This document analyzes 15 peer-reviewed studies on the use of educational technology for second language learning. The studies examined tools like online discussion, software, and multimedia and evaluated their impact on language acquisition. Most used surveys, interviews, recordings or tests to collect data from post-secondary students in various countries. The findings suggest that educational technology can positively support language learning when used to promote interaction, independent practice and feedback. However, some tools may diminish interaction if not designed well. More research is still needed to understand how best to integrate technology into language education.

1. An Analysis of the Use of
Educational Technology in
Second Language Learning
Melanie Connors
EDUC 6610

2. Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
The words ‘language learning’ Excludes first language learning.
must be included in the title. The
language being learned is a
second/ foreign language.
Includes a form of educational Excludes face-to-face learning.
technology in the title (ex. Web-
based, software, online
discussion, computers, etc)
Must be an empirical study from
a peer reviewed journal.
Must focus on implications for
second/foreign language learning
specifically.

3. Summary of Methods

4. Study Participants/ Country/ Data Collection &
Context Analysis
1. Cercone, 98 post-secondary students -statistical analysis of
Ditcharoen & in Thailand interviews and
Naruedomkul questionnaires
(2010) -translation accuracy
tested
2. Chen & 7 post-secondary students -speaking tutorials
Wang (2008) in Australia were recorded and
analyzed each week
3. Chia (2005) 40 senoir middle school -interviews were
students in China recorded and
analyzed

5. 4. Cunningham, 28 post-secondary -online classes were
Fägersten & students in Sweden recorded and
Holmsten analyzed
(2010)
5. Foti & 26 post-secondary -post-tests given to
Hannafin students in the U.S.A. experimental and
(2008) control groups
-results examined
6. Gilgen 763 post-secondary -before and after
(2005) students and faculty in the surveys given
U.S.A. -results examined
7. Hauck & 422 post-secondary -2 questionnaires
Hurd (2005) students in the U.K. -statistical analysis of
results

6. 8. Jones, 16 post-secondary students -interviews,
Squires & in the U.S.A. recordings & surveys
Hicks (2008) -SPSS package used
9. Kartal & 14 post-secondary students -evaluation form
Uzun (2010) in Turkey -examination of the
results
10. Ng, 60 post-secondary students -survey
Yeung & Hon in Hong Kong -SPSS package used
(2006) -factor analysis
11. 21 post-secondary staff and -focus groups
Pemberton, students in the U.K. -examination of the
Fallahkhair & main themes
Masthoff
(2005)

7. 12. Poon 116 post-secondary -survey and
(2003) students and 6 tutors in discussion
Hong Kong -analysis of each
13. Tsou, 70 elementary students in -pre-test & post test
Wang & Tzeng Taiwan -questionnaire &
(2006) interview
-analyzed work
14. Yamada 40 post-secondary students -questionnaire
(2009) in Japan -video recordings
-path analysis
-ANOVA
15. Yun, Miller, 122 grade 10 students in -pre-test
Baek, Jung & Korea -two-way ANOVA
Ko (2008)

8. Findings

16. Discussion

21. Conclusion

23. Limitations

25. References

26. 1. Cercone, N., Ditcharoen, N. & Naruedomkul, K. (2010). SignMT:
An alternative language learning tool. Computers &
Education 55 (1), 118–130.
2. Chen, N.-S., & Wang, Y. (2008). Testing principles of language
learning in a cyber face-to-face environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(3), 97-113.
3. Chia, C. (2005). Promoting independent learning through language
learning and the use of IT. Educational Media International,
42(4), 317-332.
4. Cunningham, U., Fägersten, K. & Holmsten, E. (2010). “Can you
hear me, Hanoi?” Compensatory mechanisms employed in
synchronous net-based English language learning.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning,11(1), 161- 177.

27. 5. Foti, L. & Hannafin, R. (2008). Games and multimedia in foreign
language learning: Using back-story in multimedia and
avatar-based games to engage foreign language learners:
A pilot study. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 3(3), 40- 44.
6. Gilgen, R. (2005). Holding the world in your hand: Creating a
model language learning environment. Educause Quarterly,
28(3), 30-39.
7. Hauck, M. & Hurd, S. (2005). Exploring the link between
language anxiety and learner self-management in open
language learning contexts. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning, 2005(2).
8. Jones, G., Squires, T., & Hicks, J. (2008). Combining speech
recognition/natural language processing with 3D online
learning environments to create distributed authentic and
situated spoken language learning. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 36(4), 375-392.

28. 9. Kartal, E., & Uzun, L. (2010). The internet, language learning, and
international dialogue: Constructing online foreign language
learning websites. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 11(2), 90-107.
10. Ng, C., Yeung, A., & Hon, R. (2006). Does online language
learning diminish interaction between student and teacher?
Educational Media International, 43(3), 219-232.
11. Pemberton, L., Fallahkhair, S., & Masthoff, J. (2005). Learner
centred development of a mobile and iTV language learning
support system. Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 52-
63.
12. Poon, A. (2003). A challenge for the developer: Issues of
interactivity and linguistic-cognitive appropriateness in
English language learning. Open Learning,18(2),135-153.

29. 13. Tsou, W., Wang, W., & Tzeng, Y. (2006). Applying a multimedia
storytelling website in foreign language learning. Computers
and Education, 47(1), 17-28.
14. Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner-
centered communicative language learning using
synchronous computer-mediated communication:
Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52(4), 820-833.
15. Yun, S., Miller, P. C., Baek, Y., Jung, J., & Ko, M. (2008).
Improving recall and transfer skills through vocabulary
building in web-based second language learning: An
examination by item and feedback type. Educational
Technology & Society, 11(4), 158–172.