Brave New Digital Classroom

Technology and Foreign Language Learning, Second Edition

Robert J. Blake

• Publisher: Georgetown University Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781589019768
• eBook ISBN: 9781589019775
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Teaching Language Arts
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Brave New Digital Classroom examines the most effective ways to utilize technology in language learning. The author deftly interweaves the latest results of pedagogical research with descriptions of the most successful computer-assisted language learning (CALL) projects to show how to implement technology in the foreign language curriculum to assist the second language acquisition process.

This fully updated second edition includes new chapters on the latest electronic resources, including gaming and social media, and discusses the realities and potential of distance learning for second language acquisition. The author examines the web, CALL applications, and computer-mediated communication (CMC), and suggests how the new technologically assisted curriculum will work for the foreign-language curriculum. Rather than advocating new technologies as a replacement for activities that can be done equally well with traditional processes, the author envisions a radical change as teachers rethink their strategies and develop their competence in the effective use of technology in language teaching and learning.

Directed at all language teachers, from the elementary school to postsecondary levels, the book is ideal for graduate-level courses on second language pedagogy. It also serves as an invaluable reference for experienced researchers, CALL developers, department chairs, and administrators.

CHAPTER 1

Second Language Acquisition, Language Teaching, and Technology

Why Technology in the Second Language Curriculum?

Why should any foreign language (FL) educator or student in the process of learning a second language (L2) have any interest in technology, given that L2 learning is such a social, if not face-to-face, process? The answer lies in looking closely at the facts of second language acquisition (SLA) and the resources at hand.

SLA, the process of learning another language other than your mother tongue (i.e., your first language, or L1), is both an intensive and time-consuming activity.¹ The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) estimates that anywhere from 700 to 1,320 hours of full-time instruction are needed to reach a level of high fluency (Bialystok and Hakuta 1994, 34). More specifically, the time commitment for learning a Romance language minimally approaches 20 weeks of intensive, full-time study at 30 hours per week, for a grand total of 600 hours, whereas for other languages, such as Russian and Chinese, the ideal exposure can exceed 44 weeks at 30 hours per week, or 1,320 hours. In stark contrast to these calculations, most university students spend on average only 150 hours per academic year actively studying an L2 (10 weeks at 5 hours per week for three quarters = 150 total hours). Upon graduation from college, students of whatever L2 just barely reach the FSI’s lowest-threshold requirements for achieving proficiency, that of the Romance languages. For students studying a non-Romance language at the university level, four years of L2 study are not sufficient to obtain functional proficiency, according to these FSI estimates.

For students who began studying an L2 in high school and continued at the university level, the picture still does not seem much brighter. Many educators and public figures have expressed dismay that so much university language work appears to be remedial because much of the material taught was already covered in high school. But in light of the FSI statistics, this is not really the case; it simply takes from four to six years to reach functional proficiency in an L2—that is, L2 learning requires lots of time on task. Crucial to this L2 processing is the extent and nature of the input received—something all linguists and SLA researchers can agree on, even if their SLA models differ radically (see the SLA models discussed later in this chapter). In any event, university L2 learners, in terms of time on task, do not compare too unfavorably with children learning a first language during the first five years, with phonetic accuracy or accent perhaps being a notable exception (DeKeyser 2000).

How can this realistic, if not sobering, depiction of adult SLA be sped up and made more efficient? Increasing contact with the target language is the most obvious solution. In particular, traveling to the region(s) where the target language is spoken and immersing oneself in the society and culture clearly remains the preferred but most expensive method of acquiring linguistic competence in another language. However, Davidson (2007, 277) has shown that less than 3 percent of US university students go abroad on either academic or internship programs. What happens to the majority of the nation’s L2 students who are unable or unwilling to take advantage of study abroad? Most SLA theorists agree, in some basic formulation of the issues, that formal L2 teaching is often unsuccessful because learners receive impoverished or insufficient input in the target language (Cummins 1998, 19). Technology, then, if used wisely, can play a major role in enhancing L2 learners’ contact with the target language, especially in the absence of study abroad. Whether technology can actually fulfill this promise depends on how it is used in the curriculum. The principal focus of this book is to discuss how technology can best be employed in the FL curriculum in order to enhance and enrich the learners’ contact with the target language and thereby assist L2 development.

