on Significance of Social Presence in Integrative CALL

The Growing Importance of Online Education

The prevalence of the internet has profoundly affected many aspects of society, including higher education, where the demand for online learning is growing exponentially (Baker, 2010). Over the last few years, online course enrollments have continued to grow at rates far in excess of the total higher education student population. This rapid increase of interest in online education, particularly among the young learners, provides a fertile ground for empirical research on how and why this relatively well-established yet still evolving medium can be used to continually improve our language learning and teaching experience.

Social Presence in Integrative CALL

Although social presence has been well researched in the realm of distance learning and CMC (Cobb, 2009; Gunawardena, 1995; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Picciano, 2002; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu, 2001), it appears that more systematic research into social presence needs to be conducted in the social arena of integrative CALL as the most updated CALL genre to address current SLA issues. This study attempts to elucidate the complexity of realizing social presence in an integrative CALL program because it is believed that upon fulfilling this objective, profound insights into some social and theoretical perspectives on classroom interaction, collaborative learning, teacher education and individualization could be yielded within the immense framework of online teaching and distance learning.

Practical Implications for Online Language Learning

This inquiry could be of practical value to online L2 learners and teachers, CALL practitioners, and even website developers and programmers who work in collaboration with CALL teachers and institutions to compensate for the noticeable lack of student interactivity and collaborative learning in current CALL programs. It is believed that this research project would open a new horizon to the field of CALL by ascertaining the necessity of social factors vis-à-vis learning and teaching English online in the new millennium by means of, for instance, engineering an ideal social context for CMC, optimizing student-student and teacher-student interaction patterns, modifying models of assessment and feedback among the students and between the students and the teacher and so forth.

Pedagogical and Managerial Insights for Virtual Classrooms

It is important to note that owing to the rapid advancement in technology and hectic lifestyles of people with a high level of complexity, learning and teaching English as a foreign language would most probably undergo some changes. As a consequence, it seems to be plausible to be more proactive rather than reactive regarding the future perspectives of CALL to make necessary adjustments. In this regard, social and communicative points in an integrative genre of CALL appear to be actually prominent, for which this study is aimed at providing a blueprint. For instance, this research project might prompt some pedagogical reconsiderations in some ordinary teacher-driven interaction models, namely Initiation-Response Feedback (IRF), to make them more student-driven by nature to account for more awareness and activeness on the part of the learners.

In addition, the current investigation could reveal some practical points on classroom management techniques on the part of the teacher in virtual venues that tend to be rather more elusive and complex compared to face-to-face language classes, particularly in terms of controlling students’ disruptive behaviors who might attend virtual classes from thousands of miles away. These managerial techniques might be presented throughout this longitudinal study lasting for over one year because in the light of the prolonged reciprocal interactivity between the students and the teacher, some subtle factors and practical techniques for managing virtual classes, enhancing the motivation level in the e-learners, and encouraging both individualization and interactivity at the same time might be disclosed.

The Necessity of Social Presence in Online Educational Communities

Although the internet and digital devices have made education more accessible than ever before, the mere existence of online connectivity does not automatically guarantee the emergence of a genuine sense of community among learners. Many online institutions still struggle to foster meaningful interaction, engagement, and emotional connection among their students. Without deliberate efforts to cultivate social presence, online learning environments may remain impersonal, isolating, and transactional—failing to reproduce the collaborative spirit found in traditional classrooms.

To address this challenge, educators and CALL designers must intentionally incorporate pedagogical strategies and technological features that promote social interaction and authentic communication. Features such as discussion forums, peer feedback systems, real-time collaboration tools, and synchronous sessions can strengthen the sense of belonging and trust among learners. When students perceive that their peers and instructors are “real” and emotionally present behind the screens, their motivation, satisfaction, and learning outcomes are significantly enhanced. This recognition of social presence as a central pillar of effective online education underscores its indispensable role in sustaining active and engaged learning communities.

Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Future Research

In the next posts on interactivity and social presence, it will be attempted to give a detailed account of CALL reflected in the related literature with a particular emphasis on its most updated version, i.e. integrative CALL. The perusal of the related literature in the next posts could be a testimony of the inadequacy of systematic research into social considerations in conjunction with CALL. Hence, the concept of social presence, which is an underresearched area of concern vis-à-vis CALL, will be centralized in the following posts on the same topic.

References

Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30. 209 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2-3), 147-166.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. doi:10.1002/1520.6629(198601)14:1%3C6::aid-jcop2290140103%3E3.0.co;2-i
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. JALN, 6(1), 21-40.
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7(1), 68-88.
Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60.

Key Terms in CALL, CMC, and Online Language Learning

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Sun, 05 Oct 2025 11:35:06 +0000

Understanding the key terms in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) is essential for exploring how technology enhances second language education. This article defines crucial concepts such as asynchronous and synchronous CMC, integrative CALL, interactivity, social presence, and peer assessment. By clarifying these foundational terms, readers gain deeper insights into the role of online communication, collaboration, and learner autonomy in modern language classrooms. These definitions provide a solid basis for both research and practice in digital language learning.

Video of Key Terms in CALL, CMC, and Online Language Learning

Asynchronous CMC

Asynchronous Learning for Busy Language Learners at LELB Society

If the data and language products are typed and stored for numerous sorts of analyses, such as self-corrections, pause-time, dictionary look-up use, reflection, feedback, etc., then we are dealing with an asynchronous type of CMC (Gass & Selinker, 2008). In this study, asynchronous CMC is majorly practiced via posting, commenting and replying on the part of the teachers and students. Two obvious examples of asynchronous CMC are (1) the student-student interactivity on our comment forms prior to any round table session, and (2) our Question-and-Answer Forum in which the students pose their English questions and the teacher or other students would respond to them.

Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

CALL is defined as the search for and study of applications of the computer in the field of language teaching and learning (Levy, 1997). CALL covers a broad spectrum of concerns, including the pedagogies implemented through technology and their evaluation. As a consequence, CALL draws from other areas within and beyond applied linguistics for conceptual and technical tools to account for and evaluate computer-based learning (Chapelle, 2001). In this interactive and integrative network-based investigation, CALL refers to a specific orientation toward employing computers and cyber-technology for the sake of learning English as a second language online with a particular emphasis on establishing an interactive and collaborative learning environment. It is important to note that in this study, as it is typical of any integrative CALL system, the student-student interaction patterns are prioritized over sheer utilization of technology (McBride & Seago, 1996).

Computer-mediated Communication (CMC)

CMC is a research area regarding communication that takes place among human beings through the instrumentality of computers (Herring, 1996). CMC includes email, video-conferencing, Internet Relay Chat (IRC), commenting, posting, etc. because it investigates the nature of communication via text, audio and video on computers (Harrington & Levy, 2001). In this study into the field of integrative CALL, CMC makes a reference to the facilitative and enabling impact of computers that is conducive to the creation of an effective network-based learning environment and optimization of student interactivity. That is to say, the L2 learners engaging in some communicative activities, namely collaborative writing, argue for/against, and round table, are encouraged to maximize computer technology for educational purposes to learn with and from each other.

Content-based Instruction (CBI)

Content-based instruction in language learning

CBI refers to the teaching of language by exposing the students to content that is interesting and relevant to them (Brinton, 2003). Through CBI, language becomes the medium to convey informational content of interest and relevance to the learner. Language takes on its appropriate role as a vehicle for accomplishing a set of content goals (Brown, 2007). In this study, the researcher endeavors to call the attention of the students to informative and thought-provoking subjects, such as stress, global village, workaholism, immigration, insomnia, carpe diem, etc., to augment the level of their motivation, activeness and interactivity. Furthermore, the L2 learners are inspired to assume active responsibilities in developing the main content of our conversation class, especially round table sessions, through posing questions to each other and replying to them asynchronously in our comment forms and discussion boards.

Integrative CALL

Integrative CALL is the most recent genre of CALL in which socio-collaborative approaches to teaching and learning are replacing the communicative ones to account for more learner autonomy, collaborative project design and appropriate assessment practices (Gruba, 2004). In this research, it is attempted to create an opportunity for the L2 learners to optimize their both communication and individualization at the same time through encouraging them to augment their interaction with the other students especially by commenting, voting for/against, replying, etc., and increasing their reflectivity and autonomy through developing the content of the course and practicing self- and peer-assessment in our comment forms and discussion boards prior to each synchronous class. That is to say, not only will the students become interactive and communicative (Communicative CALL), but they will also become autonomous and individualized (Integrative CALL).

Interactivity

Interactivity includes the activities in which CMC users engage and the communication styles they use, namely task types, topics (Argyle & Dean, 1965), responsive time, immediacy in online interaction (Baker, 2010; Cobb, 2009; Tu, 2002), exchange of feedback, and the size of online communities (Swan, 2002; Tu, 2001/2002; Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Gunawardena (1995) argues that interactivity refers to the required design and strategy to trigger social presence. In this study, it refers to the collaborative activities that the L2 learners and the researcher engage in to fulfill group-based tasks and activities, namely round table and collaborative writing, with a particular emphasis on practicing asynchronous peer-assessment. As a result, interactivity, in this inquiry, implies social activeness, as opposed to individualization, on the part of the students.

Negotiation of Meaning

“Negotiation for meaning and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (Long, 1996, pp. 451-452). If teachers can guide students through getting into the right kinds of conversations, online conversations and discussions could extend the opportunities beyond what the learners can do in the traditional classrooms, and the virtual venues would become ideal for practicing negotiation of meaning (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008). In this research, the students will practice a great deal of negotiation of meaning both asynchronously (in our comment forms and discussion boards) and synchronously (in our voice-based argue for/against and round table sessions) to ask for clarification because, on the one hand, this is the students who are the principal content developers of the course, and on the other hand, these responsible students are supposed to arrive at a conclusion at the end of each conversation class with reference to their negotiations. Moreover, the ongoing and open stream of asynchronous activities on our blog could make it feasible for the learners to exercise negotiation of meaning continuously and recursively in a nested or threaded form.

Online Communication

Online communication is concerned with the attributes of the language used online and the applications of online language (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). To be successful online communicators, L2 learners need to develop some text-based skills, namely typing, reading and writing (in general, computer literacy) because without these skills, students will develop communication anxiety (Gunawardena, 1991, as cited in Tu & McIsaac, 2002). In this research, online communication refers to the administrative, instructional and managerial affairs provided by the teacher with the intention of generating a sense of belonging in the students. For instance, teacher-assessment is intentionally delayed and performed only after students’ self-assessment and peer-assessment. In addition, the teacher’s presence in the community and his immediacy in our asynchronous activities are consciously controlled to promote more student-driven online communication.

Peer Assessment

Peer assessment and feedback can encourage a collaborative dialogue in which two-way feedback is established, and meaning is negotiated between the two parties. It triggers highly complex socio-cognitive interactions involving arguing, explaining, clarifying and justifying (Rollinson, 2005). In this research, the students are encouraged to monitor their own learning (self-assessment) and also that of their classmates (peer-assessment) through commenting, self-editing and replying to the comments of their peers, etc., which per se might increase the level of interaction among the learners. To prompt an abundance of asynchronous peer-assessment, teacher-assessment is delayed and regarded only as a last resort. Asynchronous activities on our comment forms and discussion boards equipped with a voting system and threaded or nested commenting could facilitate the process of peer-assessment.

Social Context

Social contexts, such as task orientation, privacy, topics, recipients/social relationships, and social process contribute to the degree of social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). In this socially oriented inquiry, it is attempted to provide a socially interactive setting for the participants to make a substantial contribution to the online community through sending private messages to each other, instant messaging (chatting), polling, commenting, posting, replying, attending forums, and so forth. This social context is set up in a way that provides the L2 learners with a private network of communication to ensure a more secure interactive atmosphere through account creation and using usernames and passwords on the part of the students with the researcher’s approval.

