Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Abstract
Language teaching can be enhanced by effective uses of educational technology.
Based on research findings in language acquisition and computer-assisted language
learning, best practices take into account effective language pedagogy, and appropriate
roles of technology. Best practices in using technology to support language teaching
and learning see technology as a tool that can enhance teaching and learning by
augmenting input, providing additional opportunities for language practice, and
serving as a platform for interaction and tasks-based learning activities.
1. Why Technology?
The question regarding the use of technology to support language teaching
has shifted from whether to how. This new position is fairly recent.
Not very long ago, it was common for administrators to demand proof of
the effectiveness of technology to support teaching languages, before they
would invest in a language laboratory or computer facilities. Skeptical
instructors demanded evidence that using technology was worth the
investment in their time to learn how to use it. Some students resisted
using technology, complaining that it removed them from their instructors
and dehumanized the learning experience. In short, the case for technology
had yet to be made.
The case against technology was encapsulated by an influential essay
that declared, media will never influence learning (Clark 1994). The
author claimed that instructional media was a triumph of enthusiasm over
substantive examination of structural processes in learning and instruction
(p. 27). Although the essay was interpreted by some as a screed against
technology, it is hard for the thoughtful reader to disagree with Clarks
central argument, that it is instruction, not the medium of instruction,
that is the critical factor that affects learning outcomes. Rather than an
attack against technology, the essay should be interpreted as a warning
against over-enthusiastic expectations of educational technology.
However, there has been a sea change in attitudes toward technology.
There is now widespread administrative and professional support for
2009 The Author
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Technology and Language Teaching 223
technology in nearly all subject areas in education, from the way libraries
are designed (Stucker 2005; Kell 2006) to how textbooks are packaged
and delivered (Barack 2006). Two factors may have influenced this
change. The first is the emergence of a body of research that examines
how technology affects learning, both in positive and in negative ways.
This research informs effective applications of technology to teaching and
learning. The second factor is the general acceptance that technology has
pervaded our society, and ignoring or suppressing it would be doing
students a disservice. Postman (1992) argues that the introduction of
technology has affected change of an ecological nature throughout all of
society; that technology has made our world fundamentally different. For
better or worse, technology is an inescapable part of everyday life, and
educators can no longer ignore or discount its influence.
Language teaching is no exception to this trend. Many language courses
are integrating technology at a very fundamental level (Winke and Goertler
2008), from enhancing instruction with PowerPoint, to delivering instruction
via a combination of face-to-face and online, or teaching entirely online.
The increasing availability of ever-more powerful technology presents a
challenge to us, to ensure that it is used effectively. The task for language
teachers and support professionals is to ensure that technology has a positive
effect on language learning outcomes. Insight into ways that technology
can be used effectively can be drawn from the large and growing research
tradition in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) that interfaces
linguistics, second language acquisition, language pedagogy, and computer
science (summaries of the research are presented by Salaberry 2001, Liu
et al. 2002, and Chun 2007). Although, as Ellis (2005) points out, research
on language acquisition does not provide a roadmap for successful
instructed language learning, CALL research nevertheless offers many
success stories, and best practices can be extrapolated from it.
Listening
The importance of listening skills in language learning cannot be under-
estimated, both on practical and on theoretical grounds. There is almost
universal agreement among theorists that input is necessary for language.
However, mere exposure to language is not enough for learning to take
place. Krashen (1981) recognized that language learners treat much of the
input that they receive as background noise, and only comprehensible
input contributes to language learning. Later research focused on how to
make the input comprehensible. Schmidt (1990) found that noticing and
attention was a factor in making input comprehensible. Gass (1997)
model for language acquisition proposes that linguistic input becomes
intake via attention to the language, and interaction with the learners
existing knowledge of the language. The implication of this research for
language teaching is that if input is made comprehensible through pedagogical
activity, language acquisition will be facilitated. Chapelle (1998) showed
that computer-based multimedia programs can assist in making input
comprehensible by increasing its noticability, enhancing input, and using
multiple presentation modes (e.g., written and aural).
Listening to a foreign language is a complicated and difficult activity.
