APPENDIX B

SIX CRITERIA FOR CALL TASKS EVALUATION

(from Chapelle, 2001)

In her volume, called Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition

(2001), Chapelle defines, among others,1 a punctual and technical model for the
evaluation of CALL tasks, which has been very successful in this field. The model
presented by the author, resumed among others by Compton for training online
language teachers,2 is rather articulated, more than is sometimes reported in later
literature, which sometimes is content with reducing it to the six criteria for the
evaluation of linguistic tasks (see infra).
The model is proposed in the chapter dealing with CALL3 and (point 1) it takes
as its starting point Skehan’s important contribution (1998), which identifies the
cognitive4 conditions necessary for language learning within a context of task-based5
language education:
1. choosing a series of target-structures on the grounds of research results and, in
particular, according to the principle of learning sequences;
2. choosing tasks which satisfy the usefulness condition. The usefulness condition
prescribes that a given form be useful for carrying out a given task;
3. choosing the tasks and putting them into a sequence, in order to obtain a harmonic
and well-balanced development among the areas of linguistic production:
(a) fluency, (b) accuracy, and (c) complexity;
4. maximising the chance of focus on form. This phrase indicates the shift of
attention, during a task (which, by definition, will be meaning-oriented), onto the
linguistic form;6
5. increasing learner’s sense of responsibility as to reflection on forms to be used.
This criterion is necessary because there is no explicit formulation of the forms to
be used in task instruction.
Further on (point 2), a series of principles is defined on how to implement an
evaluation of CALL tools and tasks; among these, the need to carry out a double
evaluation: before (judgemental analysis), where the software is evaluated and
expectancies from the task are defined, and after (empirical analysis), where an
evaluation is made as to whether the task has given the expected results. Another
principle is that according to which evaluation criteria should come exclusively from
research on linguistic appropriation.
These are followed (point 3) by a description of the three evaluation levels:
(a) software evaluation, (b) task evaluation (both these being before) and

187
Appendix B

(c) evaluation of task execution (after). In practice, at level number two a result is
theorised on the grounds of linguistic research results, and at level three we check
whether the result is the expected one.
The six criteria of the evaluation model are:
1. Language Learning Potential. This criterion indicates in what measure a task is
able to foster learning, from an exquisitely interactionist viewpoint (Chapelle,
2009). The level of this potential is given by the number of opportunities, within
the task, to promote focus on form as described by Skehan (ibid.)7 (see Skehan’s
criteria nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4).
2. Learner fit. The task should be designed so that learners have the opportunity,
according to their level and competences, to carry out the task utilising their own
resources and develop their linguistic system (see Skehan’s criteria nos. 1 and 3).
3. Meaning focus. The task is meaning-oriented; that is to say, it is oriented to
the usage of language to solve real problems (i.e. tasks) and, consequently,
the subject’s attention is focused on meaning. When the form/meaning system
goes into a crisis, that is, when there is a problem of communication due to the
imperfect mastery of a form, we have focus on form, which is one of the factors
that determine linguistic appropriation from an interactionist standpoint.
4. Authenticity. This criterion, partially related to the previous one, establishes that
the more a task (thence the language used to carry it out) resembles real-life
tasks, i.e. situations which may occur outside learning contexts, the greater the
motivation and, therefore, the wish to communicate (see no. 20).
5. Positive impact. This criterion collects all the benefits of a task that are not strictly
speaking linguistic, for instance metalinguistic competency (cf. Skehan’s criterion
no. 5). This criterion actually refers to some aspects, such as socialisation, which,
if seen within a historic-cultural perspective, are central.
6. Practicability. The last criterion indicates the level of technological difficulty to
carry out a given task in a given context, for example which machinery is needed.
Chapelle’s is a framework for the evaluation of tasks, since it applies criteria that
pertain to language teaching research in order to assess the effectiveness of CALL
tasks. This characteristic substantially differentiates it from the model proposed by
Egbert and Hanson-Smith, which defines CALL tasks from the departure point of
general didactic criteria. It is a clear example of the shift in perspective illustrated
by Garret: the need to evaluate CALL tasks is in fact proof of the maturity and
autonomy reached in this field: technologies are no longer confined to the execution
of tasks designed outside their specific ambits, but rather, they play an active and
integrated role in the evaluation process.
As an example, we may consider the matching task proposed by Johns (1994), in
which learners from a course of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) consulted a
corpus of information using a specific programme to answer linguistic doubts which
emerged during discussion – for example, which is the difference between therefore
and hence?

188