Social Presence

Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of another person in an interaction and the consequent salience of an interpersonal relationship (Short, Williams & Christie, 1976, as cited in Tu, 2001). A more recent definition of the social presence theory was offered by Gunawardena (1995) as the degree to which a person is perceived as a real person in mediated communication. Social presence, which is an integral element of student satisfaction (Tu, 2001), is differentiated from interactivity in the sense that it requires the learners to perfect and complete their interactivity with awareness (Gunawardena, 1995). That is to say, when learners notice and appreciate this superior level of awareness to interactivity, they can perceive and experience genuine social presence.

In this study, generating a sense of social presence among the L2 learners in our CALL program is definitely the ultimate objective, and it will be attempted to fulfill this goal through raising the L2 learners’ awareness level of the presence of their classmates, albeit online, in order to have interaction with them, especially asynchronously and in our comment forms and discussion boards. The elevation of the students’ awareness is to be fulfilled by exposing them to challenging and informative topics (Argyle & Dean, 1965) that require them to have interpersonal relationships with each other (Walther & Burgoon, 1992) to practice negotiation of meaning so as to achieve a sense of satisfaction (Gunawardena, 1995; Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997, as cited in Cobb, 2009)

Synchronous CMC

Students interact with each other and the teacher at the same time through chatting, video or voice conferencing, streaming, etc. It has been argued that SCMC interactions provide learners with more additional processing and planning time than face-to-face interactions (Smith, 2003; Smith & Gorsuch, 2004). In addition, SCMC may provide learners with enhanced visual saliency of complex or low-salience forms (Smith, 2003; Smith, 2010, as cited in Mackey, 2012). The participants in this research will experience SCMC via instant messaging or chatting and participating in our online classes in the form of voice conferencing on Skype and Discord in our round table and argue for/against sessions.

References

Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304. doi:10.2307/2786027
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30. 209 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Brinton, D. (2003). Content-based instruction. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 199-224). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. 210 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. New York, NY: Pearson-Longman. 211 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
Gruba, P. (2004). Computer assisted language learning (CALL). In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 623-648). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9780470757000.ch25
Gunawardena, C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2-3), 147-166.
Harrington, M., & Levy, M. (2001). CALL begins with a “C”: Interaction in computer-mediated language learning. System, 29, 15-26. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00043-9
Herring, S. (1996). Computer Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social and cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3
Mackey, A. (2012). Input, interaction, and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McBride, N., & Seago, K. (1996). The A to Z of grammar: An integrated CALL project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(1), 45-61. doi:10.1080/0958822960090103
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi:10.1093/elt/cci003 225 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29-53. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(02)00072-6
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553-575. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.012
Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-50. doi:10.1080/1463631022000005016
Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
Tu, C. H. (2002). The relationship between social presence and online privacy. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 293-318. doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(02)00134-3
Tu, C. H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150. doi:10.1207/s15389286ajde1603_2
Walther, J. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1992). Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 19(1), 50-88. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1992.tb00295.x

Research Questions and Hypotheses on Social Presence in CALL Programs

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 15:59:39 +0000

This study explores how Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) can foster stronger social presence, collaboration, and engagement in online English classes. By examining teacher–student interaction, assessment methods, negotiation of meaning, and Content-Based Instruction (CBI), the research identifies strategies for building interactive and supportive learning communities. The proposed research questions and hypotheses aim to highlight the most effective approaches for integrating technology with pedagogy, helping online English teachers create more dynamic, socially connected, and student-centered virtual classrooms.

Video on Questions & Hypotheses on Social Presence

Research Questions

The current study is aimed at seeking appropriate and comprehensive answers to the following research questions. It is proposed that by implementing the strategies and techniques investigated throughout this study, the settings of CALL-based educational programs could become more integrative, interactive, and socially oriented, which per se makes it feasible for the students to maximize L2 learning in virtual venues.

What are the most important characteristics of a successful social context in an integrative CALL?
How should an online English teacher interact with L2 learners to promote more collaboration among them?
How can an online English teacher create a sense of belonging and community in L2 learners?
Which type of assessment (self-assessment, peer-assessment, or teacher-assessment) is more crucial in creating social presence in conjunction with CALL?
How could Content-Based Instruction (CBI) help online L2 learners and teachers to become more actively involved?
What is the impact of negotiation of meaning in online English conversation classes on establishing an operationally interactive learning community?

