Technology Enhanced Language Learning: connecting theory and practice. Goodith White

in the context of learner independence: technology gives learners more choice and influence over what they learn outside the classroom and this may have an impact on classroom teaching.

      The final chapter, Chapter 12, summarises the main themes of the book and attempts to think about the future. We say ‘attempts’ because our crystal ball is not digitally enhanced and predicting the future of technology is extremely difficult as the opening quotation to Chapter 12 demonstrates. However, we hope that whatever new technological tools and resources the future brings, the theories and issues that we have presented throughout the book will help teachers to make effective use of them.

1 LEARNING

      Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous.

CONFUCIUS, philosopher

      Change is the end result of all true learning.

LEO BUSCAGLIA, writer

      Aims

      In this chapter, we will try to give you some answers to the following questions:

      • What role(s) does technology play in learning?

      • What is digital competence?

      • What are the differences between CALL and TELL?

      Introduction

      In this chapter, we look at theories underpinning approaches to learning with technology, in particular, language learning and technology. We look at historical models of computer assisted language learning and consider the various roles that technology can play in learning in relation to theories of learning. We also consider the notion of digital competence and its relationship to communicative competence and conclude with an overview of how computer assisted language learning has transformed into technology enhanced language learning.

      Computer assisted language learning

      In the year 2000, Warschauer and Kern argued that computer assisted language learning (CALL) developed in three phases, which he aligned with dominant paradigms of language learning and technology. Warschauer considered that there were parallels between a changing view of language (leading to change in teaching approaches) and the development of educational technology. Warschauer’s model can be critiqued (notably by Bax 2003) because it portrays development as linear, each stage apparently superseded by the next. Bax’s alternative model, which refers to ‘approaches to CALL’ rather than phases, includes elements that Warschauer does not consider, such as the location of computers (in the lab, in the classroom, ‘in every pocket’), the role of the teacher, the type of activity, and the type of feedback provided within each approach.

      Warschauer believed that the first phase consisted of ‘structural CALL’ which was based on a view of language as a formal system of structures (grammar, phonology, etc.) and focused on drill and practice methods to achieve accuracy (Castagnaro 2006). This echoes the grammar translation and audio-lingual approaches to teaching language which were popular at a particular time. Bax (2003) essentially concurred, but called this approach ‘restricted CALL’ because the types of questions, tasks, responses, and feedback tend to be closed, restricted to whatever is programmed into the system. Bax further argued that this approach is largely a historical artefact that is now rarely used. We would argue that this was not true in 2003 and is even less true now with the concurrent (but coincidental) developments in Assessment for Learning (AfL) and smartphones, given that many learning apps feature ‘closed’ tasks.

      The second phase in Warschauer’s model was called ‘communicative CALL’, with an underpinning view that knowledge about language is constructed in the learner’s mind (rather than existing as an external system of rules) and with a dominant methodology of communicative language teaching (CLT). Bax (2003:18) suggests that this phase had, in fact, little to do with real communication or CLT. He also argues that CLT has not been superseded as an approach to language teaching (which the third phase of Warschauer’s model appears to suggest). Bax proposed instead an approach called ‘open CALL’ which he argued had persisted from its introduction in the 1990s to ‘today’ (i.e. 2003). Open CALL, like communicative CALL, includes open-ended interactions with both computers and, occasionally, with other users.

      The third aspect of the respective models is called ‘integrated’ by Bax and ‘integrative’ by Warschauer, but although these terms appear similar, they do not have the same meanings in the model. Warschauer talks about ‘multimedia and the internet’ – applications that, in the earlier 21st century, were still tied to desk-based computers, whereas Bax foresees devices that are ‘very different in shape and size from their current manifestations’ (p23). Bax argues that ‘integrated CALL’ will be achieved when the technology is fully normalized (see below) and ‘CALL’ is no longer a meaningful construct because technology is an inseparable part of everyday life and teaching. In some respects, we could argue that we have reached Bax’s third stage in that digital devices are very much a part of everyday life. However, in teaching, technology is still somewhat disruptive and there are many teachers who feel that educational technology is still an area that they need to learn. Indeed, the very existence of this book indicates that technology is still seen as something that is different from ordinary teaching and learning.

      The concept of ‘normalization’ is central to Bax’s argument with regard to ‘integrated CALL’, and is revisited in Bax (2011). Bax argues that when new technology is introduced, people react strongly, whether with alarm or with awe, and the new technology is seen as having the power to transform life as we know it. Indeed, exactly those reactions met the introduction of the Apple iPad (see Johnson 2010 and Richmond 2012). Woolgar (2002) called these extreme reactions ‘cyberbole’ and we shall return to this in Chapter 12. However, as Bax says, as we become accustomed to something new, the technology itself recedes and becomes simply a normal part of the way that we do things. He argues (as does Woolgar) that social and cultural factors influence, even determine, the process of normalization. However, this is not a one-way process: technology also influences socio-cultural change, albeit incrementally rather than with the transformational leaps that pundits tend to predict. We believe, following the work of theorists such as Cole and Engeström (1993) and Nardi (1996), that technology needs to be seen within the context of the activity system that it mediates. Activity is carried out by people (subjects) working towards ends (objects) and mediated by tools within the context of culture, social rules, and of sharing of workload. None of these elements exist in isolation and a change in any one element will have an impact on the others. Thus, the introduction of new tools may affect, for example, the way that work is shared amongst the participants in the activity system. On the other hand, a change in participants may require a new kind of mediational tool. We consider these matters in later chapters; for example, in Chapter 2, we look at new cultural practices that stem from the introduction of new communications tools and in Chapter 7, we consider the impact of new types of students on academic practices.

      Tutor, tutee, tool …?

      An old but still useful model of the roles that technology can play in learning was offered by Taylor in 1980: he argued that the computer could play one of three principal roles in learning – tutor, tutee, or tool. In the ‘tutor’ role, the computer teaches the learner; typical examples are adaptive tutoring systems (discussed in Chapter