The listener must first process the speech stream acoustically to discriminate
lexical items. Following that, the structure and meaning of the utterances
must be recovered. Suprasegmental aspects of the utterance, such as tone
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
226 Dennie Hoopingarner
of voice, also contain meaning that must be interpreted. The two basic
approaches to learning, classified as top-down and bottom-up (Butler-
Pascoe 2003), can both be facilitated by technology. Language learners can
be encouraged to use a bottom-up strategy, attempting to isolate key
words in the speech stream, or a top-down strategy, trying to grasp the
overall meaning based on the listeners understanding of the topic of the
utterance. Providing the learners access to transcripts of the audio material
can facilitate bottom-up strategies, as shown in a study by Grgurovi and
Hegelheimer (2007). More sophisticated annotated listening materials can
be created on the computer, in which digital audio files are supplemented
with glosses for individual words or for chunks of words, providing
transcripts, definitions, visual cues, or play back of words in isolation
( Jones 2003). Technology can also facilitate top-down strategies. Research
on language acquisition suggests that learners benefit from hearing a variety
of speakers (Major 2001), and the Internet has made it easier for learners
gain exposure to other speakers of the target language.
Speaking
Pedagogy and technology are now aligned to a point where the computer
can be included in speaking work in a manner that is both practical and
beneficial. Computer-based speaking work was traditionally not a common
part of language courses. There are two possible reasons for this. Pedagogically,
speaking was deemphasized by language teaching approaches that favored
comprehensible input as the key to language acquisition (Krashen 1981).
Secondly, the state of the technology has made it difficult to include
computer-based speaking in language courses (Levy and Stockwell
2006:181).
The situation has changed on both fronts. Empirical studies by Swain
(1985) and Palmer (1992) showing the ineffectiveness of a comprehension-
based approach to language learning helped to shift the theoretical emphasis
toward interaction (Long 1996; Gass 1997), which sees the production of
output as a critical factor for language acquisition. On the technology
side, computers can now easily capture and present high-quality audio and
video, and high-speed Internet access allow language teachers to use
technology as a medium for interpersonal communication. Learners can be
actively involved in speaking and listening as they interact with each other,
with their teacher, and with native speakers in and out of the classroom.
Speaking is seen as essential to the learning process, and the computer is
now best seen not as an arbiter of student behavior throughout the learning
process, but as a medium and facilitator of communication.
Oral interaction in a second language requires a nexus of several skills.
The learner must have a command of the structure of the language, be
able to pronounce correctly, and also have the ability to conduct discourse
in the language. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tasks in a
text-based chat tool can help students develop the necessary linguistic
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Technology and Language Teaching 227
Reading
The Internet is a rich source of reading materials. This has been a great
benefit to language teachers and learners, especially for the less-commonly
taught languages for which there are few sources of reading material.
Research on reading offers some guidance for the appropriate use of this
resource for language teaching. Brown (2007:300) recommends dividing
the reading task into a three-part framework. Through pre-reading tasks,
learners can create a schema for the topic of the reading passage. While
reading, learners can be encouraged to watch for certain content. This
can help reinforce the learning goals of the reading exercise. Post-reading
tasks can range from comprehension questions to analyzing the authors
purpose or motives, and can extend to writing tasks.
Similarly to computer-enhanced listening work, computer programs
can also enhance reading. Software programs can assist reading strategies:
vocabulary knowledge and acquisition (bottom-up processing) and text
comprehension (top-down processing) (Chun and Plass 1997). Acquisition
of vocabulary can be facilitated by including electronic glosses in computer-
based reading texts. Glosses can be in the form of text or pictures (Yoshii
2006) or video (Al Seghayer 2001). Brandl (2002) shows that reading
content from the Internet can be integrated into the classroom in traditional,
teacher-led activities or student-centered learning projects.
Writing
Butler-Pascoe (2003) notes that good readers are good writers, and vice
versa. Current best practice in teaching second-language writing focuses
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
228 Dennie Hoopingarner
Two general themes have emerged in current language pedagogy. The first
is a focus not on the language as an object of study, but as a means to
communicate. Most current best practices in language teaching use tasks
that require an integration of language skills. Although it sometimes
makes sense to target specific language skills, as illustrated by examples in
the section above, best practice suggests that instructors should pursue the
goal of addressing all skills at the same time. This can be accomplished
through activities and tasks that are structured so that learners use language
to achieve communication goals. What is considered a good practice for
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Technology and Language Teaching 229
learning aspects of the project. Learners must process for meaning as they
research, and, focus on form as they generate their written or oral final
product, and interact among each other as they work on the project.
Webquests are open-ended in nature, and student-friendly. According
to Godwin-Jones (2004:9), webquests tend to be student-oriented and
collaborative, with students engaged in constructivist activities resulting
in shared learning experiences and new knowledge based on enquiry-
oriented language use and Web research skills.
4. On the Horizon
The sections above represent the current state of technology and language
teaching. Although technology does not change the criteria for judging
good language teaching, technology has changed the way we can and
should teach. In addition, new technologies are continually introduced,
and will continue to transform the landscape of language teaching. One
pedagogical innovation that technology has enabled is worth watching.
