Part A

Overview

1
1 An overview of new
technologies in language
education

Aims: This chapter reviews the development of technologies in language

education by considering the connection between different learning theories
and technology application in language classrooms. This review draws upon the
literature and examples of technology use in classrooms to help the reader
to make sense of theory and practice. The chapter has the three themes, as
follows:

1. Overview of global technology policy in education

2. Learning theories
3. Technology use in language learning.

What does using technology in language learning

mean?
Technology in language learning has been in constant evolution since its
genesis in the 1950s, in part due to attempts to keep up with the ongoing
developments in computer technology. The development of technology in
language education is also the result of the development of learning theories
and pedagogical considerations. Many terms and expressions have emerged,
and different theoretical perspectives require different approaches to under-
stand and define the concept.

Task 1.1: What does technology use in language learning mean?

Have you ever experienced using technology in language teaching or learn-
ing? When you talk about using technology in language learning, what do you
mean? Could you explain your understanding to your colleagues?

3
4 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

The most widely used variant is perhaps CALL (computer-assisted lan-

guage learning). The use of CALL was agreed at the 1983 TESOL (Teachers
of English to speakers of other languages) convention in Toronto, Ontario,
by people who attended the meeting where CALL issues were discussed. This
term has been widely used to refer to the areas of technology and both second
language teaching and learning despite frequent suggestions to revise the term
(Chapelle, 2001, p. 3). Even though the term has been agreed and widely
adopted, different scholars define the term differently. Levy (1997) defines
CALL as ‘the search for and study of applications of the computer in language
teaching and learning’ (Levy, 1997, p. 1). Beatty (2003) acknowledges the
breadth of what may go on in CALL and proposes that a definition of CALL
that accommodates its changing nature is the following: any process in which
a learner uses a computer and, as a result, improves his or her language (Beatty,
2003, p. 7). Furthermore, he suggests that ‘CALL has come to encompass
issues of materials design, technologies, pedagogical theories and modes of
instruction. Materials for CALL can include those which are purpose-made
for language learning and those which adapt existing computer-based materi-
als, video and other materials’ (Beatty, 2003, pp. 7–8). So, broadly speaking,
CALL is the study of computer applications or computer technologies in sec-
ond or foreign language teaching and learning (Levy, 1997; Chapelle, 2001;
Fotos and Brown, 2004; Egbert, 2005; Levy and Stockwell, 2006).
There are, of course, many other similar terms associated with technology
use in language learning: for example, TELL (technology-enhanced language
learning), CELL (computer-enhanced language learning), NBLT (network-
based language teaching), WELL (web-enhanced language learning) and CMC
(computer-mediated communication). In the literature, we can also see the
use of ICT (information and communications technologies), e-learning and
blended learning. In recent years, we have seen the popularity of mobile learn-
ing (m-learning), which brings ‘mobility’ into learning (see Pegrum, 2014). But
do they really mean different things? Or are these just different terms referring
to the same concept? In this chapter, I will consider some important aspects in
understanding the meaning and scope of using technology in language learn-
ing. To do so, I will first outline the global growth of technology in education
and then move on to technology use in language education, with a particular
attention to English as a second/foreign language. Next, I will discuss learning
theories, technology and pedagogy. Finally, I will provide a discussion on the
issue of technology development in language learning.

Technology in education: the global picture

Perhaps it is fair to say that technology has changed our lives in every way,
such as shopping, communicating, entertaining, teaching and learning,
and even in the way we think. Most, if not all, teachers, educators and
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 5

policymakers would support the use of technologies in enhancing learning.

Computer technologies have for some time now played a significant role in
improving education and reforming curricula across countries all over the
world (Pelgrum, 2001; Kozma and Anderson, 2002). Governments, educa-
tion authorities and schools have all made major investments into providing
schools with computer equipment (Pelgrum, 2001; Macaro, Handley and
Walter, 2012).
Globally, technology integration into education is an important feature
of the education landscape. The U.S. Department of Education (DoE) has
launched National Education Technology Plan 2010 to transform American
education through ‘learning powered by technology’. The Plan makes a
specific statement to fully integrate technology in teaching, assessment,
infrastructure and productivity. Similarly, the Australian government has
poured money into technology infrastructure in education. It is estimated
that the entire education sector had spent AUS$2.7 billion (£1.59 billion)
on computer equipment in 2013, with nearly half going on actual hard-
ware. Similar initiatives were observed in Europe. For example, in Spain,
‘Escuela 2.0’ (Pérez Sanz, 2011) aimed to equip over 14,000 classrooms in
primary and secondary schools with interactive whiteboards (IWBs), wire-
less networks and PCs (personal computers) for both students and teach-
ers. A similar plan was launched in Italy in 2009. In the Asian context,
the Ministry of Education of Singapore developed the third Masterplan for
ICT in Education (2009–2014) to enrich and transform the learning envi-
ronments of students and equip them with the critical competencies and
dispositions to succeed in a knowledge economy. In contrast, the Chinese
government developed long-term goals to informationalise Chinese educa-
tion by 2010 and made a considerable financial investment to establish a
network for language teaching and language research at both provincial and
institutional levels. In the Middle East, there is strong evidence that mobile
devices play an important role in the development of education quality. For
example, the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) in the UAE (United
Arab Emirates) adopted cutting-edge technology at the earliest opportunity,
such as the laptop initiative from 2003 to 2005 (all students were given
laptops, and all campuses were fitted with Wi-Fi) and the iPad initiative
(2012–2014), a world-first in equipping all new students with iPads
(personal communication). We can see a huge investment has been made
globally to embrace technology in education to create a twenty-first-century
learning environment and style.
Apart from the policy and investment in technology use in education, it
actually makes sense to use technology in teaching and learning, according
to brain research experts (Tileston, 2000). For example, computers can pro-
mote visual, verbal and kinaesthetic learning and address different cognitive
and psychological processes in learning by using multimodal materials.
6 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Technology use in language education

