Elizabeth Murphy emurphy@mun.ca

Murphy.E. (2001). A review of the use of technology in second-language learning. Journal of immersion Ontario: Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, 23,(2), pp.10-15.

The literature on the use of technology and, more specifically, computers in language learning, has centered largely around discussions and debates of pedagogical merits of technological devices (Stern, 1983). Approaches, typologies, phases, methods: all have served as focal points for organizing the past 50 years (1950-2000) of technology use in language learning. In her discussion of the role of the computer in language teaching, Garrett (1991) cautions against thinking of it in terms of a method. Instead she argues that it is "a medium or an environment in which a wide variety of methods, approaches or pedagogical philosophies may be implemented" (p.75). Grammar-translation activities, audio-lingual drills, or cognitive analysis of language, or a communicative syllabus: any of these, according to Garrett can comprise Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Indeed, it is the way the computer is used and the context in which it is used that determines the efficacy (Chiquito, Meskill, & Renjilian-Burgy, 1997). For the purposes of this review therefore, it is the approach that has been taken to the use of technology in language learning that will serve as the organizing factor. What has been the teacher's role? What degree of control did the learner exert in relation to the program being used? What was the view of error-correction underlying the program? These are some of the issues that will be explored in this review of technology use from the behaviouristic language laboratory of the 1960s to the constructivist learning environments of the Internet at the end of the 21^st century.

By the 1960s, the industrial production of the magnetic tape recorder made possible the language laboratory. Teachers using the then popular Audio-Lingual Method could rely on this new technology to model and reinforce student verbal responses and "to leave to the lab all of the drudgery of drilling and pattern and keep for themselves the interesting aspects of instruction" (Harding & Rodgers, 1985, p. 23). Thus, the language lab was considered a "major breakthrough in language teaching methodology because of its potential to take the boredom out of the classroom" (ibid.). Stern (1992) remarked: "Technology became a central feature of the new audio-lingual method and the language laboratory raised hopes of a new era" (p. 10). Likewise, Underwood (1989) commented: "Early proponents of the language lab proclaimed noisily that these machines would prove to be the ultimate teacher's aid - a tireless drillmaster, a perfect pronunciation model, and a way to free the teacher for more intellectual pursuits in the classroom" (p. 71).

In spite of the optimism surrounding this new technological innovation, the language laboratory is today seen by many "as an unfortunate venture that resulted in a loss of credibility for language education and a growing suspicion among teachers about the value of mediated language teaching in general" (Pederson, 1987, p. 101). In her brief review of the literature from 1959-62, Pederson highlights the criticisms of the medium which point largely to the lack of adequate research available at the time to answer teachers' questions, to provide direction, to enable the development of appropriate materials, and, especially, to maximize the potential of the tool in order to use it to enhance language learning. With the demise of the Audio-Lingual Method and the increased interest in Communicative Language Teaching, laboratory use appeared less and less relevant to the goals of language teaching: "With a more active and communicative classroom, the work in the laboratory seemed dull and irrelevant" (Rivers, 1990, p. 274).

Behavioristic CALL

Chiquito, Meskill and Renjilian-Burgy (1997) describe the early phase of CALL as an attempt to "transfer existing foreign language textbooks to computer-based applications. Students could then essentially use the computer to turn pages of the textbook, fill in the blanks in workbook drills, and choose multiple-choice answers to questions" (p. 72). As was the case with the language lab, this phase of CALL relied on its ability to simply do more efficiently many of the teacher’s classroom tasks such as drilling and patterning. The first phase of use of computers in language teaching (the sixties and seventies) can be referred to as Behavioristic CALL (Warschauer, 1996a). Hubbard (1987) describes the behaviorist approach to CALL as one which presents vocabulary and structure appropriate to the learner's level through pattern reinforcement. It aims to maintain the learner's attention to the task and provides sufficient material for mastery and over-learning to occur. An essential premise underlying the approach is that of positive and negative reinforcement. Behavioristic CALL is designed to promote student mastery of a body of rules by indicating to the learner whether or not the language they produced matched that stored in the computer's memory (Garrett, 1987). Unlike communicative approaches which clearly downplay explicit error correction (Schulz, 1996), Behavioristic CALL relies on it. The "wrong-try-again" model thus requires the learner to input the correct answer before proceeding, provides the learner with positive feedback for correct answers and does not accept errors as the correct answer (Hubbard, 1987).

