This section begins with a overview of the benefits of using computer technology in the language classroom and then provides a more detailed introduction to the most prevalent applications of technology in language teaching and learning.
 

Benefits of Using Computers in the Language Classroom

Many language instructors feel that the use of technology changes the dynamics of their classrooms. Numerous studies have been done to determine whether or not this is actually true. In one study (Tiene and Luft, 2001-2002), it was reported that the use of computers encouraged the students to cooperate with one another. And because students had the opportunity to work on their own, teachers were able to individually assist students who needed more help. This learner-centered approach also allowed students to follow their own interests and progress at their own pace resulting in a higher motivation for the tasks at hand (p. 12). Tiene and Luft (2001-2002, p. 13, 60) summarized the benefits of using technology in the classroom as follows:
 

• improved technology skills for both teachers and students
• better individualization of student assignments
• more emphasis on independent student work
• student interaction increased and cooperative learning was enhanced
• teachers felt better able to dynamically present materials to the class with technology
• working in the technology-rich environment was rewarding for teachers
• teachers perceived themselves to be more effective
• student learning seemed to have been enhanced
   

Over the years, teaching with technology has been referred to in many different ways each focusing on a different aspect. Following is a closer look at the most important among them:
 

CALL ñ Computer-Assisted Language Learning

With numerous computer applications in the classroom, CALL is now widely understood to stand for computer-human interaction with the computer serving as a tutor. ìThe computer tutor actively guides learning both through its design and the feedback it provides for the learner. The key element for the computer tutor is that ëÖthe computer evaluates the response, and from the results of the evaluation, determines what to present nextíî (Harrington and Levy, 2001, p. 20).

According to Chapelle (2001), ì[t]he key issue for [the further] development of CALL is how computer activities can best be constructed to promote development of L2 abilityî (p. 42). One way of designing CALL activities is by evaluating the appropriateness of already existing CALL tasks. Chapelle (2001, p. 55) suggests these evaluation criteria:
 

CMC – Computer-Mediated Communication

In contrast to CALL, here the computer is used as a tool for human-human interaction ìfunctioning as an enabling device for the learnerî (Harrington and Levy 2001, p. 20). Among the many advantages of CMC, Li (2000) points out ìthe interactive learning environment it provides to promote interactive language learning and the opportunity for authentic use of the target languageî (p. 230). Li (2000) also suggests that CMC encourages collaborative writing in the L2 because the learning environment itself increases ìengagement, confidence and responsibility on the part of the second language learnersî (Li 2000, p. 230). In addition, CMC fosters student empowerment and promotes ìstudent motivation and interest in functional use of the target language Ö providing students with a less threatening means to communicateî (Li, 2000, p. 230)[5].

Salaberry (2000), however, cautions that ìthe conflicting purposes of communication and learning requirements may not be addressed adequately if the design of the pedagogical activities that are implemented in CMC is not analyzed from the perspective of a pedagogical frameworkî (p. 29). He argues that the technology resources bring about an increased ìefficiency of accomplishing a pedagogical task [which, however,] does not necessarily imply an associated increase in instructional effectivenessî (p. 29). It is therefore essential to probe the ìfit between the capabilities of technology and the demands of the learning objectiveî (Salaberry 2000, p. 30) before selecting the tool.

Another important factor to consider is the effect CMC has/will have on human interaction:
 

CMC introduces the possibility of revolutionary social and structural changes in the ways people communicate and relate to each other.

Salaberry (2000, p. 32)
 

These changes will possibly promote a “new type of literacy defined by, for instance, new asynchronous modes of communication (e.g., email) and new discursive environments (turn-taking is negotiated in longer time-frames)” (Salaberry 2000, p. 31).

The choice of the appropriate medium is “related to three independent variables: the degree of ambiguity of the message, the symbolic cues carried by the medium, and situational constraints (e.g., time pressure, distance, expediency)” (Salaberry 2000, p. 32). Language teachers, therefore, need to consider which type of communication (e.g., CMC vs. face-to-face) interlocutors would prefer in a real-life setting before constructing a task that involves technology in order to ensure the authenticity of the activity.
 

