The research area of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has recently shifted from seeing the computer as a tool or partner to seeing it as a virtual environment where learners can collaborate and interact with a wide variety of native speakers. In addition, CALL has also increasingly benefited from the theoretical framework of learner autonomy, although it has frequently been misunderstood as self-directed learning. In light of these developments, terms such asvirtual andenvironment need to be defined. So far, the large tradition of virtual reality (VR) research and its concepts has largely been neglected in CALL and second language acquisition (SLA) research. However, a critical and reflective analysis ofVRtools and their underlying concepts shows that learner autonomy and VR are in fact an ideal combination for language learning: first, by raising language and linguistic awareness; second, by supporting interaction and collaboration with peers and native speakers; and third, by providing an experimental, learner-centered learning environment. The article concludes with a summary of design principles for CALL software.
Aarseth, E.
, & Jopp, C. (1998). CALLMOO fase I—Sluttrapport.Retrieved from http://cmc.hf.uib.no/dreistadt/eval/sluttrapp.html
2.
Appel, C.
, & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a Web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers and Education, 34(3-4), 291-308.
3.
Appel, M. C.
(1999). Tandem learning by E-mail: Some basic principles and a case study(CLCS Occasional Paper, Vol. 54). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College, Centre for Language& Communication Studies.
4.
Bardini, T.
(1997). Bridging the gulfs: From hypertext to cyberspace. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/baldini.html
5.
Biocca, F.
(1997). The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/biocca2.html
6.
Brennan, S. E.
(1990). Conversation as direct manipulation: Aniconoclastic view. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design(pp. 393-404). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
7.
Bricken, M.
(1990). Virtual worlds: No interface to design(Technical Report R-90-2). Seattle: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington.
8.
Bricken, W.
(1990). Virtual reality: Directions of growth. Notes from the SIGGRAPH ’90 panel(Technical Report R-90-1). Seattle: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington.
9.
British Broadcasting Corporation
. (1998). Results—The ’Turing test. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/tw/megalab/turing/turing_results.html
10.
British Broadcasting Corporation
. (1999). Turing test. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/tw/megalab/9903tur.shtml
11.
Brown, J. S.
, Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41. Retrieved from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/ilt/papers/JohnBrown.html
12.
Brown, J. S.
, Collins, A.,& Duguid, P. (1996). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives(pp. 19-44). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
13.
Bruner, J.
(1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Bruner, J. S.
(1972). The relevance of education. Hardmonsworth, UK: Penguin.
15.
Carr, A. A.
, Jonassen, D. H., Litzinger, M. E.,& Marra, R. M. (1998). Good ideas to foment educational revolution: The role of systemic change in advancing situated learning, constructivism, and feminist pedaglogy. Educational Technology, 38(1), 5-15.
16.
Carr, K.
(1995). Introduction. In K. Carr & R. England (Eds.), Simulated and virtual realities(pp. 1-10). London: Taylor and Francis.
17.
Clark, H. H.
, & Marshall, C. T. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding(pp. 10-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Dam, L.
(1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
19.
Donaldson, R. P.
,& Kötter, M. (1999). Language learning in cyberspace: Teleporting the classroom into the target culture. Calico, 16(4), 531-557.
20.
Eck, A.
, Legenhausen, L., & Wolff, D. (1994). Der Einsatz der Telekommunikation in einem lernerorientierten Fremdsprachenunterricht [The use of telecommunications in a learner-oriented second-language classroom]. In W. Gienow & K. Hellwig (Eds.), Interkulturelle Kommunikation und prozeßorienterte Medienpraxis im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Grundlagen, Realisierung, Wirksamkeit(pp. 43-57). Seelze, Germany: Friedrich Verlag.
21.
Falsetti, J.
, & Schweitzer, E. (1995). SchMOOze University: A MOO for ESL/EFL students. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: On-line activities and projects for networking language learners(pp. 231-232). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second LanguageTeaching and Curriculum Center.
22.
Foster, D.
,& Meech, J. F. (1995). Social dimensions of virtual reality. In K. Carr& R. England (Eds.), Simulated and virtual realities(pp. 209-224). London: Taylor and Francis.
23.
Hamit, F.
(1993). Virtual reality and the exploration of cyberspace. Carmel, IN: Sams.
24.
Holmevik, J. R.
, & Haynes, C. (2000). High wired enCore home page. Retrieved from http://lingua.utdallas.edu/hw/encore.html
25.
Kaplan, J. D.
,& Holland, V. M. (1995). Application of learning principles to the design of a second language tutor. In V. M. Holland, J. D. Kaplan, & M. R. Sams (Eds.), Intelligent language tutors(pp. 273-287). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Kelly, G.
(1963). A theory of personality. New York: Norton.
27.
Landow, G. P.
(1992). Hypertext. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28.
Little, D.
(1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems.Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
29.
Little, D.
(1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning(pp. 203-218). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
30.
Little, D.
