Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:49:21.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reframing Technology's Role in Language Teaching: A Retrospective Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2019

Lara Lomicka  and
Gillian Lord
Lara Lomicka*
Affiliation:
The University of South Carolina
Gillian Lord
Affiliation:
The University of Florida
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: lomicka@sc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the field of applied linguistics ponders and even embraces the myriad roles technology affords language education, we frame this critical report within the context of the Modern Language Association's 2007 report, along with earlier state-of-the-field Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL) pieces (e.g., Blake, 2007; 2011) to consider not only where we've come from but also, crucially, where the field is headed. This article begins with an overview of the field, examining the role of technology and how it has been leveraged over decades of language teaching. We also explore issues such as the goals established by the Modern Language Association (MLA) with respect to shaping technological vision and the role of technology in enhancing the field of language education. We use this critical assessment to offer insights into how the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) can help shape the future of language teaching and learning.

Keywords

technologyCALLcomputerslanguage learning
Type
Review Article
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 39 , March 2019 , pp. 8 - 23
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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.)

References

Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28.Google Scholar
Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. B. (2018). The chimera of curricular integration. ADFL Bulletin 44(2), 107–110.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2001). What language professionals need to know about technology. The ADFL Bulletin, 32(3), 93–99.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2007). New trends in using technology in the language curriculum. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 76–97.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2011). Current trends in online learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19–35.Google Scholar
Blake, R. (2013). Brave new digital classroom: Technology and foreign language learning (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Blattner, G., & Lomicka, L. (2013). A sociolinguistic study of practices in different social forums in an intermediate French class. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(9), 3–24.Google Scholar
Blattner, G., Dalola, A., & Lomicka, L. (2015). Tweetsmarts: A pragmatic analysis of well-known native speaker Tweeters. In Dixon, E. & Thomas, M. (Eds.), Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs (pp. 213–236). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.Google Scholar
Blattner, G., Dalola, A., & Lomicka, L. (2016). #MindYourHashtags: A sociopragmatic study of student interpretations of French native speakers’ tags. In Winstead, L. & Congcong, W. (Eds.), Handbook of research on foreign language education in the digital age (pp. 33–58). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Bresman, H., & Rao, V. (2017). A survey of 19 countries shows how generations X, Y, and Z are—and aren't —different. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2017/08/a-survey-of-19-countries-shows-how-generations-x-y-and-z-are-and-arent-differentGoogle Scholar
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. CALICO Journal, 27(4), 344–357.Google Scholar
Bush, M. (2008). Computer-assisted language learning: From vision to reality. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 443–470.Google Scholar
Butler-Pascoe, M. E. (2011). The history of CALL: The intertwining paths of technology and second/foreign language teaching. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 16–32.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1, 19–43.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2007). Technology and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98–114.Google Scholar
Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 64–80.Google Scholar
Clark, C. (1918). The phonograph in modern language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 3(3), 116–122.Google Scholar
Clifford, R. (1986). The status of computer-assisted language learning. CALICO Journal 4(4), 9–16.Google Scholar
Davies, G. (Ed). (2008). Information and communications technology for language teachers (ICT4LT). Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.orgGoogle Scholar
Davies, G., Otto, S., & Ruhoff, B. (2012). Historical perspectives on CALL. In Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 19–38). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Delcloque, P. (2000). History of CALL. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/History_of_CALL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Dunkel, P. (1987). The effectiveness of CAI/CALL and computing: Implications of the research for limited English proficiency learnings. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 367–372.Google Scholar
Egbert, J. L. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In Egbert, J. L. & Petrie, G. M. (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005). Analysing recent CALL effectiveness research—Toward a common agenda. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(1–2), 1–32.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (1999). Computer applications and research agendas: Another dimension in professional advancement. CALICO Journal, 16(4), 559–571.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (2013). A conceptual overview of the history of the CALICO Journal: The phases of CALL. CALICO Journal, 30(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Fotos, S. (Ed.) (1996). Multimedia language teaching. Tokyo: Logos International.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (1991). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 74–101.Google Scholar
Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. Modern Language Journal, 93, 719–740.Google Scholar
