2. 2
Computer technology has enjoyed decades of use in
the field of second and foreign language education,
but efforts to integrate technology have at times
presented various challenges to educators due to
rapid advances in technology and occasional changes
in language teaching methods. To provide some
background on the use of technology for language
training, this chapter will begin with a brief look at the
history and evolution of the technologies and teaching
approaches that have influenced computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) over the years, followed by a
discussion of recent developments, namely MALL
(mobile-assisted language learning) and RALL (robot-
assisted language learning). The opportunities and
challenges presented by technology use in language
education will then be identified, and an example will
be provided for the application of a particular
technology. Finally, the chapter will conclude with
comments on the future of technology use in
language education.
Significance of Technology
in Language Education
4. 4
A Brief History
of
Language
Learning
Technology
Many people around the world are
utilizing technology to learn
languages. Whether it be on their
phone through Duolingo, in the car
with a favorite podcast, or online
through Transparent Language, this
u n p r e c e d e n t e d a c c e s s t o
technology has allowed a new
generation of language learners to
expand their communication skills
and pursue personal enrichment.
But have you ever wondered how
language learners were able to
pursue a new language in the age
before smartphones? In this two
part article, we will be looking at
how technology for language
learning has evolved throughout the
years, beginning as far back as
ancient history all the way up until
today. Since there is a very clear
digital divide created by the 1980s,
this first article will focus on pre-
home computer technology, and
the following article will look at how
our digitized world has made
language learning a pursuit
available to almost anyone.
5. 5
Although books are now as commonplace and everyday
as any object you can imagine, there once was a point
when it was considered the height of technology! The
Gutenberg printing press in many ways represents a
radical shift unprecedented until the arrival of computers
today. With the rapid creation of books, and therefore the
rapid sharing of knowledge, it was suddenly considered
an incredibly important scholarly pursuit for the noble
classes to learn Latin, until the 16th century the language
of religion, politics, and other scholarly pursuits. As Latin
fell out of favor for more vernacular tongues in day-to-
day proceedings, it was considered a noble art to pursue
another foreign language, in particular French or Italian in
Medieval Europe
We also see during this time the beginnings of modern
theory, many ideas which are still in use today. According
to Oxfordâs Encyclopedia of Education, John Amos
Comenius, a Czech philosopher, established a Latin
curriculum, Orbis sensualium pictus, that utilizes many of
the same pedagogical ideas that we see today. In
particular, Comenius stressed the importance of including
visuals and inducing sensations as part of students truly
being able to understand a language. As anyone who has
ever been in a language classroom can attest, having
students visualize and sense the language, through sight,
sound, and more, is still very much en vogue.
Actually introduced in the 1600s, the Magic Lantern (a
predecessor to todayâs) continued the idea of the
importance of images in learning, but now with the ability
to have images move, and providing a way to allow the
teacher to easily change the images. Now, instead of the
teacher relying on each student being able to find the
correct image in their textbook, they can instruct their
students all at once by projecting an image onto the
screen. This also allowed the opportunity for teachers to
do more with storytelling, especially an adept teacher who
could turn the Magic Lantern into a moving
Technology continued to evolve from these basic
principles, such as slide projectors eventually replacing
the Magic Lantern and white boards replacing slates, but
there is still one fundamental piece of the puzzle missing.
If communication is the key to language learning, how
are students supposed to be able to listen and speak in
an authentic manner? Books could be reproduced,
visuals can accompany, and eventually photographs can
show students authentic representations of the lands
they were learning the language of, but how are students
expected to today.
6. 6
In the pioneering days of CALL, the dominant
approaches to language teaching focused on structure
and form. An example of one such approach was the
audiolingual method, which emphasized the teaching of
grammar. The audiolingual method was heavily
influenced by the theories of prominent structural
linguists and behaviourist psychologists in the 1940s
and 1950s, and it remained the method of choice for
many years,
Warschauer (2000) divided the history of CALL into
three phases: i) structural (1970s to 1980s), during
which tutorials were developed for use on mainframe
computers to provide learners with drill-based
grammar practice for the purpose of accuracy; ii)
communicative (1980s to 1990s), during which
personal computers were used for communicative
exercises for the purpose of accuracy and fluency;
and iii) integrative (21st Century), during which
multimedia and the Internet have been used to
expose learners to authentic language for the purpose
of accuracy, fluency, and agency. Davies, Walker,
Rendall, and Hewer (2012) renamed the stages as
follows: i) Dumb CALL (1970s to 1980s) due to the
lack of sound and video capabilities at the time; ii)
Multimedia CALL (1990s onwards); and iii) Web CALL
(1993 onwards), which was used at first for more
behavioristic activities due to the limited capabilities of
the web, but allowed more interaction as sound and
video quality improved with the advent of Web 2.0.
