Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 554e584 Nation, I.S.P., 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Schmitt, N., 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

569

Henrik Gyllstad Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University, Sweden E-mail address: henrik.gyllstad@englund.lu.se
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.06.008

Evaluating Computer-assisted Language Learning: An Integrated Approach to Effectiveness Research, Jonathan Leakey. Peter Lang, Frankfurt-am-Main (2011). pp xii 308. Two cheers for CALL! This time in the form of Jonathan Leakeys published doctorate, the main objective of which is, he tells us, the evaluation of the methodologies used in CALL effectiveness research and the exploration of quantifying student progress through CALL.(p. 5). Following an introductory chapter justifying the need for another, more comprehensive, model of CALL effectiveness evaluation, the book follows the familiar doctoral path: Chapter 2 provides a reasonably comprehensive literature review up to 2007; Chapter 3 then identies the gaps in the CALL effectiveness research on whether CALL has made a difference to language learning and how we can tell, leading to the construction of a model for CALL evaluation which builds on past evaluative models. The next two chapters concern Leakeys Model for Evaluation in its prototype MFE1 form. Leakey, himself, tacitly acknowledges that the sections on the justications for the model, drawn from the literature, are not the most reader-friendly as he advises the reader to skip to the nal chapter to see the nal model (MFE2). These two chapters are indeed quite daunting with the author demonstrating that he is up to speed on the wide variety of models and frameworks offered by CALL luminaries such as Chappelle, Dunkel, Pedersen, Hubbard and Mehanna. For students of CALL, though, this is high quality, painstaking work which will reward the interested reader with a thorough grasp of the twists and turns of CALL evaluation over the years as platforms and software have improved. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 present a Case Study each, looking, in turn, at platforms, programs and pedagogy. In Chapter 6, Leakey considers the impact of digital platforms on courses at Ulster and Portsmouth Universities. Chapter 7 evaluates two TellMeMore programs in use at Ulster, while Chapter 8 reports on two courses, one language and one area studies, over the period 2003e2006. None of the case studies is original doctoral research and all have been reported previously in journals. Leakey re-visits these case studies through the Model for Evaluation which he has carefully constructed in order to see how these studies would now fare. The ndings are predictably depressing. In Case Study 1, there appear to be major technical, cultural, pedagogical and even institutional hurdles to the full exploitation and integration of the Melissi and Robotel platforms. In Case Study 2, the evaluations of two versions of TMM were very mixed or even negative. The study of the later version of TMM with access via the internet suffered from a great deal of drop-out, which may, in itself, tell us something about the use of TMM in this setting. Case Study 3 is perhaps the most disturbing as we are told that when comparing the results of the comparison (non-CALL) and treatment (CALL) groups, The immediate suggestion is that the technology added nothing to language gains and if anything may have hindered progress (p. 209). This is a really disastrous outcome for CALL. The studies reported should have formed pilot studies for a sound piece of doctoral research with a comparison and treatment group in which the conditions for best implementation of the platform and software were fully met. Now we have to wait for someone else to do it. ja I had a strong sense of de ` vu in reading this book. My own doctoral research included several chapters on a study of the effectiveness of language lab use in UK EFL schools (Vanderplank, 1985). I used the simple work-study criteria of faster better and more user involvement/satisfaction that can be used to assess the value of any new machine or piece of software and is just as relevant today as it was then. Does using that fancy new digital lab with the latest software help our learners learn the foreign language faster, better or in a more involved and satisfying way? The answer it seems, in Leakeys studies at least, is denitely not. The lab and programs may do as well as non-CALL treatments in some cases, and may even be preferred by some students to non-CALL treatments, but, on the

