ESL Software Evalutions

• CALICO Software/authoware Review Guideline
• Guiding Principles of Evaluating and Using ESL Multimedia Software

• Beatty, K. (2003). Teaching and researching computer-assisted language learning. Candlin, C. & Hall, D.R (Eds.). London: Longman.
• Burston, J. (2003). Software selection: A primer on sources and evaluation. CALICO Journal,
  21(1), 29-40.
• Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer application in second language acquisition: Foundations for
  teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chapelle, C.A. (2007). Challenges in evaluation of innovation: Observations from technology research. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 1(1), 30-45.
• Chapelle, C. (2010). The spread of computer assisted language learning. Language Teaching,
  43(1), 66-74.
• de Szendeffy, J. (2005). Using computers in language teaching. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Egbert, J. (2005). CALL essentials: Principles and practice in CALL classrooms. Alexandria, VA: TESOL
• Hegelheimer, V. & Tower, D. (2004). Using CALL in the classroom: Analysing student interactions in an authentic classroom. System, 32, 185-205.
• Hubbard, P. (1988). An integrated framework for CALL courseware evaluation. CALICO Journal,
  6(2), 51-72.
• Hubbard, P. (2001). The use and abuse of meaning technologies. Association of Teachers of English as a Second Language Ontario Special Research Symposium, 27(2), 82-86.
• Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos, & C.M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-68). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
• Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software: Calling on CALL: From theory and practice to new directions in foreign language teaching. (http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/calleval.pdf  )
• Hubbard, P. (2011). Evaluation of courseware and websites. In N. Arnold & S. Ducate (Eds.)Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 407-440). San Marco: CALICO.
• 
  Hunter, L. (2001). CALL labs: have they run their course? In K. Cameron (Ed.) CALL-The challenge of change, proceedings of 10th Exeter CALL conference (pp.61-72). Exceter, England: Elm Bank.
• Jamieson, J. & Chapelle, C.C. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38(3), 357-369.
• Johnston, B. (2007). Theory and research: Classroom atmosphere. In Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.) CALL environments. Alexandria, VI: TESOL
• Jones, J.F. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT Journal, 55(4), 360-367.
• Kolaitis, M. Mahoney, M.A., Pomann, H., & Hubbard, P. (2006). Training ourselves to train our students for CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.) Teacher education in CALL (pp. 328-344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Levis, J. (2008). Computer technology in teaching and researching pronunciation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 184-202.
• MacCarthy, B. (1999). Integration: The sine qua non of CALL. CALL-EJ Online, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.tell.is.ritsumei.ac.jp/callejonline/journal/1-2/mccarthy.html
• Murray, L. & Barnes, A. (1998). Beyond the “wow” factor-evaluating multimedia language learning software from a pedagogical viewpoint. System, 26, 249-259.
• Guiding principles for evaluating and using ESL multimedia software 11National Foreign Language Resource Center. (1998). Checklist: Evaluative criteria for computer-
  delivered language learning systems. University of Hawaii at Mánoa. Retrieved from http://www.
  nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW31/NW31t.pdf 
• O’Connor, P. & Gatton, W. (2004). Implementing multimedia in a university EFL program: A case study in CALL. In S. Fotos, & C.M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 199-224). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
• Pomann, H. & Hubbard, P. (nd). Collaborative CALL strategy training for teachers and ESL
  learners. Retrieved from http://www.j-let.org/~wcf/proceedings/d-009.pdf
• Rani, R. (2003). Selecting materials. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing materials for language
  Teaching (pp. 37-57). London: Continuum.
• Robb, T.N. & Susser, B. (2000). The life and death of software: Examining the selection process. Calico, 18(1), 41-52.
• Roberts, J.T. (1996). Demystifying materials evaluation. System, 24(3), 375-389.
• Scholfield, P.J. (nd) Evaluation of CALL software. Retrieved from http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~scholp/calleval.htm#bas 
• Shaughnessy, M. (2003). CALL, commercialism and culture: Inherent software design conflicts
  and their results. ReCALL, 15(2), 251-268.
• Susser, B. (2001). A defense of checklists for course evaluation. ReCALL, 13(2), 261-276.
• Tomlinson, B. (2003). Materials evaluation. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.). Developing materials for
  language Teaching (pp. 15-36). London: Continuum.