Language Learning & Technology October 2021, Volume 25, Issue 3

ISSN 1094-3501 pp. 6–26

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

Evolving technologies for language learning

Robert Godwin-Jones, Virginia Commonwealth University

Abstract

This column traces the evolution of electronic resources for language learning over the past 25 years,
focusing on the arrival and transformation of the “world wide web”, the dramatic changes in mobile
technologies, and the movement towards commercial and all-in-one solutions to online learning. In the
choice and use of learning materials and approaches, I argue for the consideration of current research in
second language acquisition (SLA), with particular importance being studies on sociocultural/pragmatic
and multilingual practices, the application of usage-based and complex dynamic models of language
learning, and the evidence of the viability of informal language learning. Those developments inform an
ecological approach to computer-assisted language learning (CALL), which stresses the openness and
unpredictability of the process through the organic interplay between learner and environment. The
column concludes with a plea for a greater role for second language development as a vital contribution
to the development of global citizenry.
Keywords: CALL, SLA, Ecological Theories, Mobile Language Learning, Language Learning Materials
Language(s) Learned in This Study: English
APA Citation: Godwin-Jones, R. (2021). Evolving technologies for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 25(3), 6–26. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73443

Introduction

Five years ago, in the 20th anniversary issue of this journal, I provided a retrospective of the columns I
had written on emerging technologies (Godwin-Jones, 2016c). Looking back at those columns provided a
perspective on developments in computer assisted language learning (CALL) since 1997. This time
around, I will focus more specifically on the evolution of technologies used in language learning, with my
take on what tools and approaches have proven to be enduring and which have faded. Although my
overview will be guided by evidence in terms of published research, this will not be a formal meta-
analysis or systematic survey. There will be a good dose of subjectivity on display, shaped by my own
experiences as a teacher, scholar, and member of the CALL community. That perspective is also
determined by my long-term service at a public university in the United States, making it likely that there
will be an evident North American slant. While my primary focus is on the evolution of technology over
the last 25 years, I necessarily will be considering approaches as well to second language acquisition
(SLA) that have played a role in technology adoption and utilization. I begin with a look at specific tools
and environments for CALL–especially the web and mobile devices–then discuss more specifically the
evolving interface between CALL and SLA. I conclude with a look at metaphors for characterizing CALL
and at possible future directions.

CALL Tools and Environments

In the first issue of LLT, I wrote about streaming audio and video, innovations in 1997. The movement
away from physical media has continued since then, with streaming audio services such as Spotify and
streaming video companies like Netflix dominating the market. In the trash have gone CDs and DVDs.
Robert Godwin-Jones 7

The battle over digitizing standards and media formats seems quaint today, with once widely promoted
standards such as HD-DVD now a footnote in Wikipedia. For that matter, some of the format winners,
Blu-ray video, for example, have declined to near irrelevance. Media streaming will serve here as an
example of several general trends evident in the evolution of technology tools in general and in CALL
specifically over the last 25 years. I will focus principally on two blockbuster developments in that time
period, the world wide web and mobile phones, but will discuss others along the way. The trends I
highlight are: (a) the rise of networks and of multimodal communication, (b) the commercialization and
commodification of the Internet, and (c) the movement away from hands-on CALL development.
Networks and Multimedia
The rise of streaming video in the latter 1990s, integrated into web pages (through plug-ins), heralded the
arrival of networked multimedia. That has been accelerated in the last decade through mobile devices.
The early web seemed to promise the situation we have today in mobile technology, with multiple tools
and services integrated into a single platform. That was the promise of Java, embedded into webpages as
applets. Performance problems, incompatibilities, and security concerns doomed Java as a client-side web
technology (similarly with Flash), although Java still has a strong server-side presence. Other
transformative promises of the web have fallen by the wayside as well. At one point, we were headed
towards a 3-D web (Panichi et al., 2010). The dream of a "semantic web" (Berners-Lee et al., 2001)
turned into a fantasy as well, the tagging and taxonomies necessary turned out to be incompatible with
quick and dirty web authoring, which emerged as the de facto standard. The main culprit, however, as
discussed below, was different: as tech companies gained ever more users and power, an orderly,
organized web promised to provide fewer monetary gains.
In 1996, networks were wired, wireless alternatives were expensive, slow, and unreliable. Wi-Fi and fast,
ubiquitous cellular service have enabled the mobile revolution we continue to experience. That
connectivity to the world (and social media, email, chat, etc.) along with incredibly useful mobile
app/services (maps, streaming media, news, etc.) have created a new, intimate, and indispensable
relationship with technology through our phones (Eilola & Lilja, 2021). The smartphone ecosystem has
accelerated and cemented the multimodality of the incipient web through easier playback, capture, and
editing of audio and video. Apps today seamlessly and transparently combine text, sound, and images in a
handheld device with more processing power than desktop computers of the 1990s. Those of us who
recall the jerky, stamp-sized digital media of early QuickTime continue to marvel at where we are today.
From a language learning perspective, smartphones have brought additional benefits: easy text entry in
multiple script systems, ability to combine different languages in a single text, the anytime-anywhere
access to authentic L2 materials, the availability of L2 support services (dictionaries, translators,
flashcards, etc.) and more.
Of course, today, we see those language learning features of smartphones as a given and look to more
innovative uses of the mobile space, such as augmented reality (AR; Godwin-Jones, 2016a). Two of the
most downloaded articles in LLT over the last quarter century are columns on mobile apps (Godwin-
Jones, 2011) and on smartphones (Godwin-Jones, 2017), testimony to the continued importance of the
mobile space (see Guillén, 2021). The apps column, surprisingly to me, is in fact the number one
downloaded LLT article, despite the fact that it advocates for a direction in app development contrary to
subsequent mainline practice. I argued for web-based rather than proprietary apps, allowing for access on
multiple operating systems (and on web browsers) and using open standards. Few apps today are hybrid
in that way, although Ovide (2020) points to recent developments in mobile gaming that enable use on
smartphone web browsers as a possible general trend. I have argued frequently in LLT columns for the
use of technology standards, accessibility, interchangeable formats, and open resources. As Colpaert
(2016) argues, using open formats is important in technology sustainability, a key consideration in a field
in which there is a long history of projects and products suddenly disappearing.
8 Language Learning & Technology

Commercialization and Commodification

The early web for language learning was all about access to L2 materials (Godwin-Jones, 1996). No
longer did language instructors need to be sure to leave room in their suitcases from trips abroad to
include newspaper clippings, advertising supplements, restaurant menus, or printed train schedules. All
that and more became available electronically. Moreover, those realia did not come artificially packaged
and out of date in textbooks, but were culturally and linguistically authentic, written for local or national
populations. In that way, they offered the additional benefit of insights into regional cultural differences.
It took little time for language instructors to send their students online to conduct webquests (Godwin-
Jones, 2004) or to gather knowledge (and local contacts) in preparation for study abroad (Godwin-Jones,
2016b).
It was not long before a different kind of resource became available online, principally on the web, which
proved to be linguistically and culturally valuable. These were personal writing through blogs, travel
diaries, reviews, recipes – the kind of individual contribution initially labeled as the read-and-write web
and subsequently Web 2.0 (Godwin-Jones, 2003). As more people and more countries gained online
access, individuals and class-based exchanges became possible, opening what has proven to be one of the
most pedagogically effective uses of online access, namely virtual exchange or telecollaboration
(Godwin-Jones, 2019d). Exchanges started out as email and chat, often using the tandem model. The
Cultura project (Furstenberg et al., 2001) stands out as an outstanding model of telecollaboration, often
still used as an inspiration and model (Chun, 2014). Today, lingua franca, often multilateral exchanges
have proliferated through organizations such as Soliya or Erasmus+ pre-mobility (Dooly & O’Dowd,
2018). The wide use of virtual exchange has been enabled by access to free videoconferencing tools like
Skype and Zoom, available on mobile devices. Those services have become invaluable in a world in
which physical displacement and contact have eroded as a consequence of a global pandemic. Although
sometimes outsourced to commercial services (using, for example, TalkAbroad or Conversifi), virtual
exchange is one area in which open partnerships and initiatives among educators (through
UNICollaboration or other services) have predominated. The new Journal of Virtual Exchange is
testimony to the importance and wide use of this powerful learning activity.
While the web continues to be a tremendous boon to citizens, consumers, and educators, the original
vision of what the web could offer the world has faded. That utopian view was of a universally available
platform for free exchange of all voices and views and therefore an enabler of democracy and equality. A
recent series in the New York Times Magazine explores the many ways the Internet has evolved in a
different direction (So the Internet didn't turn out the way we hoped, 2019). One of the unfortunate
developments ironically has been through the devices which have brought online access to more and more
individuals, namely mobile phones. The popularity of apps has splintered online content and exchanges
into proprietary silos, which tend to perpetuate echo chambers. That movement is clearly present through
social media, with Facebook and Twitter as poster children. Smartphones have accelerated that tendency,
as they build distance between individuals fixated on their screens and physically present others, as well
as create walls between themselves and users of different apps. That has led to a situation described by
Turkle (2011) as “alone together” and by others as “networked individualism” (Rainie & Wellman, 2019).
The early web promise of an enlightened citizenry through universal access to information online has
withered as well in the face of ever more instantly shareable online misinformation, resulting in
widespread belief in conspiracy theories and outright lies. Unfortunately, the barriers to reliable
information from mainstream media have grown through the rise of paywalls. At the same time, intrusive
online advertising has made many websites and media almost unusable. That is the case, for example, for
YouTube, a resource that otherwise offers many opportunities for language learning (Terantino, 2011).
There is a significant further downside to the openness of the web, especially evident in social media,
namely the proliferation of hate speech and harassment. Companies whose existence depends on
advertising revenue (Facebook, Google) have been reluctant to risk losing users (and money) through
closer monitoring of content. This has led to the need for extreme caution in online access in educational
Robert Godwin-Jones 9