Picard and Braun's (1987) descriptors of the didactic approach echo many of the characteristics of Behavioristic CALL. Such an approach typically is teacher-centered; determines the learning path; verifies what the student has learned and proposes reinforcing exercises; transmits knowledge and corrects errors. A didactic approach placed the computer in the role of electronic drill master (Backer, 1995), computer-as-tutor (Taylor, 1980) or computer-as-magister (Higgens, 1986). In this role, the computer initiates and controls procedures and judges performance. "The computer-magister knows the truth, intervenes to guide the student toward that truth, and then judges the student's performance" (Backer, 1995, p. 3). "The computer asks the questions and has the answers", automates "routine correction" thus eliminating "the arithmetic burden imposed on language teachers" boasts Hope, Taylor and Pusack's (1984) description of CALL.

In spite of the perceived advantages of Behavioural CALL, its detractors grew particularly as interest grew in Communicative Language Teaching. The focus on form rather than on meaning, sketchy and vague help or feedback, the computer as "evaluative task-master that asks all the questions and judges all the answers" and "discrete points of grammar or vocabulary, mostly out of context and devoid of any real meaning": these are some of the criticisms cited as the defects of Behavioristic CALL (Underwood, 1984).

The tendency to take a behavioral approach to CALL declined as did disenchantment with the Audio-Lingual Method and with behavioral psychology. During the seventies and particularly in the eighties, interest grew in Communicative Language Teaching. Krashen's language acquisition theory, along with a growth in socio-linguistics led to a greater focus on the role of meaning and communication in language learning. The shift in focus paved the way for an evolution in CALL during the seventies and eighties towards what we can refer to as phase two of CALL: Communicative CALL. Underwood, (1984) developed a comprehensive set of principles for Communicative CALL. He argues that such an approach to language teaching:

The types of computer programs using a communicative approach might still include those of the drill and practice type. The difference with Communicative CALL however is that student choice, control and interaction play a more important role (Warschauer, 1996a). "In this case, the purpose of the CALL activity is not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather to stimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking" (Warschauer, 1996a, p. 3). As Waschauer cautions however: "...the dividing line between Behaviouristic and Communicative CALL involves not only which software is used, but also how the software is put to use by the teacher and students" (p. 3). Thus this second phase of CALL does not distinguish itself totally from the first phase. Instead, it serves moreso as a bridge to what could will be referred to the third phase of CALL.

The distinction between CALL and Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) is that the computer simultaneously becomes less visible yet more ubiquitous. "The change in emphasis from computer to technology places direct importance on the media of communication made possible by the computer, which itself often remains unseen, rather than on the computer itself" (Bush & Roberts, 1997, p. vii). Whereas in CALL, the computer assisted learning, it might be said that in TELL, the computer supports learning. This third phase of technology use in second- and foreign-language teaching is characterized by the use of multimedia and the Internet. It can also be characterized by a clearly delineated move away from behaviorist, drill and practice type software and a move towards more constructivist uses of the tool.

Warschauer (1996a) refers to the third phase of use of computers in teaching second languages as Integrative CALL. He uses the term integrative to refer to efforts at developing models which would integrate various aspects of language learning for example using task- or project-based approaches. Integrative CALL relies on use of multimedia and the Internet and more specifically on hypermedia. Hypermedia, explains Warschauer, allows for easy integration of the skills of listening, reading, writing and speaking, authentic learning experiments, student control over their learning and a focus on the content. Hypermedia also creates an environment for the exploration of vast amounts of information, experimentation and discovery (Underwood, 1989). Multimedia's capacity for the integration of image, sound, audio and video represents what can be characterized as a fundamental challenge to the textbook as the "font of knowledge" as well as a challenge to the "dynamics of the textbook/classroom model of instruction" (Pusak & Otto, 1997, p. 15).