CELL – Computer-Enhanced Language Learning

Hoven (1999) uses the term CELL to “recognize the enhancing role that computers play in the language learning process” (p. 88). She further claims CELL “brings the real world into the classroom, makes learning more relevant, develops the learners’ sense of responsibility, promotes non-linear and co-operative learning, helps reduce the need for a meta-language, and changes the role of the teacher” (p. 88). The computers’ enhancing role in the second/foreign language classroom becomes evident when regarding the following opportunities for learner interaction:
 

1. Learners can choose either to correct themselves or to be corrected by the computer, the teachers, or peers.
2. Utterances need not be fabricated, though they must still generally be pre-recorded for computer retrieval.
3. Communication is possible either between two or more learners at the same terminal, at geographically distant terminals, or in an interactive sense between learner and video and/or audio.
4. Learners can actively participate in the delivery of the lessons, their interpretation of meaning during the activity, and the choices they make.
5. Flexibility is limited only by the foresight of the designers of the learning packages or the providers of the learning materials.

Hoven (1999, p. 88 )
 

In her study, Hoven (1999) focuses on the complementarity of listening and viewing comprehension. She argues that with the expanding use of multimedia in the language learning process, paralinguistic features such as kinesics, proxemics and prosody become critical for conveying and interpreting meaning. Thus “attention to and practice in paralinguistic aspects of L2 communication can and should be implemented in the language classes and materials, particularly through activities in which the learners themselves control and direct the interaction” (Hoven 1999, p. 90).
 

TELL – Technology-Enhanced Language Learning

Stepp-Greany (2002) reports in her study on student perceptions in a TELL environment of a beginning Spanish class that benefits for the students “include[d] increased motivation, improvement of self-concept and mastery of basic skills, more student-centered learning and engagement in the learning process, and more active processing, resulting in higher-order thinking skills and better recall” (p. 1-2). She adds that multimedia components were especially helpful for low-achieving students when “used to illustrate concepts and organize factual information” (p. 2). In this TELL learning environment, the Internet, an interactive CD-Rom, email and threaded discussions were used.

Stepp-Greany (2002) also points out that students “appear[ed] to gain confidence directing their own learning. […] [S]tudents who engaged in self-paced learning-by-doing within an interactive environment became independent learners who were labeled ‘knowledge navigators’” (p. 2). However, she also cautions that instructors were often confused as to what their role in the TELL environment required them to do. She argues that teachers involved in TELL need to adopt new roles as facilitators and co-learners rather then information presenters (p. 12). Stepp-Greany (2002) therefore proposes that professional development needs to include “new pedagogical as well as technical and routine management skills. In addition to the facilitative teaching skills…, instructors must learn to negotiate meaning with students in an unpredictable environment in which any question may be asked at any moment. [And] [t]hey must also learn to create opportunities for increased person-to-person interaction within a lab environment, and at the same time, manage these interactions and keep them task-focused” (p. 12).
 

CALT – Computer-Assisted Language Testing

With computers advancing into second/foreign language classrooms, instructors also need to be concerned with the use of computers as testing tools as CALT can influence test-takersí performance. Factors[6] to be considered when designing a computer-adaptive test are outlined in Figure 2 below:
 

Chapelle (2001, p. 99)
 

The next section provides conclusions to this article.



Notes:
[4] For a discussion of these criteria, see Chapelle (2001, p. 55-57).

back

[5] For a summary of Liís findings regarding e-mail activities in ESL, see Li (2000, p. 237-243). For an analysis of chat activities in ESL, see Negretti, Raffaella. ìWeb-Based Activities and SLA: A Conversation Analysis Research Approach.î Language Learning and Technology 3.1 (1999) p. 75-87.

back

[6] For a detailed discussion of these factors, see Chapelle (2001) p. 97-98.

back