settings. Large language models, such as GPT-3 (Godwin-Jones, 2021), built on crawling the Internet
indiscriminately and collecting massive sets of data, inevitably contain biased, false, and harmful speech
(see Bender et al., 2021). Much of the negative language is aimed at black and brown populations and at
women. Jee (2021) suggests that a feminist orientation to the Internet would benefit not only women, but
everyone. That might take the form of new social media platforms, such as the recently released Herd,
which is much more customizable than Facebook, allowing, for example, for adjustments to feed
parameters and supplying additional privacy options. Berners-Lee, the originator of the web, has recently
begun an initiative through an open-source software project, Solid, to counter online hegemony and
personal tracking (Lohr, 2021). Another approach might be the application of non-Western frameworks to
the ethics of data use and collection. Williams et al. (2020) advocate for the integration of Confucian life
ethics for language models used in robotics. Ethical issues in data collection and use have come to the
fore in recent years among the general public, commercial technology firms, and AI developers (see
D’Ignazio & Klein, 2020). Privacy and ethics concerns are critical in CALL as well and need to be a
major topic in teacher education (Hubbard, 2017).
From Do It Yourself to Do It For Me
The movement towards the commercialization of online spaces occurred at a time when ever more people
have the opportunity to be not just consumers, but producers of content. In fact, this has created new
pathways to wealth through online "influencers" and YouTube stars. In contrast to content creation in the
early web, today few technical skills are needed to post content online. There is no need to learn the
scripting language of the web, HTML, just as there is no need for dedicated desktop applications for
audio or video recording/editing. Everything can be done easily on a phone. This has led to an overflow
of online content, so that separating the wheat from the chaff has become increasingly more difficult and
time-consuming. This represents a big shift in what today constitutes digital literacy. The emphasis has
moved from how to use online tools and services, to how to find and consume trustworthy and personally
appropriate content. That may involve the ability to find an individually effective way to organize and
retrieve information on one’s phone and in the cloud, as demonstrated in the migrant learner of Finnish
profiled in Eilola and Lilja (2021), who finds unique but effective ways to record and quickly retrieve
notes on vocabulary encountered in the wild.
A parallel shift has occurred for language teachers. By the 1990’s we were already far removed from the
earliest days of CALL. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was expected that one be proficient at programming.
The landmark CALL book by Higgins and Johns (1984) consisted largely of a set of subroutines in
BASIC. The web originally was similar. To post content you not only needed to learn HTML, but also
how to transfer files to a server using FTP, and possibly even how to set up and run a web server of your
own. To add interactivity to your web page you would have needed to learn Perl or Java to create server-
side scripts. Browser-based interactivity through JavaScript arrived in 1995 and required as well a basic
knowledge of programming concepts. While of course it is still possible to create one’s own webpages,
the process has become more involved, largely because the contemporary web of HTML5 offers so much
more in terms of user interface, element positioning, and interactivity (Godwin-Jones, 2014). As a result,
web code has become much more complex, with web creators using widely distributed scripting libraries
such as JQuery, combined with data formatted in JSON (JavaScript Object Notation). At the same time,
form-based pages with text entry options have yielded to easier (and more flexible) contributions to
websites and social media. That includes easy ways to embed images or videos.
For instructors using the web in classroom settings, another development has removed the need to know
how to create webpages, namely the rise of learning management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard,
Canvas, or Moodle. Such services are now widely used, especially at the tertiary level, and allow
instructors to create shells for their classes which handle efficiently posting assignments, collecting and
grading homework, maintaining a gradebook, setting up discussion forums or journals, and sharing
content. The benefits of using an LMS are sometimes seen as offset by the limitations inherent in their
use, leading professors to assume that the sum total of what is possible to do online is represented by that
10 Language Learning & Technology

proprietary system. Critics point as well to the fact that content created by both instructors and students is
trapped within the system and that achieving a comfort level in using an LMS is hardly a useful skill for
life and work after graduation (Godwin-Jones, 2012). For language instructors, another widely adopted
option provides a resource for learning materials not needed to be created locally, namely publisher sites
that most often accompany commercial textbooks. While these electronic workbooks are widely used, the
design and functionality has been criticized, shown to be one of the main reasons students dislike hybrid
language classes (Anderson, 2018; Lomicka & Lord, 2019). In fact, most publisher sites revert to a
behaviorist model of language learning, with mechanical practice and little emphasis on meaningful
communicative tasks (Sharma, 2017).
The wide use of commercial materials may be one of the principal reasons that open educational
resources (OER) has not lived up to the promise many of us saw in that movement, although recent
evidence suggests perhaps new impetus arising for open resources (Blyth & Thoms, 2021; Comas-Quinn
et al., 2019), as well as for student-generated resources (Narwood, 2021). The Boise State Pathways
Repository for OER provides a useful model for locally developed but nationally distributed open
learning materials. Bañados (2006) and Garza (2016) provide models for hybrid and online learning that
go beyond the LMS and publisher sites, integrating a wide variety of open tools and services that are
designed to complement each other. Combining learning resources, as determined by contextual
appropriateness, departs from an all-in-one content strategy, moving towards the concept of “atomized
CALL,” as outlined in Gimeno-Sanz (2016). To counter the possibility that selected tools or services will
become unavailable or obsolete by the time they are ready to be deployed, Sykes and González-Lloret
(2020) argue for possible partnerships with commercial developers. An alternative is to seek out open,
sustainable resources or to develop pedagogical materials with colleagues and/or students (Mathieu et al.,
2019). Partnerships with nonprofits or government-funded initiatives is another route. That has long been
possible within the EU, although many projects remain prototypes rather than ongoing tools or services.
In the US, federally funded national language centers offer avenues for funding and expertise. That is the
model, in fact, that has allowed LLT to exist for 25 years. Given the wave of newly online or hybrid L2
courses arising out of the pandemic, we can hope that new approaches can supply alternative models for
online learning integrating open resources (Godwin-Jones, 2020a). As discussed below, new models
ideally will be based on lessons learned from recent research in SLA.

CALL Development from an SLA Perspective

Electronic workbooks from publishers and online language learning services, such as Duolingo or Babble,
generally use an approach to SLA aligned to a cognitive model of language, with a traditional division
into separate skills and a separation of lexis, syntax, and morphology (Guillén et al., 2018). Language is
presented as a discrete set of knowledge to be learned, with right or wrong choices and with the end goal
of native-like fluency and correctness. While contextual language use through interactions with peers or
tutors is often an available feature in commercial language services, it is not the core of the approach, and
sometimes is available only through a premium upgrade. I will argue here that, despite the popularity of
commercial publishers and online language learning products and services, CALL approaches that are
more oriented towards developments in SLA theory and research findings point in quite different
directions. Those include: (a) the centrality of socio-cultural learning in SLA, (b) a model of language
based on usage-based theories, (c) the evidence of the effectiveness in the use of leisure-oriented informal
language learning resources, and (d) the reality of widespread multilingualism.
Socio-Cultural Learning
It has been increasingly recognized in SLA theory that more than cognitive processes are involved in
learning a second language (L2; Atkinson, 2014; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006). Human language is a
social phenomenon and socialization plays a major role in learning our first language; this too is true in
subsequent languages (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 1995). We learn language by using it (Larsen-Freeman,
2015). In CALL, social learning has underpinned the rise of computer-mediated communication (CMC),
Robert Godwin-Jones 11

the use of email exchanges, text chat, and discussion forums to provide opportunities for real use of
language by learners (Thorne, 2008). Today, virtual exchange, most often involving videoconferencing,
has become an important addition to instructed SLA. While they do not duplicate the process of in-person
communication (Kern, 2014), video exchanges do represent embodied communication, allowing for affect
displays, gestures, and physical surroundings to be part of the messaging. Recent research in SLA has
highlighted the reality of embodied and distributed cognition (Guerrettaz et al., 2021; Thorne et al., 2021).
A major benefit of having learners engage in online exchanges is the potential for gaining insight into the
importance of language pragmatics, the use of language in culturally and contextually appropriate ways
(Culpeper et al., 2018). Learners gain experience in culturally determined practices, such as turn-taking,
topic switching, politeness conventions, and forms of address; in linguistic phenomena like intonation and
register; and in meta-linguistic factors such as backchanneling or asking for help/clarification. These are
areas rarely included in classroom instruction or covered in textbooks. They are slippery concepts in
contrast to grammar and vocabulary learning. As there are no hard and fast rules, but rather patterns of
usage established by convention, pragmatic language is best learned in actual language use. Explicit
instruction can be helpful (Sykes & Cohen, 2018). Communication breakdowns resulting from faulty
pragmatic transfer or pragmatic ignorance may be embarrassing, but can represent "rich points" (Agar,
1994), likely to be a memorable learning experiences through emotional resonance (Helm, 2013). The
development of self-awareness through encounters with disorienting dilemmas (linguistic or cultural) can
be a transformative learning experience (see Leaver, 2021).
Although mostly neglected in commercial language learning services, the importance of pragmatics has
become much more recognized today than it was 25 years ago. There is substantial evidence of its more
frequent appearance in L2 instruction, both in the classroom (Taguchi, 2015) and as an independent
online resource (Yeh & Swinehart, 2020). Still, SLA research continues to focus predominantly on
language complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), rather than on adequacy and appropriateness
(González-Lloret, 2019). CALL research has dealt with pragmatics mostly in the context of CMC and
telecollaboration (González-Lloret, 2019). Promising new directions in pragmatics and CALL are studies
examining conventions and practices in different online communities (Yeh & Swinehart, 2020, on
Reddit), on specific tool use (Sykes, 2019, on hashtags), or on recreational activities (Sykes & Dubreil,
2019, on gaming). Of particular usefulness are online resources for help in the difficult task of assessing
pragmatics learning (Sykes et al., in press).
The Usage-Based Language Model
The increased recognition of the importance of pragmatics in SLA parallels a movement away from a
model of language built on rules to one based on patterns. A usage-based perspective highlights the
importance of word groupings, chunks of language conventionally used together (Ellis, 2017). Those
groupings combine lexis and grammar and can range from collocations to frequent syntactical structures.
This model of language has been supported by studies in corpus linguistics and by the practice of
conversation analysis (CA; Seedhouse, 2005). González-Lloret (2015) provides a useful overview of the
use of CA in CALL. Multimodal CA, integrating transcripts with images from video recordings, has
become an effective means to analyze exchanges, demonstrating the important role played by physical
surroundings, objects, and body language/gesture/gaze (Eilola & Lilja, 2021; Thorne et al., 2021).
Patterns of language are learned through frequency and saliency. Language learning from this perspective
is a statistical process (Ellis, 2017), based on exposure to patterns in context. As with pragmatics, explicit
instruction has shown to be helpful (Ellis, 2008). Data-informed approaches to SLA leverage the large
collections of actual language usage available in corpora to point to patterns prominent in a given
language. Studies have shown how corpus-based instruction can be helpful in students learning
constructions that are important, but quite different in nature from students' native language (Boulton &
Cobb, 2017). An inductive approach to data-based learning involves students being given a set of data
(sample sentences) drawn from a corpus and tasked with analyzing and finding regularities and
commonalities in order to uncover and learn patterns. For many learners this active, discovery-based
12 Language Learning & Technology

learning can be quite effective (Flowerdew, 2015). Similar insights into specific use of constructions as
well as into metalinguistic knowledge of how language works can be gained through CA, a technique
mostly associated with research, but which is useful in instructional settings as well (see McConachy,
2017).
I first wrote about corpora in LLT 20 years ago (Godwin-Jones, 2001) and have since written repeatedly
on data-informed language learning. It has been argued that corpus use has gone mainstream (Boulton &
Cobb, 2017). That may be the case among researchers in applied linguistics, but I am skeptical to what
extent hands-on corpus access is widely used in instruction (see also Chambers, 2019). On the other hand,
corpora have positively influenced textbook authoring, dictionary compilation, and other language
tools/services. Although data collection and analysis play a central role in CALL, a recent issue of LLT on
big data generated fewer submissions than usual and only two accepted papers (Reinders & Lan, 2021),
perhaps a sign that the topic is not seen today as being as promising in its usefulness as I and others
(Kessler, 2018) have thought. The explanation could be related as well to the technical requirements of
dealing with big data and artificial intelligence (Godwin-Jones, 2021). It reflects perhaps as well a decline
in research activity in iCALL (i.e. intelligent L2 tutors), as that direction necessarily involves both
sophisticated data collection/analysis and natural language processing (Lu, 2018; see, however, Chinkina
and Meurers, 2017, for an example of innovative AI-based iCALL). Advanced techniques in learning
analysis have shown that the use of AI tools in data analysis is worthwhile. That is demonstrated, for
example, in the use of clustering techniques to identify salient patterns in small groups, as seen in Lee et
al. (2019) or Peng et al. (2020). Similarly, AI-based tools for social network analysis are being used to
uncover usage and learning patterns (Butler & Liu, 2019), with visualization tools being helpful in
illustrating trends and models (Youngs et al., 2018). Such approaches can provide informative results that
move beyond whole group results or averages to reveal important variations in outcomes.
Although a usage-based understanding of language, with its emphasis on the importance of examining
words in context, is today widely accepted in applied linguistics, its impact on practices and products for
learning grammar and vocabulary has been minimal. Commercial language learning services and
publisher sites emphasize discrete grammar knowledge, separate from vocabulary. Dedicated vocabulary
learning, although today improved through tools like Memrise that feature sophisticated spacing
algorithms and crowdsourcing of mnemonic devices, continues to focus on individual words, rather than
on phrasal integration or collocations (Godwin-Jones, 2018).
Informal Language Learning
In recent years, a number of studies have highlighted an approach to SLA which draws on usage-based
theory, namely the use of leisure-oriented informal language learning resources online. Much of that
research has focused on learners of English, for whom there are particularly rich resources available
online (Kusyk, 2017; Sockett, 2014; Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2016). This phenomenon has been made
possible through the growing availability in many countries of streaming audio and video services that
provide free or low-cost access to popular music, television series, or movies. Particularly effective is
video programming which features characters in repeating roles and in similar situations from one episode
to the next. Those include situation comedies, soap operas, or blockbuster movie franchises. Incidental
language learning comes through both the entertainment value – leading to frequent viewing – and the
exposure to characters' idiolects and recurring language patterns. This has its theoretical basis in usage-
based linguistics.
It is not only media consumption that has been studied as a source of SLA, but social media and
participation in affinity groups as well. These are activities in which L2 learner users engage for
enjoyment or socialization, but which have a potential byproduct of SLA. Fanfiction has come to the fore
in recent years as an activity that can represent a powerful combination of agentic action, identity
exploration, extensive L2 writing, and community building/mentoring (Sauro, 2017). Studies of the role
of Facebook in language learning have shown as well the complex intertwining of identity construction,
socialization, and creative language use on that platform (Baker & Sangiamchit, 2019). That has been
Robert Godwin-Jones 13

shown to be the case in online gaming as well (Scholz & Schulze, 2017). In fact, gaming — in its many
different iterations — is one of the success stories in CALL in recent years, even if not a universally
appealing activity (Chun, 2019). The combination of entertainment/competition (emotional investment),
identity exploration (through avatars), group interactions, and pragmatic language use make multiplayer
online games an ideal vehicle for second language learning (Reinhardt, 2019). Widely popular gaming
platforms such as Fortnite, Roblox, or Minecraft have evolved beyond simply gaming, becoming more
akin to social networks. Indeed, some are foreseeing a metaverse (a universally shared, always on virtual
space, as in Stevenson’s Snow Crash, 1982) built around a platform such as Fortnite (Park, 2020).
On the other hand, the recreational use of immersive technology platforms, which seemed to hold such
promise for language learning, have faded, with the rise and fall of Second Life (see Hubbard, 2019). On
the other hand, more recent products such as ImmerseMe or Mondly offer interesting immersive
opportunities for language learning (Fryer et al., 2020). Makransky and Petersen (2021) offer a promising
theoretical framework for integrating immersive VR into educational practice. As is the case with Second
Life, other once promising technologies and consumer products have morphed into different forms.
Electronic whiteboards, for example, have been replaced with handheld tablets, Microsoft Kinect by
personal robots. Smartphones have disposed of a whole range of consumer products, including cameras
(still and video), personal digital assistants (Newton, Palm), GPS devices, dedicated music players
(iPods), and voice recorders. Meanwhile, new consumer devices (smart glasses, home speakers, car
consoles) seem poised to offer new avenues for informal language learning (Godwin-Jones, 2019a).
Translanguaging
A characteristic increasingly recognized as salient in online language use, such as in social media or
multiplayer gaming, is its multilingual nature (Ortega, 2017, 2019). Researchers have demonstrated, for
example, how many Facebook exchanges involve multiple languages (Kulavuz-Onal & Vásquez, 2018).
This reflects current understanding of L2 development: that a learner's L1 does not simply go away while
the L2 is practiced, but rather is constantly in the background, influencing L2 use (Blommaert &
Rampton , 2015). The intertwining of languages cognitively and socially has been characterized with the
term translanguaging (García & Li, 2014). The reality of that phenomenon–perhaps more evident today
than ever before, especially in online environments–calls into question the historical approach to
instructed SLA of striving to create a monolingual native speaker equivalent in the learner. Instead,
learners can be thought of as developing a set of "mobile symbiotic resources" (Blommaert , 2010, p. 43),
with an awareness of how they are used appropriately in different contexts. Mixing languages can be
natural and accepted in some situations but not in others. Multilingual awareness and meta-linguistic
knowledge are recognized today as important goals in instructed SLA (Ortega, 2019). That movement
translates into classroom practice in terms of the use of the target language only as well as in a
recognition of the value of translation activities (Kramsch, 2020).
Exposure to L2 communities online provides a rich demonstration of translanguaging. It also is
increasingly evident that there is the potential in such activities for significant intercultural learning and
enhanced global awareness. That has led to greater emphasis being placed in SLA on leading students
towards more awareness and experience with cross-cultural communication, so as to develop "critical
intercultural awareness" (Byram, 1997, p. 19). SLA researchers in recent years have raised the idea that
language learning has a socio-political significance and that therefore language learning should be viewed
as an instrument for advocating social justice and developing in students a sense of global citizenship
(Lenkaitis & Loranc-Paszylk, 2019) or "critical cosmopolitanism" (Jackson, 2018). That has been the case
in CALL as well (Anwaruddin, 2019; Hellmich, 2019). Studies such as Kukulska-Hulme et al. (2015) and
Eilola and Lilja (2021) demonstrate how smartphone use among communities of learners can become a
resource for joint social action.
Multilingualism has been slow to gain a foothold in CALL (Buendgens -Kosten, 2020; Ortega, 2017).
Few CALL projects or products support plurilingual skill development. In addition to incorporating
multiple languages in interfaces and content, desirable as well is the possible integration of language
14 Language Learning & Technology

variants, such as demonstrated in Papin (2018), which discusses an immersive learning tool featuring
variations on continental French. The perspective on languages in CALL tends to be even more restricted,
in that the overwhelming focus has been on English language instruction (Sauro, 2016). At the same time,
the ubiquity of English language instruction has led to many more opportunities for exchanges among
English learners. Research in this area has provided interesting insights into English as a lingua franca
(Baker & Sangiamchit, 2019) and English use in international contact zones (Canagarajah, 2014).
Findings from research in these areas can be informative for CALL research (Godwin-Jones, 2020b),
given that the Internet today provides a multilingual contact zone as never experienced before (Thorne et
al., 2015).

CALL Metaphors and Future Directions

In a recent monograph in the Modern Language Journal, Levine (2020) outlines a "human ecological
approach to language pedagogy" (p. 9) in which he presents SLA as a transformative process, both for the
individual and potentially for society as a whole. He argues for facilitating learner agency through choice,
fostering the capability for critical examination, and highlighting the crucial role of the narrative
imagination. Basing his pedagogical model on sociocultural theory and complex dynamic systems theory,
Levine argues that given the complexity, multilingualism, and politically volatile world of the 21 st
century, a new language pedagogy is needed that takes into consideration both issues of social justice and
the multiplicity of opportunities for SLA today beyond the classroom. Repeatedly in the monograph,
Levine uses the same metaphor for emphasizing the variability of language learning trajectories, the
impact of initial conditions for SLA, and the crucial role of the learning environments encountered,
namely that of a surfer riding ocean waves:
The complex system that is the surfer, the board, the wave (itself an entity in a complex ecological
system), and other elements and processes less relevant to our illustration, come into being the
moment the surfer steps onto the board to ride the wave. For those exciting seconds (exciting for the
surfer as the only sentient agent in this particular system, or perhaps for us as spectators), all the
entities that make up the system are interconnected and in fact interdependent. The nature of the ride
will depend on factors such as the skill of the surfer, the shape of the wave at any given instant, the
wind, and so forth (p. 22).
Levine (2020) goes on to explain how that dynamic of the surfer corresponds to a classroom language
learner:
While one certainly can draw metaphorical parallels between a surfer riding a wave and a language
learner learning a new language, the point here is indeed that the nature of dynamic,
interconnectedness in a language classroom is akin to that of the surfer riding the wave. The initial
conditions of the system are crucial, that is, the sorts of knowledge, abilities, and traits of each
individual, the dynamics of the classroom community, the experience, knowledge, and skills of the
teacher, features of the physical and social context, and so forth, all impact the developmental and
language-use paths individuals follow in whatever period of time the system exists (p. 23).
Interestingly, that metaphor of the surfer is what I used as well in a recent LLT column on learner
autonomy (Godwin-Jones, 2019c). I argued that the complex ecological system of the ocean surfer–with
its interdependent dynamic of body and environment–parallels the contemporary language learner,
especially through reliance on online informal language learning:
Successful outcomes are not assured and are dependent on both the individual’s background,
initiative, and competence, as well as on local conditions. The surfer’s trajectory, like that of the
language learner, is susceptible to the kind of initial conditions at hand (of the individual and of the
environment), both of which are subject to constant change. Second language (L2) development is a
dynamic process, often nonlinear and episodic, making static or linear metaphors of mastery or
programmatic progression invalid (Godwin-Jones, 2019c, p. 9).
Robert Godwin-Jones 15

