Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T00:24:41.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TECHNOLOGIES FOR SECOND LANGUAGE LITERACY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2005

Denise E. Murray
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information and communication technology (ICT) has been used in language classrooms for more than two decades. Over this time, classroom use has moved from drill, text manipulation, and word processing to more interactive and communicative applications such as e-mail, chat, and web-based programs, requiring learners to acquire computer literacies. This chapter will begin by discussing both the parameters of ICT and the scope of literacies. It is then organized around discussion of the two types of literacies at the intersection of ICT and L2 learning: how new technologies facilitate acquisition of L2 literacies and what L2 literacies are needed for learners to participate in an increasingly digital world. Although research has mostly been limited to small-scale context-dependent case studies of individual classrooms, it has identified a number of issues that need to be considered as teachers (and learners) use ICT for language learning. Although ICT provides a natural context for learner autonomy, that autonomy needs to be developed systematically. In addition, ICT provides a context for learner identity formation through hybrid uses of language(s), in ways unexpected by teachers and learners. These new ways of using language may empower and motivate learners. Similarly, whereas ICT provides opportunities for collaboration and interaction, they are not automatic, and instruction needs to be skillfully scaffolded for learners to benefit from such opportunities.

Type
LITERACY STUDIES
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 25 , March 2005 , pp. 188 - 201
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams Z. I. 2003. The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (2), 157– 167Google Scholar
American Library Association. 2000. Information literacy competency standards for higher education. Retrieved October 7, 2004, from http://www.ala.org/ ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm
Beatty K., & Nunan D. 2004. Computer-mediated collaborative learning. System, 32, 165– 183.Google Scholar
Belz J. A. (2003a). From the special issue editor. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (2), 2– 5.Google Scholar
Biesenbach-Lucas S., & Weasonforth D. 2001. E-mail and word processing in the ESL classroom: How the medium affects the message. Language Learning and Technology, 5 (1), 135– 165.Google Scholar
Bloch J. 2001. Plagiarism and the ESL student: From printed to electronic texts. In D. Belcher& A. Hirvela(Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 209– 228). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Bloch J. 2004. Second language cyberrhetoric: A study of Chinese L2 writers in an online Usenet group. Language Learning and Technology, 8 (3), 66– 82.Google Scholar
Calisir F., & Gurel Z. 2003. Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19, 135– 145.Google Scholar
Chappelle C. 2001. CALL in the 21st century: Looking back on research to look forward for practice. In P. Brett(Ed.), CALL in the 21st century (CD-ROM). Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL
Corbel C., & Gruba P. 2004. Teaching computer literacy. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Corbel C., & Taylor T. 2003. Online for all? Evaluating current and potential use of Internet-based activities for AMEP students. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Davies G. 2001. New technologies and language learning: A suitable subject for research? In A. Chambers & G. Davies(Eds.), ICT and language learning: A European perspective (pp. 13– 24). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Debski R. 2000. Project-oriented CALL: Implementation and evaluation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13 (4/5).Google Scholar
Felix U. 2001. Beyond Babel: Language learning online. Melbourne: Language Australia.
Freebody P., & Luke A. 1990. "Literacies" programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect, 5 (7), 7– 16.Google Scholar
Ganderton R. 1999. Interactivity in L2 web-based reading. In R. Debski& M. Levy(Eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 49– 66). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Gee J. P. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis
Gonzalez-Lloret M. 2003. Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmeraldas. Linguistics and Education, 7 (1), 86– 104.Google Scholar
Goodwin-Jones B. 2000. Emerging technologies: Literacies and technology tools/trends. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (2), 11– 18.Google Scholar
Hargittai E. 2002. Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. Retrieved July 9, 2002, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_4/hargittai
Healey D. 1999. Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In J. Egbert& E. Hanson-Smith(Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 116– 136). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Jones J. 2001. CALL and the teacher's role in promoting learner autonomy. CALL-EJ Online 3(1). Retrieved October 7, 2004, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6–1/jones.html
Koutsogiannis D., & Mitsikopoulou B. 2004. The Internet as glocal discourse environment. Retrieved September 30, 2004, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/koutsogiannis/default.html
Kress G. 1997. Visual and verbal modes of representation in electronically mediated communication: The potentials of new forms of text. In I. Snyder(Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic era (pp. 53– 79). Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Lankshear C., Snyder I., & Green B. 2000. Teachers and technology literacy: Managing literacy, technology and learning in schools. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Lever T. 2004. AMEP students online: The view from morning self-access. Prospect, 19 (2), 39– 55Google Scholar
Levy M., & Debski R. 1999. Introduction. In R. Debski& M. Levy(Eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning (pp. 7– 10). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zettlinger.
