Language Teaching in the Era of Technology.

A Theoretical Perspective.

A paper prepared in support of

La Enseanza del Ingls en la Era de la Tecnologa

El Ayer, el Hoy y el Maana
Interactive Workshop presented at
Conferencia Internacional
Educacin para el Talento
Baja California Sur
Octubre 17-21, 2007

Alejandra Parra, M.A.

Associate Dean, Office if International Affairs-Director TEFL Programs
Fischler School of Education-Nova Southeastern University- October 2007

Do Computers Improve Language

Learning?

There is no doubt that we live and work in an ever changing and evolving
communication environment. Cell phones transmit text messages, photos as well as voice,
small digital cameras record videos and take high quality pictures, handhelds allow us to
connect to the Internet from wherever we are, and the latest technologies allow teachers to
communicate with their students in a virtual environment that introduces the sound and the
image to create a virtual classroom where all its members can interact for educational
purposes. The question one may ask in relation to the development of these technologies
and their continuous changes is how these changes affect the ways we learn, use and teach
languages (Kern, 2006).
Traditionally, the question that has driven Computer Assisted Language Learning
(CALL) research has been Do computers improve language learning?. And although this is
considered an important question, it is very difficult to answer it with a yes or a no, because
there are so many factors affecting the actual use of computers and technology for this
purpose. Perhaps, better questions to ask would be:
Who uses computers?
How are they used?
In what context?
For what purpose?

A Theoretical Perspective on the Use

of Technology in Language Teaching

Perhaps the best way to look into these questions is to refer to Clarks important
contribution to the field of educational technology. Media are mere vehicles that deliver
instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers
our groceries causes changes in our nutrition (Clark, 1983, p. 445). With this statement
Clark, researcher and theorist, summarized over 60 years of research on educational media
and his position on what came to be called the media effects argument. Clark believed
that many educators were making unrealistic claims about the impact of media or
technology on learning; and although many did not and still do not agree with him, his ideas
caused a reassessment on how educators look at the impact of media on learning.
Clarks statements on the fact that media does not have a direct influence on
learning made a big impact in the field of educational technology and caused many people
to react and start thinking about something that in the past had been taken for granted. In
his1983 article Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media, he claims that media is
not responsible for a learning effect, and that learning is not enhanced because instruction
is media-based. The fact is, his research has shown that the effect is not there, and that
there is something much more important that the mere use of media, and that is the HOW
we use it. The how would be the method used to apply this media. Clark maintains that
instructional methods have been confounded with media and that it is methods that
influence learning (Clark, 2001, p. 206). In other words, he maintains that media and
method are two very different things and points out that the fact that media and method

have been considered to be the same thing has caused a lot of confounding in a very
important research area (Clark, 2001, p. 214).
Kern (2006) maintains that there is consensus in CALL research that it is not
technology per se that affects the learning of languages and culture, but the particular uses
of it (p.200). Research that has been carried out has shown that in written forms of
computer-mediated-communication (CMC), or text chat, students produce a greater
quantity of discourse than in an oral classroom (Kern, 1995; Ortega, 1997). By the same
token, Pelletieri (2000) maintains that written learner chat has the same potential for
developing grammatical competence through negotiation of meaning as oral interaction
does. However, as Hampel and Hauck (2000) citing the work of Chun (1994) maintain,
Most studies are rather tentative on this point and only go as far as to say that the written
interactional competence may gradually be transferred to spoken discourse competence
(p.2). The addition of audio conferencing in recent years now complements the written CMC
thus leading to the question of efficacy or efficiency of the language training online when it
relates to oral proficiency.
During the 1980s the use of CALL became commonplace in the language classroom
(Iandoli, 1990). Early on, this technology was used with a purely behavioristic perspective in
mind: for drilling and reinforcement. (Frommer 1989); however, as times changed and
technology advances took place, interest in using the computer as a tool to support
language learning grew to a more constructivist view from the teachers and the learners
perspective. Today, the use of multimedia, the Internet, and various forms of distance
learning are widespread (Liu et al., 2002). Based on this growing use of technology in
online and distance education environments, a significant amount of studies exploring the
potential of computer technology regarding teaching and learning languages more efficiently
have started to emerge.
Dunkel (1990) asserted that the possibilities of using computer technology as a
tool could include increasing language learners self-esteem, vocational preparedness,

language proficiency, and overall academic skills. Armstrong & Yetter-Vassot (1994), Garett
(1991); Ruschoff (1993); Sussex (1991) also studied the benefits of multimedia, the
Internet and various forms of distance education.
Advocates of CMS (Computer Mediated Communication) argue that it can be an
excellent medium for cultivating new social relationships within and across classrooms,
resulting in collaborative, meaningful and cross-cultural human interaction among members
of a community created in Cyberspace (Salaberry, 1996). The conclusion that the computer
is only a tool and technology is essentially impotent without creative and imaginative
applications (Bailey, 1996, P.73) led language educators to ascertain that it is how we use
these tools that will ultimately affect our students and the foreign language curriculum
(Armstrong & Yetter-Vassot, 1994, p. 476).
In his meta-analysis, Zaho (2003) identified three problems with assessing the
effectiveness of technology. First, it is the problem of defining what technology is (videos,
CALL and chat rooms are very different, for example). Second, it is separating technology
from its particular uses. What sometimes happens is that a technology might be used in
different ways which might have different effectiveness, then it is not the technology but it
is its use that is being assessed. The third problem described by Zaho is the effects of other
mediating factors such as the learner, the setting, the task and the type of assessment.
Although Zahos meta-analysis is hard to interpret due to the limited number of studies
observed (only 9), his concluding observation is that it is not technology per se that is
effective or ineffective, but the particular ways in which the technology is used (Zaho, 2003
in Kern, 2006, p. 189) and this is valid for this researchers exploration of the topic in
question.
In the area of evidence on how computer-based technology can enhance language
skills acquisition, several studies suggest that the use of visual media supported vocabulary
acquisition and reading comprehension and helped increase achievement scores. The use of
online training has been found to improve writing skills; however, very few studies have

focused on the listening and speaking skills. It is obvious that there is an imbalance, and
although there is not convincing evidence that the use of technology can improve language
skills in all areas, the majority of the studies have yielded positive results in the area of
student attitudes and motivation towards technology use (Ritter, 1993).
Technology has become an important tool in the language class since it offers a
variety that had never before existed as it relates to the activities that can performed for
the improvement of a new language. Publishing companies have produced many different
products to make this technology available such as language CDs or textbook companion
websites; however, the attraction and novelty of these technologies blur the most important
issue that language educators need to take into account when using them: the issue of
effectiveness. Is the use of technology effective and does it yield good results?
These views on the argument of media effect present two faces of an issue that
calls for further research and observation and provide a positive contribution to those who
have been fooled by the triumph of enthusiasm over substantive examination of
structural processes in learning an instruction (Clark, 2001, p. 215). Now it is absolutely
clear that in order to assess the effectiveness of the use of media as it relates to learning,
there are many bridges to be crossed before arriving at any conclusions. Clark is clear in his
opinion on media comparison studies. He strongly recommends against them, because he
has proven that six decades of research have indicated that there are no learning benefits
to be gained from employing different media in instruction, regardless of their obviously
attractive features or advertised superiority (Clark, 2001, p. 8). On the other hand, he
advocates serious and accurate research in the area of the characteristics needed for
instructional methods to be effective; and he recommends researchers refrain from
producing comparative studies until a novel theory is suggested.
It is in that direction that the field needs to move now that we have clear evidence
that it is not the media, but the way these media are used the method- that influences
learning. It is what the teacher does the teaching- that influences learning. Most of the

methods carried by newer media can also be carried out or performed by teachers (Clark,
2001, p. 9).

Where do we go from here?