Research Hypotheses

The Role of Social Context in CALL

The social context of CALL programs is regarded as one of the substantial ingredients of social presence (Tu, 2001) in which some level of uncertainty about complex tasks might trigger social communication among computer-mediated communication users (Steinfield, 1986) to be able to form stereotypical impressions of their partners on the basis of language, typographic, and contextual cues (Walther, 1997).

Scaffolding and Collaborative Learning at LELB Society

It is presumed that as long as the concept of social context is concerned, between the two modes of computer-mediated communication (i.e., synchronous and asynchronous), the latter might be more effective to generate the sense of social presence. As Smith and Gorsuch (2004) have argued, some potentially important information may be lost during the message construction phase. On the other hand, Brooke (2012) maintains that asynchronous CMC can help the students to manage their affective barriers (feelings of anxiety and stress) in their interaction as they have enough time to reflect upon and formulate their thoughts before expressing them in CMC. This research is going to investigate whether this hypothesis is tenable or not.

Teacher Interaction: Intimacy vs. Immediacy

With respect to the e-teacher’s interaction with online students, some scholars including Picciano (2002) and Baker (2010) assert that the teacher should constantly be present. That is to say, his/her virtual visibility must always be perceived by the learners.

Social presence and student interactivity in online social contexts at LELB Society

In relation to the quality of the teacher’s interaction with the students in CMC, there has always existed the famous dichotomy of intimacy or immediacy (Cobb, 2009). Argyle and Dean (1965) conceptualized intimacy as one of the building blocks of successful interaction, which is inspired by some factors, namely physical distance, eye-contact, personal topics of conversation, smiling, and affiliation. Wiener and Mehrabian (1968, as cited in Cobb, 2009) regarded immediacy as a measure of psychological distance that an interactor considers between themselves and the object of their interaction.

The conductor of this study assumes that concerning the interaction of the teacher with the students, between the two major factors of intimacy and immediacy, the latter appears to be more influential in CALL programs, and in this research, it will be attempted to cast more light on this dichotomy.

Building a Sense of Community in Virtual Venues

With the intention of creating a sense of community among L2 learners in virtual venues, especially in conversation classes, according to Ko and Rossen (2010), the teacher is expected to help the learners to break the ice and motivate them to participate in the discussions. This could be realized by assigning less challenging topics at the start so that all the participants could have enough self-confidence to express and exchange their information.

McMillan and Chavis (1986) consider the following four factors to be the ingredients of establishing a sense of community in online classes:

Comprising or a sense of belonging
The ability to influence the group
Realization of needs through goals that are shared among the learners
Rapport among the learners in the group

Among the four elements to establish a sense of community proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986), the researcher believes that the third and fourth factors (i.e., needs fulfillment and shared connections) are more effectual in building a sense of community among L2 learners. This is because, in the long term, if the students’ academic needs are not met, they might end up losing their interest in continuing the course, albeit a truly interactive one.

Assessment Methods and Their Role in CALL

Portfolio assessment advantages in ESL classes written by Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl

With respect to the role of assessment, Gaytan and McEwen (2007) assert that, “effective assessment techniques include projects, portfolios, self-assessments, peer evaluations, weekly assignments with immediate feedback, timed tests and quizzes, and asynchronous type of communication using the discussion board” (p. 129).

In this regard, it is hypothesized that among self-assessment, peer-assessment and teacher-assessment, the second one (i.e., peer-assessment) could be comparatively more persuasive to account for an integrative and interactive genre of CALL. This remains a hypothesis that is going to be put to the test.

Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Learner Involvement

Content-based instruction in language learning

With reference to the research question on the impact of CBI on student involvement in online courses, Tella (1992) conducted a study in which two CALL-based groups of participants were encouraged to exchange ideas on the basis of CBI via email. In the first group, the students could opt for topics, and in the second one, the topics or themes were imposed upon them by the teacher.

