Best Practices in Technology and Language Teaching: Dennie Hoopingarner

Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.
Best Practices in Technology and

Language Teaching
Dennie Hoopingarner*
Michigan State University
Abstract
Language teaching can be enhanced by effective uses of educational technology.
Based on research findings in language acquisition and computer-assisted language
learning, best practices take into account effective language pedagogy, and appropriate
roles of technology. Best practices in using technology to support language teaching
and learning see technology as a tool that can enhance teaching and learning by
augmenting input, providing additional opportunities for language practice, and
serving as a platform for interaction and tasks-based learning activities.
1. Why Technology?
The question regarding the use of technology to support language teaching
has shifted from whether to how. This new position is fairly recent.
Not very long ago, it was common for administrators to demand proof of
the effectiveness of technology to support teaching languages, before they
would invest in a language laboratory or computer facilities. Skeptical
instructors demanded evidence that using technology was worth the
investment in their time to learn how to use it. Some students resisted
using technology, complaining that it removed them from their instructors
and dehumanized the learning experience. In short, the case for technology
had yet to be made.
The case against technology was encapsulated by an influential essay
that declared, media will never influence learning (Clark 1994). The
author claimed that instructional media was a triumph of enthusiasm over
substantive examination of structural processes in learning and instruction
(p. 27). Although the essay was interpreted by some as a screed against
technology, it is hard for the thoughtful reader to disagree with Clarks
central argument, that it is instruction, not the medium of instruction,
that is the critical factor that affects learning outcomes. Rather than an
attack against technology, the essay should be interpreted as a warning
against over-enthusiastic expectations of educational technology.
However, there has been a sea change in attitudes toward technology.
There is now widespread administrative and professional support for
2009 The Author
Journal Compilation 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Technology and Language Teaching 223
technology in nearly all subject areas in education, from the way libraries
are designed (Stucker 2005; Kell 2006) to how textbooks are packaged
and delivered (Barack 2006). Two factors may have influenced this
change. The first is the emergence of a body of research that examines
how technology affects learning, both in positive and in negative ways.
This research informs effective applications of technology to teaching and
learning. The second factor is the general acceptance that technology has
pervaded our society, and ignoring or suppressing it would be doing
students a disservice. Postman (1992) argues that the introduction of
technology has affected change of an ecological nature throughout all of
society; that technology has made our world fundamentally different. For
better or worse, technology is an inescapable part of everyday life, and
educators can no longer ignore or discount its influence.
Language teaching is no exception to this trend. Many language courses
are integrating technology at a very fundamental level (Winke and Goertler
2008), from enhancing instruction with PowerPoint, to delivering instruction
via a combination of face-to-face and online, or teaching entirely online.
The increasing availability of ever-more powerful technology presents a
challenge to us, to ensure that it is used effectively. The task for language
teachers and support professionals is to ensure that technology has a positive
effect on language learning outcomes. Insight into ways that technology
can be used effectively can be drawn from the large and growing research
tradition in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) that interfaces
linguistics, second language acquisition, language pedagogy, and computer
science (summaries of the research are presented by Salaberry 2001, Liu
et al. 2002, and Chun 2007). Although, as Ellis (2005) points out, research
on language acquisition does not provide a roadmap for successful
instructed language learning, CALL research nevertheless offers many
success stories, and best practices can be extrapolated from it.
2. The Role of Technology: Lessons from the Literature
A. IS TECHNOLOGY A TEACHER OR A TOOL?
Technology should make language teaching more effective and efficient.

However, merely including technology in instruction does not guarantee
results or learning outcomes (Healey 1999). Blake (2001) defines four myths
about technology, two of which are that technology is a methodology, and
that technology can assume the role of teachers. Blake urges language
professionals to use technology when its application proves consistent with
best practices in teaching and with language acquisition theory. Including
technology in a language course thus requires consideration and planning,
on a par with the care that should be taken when selecting a textbook.
If technology is not a teacher or a methodology, how should teachers
use it? One paradigm emerged early. Faced with growing numbers of
2009 The Author Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.x
224 Dennie Hoopingarner
students and limited classroom resources, Skinner in 1954 and again in