Language learning trajectories depend on an ever-changing array of affordances that derive from
interactions of learner agency with the resources available at a given time and space. As Levine
comments, "To stretch the surfer metaphor just a bit more, from a pedagogical perspective, it is not about
trying to predict a particular outcome but rather smoothing the way for the learner " (p. 24). That in a
nutshell is our task as language educators and CALL practitioners, to help steer the learner, living "at the
edge of chaos" (Finch, 2010, p. 423), to find the pathways over time likely to be most beneficial. That
translates into rejecting a one-size-fits-all pedagogy and focusing on individual trajectories, in line with
increasing calls in SLA theory for a person-centered approach (Benson, 2017; Larsen-Freeman, 2018).
One of the most noticeable trends in CALL research reflects this direction, namely the proliferation of
qualitative studies which examine individual learners or small groups (Chun, 2019). Analysis of learners'
language diaries or learning histories can be revelatory (Benson & Nunan, 2005).
Reinhardt (2020) has written recently that CALL from its earliest days has used metaphors to characterize
how computers can be helpful in language learning. Those include the frequently encountered images of
the computer as "tool" or as "tutor":
Though the first CALL programs were tutors, mobile language apps like DuoLingo incorporate
activities that reflect this metaphor still today. As a result, many users still think of technology as an
L2 teacher, rather than as a tool used by the learner or teacher constructively. In contrast to a tutor, a
computer that is understood as a tool is not the sole source of knowledge, but rather it serves as a
means to develop or access knowledge, aligning with cognitive‐constructivist understandings of
language and learner‐centered approaches to instruction (p. 235)
Reinhardt points out that through the rise of social and collaborative learning in conjunction with the
contemporary web, a “new metaphor of technology as community or ecology emerged, a derivative of the
tool metaphor but going a step further and recognizing the socially networked and interconnected nature
of the use of tools” (p. 235). Reinhardt asserts that the tool metaphor does not adequately describe the
reciprocal relationship of user and environment in social media, namely that the user contributes to an
online environment (blog, forum, fansite, for example) and in the process changes that environment.
This aligns with recent assessments of the relationship between learner and the environment. Levine
(2020) calls for new views on context, not viewing it as background, but as a vital, fully participating, and
dynamic actor in the learning process. This echoes the “material turn” in language education (Guerrettaz
et al., 2021, p. 4) as demonstrated in studies by Canagarajah (2018) and Pennycook (2018).
Sociomaterialism, as discussed in Guerrettaz et al. (2021), has a particular appeal for CALL research, as it
proposes to break down barriers between learning materials and the social world. Exploring the complex
relationship between humans and objects is becoming recognized in CALL research as an important area
of study, as seen in studies associated with the “maker” movement (Dubreil & Lord, 2020). The view of
materials as “emergent assemblages” (Guerrettaz et al., 2021, p. 11), whose use and usefulness may vary
widely depending on user conditions, helps to illuminate the complexity and variability in SLA today.
Researchers have invented new terminology to characterize the intertwined relationship of individual,
language learning, and environment, such as mindbodyworld (Atkinson, 2014), structured
unpredictability (Little & Thorne, 2017), or rewilding (Thorne et al., 2021). These formulations strive to
integrate scientific studies examining organisms in their environments, such as the concept of Umwelt in
biosemiotics (Von Uexküll, 1909) or that of organism-environment system from psychology (Järvilehto,
2009). Such concepts postulate an expanded, dynamic, and distributed sense of cognition and agency,
shared between the individual and the environment.
16 Language Learning & Technology

Recognizing the limitations in the view of CALL materials as tools, Reinhardt (2020) proposes a new set
of metaphors:
I propose an additional set of metaphors that construe social media apps, sites, and services not only
as tutor, tool, or communities, but as windows, mirrors, doorways, and playgrounds. These metaphors
capture user action, perception, and reflection, which are key to understanding them as part of
ecologies of language learning and use (p. 236).
I believe these metaphors are helpful in pointing out how online media today makes two-way
communication and actions possible (windows, doors), but also can lead to self-reflection and self-
knowledge (mirrors), as well as allowing for entertainment and gaming (playgrounds). I would add an
additional metaphor which I believe is helpful in envisioning the dynamic relationship of the learner,
instructed SLA, and informal online resources, namely the porous classroom (Breen, 1999). The
emphasis in this metaphor is on opening up instruction to what lies beyond classroom walls, such as local
communities and constituencies, as well as further afield through technology, remote resources and
communities (Godwin-Jones, 2020a). A similar image is that of the invisible classroom, associated with
the concept of transformative language learning and teaching which stresses the use of local resources,
learner autonomy, and open learning materials (Leaver, 2021).
The image of a porous classroom and Levine's concept of a human ecological approach to SLA point to
the dynamism and unpredictability of modern SLA. I argue that this should inform CALL research today
(Godwin-Jones, 2019b). From a CALL research perspective, another useful metaphor for understanding
the process of SLA, brought over from science, is chaos theory, emphasizing the complexity of the
emergent nature of learning trajectories (Larsen-Freeman, 1997). In that sense, CALL, I believe, has
transitioned away from being accurately described using comparisons with engineering. We are certainly
able to look back at successful language learning and try to understand the processes, but being able to
predict reliably based on needs analyses and rational design will carry our understanding of such a
dynamic and individualized process only so far. From that perspective, unexpected outcomes are not
failures, but should be expected, seen as natural results of complex interactions among humans and non-
humans. According to Guerrettaz et al. (2021), that situation should inform teacher education, with
“training that emphasizes recognition and responsiveness over controlled planning” (p. 17). An
understanding of the ecological nature of language learning (Chun, 2016)–the crucial role that the
learning environment plays in dynamic interaction with individual learners–can help teachers expect
diverse student learning outcomes and cope with the reality that instruction does not universally or
automatically result in learning. For researchers in applied linguistics, ecological frameworks, such as
complex dynamic systems, sociomaterialism, or actor-network theory (Latour, 2005), help move us
beyond problematic theories such as the accumulation metaphor for learning grammar, the assumed
linearity of SLA, and the division between implicit and explicit learning (Chapelle, 2009; Larsen-
Freeman, 2015). In CALL, the application of these frameworks points to the ecological invalidity of a
determinist orientation to cause and effect studies, particularly those based exclusively on results from
pre- and post-testing (Godwin-Jones, 2019b).
The last decades have demonstrated how variable the pathways to learning have become. Future
developments are likely to make that even more the case. Mobile devices will continue to be constant
companions and are likely to be joined by wearable devices. The emerging Internet of Things will be
present as well in homes and cars, enabled through fast 5G networks. We have already seen the
widespread use of virtual assistants (Apple's Siri, Google Assistant, Amazon’s Alexa) in smart speakers,
automobile dashboards, and earbuds (Dizon, 2020). The services supplied by these virtual assistants,
powered by advances in artificial intelligence and the collection of huge datasets, will continue to expand
and improve (Godwin-Jones, 2021). Improvements in natural language processing through neural
networks have made big strides, as evident in the dramatic improvement in the quality of Google
Translate (Johnson et al., 2017). Automatic speech recognition and voice synthesis, as seen in Google
Duplex, come close to being able to replicate human to human conversations (González-Lloret, 2019).
Robert Godwin-Jones 17