Technology has been integrated into second language teaching and learn-
ing since the 1960s as a mechanical tutor to train repetitive language drills,
the so-called drill-and-practice method. It is only since 2000 that computer
technology has been largely used in reading, writing, literacy and cultural
awareness (Chapelle, 2003). With the development of multimedia com-
puting and the Internet, technology is becoming a vital feature of second
language classrooms and an important issue confronting second/foreign lan-
guage teachers and researchers. For example, Chapelle (2003), as an applied
linguist, asserts that ‘technology-based language teaching and research is not
a departure from applied linguistics. It is a continuation – the 21st century
version of what applied linguists do’ (p. 31).
According to the British Council’s research report published in 2014,
there are approximately 750 million EFL (English as a foreign language)
speakers and 375 million ESL (English as a second language) speakers.
The British Council predicts that the number of people actively learn-
ing English around the world is set to exceed 1.9 billion by 2020. Of
course there is no way to make an accurate estimate of potential English
learners, but two messages to take away from these figures are that there
are millions of English learners and that the development of technol-
ogy is embracing these learners. There are over 3 billion Internet users,
accounting for 40.4 per cent of the world’s population. Approximately
eight new Internet users add themselves to this growing percentage per
second. The advantage of the Internet is that it allows language to come
to the learner, rather than a learner having to go to a special place to learn
the language. In institutional contexts, such as higher education sectors,
secondary schools and primary schools, teachers face a generation which
has grown up in an environment in which they are constantly exposed
to computer-based technology; therefore, their methods of learning are
different from those of previous generations. In a survey of first-year
undergraduate students, Sandars and Morrison (2007) found that a large
majority started university with experience of using online systems such
as blogs and wikis; furthermore, their attitudes to the possible use of such
tools in learning were positive. Clearly, determining how to teach the
generation which has already integrated technology to their daily life is
a challenge to the traditional teaching and learning philosophy. All these
points suggest that language learning/teaching is embarking on a new
trend, and it has become an urgent issue for teachers, applied linguists
and learning theorists to think how new technologies should be integrated
and utilised in language learning.
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 7

Task 1.2: What does using technology in language learning/teaching mean?

Now, think about what software, apps or technological tools you or people
around you have used to learn English (or any language). Is it a good example
for you? Why?

As one can imagine, there is a long list of various technological tools or apps
to use in learning or teaching a language. The list might include websites,
videos (e.g. YouTube), PowerPoint, images and sound files (e.g. podcasts),
mobile phones, virtual learning environments and social networking sites. The
list can be very long, but if we look
at the research evidence, we can make
The term ‘Web 2.0’ was officially coined in an assumption that teachers are very
2004 by Dale Dougherty, a vice-president creative, and various technological
of O’Reilly Media Inc. Web 2.0 refers to tools have been used in enhancing
a group of technologies – such as blogs, linguistic and communicative skills,
wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, etc. – which
but no doubt some tools are more
facilitate a more socially connected
popular than others. Various forms
Internet where everyone is able to add to
and edit the information space. of technology have been reported
in language classrooms, including
both stand-alone computer tools and
Web 2.0 technologies (see Liu, Moore, Graham and Lee 2002 for a pre-2000
review; see Macaro, Handley and Walter 2012 for a post-2000 review). Then
in classrooms, how do teachers use technologies to facilitate teaching?
In the US, Meskill et al. (2006) surveyed 847 K-12 ESOL (English speak-
ers of other languages) teachers regarding their uses of technology and found
that the most frequently used software is word processing – a finding that
resonates with the results of two national surveys, one by Becker (2000)
and another by Doherty and Orlofsky (2001). Cuban (2001) also reported
that word processing is the most frequently used technology for teachers in
American classrooms. In Canada, Wozney et al. (2006) surveyed K-12 teach-
ers’ use of technology and concluded that teachers mainly used computer
technologies for ‘informative’ (e.g. World Wide Web) and ‘expressive’ (e.g.
word processing) purposes. In China, Li’s (2008) survey of English teachers
suggests that PowerPoint is regarded as the most popular and appropriate
form of technology used in Chinese English language classrooms. Macaro
et al. (2012) provide an in-depth review of 47 post-2000 studies investigating
the efficacy of technology in the teaching of L2 (second language) English,
asking what technology has been used and why. They pointed out that the
most frequently studied technologies were multimedia (22 per cent), CMC
technologies (22 per cent) and the Internet (15 per cent). Among CMC,
email is the most popular. It is notable that no research has been done on
8 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

chat or discussion forums before 2000, nor studies of Web 2.0 technologies
before 2005. Technology has mostly been used to enhance every aspect of
language learning, including (for example) lexical acquisition, speaking skills,
intercultural awareness and so on. Furthermore, these studies revealed that
most research studies focused mainly on vocabulary (24 per cent), writing
(24 per cent) and reading (22 per cent) and, to a lesser extent, speaking (11
per cent), listening (10 per cent), grammar (7 per cent) and pronunciation
(3 per cent). This review focused on only teaching English as a foreign or
second language in primary or secondary levels; technology use in higher
education might be different.
What is technology use in language learning then? In analysing technology
use in language learning, the first thing to understand is its meaning and
scope. The best way is to consider learning theories associated with technol-
ogy use and the development of technology use in language learning, which
are discussed in more depth below.

Learning theories
What are learning theories? A theory of learning aims to help people to
understand how learning happens and informs practice. Major learning
theories, such as behaviourist learning theory, cognitivist learning theory and
constructivist learning theory, were all developed in the late nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, and they have had strong influences on the nature of lan-
guage, language learning pedagogy, technology use and the role of the teacher
and learners. I will briefly discuss these three theories first and then move on
to present online collaborative learning theory, which is frequently referred to
when discussing computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL).

Behaviourist learning theory

The behaviourist learning theory was a major breakthrough in the late

nineteenth century. The nature of learning, what influences and supports
learning and what is believed to be learning was developed mainly through
experiments with animals, such as the well-known experiment by Pavlov on his
dog. Pavlov found that if he rings the ‘bell’ (conditioned stimulus) with food
(unconditional stimulus) to get the attention of his dog, his dog would have a
conditioned response to the conditioned stimulus (bell) after a period of time.
This experiment showed that learning associates an unconditioned stimulus
that already brings about a particular response (i.e. a reflex) with a new (con-
ditioned) stimulus such that the new stimulus brings about the same response.
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 9

Behaviourist learning theory views knowledge as something fixed and

finite, and ultimately as truth. So from a behaviourist theoretical perspec-
tive, learning ‘was reduced and simplified to simple conditioning: the
stimulus and the response’ (Harasim, 2012, p. 31). As the name suggests,
the behaviourist learning theory focuses on an observable behaviour and
pays little attention to what happens in the mind. Learning is therefore
observable and measurable. The core of behaviourist learning theory is to
change or elicit certain behaviours. In examining learning, in order to see
whether X has an impact on Y, controlled methods, random assignments
and the manipulation of variables are used to test hypotheses. As Harasim
(2012) explains,