Changes to Warschauerâs phases were also
proposed by Bax (2003), to better reflect attitudes
toward the integration of technology throughout the
history of CALL.
7. 7
Some years later, although there is
evidence that technology is being
used to a lesser or greater degree
depending on the context, it
appears that there is still some
distance to go before full
integration (Bax, 2011; Godwin-
Jones, 2015). Language education
experts generally agree that the
holy grail in terms of the use of
technology in language education
is normalisation, defined by Bax
(2003) as âthe stage when a
technology is invisible, hardly even
recognised as a technology, taken
for granted in everyday lifeâ (p.
23), when computers in all shapes
and sizes will be used âwithout
fear or inhibition, and equally
without an exaggerated respect for
what they can do. They will not be
the centre of any lesson, but they
will play a part in almost all⌠They
will go almost unnoticedâ (p. 24).
Garrett (2009) concurred that,
ideally, language educators should
aim for âa dynamic complex in
which technology, theory, and
pedagogy are inseparably
interwoven.â
The options for technology use
have expanded considerably since
the early days of CALL. In their
review of over 350 empirical
studies focused on language
learning technologies, Golonka et
a l . ( 2 0 1 4 ) e x a m i n e d t h e
effectiveness of a diverse range of
technologies, among them
learning management systems
(LMS), interactive white boards, e
Portfolios, electronic dictionaries,
intelligent tutoring systems,
grammar checkers, automatic
speech recognition, network-based
social computing, and mobile and
portable devices. Presently, there is
a keen interest in mobile-assisted
language learning (MALL) and
growing interest, as well, in robot-
assisted language learning (RALL).
These terms are briefly discussed
8. 8
MALL
The computers in the early days of CALL. Many language
teachers have not yet learned how to tap into the
opportunities for communication, collaboration, project-
based and task-based learning that mobile devices afford
(Burston, 2014; Godwin-Jones, 2017b). Furthermore, due
to lack of guidance (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015; Godwin-
Jones, 2016), learners generally limit the use of mobile
devices, in terms of their language learning, to online
dictionaries and translation tools (Brick & Cervi-Wilson,
2015). reveals that learners at different levels of language
proficiency use mobile devices, particularly smartphones,
for language learning purposes. This usage appears likely
to increase as technology to achieve desired language
learning outcomes and as learners become more adept at
designing their own learning activities (Brick & Cervi-
Wilson, 2015; Burston, 2014; Chwo, Marek, & Wu, 2016;
Demouy, Jones, Kan, Kukulska-Hulme, & Eardley, 2016;
Godwin-Jones, 2016, 2017b).
Caption
Mobile devices offer convenient access to technology
for all learners, but they are especially useful for
distance language learners (Demouy et al., 2016;
Godwin-Jones, 2017b); as well, they are a powerful tool
for migrants and refŕš has been described as behaviorist
and teacher-centered (Burston, 2014;more teachers
learn how to better leverage mobile
9. 9
Godwin-Jones, 2017b). Furthermore, due to lack of
guidance (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015; Godwin-
Jones, 2016), learners generally limit the use of
mobile devices, in terms of their language learning, to
online dictionaries and translation tools (Brick &
Cervi-Wilson, 2015).
RALL
Inspired by AI (artificial intelligence) technology
(Kessler, 2018), the research and development of
RALL started around 2004 in a small number of
Asian countries (Han, 2012). Robots have since
proven to be an effective tool for motivating children
to learn in foreign language learning contexts where
it is often difficult to find native-speaking teachers of
the target language (Han, 2012; Hong, Huang, Hsu,
& Shen, 2016; Vogt, de Haas, de Jong, Baxter, &
Krahmer, 2017). One of the challenges with this
technology, however, is its limited ability to recognize
childrenâs speech (Vogt et al., 2017). Since the
concept is still in its infancy, considerable research is
needed in the area of RALL to ensure that robots are
designed to meet the needs of learners and teachers
in different language learning contexts (Han, 2012;
Hong et al., 2016).
10. 10
As the brief history and evolution of CALL above
illustrate, technology use in language learning
has progressed considerably since its humble
beginnings, but it is still far from full integration.
The sections below discuss the opportunities and
challenges related to the use of various
technologies in language education.
