Having considered the provided article I found out a lot of interesting issues identified by Salaberry (1999) in Chapell’s article. Before moving on it is vital to note that all the issues considered in the article concern mainly the key questions of CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) in SLA (Second Language Acquisition).
Five areas of improvement were distinguished by Salaberry(1999) in Chapelle’s (1999) which are the following :
1. The literature review on research perspectives of classroom discourse
2. Research domains other than discourse analysis for the analysis of the pedagogical effectiveness of CALL
3. The theoretical analysis of the psycholinguistic process of L2 development
4. The analysis of electronic and face-to-face communication
5. The relative importance of computer mediated communication (CMC) in the proposed research agenda
It should be mentioned that in this specific article Slaberry (1999) reflects on the key points identified by Chapelle and in some cases gives recommendations. For instance , according to Salabery (1999) Chapelle(1999) focuses on the findings from research studies documenting language input and interaction in classroom instruction (interactionist approach) which according to Salaberry(1999) has limitation in the background literature in the research study carried out by Chapelle(1999). Another area to be strengthened according to the author is the research areas for CALL studies. In this regard, the writer is of the opinion that Chapelle(1999) obviously recommending shift from general approaches of psychology, computational linguistics, and educational technology to specific methods does not give justified analyses.
Another concern about the research objectives identified by Chapelle(1999) is connected to the absence of a comprehensive theoretical analysis of the process of L2 development. In this respect, Salaberry (1999) thinks that Chapelle’s(1999) analysis of the psycholinguistic process that underlies second language acquisition is not comprehensively analyzed.
As far as the second question is concerned, it is worth mentioning that with the emergence of CALL theory and concept in the field of SLA different contrastive perspectives were identified by many outstanding authors. It should be mentioned that questions on CALL were raised in diverse perspectives (e.g., cognitive psychology, constructivism, and psycholinguistics).Some of them inherited “interactions” approach agreeing with the model of computer-mediated communication as a micro world, the others used communicative approach having emphasis on the role of the learner.
Analyzing the provided articles I came to the conclusion that when considering CALL use in SLA, one should identify his own aim in using CALL techniques in SLA. Specifically, from my own experience, I should say, I found out no research carried out that proves the effectiveness of CALL in SLA entirely. Dozens of research studies have been conducted which show either the effectiveness or usefulness one or of several aspects of language acquisition with the help of CALL. However, as it is noted in many cases CALL research suffers from our lack of knowledge about SLA: Particularly, as Salaberry(1999) mentions :
“The greatest obstacle to the assessment of CALL’s efficacy is that (still) ‘we know rather little [about SLA], and a great deal of what we do know derives not only from psychologists, but also from various sub-branches of linguistics”
To sum up the consideration of the views stated in two articles, it should be mentioned that Second Language Acquisition is one of the complicated issues .Consequently; any changes within the scope of the latter should be carefully analyzed, empirically and theoretically proven before bringing them into practice.