The results showed that the students who could select the topics and write about them via email increased their engagement and autonomy in the online course in comparison to the other group. The participants of this investigation were expected to write questions on the assigned topics for discussion in the form of comments before each session, which was called Round Table. It is presumed that raising questions on the part of the students (and not the teacher) could be more effective than teacher-driven CBI in augmenting the level of social presence in online courses.

Negotiation of Meaning in Online English Classes

Interactive negotiation of meaning and form in ESL classes

Regarding the last research question about the effect of negotiation of meaning on student interaction in integrative CALL programs, Arcos and Sánchez (2006) contend that negotiation of meaning does exist even in classes based on audio-conferences despite the absence of nonverbal communication. They add that the teacher in virtual venues should not be in the limelight. Instead, he/she is expected to engage the students’ attention and interest to practice negotiation of meaning on their own.

In this regard, this study is going to put this theory to the test: with the intention of encouraging negotiation of meaning in CALL programs, the teacher ought not to be in the foreground of attention. That is to say, the teacher should adopt a neutral position to the topic being discussed. Meanwhile, it is on the part of the teacher to provide the students with an unbiased atmosphere in which they could freely express and exchange their ideas nonjudgmentally.

References

Arcos, B. D. I., & Sánchez, I. A. (2006). Ears before eyes: Expanding tutors’ interaction skills beyond physical presence in audio-graphic collaborative virtual learning environments. In P. Zaphiris & G. Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 74-93). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc. doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-750-8.ch004
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289-304. doi:10.2307/2786027
Baker, C. (2010). The impact of instructor immediacy and presence for online student affective learning, cognition, and motivation. The Journal of Educators Online, 7(1), 1-30. 209 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL
Brooke, M. (2012). Why asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC) is a powerful tool for language learning? Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2(3), 125-129. doi:10.4236/ojml.2012.23016
Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B. C. (2007). Effective online instructional and assessment strategies. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 117–132.
Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2010). Teaching online: A practical guide (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. doi:10.1002/1520.6629(198601)14:1%3C6::aid-jcop2290140103%3E3.0.co;2-i
Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. JALN, 6(1), 21-40.
Smith, B., & Gorsuch, G. J. (2004). Synchronous computer mediated communication captured by usability lab technologies: New interpretations. System, 32, 553-575. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.012
Steinfield, C. W. (1986). Computer-mediated communication in an organizational setting: Explaining task-related and socioemotional uses. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 9 (pp. 777-804). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tella, S. (1992). Talking shop via e-mail: A thematic and linguistic analysis of electronic mail communication. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University Press.
Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342-369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x

Building Social Presence in CALL for Online English Learning

Dr. Mohammad Hossein Hariri Asl — Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:58:59 +0000

Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) has gained recognition as a key component of English education in the digital age, yet its implementation still faces important challenges. Success in online learning requires more than just advanced technology; it depends on fostering social presence, collaboration, and interaction among learners and teachers. This article examines how peer-assessment, negotiation of meaning, and content-based instruction can strengthen CALL and improve learner satisfaction.

Video of Building Social Presence in CALL

Challenges in Implementing CALL Effectively

Despite the recognition of the importance of CALL in teaching and learning English as the international language in the third millennium, it appears that its practical implementation has not received adequate attention. In other words, online L2 learners could achieve a higher level of success and satisfaction in comparison to their current one, providing that some essential modifications were made to CALL, which will be discussed in this article.

The scarcity of established norms for CALL research might be regarded as a weakness of the field, placing some restrictions upon its efficacy to come up with established findings (Hubbard, 2009). It might indicate that more systematic research should be conducted to investigate the shortcomings of CALL implementation pathologically. To be more precise, furnishing all the technological requirements and facilities cannot necessarily guarantee success in teaching and learning English online.

The Role of Communication Technologies in CALL

In this regard, Herring (2007) calls for a more critical analysis of communication technology in computer-mediated communication (CMC) because she believes that “computer networks do not necessarily guarantee democratic, equal-opportunity interaction” (Herring, 2007, p. 13). However, some scholars like Broad, Matthews and McDonald (2004) believe that enhancing the new technologies of the Web is of primary importance because it can maximize the access of appropriate resources within a particular subject environment.