McPherson P., & Murray D. E. 2003. Communicating on the Net. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Murray D. E. 1988. The context of oral and written language. Language in Society, 17, 351– 373Google Scholar
Murray D. E. 1999. Access to information technology: Considerations for language educators. Prospect, 14 (3), 4– 12Google Scholar
Murray D. E. 2003. Materials for new technologies: learning from research and practice. In W. A. Renandya(Ed.), Methodology and materials design in language teaching: Current perspectives and practices and their implications (pp. 30– 43). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Murray D. E. 2004. New frontiers in technology and teaching. In C. Davison(Ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education (pp. 25– 44). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press
Murray D. E., & McPherson P. 2002. Using Planet English with AMEP learners. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Murray D. E., & McPherson P. (2004a) Using the Web to support language learning. Sydney, Australia: NCELTR.
Pica T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493– 527Google Scholar
Rogers E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
Savignon S. J., & Roithmeier W. 2004. Computer-mediated communication: Texts and contexts. CALICO Journal, 21 (2), 265– 289.Google Scholar
Schwienhorst K. 2003. Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (5), 427– 443.Google Scholar
Schwienhorst K. 2004. Native-speaker/non-native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17 (1), 35– 50.Google Scholar
Sengupta S. 2001. Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language, Learning and Technology, 5 (1), 103– 134.Google Scholar
Shield L., Weininger M. J., & Davies L. B. 1999. A task-based approach to using MOO for collaborative language learning. In K. Cameron CALL and the learning community (pp. 391– 401). Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.
Smith B. 2003. Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38– 57.Google Scholar
Snyder I. 1999. Digital literacies: Renegotiating the visual and the verbal in communication. Prospect, 14 (3), 13– 23.Google Scholar
Snyder I. 2002. Silicon literacies. London: Routledge.
Sorapure M., Inglesby P., & Yatchisin G. 1998. Web literacy: Challenges and opportunities for research in a new medium. Computers and Composition, 15, 409– 424.Google Scholar
Sotillo S. 2000. Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning and Technology, 4 (1), 82– 119.Google Scholar
Stockwell G. 2004. Communication breakdown in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC). Australian Language and Literacy Matters, 1 (3), 7– 10, 31Google Scholar
Street B. 1995. Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Sutherland-Smith W. 2002. Web-text: Perceptions of digital reading skills in the ESL classroom. Prospect, 17(1), 55– 70.Google Scholar
Thorne S. L. (2003a). Artifacts and cultures-in-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (2), 38– 67.Google Scholar
Thorne S. L. (2003b, April 21). The Internet as artifact: Immediacy, evolution, and educational contingencies, or "The wrong tool for the right job?" Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.
Thurstun J. 2004. Teaching and learning the reading of homepages. Prospect, 19 (2), 56– 71.Google Scholar
Toyoda E. 2001. Exercise of learner autonomy in project-oriented CALL. Retrieved October 8, 2004, from http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/ english/callejonline/5–2/contents2–2.html
Toyoda E., & Harrison R. 2002. Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning and Technology, 6 (1), 82– 99.Google Scholar
Tudini V. 2003. Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning and Technology, 7 (3), 141– 159.Google Scholar
Turkle S. 1995. Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Walz J. 2001. Reading hypertext: Lower level processes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57 (3), 475– 494.Google Scholar
Wang Y. 2004. Supporting synchronous distance learning with desktop videoconferencing. Language Learning and Technology, 8 (3) 90– 121.Google Scholar
Warschauer M. 1999. Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warschauer M. 2000. Language, identity, and the Internet. In B. Kolko, L. Nakamura, & G. Rodman, Race in cyberspace (pp. 151– 170). New York: Routledge.
Warschauer M. 2001. The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. In P. Brett CALL in the 21st century (CD-ROM). Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL.
Warschauer M., El Said G. R., & Zohry A. 2002. Language choice online: Globalization and identity in Egypt. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol7/issue4/warschauer.html
Warschauer M., & Kern R. 2000. Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood A. F., & Smith M. J. 2001. Online communication: Technology, identity and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zarcadoolas C., Blanco M., Boyer J. F., & Pleasant A. 2002. Unweaving the Web: An exploratory study of low-literate adults' navigation skills on the World Wide Web. Journal of Health Communication, 7, 309– 324.Google Scholar