Opportunities
The following list offers an overview of some of
the affordances of technology for language
education:
⢠Enables multimodal language activities in which
reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills are
integrated, not isolated, thereby accommodating
the strengths of different learners (Blake, 2016;
Felix, 2008)
⢠Reduces language learning anxiety (Hong et al.,
2016) and increases motivation and participation
(Felix, 2008; Kessler, 2018), e.g., through game-
based activities and opportunities to be creative,
such as via mashups and digital storytelling
(Kessler, 2018)
⢠Enables learners to collaborate, co-construct
knowledge, and build communities (Kessler,
2018; Reinders & White, 2016)
⢠Facilitates individualized learning experiences for
learner-centered instruction (Kessler, 2018), in
which learner analytics is expected to play an
increasing role as the ability to monitor and track
studentsâ progress increases (Adams Becker,
Rodriguez, Estrada, & Davis, 2016; Kessler, 2018),
e.g., with adaptive learning tools like the online
language learning platform Busuu (Adams Becker
et al., 2016) and intelligent language tutors like
Chatbot Lucy (Wang & Petrina, 2013)
⢠Enables access to big data such as corpora (large
collections of authentic language) that can be used
by teachers to create authentic learning activities
(Godwin-Jones, 2017a; Kessler, 2018)
⢠Enables immersion in authentic contexts via the
use of immersive technologies such as virtual
reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), online games
a n d s i m u l a t i o n s , a n d t e l e p r e s e n c e o r
videoconferencing tools (Adams Becker et al.,
2016; Blyth, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2014)
⢠Allows learners to construct a new social identity
online which may give them confidence to interact
with native speakers, i.e., to find a medium
between their first language and the target
language (Blake, 2016; Garrett, 2009; Godwin-
Jones, 2015; Kern, 2006; Kessler, 2018)
11. 11
⢠Develops learner autonomy (Kessler, 2018;
Reinders & White, 2016) and allows informal
learning experiences that empower learners
(Adams Becker et al., 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2017b;
Jones et al., 2017)
⢠Allows learners to explore and engage in
meaningful, authentic language practice with native
speakers via computer-mediated communication
(CMC) tools (Blake, 2016; Garrett, 2009), such as
texting, chats, e-mail, online discussions, blogging,
wikis, and web-based word processing, e.g.,
Google Docs (Kessler, 2018)
⢠Enables computer-adaptive testing, which improves
test security and prevents cheating (Chapelle &
Voss, 2016)
⢠Allows for real-time feedback on assessments
(Chapelle & Voss, 2016)
⢠Enables automated feedback on written tasks via
automated writing evaluation and chatbots, which
can be created by teachers for text chat practice;
also enables spoken feedback via automated
speech recognition (ASR) (Golonka et al., 2014;
Kessler, 2018), although a few reservations have
been expressed concerning the effectiveness of
ASR for some language learners (Blyth, 2018;
Chapelle & Voss, 2016; Golonka et al., 2014; Vogt
et al., 2017)
⢠Enables localization (situated learning) and
personalization via the use of mobile devices
(Godwin-Jones, 2016), as with the MASELTOV
project (http://www.maseltov.eu/), which proved
effective in accommodating the language
learning and settlement needs of migrants in
Europe (Jones et al., 2017)
⢠Facilitates one-on-one language advising/
language support between teachers and
students via online access (Reinders & White,
2016).
Incorporating the use of several technological
applications allows for students to participate in
higher-order thinking, enhance communication,
engage in collaborative problem-solving activities
and discussions, critically reflect on content and
expand digital competencies (Schindler et al.,
2017 ). Studies have compared differences in
academic achievement between students who
h a v e b e e n t a u g h t w i t h t e c h n o l o g i c a l
enhancement (i.e. lecture recordings and
podcasts) and those who been taught without it.
The results demonstrated that students who
learned academic content in the technology
enhanced classroom outperformed those who
learned the content without technology (Carle,
Jaffee & Miller, 2009 ). Performance was greater
in the intervention group in all objectively graded
assessments which include papers, midterm/final
exam scores and individual assignments. Other
research has demonstrated that implementing
technology into the classroom enhances student
motivation to understand and complete tasks
(Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000).
12. 12
Much existing CALL research did not apply to
teaching Swedish; as a result, the pre-service
teachers with whom she worked were not convinced
of the relevancy of the literature to their context.
Sauro and her pre-service teachers were further
disappointed to find that although Swedish was one
of the languages featured on the popular, free
language learning platform, Duolingo, the user
interface was English, making it inaccessible for
anyone who did not know English. An overwhelming
focus in CALL literature on technology use for the
purpose of English language instruction has been
viewed by others as a prevailing issue (Garrett,
2009; Golonka et al., 2014).
