History and Key Developments in Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL)

  • Trude Heift
Living reference work entry
Part of the Encyclopedia of Language and Education book series (ELE)


This chapter provides an overview of Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL) technologies for written learner language: spell checkers, grammar checkers including systems for automatic writing evaluation, and Intelligent Language Tutoring Systems (ILTSs). After discussing the goals and challenges of processing written learner language more generally, the chapter provides an overview of the developments of these distinct technologies by focusing on applications that specifically address the difficulties of evaluating learner language. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion that situates these distinct ICALL technologies within Second Language Acquisition theory.


Intelligent Computer-Assisted Language Learning (ICALL) Intelligent Language Tutoring Systems (ILTSs) Spell checkers Grammar checkers Parsers Automated essay evaluation (AWE) Natural language processing (NLP) 


  1. Allerton, D., Tschichold, C., & Wieser, J. (Eds.). (2005). Linguistics, language learning and language teaching. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, L., & Meurers, D. (2007). Conceptualizing student models for ICALL. In C. Conati, K. McCoy, & G. Paliouras (Eds.), User modeling 2007 (pp. 340–344). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowles, M. (2005). Effects of verbalization condition and type of feedback on L2 development in a CALL task. Washington: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
  4. Bull, S. (2000). Individualized recommendations for learning strategy use. In G. Gauthier, C. Frasson, & K. VanLehn (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems. 5th International Conference, ITS 2000, Montréal, Canada, June 2000, Proceedings (pp. 594–603). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Burston, J. (1998). Antidote 98. Calico Journal, 16(2), 197–212.Google Scholar
  6. Brandl, K. K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(ii), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chanier, T., Pengelly, M., Twidale, M., & Self, J. (1992). Conceptual modeling in error analysis in computer-assisted language learning systems. In M. L. Swartz & M. Yazdani (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems for foreign language learning: The bridge to international communication (pp. 125–150). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. ReCALL, 21(2), 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. Calico Journal, 28(2), 420–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cowan, R., Choi, H.-E., & Kim, D. (2003). Four questions for error diagnosis and correction in CALL. Calico Journal, 20(3), 451–463.Google Scholar
  11. Dickinson, M., Eom, S., Kang, Y., Lee, C., & Sachs, R. (2008). A balancing act: How can intelligent computer-generated feedback be provided in learner-to-learner interactions? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(4), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fallman, D. (2002). The Penguin: Using the web as a database for descriptive and dynamic grammar and spell checking. Paper presented at the CHI 2002, Conference on human factors in computing systems, Minneapolis, 20–25 Apr.Google Scholar
  13. Gamper, J., & Knapp, J. (2002). A review of intelligent CALL systems. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(4), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Gass, S., Madden, C., Preston, D., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1989). Variation in second language acquisition. Volume II: Psycholinguistic issues. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  16. Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (1994). Towards a grammar checker for learners of English. In U. Fries, G. Tottie, & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the fourteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora, Zürich 1993 (pp. 79–91). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  17. Harbusch, K., Itsova, G., Koch, U., & Kuhner, C. (2008). The sentence fairy: A natural-language generation system to support children. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(4), 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heift, T. (2010a). Developing an intelligent language tutor. Calico Journal, 27(3), 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heift, T. (2010b). Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heift, T., & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heift, T., & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and intelligence in CALL: Parsers and pedagogues. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hegelheimer, V. Dursun, A. & Li, Z. (2016). Automated writing evaluation in language teaching: Theory, development, and application. Special Issue in CALICO Journal, 33(1).Google Scholar
  24. Karlström, P., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Lindström, H., & Knutsson, O. (2007). Tool mediation in focus on form activities: Case studies in a grammar-exploring environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knutsson, O., Cerratto Pargman, T., & Severinson Eklundh, K. (2003). Transforming grammar checking technology into a learning environment for second language writing. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 workshop on building educational applications using natural language processing (pp. 38–45). Canada: Edmonton.Google Scholar
  26. Knutsson, O., Cerratto Pargman, T., Severinson Eklundh, K., & Westlund, S. (2007). Designing and developing a language environment for second language writers. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1122–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Li, Z., Link, S., Ma, H., Yang, H., & Hegelheimer, V. (2014). The role of automated writing evaluation holistic scores in the ESL classroom. System, 44, 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lonsdale, D., & Strong-Krause, D. (2003). Automated rating of ESL essays. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL 03 workshop on building educational applications using natural language processing (pp. 61–67). Canada: Edmonton.Google Scholar
  32. Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagata, N. (1996). Computer vs. workbook instruction in second language acquisition. Calico Journal, 14(1), 53–75.Google Scholar
  34. Nerbonne, J. A. (2003). Natural language processing in computer-assisted language learning. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 670–698). Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. Ndiaye, M., & Vandeventer Faltin, A. (2003). A spell checker tailored to language learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(2–3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pendar, N., & Cotos, E. (2008). Automatic identification of discourse moves in scientific article introductions. In Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications (pp. 62–70). Columbus: Ohio.Google Scholar
  37. Pujolà, J.-T. (2001). Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners’ use of feedback. ReCALL, 13(1), 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rimrott, A., & Heift, T. (2005). Language learners and generic spell checkers in CALL. Calico Journal, 23(1), 17–48.Google Scholar
  39. Rosa, E., & Leow, R. (2004). Computerized task-based exposure, explicitness and type of feedback on Spanish L2 development. Modern Language Journal, 88, 192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schulze, M. (2008). AI in CALL – Artificially inflated or almost imminent? Calico Journal, 25(3), 510–527. Tschichold Tschichold.Google Scholar
  42. Schuster, E. (1986). The role of native grammars in correcting errors in second language learning. Computational Intelligence, 2, 93–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tschichold, C. (1999). Grammar checking for CALL: Strategies for improving foreign language grammar checkers. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning (pp. 203–222). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  44. Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 105–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10(2), 157–180. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr190oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wei, Y., & Davies, G. (1997). Do grammar checkers work? In J. Kohn, B. Rüschoff, & D. Wolff (Eds.), New horizons in CALL: Proceedings of EUROCALL 96. Dániel Berzsenyi College: Szombathely.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations