1

Aklan Catholic College

Archbishop Gabriel M. Reyes St.
5600 Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines
Tel. Nos.: (036)268-4152; 268-9171
Fax No.: (036)268-4010
Website: http://www.acc.edu.ph
E-mail Add: [email protected]

Language Instructional Materials ELS Cognate 2

Lecture Note – Lesson 3

Technology and Language Teaching-Learning

Study the case below and reflect on the questions that follow. You can also discuss your answers with your
peer.

In 2012, an organisation called One Laptop per Child (OLPC) delivered several dozen boxed, solar-powered iPads to
children aged four to 11 in two remote villages in Ethiopia. The villagers had no previous experience of technology,
and were completely illiterate. The children were given the boxes to unpack, and researchers monitored what
happened next via an installed wireless connection that the project called the ‘Sneakernet’. Results came quickly.
Within a few minutes the children had switched the devices on. Within a week they were using an average of 47
installed apps per day. And after a couple of months they had even worked out how to disable a block the researchers
had installed to prevent them taking pictures of themselves. So the preliminary conclusion has to be that, yes, young
children have innate technology-related learning abilities that most adults patently lack. (Stokes 2012, p. 2 as cited in
Mishan and Timmis, 2015, p. 77).

Reflection questions:

1. If the subjects of the observation were adults, what kind of result may likely come out? Why do you think
so?
2. What do you think contributed to the children’s ability to navigate their way on using the devices and even
unlocking some features?
3. What results would come out if this experiment was conducted in a developed area where students are
already immersed in technology? Why do you think so?

The term ‘digital native’ was first coined by Prensky in 2001 to describe the generation who were born
around the turn of the millennium and after it who have were born with digital technology already present in
their environment. Unlike their predecessors who Prensky called the ‘digital migrants’, digital natives acquire
early on the native language of computers, video games, and the internet. It has been pointed out that for the
digital natives, these devices are not ‘technology’ but merely tools used in their daily lives.

Prensky (2009) also noted that the brains are now generally perceived to be highly plastic and continually
adapt to the inputs. This means that with continual interaction with technology, the brains are restructured by
the interaction. This premise implies that technology brings significant change on how the content of language
learning, how it is learned or taught, and what kind of technology has to be present or integrated into the
learning environment.

The students of today expect facilities and an educational environment that match the ones present in the
community, industry, and workplace. Their digital literacy needs also demand that their learning experiences
match technological innovations happening within their immediate environment and elsewhere in the world.
Digital literacy includes the ability to retrieve, create and contribute resources, handle information systems and
evaluate information, collaborate, network, multitask, problem-solve, ‘code-switch’ on various communications
(social) media and intuit the functionality of new applications.

In the context of integrating technology, then, it is essential that technology use aims to take advantage of the
already acquired digital skills of the students and build the ones not acquired yet. This can be demonstrated,
for example, if the teacher teaches writing a simple presentation while training handling information systems
and evaluating information.

When technology in normalized in language learning, it should be able to facilitate learning and not imposed
impediments to learning or acquiring the language. For Bax, (2003, p. 24) technology use might be described
as ‘normalized’ where the technology has to a large extent become ‘invisible’. Technology do not remain as a
special feature of language learning that only a few can employ and that they become inherent tools that are
seamlessly woven into the experience of language acquisition and learning. In many parts of the world,
however, there is still scarce in the access to sufficient technology for it to be normalized and instead of
making learning in general more accessible it creates a bigger gap in learning caused by the digital divide.
 2
Teacher who are digital migrants may feel apprehensions in using technology in the class as their students
have more developed skills in the use of technology. Using technology, however, will not require a huge shift
in the teacher’s role as students and their peer will mostly likely be able to navigate their way through
technology with a little technical assistance from the teacher. The teacher’s role, therefore, remain as a
facilitator or coach scaffolding the language learning of the students (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara, 2013).

Before you continue on reading, consider these questions from McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara (2013) on the use of
technology in your own daily life.

• What technologies would you say are ‘normalized’ in your own daily life?
• Do you make use of any of these technologies for language teaching or learning?
• If so, which technologies are they? Do you use them for the same purposes?
• Do you use technologies you have not listed in (1) or (2) for language teaching or learning?
• What influences your decisions to use or not to use different technologies for language teaching?

Technologies and Language Learning

Mobile technologies, such as the most portable like smart phones and tablets, have become more frequently
used in language learning and teaching. Wireless technology has enabled language learners around the world
to access language learning materials in many parts of the world, outside of learning institutions such as
language centers or universities which usually offer language programs. The speed at which the development
of the use of technology is use in technology is one that is most significant.

Some technologies have remained the same at their core functionality with some new upgrades in capability
on connectivity and remote collaborations. An example of these are word processors that now allow for easier
remote collaboration via the internet.

