Technology-Mediated Language Learning

doi:10.1017/9781108333603.025

24 - Technology-Mediated Language Learning

from Part V - Pedagogical Interventions and Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2019

Carol A. Chapelle

Edited by

John W. Schwieter and

Alessandro Benati

Show author details

John W. Schwieter: Affiliation:
Wilfrid Laurier University
Alessandro Benati: Affiliation:
American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Technology-mediated language learning today encompasses multifaceted issues connected with the role of digital technologies in mediating opportunities for language learning. Such opportunities arrive when teachers assign digital learning materials and tasks in a face-to-face classroom, when language programmes develop online courses that include computer-mediated interactions, and when language learners seek opportunities for study, help, and social interactions on their own. Each of these three uses of technology has arisen within a particular milieu of research and practice in applied linguistics. However, today the three intersect in dynamic and complex ways. Moreover, the areas and their intersections converge with aspects of second language studies including instructed second language acquisition, language assessment, learner autonomy and motivation, as well as informal language learning. This chapter examines the practices, issues, findings, and challenges in each of these three interconnected areas, beginning with the classroom, where the study of computer-assisted language learning has its roots in the middle of the twentieth century.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning , pp. 575 - 596

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.025 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, Z. I. (2016a). Creating a social context through film: Teaching L2 pragmatics as a locally situated process. L2 Journal, 8(3), 23–45.Google Scholar

Abrams, Z. I. (2016b). Possibilities and challenges of learning German in a multimodal environment: A case study. ReCALL Journal, 28(3), 343–363.Google Scholar

Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82–103.Google Scholar

Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127.Google Scholar

Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL Journal, 16(2), 377–395.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cerezo, L., Baralt, M., Suh, B.-R., & Leow, R. P. (2014). Does the medium really matter in L2 development? The validity of CALL research designs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(4), 294–310.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22–34.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027295958.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between SLA theory and CALL. the Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 742–754.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2010). The spread of computer-assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66–74.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2016). Teaching culture in introductory foreign language textbooks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A. (2017). Evaluation of technology and language learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 378–392). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C.A., Cotos, E., & Lee, J. (2015). Diagnostic assessment with automated writing evaluation: A look at validity arguments for new classroom assessments. Language Testing, 32(3), 385–405.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1991). Internal and external validity issues in research on CALL effectiveness. In Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 37–59). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Chun, D. M., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 64–80.CrossRef Google Scholar

Comas-Quinn, A. (2011). Learning to teach online or learning to become an online teacher: An exploration of teachers’ experiences in a blended learning course. ReCALL, 23(3), 218–232.Google Scholar

Compton, L. K. L. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.Google Scholar

Cotos, E. (2017). Language for specific purposes and corpus-based pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 248–264). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dooly, M. (2017). Telecollaboration. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 169–183). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50–80.Google Scholar

Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S), 19–47.Google Scholar

Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 5–36). New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.Google Scholar

Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. (2014). The need for needs analysis in technology-mediated TBLT. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 23–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gonz´alez-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT: An introduction. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef Google Scholar

Grgurovic, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL Journal, 25(2), 165–198.Google Scholar

Gruba, P., C´ardenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Blended language program evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hafner, C. A., Chik, A., & Jones, R. H. (2015). Digital literacies and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 1–7.Google Scholar

Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105–121.Google Scholar

Hauck, M. (2007). Critical success factors in a TRIDEM exchange. ReCALL, 19(2), 202–223.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heift, T., & Vyatkina, N. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 grammar. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 26–44). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Jamieson, J., & Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Evaluating CALL use across multiple contexts. System, 38, 357–369.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jamieson, J., & Musumeci, M. (2017). Integrating assessment with instruction through technology. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 293–316). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Karabulut, A., LeVelle, K., Li, J., & Suvorov, R. (2012). Technology for French learning: A mismatch between expectations and reality. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 341–366.Google Scholar

Kern, R. (2014). Technology as pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340–357.Google Scholar

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Lee, H., & Norris, L. (2017). Mobile learning revolution: Implications for language pedagogy. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 217–233). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Google Scholar

Lam, E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.Google Scholar

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Le, H. T. T. (2017). Investigating the language learning potential of data-driven teaching materials on source use for college students in a writing course. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar

Lin, H. (2015). A meta-synthesis of empirical research on the effectiveness of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 19(2) 85–117.Google Scholar

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. C. & Bahtia, T. K. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Ma, Q. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 vocabulary. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 45–61). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Modern Language Association of America (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world: MLA ad hoc committee on foreign languages. New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar

Norris, J. M. (2006). The why (and how) of student learning outcomes assessment in college education. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 590–597.Google Scholar

Otto, S. E. K. (2017). From past to present: A hundred years of technology for L2 learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 10–25). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In Smith, W. F. (ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99–132). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Google Scholar

Reinhardt, J. (2017). Digital gaming. In Chapelle, C. and Sauro, S. (eds.), Handbook of technology in second language teaching and learning (pp. 202–216). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Risager, K. (2007). Language and culture pedagogy: From a national to a transnational paradigm. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Risager, K. (2018). Representations of the world in language textbooks. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Rodríguez, J. C. (2017). Design-based research. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 364–377). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (5th edn.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar PubMed

Rost, M., & Fuchs, M. (2004). Longman English Interactive 1–4. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Russell, V. (2012). Learning complex grammar in the virtual classroom: A comparison of Processing Instruction, structured input, computerized visual input enhancement, and traditional instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 45(1), 42–71.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sadler, R. W. (2017). The continuing evolution of virtual worlds for language learning. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 184–201). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sauro, S. 2014. Lessons from the fandom: Task models for technology-enhanced language learning. In Gonz´alez-Lloret, M. & Ortega, L. (eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (pp. 239–262). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sauro, S., & Chapelle, C. A. (2017). Toward langua-technocultural competence. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 184–201). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex dynamic system: An emic approach. ReCALL, 25, 48–62.Google Scholar

Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.Google Scholar

Sylv´en, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2017). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in extracurricular/extramural contexts. CALICO Journal, 34(1), i–iv.CrossRef Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67.Google Scholar

Thorne, S. L. (2016). Cultures-of-use and morphologies of communicative action. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 185–191.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, B., & Masuhara, H. (eds.) (2013). Research for materials development in language learning: Evidence for best practice. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 45–57.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ware, P. (2017). Technology, new literacies, and language learners. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 265–277). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

White, C. J. (2017). Distance language teaching with technology. In Chapelle, C. A. & Sauro, S. (eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 134–148). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wong, W., Weber-F`eve, S., & VanPatten, B. (2017). Liaisons: An introduction to French (2nd edn.). Boston, MA: Cengage.Google Scholar

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.