In behaviorist theory, what is in the mind is not accessible for study, and hence
irrelevant and should not be considered in research. The mind is viewed as
a black box that is largely irrelevant, and, therefore, by extension educational
practice based on behaviorist terms would not take the mind into account. The
emphasis is on environmental stimulus and observed response. (p. 32)

Cognitivist learning theory

The cognitivist learning theory emerged as an extension of and a reaction to

behaviourist theory, in particular to the ‘stimulus-and-response’ paradigm of
behaviourism. The main argument behind the cognitivist learning theory is
that it believes the direct link between stimulus and responses is insufficient
to explain learning because the responses are also influenced by factors such
as cognitive ability, motivation, age, aptitude and so on. Cognitivist theory
does not reject the ‘stimulus-and-response’ theory completely, but rather,
it shifts the focus to the cognitive (internal mental) process in learning to
understand and improve the effectiveness of learning. Cognitivist theory
concerns what goes on between stimulus and response. In the context of
language learning, it concerns what happens between input and output in
a learner’s mind. In other words, a cognitive perspective is interested in how
information is processed. So under the view of cognitivist theory, a learner
is a processor of information. Cognitive information-processing theory is
strongly associated with cognitivist learning theory, and its experimental
design is closely linked to this view in understanding the impact of variables
on learning.

Constructivist learning theory

As the name suggests, constructivist learning theory concerns learning as

‘an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge’ (Duffy
10 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

and Cunningham, 1996, p. 177). According to this theory, what individuals

experience and their reflection on their experiences help them to construct
knowledge of and an understanding of the world. Piaget and Vygotsky are
the two most influential theorists in this tradition despite the differences
they hold in understanding constructivism.
Piaget’s theory takes the cognitive view of development and proposes
two important elements in learning: age and stage. For Piaget, learning
follows development: learning takes place differently at different stages of
biological development. The depth and complexity of knowledge develops
as humans move through the age-based stages. Therefore, humans cannot
be ‘given’ information, and immediately understand and use such infor-
mation. Instead, humans must ‘construct’ their own knowledge through
experience. From a cognitive constructivism perspective, learning is an
active process which needs to be authentic, meaningful and real to the
learners.
Social constructivism maintains that human development is socially
situated and that knowledge is constructed through interaction with oth-
ers. Vygotsky (1978) is the major theorist among the social constructivists.
One of the key messages we can infer from Vygotsky’s seminal work is the
important role of social interaction in learning and development. From
Vygotsky’s perspective, learning happens through the social encounters in
which one uses the social and cultural artefacts in mediating their thinking.
Sociocultural theory incorporates mediation as a core construct in its theoris-
ing about language learning. From the perspective of sociocultural theory,
human forms of mental activity arise in the interactions we enter into with
other members of our culture and with the specific experiences we have with
the artefacts produced by our ancestors and by our contemporaries (Lantolf,
2000, p. 79). For Vygotsky, learning takes place first at the social level and
then the internal level.
Vygotsky argued that cognitive development was a social, communicative pro-
cess and described the social construction of knowledge within a ‘zone of proximal
development’ (ZPD). ZPD is where learning and development come together
and is ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level
of potential development as determined
ZPD (zone of proximal development) through problem solving under adult guid-
is the space where learning takes ance or in collaboration with more capable
place with ‘graduated’, ‘contingent’
peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). According
and ‘dialogic’ assistance/guidance. It is
the distance between what learners
to Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), ZPD
know and what they will know with is ‘the framework, par excellence, which
help. brings all of the pieces of the learning
setting together – the teacher, the learner,
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 11

their social and cultural history, their

Scaffolding is supportive behaviour goals and motives, as well as the resources
from more able/knowledgeable to the available to them, including those that are
less able/knowledgeable individuals.
dialogically constructed together’ (p. 468).
In short, learning takes place within the
learners’ ZPD, with the ‘graduated’, ‘contingent’, and ‘dialogic’ assistance/guid-
ance (Aljaafreh and Lantolf, 1994, p. 495), which is usually offered by the more
knowledgeable/able to the less knowledgeable/able individual. Such guidance
has been metaphorically named ‘scaffolding’ (Weissberg, 2006), although the
concept of scaffolding was not originally discussed in Vygotsky’s work.
Originally, Vygotsky’s framework focused on child psychological develop-
ment, expert–novice interactions and the co-construction of knowledge.
However, in recent decades it has been argued that the idea and its two key
constructs – ZPD and scaffolding – can also be extended to educational
settings and to both asymmetrical (expert–novice) and symmetrical (equal
ability) situations (Storch, 2002). One of its implications, for example, is for
second language learning scenarios in which L2 learners need to be scaffolded
in their ZPD in order to develop L2 competence (Lantolf, 2000, 2006). Ohta
(1995) adapted the concept of the ZPD to L2 as ‘the difference between the
L2 learner’s developmental level as determined by independent language use,
and the higher level of potential development as determined by how language
is used in collaboration with a more capable interlocutor’ (p. 96). Accordingly,
scaffolding in the L2 refers to those supportive behaviours employed by the
more advanced partner in collaboration with the less competent learner that
aims to foster an L2 learner’s progress to a higher level of language proficiency.
However, a number of researchers (e.g. de Guerrero and Villamil, 1994, 2000;
Storch, 2002, 2005; Yong, 2010) have stressed not only that is scaffolding a
unidirectional support from an expert to novice but also that it can occur
between novices where both learners are acting as expert and supporting each
other mutually and concurrently through dialogic interaction.

Online collaborative learning theory

In more recent times, a new school of thought on learning theories has been
emerging. For example, Harasim (2012) argues that we need a new learning
theory, one that focuses on collaborative learning, knowledge building and
Internet use as means to reshape formal, nonformal and informal educa-
tion for the Knowledge Age, and she proposed online collaborative learning
(OCL). One main drive for OCL theory is that learners today are part of a
collaboration generation because they spend time ‘searching, reading, scruti-
nizing, authenticating, collaborating and organizing’ (Tapscott and Williams,
12 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

2006, p. 47), and therefore a new mindset is needed. The Knowledge Age
mindset seeks better or best solutions to problems, and knowledge is not
static, fixed or universally true; rather it is dynamic, and context-specific.
Harasim (2012) defines OCL theory as ‘a model of learning in which stu-
dents are encouraged and supported to work together to create knowledge: to
invent, to explore ways to innovate and, by so doing, to seek the conceptual
knowledge needed to solve problems rather than recite what they think is the
right answer’ (p. 90). She further explains that in the OCL theory, ‘the teacher
plays a key role not as a fellow-learner, but as the link to the knowledge com-
munity, or state of the art in that discipline. Learning is defined as conceptual
change and is key to building knowledge’ (ibid). Like online distance learn-
ing and online courseware, OCL can be asynchronous (not occurring at the
same time), place-independent, text-based and based on Internet-mediated
discourse. However, the unique characteristic of OCL is that the focus is
placed on online discourse – the way learning happens, group learning and
the development of group cognition – and it is led by instructor.