570

Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 554e584

whole, the message rings out in this book that CALL, as reportedly used, does not really add value to the experience and may even inhibit language learning for a student in a Higher Education Institution. In this respect, Leakey is, perhaps unwittingly, selling the technology short. The studies reported use high value, high-functioning, complex equipment and software infrequently and often marginally. It is as if you have bought a high-spec. Porsche Cayenne and use it for occasional trips to the local supermarket for which a cheap and basic Volkswagen Polo would be ne. There is a long history of selling language labs and associated technology short through awed research, starting with the Pennsylvania Project in 1965, (Smith, 1969), through to Sandra Savignons research marginalising the language lab (Savignon, 1972) and the almost nal blow to analogue labs of the York Project (Green, 1975). In all these cases, the labs were set up to fail: poorly trained teachers and students using the labs on an occasional basis with less than riveting materials and tasks. In none of these studies, just as in Leakeys, do we see the functionality of labs and the potential of materials or software fully exploited by really well-trained teachers and learners. In my own research, I identied familiarity and frequency of use by teachers and learners as the key factors in successful exploitation of lab functionality and integrated use. When a lab was used once or twice a day in intensive EFL settings (in this case, top private language schools in the UK where learners spent 20e25 hours a week learning English), teachers were highly skilled, exible and innovative in how they exploited the lab, while learners could make the most of functions such as self-monitoring and correcting, selecting materials and self-pacing. In settings where there was less frequent use, teachers were less skilled and there was little or no benet in spending time in the lab; its use was marginal at best or even a distraction. I have some other reservations about this book. Although published in 2011, there are no references later than 2007. In a rapidly developing eld like CALL, it is reasonable to expect that the author would have updated references prior to publication. Several articles on CALL in multimedia labs were published between 2006 and 2010 which are absent, for example, Wagener (2006), Barge (2009) and Vanderplank (2010). As this is doctoral level writing, I was also surprised at the number of secondary sources which Leakey mentions but which are not in the bibliography. For example, Gavriel Salomon was a key inuence on the development of educational technology at the Open University in the 1980s and 1990s and Salomon (1979) is mentioned on p. 167. But Salomon (1979) is not in the bibliography e and neither are others such as Robinson. Lastly, the style and form required to satisfy examiners do not make for the most readable of monographs and there are large sections which should have been edited and rewritten in a more reader-friendly style. Nonetheless, the book certainly has its strengths. The criteria for assessing the effectiveness of lab and other technology use are meticulously thorough; the checklists will be of immense value to future researchers. In this, Leakey has done the spadework and has done it well. It is just unfortunate that this work will be pounced on as proof that CALL isnt worth the time, effort and money spent on it. While the case studies show that in the higher education context, the digital labs and TellMeMore software dont really justify their high cost, we learn little about the potential for greater success in other contexts. For example, I could see TMM paying off handsomely in some corporate contexts where employees have specic short-term requirements and need to acquire language skills rapidly. Similarly, I can see that research in which the tough conditions for successfully exploiting the functionality of digital labs and software might need to take place in an intensive government or military setting or in a top language school where meeting functional prociency needs is a priority rather than in a higher education setting where language learning is just one element in crowded syllabuses. Who should read this book? Certainly anyone thinking of research into CALL and those in language departments responsible for buying CALL equipment and software (reading it may save you large sums of money). It should also be on the bookshelves of language departments for teachers to read and so arm themselves against the pressure to go down the CALL route for its own sake when learners are very happy with non-CALL approaches. So, as I say, two cheers for this book and bring on the next study of CALL which builds on Leakeys research to show how a fully exploited digital lab can make language learning faster, better and more satisfying for learners. References
Barge, M., 2009. Teaching Techniques for Multimedia Language Labs: Final Report. http://www.cemll.ulster.ac.uk/admin/documents/docs/ Queen_MaryCEMLL_Final%20Report.pdf.

Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 554e584

571

Green, Peter S, 1975. The Language Laboratory in School, Performance and Prediction: An Account of the York Study. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Salomon, Gavriel, 1979. Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Savignon, Sandra, 1972. Toward Communicative Competence: An Experiment in Foreign Language Teaching. Center for Curriculum Development, Philadelphia. Smith Jr., Philip D, 1969. The Pennsylvania foreign language research project: teacher prociency and class achievement in two modern languages. Foreign Language Annals, 194e207. Vanderplank, R., 1985. Evaluating the language laboratory in practice. AFinLA Series No. 40. In: Kohonen, V., von Essen, H., Klein-Braley, C. (Eds.), Practice and Problems in Language Testing 8. AFinLA, Tampere, Finland, pp. 167e178. ` Vanderplank, R., 2010. Deja vu? A decade of research on language laboratories, television and video in language learning. Language Teaching 43 (1), 1e37. Wagener, D., 2006. Promoting independent learning skills using video on digital language laboratories. Computer Assisted Language Learning 19 (4 & 5), 279e286.

Robert Vanderplank Language Centre, University of Oxford, 12 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6HT, United Kingdom E-mail address: robert.vanderplank@lang.ox.ac.uk
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.10.002

Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept, Sarah Mercer, Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York (2011). x 200 pp. The frequently mentioned rise of the self in educational psychology is a trend also perceivable in applied linguistics, in particular in the area of language learning motivation. Sarah Mercers Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-Concept is therefore very welcome, not least because it sheds fresh light on the structure of foreign language (FL) self-concept. The book is sure to appeal to the growing community of researchers exploring the relevance of self-theories for the language learning domain. Mercer presents data which is based on a doctoral study set in the Austrian higher education sector. A qualitative research approach was chosen to elucidate the structure of FL self-concept and the factors inuencing its formation. The book is divided into seven chapters; a brief introductory and concluding chapter frame ve larger chapters of 20e35 pages, each of them closing with a very useful summary of main ndings. The rst chapter sets the scene by describing the research context of the study, underlying rational and methodology, which precede the obligatory overview of the books structure. The second chapter deals with self-concept on a theoretical basis and reviews the relevant literature. Chapters 3e6 explore self-concept from different analytical angles by meandering from the empirical data back to theoretical issues. Emphasis is placed on the dynamic nature of self-concept and the importance of internal and external frames of references for its formation. The last chapter, unfortunately a little on the short side, draws the analysis together and broadens the outlook by discussing possible implications for educators and researchers. The rst chapter starts with a rational for investigating self-concept. Mercer convincingly argues that more research is needed to explore the underlying components and the factors inuencing self-concept construction. While it is certainly true that research on FL self-concept is still in its infancy, the statement that research was hampered by the absence of any relevant studies in the FL domain (2011:9) is bound to evoke controversies given that the study does not move into entirely uncharted territory either (e.g. Dornyei and Ushioda, 2009; Taylor, 2010). The author then describes the details of the study: a grounded theory approach was chosen to explore a rich qualitative data set. Over 60 students provided written narrative descriptive texts about their language learner identity (note that table 1.1 on page 7 states 64 students, but on page 8, 63 students are referred to), 26 students provided autobiographical texts and language learning histories and 12 participants were interviewed. In addition, one longitudinal case study was conducted. This study started prior to main data collection and served as an exploratory investigation; ideas generated on the basis of the case-study were then followed up in other data sources. The participant involved, a young woman