A few words of caution, however, are in order at the outset. First, technology only provides a set of tools that are, for the most part, methodologically neutral. Selber (2004, 36) has called this attitude toward technology the tool metaphor: “From a functionalist design perspective, good tools become invisible once users understand their basic operation.” In reality, all tools mediate our experiences in certain ways, which is to say that they are not totally value free. Applied linguists working within an ecological framework would say that new technologies provide certain affordances and, therefore, are not neutral (Zhao et al. 2005; Levy 2006, 13–15).

Despite this word of caution, how technological tools are used should largely be guided by a particular theoretical model and by recommendations from those who practice it. In this book I affirm the basic approach to SLA, which claims that an L2 is best learned and taught through interaction (for a similar endorsement, see Long 1991; and with reference to the computer learning environment, see Chapelle 2001). Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993, 11) represent well the stance of those who hold to the inter-actionist theory (see the glossary for definitions of “interactionist theory” and other key terms used in the text) when they state, “Language learning is assisted through social interaction of learners and their interlocutors, particularly when they negotiate toward mutual comprehension of each other’s message meaning” (emphasis added). The question examined in this book, then, is whether technology can offer the L2 curriculum certain benefits within this theoretical framework, and if so, how these technologically assisted activities should fit in with the FL curriculum.

At first blush this theoretical approach as applied to the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) might appear counterintuitive, ironic, or even futile. After all, computers are not human and cannot interact with anyone in the sense that two human beings can. Nevertheless, Reeves and Nass (1996, 5) have convincingly argued the following: “People’s interactions with computers, television, and new media are fundamentally social and natural, just like interactions in real life.” In their research they found that users are polite to computers and respond to the personality of both the interface and whatever computer agents or avatars that are present. In other words, computers are social actors as well, at least from the students’ perspective, which is all that really matters (p. 28). Reeves and Nass’s research further reinforces the notion that computers can make a significant contribution to the SLA process because the students themselves feel that they are interacting with the computer in a real social manner. The question of whether computer-mediated communication (CMC) facilitates the L2 development acquisition process is examined in more depth in chapter 4.

The book’s second disclaimer is that this is not a how-to manual: In the pages that follow, I am not instructing readers how to get connected to the internet, how to write fully functional Web pages, or how to program in Macromedia Director. There are plenty of technical guides or workshops designed to teach these hands-on skills. Rather, this book focuses on why certain technological tools should be integrated into the L2 curriculum and what potential contribution these tools stand to make to any given language program. My objectives are to stimulate technologically inexperienced readers to acquire the necessary hardware and technical skills to begin incorporating technology into their classrooms. For the language professional who already has some knowledge of technology, I promise to stimulate the imagination for what might be done with computers in the L2 classroom, now and in the near future. All language professionals need to become acquainted with the potential advantages of using technology in their programs. Without this knowledge, chairs, deans, and other decision-making bodies might fail to support new ways of teaching L2s with technology.

Nevertheless, it would be misleading to talk about technology as if it were just a single, homogeneous tool; different technologically based tools render different advantages for L2 learning. For instance, the internet is an ideal tool to use to allow students to gain access to authentic L2 materials; it might be the next best alternative to actually going abroad. L2 students can virtually “travel” to French-speaking Africa, Tokyo, or the Peruvian Incan ruins of Machu Picchu with just a click of the mouse. The Web gives all people a channel to express their voices, promote their self-images, and legitimize their goals. This sense of authenticity provides endless topics for cross-cultural analysis and discussions in any content-driven classroom.