Technology allows us to reduce contact time between teacher and student,
while maintaining quality of instruction and achieving comparable
learning outcomes.
Institutions can benefit from reducing physical contact time between
teachers and students in two ways. They can expand students access to
educational resources, and reduce the cost of instruction. Enrollment in
language courses is increasing. Wells (2004) reports a 17% increase in
language enrollments in US higher education institutions between 1998
and 2002. This is up from a 4.7% increase between 1995 and 1998, after
a 3.7% decrease in enrollments between 1990 and 1995. Institutions lack
the capacity to meet the growing demand with conventional instruction.
Both physical classroom space and trained instructors in the less-commonly
taught languages are in short supply.
A model of instruction has evolved that stretches instructional resources.
Under this new course structure, class is held in the classroom for only
half of the regular amount of time. Students are assigned computer-based
work for the other half. Instructors can then be assigned two courses with
the same amount of contact time as one course. This model of instruction
is variably labeled hybrid, mixed-mode, or blended instruction. While
it met with resistance by language instructors when first proposed, empirical
research has shown that not only can this model achieve results that are
comparable to conventional instructional models, but that it is possible for
students to achieve more. Reasons for some of the superior learning
outcomes from mixed-mode learning could be that when students are
completing their technology-based assignments, they are engaged to a
degree that is neither required of them, nor even possible in a conventional
classroom. A typical language class with 25 to 30 students cannot provide
individuals with the one-on-one instruction and feedback that a single
student can get when interacting with a computer program.
Employing technology to support language instruction at this level
requires a well-staffed technical support system, careful planning, and
training for instructors and students. While there are many success stories
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
232 Dennie Hoopingarner
Short Biography
Dennie Hoopingarner works at Michigan State University, where he is
the Director of the Language Learning Center. He also serves as the
Associate Director for Technology Implementation at the Center for
Language Education And Research (CLEAR), a US Title VI Language
Resource Center at Michigan State University. His professional background
is in language teaching, educational technology, and computer-assisted
language learning. His research interests include second language
acquisition and heritage language learning. A speaker of Chinese, he is
actively involved in the promotion of community language schools for
heritage speakers of Chinese. He has a PhD in Linguistics from Michigan
State University.
Note
* Correspondence address: A709 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824, USA. E-mail: hooping4@msu.edu.
Works Cited
Al Seghayer, K. 2001. The effect of multimedia annotation modes on l2 vocabulary acquisition:
a comparative study. Learning Language Learning & Technology 5.20232.
Anderson-Hsieh, J. 1994. Interpreting visual feedback on suprasegmentals in computer assisted
pronunciation instruction. CALICO Journal 11.522.
Arena, C. 2008. Blogging in the language classroom: it doesnt simply happen. TESL-EJ 11.17.
Retrieved July 11, 2008 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej44/a3.pdf
Barack, L. 2006. Digital textbooks for digital natives. School Library Journal 52.24.
Bax, S. 2003. CALL-past, present and future. System 31.1329.
Blake, R. J. 2001. What language professionals need to know about technology. ADFL Bulletin
32.9399.
Bloch, J. 2002. Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of Internet discourse.
Journal of Second Language Writing 11.11734.
Brandl, K. 2002. The integration of internet-based reading materials into the foreign language
curriculum: from teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology
6.87107.
Brown, D. J. 2007. Principals of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
234 Dennie Hoopingarner
Butler-Pascoe, M. E. 2003. Technology and teaching English language learners. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Chapelle, C. 1998. Multimedia call: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.
Language Learning & Technology 2.2234.
Chen, C-F. E. 2006. The development of e-mail literacy: from writing to peers to writing to
authority figures. Language Learning & Technology 10.3555
Chun, D. M. 1998. Signal analysis software for teaching pronunciation. Language Learning &
Technology 2.6177.
Chun, D. M. 2007. Come ride the wave: but where is it taking us? CALICO Journal 24.23952.
Chun, D. M., and Plass, J. 1997. Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments.
Learning Language Learning & Technology 1.6081.
Clark, R. E. 1994. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42.2129.
Dodge, B. 1995. Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/
about_webquests.html July 16, 2008.
Doughty, C. J., and Long, M. H. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance
foreign language. Language Learning & Technology 7.5080.
Egbert, J. 2005. CALL essentials. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Ellis, R. 2005. Instructed second language acquisition a literature review. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Godwin-Jones, B. 2004. Language in action: from webquests to virtual realities. Language
Learning & Technology 8.914.
Goertler, S., and P. Winke 2008. The effectiveness of technolgy-enhanced foreign language teaching.
