Using English for Academic Purposes. A Guide for Students in Higher Education Andre Gillet
Main Article Content
Abstract
Reviewed by Mónica-Stella Cárdenas-Clarós
University of Melbourne, Australia
1. INTRODUCTION
Existing criteria for the evaluation of CALL materials have been mostly designed by language teachers and CALL scholars. Not surprisingly, the components of such criteria mostly examine aspects to do with the potential that materials offer for language learning, teacher fit and learner fit (Levy & Stockwell, 2006). The components of such criteria rarely evaluate features of multimedia instructional design and visual design despite the influence that these play in shaping potential learning outcomes (Mayers, 2009). Given these limitations, the guiding criteria to evaluate the website Using English for Academic Purposes (UEFAP) is nurtured by studies in CALL, visual design and multimedia instructional design. Table 1 summarizes each of the components. Following Chapelle (2001) the evaluation of the UEFAP website is judgmental in nature and results from the interaction with all the sections of the website in several occasions. Given the space limitations I will touch on the relevant aspects of each criteria component.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Bastiaens, Th. and Martens, R. 2000. “Conditions for web-based learning with real events”. In Abbey B. (Ed.) Instructional and Cognitive Impacts of Web-based Education. Hershley, London: Idea Group Publishing.
Chapelle, C.A. 2001. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coalpert, J. 2004. Design of Online Interactive Language Courseware: Conceptualization, Specifications and Prototyping. Research into the Impact of Linguistic-didactic Functionality on Software Architecture. Doctoral dissertation. University of Antwerp, Antwerp. 14 December 2010 <http://www.didascalia.be/doc-design.pdf>
Cummins, J., Brown, K. and Sayers, D. 2007. Literacy, Technology, and Diversity. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Graham L. 2008. “Gestalt theory in interactive media design”. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (1), 1-12.
Hubbard, P. 2006. “Evaluating CALL software”. In Ducate, L. and N. Arnold (Eds.) Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Direction in Foreign Language Teaching). San Marcos, Texas: CALICO Monograph series. Vol. 5, 313-338.
Iwabuchi, T. and Fotos, S. 2004. “Creating course specific CD-ROMs for interactive language learning”. In Fotos, S. and C. Browne (Eds.) New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 149-168.
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C. and Preiss, S. 2005. “CALL evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students”. CALICO Journal, 23 (1), 93-138.
Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. 2006. Call Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer Assisted Language Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.
Lynch, P.J. and Horton, S. 2009. Web Style Guide: Basic Design Principles for Creating Web Sites. Yale: Yale University Press.
Mayer, R. 2009. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press
Reeder, K., Heift, T., Roche, J., Tabyanian, S., Schlickau, S. and Gölz, P. 2004. “Toward a theory of evaluation for second language learning media”. In Browne S.F.C. (Ed.) New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 255-278.
Ruiz-Madrid, M.N. 2006 “Designing CALL from a language learning autonomy perspective” Les Melanges CRAPEL, 28 n° spécial: TIC et autonomie dans l’apprentissage des langues, 89-99.
Susser, B. and Robb, T. 2004. “Evaluation of ESL/ EFL instructional websites”. In Fotos, S. and C. Browne (Eds.) New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 279-296.