This significant upgrade to existing programs and new ones that now support online collaboration makes the
technologies meet the demands of 21st and 22nd learning and living. Technologies that enable the generation
and sharing of information via the internet are called Web 2.0. This means that people from different locations
and time can collaborate and contribute in building information. A simple example of this is the wiki, Wikipedia
as one such of its famous examples. Wikis are ones of the earliest online platforms where people can
contribute in generating an encyclopedic information about varied subject matters. These days, many
students and organizations use collaboration tools such as Google suite, Microsoft Teams, Zoom meeting,
and many others in working on projects.

With the arrival of digital videos is the renewed interest in researches in second language acquisition and
DVD use (e.g. Tschirner, 2001; Gruba, 2004); attention to video as an authentic resource again (Sherman,
2003); DVD feature films and language learning (King, 2002). In the internet, the first port of teachers to video
sharing was YouTube. This video streaming platform became one of the most common audio-visual resource
and sharing platforms for teachers. But with the unmoderated content of YouTube, teachers need to work on
ensuring that student access only relevant contents so as to avoid distractions and help students create focus
on essential contents. A tool that is true to the capability of Web 2.0 in sharing and manipulating information is
Safeshare TV (http://www.safeshare.tv/). Video production tools have also become more common and
accessible tools for both teachers and students over the years (e.g. Window’s Movie Maker, Apple’s iMovie,
Power Director, Filmora, Da Vinci, etc) or online podcasts and vodcasts. Voicethread (http://voicethread.com),
for example, a Web 2.0 tool described as ‘conversations in the cloud’, facilitates collaborative, multimedia text
generation allowing learners to simply upload photos or videos and create a storyboard, adding further text,
written or audio. More than this display, however, these texts are open to comment from peers, teachers,
family, and interested others. Learners immediately have a real audience for their language endeavors.

The World Wide Web has become a great repository of content and resource for language learning but it has
not turned print materials, such as coursebooks, redundant. Printed resources has evolved with technology
and now offers supplementary materials such as including accompanying CDs and offline software and Web-
based supplements. Below are examples of such implements.

● The online supplements may be downloadable or interactive to be used online; see, for example,
Cambridge ESOL (http://www.cambridge.org/gb/elt/students/zones/item2325598/ESOL/).
● Other supplementary material may be used to extend whole class activity or be targeted for
independent learning. Some such activities allow for flexibility in use; take for example, New English
File (OUP) which includes topic-based reading which a learner can ‘gap’ for themselves
(elt.oup.com/student/englishfile/intermediate).
● Online dictionaries and encyclopedias work as independent resources or extensions of their printed
versions. Try for example http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/tomato.
 3
Below you will find how technology use in language teaching has shifted (McDonough, Shaw, & Masuhara,
2013).

...redefining learning boundaries

-digital audio online e.g. podcasts
or through mobile devices
-digital video e.g. vodcasts;
...moving contexts YouTube shared worlds through
-digital audio on CD Web 2.0 e.g. blogs, photo sharing
-digital video on DVD -learner as digital producer e.g.
Audacity; Moviemaker; Podomatic;
-wordprocessing YouTube; prezi.com
-learning resources on the Web
-learner as online collaborator and
-learning activities on the Web writer e.g. wikis; google docs;
e.g. webquests google wave
...within the physical -online authored tasks e.g. Hot
learning context: -synchronous and asynchronous
Potatoes activity via text/audio/video chat,
-analog audio on cassette -synchronous and asynchronous social networking applications
-analog video exchange via email, text chat -virtual classrooms environments
-wordprocessing -websites as learning e.g. Moodle
-database/spreadsheets environments -virtual 3d world e.g. Second Life
-CD ROM learning materials 2D virtual words e.g. MOOs
-concordance
-authoring software to
create locally access tasks

Shifts in technology use

Technology is renowned for its rapidly changing terminology. In language learning (and elsewhere), terms relating to
the use of technology reflected the educational trends of the time. Terms that have endured or are current at the time
of writing are:

• CALL (computer-assisted language learning): Used from the early 1980s, the ‘C’ of CALL highlighted the entry of the
computer into the language classroom. It has remained the default acronym despite arguments over the years that it
inaccurately represents interactions with technology. It is fast becoming obsolete as today we increasingly use digital
technologies which run on laptops, tablets and other mobile devices rather than computers.

• CMC (computer-mediated communication): Used predominantly in the 1990s, this echoed the prevailing
‘communicative’ era in language teaching and related to the use of communications technologies (e.g. email and later
on, video-conferencing and social networking) in collaborative communication projects (ranging from individual to
inter-institutional).

• ICT (information and communications technologies): A more general and neutral term which remains in use today.

• Blended Learning: A concept current at the time of writing, blended learning refers to a more holistic integration of
technology into learning environments: ‘a principled mix of online and classroom-based activities’ (Gruba and
Hinkelman 2012: 46), implemented ideally at institutional/curriculum level.

For more on terminology, see the ICT for Language Teachers (ICT4LT) portal: ict4lt.org

from Mishan and Timmis (2015)

Materials as Products and Materials as Processes

With the introduction of Web 2.0, came not only the technology or tools that brought online interaction and
user-created materials, but the blurring of the line between materials and the tools that produced them.
In the context of technology use or integration in language learning or teaching, materials can be products or
they can be processes.

Materials are products when they are a source of information or content about the language (Reinders and
White 2010). Some examples of technology materials as products are courseware, the digital equivalent of
coursebooks that may be accessed offline or online (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

Alternatively, materials are processes when they enable the practice of communication such as in
socialization, networking, and collaboration. Social networking sites, wikis, and the like are some of the
examples of materials that are processes (Mishan and Timmis, 2015). Materials then provide a structure
within which the students can use their communicative abilities (Reinders and White 2010).
 4

The Static - Dynamic Continuum

Technology integration in materials for language learning can vary within the continuum of being static or
dynamic. Materials can range from being simply a source of information, thereby static, to becoming more
task oriented, making the materials more dynamic. Being in a continuum means that a material can move
from being static to dynamic. The purpose or objective of the materials dictate much on how static or dynamic
a material can be. At the static end of the continuum would be printed materials (such as handouts, textbooks)
, web-generated materials (such as comics, word clouds, and so on) and so on. More dynamic materials such
as PowerPoint and Prezi presentations, then to audio and audio-visual recordings (such as those sourced
from YouTube) and the dynamic end of the continuum such as instant messaging, chatting, and so on)
(Mishan, 2013). The diagram from Mishan illustrates the continuum.

 Printed  PowerPoint/  Recorded audio-  Live  Mobile texting

handout/image/ Prezi visual, e.g. radio/TV
textbook presentation YouTube
Skypecasts

Static  (Authored) web  Recorded audio,  Wiki  Online Chat/Instant Dynamic

material e.g. podcasts messaging

 Social  Video calls, e.g.

networking Zoom
sites meeting/Microsoft
teams/Google meet

Materials as Products/Contents

A simple device in distinguishing a static material from a dynamic material is the following. The purpose of
static materials is to present a content of the language being learned in order for learning to take place.
Meanwhile, dynamic materials are tasks that promote the use of communication abilities. As this distinction is
laid in a paradigm of spectrum, a material can go from being static to dynamic and vice-versa. An example of
this is a wiki. Because of wiki's nature of allowing multiple users to collaborate in building and refereeing a
body of knowledge, it is dynamic material. However, when the wiki is simply treated as a source of
information, whether read online or printed, it becomes a static material. Another example is a word processor
like Google doc. If Google doc is used to create a concept note for the students, it is just a static material. But
if it used to allow students to collaborate in annotating and editing a text, it becomes a dynamic material.
Mishan and Timmis (2015) presented a list some well-established ones offering authoring tools (software
which allows users to design and generate their own materials):

Cartoon generator www.goanimate.com

Comic-strip generator www.makebeliefscomix.com
Mind maps www.prezi.com (presentation tool)
News lessons creation www.lingleonline.com
Quiz generator puzzlemaker.school.discovery.com
WebQuests www.webquest.org
Website creation www.weebly.com
www.google.com/sites
Wiki creation www.wikispaces.com
Word cloud generator www.wordle.net

Materials as Processes/Tasks

The use of task in language teaching began with task-based language teaching (TBLT), a pedagogy that is
used with technology in language learning. The ‘free-standing, goal-focused and learner-driven in nature’ of
task makes it perfectly match with the work modes associated with the use of the internet (Mishan 2010a, p.
150).

With the introduction of Web 2.0 in 2004, the association and task with technology was strengthened.
Because of the range of participatory media or collaboration tools found in Web 2.0, it was seen as an
opportunity to explore social constructivism in action. Social constructivism is a philosophy that conceives
knowledge as co-constructed by a group of people through interaction. This interaction can be facilitated by
 5
social collaboration tools such as social networks, wikis, video calls and the like. A tripartite synergy then
arises from the interaction between educational philosophy, technology, and pedagogy which is a sound basis
for the paradigm of materials as tasks (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

Materials can range from facilitating the learners to create content to engaging them in interaction with others.
Below we will discuss the various categories in which these materials can be classified.

Web tools

There is an abundance of web tools that can be used in facilitating tasks that promote the learner’s use of the
language through (1) interaction, (2) generation of content or often a combination of both (Mishan and Timmis,
2015).

The following are examples of web tools and some tasks where learners can be engaged.