Studies have revealed that instructors believe there
is insufficient time in class to deliver content and
teach digital competencies to students (Kirkscey,
2012). While many instructors feel they they have
adequate training and are comfortable with teaching
students to use technology, there is simply not
enough time to do so. Other barriers to technology
implementation within the classroom are limited
technical ability of students, lack of funding, feelings
of isolation when learning, difficulty connecting with
peers, distraction with other applications and setting
boundaries between class and personal life (Sun et
Challenges
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory has always
played a tremendous role in the development and use
of CALL, but this is perhaps the greatest hindrance to
the use of Challenges f CALL, but this is perhaps the
greatest hindrance to the use of technology in the
teaching of languages other than English, particularly
less commonly taught languages. Because SLA theory
originated in the field of English as a Second Language
(ESL), it applies to some extent to commonly taught
languages like Spanish and French that are closely
related to English, but it does not apply to languages
that are very different, especially those with a non-
Roman script (Garrett, 2009; Godwin Jones, 2013).
According to Sauro (2016), studies published in four
CALL journals during the four-year period from 2012 to
2016 focused on 16 languages, including one artificial
language and one Native American language. English
was identified as the focus of 64% of the studies. In her
commentary, Sauro, a teacher and CALL practitioner in
a teacher education program in Sweden, referred to a
assessments which include papers, midterm/final exam
scores and individual assignments. Other research has
demonstrated that implementing technology into the
classroom enhances student motivation to understand
and complete tasks (Mistler-Jackson & Songer, 2000).
2015 influx of about 163,000 refugees, over 35,000
of whom were unaccompanied minors, and all of
whom needed to learn Swedish.
13. 13
⢠Godwin-Jones (2016) observed that exposure to
different types of online genres provides
opportunities for learners to become acquainted
with informal language not typically found in
textbooks. Kern (2006) found this somewhat
problematic in that âCMC language is often less
correct, less complex, less coherent than other
forms of language useâ (p. 194) and that learners
might lack the ability to distinguish between
standard and non-standard uses of language; thus,
he advised teaching students appropriate registers
(levels of formal and informal language) for
different communicative contexts. Chapelle and
Jamieson (2008) offered similar advice. Blyth
(2018) further suggested that the dynamic nature
of speaker identity in online cultural interaction
requires teachers to help learners make sense of
such language exchanges. Somewhat related,
Haugh (2017) cautioned against learner reliance
on translation tools that might miss cultural
nuances.
⢠As learning becomes more personalized, teachers
in all disciplines are increasingly required to take
on new roles such as facilitating and guiding
(Adams Becker et al., 2016; Blyth, 2018; Godwin-
Jones, 2015; Kern, 2006; Kessler, 2018; Reinders
& White, 2016). Adoption of new roles may
Much existing CALL research did not apply to
teaching Swedish; as a result, the pre-service
teachers with whom she worked were not convinced
of the relevancy of the literature to their context.
Sauro and her pre-service teachers were further
disappointed to find that although Swedish was one
of the languages featured on the popular, free
language learning platform, Duolingo, the user
interface was English, making it inaccessible for
anyone who did not know English. An overwhelming
focus in CALL literature on technology use for the
purpose of English language instruction has been
viewed by others as a prevailing issue (Garrett,
2009; Golonka et al., 2014).
The following presents additional challenges with
technology use in language education, a few of
which are common to other teaching disciplines.
al., 2016 ). However, with mindful pedagogical
strategies, instructors can overcome these barriers
and use technology to enhance student engagement
and success.
14. 14
⢠disruptive for some (Reinders & White, 2016),
particularly those who lack the know-how to
effectively adapt technology for use in their
specific context (Godwin-Jones, 2015; Kessler,
2018); yet, they will need to take on the
responsibility of researching and testing tools for
learners to use inside and outside the classroom
(Godwin-Jones, 2015, 2016). Godwin-Jones
(2015) suggested that these tasks might be
facilitated by a basic working knowledge of the
design and coding of certain digital tools
(Godwin-Jones, 2015). Such expectations of
teacher autonomy (Reinders & White, 2016) may
seem daunting, but enrolment in a MOOC or
active participation in a community of practice
(CoP) are two recommended ways to gain the
skills and knowledge to ease the process
(Godwin-Jones, 2015).
⢠To reasonably assess the use of the technologies
they wish to incorporate into their teaching,
teachers need to acquire practical knowledge of
such tools (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015; Godwin-
Jones, 2016); as well, they should be prepared to
train learners, even the most tech-savvy ones, to
⢠use various tools effectively, to reduce anxiety and
cognitive load, and enable achievement of
language learning goals (Chapelle & Jamieson,
2008; Chwo et al., 2016; Felix, 2008; Garrett,
2009; Godwin-Jones, 2015, 2016; Hubbard, 2013;
Kern, 2006; Sydorenko, Hsieh, Ahn, & Arnold,
2017). This is critical for learners of less commonly
taught languages, who should be provided with
resources and training early in their language
learning experience (Garrett, 2009; Godwin-Jones,
2013).