The advantages for carrying out online discussions via computer have been well documented in the research literature (see chapter 4 in this volume). Researchers frequently cite the computer’s usefulness as (1) a text-based medium that amplifies students’ attention to linguistic form (Warschauer 1997a); (2) a stimulus for increased written L2 production (Kern 1995); (3) a less stressful environment for L2 practice (Chun 1998); (4) a more equitable and nonthreatening forum for L2 discussions, especially for women, minorities, and nonassertive personalities (Warschauer 1997a, 1997b; Sauro 2009); and (5) an expanded access channel with possibilities for creating global learning networks (Cummins and Sayers 1995; also see chapter 7 in this volume). Swaffar (1998, 1) has summarized the benefits derived from CMC as compared with classroom oral exchanges: “Networked exchanges seem to help all individuals in language classes engage more frequently, with greater confidence, and with greater enthusiasm in the communicative process than is characteristic for similar students in oral classrooms.” Ironically, telling students that their responses will also be saved by the computer for research purposes does not seem to diminish their level of participation or their sense that the computer affords them a relatively anonymous, or at least protected, environment for their discussions (Pellettieri 2000).

Internet use among teenagers has exploded; Lenhart, Madden, and Hitlin (2005) reported in 2005 that 84 percent of teenagers today, who will be the college language learners of tomorrow, use the internet primarily as a tool for communications through instant messaging (IM) and text messaging. This figure has only increased since then. This means that CMC is not only a familiar activity to this new crop of university language learners but also the preferred tool, along with social networking (see chapter 7). Members of our profession need to harness students’ disposition to chat online in order to maintain and even increase interest in FL learning.

Let us now return for a moment to the educational advantages of increased access, via the computer, to instruction and other learners outside the normal constraints of the classroom. Public schools, in particular, are faced with ever-increasing enrollment pressures, a veritable flood of baby-boomer children reaching college age; the US Department of Education reports that enrollments increased 25 percent, to 17.3 million students, from 1990 to 2004, along with projections for an additional 15 percent increase, to 19.9 million students by 2015 (National Center for Educational Statistics 2006). It is doubtful that all these students, or at least anyone who wants access to higher education, will find seats in a classroom setting as presently configured. Some L2 instruction in the future will have to take place at a distance or through what publishers call the home market. This does not diminish the on-campus/classroom experience; on the contrary, its value will appreciate even more, but access to that privileged learning format might not be available to everyone interested in language study. Likewise, as the United States slowly breaks out of its English-only delusions (i.e., that all the world will or should speak English), all kinds of learners will make known their interests in acquiring some type of L2 proficiency, whether to enter the global marketplace or, in the case of highly ethnically diverse states such as California or Florida, just to understand and get along better with their neighbors. This new demand will be met by an aggressive response either from the US language profession or by the more profit-minded publishing companies, or both. Most language professionals rightly feel that they should take the lead in determining the nature of instruction for this new and potentially significant audience. But will the language profession be ready to meet this challenge? Yes, but only if teachers start experimenting now with ways to enhance L2 development through technology.

Many of the examples cited above have dealt most closely with the beginning and intermediate levels, the lower-division language curriculum. Why should these courses be of concern to literature professors who typically do not teach a language—and sometimes do not even treat cultural issues in an explicit fashion? If incorporating technology into the curriculum can stimulate—and even improve—the overall language preparation of those majoring in a language, then literature professors also have a vital stake in promoting technology. In reality, all undergraduate courses—whether examining Cervantes’s novels, reading French symbolist poetry, or dissecting Chinese cinema—are language courses at their most fundamental level. (Remember that it takes four to six years to develop high oral fluency in an L2, according to the FSI’s findings, without taking into account the additional demands of advanced literacy or higher-order L2 reading and L2 writing skills.)²

Literature professors are often caught in a dilemma: Their language programs are too weak to prepare their students to read the original texts, but reading them in translation does nothing to further their students’ L2 proficiency. The death knell of an FL literature program begins to sound when all the upper-division courses and their writing assignments are administered in English because the students are unable to cope with the more sophisticated forms of the L2 literary registers. The blame for this situation must be spread around, and literature professors solely concerned with teaching literary content bear their share. Pressure from the dean to fill those upper-division courses with students can also be a motivating factor in offering Chinese Poetry in Translation or any other subject. No doubt these courses in translation play an important role for students’ general education within the undergraduate curriculum, but if the entire FL curriculum switches over to English as the medium of instruction, much will have been lost in the realm of cognitive development and humanities. There are significant cognitive benefits derived from learning an L2. Scholars such as Kramsch (1993) have made it abundantly clear that the process of learning another language involves much more than just skill-acquiring and skill-using faculties. Learning another language also presents an opportunity for a critical interrogation of the very notion of culture, which is an appropriate upper-division activity in the liberal arts context (also see Kramsch and Anderson 1999).