Geck, C. (2006). The generation Z connection: Teaching information literacy to the newest net generation. Teacher Librarian, 33(3), 19–23.Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19.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
Goodfellow, R., & Lamy, M.-N. (2009). Learning cultures in online education. New York, NY: Continuum Books.Google Scholar
Hattem, D., & Lomicka, L. (2016). What the tweets say: A critical analysis of Twitter research in language learning from 2009–2016. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1–2), 5–23.Google Scholar
Hubbard, P. (Ed.) (2009). Computer assisted language learning: Critical concepts in linguistics. Volume I—Foundations of CALL. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jung, H.J. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages from opportunities in CALL classroom environments. The Reading Matrix, 5(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2017). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 205–218.Google Scholar
Lafford, B. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 673–696.Google Scholar
Lamy, M-N., & Hampel, R. (2007). Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL “CALL”? Editorial. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143–149.Google Scholar
Lin, W.-C., Huang, H.-T., & Liou, H.-C. (2013). The effects of text-based SCMC on SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 123–142.Google Scholar
Lomicka, L. (2017). Tweeting to learn—An overview of microblogging in L2 contexts. In Thorne, S. & May, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, 3rd ed. (pp. 401–412). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2016). Social networking in language learning. In Fall, F. & Murray, L. (Eds.), Handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 225–268). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2018). Ten years after the MLA Report: What has changed in foreign language departments? ADFL Bulletin, 44(2), 116–120.Google Scholar
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2012a). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners. System, 40, 48–63.Google Scholar
Lord, G., & Lomicka, L. (2012b). Twitter as a tool to promote community among language teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22, 187–212.Google Scholar
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Modern Language Association Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. Profession, 2007, 234–245.Google Scholar
Modern Language Association (MLA). (2009). Report to the Teagle Foundation on the undergraduate major in language and literature. Web publication. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/content/download/3207/81182/2008_mla_whitepaper.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL-SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: Towards equitable multilingualism. CALICO Journal, 34(3), 285–316.Google Scholar
Otto, F. (1980). Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) in language teaching and learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1, 58–69.Google Scholar
Otto, S. (2017). From past to present: A hundred years of technology for L2 learning. In Chapelle, C. & Sauro, S. (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 10–25). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL–SLA interface: Insights from a second-order synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17–37.Google Scholar
Purcell, E. (1984). Recent developments in computer aided instruction. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 81–90.Google Scholar
Reinhardt, J., & Sykes, J. (2012). Conceptualizing digital game-mediated L2 learning and pedagogy: Game-enhanced and game-based research and practice. In Reinders, H. (Ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 32–49). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salaberry, R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
Sanders, R. H. (1995). Thirty years of computer assisted language instruction: Introduction. CALICO Journal, 12(4), 6–14.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2011). SCMC for SLA: A research synthesis. CALICO Journal, 28, 369–391.Google Scholar
Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34(2), 131–146.Google Scholar
Sauro, S., & Sundmark, B. (2019). Critically examining the use of blog-based fanfiction in the advanced language classroom. ReCALL, 31(1), 40–55.Google Scholar
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Stockwell, G. (Ed.). (2012). Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2013). Multiuser virtual environments: Learner apologies in Spanish. In Taguchi, N. & Sykes, J. (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 71–100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2018). Digital games and language teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 219–224.Google Scholar
Sykes, J., & Holden, C. (2011). Communities: Exploring digital games and social networking. In Ducate, L. & Arnold, N. (Eds.), Present and future promises of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in language teaching (pp. 311–336). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.Google Scholar
Sykes, J., Brim, R., & Kaiser, K. (2016). Digital language learning project: A needs analysis. Eugene, OR: Center for Applied Second Language Studies.Google Scholar
Thomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., & Hellermann, J. (2017). Mobile augmented reality: Hyper contextualization and situated language usage events. In Colpaert, J., Aerts, A., Kern, R., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the XVIII International CALL Conference: CALL in Context (pp. 721–730). Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.Google Scholar
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, A. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning: A literature review. In Specht, M., Sharples, M., & Multisilta, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 9–16). Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An Introduction. In S. Fotos, (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos International.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English Teachers’ Journal, 53, 61–67. Retrieved from http://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/cyberspace.pdfGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance, and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136–163.Google Scholar