Multimedia computers can provide an accurate portrayal of the target language and provide learners with control and feedback. More importantly though they facilitate a methodological and theoretical advance that shifts the emphasis away from the traditional production of sentences common with CALL to an emphasis on "input and intake" (Pusak & Otto, 1997). Multimedia also provides a "massive storehouse of recorded realia" (ibid.) to facilitate authentic learning. As well, multimedia provides support for different learning styles of language learners by deploying different neuro-systems in learning through its reliance on sound, colour, animation etc. (Hanson-Smith, 1997). In spite of the advantages of multimedia for language learning, Warschauer argues that there are problems related to its use for language teaching. The lack of programs based on sound pedagogical principles combined with the lack of interactivity and intelligence of these programs limit the ability of multimedia technology to allow for the integration of meaningful and authentic communication.

On the other hand, computer-mediated communication made possible through use of the Internet, posits Warschauer, can allow for a truly integrative approach to technology use by providing an environment where authentic and creative communication are fully integrated. Warschauer argues that computer-mediated communication "is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impact on language teaching" (p. 5). It also allows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowing a teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class, a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousands of people.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) using the Internet has the power to allow learners to collaborate and to construct knowledge together (Warschauer, 1997a). Online learning, explains Warschauer, breaks the pattern of teacher-centred discussion in the classroom. In his review of studies on CMC, the author notes that the social dynamics of CMC result in more equality of participation than what would be typical in face-to-face communication. As well, students can initiate authentic communication with each other, with the teacher, in the classroom or outside the classroom. Such communication can be characterized as situated learning or learning that is situated within a particular context yet transferable to a broader context or environment. Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989) have developed the theory of situated learning which argues that learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge. In situated learning, knowledge is presented in an authentic context, i.e., in settings that would normally involve that knowledge. Online exchanges using the Internet provide such opportunities for authentic and meaningful communication, social interaction and collaboration.

In a discussion of the use of technology from the perspective of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), Hanson-Smith (1997) examines the pedagogical practices that have benefitted or will benefit from technological enhancement. The traditional four-walled classroom with chalkboard and textbook is enriched by an Internet connection in the school. Increased linguistic diversity, extended listening practice, global interaction with other learners and native speakers through e-mail and chat: these are some of the advantages offered through online learning environments and computer-mediated communication. Authentic language/content-based learning are facilitated, stimulated and simulated through technology use. The World Wide Web allows for an instantaneous exchange of information to and from sites and between individuals. Use of the Internet demands a level of student engagement in authentic language encounters that would barely be possible face-to-face (Hanson-Smith, 1997).

Singhal (1997) explains how use of the Internet can promote higher-order thinking skills. In searching the Web for specific information, logic skills are required of the language learner. Students must review the information through activities such as scanning, discarding, and evaluative judging. Finally, the learner goes through a process of synthesizing the information in order to make a complete and coherent whole. Such an endeavor permits students to practice reading skills and strategies. Singhal describes as well how the Internet allows students to interact with the "real world". It provides authentic materials, current information, and promotes incidental learning.

The value of OLEs as a source of invaluable authentic material is discussed by Smith (1997). Smith uses the term virtual realia to refer to authentic material or, more specifically, "(in language teaching) digitized objects and items from the target culture which are brought into the classroom as examples or aids and used to stimulate spoken or written language production" (p. 1). Realia consists of cultural artifacts as well as teaching aids that "facilitate the simulation of experience in the target culture". According to Smith, such materials promote active teaching and learning, help to make the target language input as comprehensible as possible and build a bridge between the classroom and the world. Realia provide language learners with "multi-sensory impressions of the language" and aid in contextually grounding instruction by bringing students into contact with language as it is used in the target culture in order to meet actual communication needs." Realia break down geographic barriers and thus provide insights into the target culture.