Task 1.3: Can you explain the following by using a learning theory?
When I was small, I lived in the countryside with my grandparents. They kept
chickens in order to have eggs. My grandma used to chop some cabbage
leaves for chickens in the afternoon, and I noticed that every time my grandma
started to chop, the chickens would gather around her, waiting. I thought it was
quite funny, so one day I decided to trick the chickens. I made some chopping
noises, and all the chickens gathered around me. Of course, this time, they
didn’t get cabbage leaves. I was very pleased with my little experiment, and of
course the chickens were very disappointed (and perhaps puzzled!). Can you
explain this using a learning theory? Does cognitive theory account for this?
Why or why not?

Technology and pedagogy

Technology embraces different pedagogical principles and practices, such
as instruction and construction. The former is the approach followed by
traditional classroom teaching, while the latter refers to an approach that
facilitates full exploitation of the potential of technology but demands
rethinking and a redefinition of the traditional approach as well as of the
teacher–student relationship.
MacGilchrist et al. (1997), in their book The Intelligent School, discuss
a ‘traditional’ model of learning, which views learning as ‘the reception of
knowledge, the learner as passive and the appropriate learning style as formal’
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 13

(the behaviourist tradition) and a ‘progressive’ model, which sees learning

as ‘discovery, the learner as active and the learning style as informal (the
cognitive, humanist and social interactionist traditions)’ (p. 20). A teacher’s
traditional role is to present ready-made information and organise learning
experiences. Learning with technology, however, is different in the sense
that technology assume the roles of both presenter and organiser. Learning
is seen to occur by making sense of knowledge that one is exposed to and
with which one interacts by way of mental processes and/or interaction with
other people. Rooted in general learning theories, such as behaviourism and
constructivism, technology integration developed within education from the
era of ‘technology as a tutor’ to ‘technology as a tool’ (Levy, 1997).
The following sections will discuss learning theories which influence
technology use in second language learning practice and the development of
technology in language education.

Technology development in language learning

There are a number of attempts to describe the development of CALL (e.g.
Sanders, 1995; Warschauer and Healey, 1998; Delcloque, 2000; Levy, 2000;
Warschauer, 2000a; Chapelle, 2001; Bax, 2003b). However, according to
a recent historiography, Bax (2003b) claims that Warschauer and Healey’s
(1998) work is ‘the only substantive, systematic attempt to analyse and
understand the history of CALL in anything more than ‘factual’ terms’
(p. 14). Basically, there are three main theoretical movements in the history
of computer-assisted language teaching: behaviourism/structural perspec-
tive (Structural CALL: 1970s–1980s), cognitive/constructivist perspective
(Communicative CALL: 1980s–1990s) and socio-cognitive perspective
(Integrative CALL: late twentieth century or early twenty-first century)
(Warschauer, 2004). Now in the Web 2.0 era, we are talking about more
than these three CALL phases, and there are different voices suggesting that
we need to move from CALL to TELL (e.g. Walker and White, 2013) or
MALL (mobile-assisted language learning). In my view, this movement is
making sense because we are relying less on computers now and more on
various technologies, such as mobile phones, game consoles and other
hand-held devices. Again, TELL perhaps is more appropriate in this context
because we are at the stage of embracing all types of technological tools and
apps, ranging from stand-alone computers to mobile devices and online
environments. More importantly, technology is viewed as an integrated part
of the learning process that enhances learners’ experiences, rather than as an
add-on. Table 1.1 summarises four views of technology in language educa-
tion, which the following sections discuss briefly in turn.
 14

Stage 1970s–1980s: 1980s–1990s: 1990s–2000s: Integrative CALL Twenty-first century:

Structural CALL Communicative Collaborative technology/
CALL TELL
Technology Mainframe PCs Multimedia and Internet Web 2.0, virtual worlds,
tablets, mobile devices and
game consoles
English Grammar-translation Communicative Content-based, ESP/EAP Communication and
teaching and audiolingual language teaching interaction (English as a
paradigm method medium)
View of Structural (a formal Cognitive (a mentally Socio-cognitive (developed in social Sociocultural (interactional
language structural system) constructed system) interaction) competence and intercultural
competence)
Principal use Drill and practice Communicative Authentic discourse Communication and
NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

of |computers exercises knowledge co-construction

Principal Accuracy Accuracy and fluency Accuracy, fluency and agency Accuracy, fluency, agency and
objective autonomy within community
Principal role To provide drill, To provide language To provide alternative contexts for To provide a space/
of computers practice, tutorial input and analytic and social interaction; to facilitate access environment for people to
explanation and inferential tasks to existing discourse communities engage in communication
corrective feedback and the creation of new ones and construct new knowledge
T ABLE 1.1 F OUR STAGES OF TECHNOLOGY - ENHANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 15

Structural (behaviouristic) CALL

Warschauer and Healey (1998) suggest that behaviouristic CALL was

‘conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the 1960s and 1970s’ (p. 57).
According to Delcloque (2000), behaviouristic CALL dated back to the 1960s,
when the Audiolingual Method was appealing. But Warschauer (2004) has pre-
sented a different time scale of behaviouristic CALL: from the 1970s to 1980s.
The underpinning theories of behaviourist CALL are based on a struc-
tural view of language and behaviourism learning theory. Theorists who hold
a structural view of language, such as Charles Fries (1945) and Robert Lado
(1957), consider language as a system with comparative stable structures
and intrinsic regulations, and they focus on analysing the structure and
drills of a certain language. Influenced by the behaviourists, the structural
perspective regards language learning as a process of ‘stimulus – reflection –
consolidation’ or well-known ‘drill-and-practice’ (or drill and kill) in which
learners would learn the language and master the language rules by constant
imitation and mechanical drills to form their own habits of using language.
The basic premise behind this is that the more drill practice the learners
encounter, the more and faster the learners can acquire the language. This
earliest application of computer in learning was also termed CAI (computer-
assisted instruction).
Technological applications in the behaviourist tradition tend to follow
an instructional pattern (Kern and Warschauer, 2000). Learning is broken
down into a sequential series of small steps, each covering a piece of the
subject domain or a particular skill. The computer programme models the
role of the tutor, offering some input or paradigm that the learner can ‘drill
and practice’ followed by the provision of feedback. Essentially, the control
of learning is in the hands of the programme designer and not the learner
(although occasionally individualised customisations were implemented).
This type of CALL was used as an add-on to the main language teaching.
Warschauer (1996a) identifies the following rationales behind these pro-
grammes, which he considers to have value:

„ Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or even essential

to learning.
„A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, since the machine
does not get bored with presenting the same material and since it can
provide non-judgemental feedback.
„A computer can present such material on an individualised basis,
allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class
time for other activities. (p. 4)
16 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Bax (2003b) suggests that behaviouristic CALL is ‘the most plausible’

(p. 16) and that the ‘drill and kill’ is to some extent what learners need most
(Nunan, 1987; Davies, 1989) because computers ‘are excellent judges of
what is demanded of them when they sit their exams’ (Jung, 2005, p. 14).
Crook (1994) notes that teachers might find this mode appealing because
they consider such experiences to be important, and ‘furnishing the necessary
opportunities is not the easiest or most rewarding part of their responsibility’
(p. 14). Although behaviourism is discredited in overall education because it
does not explain all kinds of learning and ignores the activities of the brain,
it still has a place in language learning, such as for the acquisition of vocabu-
lary and grammatical morphemes (Lightbown and Spada, 2006). Research
shows that at the beginning level, reproduction rather than construction of
knowledge is necessary, as grammar-based activities allow learners to build or
reinforce fundamental knowledge (e.g. Garrett, 1987). Hubbard and Siskin
(2004) argue that behaviourist CALL (or computer as tutor) is still ‘eminently
justifiable’ and have suggested some promising areas in which tutorial CALL
can help with learning (p. 452). These explain why similar behaviouristic
technological tools are still in use in many language classrooms today.
However, there are some particular problems with ‘drill-and-practice’
software, such as the potential to create ‘a passive mentality which seeks only
the ‘right’ answers, thus stifling children’s motivation to seek out underlying
reasons or to produce answers that are in any way divergent’ (Bonnett, 1997,
pp. 157–158). In terms of the technical aspects of learning a language, it is
difficult to develop the ‘individualization of problems and questions tailored
to the (changing) needs of particular learners, and the delivery of construc-
tive feedback’ (Crook, 1994, p. 12). Basically, ‘drill-and-practice’ courseware
is based on the model of computer as tutor (Taylor, 1980). Wolff (1999,
p. 127), in his review of Levy’s (1997) framework of the computer’s role as
either tutor or tool, remarks that behaviouristic CALL has no place, and so
the only defensible role for the computer in language learning is that of tool.
Some other research argues that this kind of practice does little to improve
the learner’s linguistic ability to produce the grammatically appropriate
utterances (Armstrong and Yetter-Vassot, 1994).

Communicative CALL (cognitive/constructivist perspective)

Warschauer and Healey (1998) propose that communicative CALL ‘emerged

in the late 1970s and early 1980s’, but then it was said to date to the 1980s
and 1990s (Warschauer, 2004). Although it is difficult to set a clear bound-
ary between behaviouristic CALL and communicative CALL, it is widely
accepted that behaviouristic CALL was largely swept away by the tides of
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 17

‘communicative competence’ (Hymes, 1972) privileged in the late 1970s and

early 1980s. Communicative CALL is mainly based on two learning theories:
cognitive learning theory and cognitive constructivism. The cognitive learn-
ing perspective sees the learner not as a passive recipient but as a mentally
active participant in the learning process. Information processing and cogni-
tive constructivism are two distinguished schools of thought. Information
processing derived from cognitive theory explains how human behaviour is
formed in terms of how the brain works with information intake, storage
and processing, while the constructivism paradigm is concerned with how
human beings construct knowledge and facts or develop skills. Cognitive
constructivism emphasises personal experience, and ‘constructivists postulate
that there is no reality independent of the human being. Reality is always
constructed by the human being and exists, therefore, only subjectively in his
or her brain’ (Wolff, 1997, p. 18). As discussed earlier, Jean Piaget proposed
the stages of cognitive development for human beings, claiming that cogni-
tion develops from the use of basic senses to more sophisticated ones, in
particular abstract reasoning.
Noam Chomsky (1957) and Stephen Krashen (1981) are representatives
of the cognitive perspective, who consider that imitation and language habit
formation cannot be the basis of language acquisition because language is
constructed upon cognitive knowledge in interaction with comprehensible,
meaningful language during learning (Chomsky, 1986). They emphasise that
learning a language is an individual psycholinguistic act. Only after analysis,
judgement, inference and deduction of the language input can learners form
a set of personal language systems in order to achieve communication. In
language learning, providing a large amount of comprehensible input is
vitally important because it is the foundation of cognition and language
construction.
The PC is suited to facilitating language learning and allows learners
the maximum number of opportunities to be exposed to language in a
meaningful context and to construct their own individual knowledge.
Learners can control the programme, the learning process, learning pace
and content to meet their individual needs. The learners are in a simulated
micro-language world where they can analyse the material, solve problems,
authenticate hypotheses and renew understanding. Multimedia simulation
software allows learners to enter into computerised learning environments
with exposure to language and culture in a meaningful audiovisual context,
helping to achieve communicative competence. Associated with cognitive
learning theory is intelligent CALL. Intelligent CALL provides opportunities
for learners to be involved in language instruction: for example, intelligent
grammar checkers (IGCs) that perform an analysis of students’ written work
to point out errors; and intelligent tutoring systems (ITSs) which ‘combine
18 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

the problem-solving experience and motivation of “discovery” learning with

the effective guidance of tutorial interaction’ (Sleeman and Brown, 1982,
p. 1). Compared to CAI, ITSs require specific knowledge domains to be
taught to the individual students by the computerised tutor. So the key
characteristic for designing ITSs is that four types of knowledge are required:
subject knowledge, learner knowledge, technology knowledge and pedagogi-
cal knowledge. Although there are authoring tools which allow instructors
to create their own courseware, it is still challenging for instructors to design
and create their own courseware to meet their students’ needs. Of course, in
CALL under such a perspective, grammar is taught implicitly and language
is manipulated rather than replicated.
‘Microworlds’ were originally proposed by Papert as environments which
supply ‘simple, concrete models of important things, ideas and their rela-
tionships’ to help children work creatively to acquire ‘powerful authentic
knowledge’ (Lawler and Yazdani, 1987, p. x). Microworlds for language
instruction provide a meaningful context for language learners to experi-
ment using the language as a tool to solve a problem. This enables implicit
language learning while the student carries out a purposeful experiment
in some subject areas by using the ‘foreign’ language to give instructions,
conduct investigations, record observations and discuss results (see Schoelles
and Hamburger (1996) for some of the benefits of microworlds). According
to Chapelle (1989), ‘[I]ntelligent microworlds provide a partner to con-
verse with students about a given topic. These programmes use knowledge
representation techniques and natural language processing to transform
computers so that communicating with them “can be a natural process …
like learning French by living in France”’ (60). Three principles need to be
considered in designing a microworld activity:

„ implicit feedback, which is believed to be more effective than explicit

feedback in assisting individualised learning;
„ overlearning through intrinsic reward, which enables repeated practice by
motivating learners intrinsically;
„ adaptive sequencing, which provides the individualisation of instruction
to accommodate particular learners’ problems.