Through his mere vehicles and give up your enthusiasm arguments, Clark
proposed that media and technology did not directly affect learning. Finn (1964) proposed a
similar argument when he talked about the stirrup as a technological innovation that
changed the course of history in medieval times. In his work The Franks had the Right
Idea he told a story about the Anglo-Saxons, who had the stirrup as part of their tools for
battle, but unfortunately did not entirely understand how to use it.
On the other hand, the Franks, who were their worst enemies used it to their
benefit and the stirrup made the emergence of the knight possible. The knight was able to
use the stirrup effectively in battle; which allowed the Franks to conquer the Anglo-Saxons.
This obviously changed the face of western civilization. With this story, Finn proposed that
technology might provide ways of accomplishing tasks that are new and not readily
obvious(Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, Zvacek, 2006, p. 13). Finn advocated the idea that
practitioners should always look for unique approaches for change by using new
technologies in new ways. The implication on the above, for both, Clark and Finn is that
when new technologies emerge, they often provide more efficiency and benefits to the
users; however, it is not these technologies that make this possible, but the way these
technologies are used and how this technology cause new ways of doing things. The stirrup

made riding horses easier and more efficient, but it was the knight, who used it in a
particularly efficient way, who changed medieval society (Simonson et al., 2006.)
From all of the above, and although there are opposed ideas with opposed
arguments, it can be concluded that technology is just a tool, and the effectiveness of this
technology depends on HOW we use this tool. Clark has reinforced this and even provided
substantial evidence that this is the case. It is now up to the members of this ever evolving
field to continue our research to provide more light on this debate and to provide the
answers to this argument in the most accurate way possible.
In the global community we live in, the issue of communication is crucial, and
learning a second or foreign language in the most efficient way possible may be
fundamental in the understanding among peoples in the world. It is hoped that in the future
and through the exploration of new techniques and tools, the language educator can
contribute in finding effective formulas for language teaching and learning success.

References
Armstrong, K. & Yetter-Vassot, C. (1994) Transforming teaching through technology.
Foreign Language Annals, 27(4), 475-486
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of
Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459
Clark, R. E. (1985). Confounding in educational computing research
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 445-460
Clark, R. E. (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence.
Greenwich: Information age publishing.
Chun, D. M. (1994) Using Computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of
Interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31
Dunkel, P. (1990) Implications of the CAI effectiveness research for limited English
proficient
Learners. Computers in Schools, 7(1-2), 31-52
Finn, J. (1964) The Franks had the right idea. NEA Journal, 53(4), 24-27
Frommer, J. (1989) MacLang (Computer software). Cambridge, MA: Author
Gall. M., Gall, J. & Borg, W (2003) Educational research: an introduction (7th Ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Garett, N. (1991) Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and Issues.
Modern Language Journa, 75(1), 74-101.
Hampel, R. & Hauck, M. (2004) Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in
distance language courses. Language Learning and Technology
8(1) 66-82. Retrieved January 12, 2006
Hatch, E. & Lazraton, A. (1991) Design and statistics for applied linguistics. New York:
Newbury House Publishers.
Iandoli, I. (1990) CALL and the profession: The current state. French Review, 64(2),
262-272.
IELTS- International English Language Testing System. www.ielts.org (Retrieved
on March 25th from www.ielts.org)
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects
on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language
Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kern, R. G. (2006). Perspectives in Technology in Learning and Teaching Languages.
TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, & Lee, S. (2002) A look at the reserach on computer-based

Technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from

1990-2000. Journal on Research on Technology in Education 34(3), 250-273.
Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining
the research agenda for L2 computer-assisted classroom discussion. Language
Learning & Technology, 1(1), 82-93.
Pelletieri, J. (2000) Negotiation in cyberspace. The role of chatting in the
development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & Kern, R. (Eds.)
Network-based Language teaching: Concept and Practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Ruschoff, B. (1993) Language learning and information technology: State of the art.
CALICO Journal, 10(3), 5-18.
Salaberry, M. (1996) A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in
computer-mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-36.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., Zvacek, S. (2003). Teaching and
learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (3rd ed,). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Sussex, R. (1991) Author languages, authoring systems and their relation to the
changing focus of computer-aided language learning. System, 19(1-2), 15-27.

10

11