Periodically, VR appears to be on the verge of going mainstream, but has been hampered by the cost of
the hardware, mixed user experiences, and the difficulty in customizing applications to specific
environments (Blyth, 2018). AR, on the other hand, seems likely to take off in the near future, with the
launch of smart glasses by companies like Apple and Google (Parmaxi & Demetriou, 2020). They are
likely to be paired with mobile phone apps and to offer not just tourist-level language help and translation,
but exciting opportunities for in-place language learning. The future is already evident in AR apps such as
Mentira (Holden & Sykes, 2012) or Chrono-Ops (Thorne, 2013) which integrate collaborative learning,
gamification, and both virtual and local human resources. Mentira is exemplary in that it targets
pragmatic language use in Spanish, with users linguistically successful in encounters not due to
grammatical correctness, but rather through contextual appropriateness. A recent study using Chrono-Ops
demonstrates how the dynamic relationship of human and non-human actors can carry over to language
learning in the wild (Thorne et al., 2021). A water fountain becomes a focal point for noticing (Schmidt,
2012), both from a linguistic and from a sociomaterialist perspective, with “[the] physicality of the water
fountain – its visibility, size, and the sound of the flowing water in the fountain — prompted the noticing
of the fountain by a participant, and subsequently the fountain became a resource to list and discuss as
part of completing the task” (Thorne et al., 2021, p. 111). Another striking example of this phenomenon
of assemblage (of resources) and entanglement (of people and objects) is the role that a tree plays in an
Ojibwe lesson, taught in the woods (Engman & Hermes, 2021).
While AR represents the high end on the technology scale, there has been growing recognition in recent
years within the CALL community that we need to keep in mind communities of learners who do not
have access to the latest and greatest technology resources (Joshi et al., 2019). Those include underserved
populations in developing nations, as well as disenfranchised groups in the developed world (rural and
urban poor, communities of color). We should be aware that the much-ballyhooed rise of informal
language learning through leisure time, extensive film/TV viewing is not available to wide swaths of the
world due to lack of funds, time, or space. While autonomous, self-directed English language learning is
often viewed as an avenue of socio-economic advancement, that opportunity in reality is denied to those
who lack basic necessities such as reliable power, affordable Internet, or sufficient time, space, and
leisure to binge watch episodes of Friends.
More attention is being paid to the language needs of migrants and refugee populations (Charitonos &
Kukulska-Hulme, 2017). Their language learning situation is quite different from that of university
students in the West completing a language requirement or learning for leisure and travel. Studies
continue to explore how under-resourced communities can use resources available on inexpensive phones
such as chat or the popular WhatsApp for language learning (Kartal, 2019). One of the language learning
activities that is low resource but creative in its potential is interactive fiction. This text-based activity has
been around since the pre-multimedia days but has seen increased interest recently (Pereira, 2018), often
in the context of fanfiction (Cornillie et al., 2021). Twine, an open-source tool for telling interactive
stories, has become quite popular (Buendgens -Kosten, 2021).

Conclusion

In the United States, language learning in schools and universities is on the decline. There is a growing
emphasis on practical job skills and preparing students for life after graduation. That has led to increased
enrollment in STEM fields and away from the liberal arts. At the same time there is a growing recognition
that despite widespread concerns over globalization, held responsible for the growth of socio-economic
inequality, and the rise of nationalist politics, global interconnectivity is here to stay. Global crises, from
pandemics to global warming to mass migrations can only be solved globally. If that is the case, language
learning should be widely promoted, being, as it is, at the core of international understanding. The CALL
community can play an important role in enabling and encouraging more language learning. Twenty years
ago, a colleague from down the road from me, Rachel Saury, at the University of Virginia, wrote a piece
in Change entitled "A day in the life of Thomas Baggett: Technology and the making of an international
18 Language Learning & Technology

intellectual community in the year 2020" (2001). It is in many ways a remarkably foresighted vision of
language learning and technology. She envisions a student at UVA double majoring in Francophone
African studies and public policy. He is learning both French and an indigenous west African language in
a hybrid learning environment, with extensive use of video conferencing, collaborative writing software,
jointly annotated websites, and recorded digital video lectures. On the other hand, Saury (2001) did not
anticipate the mobile revolution: Thomas has to go to the language lab to complete some assignments.
What I find most impressive about the article is the role she lays out for how technology can be leveraged
in the future to facilitate international cooperation and cultural understanding:
Given the realities and challenges of a growing international community, what would happen if we
concentrated the emerging benefits of technology on creating future peacemakers? Would further
violence be prevented? Would the health and welfare of more people be improved? Would the
importance of human rights, and of reaching for and maintaining equality among human beings,
become more commonly accepted? (p. 23)
Saury visualizes an "international intellectual community", largely built on advanced technologies, but the
goals of which go well beyond language learning:
To me, four things define international intellectual community both as a field of inquiry and as an
object of study for our students. First, it entails a keen sense of interconnectedness with all beings
worldwide, fostered and supported by the knowledge of multiple languages, cultures, and/or cultural
practices. Second, it requires the ability to make cross-cultural connections as a matter of regular
practice, both in person and electronically. Third, it implies an imperative to choose a profession
through which a positive impact can be made on human suffering and/or the health of the
environment on a global scale. Fourth and last, it demands development of critical thinking skills
grounded in the liberal arts (p. 23).
Saury's comments at the end are even more true today than when written 20 years ago: "We are truly rich
in hardware and software. But how willing are we to take on the global responsibility that our riches
afford us? How rich are we in practice and in vision?" (p. 23). Technology in and of itself, no matter how
powerful the advances, cannot solve the world's problems, but if we find ways to harness its help in
language learning, cultural understanding, and interconnections, that can be a boon to both individuals
and society as a whole.

References

Agar, M. (1994). Language shock. Quill.

Anderson, H. M. (2018). Blended basic language courses: Design, pedagogy, and implementation.
Routledge.
Anwaruddin, S. M. (2019). Teaching language, promoting social justice: A dialogic approach to using
social media. CALICO Journal, 36(1), 1–18.
Atkinson, D. (2014). Language learning in mindbodyworld: A sociocognitive approach to second
language acquisition. Language Teaching, 47(4), 467– 483
Baker, W., & Sangiamchit, C. (2019). Transcultural communication: Language, communication and
culture through English as a lingua franca in a social network community. Language and
Intercultural Communication, 19(6), 471–487.
Bañados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully
through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533–550.
Robert Godwin-Jones 19

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic
parrots: Can language models be too big? . In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on
Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery.
Benson, P. (2017). Language learning beyond the classroom: Access all areas. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal, 8(2), 135–146.
Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (Eds.) (2005). Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., & Lassila, O. (2001). The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5), 34–43.
Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2016). Language and superdiversity. In K. Arnaut., J. Blommaert, B.
Rampton, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Language and superdiversity (pp. 21–48). Routledge.
Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 225–
232.
Blyth, C., & Thoms, J. J. (2021). Open education and second language learning and teaching.
Multilingual Matters.
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning,
67(2), 348–393.
Breen, M. P. (1999). Teaching language in the postmodern classroom. In R. Ribé (Ed.), Developing
learner autonomy in foreign language learning (pp. 47–64). University of Barcelona Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual
Matters.
Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2020). The monolingual problem of computer-assisted language
learning. ReCALL, 32(3), 307–322.
Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2021). Digital storytelling: Multimodal meaning making. In T. Beaven & F.
Rosell-Aguilar (Eds), Innovative language pedagogy report (pp. 103–108). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2021.50.1243
Butler, Y. G., & Liu, Y. (2019). The role of peers in young learners' English learning: A longitudinal case
study in China. In M. Sato, & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence–based second language pedagogy: A
collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 145–167). Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2014). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May
(Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 78–102).
Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2018). Materializing ‘competence’: Perspectives from interactional STEM scholars.
Modern Language Journal, 102, 268–291.
Chambers, A. (2019). Towards the corpus revolution? Bridging the research–practice gap. Language
Teaching, 52(4), 460–475.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer‐
assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 741–753.
Charitonos, K. & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2017). Community-based interventions for language learning
among refugees and migrants. In R. Talhouk, V. Vlachokyriakos, K. Aal, A. Weibert, S. Ahmed, K.
Fisher, & V. Wulf (Eds.), Refugees & HCI workshop: The role of HCI in responding to the refugee
crisis, communities & technologies (pp. 26–30). Association for Computing Machinery.
http://oro.open.ac.uk/49677/4/ACM_HCI%20Refugees_Charitonos%2BKukulska-Hulme.pdf
20 Language Learning & Technology