1968 presented a system to free teachers from the burden of repetitive
instruction that could be performed more efficiently by machines, and to
allow teachers to focus on the more creative and challenging aspects of
teaching. Skinner divided the task of teaching into two distinct parts. One
part of teaching involves imparting factual knowledge that is highly structured,
predictable, and consistent without regard to context or student differences.
This is the part of teaching that Skinner proposed be mechanized for
delivery by a machine. Another part of teaching involves dealing with
unpredictable eventualities, such as gross misunderstanding on the part of
the student, or individual learning difficulties, and so can only be handled
by a human teacher. Skinners paradigm divides the task of teaching into
the programmable and unprogrammable, and thusly divides the labor
between machine and human.
This paradigm, originally labeled programmed instruction and later
named instructional design (Saettler 1990; Reiser 2001), persists to this
day in many approaches to instructional technology, especially approaches
to CALL (Levy and Stockwell 2006). Much language courseware focuses on
structural language practice work, which can be considered to be the
mechanical part of language that can be taught by programmed instruction.
Computers make several kinds of student exercise work possible. Many
of these learning activities involve text manipulation (Phillips 1985;
Hardisty and Windeatt 1989). One type is cloze, in which the student fills
in blanks to complete a reading passage. Another is a drag-drop matching,
which requires students to use the mouse to move a word or phrase to
the word or phrase that matches it best. In scrambled sentence exercises,
students re-assemble a sentence that has been scrambled by words, chunks,
or phrases. Scrambled sentences can be re-assembled using the mouse to
position the chunks, or type the sentence. Influential books on communicative
CALL were published in the 1980s (Higgins and Johns 1984; Underwood
1984; Higgins 1988) with criteria for making courseware that meshed
with communicative language teaching approaches. Underwood lists
simulations, games, and text manipulation as examples of communicative
courseware. Phillips adds quizzes, problem-solving, and exploratory activities
to the list of courseware activities. In addition, Hardisty and Windeatt
suggest the pedagogical application of productivity software.
Limitations of this approach to language instruction became evident
early on (Parrish 2004, McDonald et al. 2005). There is a danger in
assuming that because learners perform correctly on the materials, that
they have learned the concepts underlying them. Students who can parrot
back vocabulary lists or textbook dialogs have not necessarily learned
language. Ornstein et al. (1971:57) label this phenomenon language-like
behavior in subjects who complete the programmed instruction successfully
without having developed competence in the target language (see also
Krashen 1981:39). The warning is clear: relying on outward behavior to
assess learning can be misleading. Nevertheless, using the computer for

this kind of language practice can be an effective supplement to language
courses. A theoretical argument can be made that many of these activities
required cognitive functions on the part of the learner, and so should not
be labeled behaviorist (Hubbard and Bradin Siskin 2004). But as Bax
(2003) points out, there is little that differentiates this paradigm from the
programmed instruction approach that first emerged in the 1960s. The
computer is still the knower of the right answer (Warschauer 1996) and
directs and evaluates student activity. Relying on computers to teach
language through programmed instruction is generally not successful.
However, computer-based work can increase interaction and student
engagement, and so judicious use of these exercises can be beneficial, and
should be a part of the language curriculum.
B. USING TECHNOLOGY TO TEACH LANGUAGE SKILLS
Language skills are sometimes taught in isolation. While current pedagogy

