Technology Integration and CALL in English Language Learning

Introduction: Teacher Beliefs and Technology Adoption

One of the central challenges in technology integration in the classroom concerns teacher pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer, 2005). Teachers form their opinions about technology in the classroom based largely on their own experiences, the socio-cultural environment in which they work, and the vicarious experiences of other teachers. The evidence shows that since 2000, technology use in classrooms has increased considerably. Given the growing number of teachers who were trained in high-technology environments, this trend is expected to continue.

Hughes (2005) supports this view, noting that teacher experience and knowledge can play a significant role in the adoption of technology in the classroom. The way a teacher interprets a technology's value is particularly important. There are real constraints here as well, such as how much time a teacher has to evaluate new technology, whether the school can afford it, what sort of hardware the school has, and other practical considerations.

Other studies from around the same period noted that even when teachers have a high degree of technical competency, they can encounter problems with outdated hardware, lack of appropriate software, technical difficulties, and students who lack the basic skills needed to succeed in technological environments (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). This research suggested that technological integration into education lagged expectations in part because many simple, operational issues had not yet been resolved.

Theoretical Perspectives on CALL

Technology holds significant promise in English language learning, perhaps even more than in other areas of application. Chapelle (2003) outlines how this works through multiple perspectives. First, there is the technological perspective—that is, what is possible, or could be possible, from the standpoint of those developing the technology. Developments such as speech recognition, along with software aimed at assisting students in learning new languages (computer-assisted language learning, or CALL), all flow from the development of technology that allows learners opportunities for both self-guided and instructed work.

There is also the social pragmatist's view, espoused by Brown and Duguid, which tempers the technologist's perspective, which they regard as inherently optimistic. While the technologist sees CALL as full of possibilities, the social pragmatist notes that these possibilities tend to run up against social constraints (Chapelle, 2003). They point to technological problems—a finding supported by Bauer and Kenton's work—arguing that these challenges have limited the adoption of technology in the classroom. Their view is perhaps overly pessimistic in assuming that all software is fraught with error messages, crashes, and data corruption; nonetheless, very practical challenges do impair the adoption of technology even for language learners.

The third perspective outlined by Chapelle (2003) is the critical analyst's view. This adds further pessimism, arguing that technologists perceive technology as inherently linear and positive, which is not necessarily the case. This view holds the least analytical weight, as it appears to exist primarily as a counter to the technologist's position without offering coherent arguments or, more importantly, supporting evidence. Critical discourse alone is insufficient; a credible perspective requires facts to substantiate its claims.

The critical analyst's perspective is echoed by many in education, typically through arguments that the benefits of CALL have not been proven. Such critiques re-emerged when mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) was introduced (Chinnery, 2006), often resting on a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. This is not evidence-based practice; rather, it reflects a resistance to learning new technologies that some educators mask by diminishing the value of those technologies.

For advanced-level learners, systemic-functional linguistics provides an additional framework. This view holds that once computer technology can deliver specialized instruction, voice recognition, and other features key to helping advanced learners, the educational outcomes will be more effective. In this view, technology is the primary driver of CALL's potential (Kern, 2006).

Mobile and Web-Based Language Learning Tools

Web-based platforms can contribute significantly to language teaching. Such platforms are valuable because they are accessible at any time—on mobile devices, in the classroom, or at home—and allow students to learn at their own pace and on their own schedule. That kind of flexibility and access is powerful. Vocabulary.com is one example of a web-based application for language learning. Such a platform can assist English language learners (ELLs) in school by beginning with an assessment of their abilities and then systematically building their vocabularies. It is easy to use and can be an effective instructional tool.

Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) extends these benefits further by allowing learners to engage with language instruction wherever they are. The emergence of MALL represented an important evolution in CALL, making language learning more flexible and personal than traditional classroom-bound approaches.

References

Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.

Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam.

Chinnery, G. (2006). Emerging technologies: Going to the MALL: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 9–16.

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? ETR&D, 53(4), 25–29.

Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experience in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2), 277–302.

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 188–210.