It is worth noting that ‘communicative CALL’ (Warschauer and Healey,

1998; Warschauer, 2000a) is not the same term as the ‘communicative’
being used in language teaching methodologies, even if the criterion of being
‘communicative’ has a general communicative ‘flavour’ (Underwood, 1984)
but without the central characteristics of the communicative approach that
enables learners to learn how to communicate best through the process of
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 19

Case study 1.1:

Military Language Tutor (MILT), first developed for a military audience but intended
generally for adults learning language, is an example of using microworlds in lan-
guage learning. In the MILT microworld, learners are immersed in a task-relevant
environment that they can explore by speaking or typing commands to an ani-
mated agent who understands only the target language. The agent solves problems
such as searching a series of rooms for hidden documents (books, letters, maps,
etc.) and reading and extracting the information contained.
Holland et al. (1999) described a version of MILT that pairs discrete ASR (auto-
mated speech recognition) with animated graphics to give job-relevant communi-
cative practice in selected languages.
Read more about this project here: https://calico.org/html/article_624.pdf
How does a microworld provide the learners with a supportive environment to learn the
language?

communication itself (Littlewood, 1981). Bax (2003b) questions if com-

municative CALL is ever actually communicative at all ‘in any significant
way’ because it lacks the ‘central features of human communication and
interaction’ (p. 18). Bax then describes and critiques the three main ‘models’
of computer use, arguing that the computer as tutor model provides very
limited computer–student communication; that the computer as stimulus
is not considered as a distinctive feature of communicative CALL in spite
of its function of promoting some valuable communications which can be
achieved by other means as well; and that computer as workhorse/tool again
has no clear features of CLT because the computer is used mainly to analyse
and manipulate language rather than to communicate ideas. By examining
the ‘actual practice’ of CALL between 1980 and 1990 in the two fundamen-
tal prerequisites of communication – speaking and listening – Jung (2005)
argues that Bax’s claim ‘that communicative CALL in the 1980s was never
communicative at all’ is right (Bax, 2003b, p. 18). Jung (2005) further sug-
gests that this period should be called ‘post-behaviouristic’ because ‘it is an
experimental phase with teachers trying to distil an essence of speaking out
of software that was essentially deaf and dumb’ (p. 9).

Integrative CALL

Likewise, there is a timescale difference in integrative CALL from

Warschauer and Healey (1998) to Warschauer (2004). The underpinning
theory of integrative CALL is the socio-cognitive perspective of learning or
20 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

social constructivism. Language learning is developed through the negotia-

tion of meaning in dialogues with the target language in the real world. It
adds the importance of the context of human learning within a sociocultural
environment to the idea of learners constructing their own knowledge and
understanding.
As explained earlier, the best-known proponent of this learning paradigm is
the Russian psychologist Lev Semeonovich Vygotsky (1978), who pioneered
such a sociocultural approach in which the experiences at the social level –
communicating and sharing ideas with a community – are seen as crucial in inter-
nalising knowledge. Vygotsky maintains that human beings make use of symbolic
tools, such as language, ‘to mediate and regulate our relationships with others
and with ourselves and thus change the nature of these relationships’ (Lantolf,
2000, p. 1). Under a Vygotskyan view, the role of psychology is to understand
how human social and mental activity is organised through symbolic tools, and
the prime symbolic tool available for the mediation is language. It means people
formulate a plan, design a task or articulate the steps to solve a problem through
language. Vygotsky affords great importance to the role of language in the interac-
tion of learners with one another. From his point of view, learning occurs through
collaborative talk and engagement with contextualised and situationalised
sociocultural environments, as well as from inter-mental activity to intra-mental
activity. Vygotsky (1978) stresses its ‘transactional’ nature: learning occurs in the
first instance though interaction with others and then through internalisation.
During this part of the process, language is used to clarify and make sense of new
knowledge through discussions. Vygotsky (1978) has argued powerfully that the
social process by which learning occurs creates a bridge that spans the learners’
ZPD. Under a Vygotskyan perspective, the presence of an ‘expert knower’, such
as a parent or a teacher, is vital to helping the learner develop his or her ZPD.
One cannot be capable of independent functioning but can achieve the desired
outcome given the relevant ‘scaffolded help’ offered by other people.
In language learning, both the stimulus from outside and inner cognitive
ability is equally important. Halliday (1993) and Hymes (1971) point out that
language is a socio-cognitive phenomenon, but not a system existing in humans’
brains. Learning a language is viewed as a process of apprenticeship or socialisa-
tion into particular discourse communities (Schieffelin and Ochs, 1986; Gee,
1996). The goal of learning language is to communicate, and therefore, the
process of communicating is as equally important as the linguistic products.
Students need to be given a maximum number of opportunities to engage in
authentic social interactions; they need to be provided with not only grammati-
cal structures and comprehensible input but also practice in the kinds of ‘real’
communication they will later engage in within the society. In the learning
process, learners must finish authentic tasks and projects collaboratively with
the others while simultaneously learning both content and language.
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 21