Social Dimensions of CALL and Collaborative Learning

A significantly theoretical factor with respect to CALL has something to do with its social dimension, something which deserves even more consideration because as Kenning (2007) has wisely proposed, “learning is increasingly conceived in educational circles as the result of collaborative actions that often involve gaining support from peers as well as teachers” (p. 113).

For instance, AbuSeileek (2007) contends that cooperative computer learning is regarded as a functional and result-oriented technique for the following two reasons:

The production of a group is normally greater than that of an individual.
Each member of the group can positively take advantage of their peers in the group.

However, from a sociocultural point of view in conjunction with second language acquisition (SLA), Interactional Accounts (IAs), according to Harrington and Levy (2001), are de-emphasized in CALL programs because the IAs focus on the face-to-face interaction of the learners and an interlocutor in terms of the individual participants, independent of context.

In this regard, in conjunction with the significance of social considerations in CMC, Walther (1996) declares that “combinations of media attributes, social phenomena, and social-psychological processes may lead CMC to become hyperpersonal, that is, to exceed FtF interpersonal communication” (p. 5), a phenomenon which was also referred to as social information processing (SIP) (Walther, 1997).

Limitations in Pedagogical Integration of Technology

According to Kessler and Plakans (2008), if discretion is not practiced, teachers’ technological skills may mask their ability to effectively integrate their technological expertise in a pedagogically sound manner. The limitation of all these interpretations is that, as Ridder (2000) has stated, although many things have been said about what to teach and learn in online classes, little is known about how to teach and learn the content in virtual venues.

Although there has been a battery of empirical analysis in support of the positive nature of interactive learning in education, there is still little evidence to suggest that the use of the Web can improve the learning environment, and as a result, the experience of students (Broad et al., 2004). The aspect of creating an effective online community, in which the L2 learners can maximize their interaction and involvement in online courses and activities, has not been given adequate attention.

For instance, Jiang and Ramsay (2005) argue that building up rapport among online L2 learners is crucial for interaction because it can:

make the process of learning more enjoyable for the learners,
increase the level of motivation in the learners, and
reduce the level of anxiety in them.

In this regard, it should be pointed out that the feasibility of creating a successful online learning community has become assured, thanks to the availability of myriads of state-of-the-art technologies, software programs and electronic equipment.

The Importance of Social Presence in Online Learning

The majority of CALL-based education systems nowadays are not categorized as being integrative (Felix, 2001). In such education systems, CALL practitioners generally attempt to compartmentalize the whole system into individual variables, namely reading ability, acquisition of grammar, elicitation tasks, motivation and attitude, discourse analysis, etc., whereas “no large-scale multivariable investigation focusing on the students’ experience of Web-based language learning has been reported to date” (Felix, 2001, p. 47).

The Evolution of CALL in Second Language Learning

In these educational programs, L2 learners can seldom develop a sense of belonging to the online community, their peers and the teacher due to the fact that the concept of social presence has not been truly realized. Social presence in online communities signifies that the members have a belonging to each other and matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that the member’s needs will be satisfied through their commitment to be together (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). The saliency of establishing social presence in an integrative CALL-based educational program lies at heart of the unique nature of online learning in virtual environments, according to which learners do not have face-to-face interaction with each other.

As a consequence, the e-teacher is supposed to fill in this gap (i.e., compensating for no actual face-to-face interaction) in one way or another. According to James (1996), with the intention of creating an interactive learning community, the teacher ought to evaluate the material and content of the course critically to come up with interactive exercises and activities rather than simply assume that groups of L2 learners working on a common task would actualize optimum interaction automatically. For instance, the teacher might motivate the students through the implementation of CBI in which the students could practice self- and peer-assessment and have negotiation of meaning in a truly interactive fashion.

Toward an Integrative and Socially Interactive CALL

As discussed earlier, the most recent genre of CALL has an integrative and socially interactive essence, which requires the researcher to study the phenomenon in more depth. Some scholars in the field of using technology for academic purposes (e.g., Cobb, 2009; Hubbard, 2009; Leahy, 2008; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Tu, 2001; Warschauer, Grant, Real & Rousseau, 2004) have conducted qualitative studies to come up with more profound and mature analyses. They all maintain that qualitative analyses of interactions might provide more comprehensive answers.