Chinkina, M., & Meurers, D. (2017). Question generation for language learning: From ensuring texts are
read to supporting learning. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on innovative use of NLP for
building educational applications (pp. 334–344). Association for Computational Linguistics.
http://aclweb.org/anthology/W17-5038.pdf
Chun, D. M. (Ed.). (2014). Cultura-inspired intercultural exchanges: Focus on Asian and Pacific
languages. University of Hawaiʻi, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Chun, D. M. (2016). The role of technology in SLA research. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2),
98–115. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44463/20_02_chun.pdf
Chun, D. M. (2019). Current and future directions in TELL. Journal of Educational Technology &
Society, 22(2), 14–25.
Colpaert, J. (2016). Big content in an educational engineering approach. Journal of Technology and
Chinese Language Teaching, 7(1), 1–14.
Comas-Quinn, A., Beaven, A., & Sawhill, B. (Eds.). (2019). New case studies of openness in and beyond
the language classroom. Research-publishing.net.
https://research-publishing.net/book?10.14705/rpnet.2019.37.9782490057511
Cornillie, F., Buendgens-Kosten, J., Sauro, S., & Van der Veken, J. (2021). "There's always an option":
Collaborative writing of multilingual interactive fanfiction in a foreign language class. CALICO
Journal, 38(1), 17–42.
Culpeper, J., Mackey, A., & Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: From theory to research.
Routledge.
D’Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
Dizon, G. (2020). Evaluating intelligent personal assistants for L2 listening and speaking development.
Language Learning & Technology, 24(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10125/44705
Dooly M., & O’Dowd, R. (2018). Telecollaboration in the foreign language classroom: A review of its
origins and its application to language teaching practice. In M. Dooly, & R. O’Dowd (Eds.), In this
together: Teachers’ experiences with transnational, telecollaborative language learning projects (pp.
11–34). Peter Lang.
Dubreil, S., & Lord, G. (2020). Make it so: Leveraging maker culture in CALL. CALICO Journal, 38(1),
i–xii.
Eilola, L. E., & Lilja, N. S. (2021). The smartphone as a personal cognitive artifact supporting
participation in interaction. The Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 294–316.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused SLA: The implicit and explicit learning of
constructions. In A. Tyler , Y. Kim, & M. Takada (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse
and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 93–120). De Gruyter Mouton.
Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage‐based language
learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65.
Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics—
Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589
Engman, M. M., & Hermes, M. (2021). Land as interlocutor: A study of Ojibwe learner language in in-
teraction on and with naturally occurring ‘materials.’ Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 86–105.
Finch, A. (2010). Critical incidents and language learning: Sensitivity to initial conditions. System, 38(3),
422–431.
Robert Godwin-Jones 21

Flowerdew, L. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories. In A. Leńko-Szymańska &
A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 15–36).
John Benjamins.
Fryer, L. K., Coniam, D., Carpenter, R., & Lăpușneanu, D. (2020). Bots for language learning now:
Current and future directions. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 8–22.
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44719
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to the silent language
of culture: The Cultura project. Language Learning & Technology, 5(1), 55–102.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25113/05_01_furstenberg.pdf
Garzía, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Garza, T. J. (2016). Raise the Flag(ship)! Creating hybrid language programs on the flagship model. In D.
Murphy, & K. Evans-Romaine (Eds.), Exploring the US Language Flagship program: Professional
competence in a second language by graduation (pp. 224–243). Multilingual Matters.
Gimeno-Sanz, A. (2016). Moving a step further from “integrative CALL”. What's to come? Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 29(6), 1102–1115.
Godwin-Jones, R. (1996). Creating language learning materials for the World Wide Web. In Warschauer,
M. (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 69–82). National Foreign Language
Resource Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2001). Tools and trends in corpora use for teaching and learning. Language Learning
& Technology, 5(3), 7–12.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44559/05_03_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for online collaboration. Language Learning &
Technology, 7(2), 12–16.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25195/07_02_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2004). Language in action: From webquests to virtual realities. Language Learning &
Technology, 8(3), 9–14.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/25246/08_03_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2),
2–11. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44244/15_02_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2012). Challenging hegemonies in online learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 16(2), 4–13.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44279/16_02_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Towards transparent computing: Content authoring using open
standards. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 1–10.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44346/18_01_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016a). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to
place-based mobile games. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 9–19.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44475/20_03_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016b). Integrating Technology into Study Abroad. Language Learning &
Technology, 20(1), 1–20. http://www.lltjournal.org/item/2925
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016c). Looking back and ahead: 20 years of technologies for language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 5–12.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44457/1/20_02_emerging.pdf
22 Language Learning & Technology

Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2),
2–11. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44607/1/21_02_emerging.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Contextualized vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3),
1–19. https://doi.org/10125/44651
Godwin-Jones, R. (2019a). In a world of SMART technology, why learn another language? Educational
Technology and Society, 22(2), 4–13.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2019b). Re-orienting computer-assisted language learning through the lens of
complexity theory. In F. Meunier, J. Van de Vyver, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL and
complexity – short papers from EUROCALL 2019 (pp. 1–6). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.38.1001
Godwin-Jones, R. (2019c). Riding the digital wilds: Learner autonomy and informal language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 23(1), 8–25.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44667/23_01_10125-44667.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2019d). Telecollaboration as an approach to developing intercultural communication
competence. Language Learning & Technology, 23(3), 8–28. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44691
Godwin-Jones, R. (2020a). Building the porous classroom: An expanded model for blended language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 24(3), 1–18.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44731/24_03_10125-44731.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2020b). Towards Transculturality: English as a lingua franca in intercultural
communication and in online language learning. Languages and International Studies, 23, 1–34
Godwin-Jones, R. (2021). Big data and language learning: Opportunities and challenges. Language
Learning & Technology, 25(1), 4–19. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44747
González-Lloret, M. (2015). Conversation analysis in computer-assisted language learning. CALICO
Journal, 32(3), 569–594.
González-Lloret, M. (2019). Technology and L2 pragmatics learning. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 39, 113–127.
Guerrettaz, A. M., Engman, M. M., & Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and
teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. Modern Language Journal, 105(1), 3–
20.
Guillén, G. (2021). 37 years of CALL [Tableau Slides]. Tableau.
https://public.tableau.com/profile/gaguillen#!/vizhome/40yrCALL/37YearsofCALL
Guillén, G., Sawin, T., & Springer, S. (2018). The lingo of language learning startups: Congruency
between claims, affordances, and SLA theory. In S. Lin, & J. Li (Eds.), Assessment across online
language education (pp. 198-218). Equinox Publishing.
Hellmich, E. A. (2019). A critical look at the bigger picture: Macro-level discourses of language and
technology in the United States. CALICO Journal, 36(1), 39–58.
Helm, F. (2013). A dialogic model for telecollaboration. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning
Language & Literature, 6(2), 28–48.
Higgins, J., & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in language learning. Addison-Wesley Longman.
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping language-based locative gameplay. In S. Dikkers, J.
Martin, & B. Coulter (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile devices for learning (pp.
111–130). ETC Press.
Robert Godwin-Jones 23

Hubbard, P. (2017). Foundations of computer-assisted language learning. In J.-B. Son, & S. Windeatt
(Eds.), Language teacher education and technology: Approaches and practices (pp. 153–167).
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hubbard, P. (2019). Five keys from the past to the future of CALL. International Journal of Computer-
Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT), 9(3), 1–13.
Jackson, J. (2018). Online intercultural education and study abroad: Theory into practice. Routledge.
Järvilehto, T. (2009). The theory of the organism-environment system as a basis of experimental work in
psychology. Ecological Psychology, 21(2), 112–120.
Jee, C. (2021, April 19), Why a more feminist internet would be better for everyone. MIT Technology
Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/04/01/1020478/feminist-internet-culture-activist-
harassment-herd-signal/
Johnson, M., Schuster, M., Le, Q. V., Krikun, M., Wu, Y., Chen, Z., Thorat, N., Viégas, F., Wattenberg,
M., Corrado, G., Hughes, M., & Dean, J. (2017). Google’s multilingual neural machine translation
system: Enabling zero-shot translation. Transactions of the Association for Computational
Linguistics, 5, 339–351.
Joshi, P., Barnes, C., Santy, S., Khanuja, S., Shah, S., Srinivasan, A., Bhattamishra, S., Sitaram, S.,
Choudhur, M., & Bali, K. (2019). Unsung challenges of building and deploying language
technologies for low resource language communities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03457.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03457.pdf
Kartal, G. (2019). What's up with WhatsApp? A critical analysis of mobile instant messaging research in
language learning. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 6(2), 352–365.
Kern, R. (2014). Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language
education. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 340–357.
Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1),
205–218.
Kramsch, C. (2020). Translating experience in language teaching research and practice. Applied
Linguistics, 41(1), 30–51.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Gaved, M., Paletta, L., Scanlon, E., Jones, A., & Brasher, A. (2015). Mobile
incidental learning to support the inclusion of recent immigrants. Ubiquitous Learning: An
International Journal, 7(2), 9–21.
Kulavuz-Onal, D., & Vásquez, C. (2018). “Thanks, shokran, gracias": Translingual practices in a
Facebook group. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 240–255.
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44589
Kusyk, M. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 written production
through informal participation in online activities. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 75–96.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Saying what we mean: Making the case for second language acquisition to
become second language development. Language Teaching, 48(4), 491–505.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second
language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 55–72.
24 Language Learning & Technology