From a social constructivist perspective, the computer is not only an ency-

clopaedia and a patient adviser but also a medium of communication and a site
for publishing works. The organisation of technology-enhanced teaching and
learning style in this period is mostly free from limitations of time and place.
The idea is that learners can learn anywhere, anytime. The Internet can be seen
as the best example of the socio-cognitive approach to language learning and
teaching, which largely accounts for the new enthusiasm for using technology
in language classrooms. Technology can also be seen to have mediatory poten-
tial in the Vygotskian sense, scaffolding the learners in the process of learning
through cooperation in a certain situation. ‘In integrative CALL, task-based,
project-based, and content-based approaches all sought to integrate learners
in authentic environments, and also to integrate the various skills of language
learning and use’ and ‘students learn to use a variety of technological tools as an
ongoing process of language learning and use, rather than visiting the computer
lab on a once a week basis for isolated exercises (whether the exercises be behav-
iouristic or communicative)’ (Warschauer and Healey, 1998, p. 59). WebQuest
is another good example of integrative CALL (see www.webquest.org
for more information), which provides inquiry-oriented simulation tasks,
which involve problem solving by using online resources and working col-
laboratively. Because of the ‘integrative’ features of computers in the language
learning process, integrative CALL largely develops learners’ autonomy because
they are responsible for their own learning during the evaluation and selection
of technological media. Furthermore, the availability and authenticity of elec-
tronic resources greatly increase the potential for meaningful knowledge con-
struction. However, it is considered to be vital for teachers to be aware of how
the use of technology affects teacher–student and student–student interactions.
CMC has been focusing on this line of inquiry in particular. CMC has
several key features, and the predominant ones include allowing learners to
control their own learning and taking an active role (Bikowski and Kessler,
2002). Earlier work on CMC focused on meaning negotiation (taking up the
interactionist perspective on the acquisi-
tion of a second language) in communi-
CMC is understood to include both cation to encourage students to pay less
synchronous (at the same time) and
attention to the language form (Blake,
asynchronous (at different times)
2000; Toyoda and Harrison, 2002). In
communication.
recent developments in CMC, it has
has switched its focus to allow second
language teachers to offer Internet-based collaborative learning.
Both synchronous CMC (SCMC) and asynchronous CMC (ACMC) are
effective in the instruction of communication skills. Compared to ACMC
(e.g. online forums), SCMC (e.g. text chat) is believed to have more affor-
dances in offering participants greater social presence because it offers an
22 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

environment similar to face-to-face communication. In this environment,

learners are able to use similar communication devices (Blake, 2000; Lee,
2002) to accommodate each other by modifying some aspects of their com-
munication behaviour, such as speed of response and use of easily under-
standable words, accordingly. Initially, most CMC projects took place within
a single class and used synchronous forms (such as MOOs and chat), and
the research focused on learners’ attitudes and motivations (e.g. Warschauer,
1996b; Meunier, 1998), comparisons of interaction in online versus face-
to-face environments (e.g. Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996c) and linguistic
descriptions of online discourse (Chun, 1994; Herring, 1996). Because
CMC research was broadly situated in an interactionist perspective of SLA,
many research studies adopted quasi-experimental designs and discourse
analysis inventories to document learner use and acquisition of particular
language forms. However, recently, more and more research has been explor-
ing the social aspects of CMC (e.g. Jenks, 2014).

Task 1.4: Can you explain my pedagogical considerations and the theories
underpinning my design?
When I was a teacher in a secondary school, I found my students were
not doing well with their grammar. So I designed an online learning plat-
form where students could read the grammar explanations on a particular
topic and then choose to do some follow-up exercises. If they got all the
items right, they could move on. But if they got some items wrong, they
would be ‘diagnosed’ by the computer to read the explanations for the
items they did wrong, and it would suggest further readings. After that,
they would be directed to a new section where they could take further
exercises until they completely understood the grammar. What are my
pedagogical considerations in the design? Which theory is underpinning
my design?

Collaborative TELL (social constructivism)

The twenty-first century underwent the rapid development of technology

and a growth in the number of technology users. Learners in the twenty-
first century are digital natives, who have grown up with digital technology
and who inevitably see this technology as part of their life rather than as
an add-on. Indeed, they are the ‘mobile generation’ who spend more time
on their mobile devices and have mobile learning experience rather than
with textbooks and learning in a classroom. This in turn requires a new
mindset for learning, as people spend time searching, reading, scrutinising,
authenticating, collaborating and organising information. In terms of a
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 23

learning paradigm, we see a clear movement from a cognitive orientation to

a social orientation, from classroom contexts to naturalistic settings, from
an acquisition metaphor to a participation metaphor, from L2 learning to
L2 use (Block, 2003; Firth and Wagner, 1997, 2007) and from individual
learning towards collaborative learning (e.g. project-based learning, inquiry-
based learning and task-based learning). According to such a view, language
learning is not a stand-alone activity, but instead, it is integrated in a process
of knowledge co-construction. In this sense, language is used as a medium to
engage in knowledge creation, exploration and problem solving.
Telecollaboration is a good example of collaborative TELL.
Telecollaboration involves establishing online educational exchanges between
language learners. Although telecollaboration still focuses on learning the
target language through communication, it is social in nature. Traditionally,
telecollaboration projects have been established between schools and universi-
ties, but in recent years they have come to transcend institutional boundaries,
as in the case of massively multiplayer online games (Thorne et al., 2009;
Rama et al., 2012). A number of books and review articles have surveyed
research on telecollaboration (e.g. Belz and Thorne, 2006; O’Dowd, 2007;
Dooly and O’Dowd, 2012; Blake, 2013). Apart from focusing on linguistic
gains, much attention has been placed on intercultural learning and increas-
ing intercultural awareness. There are contradictory findings about the use of
telecollaboration, with some claiming that it provides motivating language
practice and opportunities for developing intercultural awareness (e.g.

Case study 1.2:

One of the best known and the most longstanding telecollaborative projects is
Cultura, developed at MIT in 1997 by Gilberte Furstenberg, Sabine Levet and
Shoggy Waryn. Cultura is an online intercultural project – based in a language
class – that connects American students with others from different countries, with
the aim of helping them develop an in-depth understanding of each other’s culture.
Originally developed for student cohorts in the US and France, Cultura has also
been used with students from Germany, Italy, Mexico, Russia and Spain as well.
Cultura is not the only online intercultural project of its kind, but it is particularly
well known for its pedagogically sound design, approach and methodology. Sharing
a common website, students compare a similar set of materials from their different
cultures and exchange viewpoints and perspectives via online discussion forums
and videoconferences, gradually constructing together a deeper understanding of
each other’s cultural attitudes, beliefs and values.
See more information about this project here: https://cultura.mit.edu/
What makes this project a successful example of using technology in promoting
learning?
24 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Kinginger, 2000; Meskill and Ranglova, 2000; von der Emde and Schneider,
2003) and others showing that intercultural contact does not necessarily
lead to cultural understanding (Thorne, 2003; Ware, 2003, 2005; O’Dowd,
2006a, b). Many other factors influence learners’ experiences and achieve cul-
tural understanding, such as language ability and the medium of interaction.
The use of Web 2.0 tools and applications is another good example of
fostering collaboration. Web 2.0 technologies are rooted in social construc-
tivism, which are predominantly used as social tools because the funda-
mental attributes of Web 2.0 are affordances of participation, information
sharing, communication and collaboration. Compared to Web 1.0, which
is information-oriented, Web 2.0 focuses on communicative networking
because Web 2.0 sites are ‘fundamentally about community’ (New Media
Consortiu, 2007, p. 12). Examples of Web 2.0 tools include blog, micro-
blog, wiki, Twitter, Facebook, social networking, Second Life, virtual world;
the most commonly investigated Web 2.0 technologies are blogs and wikis.