emphasizes addressing language skills and areas only as needed to complete
learning tasks (Butler-Pascoe 2003; Egbert 2005), a case can also be made
for focusing on specific language skills in the classroom, for example,
teaching listening strategies or process writing. This section describes how
technology can be used to address discrete language skills.
Listening
The importance of listening skills in language learning cannot be under-
estimated, both on practical and on theoretical grounds. There is almost
universal agreement among theorists that input is necessary for language.
However, mere exposure to language is not enough for learning to take
place. Krashen (1981) recognized that language learners treat much of the
input that they receive as background noise, and only comprehensible
input contributes to language learning. Later research focused on how to
make the input comprehensible. Schmidt (1990) found that noticing and
attention was a factor in making input comprehensible. Gass (1997)
model for language acquisition proposes that linguistic input becomes
intake via attention to the language, and interaction with the learners
existing knowledge of the language. The implication of this research for
language teaching is that if input is made comprehensible through pedagogical
activity, language acquisition will be facilitated. Chapelle (1998) showed
that computer-based multimedia programs can assist in making input
comprehensible by increasing its noticability, enhancing input, and using
multiple presentation modes (e.g., written and aural).
Listening to a foreign language is a complicated and difficult activity.
The listener must first process the speech stream acoustically to discriminate
lexical items. Following that, the structure and meaning of the utterances
must be recovered. Suprasegmental aspects of the utterance, such as tone
of voice, also contain meaning that must be interpreted. The two basic
approaches to learning, classified as top-down and bottom-up (Butler-
Pascoe 2003), can both be facilitated by technology. Language learners can
be encouraged to use a bottom-up strategy, attempting to isolate key
words in the speech stream, or a top-down strategy, trying to grasp the
overall meaning based on the listeners understanding of the topic of the
utterance. Providing the learners access to transcripts of the audio material
can facilitate bottom-up strategies, as shown in a study by Grgurovi and
Hegelheimer (2007). More sophisticated annotated listening materials can
be created on the computer, in which digital audio files are supplemented
with glosses for individual words or for chunks of words, providing
transcripts, definitions, visual cues, or play back of words in isolation
( Jones 2003). Technology can also facilitate top-down strategies. Research
on language acquisition suggests that learners benefit from hearing a variety
of speakers (Major 2001), and the Internet has made it easier for learners
gain exposure to other speakers of the target language.
Speaking
Pedagogy and technology are now aligned to a point where the computer
can be included in speaking work in a manner that is both practical and
beneficial. Computer-based speaking work was traditionally not a common
part of language courses. There are two possible reasons for this. Pedagogically,
speaking was deemphasized by language teaching approaches that favored
comprehensible input as the key to language acquisition (Krashen 1981).
Secondly, the state of the technology has made it difficult to include
computer-based speaking in language courses (Levy and Stockwell
2006:181).
The situation has changed on both fronts. Empirical studies by Swain
(1985) and Palmer (1992) showing the ineffectiveness of a comprehension-
based approach to language learning helped to shift the theoretical emphasis
toward interaction (Long 1996; Gass 1997), which sees the production of
output as a critical factor for language acquisition. On the technology
side, computers can now easily capture and present high-quality audio and
video, and high-speed Internet access allow language teachers to use
technology as a medium for interpersonal communication. Learners can be
actively involved in speaking and listening as they interact with each other,
with their teacher, and with native speakers in and out of the classroom.
Speaking is seen as essential to the learning process, and the computer is
now best seen not as an arbiter of student behavior throughout the learning
process, but as a medium and facilitator of communication.
Oral interaction in a second language requires a nexus of several skills.
The learner must have a command of the structure of the language, be
able to pronounce correctly, and also have the ability to conduct discourse
in the language. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) tasks in a
text-based chat tool can help students develop the necessary linguistic
interaction skills. Some promising research shows that interaction tasks in

text-based chat tools developed language skills that the learners later used
in oral language tasks (Payne and Whitney 2002). The implication of this
research is that the increased language ability that learners attained by
participating in text chat tasks crossed modality from text-based interaction
to oral language production. The study suggests that text chat activity can
be a useful supplement to regular oral language work.
Computer programs can also interact directly with learners to improve
their pronunciation. Speech recognition software and signal analysis software
that evaluates learners pronunciation have been shown to be an effective
way to improve pronunciation and discourse intonation (Levy and Stockwell
2006). Chun (1998) showed how computer programs for speech analysis
can be integrated into language courses. Computers can record learners
speech and plot intonation patterns on a visual grid. The visual representa-
tions of learners speech can then be compared with that of a native
speaker. When combined with explicit feedback and instruction, learners
pronunciation can be molded to become more native-like (Anderson-Hsieh
1994). Internet-based voice chat tasks have also been shown to assist
pronunciation improvement (Jepson 2005).
Reading
The Internet is a rich source of reading materials. This has been a great
benefit to language teachers and learners, especially for the less-commonly
taught languages for which there are few sources of reading material.
Research on reading offers some guidance for the appropriate use of this
resource for language teaching. Brown (2007:300) recommends dividing
the reading task into a three-part framework. Through pre-reading tasks,
learners can create a schema for the topic of the reading passage. While
reading, learners can be encouraged to watch for certain content. This
can help reinforce the learning goals of the reading exercise. Post-reading
tasks can range from comprehension questions to analyzing the authors
purpose or motives, and can extend to writing tasks.
Similarly to computer-enhanced listening work, computer programs
can also enhance reading. Software programs can assist reading strategies:
vocabulary knowledge and acquisition (bottom-up processing) and text
comprehension (top-down processing) (Chun and Plass 1997). Acquisition
of vocabulary can be facilitated by including electronic glosses in computer-
based reading texts. Glosses can be in the form of text or pictures (Yoshii
2006) or video (Al Seghayer 2001). Brandl (2002) shows that reading
content from the Internet can be integrated into the classroom in traditional,
teacher-led activities or student-centered learning projects.
Writing
Butler-Pascoe (2003) notes that good readers are good writers, and vice
versa. Current best practice in teaching second-language writing focuses
on the process of writing, and not solely on the product. Brown

(2007:331332) recommends that structuring writing tasks in three stages
will foster students best efforts. In the prewriting stage, learners are
encouraged to generate ideas through brainstorming, outside research,
idea mapping, group discussions, etc. The second and third stages are
drafting and revising. Drafting can be accomplished in class, or be assigned
as homework. Revising can happen through peer editing, teacher feedback,
and self-correction.
In this information age, writing has taken on a new importance, as text
communication is still the main medium for communication and self-
expression on the Internet. The language learning potential of Internet
communication has been explored for email (Bloch 2002; Chen 2006)
and blogging (Arena 2008). Bloch, in a cogent summary of the state of the
art, argues that new writing technologies have forced a new conception
of pedagogical writing. Technologies such as wikis and blogs, and online
word processors that allow collaborative writing, give language teachers
powerful new tools that can open new opportunities for students to engage
in the writing process and display their finished products.
At the same time, according to Bloch, the ease in which one learners
documents can be edited and altered by other learners has blurred the
concept of authorship, and makes addressing the issue of plagiarism
more urgent. In some ways these technologies have made the teachers job
more difficult. Technology offers ways to address the challenge of plagiarism,
however. There are services to check student writing against databases of
existing writing samples. These services can be used to detect plagiarism.
As with any tool, they can be used in positive and negative ways. By
receiving feedback on their writing, learners can be informed of best
practices in forming original ideas and expressions, and citing other works
properly. The tools can also be used in a punitive way, to root out
intellectual dishonesty and punish the offenders. Marsh (2004) argues that
rather than preventing, detecting, and penalizing plagiarism, these screening
tools have a stifling effect on academic and intellectual growth. The
controversy over these tools remains unresolved.
C. CURRENT PRACTICE IN PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES
Two general themes have emerged in current language pedagogy. The first
is a focus not on the language as an object of study, but as a means to
communicate. Most current best practices in language teaching use tasks
that require an integration of language skills. Although it sometimes
makes sense to target specific language skills, as illustrated by examples in
the section above, best practice suggests that instructors should pursue the
goal of addressing all skills at the same time. This can be accomplished
through activities and tasks that are structured so that learners use language
to achieve communication goals. What is considered a good practice for
language teaching in general also applies to technology-enhanced language

teaching. The addition of technology has not changed the criteria for
effective teaching.
One of the strongest proponents of using the language as a means of
communication is embodied in the task-based language teaching movement.
Task-based language teaching is described by Doughty and Long (2003)
as an embryonic theory of language teaching (p. 51), not a theory of
language learning. This approach begins with a real-world task, and builds
language-learning activities around it. Nunan (2004) shows that completing
a task requires learners to use language skills that they have learned, and
leads learners to learning new language skills as needed in order to
complete the task. This approach to language teaching integrates all
language skills, and while it includes elements of traditional language
teaching such as grammar practice, these elements are embedded in a
larger curricular structure, which has the added benefit to learners of
putting language structure work into context. Technology integrates into
this model of teaching very well (Schrooten 2006). Students can work
collaboratively on the task, using the computer as a workspace. The computer
can also be a source for information as learners conduct research or need
reference materials, using technology as a tool to complete the task.
The second theme that has emerged is an emphasis on constructivist
principles of learning. Constructivism is a learning theory that sees learning
is an active process by which the learners create their own understanding
of the subject matter, as Jonassen and Winn each wrote in 1991.
Constructivism distinguishes between information and knowledge (Perkins
1986). Information is an artifact that is distinct from any individual
learner, is quantifiable, and recordable. Textbooks and reference grammars,
for example, contain information. But true learning cannot be achieved by
memorizing a dictionary, and rote memorization is distinct from knowledge.
Knowledge is part of an individuals cognitive system. It is the result of
the integration of information with a learners existing representation of
the world. The advantage of knowledge over information is that knowl-
edge is part of an integrated system, and as such, can be drawn upon more
easily to solve cognitive problems, think creatively, and enrich understanding.
The constructivist task of learning is to create ones own understanding
of subject matter.
One kind of constructivist learning activity using technology is the
webquest. This was one of the first pedagogical activities that was specifically
designed to make use of the rich information resources on the Internet
(Dodge 1995). A webquest is an information gathering and synthesis task
in which learners are assigned research topics, and use the Internet as a
source for information. Koenraad and Westhoff (2003) took Dodges
model, which was not specific to a particular subject area, and customized
it to address the specific needs of language learning. Their model, which they
named in Dutch TalenQuest, (Language Quest), focuses on language
learning aspects of the project. Learners must process for meaning as they
research, and, focus on form as they generate their written or oral final
product, and interact among each other as they work on the project.
Webquests are open-ended in nature, and student-friendly. According
to Godwin-Jones (2004:9), webquests tend to be student-oriented and
collaborative, with students engaged in constructivist activities resulting
in shared learning experiences and new knowledge based on enquiry-
oriented language use and Web research skills.
3. Persistent Stumbling Blocks

Levy and Stockwell (2006:243) identify four areas of promise, which
they anticipate will become standard features of CALL as the technology
develops. These areas also represent persistent weaknesses in the application
of technology to language learning. The areas are authoring tools, online
learning, speech recognition, and intelligent tutors. The first two areas are
what physicist Richard Feynman would label an engineering problem:
the underlying problems of creating tools and environments for language
learning are understood, and the problems are, in principle, solvable. The
second two areas, speech recognition and intelligent tutors, are what Feynman
would label scientific problems. Theoretical unknowns underlie these
problems, and it is not yet known whether these goals are achievable.
There are fundamental differences in the way that computers and humans
process language, and it is for this reason that we cannot be sure that
computers will ever be able to communicate with humans, using human
language, in a human-like way.
Speech recognition by computer, similar to human listening comprehen-
sion, is a two-part process: acoustic and linguistic. In order for computers
to understand spoken language, the program must progress through the
two-step process of first parsing the speech signal, then interpreting the
linguistic message. Computer programs use a combination of acoustic analysis
and statistical modeling to arrive at probable lexical items in the speech
signal, and have become remarkably adept at the task.
The second step, interpreting the meaning of the utterance from the
complex syntactic, semantic, and inflectional ambiguities in natural language,
has proved to be a continued barrier to human-like language behavior in
machines. In 1950, Alan Turing proposed his so-called Turing test for
machine intelligence. The conditions of the test are that if a human being,
interacting through a computer interface, cannot determine whether the
interlocutor is another human being or a computer, then the machine can be
judged to be thinking. In essence, in order to pass the test, the computer
must be able to use language in a human-like way. This challenge to develop
artificial intelligence for natural language processing has succeeded on
limited levels, but true human-like interaction with a computer remains
in the realm of science fiction. Human-like linguistic interaction with a
computer is still not possible. Despite the persistent difficulty in natural