● online research tool (e.g. WebQuest) for sourcing, examining, and utilizing information from the web to
perform a task or create an output
● vocabulary quizzes (e.g. puzzlemaker.school.discovery.com) for letting students create their own
interactive puzzles, games, and challenges
● word clouds (e.g. wordle.net) for genre analysis
● mind maps (e.g. prezi.com) for brainstorming language or concepts and so on

Looking at the use of these materials from the TBLT perspective, the learning gained from these tasks is less
on the completion of the tasks and more on the interaction among the learners and other people participating
in the tasks.

Social media

With the capability of social media for synchronous and asynchronous interaction, media generation and
publication, networking, they are excellent places for ‘actualizing’ social constructivism. For this to be
successfully achieved, the tasks should cultivate interaction, co-contraction of ideas and creativity, and
genuine sharing with the community (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

Despite its many affordances in providing a more genuine space where language can be used, a reservation
of educators in using social media stems from the challenges in ensuring privacy as social media by default is
public. Tweaking the settings and defining the guidelines for educational purposes can minimize some of the
challenges in privacy. There are also virtual classrooms that mimic the ecosystem of a social networking site.
One such example is edmodo.com. Another reservation may stem from the fact that learners are given more
exposure to written text (Facebooking, instant messaging, online chat, and so on) and less to spoken text or
speech. That said, social media text makes up for the nuanced and complex expression of speech that is
often lost in writing. One strategy that is popular among users is the use of emoticons to represent
paralinguistic elements (such as emoticons in Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube) to simulate face-to-face
communication (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

To illustrate, the following may be tasks given to learners using social media (Mishan and Timmis, 2015).

● genre analysis: e.g. identifying characteristics of online writing (e.g. spoken register cheers mate)
● discourse analysis: e.g. tracing turn-taking between participants, identifying how interactants indicate
turns, identifying backchannelling
● analysis of orthographical features: paralinguistic use of punctuation, emoticons and capitalization

Digital tools

Mobile devices are digital tools that started to create buzz in language learning starting in the mid-1990s.
Mobile learning, m-learning, or mobile-assisted language learning is now an established subfield as in
language teaching. Interestingly, the most technology-deprived countries have the highest mobile phone use
growth rate (Mishan and Timmis, 2015). There is also a proliferation of mobile apps ranging from free for use
to paid ones that are available for offline and online use. With that, the prospect of mobile use in language
learning can be very attractive.

The multiple capability of these portable devices (smartphone, tablets, iPhones, iPads, and so on) allows for
creation of text, recording, sharing, and, recently, creation of media (photo and video editing, painting, etc.)
makes them flexible tools for different kinds of language learning tasks. The basic function of texting, for
example, can be used for dictation (Hockly, 2013a, p. 82) or circulating surveys and polls. With the ever-
evolving capability of mobile devices, tasks are expanded and transformed into tasks previously not
conceived. An example is the use of the smartphone’s camera in scanning QR code or global positioning
system (GPS) to put a fresh twist to the classic game of treasure hunt (Hockly, 2013b). Twitter, for instance,
can set interesting challenge for learners to exercise creativity and conciseness but presenting clear ideas
 6
within the constraint of 140 characters. For example, doctoral students in University College Cork, Ireland,
were challenged to synthesize their theses in a ‘tweet’.

The use of mobile devices, however, should come with caution and warning as they come with health hazards
(Mishan and Timmis, 2015). The veritable ‘relationship’ people have with their mobile phones (McNamara,
2011; Godwin-Jones, 2011) means that teachers might need to be cautious in designing that they define and
respect the line that divides the pedagogic and the personal (Mishan and Timmis).

The SAMR model: A Framework for Technology Integration

A good way to assess whether a particular application of media or technology is making full use of the
affordances of a medium is to apply the SAMR model developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. Puentedura
suggests four ‘levels’ of technology application in education:

Substitution: a direct tool substitute, with no functional change, for example, a video recording of a
classroom lecture on water quality, made available for downloading by students; students are assessed on
the content of the lecture by written exams at the end of the course.
Augmentation: a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement, for example, the video lecture is
embedded in an LMS, and edited into four sections, with online multiple-choice questions at the end of each
section for students to answer.

Modification: significant task redesign, for example, the instructor provides video recordings of water being
tested, and asks students to analyze each of the recordings in terms of the principles taught in the course in
the form of essay-type questions that are assessed.

Redefinition: creation of new tasks, inconceivable without the use of technology, for example, the instructor
provides readings and online guidance through the LMS, and students are asked to record with their mobile
phones how they selected samples of water for testing quality, and integrate their findings and analysis in the
form of an e-portfolio of their work.

To illustrate the framework, take this example. In the first two levels, substitution and augmentation, video is
used to enhance the method of teaching but it is only where video is used in the final two stages, modification
and redefinition, that teaching is actually transformed. Significantly, Puentedura links the modification and
transformation levels to the development of Bloom’s higher order ’21st century’ skills such as analysis,
evaluation and creativity (Puentedura, 2014).