Toward a neuroscience-informed evaluation of language technology

References

• Andersen, T. (2017, October 2). Has technology revolutionized language learning? Voxy. Retrieved from https://voxy.com/blog/2017/10/language-learning-revolutionized-technology/
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anwaruddin, S. M. (2017). Beyond determinism and instrumentalism: Re-conceptualizing technology for CALL. In J. Perren, K. Kelch, J. S. Byun, S. Cervantes, & S. Safavi (Eds.), Applications of CALL theory in ESL and EFL environments (pp. 22–35). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: ISTE.
   Google Scholar
• Berko-Gleason, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. B. (1985). A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills. In D.E. Forest-Pressley, G. MacKinnon, & T. Waller (Eds.), Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (pp. 207–252). New York: NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bialystok, E., & Smith, M.S. (1985). Interlanguage is not a state of mind: An evaluation of the construct for second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 6, 101–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, C., & Williams, J. N. (2002). The effect of bimodal input on implicit and explicit memory: An investigation into the benefits of within-language subtitling. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 509–533.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blake, R. J. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brandl, K. (2008). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Brick, B. (2011). Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 2(3), 18–31.
   Google Scholar
• Burston, J. (2006). Working towards effective assessment of CALL. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 249–270). London and New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (2016). What kind of creatures are we? (Columbia themes in philosophy). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 3–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeKeyser, R. M. (2000). The robustness of critical period effects in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 499–533.
   Google Scholar
• Dienes, Z., Altmann, G. T. M., Kwan, L., & Goode, A. (1995). Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1322–1338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• DuBravac, S. (2013). Technology in the L2 curriculum. New York, NY: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Dunkel, P. (1987). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL): Past dilemmas and future prospects for audible CALL. The Modern Language Journal, 71, 250–260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27, 558–589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 227–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuchs, C., & Snyder, B. (2013). It’s not just the tool: Pedagogy for promoting collaboration and community in social networking in CMC. In M. N. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 117–134). Basingstoke: Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 74–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groves, M., Hopkins, D., & Reid, T. (2015, June 12). Just how effective are language learning apps? The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/ just-how-effective-are-language-learning-apps-42913
   Google Scholar
• Gruba, P., & Clark, C. (2013). Formative assessment within social network sites for language learning. In M. N. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 177–193). Basingstoke: Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Haegeman, L. M. V., & Guéron, J. (1999). English grammar: A generative perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Han, S. (2011). Web 2.0. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hulstijn, J. (2003). Connectionist models of language processing and the training of listening skills with the aid of multimedia software. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 413–425.
   Google Scholar
• ILR. (2011). Interagency Language Roundtable. Retrieved from http://www.govtilr.org/
   Google Scholar
• Keating, R. F. (1963). A study of the effectiveness of language laboratories: A preliminary evaluation in twenty-one school systems of the Metropolitan School Study Council. New York, NY: Institute of Administrative Research, Teacher College, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinman, H. (1987). The effect of computer-assisted instruction on ESL reading achievement. The Modern Language Journal, 71, 267–273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knowlton, B. J., & Moody, T. D. (2008). Procedural learning in humans. In J. H. Bryne (Ed.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (vol. 3): Memory systems (pp. 321–340). Academic Press of Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. (2014). Does Duolingo “trump” university-level language learning? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 13–15. Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/articles/krashen-does-duolingo-trump.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271–289.
   Google Scholar
• Lamy, M. N., & Mangenot, F. (2013). Social media-based language learning: Insights from research and practice. In M. N. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 197–213). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lettvin, E., South, J., & Stevens, K. (2016). Idea to retire: Technology alone can improve student learning. The Brown Center Chalkboard. The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2016/03/25-technology-improving-student-learning-south-stevens-lettvin
   Google Scholar
• Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Hoffman, M. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 523–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libben, G. (2006). How language learners comprehend and produce language in real time. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 72–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenau, S. (1984). The teacher and technology in the humanities and arts. The Modern Language Journal, 68, 119–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, M., Evans, M. K., Horwitz, E., Lee, S., McCrory, M., Park, J.-B., & Parrish, C. M. (2013). A study of the use of social network sites for language learning by university ESL students. In M. N. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social Networking for Language Education (pp. 137–157). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Burton, N. (2014). The use of technology. In N. López-Burton & D. Minor (Eds.), On being a language teacher: A personal and practical guide to success (pp. 236–256). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s “What’s wrong with oral grammar corrections?” Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66.
   Google Scholar
• Macaro, E., Handley, Z., & Walter, C. (2012). A systematic review of CALL in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education. Language Teaching, 45(1), 1–43.
   Google Scholar
• MacKey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. SRI International. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nagata, N. (2002). BANZAI: An application of natural language processing to web-based language learning. CALICO Journal, 19(3), 583–599.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, M. (2009). Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• PR Newswire. (2016, May 25). Global report predicts EdTech spend to reach $252bn by 2020. Cision PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-report-predicts-edtech-spend-to-reach-252bn-by-2020-580765301.html
   Google Scholar
• Prensky, M. (2005). Shaping tech for the classroom: 21st-century schools need 21st-century technology. Edutopia: What works in education. George Lucas Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/adopt-and-adapt-shaping-tech-for-classroom
   Google Scholar
• Reber, A., Allen, R., & Regan, S. (1985). Syntactic learning and judgements: Still unconscious and still abstract. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 17–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Salaberry, M. R. (2005). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. In Y. Zhao (Ed.), Research in technology and second language learning: Developments and directions (pp. 39–56). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz, R. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 244–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwienhorst, K. (2011). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Solares, M. E. (2014). Textbooks, tasks, and technology: An action research study in a textbook-bound EFL context. In M. Gozalez-Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 79–113). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Statista. (2018). Number of available apps in the Apple App Store from July 2008 to January 2017. Statista: The statistics portal. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available-apps-in-the-apple-app-store/
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. (2010). Learning a language with Web 2.0: Exploring the use of social networking features of foreign language learning websites. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 233–259.
   Google Scholar
• Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. New York, NY: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T. (2004). Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition, 92, 231–270.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T. (2015). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. (2nd ed.) (pp. 135–158). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In G. Hickok & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 954–968). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T., & Lovelett, J. T. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34(1), 39–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman, M. T., & Morgan-Short, K. (2012). The neurocognition of second language. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 282–300). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vesselinov, R., & Grego, J. (2012). Duolingo effectiveness study: Final report. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/duolingo-papers/other/vesselinov-grego.duolingo12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and second language learning: What does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–429.
   Google Scholar
• Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 12(1), 43–63. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/default.html
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, K., Christiansen, M. H., Petersson, K. M., Indefrey, P., & Hagoort, P. (2016). fMRI syntactic and lexical repetition effects reveal the initial stages of learning a new language. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(26), 6872–6880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3180-15.2016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.
   Google Scholar