language processing by computer, many researchers in the field remain
optimistic (see Kurzweil 1997 for a review of the problems and a prognosis
for future development).
4. On the Horizon
The sections above represent the current state of technology and language
teaching. Although technology does not change the criteria for judging
good language teaching, technology has changed the way we can and
should teach. In addition, new technologies are continually introduced,
and will continue to transform the landscape of language teaching. One
pedagogical innovation that technology has enabled is worth watching.
Technology allows us to reduce contact time between teacher and student,
while maintaining quality of instruction and achieving comparable
learning outcomes.
Institutions can benefit from reducing physical contact time between
teachers and students in two ways. They can expand students access to
educational resources, and reduce the cost of instruction. Enrollment in
language courses is increasing. Wells (2004) reports a 17% increase in
language enrollments in US higher education institutions between 1998
and 2002. This is up from a 4.7% increase between 1995 and 1998, after
a 3.7% decrease in enrollments between 1990 and 1995. Institutions lack
the capacity to meet the growing demand with conventional instruction.
Both physical classroom space and trained instructors in the less-commonly
taught languages are in short supply.
A model of instruction has evolved that stretches instructional resources.
Under this new course structure, class is held in the classroom for only
half of the regular amount of time. Students are assigned computer-based
work for the other half. Instructors can then be assigned two courses with
the same amount of contact time as one course. This model of instruction
is variably labeled hybrid, mixed-mode, or blended instruction. While
it met with resistance by language instructors when first proposed, empirical
research has shown that not only can this model achieve results that are
comparable to conventional instructional models, but that it is possible for
students to achieve more. Reasons for some of the superior learning
outcomes from mixed-mode learning could be that when students are
completing their technology-based assignments, they are engaged to a
degree that is neither required of them, nor even possible in a conventional
classroom. A typical language class with 25 to 30 students cannot provide
individuals with the one-on-one instruction and feedback that a single
student can get when interacting with a computer program.
Employing technology to support language instruction at this level
requires a well-staffed technical support system, careful planning, and
training for instructors and students. While there are many success stories
about using technology to expand and transform language offerings, it

should not be engaged in without thought and foresight.
On the technological side, mobile phones are changing the way that
people interact and communicate. The cell phone has already shaped the
way the current generation of students communicates. Not only are they
able to talk to anyone from anywhere at any time, but they are also using
a technology called SMS, or short message service, to send text messages.
For many students, texting has replaced email as the way they communicate
with their friends. As subsequent generations of mobile phones gain
processing and storage capacity, they are replacing the notebook computer
as the technology of choice for students. The potential for using cell
phones as devices for language learning is not even fully understood yet.
Applications of mobile telephones for language learning will require
creativity and careful planning, just as was required when computers were first
introduced into the language classroom. New pedagogies that make effective
use of these devices will develop rapidly.
5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Despite the increasing acceptance of technology in the support of language
teaching, we still face one challenge of Clarks thesis. If the technology
does not make a difference in learning, then how can we justify buying,
maintaining, and training teachers to use this expensive equipment? After
all, the cost of equipping a language laboratory with computers easily
exceeds a full professors yearly salary, and this expense must reoccur every
2 to 4 years to replace aging and obsolete computers. The answer to this
question is that technology is a tool, and just as we would not expect the
natural sciences to teach without expensive laboratory equipment, so does
language instruction benefit from access to technology in many real,
demonstrable, and quantifiable ways.
A recurring theme throughout this paper is that teaching languages
with technology must take into account good language pedagogy, and that
the introduction of technology neither replaces nor transforms the nature
of good teaching. Technology can undoubtedly raise the quality of the
learning experience, and enhance the ability of even the best teacher to
reach students. However, a computer is not a substitute for a teacher, and
it cannot transform a bad teacher into a good one.
In order for technology to be effectively used in language teaching,
instructors must know how to use it. There is a need for ongoing technical
literacy training, both for teachers and for students. Despite the stereotype
that students are digital natives (Prensky 2001), and are comfortable with
technology in their everyday lives, a recent study shows that many university
students lack even the basic technical skills that are necessary to take
advantage of technologys potential (Winke and Goertler 2008). There is
a clear need for training at all levels of the educational enterprise. Training
should be seen as an ongoing process, both to keep up with developments

