Stephen Bodnar, Catia Cucchiarini, Helmer Strik


Gaining the ability to speak proficiently is an important goal in second language learning, and grammatical correctness is an important dimension of oral proficiency. To acquire the ability to produce grammatically correct speech in everyday conversational situations, learners must practice producing speech until they can do so with little to no conscious effort. For maximum pedagogical effectiveness, practice exercises should challenge learners to produce spoken output and provide corrective feedback (CF) on their productions so that learners may notice and correct their mistakes. In this paper, we survey the field of Intelligent Computer assisted Language Learning (ICALL) to examine the extent to which current offerings meet the pedagogical requirements for training grammatical accuracy in oral communication. Our analysis shows that few grammarfocused systems support oral practice, and that systems which do offer oral practice tend to train conversational fluency. In response to these findings, we present our position that grammar accuracy should be addressed in ICALL systems and that, in spite of technological limitations, it is possible to deploy speech technology in ICALL systems to support spoken interaction and allow individualized oral grammar practice and feedback.


  1. Anderson, J. N., Davidson, N., Morton, H., and Jack, M. A. (2008). Language learning with interactive virtual agent scenarios and speech recognition: Lessons learned. Comput. Animat. Virtual Worlds, 19(5):605 - 619.
  2. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89:369 - 406 (37).
  3. Bergenholtz, J. (2004). An interactionist and task-based approach to computer-assisted language learning materials. Master's thesis, University of Götheborg.
  4. Brumfit, C. (1984). Communicative Methodology in Language Teaching: The Roles of Fluency and Accuracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  5. Chiu, T.-L., Liou, H.-C., and Yeh, Y. (2007). A study of web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic speech recognition for efl college learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20 (3):209 - 233 (24).
  6. Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A., and Strik, H. (2009). Oral proficiency training in dutch l2: The contribution of asrbased corrective feedback. Speech Communication, 51 (10):853-863 (11).
  7. DeBot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46:529 - 555 (26).
  8. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language, chapter Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  9. DeKeyser, R. M. and Sokalski, K. J. (1996). The differential role of comprehension and production practice. Language Learning, 46 (4):613-642 (29).
  10. Ellis, N. C. and Bogart, P. S. H. (2007). Speech and language technology in education: The perspective from sla research and practice. In SLaTE-2007, pages 1-8 (8).
  11. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Hanson, R. M. (2007). Feedback in Intelligent ComputerAssisted Language Learning and Second Language Acquisition: A study of its effect on the acquisition of French past tense aspect using an Intelligent Language Tutoring System. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
  13. Heift, T. (2001). Intelligent language tutoring systems for grammar practice. Zeitschrift fr Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht (online), 6(2):1 - 15 (15).
  14. Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in call. ReCALL, 16(2):416-431 (15).
  15. Heift, T. and Nicholson, D. (2001). Web delivery of adaptive and interactive language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12(4):310-324 (14).
  16. Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4):461 - 473 (13).
  17. Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24:541 - 577 (36).
  18. Johnson, W. L. and Valente, A. (2009). Tactical language and culture training systems: Using ai to teach foreign languages and cultures. AI Magazine.
  19. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  20. Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
  21. Morton, H. and Jack, M. A. (2005). Scenario-based spoken interaction with virtual agents. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3):171-191 (20).
  22. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., and Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51 (4):719-758 (39).
  23. Ranta, L. and Lyster, R. (2007). Practice in a second language, chapter A cognitive approach to improving immersion students' oral langauge abilities: The Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Raux, A. and Eskenazi, M. (2004). Using task-oriented spoken dialogue systems for language learning: Potential, practical applications and challenges. In ICALL-2004.
  25. Russell, J. and Spada, N. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, chapter The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research, pages 133-164 (31). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  26. Seneff, S. (2007). Web-based dialogue and translation games for spoken language learning. In Proc. of the Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) Workshop, Farmington, Pennsylvania.
  27. Strik, H., van de Loo, J., van Doremalen, J., and Cucchiarini, C. (2010). Practicing syntax in spoken interaction: Automatic detection of syntactic errors in non-native utterances. In Proceedings of the SLaTE2010 workshop, Tokyo, Japan.
  28. Swain, M. (1985). Input in Second Language Acquisition, chapter Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development, pages 235 - 253. Rowley MA: Newbury House.
  29. Swain, M. and Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating bilingual education: A Canadian case study. Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon, UK.
  30. Tatawy, M. E. (2002). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Working papers in TESOL and Applied Linguistics, 2 (2):1 - 19 (19).
  31. VanPatten, B. and Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2):225 - 243 (19).
  32. Vlugter, P., Knott, A., McDonald, J., and Hall, C. (2009). Dialogue-based call: a case study on teaching pronouns. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2):115-131 (16).
  33. Wang, H., Waple, C. J., and Kawahara, T. (2009). Computer assisted language learning system based on dynamic question generation and error prediction for automatic speech recognition. Speech Communication, 51(10):995-1005 (20).

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Bodnar S., Cucchiarini C. and Strik H. (2011). COMPUTER-ASSISTED GRAMMAR PRACTICE FOR ORAL COMMUNICATION . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-8425-49-2, pages 355-361. DOI: 10.5220/0003402503550361

in Bibtex Style

author={Stephen Bodnar and Catia Cucchiarini and Helmer Strik},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
SN - 978-989-8425-49-2
AU - Bodnar S.
AU - Cucchiarini C.
AU - Strik H.
PY - 2011
SP - 355
EP - 361
DO - 10.5220/0003402503550361