Task 1.5: Explore the following popular tools for collaborative learning

1. Google Apps for Education include tools like Google Docs and a calendar.
Have you tried to use Google Docs? It is a tool to help student and teach-
ers collaborate.
2. Twitter: See how an English teacher turned his ordinary class discussion
into addictive debate. www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/
the-case-for-having-class-discussions-on-twitter/379777/
3. YouTube can be used either as a motivator, in the lead-in activity or as a
channel where students can collaboratively make and share videos.
4. WordPress (and other blogging software) can be used to create a class
blog that all students can contribute to. Group blog turns out to be a really
useful collaborative activity in learning because it encourages all members
to participate, critically think, engage and share ideas.
5. Wikispaces Classroom is a social writing platform for education. It is incred-
ibly easy to create a classroom workspace where the teacher and students
can communicate and work on writing projects alone or in teams. Rich
assessment tools are available too to assist the teacher to measure student
contribution and engagement in real time. www.wikispaces.com/content/
classroom
6. Facebook is a great collaboration tool where students can participate in
activities and share ideas / documents. A Facebook group can be set up
to enable students to collaborate when they conduct projects. See a suc-
cessful story here: www.emergingedtech.com/2011/05/facebook-summit-
2011-an-excellent-academic-use-of-the-popular-Internet-app/

Explore these tools and choose one or two of them to design activities to
enhance language learning in your context.
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 25

The impact of Web 2.0 technologies on language learning and teaching is

indeed great, from changing pedagogy to transforming curriculum design
and even the conception of language learning (Sykes et al., 2008; Warschauer
and Grimes, 2008; Sturm et al., 2009). The key characteristics of collabora-
tive TELL are as follows:

„ Students are encouraged and supported to work together to create knowl-

edge, learning therefore is collaboration-oriented and community-based.
„ Knowledge is multifarious, and therefore there is no single form of
knowledge.
„ Learners are encouraged to push the boundary and challenge thinking.
„ Group cognition rather than individual cognitive development is valued.
„ Learning is not restricted by place and time.
„ Learners are not left alone in learning – the teacher plays a key role.
„ Online discourse is the form of communication.
„ There is a rich blend of cultures, languages and dynamic use of media.

Case study 1.3:

Sun (2009) explored how voice blogs can be used as a platform for an exten-
sive study of language learners’ speaking skills in a university in Taiwan. She
concluded that blogs can constitute a dynamic forum that fosters extensive
practice, learning, motivation, authorship and the development of learning
strategies. More information about this study can be found here: llt.msu.edu/
vol13num2/sun.pdf
What are the advantages of voice blogs in your opinion?

M-learning perhaps merits further discussion here. In recent years, TELL

also embraces m-learning, which brings ‘mobility’ to the central place of
learning. Here mobility can refer to ‘devices’ being mobile, and this view
is widely discussed and adopted. With the advancement of technology and
Web 2.0, mobility also refers to ‘learners’ (Woodill, 2011) and learning itself
(Traxler, 2007). In particular, the latter ones are linked to situated learning
(Comas-Quinn et al., 2009) and embodied learning (Klopfer, 2008). When
aided by mobile devices, learners can change real-world contexts into learn-
ing contexts via their actions. As such, they create learner-generated contexts
(Luckin, 2010), which subsequently changes the nature of learning and the
learning process.
26 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Summary
Technology is generally defined as a tool for learning, creating, communi-
cating, thinking, representing and researching (Bell, 2001). As indicated
in the previous sections, uses of technology in the language classroom
have advanced from the structural CALL to the communicative CALL,
the integrative CALL and finally the collaborative TELL. Technology use
in language learning varies in many forms, ranging from the drill and
practice of certain language skills, such as reading or writing, to reconstruc-
tion through using a word processor, even to electronic conferencing to
raise cultural awareness, and using Web 2.0 to co-construct knowledge.
However, in both research and teaching, the above-mentioned forms of
technology do not fall into neatly contained timelines. As each new stage
has emerged, the previous stage continues. Current uses of computers/tech-
nology in the language classroom correspond to all forms mentioned above,
and teachers use various types of technologies to facilitate learning without
restricting themselves to a singular form of CALL. In the next chapter, we
will look at the specific relationship between second language learning and
the affordances of technology, in particular in relation to enhancing student
motivation.

Annotated further reading

1. Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000) Introduction: Theory and practice of

network-based language teaching, in M. Warschauer and R. Kern (eds),
Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1–19). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
This book chapter provides an overview of perspectives of CALL, linking to
the paradigm shifts of language learning.
2. Wang, S. & Vásquez, C. (2012) Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning: What
does the research tell us? CALICO Journal, 29(3), 412–430.
This article reviews current research on the use of Web 2.0 technologies in
second language (L2) learning. Its purposes are to investigate the theoretical
perspectives framing Web 2.0, to identify some of the benefits of using Web 2.0
technologies in L2 learning and to discuss some of the limitations.
3. Macaro, E., Handley, Z. & Walter, C. (2012) A systematic review of CALL
in English as a second language: Focus on primary and secondary education.
Language Teaching, 45(1), 1–43.
This article provides a comprehensive review of the use of technology in sec-
ond language teaching in the primary and secondary sectors since 1990. In it, 47
post-2000 studies were reviewed in depth in the aspects of what technology had
been used, along with why, what evidence there was that technology facilitated
language learning, and what other insights can be drawn in the field.
 AN OVERVIEW OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION 27

4. Harasim, L. (2012) Learning Theory and Online Technologies. New York: Routledge.
This book explains and discusses various learning theories and their underpin-
nings of current technology use in education. It is worth reading Chapters 3–6
in details in order to understand behaviourist learning theory, cognitivist learning
theory, constructivist learning theory and OCL theory, as well as technology use
in learning associated with each theory.