in technology, and to accommodate fluctuations in teaching staff.
Finally, expectations of technology must be realistic. Technology should
be seen as part of the basic infrastructure of an educational system, not an
add-on that is expected to increase student grades by a certain percentage.
A baseline expectation is that the technology is used in language instruction,
that it plays a demonstrable role in the course. Best practice in using
technology in language teaching shows that technology can replace some
aspects of teaching, augment aspects of teaching and of learning, and
transform the learning experience.
Short Biography
Dennie Hoopingarner works at Michigan State University, where he is
the Director of the Language Learning Center. He also serves as the
Associate Director for Technology Implementation at the Center for
Language Education And Research (CLEAR), a US Title VI Language
Resource Center at Michigan State University. His professional background
is in language teaching, educational technology, and computer-assisted
language learning. His research interests include second language
acquisition and heritage language learning. A speaker of Chinese, he is
actively involved in the promotion of community language schools for
heritage speakers of Chinese. He has a PhD in Linguistics from Michigan
State University.
Note
* Correspondence address: A709 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824, USA. E-mail: hooping4@msu.edu.
Works Cited
Al Seghayer, K. 2001. The effect of multimedia annotation modes on l2 vocabulary acquisition:
a comparative study. Learning Language Learning & Technology 5.20232.
Anderson-Hsieh, J. 1994. Interpreting visual feedback on suprasegmentals in computer assisted
pronunciation instruction. CALICO Journal 11.522.
Arena, C. 2008. Blogging in the language classroom: it doesnt simply happen. TESL-EJ 11.17.
Retrieved July 11, 2008 from http://tesl-ej.org/ej44/a3.pdf
Barack, L. 2006. Digital textbooks for digital natives. School Library Journal 52.24.
Bax, S. 2003. CALL-past, present and future. System 31.1329.
Blake, R. J. 2001. What language professionals need to know about technology. ADFL Bulletin
32.9399.
Bloch, J. 2002. Student/teacher interaction via email: the social context of Internet discourse.
Journal of Second Language Writing 11.11734.
Brandl, K. 2002. The integration of internet-based reading materials into the foreign language
curriculum: from teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology
6.87107.
Brown, D. J. 2007. Principals of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Butler-Pascoe, M. E. 2003. Technology and teaching English language learners. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Chapelle, C. 1998. Multimedia call: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.
Language Learning & Technology 2.2234.
Chen, C-F. E. 2006. The development of e-mail literacy: from writing to peers to writing to
authority figures. Language Learning & Technology 10.3555
Chun, D. M. 1998. Signal analysis software for teaching pronunciation. Language Learning &
Technology 2.6177.
Chun, D. M. 2007. Come ride the wave: but where is it taking us? CALICO Journal 24.23952.
Chun, D. M., and Plass, J. 1997. Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments.
Learning Language Learning & Technology 1.6081.
Clark, R. E. 1994. Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42.2129.
Dodge, B. 1995. Some thoughts about WebQuests. Retrieved from http://webquest.sdsu.edu/
about_webquests.html July 16, 2008.
Doughty, C. J., and Long, M. H. 2003. Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance
foreign language. Language Learning & Technology 7.5080.
Egbert, J. 2005. CALL essentials. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Ellis, R. 2005. Instructed second language acquisition a literature review. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
Gass, S. M. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Godwin-Jones, B. 2004. Language in action: from webquests to virtual realities. Language
Learning & Technology 8.914.
Goertler, S., and P. Winke 2008. The effectiveness of technolgy-enhanced foreign language teaching.
Opening doors through distance education: principles, perspectives, and practices, ed. by
S. Goertler and P. Winke. CALICO Monograph Series Volume 7. CALICO: San Marcos, TX.
Grgurovi, M., and V. Hegelheimer. 2007. Help options and multimedia listening: students use
of subtitles and the transcript. Language Learning & Technology 11.4566.
Hardisty, D., and S. Windeatt. 1989. CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Healey, D. 1999. Classroom practice: communicative skill-building tasks in call environments.
CALL environments: research, practice, and critical Issues, ed. by J. Egbert and E. Hanson-
Smith. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Higgins, J., and T Johns. 1984. Computers in Language Learning. London: Collins ELT.
Higgins, J. 1988. Language, learners and computers. New York: Longman.
Hubbard, P. and Bradin Siskin C. 2004. Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCALL 16.448461.
Jepson, K. 2005. Conversation and negotiations in text and voice chat rooms. Language
Learning & Technology 9(3).7998.
Jonassen, D. H. 1991. Objectivism vs constructivism: do we need a new educational paradigm?
Educational Technology 9.514.
Jones, L. C. 2003. Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with
multimedia annotations: the students voice. CALICO Journal 21.4165.
Kell, S. E. 2006. Technically speaking: how can we reach the digital natives? Learning & Media
34.146.
Koenraad, T. L. M., and G. J. Westhoff. 2003. Can you tell a LanguageQuest when you see
one? Design criteria for TalenQuests. Retrieved from http://www.feo.hvu.nl/koen2/Home/