Opening doors through distance education: principles, perspectives, and practices, ed. by
S. Goertler and P. Winke. CALICO Monograph Series Volume 7. CALICO: San Marcos, TX.
Grgurovi, M., and V. Hegelheimer. 2007. Help options and multimedia listening: students use
of subtitles and the transcript. Language Learning & Technology 11.4566.
Hardisty, D., and S. Windeatt. 1989. CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Healey, D. 1999. Classroom practice: communicative skill-building tasks in call environments.
CALL environments: research, practice, and critical Issues, ed. by J. Egbert and E. Hanson-
Smith. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Higgins, J., and T Johns. 1984. Computers in Language Learning. London: Collins ELT.
Higgins, J. 1988. Language, learners and computers. New York: Longman.
Hubbard, P. and Bradin Siskin C. 2004. Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL 16.448461.
Jepson, K. 2005. Conversation and negotiations in text and voice chat rooms. Language
Learning & Technology 9(3).7998.
Jonassen, D. H. 1991. Objectivism vs constructivism: do we need a new educational paradigm?
Educational Technology 9.514.
Jones, L. C. 2003. Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with
multimedia annotations: the students voice. CALICO Journal 21.4165.
Kell, S. E. 2006. Technically speaking: how can we reach the digital natives? Learning & Media
34.146.
Koenraad, T. L. M., and G. J. Westhoff. 2003. Can you tell a LanguageQuest when you see
one? Design criteria for TalenQuests. Retrieved from http://www.feo.hvu.nl/koen2/Home/
talenquest/TQEurocall.pdf July 16, 2008.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kurzweil, R. 1997. When will HAL understand what we are saying? Computer speech recognition
and understanding. HALs Legacy: 2001s computer as dream and reality, ed. by D. G. Stork.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. 2006. CALL dimensions: options and issues in computer-assisted
language learning. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erbaum Associates.
Liu, M., Z. Moore, L. Graham, and S. Lee. 2002. A look at the research on computer-based
technology use in second language learning: a review of the literature from 19902000.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34(3), 250273.
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Technology and Language Teaching 235
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. by W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 41368. New
York: Academic Press.
Major, R. C. 2001. Foreign accent: the ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marsh, B. 2004. Turnitin.com and the scriptural enterprise of plagiarism detection. Computers
and Composition 21.42738.
McDonald, J. K., S. C. Yanchar, and R. T. Osguthorpe. 2005. Learning from programmed
instruction: examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational
Technology, Research and Development 53.8498.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based language teaching Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ornstein, J., R. W. Ewton Jr., and T. H. Mueller. 1971. Programmed instruction and educational
technology in the language teaching field: new approaches to old problems. Philadelphia, PA:
Center for Curriculum Development.
Palmer, A. 1992. Issues in evaluating input-based language-teaching programs. Evaluating
second language education, ed. by A. Charles and A. Beretta. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Parrish, P. E. 2004. The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology, Research and
Development 52.4967.
Payne, J. S., and P. J. Whitney. 2002. Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous
CMC: output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal 20.732.
Perkins, D. N. 1986. Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Phillips, M. 1985. Logical possibilities and classroom scenarios for the development of CALL.
Computers in English language teaching, ed. by C. Brumfit, M. Phillips, and P. Skehan, 2546.
New York: Pergamon.
Postman, N. 1992. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9.16.
Reiser, R. A. 2001. A history of instructional design and technology. Educational Technology,
Research and Development 49.5767.
Saettler, L. P. 1990. The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Salaberry, R. 2001. The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: a
retrospective. Modern Language Journal 84.53754.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics
11.12958.
Schrooten, W. 2006. Task-based language teaching and ICT: developing and assessing interactive
multimedia for task-based language teaching. Task-based language education. ed. by K. Van
den Brandon, 12940. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, B. F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational
Review, 24.8697.
Skinner, B. F. 1968. The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stucker, H. 2005. Digital natives are growing restless. School Library Journal 51 Special
Report 9-Special Report 10.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, ed. by Susan
M. Gass and Carolyn G. Madden, 235253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Underwood, J. H. 1984. Linguistics, computers and the language teacher. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Warschauer, M. 1996. Computer assisted language learning: an introduction. Multimedia
language teaching, ed. by S. Fotos, 320. Tokyo: Logos International.
Wells, E. B. 2004.Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education,
fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin 35(23).726.
Winn, W. D. 1991. The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational
Technology 31(9).38.
Yoshii, M. 2006. L1 and L2 glosses: their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language
Learning & Technology 10(3).85101.
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd