You are here:

Technology-enhanced language learning (TeLL): An update and a principled framework for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses / L'apprentissage des langues assist par la technologie (TeLL): mise jour et nonc de principes pour les cours
ARTICLE

, Hong Kong Polytechnic University ;

CJLT Volume 40, Number 1, ISSN 1499-6677 e-ISSN 1499-6677 Publisher: Canadian Network for Innovation in Education

Full Text

Abstract

The range and number of technologies currently available have yielded both opportunities and challenges for language educators. This study aims to review recent technology-enhanced language learning (TeLL) research, and to examine their potential relevance to EAP pedagogy, curricula, assessment and instruction. The results of this study show TeLL research with rising interest in vocabulary, grammar and writing, but less so in speaking, listening, and reading. The results also reveal a shift from a tool-centric view of technology use to one that emphasises the technology-pedagogy-human alliance in the last decade, noting three emerging trends in recent TeLL studies, namely, those that are multi-purpose, multi-genre, and multi-role/skill in design and evaluation. The lack of a holistic approach to TeLL for EAP courses to date, however, has made it necessary and desirable to develop a framework for EAP-specific TeLL, to identify a principle for a generic TeLL programme, and to propound ways of operationalizing such a framework. L'apprentissage des langues assisté par la technologie (TeLL): mise à jour et énoncé de principes pour les cours d’anglais à des fins universitaires La variété et la profusion de technologies actuellement disponibles ont engendré des possibilités nouvelles et des défis pour les enseignants en langue. Cette étude passe en revue la recherche récente consacrée à l'apprentissage des langues assisté par la technologie (TeLL) et examine sa pertinence éventuelle pour la pédagogie, les programmes, l'évaluation et l'enseignement de l’anglais à des fins universitaires. Les résultats de cette étude révèlent un intérêt croissant de la recherche sur l'apprentissage des langues assisté par la technologie pour le vocabulaire, la grammaire et l'écriture, mais un intérêt moindre pour la langue parlée, la langue écoutée et pour la lecture. Les résultats révèlent aussi que, dans la dernière décennie, on est passé d’une utilisation des technologies centrée sur les outils à une utilisation privilégiant l’alliance technologie-pédagogie-humain. Trois tendances émergent dans les études récentes, à savoir celles qui sont multiusages, multigenres, et multirôles/habilités dans la conception et l'évaluation. L'absence actuelle d'une approche holistique de l'apprentissage des langues assisté par la technologie pour les cours d’anglais à des fins universitaires a cependant rendu nécessaires et souhaitables l’élaboration d’un cadre TeLL propre à l’anglais à des fins universitaires, l’identification du fondement pour un programme générique TeLL, ainsi que la proposition des moyens pour opérationnaliser un tel cadre.

Citation

Chau, J. & Lee, A. (2014). Technology-enhanced language learning (TeLL): An update and a principled framework for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses / L'apprentissage des langues assist par la technologie (TeLL): mise jour et nonc de principes pour les cours. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 40(1),. Canadian Network for Innovation in Education. Retrieved August 7, 2024 from .

© 2014 Canadian Network for Innovation in Education

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Al-Seghayer, K. (2007). The role of organizational devices in readers’ construction of mental representations of hypertext context. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 531-559.
  2. Atick, J.J. (1992). Could information theory provide an ecological theory of sensory processing? Network: Computation in Neural Systems, 3(2), 213-251.
  3. Baloglu, S. (2000). A path analytic model of visitation intention involving information sources, socio-psychological motivations, and destination image. Journal of Travel& Tourism Marketing, 8(3), 81-90.
  4. Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Belz, J. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in Internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 3-39.
  6. Bielenia-Grajewska, M. (2009). Actor-network theory in intercultural communication: translation through the prism of innovation, technology, networks and semiotics. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation, 1(4), 53-69.
  7. Boland, R.J., Tenkasi, R.V., & Te’eni, D. (1994). Designing information technology to support distributed cognition. Organization Science, 5(3), 456-475.
  8. Butler,T. (1998). Towards a hermeneutic method for interpretive research in information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 13, 285–300.
  9. Chang, M.M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23, 187-196.
  10. Chang, C. & Kuo, C. (2011). A corpus-based approach to online materials development for writing research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 222-234.
  11. Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning& Technology, 1(1), 19-43.
  12. Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 76-89.
  13. Chik, A. & Breidbach, S. (2011). Online language learning histories exchange: Hong Kong and German perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 553-564.
  14. Clarke, C.C. (1918). The phonograph in modern language teaching. The Modern Language Journal, 3(3), 116-122.
  15. Dey, A.K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5(1), 4-7.
  16. Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-32.
  17. Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223-236.
  18. Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
  19. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
  20. Farini, F. (2009). Activities 2: Coordinating reflection. In C. Baraldi (Ed.), Dialogue in intercultural communities: From an educational point of view (pp. 155-172). Amsterdam:
  21. Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Emerging technologies– web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting and assessing writing online. Language Learning& Technology, 12(2), 7-13.
  22. Gruba, P. & Hinkelman, D. (2012). Blending technologies in second language classrooms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  23. Harris, J. (1985). Student writers and word processing: A preliminary evaluation. College Composition and Communication, 36(3), 323-330.
  24. Hecht, M.L. (1993). 2002-a research odyssey: Toward the development of a communication theory of identity. Communication Monographs, 60(1), 76-82.
  25. Hirotani, M. (2009). Synchronous versus asynchronous CMC and transfer to Japanese oral performance. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 413-438.
  26. Hu, X.Q. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other ‘world Englishes’. English Today, 20(2), 26-33.
  27. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
  28. Jin, L. & Erben, T. (2007). Intercultural learning via instant messenger interaction. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 291-311.
  29. Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning& Technology, 13(1), 79-95.
  30. Kiefer, K. (2013). How does technology fit into the vertical writing curriculum? In M.M. Strain (Ed.), Principles and practices: Discourses for the vertical curriculum (pp.89-106). New
  31. Kotov, K. (2002). Semiosphere: A chemistry of being. Sign Systems Studies, 30(1), 41-54.
  32. Kristiansen, G. (2008). Style-shifting and shifting styles: A socio-cognitive approach to lectal variation. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 45-90). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  33. Kuteeva, M. (2011). Wikis and academic writing: Changing the writer-reader relationship. English for Specific Purposes, 30, 44-57.
  34. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and contextualization. New York: Oxford University Press.
  35. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 769-782.
  36. Liu, D. & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 61-78.
  37. Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L, & Lee, S. (2003). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990-2000.
  38. Loucky, J.P. (2003). Using computerized bilingual dictionaries to help maximize English vocabulary learning at Japanese colleges. CALCIO Journal, 21(1), 105-129.
  39. Miyazoe, T. & Anderson, T. (2010). Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions of online writing: Simultaneous implementation of a forum, blog, and wiki in an EFL blended learning setting. System, 38, 185-199.
  40. Murphy, P. (2007). Reading comprehension exercises online: The effects of feedback, proficiency and interaction. Language Learning& Technology, 11(3), 107-129.
  41. Oatley, K. (1996). Inference in narrative and science. In D.R. Olson& N. Torrance (Eds.), Modes of thought: Explorations in cultural cognition (pp.123-140). Cambridge: Cambridge
  42. Orlikowski, W.J. & Gash, D.C. (1994). Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 12(2), 174-207.
  43. Orlikowski, W.J. & Robey, D. (1991). Information technology and the structuring of organizations. Information Systems Research, 2(2), 143-169.
  44. O’Rourke, B. (2005). Form-focused interaction in online tandem learning. CALCO Journal, 23(3), 433-466.
  45. Oxford, R.L. & Lin, C. (2011). Autonomous learners in digital realms: Exploring strategies for effective digital language learning. In B. Morrison (Ed.), Independent language learning: Building on experience, seeking new perspectives (pp.157-171). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
  46. Polisca, E. (2006). Facilitating the learning process: An evaluation of the use and benefits of a virtual learning environment (VLE)-enhanced independent language learning program (ILLP). CALICO Journal, 23(3), 499-515.
  47. Salaberry, M.R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39-56.
  48. Shneiderman, B. & Rose, A. (1997). Social impact statements: Engaging public participation in information technology design. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 117-134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  49. Star, S.L. & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111-134.
  50. Villada, E.G. (2009). CALL evaluation for early foreign language learning: A review of the literature and a framework for evaluation. CALICO Journal, 26(2), 363-389.
  51. Walker, N.G., Cedergren, H., Trofimovich, P. & Gatbonton, E. (2011). Automatic speech recognition for CALL: A task-specific application for training nurses. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(4), 459-479.
  52. Ward, J. (2009). A basic engineering English word list for less proficiency foundation engineering undergraduates. English for Specific Purposes, 28, 170-182.
  53. Ware, P.D. & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning& Technology, 12(1), 43-63.
  54. Wible, D., Liu, A.L.E. & Tsao, N.L. (2011). A browser-based approach to incidental individualization of vocabulary learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 530543.
  55. Winter, S.J. & Taylor, S.L. (1999). The role of information technology in the transformation of work: A comparison of postindustrial, industrial, and protoindustrial organization. In G. DeSanctis, & J. Fulk (Eds.), Shaping organization form: Communication, connection, and community (pp.101-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  56. Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning& Technology, 12(2), 31-48.
  57. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.
  58. Zizzo, D.J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75-98.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Links

Also Read

Related Collections