talenquest/TQEurocall.pdf July 16, 2008.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Kurzweil, R. 1997. When will HAL understand what we are saying? Computer speech recognition
and understanding. HALs Legacy: 2001s computer as dream and reality, ed. by D. G. Stork.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levy, M. and Stockwell, G. 2006. CALL dimensions: options and issues in computer-assisted
language learning. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erbaum Associates.
Liu, M., Z. Moore, L. Graham, and S. Lee. 2002. A look at the research on computer-based
technology use in second language learning: a review of the literature from 19902000.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34(3), 250273.
Long, M. H. 1996. The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.
Handbook of second language acquisition, ed. by W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia, 41368. New
York: Academic Press.
Major, R. C. 2001. Foreign accent: the ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marsh, B. 2004. Turnitin.com and the scriptural enterprise of plagiarism detection. Computers
and Composition 21.42738.
McDonald, J. K., S. C. Yanchar, and R. T. Osguthorpe. 2005. Learning from programmed
instruction: examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational
Technology, Research and Development 53.8498.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based language teaching Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ornstein, J., R. W. Ewton Jr., and T. H. Mueller. 1971. Programmed instruction and educational
technology in the language teaching field: new approaches to old problems. Philadelphia, PA:
Center for Curriculum Development.
Palmer, A. 1992. Issues in evaluating input-based language-teaching programs. Evaluating
second language education, ed. by A. Charles and A. Beretta. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Parrish, P. E. 2004. The trouble with learning objects. Educational Technology, Research and
Development 52.4967.
Payne, J. S., and P. J. Whitney. 2002. Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous
CMC: output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal 20.732.
Perkins, D. N. 1986. Knowledge as design. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Phillips, M. 1985. Logical possibilities and classroom scenarios for the development of CALL.
Computers in English language teaching, ed. by C. Brumfit, M. Phillips, and P. Skehan, 2546.
New York: Pergamon.
Postman, N. 1992. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.
Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9.16.
Reiser, R. A. 2001. A history of instructional design and technology. Educational Technology,
Research and Development 49.5767.
Saettler, L. P. 1990. The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Salaberry, R. 2001. The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: a
retrospective. Modern Language Journal 84.53754.
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics
11.12958.
Schrooten, W. 2006. Task-based language teaching and ICT: developing and assessing interactive
multimedia for task-based language teaching. Task-based language education. ed. by K. Van
den Brandon, 12940. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, B. F. 1954. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational
Review, 24.8697.
Skinner, B. F. 1968. The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stucker, H. 2005. Digital natives are growing restless. School Library Journal 51 Special
Report 9-Special Report 10.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and com-
prehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, ed. by Susan
M. Gass and Carolyn G. Madden, 235253. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Underwood, J. H. 1984. Linguistics, computers and the language teacher. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Warschauer, M. 1996. Computer assisted language learning: an introduction. Multimedia
language teaching, ed. by S. Fotos, 320. Tokyo: Logos International.
Wells, E. B. 2004.Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education,
fall 2002. ADFL Bulletin 35(23).726.
Winn, W. D. 1991. The assumptions of constructivism and instructional design. Educational
Technology 31(9).38.
Yoshii, M. 2006. L1 and L2 glosses: their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language
Learning & Technology 10(3).85101.

Best Practices in Technology and Language Teaching: Dennie Hoopingarner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practices in Technology and Language Teaching: Dennie Hoopingarner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language and Linguistics Compass 3/1 (2009): 222235, 10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00123.

Best Practices in Technology and

2. The Role of Technology: Lessons from the Literature

A. IS TECHNOLOGY A TEACHER OR A TOOL?

Technology should make language teaching more effective and efficient.

students and limited classroom resources, Skinner in 1954 and again in

assess learning can be misleading. Nevertheless, using the computer for

B. USING TECHNOLOGY TO TEACH LANGUAGE SKILLS

Language skills are sometimes taught in isolation. While current pedagogy

interaction skills. Some promising research shows that interaction tasks in

on the process of writing, and not solely on the product. Brown

C. CURRENT PRACTICE IN PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES

language teaching in general also applies to technology-enhanced language

3. Persistent Stumbling Blocks

computer is still not possible. Despite the persistent difficulty in natural

about using technology to expand and transform language offerings, it

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

should be seen as an ongoing process, both to keep up with developments

You might also like