To be more specific, Tu (2001) declares that the sociology of everyday life regards the actions of people as the results of a process during which meanings that are constructed in everyday social interactions are used as the basis for individual actions. In this regard, this study seeks to break the allegedly unquestionable rule of overemphasizing quantitative methods for conducting research in social sciences, which could be regarded as one of the obstacles to arriving at more in-depth findings.

In sum, although the training of CALL has developed over the last thirty years, the training of student interaction and involvement in virtual venues has still remained a low priority, confirming Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts’ (1996) view that involving the students in determining the class direction does not necessarily imply that teachers assume passive roles. Teachers’ contribution in a learner-centered, network-enhanced classroom includes coordinating group planning, focusing students’ attention on linguistic aspects of computer-mediated texts, helping students to gain metalinguistic awareness of genres and discourses, and assisting students in developing appropriate learning strategies.

Fostering Social Presence in CALL

The central aim of this research is to examine how social presence can be generated in CALL programs, a relatively underexplored but essential area of online learning. This study seeks to engineer an online social context by modifying student-student and teacher-student interaction patterns. A key focus is on the impact of peer-assessment, online negotiation of meaning, and student-based content development during a year-long English conversation class.

Strategies for Enhancing Online Interaction

This research also investigates the role of content-based instruction (CBI), particularly through carefully selected and engaging themes that stimulate negotiation of meaning both synchronously and asynchronously. Special attention is given to asynchronous peer-assessment, such as replying to classmates in comment forms, forums, and chat rooms, as well as synchronous interaction in live classes. The goal is to critically evaluate and refine interaction patterns—peer-assessment, negotiation of meaning, student-driven CBI, and teacher-student engagement—that can enhance social presence in CALL environments.

References

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2007). Cooperative vs. individual learning of oral skills in a CALL environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 493-514. doi:10.1080/09588220701746054
Broad, M., Matthews, M., & McDonald, A. (2004). Accounting education through an online-supported virtual learning environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(2), 135-151. doi:10.1177/1469787404043810
Cobb, S. C. (2009). Social presence and online learning: A current view from a research perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3), 241-254.
Felix, U. (2001). The web’s potential for language learning: The student’s perspective. ReCALL, 13(1), 47-58. doi:10.1017/s0958344001000519
Harrington, M., & Levy, M. (2001). CALL begins with a “C”: Interaction in computer-mediated language learning. System, 29, 15-26. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(00)00043-9
Herring, S. C. (2007). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612-634). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470753460.ch32
Hubbard, P. (2009). Educating the CALL specialist. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 3-15. doi:10.1080/17501220802655383
James, R. (1996). CALL and the speaking skill. System, 24(1), 15-21. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(95)00050-t
Jiang, W., & Ramsay, G. (2005). Rapport-building through CALL in teaching Chinese as a foreign language: An exploratory study. Language Learning and Technology, 9(2), 47-63.
Kenning, M. M. (2007). ICT and language learning: From print to the mobile phone. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kessler, G., & Plakans, L. (2008). Does teachers’ confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 269-282. doi:10.1080/09588220802090303
Leahy, C. (2008). Learner activities in a collaborative CALL task. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 253-268. doi:10.1080/09588220802090295
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. doi:10.1002/1520.6629(198601)14:1%3C6::aid-jcop2290140103%3E3.0.co;2-i
Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. JALN, 7(1), 68-88.
Ridder, I. D. (2000). Are we conditioned to follow links? Highlights in CALL materials and their impact on the reading process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 183-195. doi:10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-D;FT183
Tu, C. H. (2001). How Chinese perceive social presence: An examination of interaction in online learning environment. Educational Media International, 38(1), 45-60.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3-43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
Walther, J. B. (1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342-369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00400.x
Warschauer, M., Grant, D., Real, G. D., & Rousseau, M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop programs in K-12 schools. System, 32(1), 525-537. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.09.010
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1-14. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(95)00049-p 230 INTERACTIVITY AND SOCIAL PRESENCE IN CALL