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University

Press.
Leaver, B. L. (2021). Transformative language learning: The next paradigm shift and its historical
context. In B. L. Leaver, D. E. Davidson, & C. Campbell (Eds.), Transformative language learning
and teaching (pp. 13–22). Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2019). Advancing CALL research via data-mining techniques:
Unearthing hidden groups of learners in a corpus-based L2 vocabulary learning
experiment. ReCALL, 31(2), 135–149.
Lenkaitis, C. A., & Loranc-Paszylk, B. (2019). Facilitating global citizenship development in lingua
franca virtual exchanges. Language Teaching Research, 23, 1–18.
Levine, G. (2020). A human ecological language pedagogy. Modern Language Journal, 104(S1), 1–130.
Little, D., & Thorne, S. (2017). From learner autonomy to rewilding: A discussion. In M. Cappellini, T.
Lewis, & A. Rivens Mompean (Eds.), Learner autonomy and Web 2.0. (pp. 12–35). Equinox.
Lohr, S. (2021, January 10). He created the web. Now he’s out to remake the digital world. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/10/technology/tim-berners-lee-privacy-internet.html
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2019). Reframing technology's role in language teaching: A retrospective
report. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 8–23.
Lu, X. (2018). Natural language processing and intelligent computer-assisted language learning (ICALL).
In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley-
Blackwell.
Makransky, G., & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL):
a theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology
Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09586-2
Mathieu, L., Murphy-Judy, K., Godwin-Jones, R., Middlebrooks, L., & Boykova, N. (2019). Learning in
the open: Integrating language and culture through student curation, virtual exchange, and open
educational resources. In A. Beaven, A. Comas-Quinn & B. Sawhill (Eds.), New case studies of
openness in and beyond the language classroom (pp. 1–18). Researchpublishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2019.37.967
McConachy, T. (2017). Developing intercultural perspectives on language use. Channel View
Publications.
Narwood, N. (2021). Coda: An expanding research agenda for the use of instructional materials. The
Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 175–184.
Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL-SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: Towards equitable
multilingualism. CALICO Journal, 34(3), 283–316.
Ortega, L. (2019). SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language
Journal, 103(S1), 23–38.
Ovide, S. (2020, November 24). Imagine a world without apps. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/24/technology/smartphones-apps.html
Panichi, L., Detschmann, M., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2010). Virtual worlds for foreign language learning
and intercultural exchange: Is it for real? In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0:
Language learning, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st Century (pp. 165–198). Peter
Lang.
Robert Godwin-Jones 25

Papin, K. (2018) Can 360 virtual reality tasks impact L2 willingness to communicate? In P. Taalas, J.
Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Future-proof CALL: Language learning as exploration
and encounters: Short papers from EUROCALL 2018 (pp. 243–248). Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.844
Park, G. (2020, April 17). Silicon Valley is racing to build the next version of the Internet. Fortnite might
get there first. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/04/17/fortnite-metaverse-new-internet/
Parmaxi, A., & Demetriou, A. A. (2020). Augmented reality in language learning: A state‐of‐the‐art
review of 2014–2019. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 861–875.
Peng, H., Jager, S., Thorne, S. L., & Lowie, W. (2020). A holistic person-centered approach to mobile-
assisted language learning. In W. Lowie, M. Michel, M. Keijzer, & R. Steinkrauss (Eds.), Usage-
based dynamics in second language development (pp. 87–106). Multilingual Matters.
Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist applied linguistics. Routledge.
Pereira, J. (2018). Video game meets literature: Language learning with interactive fiction. e-TEALS: An
E-journal of Teacher Education and Applied Language Studies, 4(1), 1–18.
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2019). The internet in daily life: The turn to networked individualism. In M.
Graham, & W. H. Dutton (Eds.), Society and the Internet (pp. 27–42). Oxford University Press.
Reinders, H., & Lan, Y. J. (2021). Big data in language education and research. Language Learning &
Technology, 25(1), 1–3. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44746
Reinhardt, J. (2019). Gameful second and foreign language teaching and learning: Theory, research, and
practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Reinhardt, J. (2020). Metaphors for social media‐enhanced foreign language teaching and
learning. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 234–242.
Sauro, S. (2016) Does CALL have an English problem? Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10125/44474
Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34(2), 131–146.
Saury, R. E. (2001). A day in the life of Thomas Baggett: Technology and the making of an international
intellectual community in the year 2020. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(1), 18–23.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M.
Chan, K. N. Chin, S. Bhatt, & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign
language education (pp. 27–50). De Gruyter Mouton.
Scholz, K., & Schulze, M. (2017). Digital-gaming trajectories and second language development.
Language Learning & Technology, 21(1), 99–119. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44597
Seedhouse, P. (2005). Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165–187.
Sharma, P. (2017). Blended learning design and practice. In M. Carrier, R. M. Damerow, & K. M. Bailey
(Eds.), Digital language learning and teaching: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 167–178).
Routledge.
So the Internet Didn't Turn Out the Way We Hoped. Now What...(2019, Nov. 13). The New York Times
Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/14/magazine/internet-future-dream.html
Sockett, G. (2014). The online informal learning of English. Springer.
Stevenson, N. (1992). Snow crash. Bantam Books.
Sundqvist, P., & Sylvén, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in teaching and learning. Palgrave Macmillan.
26 Language Learning & Technology

Sykes, J. M. (2019). Emergent digital discourses: What can we learn from hashtags and digital games to
expand learners’ second language repertoire? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 128–145.
Sykes, J., & Cohen, A. D. (2018). Strategies and interlanguage pragmatics: Explicit and
comprehensive. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 381–402.
Sykes, J., & Dubreil, S. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In N.
Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 387–399).
Routledge
Sykes, J., & González-Lloret, M. (2020). Exploring the interface of interlanguage (L2) pragmatics and
digital spaces. CALICO Journal, 37(1), i–xv.
Sykes, J., Malone, M., Forrest, L., & Sağdıç, A. (in press). Comprehensive framework for assessing
intercultural pragmatic competence: Knowledge, analysis, subjectivity, and awareness. In O. Kang &
A. Kermad (Eds.), Transdisciplinary innovations for communicative success. The Encyclopedia of
Educational Innovations. Springer.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should
be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1–50.
Terantino, J. M. (2011). YouTube for foreign languages: You have to see this video. Language Learning
& Technology, 15(1), 10–16.
https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/44231/1/15_01_emerging.pdf
Thorne, S. L. (2008). Computer-mediated communication. In N. Van Duesen-Scholl & N. Hornberger
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 4. Second and foreign language education (2nd
Ed., pp. 325–336). Springer.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Language learning, ecological validity, and innovation under conditions of
superdiversity. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 6(2), 1–27.
Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 215–233.
Thorne, S. L., Hellermann, J., & Jakonen, T. (2021). Rewilding language education: Emergent
assemblages and entangled actions. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 106–125.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic
Books.
Von Uexküll, J. (1909). Umwelt und innenwelt der tiere. Springer.
Williams, T., Zhu, Q., Wen, R., & de Visser, E. J. (2020, March). The Confucian matador: Three defenses
against the mechanical bull. In T. Belpaeme & J. Young (Eds.), Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 25–33). HRI.
Yeh, E., & Swinehart, N. (2020). Social media literacy in L2 environments: Navigating anonymous user-
generated content. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(1), 66–84.
Youngs, B. L., Prakash, A., & Nugent, R. (2018). Statistically-driven visualizations of student
interactions with a French online course video. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(3), 206–
225.