In all fairness, colleagues teaching languages with complex writing systems, such as Chinese or Japanese, justifiably express anxiety and frustration with respect to these upper-division courses. These writing systems impose a steep learning curve above and beyond the normal challenges of achieving oral proficiency. All upper-division language courses critically involve advanced levels of literary proficiency, in addition to oral proficiency, which is not always achieved by children in their native countries until early adolescence. It is unreasonable to expect university language students to gain advanced literacy in just four short years without active guidance from their professors. Knowing that these conditions result from the natural parameters imposed by the SLA process should assuage our colleagues’ sense of disappointment and deflect the frequent cries of outrage over the issue of remedial language instruction; in other words, in the first four or five years of learning another language, nothing is remedial. Much cognitive processing is going on in students’ brains as they participate in these upper-division language courses, even if the content’s level of difficulty must be modified for the particular language and L2 students in question.

Less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) often suffer from another curricular dilemma: the lack of high-quality pedagogical materials at all levels, which typically is not addressed due to low commercial profit margins from the publishing houses’ point of view. Publishers project small enrollments for these languages and, consequently, have little motivation to produce print materials for them. Fortunately, new technological advances for Web-based courses and development apps offer language professionals the opportunity to create their own L2 materials that respond to the specific needs of their students (see chapter 3). In short, a strong, technologically modernized language program will always be an advantage to all concerned in the department and will support a healthy major.

In addition, most institutions of higher education are affected by current student trends to gravitate toward courses that deal with either culture or language rather than just straight literature. By offering an L2 culture course supplemented by art or other forms of culture available in Web materials, language departments can rekindle student interest. Extended class discussions via e-mail, listservs, or chat programs can further augment student interest as well as student–student and student–instructor interactions. In fact, Gonglewski (1999) has already laid out in clear terms how using technology can satisfy the demands of a curriculum based on the national standards and the five Cs (ACTFL 1996): communication, cultures, comparisons, connections, and communities.

By the same token, it is important not to raise unrealistic expectations with respect to what technology can contribute to the L2 curriculum. Negative reactions to the introduction of technology into the L2 classroom feed off the failed promises of the audiolingual laboratory of the 1960s. Dashed expectations from that era have created a residual distrust of technology and account for many language teachers’ reluctance to plunge into the implementation of any new technologies in the face of few demonstrable results (Roblyer 1988) and even fewer tangible career paybacks (Quinn 1990, 300; Garrett and Liddell 2004). To further compound these initial suspicions, many people have less than a clear notion of what technology means for L2 learning. Unfortunately, misconceptions about technology and language learning abound; some of these confusions are discussed in the next section.

Four Myths about Technology and L2 Acquisition

Four myths or misconceptions readily come to mind when the word “technology” is mentioned in language circles (also see Egbert, Paulus, and Nakamichi 2002; Lam 2000): In the first place, some language professionals refer to technology as if it were a monolithic concept. This myth might suggest that technology is either all good or all bad—that is to say, all technology is the same. Second, some teachers who are overly enthusiastic about technology tend to confuse the use of technology with some new and superior methodological approach to language teaching, although, in truth, new digital technologies only offer a new set of tools that can function in the service of a particular language curriculum. In other words, how these tools are used and to what principled ends define the scope of a methodology, but the mere use of technology by itself will not improve the curriculum. Third, all of us would like to believe (although we know better) that today’s technology is sufficient for tomorrow’s challenges. The fact that technology is constantly changing constitutes a frightening barrier for many l...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Foreword by Claire Kramsch
• Preface
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Second Language Acquisition, Language Teaching, and Technology
• 2 Web Pages in Service of L2 Learning
• 3 CALL and Its Evaluation: Programs and Apps
• 4 Computer-Mediated Communication
• 5 Theory in Practice: Putting It All Together
• 6 Distance Learning for Languages
• 7 Social Networking and L2 Learning
• 8 Homo Ludens: Games for Language Learning
• Glossary
• References
• Index