Talk:Computer-assisted language learning

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeschooling, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeschoolingWikipedia:WikiProject HomeschoolingTemplate:WikiProject HomeschoolingHomeschooling

Old discussion(s)

This article needs help. In particular, Im not happy about the discussion of specific programs like The Rosetta Stone. Sounds too much like an advertisement. Thelmadatter 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

I plan to rewrite this article as soon as I find the time to sit down and sort thru this mess! Thelmadatter 16:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Thelmadatter[reply]

This does need serious work. It is really to the point that mere additions or revisions will not help...It really needs to be redone from scratch. Not only are there too many blatant software and website promotions, but also too many in-text links (that is what link at the end of wikipedia entries are for). It also seems like this is primarily an attempt at writing the history of CALL in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.176.36 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working

Im working right now on the rewrite... Hope to get it up next week. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working.. got the research and a very rough draft done but since I dont have Internet connection at home (why pay when you have it free at work? hee hee) I wont put it up until it is near-perfect. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK the rewrite is up.... I admit I need to do a little more work on the references but the problematic ones are locked up in my office until Jan 3. Meanwhile, I thought I should get this up, in case anyone wants to start tweaking it.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much RPG info

Under the section "Technologies used in CALL instruction," I noticed that there is way too much irrelevant information about RPG's. If I had read that section alone without knowing what this article is about, I would have thought it was an article about RPG's. There's a lot of completely irrelevant information about the different kinds of RPG's that exist, as well as their different functions, how characters interact with each other, etc. Nowhere is a connection made with computer-assisted language learning or computer-mediated learning. Even if a connection were made, I don't think any of the RPG's mentioned would be particularly effective for learning another language. It would be good if someone who's experienced in editing articles (I'm not experienced enough to trust myself to do a good job) could delete the unnecessary information and substitute something more relevant -- such as information about websites that are predominantly used or created for the purpose of computer mediated learning. Thanks. 24.150.196.215 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Need a Clean-up

The external links have been filled with several commercial, and frankly poor quality, links. Skydive23 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary Learning

Though mentions of CALL for vocabulary learning only appears twice in this article, if we scroll down to examples of CALL, we find that about half of them are focused on vocabulary learning. Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me? I suspect that the editors of this page are more interested in the academic version of CALL, so I'd like to see it become more balanced without becoming a commercial for commercial CALL. Furthermore, the link from flashcard suggests that CALL has picked up on things like the Leitner study method. Twocs (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

What the hell is this? I thought linguists would be writing this page, but the first paragraph is almost unreadable. 192.198.151.37 (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total rewrite in progress, November 2010

From Graham Davies, November 2010

I hadn't looked closely at this article for a couple of years - sometime back in 2008. In the meantime it had got into a dreadful mess - too many cooks. The only way it can be rescued is to rewrite it from scratch. I am now in the course of doing this. Some of the existing material can be recycled, but a lot of it is irrelevant and out of date. I am taking on board some of the comments that other contributors have made to this page. It should not take me more than 2-3 weeks to knock this article into shape.

GroovyGuzi —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Would have been nice if you worked on the article in your sandbox instead. Committing a mangled outline that only serves to remind yourself of what you are planning to write is not ideal. 75.71.151.179 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I've reverted the changes. It's not acceptable to have sections that are obviously incomplete and written as such. ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! The article is in desperate need of revision. It contains inaccuracies, blatant advertising (Rosetta Stone) and is not a reflection of the current state of CALL. Looking at the individual sections once again, I think it is possible to correct them and tidy them up one by one, without making a mess of the article as a whole. I'll make a few changes today, starting with the Introduction and History sections. The Introduction in particular is poorly written and needs simplifying. I think that the section on problems and criticisms is one that should be targeted for total revision. It's too slanted. GroovyGuzi (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement for the Rosetta Stone removed. There are many more CALL programs that could have been mentioned. Better not to list any commercial products, I think, unless cited as an example of a particular type of program, e.g. Sim City and Montevidisco. GroovyGuzi (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraphs of the article have been revised GroovyGuzi (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The History section has been divided into two parts. The first part has been simplified and brought up to date, and the second part has been incorporated into a new section headed Call typology and phases of CALL, which is essentially the same as what was there before, but with additions and corrections. GroovyGuzi (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publications that I have referred to in the History and Call typology and phases of CALL sections have been added to the Sources section. The Sources section needs more work if it is to become a proper References/Bibliography section. GroovyGuzi (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to the parts that I have revised. I am making no more major changes until I get feedback from you guys. GroovyGuzi (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to major changes so please don't slow down on my account! I simply object to half-made changes and empty sections. ElKevbo (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still making major changes, but in an offline version. I realise that it was wrong to upload half-baked and empty sections. I shall add in the changes as I complete each new section. I have been looking more closely at the references and footnotes. I think big chunks of the existing text will have to go. Whoever wrote them has clearly relied too heavily on a small number of authors (Noemi, Ehsani & Knodt, Stepp-Greany, Warschauer) whose works are not representative of the state of the art of CALL. I found a few dead URLs too and links to some of my own out-of-date works. I am flattered to have the links and there is no problem re copyright as nearly everything I write is subject to a Creative Commons Licence (just acknowledge me). Currently the article presents a very narrow view of CALL that is in need of serious updating. I'll get on with the job! GroovyGuzi 87.113.242.135 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Computational Linguistics has been renamed Human Language Technologies and rewritten, but using two of the existing references. GroovyGuzi (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Multimedia Language Centres has been re-edited. Much of the original content has been retained, however. New references have been added. The order of the sections is being changed to reflect their relative importance in CALL. Hence Human Language Technologies follows Multimedia Language Centres. The sections that follow the Multimedia Language Centres section need substantial editing and condensing - which will be the next priority. The section on Problems and Criticisms has been removed. It was beyond repair, as most of the criticisms and problems were based on a narrow perception of CALL or were out of date. Some genuine and relevant criticisms and problems were raised, however, and will be incorporated into a new section on the effectiveness of CALL. GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]