There are numerous benefits of language learning in online environments which were not possible with earlier forms of technology. The capacity for communication makes online learning very attractive for learning languages and it is this feature that is often touted as one of its major advantages. The capacity to allow for individualization is also a valuable feature for language learners. Unlike CALL which presented the same material, in the same way and with the same analysis of performance (Garrett, 1991), online learning provides a multitude of presentations and a wide range of content suitable to different learning styles and strategies. At the same time, ironically, such a range of styles and content can also present itself as a weakness of the new medium. Garrett (1991) questions whether or not students can make best use or the use intended by their teacher of hypertext and hypermedia material such as that offered by the Internet or online learning environments. Garret points to many of the unresolved questions related to students' browsing in large databases:

If learners have access to a lot of data regarding something they need to know an unspecified amount about-reference materials or related bodies of more or less directly relevant information, far more than can realistically be accessed-what do they in fact look up? Do they know what they need to look for? How do they make use of it? In the long run, do they perhaps learn as much from browsing, in what might seem to us an inefficient or purposeless way, as from directed exploration? How freely does what kind of student at what level of learning browse and explore? Do learners get lost moving around in an infinitely complex set of related data? What kind of student gets lost under what circumstances? What kind of lesson structure or visual clues tend to prevent their getting lost? (p. 93)

Garretts’ questions remind us that there are many unanswered questions and challenges regarding the use of online learning environments for language learning. (Singhal, 1997) highlights some of these challenges to use of the Internet in language teaching: When lines are busy due to many users, it may take time to access information or browse the Net and technical glitches themselves can lead to frustration.

Like Singhal, Warschauer (1997b) recognizes both the potential and the challenges related to OLEs and language learning. Internet activities can result in various complexities that may not occur in the traditional classroom. Students may not necessarily have the prerequisite computer skills necessary for success. Other complexities relate, not to human factors, but to issues of hardware and scheduling. Malfunctioning software and/or hardware as well as unavailable labs may thwart students’ and teachers’ most well-intended efforts. Certain online activities such as exchanges between partnered classes must be carefully managed to ensure success. Differences in understanding, schedules, language, and experience can result in complications in an exchange.

To ensure optimal conditions for a successful online language learning experience, Warschauer suggests certain guidelines for teachers. Teachers must carefully clarify their goals in order to be able to plan and organize online activities that best lead to realization of these goals. Online activities should not be simply add-ons to the curriculum rather they should represent an attempt at integration and should as well place sufficient cognitive and linguistic demands on students. The challenges related to learner preparedness require that teachers provide support to avoid a situation where students become overwhelmed by the demands of learning in the new environment. Handouts, training sessions, pair-work and direct assistance are some of the ways in which the teacher can provide support. One of the most significant ways in which a teacher can ensure greater success in online learning is to use a learner-centered approach that allows student input into decisions and which ensures "de-centered interaction". One important aspect of their role in online learning will involve helping students develop the necessary learning strategies. Most importantly, argues Warschauer, teachers must learn to become a "guide on the side" rather than a "sage on the stage".

Providing teachers with guidelines and helping them understand the challenges and difficulties related to online learning is a necessary step in ensuring that their experiences in the new environment will be successful. Teachers cannot simply assume that the techniques, approaches and strategies that worked well in the traditional learning environment of the classroom can simply be successfully transposed into the environment of the Internet. One of the important reasons that such a transposition cannot occur easily is that the Internet was not designed as a learning environment. As Warschauer has argued, use of the Internet as a learning environment requires the adoption of different roles and necessitates a certain preparation in order to meet its particular challenges.

Providing teachers with guidelines and helping them understand the challenges and difficulties related to online learning is a necessary step in ensuring that their experiences in the new environment will be successful. Teachers cannot simply assume that the techniques, approaches and strategies that worked well in the traditional learning environment of the classroom can simply be successfully transposed into the environment of the Internet. One of the important reasons that such a transposition cannot occur easily is that the Internet was not designed as a learning environment. As Warschauer has argued, use of the Internet as a learning environment requires the adoption of different roles and necessitates a certain preparation in order to meet its particular challenges.

Indeed, the challenges will be numerous and complex for teachers as they move towards use of new technologies and new practices in the 21^st century. As was noted at the beginning of this article, technology can provide mediums or environments in which a wide variety of methods may be implemented. Nonetheless, today's sophisticated information and communication technologies are likely to move teachers towards methods that favor student interaction, meaningful communication and authentic, purposeful contexts for learning. We have come a long way from the language laboratory and the audio-lingual method. As technology continues to evolve, we will no doubt, continue to evolve our methods.