(1997). The role of writing in second language learning: Some neo-Vygotskian reflections. In R. Kupetz (Ed.), Vom Gelenkten zum freien Schreiben im Fremdsprachenunterricht(pp. 117-128). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
31.
Little, D.
, & Brammerts, H. (Eds.). (1996). A guide to language learning in tandem via the Internet(CLCS Occasional Paper, Vol. 46). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
32.
Little, D.
, Ushioda, E., Appel, M. C., Moran, J., O’Rourke, B.,& Schwienhorst, K. (1999). Evaluating tandem language learning by e-mail: Report on a bilateral project(CLCS Occasional Paper, Vol. 55). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
33.
Loomis, J. M.
(1992). Distal attribution and presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1(1), 113-118.
34.
Ma, R.
(1996). Computer-mediated conversations as a new dimension of intercultural communication between East Asian and North American college students. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives(pp. 173-185). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
35.
Markley, R.
(Ed.). (1996). Virtual realities and their discontents. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
McLellan, H.
(1996). Situated learning: Multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives(pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
37.
Negroponte, N.
(1995). Being digital.London: Hodder and Stoughton.
38.
Olson, D.
(1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257-281.
39.
Pantelidis, V.
(1993, April). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33, 23-27.
40.
Papert, S.
(1991). Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism(pp. 1-12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
41.
Parks, M. R.
, & Roberts, L. D. (1997). “Making MOOsic”: The development of personal relationships online and a comparison to their off-line counterparts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Western Speech Communication Association, Monterey, CA.
42.
Pinto, D.
(1996). What does “schMOOze” mean? Non-native speaker interactions on the Internet. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning(pp. 165-184). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
43.
Rose, H. (1996). Design and construction of a virtual environment for Japanese language instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.
44.
Rose, H.
,& Billinghurst, M. (1995). Zengo Sayu: An immersive educational environment for learning Japanese(Technical Report No. 4-95). Seattle: Human Interface Technology Laboratory, University of Washington.
45.
Sanchez, B.
(1995). MOO-la-la: Conversing in virtual Paris. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: On-line activities and projects for networking language learners(pp. 229-230). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
46.
Sanchez, B.
(1996). MOOving to a new frontier in language teaching. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning(pp. 145-164). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
47.
Schwienhorst, K.
(1999). Teacher autonomy in MOOs—Supporting language teaching in collaborative virtual environments. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 8(2), 199-214.
48.
Schwienhorst, K.
(2000). Evaluating tandem language learning in the MOO—Discourse repair strategies in the Dublin–St. Augustin Project. Paper presented at the third UNTELE Conference, Compiegne, 23-25 March 2000.
49.
Shield, L.
, & Weininger, M. J. (1999). Collaboration in a virtual world—Groupwork and the distance language learner. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WorldCall: Global perspectives on computer assisted language learning. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
50.
Short, J.
, Williams, E.,& Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. London: Wiley.
51.
Tannen, D.
(Ed.). (1982). Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
52.
Tort-Moloney, D.
(1997). Teacher autonomy: A Vygotskian theoretical framework(CLCS Occasional Paper, Vol. 48). Dublin, Ireland: Trinity College, Centre for Language & Communication Studies.
53.
Trueman, B.
(1996). QuickTime VR and English as a second language. Virtual Reality in the Schools, 1(4). Retrieved from http://150.216.8.1/vr/vr1n4.htm
54.
Tuman, M. C.
(1992). Word perfect: Literacy in the computer age. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
55.
Turkle, S.
(1995). Life on the screen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
56.
Turner, J.
(1995). A virtual treasure hunt: Exploring the three-dimensional aspect of MOOs. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: On-line activities and projects for networking language learners(pp. 242-244). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second LanguageTeaching and Curriculum Center.
57.
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
. (1995). Learning language for jobs: The military language tutor. Retrieved September 20, 2001, from http://www.ari.army.mil/miltfl95.htm
58.
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
. (n.d.-a). Foreign language tutor program. Retrieved February 4, 2000, from http://www-ari.army.mil/tutor.htm
59.
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
. (n.d.-b). SIMTALK: Advanced tutoring for conversing with simulated forces (2233).Retrieved September 20, 2001, from http://www.ari.army.mil/110620.htm
60.
Ushioda, E.
(2000). Tandem language learning via e-mail: From motivation to autonomy. ReCALL, 12(2), 121-128.
61.
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62.
Vygotsky, L. S.
(1986). Thought and language.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63.
Walther, J. B.
(1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43.
64.
Walther, J. B.
(1997). Group and interpersonal effects in international computer-mediated collaboration. Human Communication Research, 23(3), 342-369.
65.
Wells, G.
(1981). Language, literacy and education. In G. Wells (Ed.), Learning through interaction (pp. 240-276). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66.
Wells, G.
(1987). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
67.
Zohrab, P.
(1996). Virtual language and culture reality (VLCR). Virtual Reality in the Schools, 1(4). Retrieved from http://150.216.8.1/vr/vr1n4.htm
