Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored on the Theory of Educational Technology

proposed by Skinner in his book: “The Technology of Teaching”, as

cited by Fouts (2000) and Villanueva (2014) which states that

technology integration can do many things to help n the process

of creating more authentic learning environments and more.

According to Fouts, if the learning environment is

technologically rich, it can increase self-esteem and enthusiasm

for learning. This can lead to more positive attitudes for

learning, as well as lower absentee and dropout rates. He asserted

that having a more technologically rich learning environment

eventually lead to a higher rate in attendance and scholarships.

This is great news for today’s students if they are lucky enough

to have learning environments that are rich in technology

(Villanueva 2014).

Reigeluth, et. al (2011) stressed “using technology in the

classroom can allow teachers to effectively organize and present

lessons. Multimedia presentations can make the material more

meaningful and engaging.” Studies completed in “computer

intensive” settings found increases in student centre, cooperative

and higher order learning, students writing skills, problem

solving, and using technology (Ross, et. al., 2010). In addition,

positive attitudes toward technology as a learning tool by parents,

students and teachers are also improved.

Another theory that supports the educational technology

theory is Skinner’s Behaviorist that learning is based on the

notion of operant conditioning. Behaviors that are rewarded tend

to be exhibited more often than those that are not. Positive and

negative reinforcements increase desired behaviors with rewards.

Punishment decreases undesirable behaviors with aversive stimuli

and learning happens inside the mind and cannot be seen directly.

Learning can only be inferred by observing behaviors. Learning can

be understood, explained, predicted entirely on the basis of

observable event, namely, the behavior of the learner along with

its environment antecedents and consequence (Roblyer, M. D., &

Doering, A. H., 2010).

Review of Related Literature

Globalization and technological development have markedly

transformed our ways of learning and teaching English as a lingua

franca in the 21st century (Block & Cameron, 2002; Burns & Coffin,

2001; Warschauer, 2000). New technologies have dramatically

increased the possibility of interaction and mobility among people

around the globe, overcoming many barriers of time and space.

Countries are much more interdependent than ever in human history

in terms of politics, business, and academics, uniting themselves

to various regional and international organizations (e.g., the

European Union, the United Nations, the Organization of Economic

Cooperation and Development, and the Asian Pacific Economic

Cooperation) (Crystal, 2003, 2004). As a result, Crystal (2003)

noted, “There are no precedents in human history for what happens

to languages in such circumstances of rapid change. There has never

been a time when so many nations were needing to talk to each other

so much…And there never has been a more urgent need for a global

language” (p. 14). The Economist (1996) predicted even before the

wide diffusion of high-speed internet service, “[Electronic

communications] have created a need for a global language—and

English will fill that slot” (para. 3).

Few would argue against the fact that English has achieved a

global status, becoming a means of international communication in

the early 21st century (BruttGriffler, 2002; Crystal, 2003, 2004;

McKay, 2002; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2003; Warschauer, 2000a). According

to Crystal (2003), English enjoys a genuinely global status with

a special role that is recognized in every country. English is now

an official language for 85% of about 12,500 international

organizations (Crystal, 2003), the most widely taught as a second

and foreign language in the world (Crystal, 2003), the operating

standard for technology, science and medicine (Economist, 1996),

and a global lingua franca of international banking, economic

affairs, trade, advertising global brands, international

conferences, international law, science publication, international

tourism, tertiary education, Internet communication, entertainment

and many other sectors (Graddol, 1997). The British Council’s

(1995) English 2000 Project found that (a) over two-thirds of the

world’s scientists read in English, (b) three quarters of the

world’s mail is written in English, (c) 80% of the world’s

electronically stored information is in English, and (d) of the

estimated 40 million users of the Internet, the majority

communicate in English (Graddol, 1997). In addition, as Warschauer

(2001) points out, in the 21st century, using “English is not only

for simple communication, but rather for the kinds of complex

negotiations, collaboration, analysis, critique, and construction

of knowledge required by an information economy and society” (p.

56).
 Both centrifugal and centripetal forces can be found

everywhere in recent days (see Crystal, 2004 and Oxford, Massey,

& Anand, 2005 for detailed examples related to language and

language teaching). As for English as a lingua franca, Burns (2003)

argued that it means both “compliance and resistance as speakers,

native and non-native, pull in different linguistic directions”

(p. 22). The number of people learning English as an international

language is rapidly growing throughout the world, more countries

have adopted English as an official language, and American culture

permeates the world accompanied with the spread of American

English. In short, globalization requires mutual intelligibility

and common standards (Crystal, 2003; Graddol, 1997; Yano, 2001).

At the same time, however, varieties of English are developed in

different regions, non-native speakers strive for keeping their

local identities, and there is a growing concern about linguistic

imperialism that marginalizes indigenous languages around the

world (Canagarajah, 1999; Phillipson, 1992). Kubota’s (2002)

comments on three dimensions of English language education in Japan

(i.e., increased ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity in the

local communities, the prevalence of English, and increased

linguistic and cultural nationalism) clearly manifest two

different sides of the same coin – the existence of both converging

and diverging forces of globalization. Moreover, the center of

gravity has been gradually shifting from speakers of English as a

first language to those of English as a second/foreign language

(Crystal, 2003; Yano, 2001). Thus, it may well say that all English

users, both native- and non-native speakers, should have a right

to take a share in the future of English and should be considered

as legitimate owners of English language in the 21st century since

“language is an immensely democratizing institution” (Crystal,

2004, p. 23).