Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-7245
  • E-ISSN: 2211-7253



The current paper explores whether a Dynamic Usage Based (DUB) approach – which takes authentic meaningful language use with repetition and scaffolding for comprehension as its basis – can also be implemented in a CALL environment. The effectiveness of the DUB-CALL program was tested in a semester-long experiment, comparing it with a teacher-fronted DUB program (using the same materials as the CALL program) and a traditional CLT program; 228 university undergraduates in Sri Lanka participated. Language gains were assessed in a pre-post design with an objective General English Proficiency (GEP) test and a writing task. The results show that the students in the DUB-CALL condition performed significantly better on the GEP test than the students in the two teacher-fronted classes. The results of the writing tests show that all groups improved significantly, but here there were no differences among groups.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Abbs, B., Cook, V., & Underwood, M.
    (1980) Authentic English for Reading 1. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Akaike, H.
    (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE transactions on automatic control, 19(6), 716–723. 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
    https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allwright, R.
    (1979) Abdication and responsibility in language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2(1), 105–121. 10.1017/S027226310000098X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000098X [Google Scholar]
  4. Alper, D.
    (Producer) & Muccino, G. (Director) (2002) The Pursuit of Happyness [motion picture]. United States: Columbia TriStar Motion Picture Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M.
    (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language, 59(4), 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bidlake, E.
    (2009) Learner Experience using self-instructed CALL: Methodological and learner insights. Novitas-Royal, 3(2), 93–109.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. CourseLab
    CourseLab [Software]. Moscow: WebSoft Ltd.Retrieved fromwww.courselab.com
  9. Dickson, S. V., Chard, D. J., & Simmons, D. C.
    (1993) An integrated reading/writing curriculum: A focus on scaffolding. LD Forum, 18(4), 12–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dobrovolny, J.
    (2006) How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training: New focus for learners, new focus for designers. Distance education, 27(2), 155–170. 10.1080/01587910600789506
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789506 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, N. C.
    (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(02), 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gass, S. M.
    (2013) Input interaction and the second language learner. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203053560
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053560 [Google Scholar]
  13. Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C.
    (2013) A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(02), 165–198. 10.1017/S0958344013000013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344013000013 [Google Scholar]
  14. Herrell, A. L., & Jordan, M. L.
    (2015) 50 strategies for teaching English language learners (5th ed.). Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hong, N. T. P.
    (2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
  16. Kao, P., & Windeatt, S.
    (2014) Low-achieving language learners in self-directed multimedia environments: Transforming understanding. InJ.-B. Son (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Learners, teachers and tools (pp.1–19). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (APACALL).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Krashen, S. D.
    (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Krashen, S., & Terrell, T.
    (1983) The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lafford, B. A., Lafford, P. A., & Sykes, J.
    (2007) Entre dicho y hecho. An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. Calico Journal, 24(3), 497–529.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol.1). Stanford: Stanford university press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Long, M. H.
    (1997) Construct validity in SLA research: A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 318–323. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05487.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05487.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Nagasundaram, P.
    (1996) What’s wrong with the ELT program in our country?Navasilu, 14, 93–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417–528. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00136
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pennington, M.
    (1996) When input becomes intake: Tracing the sources of teachers’ attitude change. InD. Freeman, & J. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in Language Teaching (pp.320–348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pezdek, K., Lehrer, A., & Simon, S.
    (1984) The relationship between reading and cognitive processing of television and radio. Child Development, 55(6), 2072–2082. 10.2307/1129780
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129780 [Google Scholar]
  27. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved fromwww.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P.
    (2013) CALL and learner autonomy: Affordances and constraints. InM. Thomas, H. Reinders, & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp.359–375). New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Roberts, J. T.
    (1986) The use of dialogues in teaching transactional competence in foreign languages. ELT Documents 124: The practice of communicative teaching. Oxford: The British Council/Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rogers, C. V., & Medley, F. W.
    (1988) Language with a purpose: Using authentic materials in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 21(5), 467–478. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1988.tb01098.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1988.tb01098.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Schmid, H. J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) How language works: A dynamic model of how language use, minds, and societies shape linguistic structure, variation, and change. Paper presented at theThinking Doing Learning conference, April 21, Munich.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Skehan, P., & Foster, P.
    (1997) The influence of planning and post-task activities on accuracy and complexity in task-based learning. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211. 10.1177/136216889700100302
    https://doi.org/10.1177/136216889700100302 [Google Scholar]
  34. Soyemi, J., Ogunyinka, O. I., & Soyemi, O. B.
    (2011) Integrating self-paced e-learning with conventional classroom learning in Nigeria educational system. Proceedings of the 1st International Technology, Education and Environment Conference. Retrieved fromhrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/Proceeding2
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H.
    (Eds.) (2010) Research for materials development in language learning. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. VanPatten, B.
    (Ed.) (2004) Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary. Oxford: Routledge. 10.4324/9781410610195
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195 [Google Scholar]
  38. Verspoor, M.
    (2017) Complex dynamic systems theory and l2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. InL. Ortega, & Z. Han (Eds.). (under contract). Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.48.08ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.08ver [Google Scholar]
  39. Verspoor, M. H., & Hong, N. T. P.
    (2013) A dynamic usage-based approach to Communicative Language Teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 22–54. 10.1515/eujal‑2013‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0003 [Google Scholar]
  40. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
    (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  41. Wilkins, D.
    (1976) Notional syllabuses. Bulletin CILA (Commission interuniversitaire suisse de linguistique appliquée)(«Bulletin VALS-ASLA» depuis 1994), 24, 5–17.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error