References

Backer, J. (1995). Teaching Grammar with CALL: Survey of theoretical literature. Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [WWW document]. URL: http://ietn.snunit.k12.il/gramcall.htm

Brown, J., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

 Bush, M. & Roberts, T. (Eds.) (1997).Technology-enhanced language learning. National Textbook Company: Illinois.

Chiquito, A., Meskill, C. & Renjilian-Burgy, J. (1997). Multiple, mixed, malleable media. In M. Bush & R. Terry (Eds). Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 47-76). National Textbook Company: Illinois.

Garrett, N. (1987). A psycholinguistic perspective on grammar and CALL. In W. Smith (Ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp.170-196). Illinois: National Textbook Co.

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1),74-101.

Hanson-Smith, E. (1997). Technology in the classroom: Practice and promise in the 21st century. TESOL Publications Inc. [WWW document]. URL: http://www.tesol.edu/pubs/profpapers/techclass.html

Harding, E. & Rodgers, T. (1985) Language laboratories: What have we learned? NASSP Bulletin, 69(480)21-29.

Higgins, J. (1986). The computer and grammar teaching. In G. Leech & C. Candlin, C. (Eds.). Computers in English language teaching and research (pp. 31-45). New York: Longman.

Higgins, J. (1988). Language, learners, and computers. New York: Longman.

Hope, G., Taylor, H. & Pusack, J. (1984). Using computers for teaching foreign languages. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hubbard, P. (1987). Language teaching approaches, the evaluation of CALL software, and design implications. In W. Smith (Ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 227-254). Illinois: National Textbook Co.

Legenhausen, L. & Wolff, D. (1987). CALL at the crossroads? In L. Legenhausen & D. Wolff (Eds.) (pp. 3-10). Computer assisted language learning and innovative EFL methodology. Augsburg: Thomas Finkenstaedt und Konrad Schroder.

Maddux, C., Johnson, D., & Willis, J. (1997). Educational computing: Learning with tomorrow's technologies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extension of man. New York: Signet Books.

Muehleisen, V. (1997) Projects using the Internet in college English class. The Internet TESL Journal. [WWW document]. URL: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Lessons/Muehleisen-Projects.html

Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher 16(1),22-30.

Pederson, K. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. Smith (Ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99-131). Illinois: National Textbook Co.

Picard, M. & Braun, G. (1987). Les logiciels éducatifs. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Pusack, J. & Otto, S. (1997). Taking control of multimedia. In M. Bush & R. Terry (Eds) Technology-enhanced language learning (pp.1-46). National Textbook Company: Illinois.

Rivers, W. (1990). Interaction and communication in the language class in an age of technology. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46(2),271-283.

Ryder, M. (1994). Augmentation of the intellect: Network instruments, environments and strategies for learning. [WWW document]. URL gopher://ccnucd.cudenver.edu/h0/UCD/dept/edu/IT/ryder/augment.html

Schulz, R. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 344-364.

Singhal, M. (1997). The Internet and Foreign Language Education: Benefits and Challenges The Internet TESL Journal, 3(6). [WWW document]. URL: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Singhal-Internet.html

Smith, B. (1997). Virtual Realia. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(7). [WWW document]. URL:

http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Smith-Realia.html

Sprecher, J. (1987). An industry perspective of computer-assisted learning in higher education: Three interviews. Academic Computing.2(2)12-15.

Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, R. (Ed.) (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Taylor, M., & Perez, L. (1989). Something to do on Monday. La Jolla, CA: Athelstan.

Underwood, J. (1989). On the edge: Intelligent CALL in the 1990's. Computers and the Humanities.23, (71-84).

Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia Language Teaching (pp.3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.

Warschauer, M. (1997a). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. The Modern Language Journal. 81(4),470-481.

Warschauer, M. (1997b). The Internet for English Teaching: Guidelines for Teachers. The Internet TESL Journal, 3(10). [WWW document]. URL: http://www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Warschauer-Internet.html

Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.

Wyatt, D. (1987). Applying pedagogical principles to CALL courseware development. In W. Smith (ed.) Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp.85-98). Illinois: National Textbook Co.