Conclusions and Future Recommendations
To provide the reader with some helpful background
on the use of technology in foreign and second
language education, this chapter commenced with a
brief history of CALL and its evolution over the
years. The succeeding sections focused on the
various opportunities and challenges of CALL, some
of which are shared in common with other subject
areas. Factors that are generally considered in
discussions of technology use in education were
omitted, e.g., institutional policies, infrastructure,
teacher permanency (or lack thereof), student
ownership of mobile devices (Chwo et al., 2016),
financial considerations, and hardware constraints
(Burston, 2014).
15. 15
â˘
The greatest challenges with technology use in
language education appear to relate to a lack of
studies on a diversity of languages in CALL
research. Also, more studies on technology use for
younger language learners are needed. Perhaps
future research will bring increased focus on these
areas.
In spite of the hurdles that have yet to be
surmounted, this much is evident: in this age of
automation, language teachers need not fear being
replaced by technology. Even as their traditional
roles evolve, they will still be needed to help learners
make sense of the cultural nuances of language. And
such skills will be indispensable as people worldwide
continue to realize the value in learning languages to
increase their options for business and employment
in a globalized economy.
References
Adams Becker, S., Rodriguez, J.C., Estrada, V., &
Davis, A. (2016). Innovating Language Education:
An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief (Volume
3.1). Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-
strategic-brief-language_ed.pdf
Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present, and future.
System, 31(1), 13â28. doi: 10.1016/
S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The
effective use of technology in language education.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted
Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1-15. doi:
10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101
Blake, R. (2016). Technology and the four skills.
Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 129â142.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44465
Bloomberg News. (2017, September 11). Virtual
American tutors are helping Chinese kids to learn
English online. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/
analysis-and-features/virtual-american-tutors-
chinese-kids-learn-english-china-high-tech-online-
education-a7936006.html
16. 16
Blyth C. (2018). Immersive technologies and
language learning. Foreign Language Annals,
51(1), 225â232. Retrieved from https://doi.org/
10.1111/flan.12327
Brick, B., & Cervi-Wilson, T. (2015). Technological
diversity: A case study into language learnersâ
mobile technology use inside and outside the
classroom. In K. Borthwick, E. Corradini, & A.
Dickens (Eds.), 10 years of the LLAS elearning
symposium: Case studies in good practice (pp.
21-30). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. doi:
10.14705/rpnet.2015.000264
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical
challenges. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
27(4), 344-357. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2014.914539
Chapelle, C.A. & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for
Teaching with CALL: Practical Approaches to
Computer-Assisted Language Learning. White
Plains, NY: Pearson-Longman.
Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2016). 20 years of
technology and language assessment in Language
Learning & Technology. Language Learning &
Technology, 20(2), 116â128. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10125/44464
Chwo, S. M. G., Marek, M. W., & Wu, W. C. V. (2016).
Curriculum integration of MALL in L1/L2 pedagogy:
Perspectives on research. Educational Technology &
Society, 19(2), 340â354. Retrieved from https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/281801662
Davies G., Walker R., Rendall H., & Hewer S. (2012).
Introduction to computer assisted language learning
(CALL). Module 1.4 in Davies G. (Ed.) Information
and Communications Technology for Language
Teachers (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames Valley University
[Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/
en_mod1-4.htm [Accessed 16 June 2018].
Demouy, V., Jones, A., Kan, Q., Kukulska-Hulme, A.,
& Eardley, A. (2016). Why and how do distance
learners use mobile devices for language learning?
Emmanuel, N. (2018, January 19). Education
technology is a global opportunity [Web log post].
Retrieved from
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/education-
technology-is-a-global-opportunity
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of
CALL: What have we learned in two decades of
research? ReCALL 20(2), 141-161. doi: 10.1017/
S0958344008000323
17. 17
â˘
Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language
learning trends and issues revisited: Integrating
innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93,
719-740. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x
Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). The technological
imperative in teaching and learning less commonly
taught languages. Language Learning & Technology,
17(1), 7â19. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10125/24502
Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language
learning: Opportunities and challenges. Language
Learning & Technology 18(2), 9â19. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44363
Godwin-Jones, R. (2015). The evolving roles of
language teachers: Trained coders, local researchers,
global citizens. Language Learning & Technology,
19(1), 10â22. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10125/44395
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Looking back and ahead: 20
years of technologies for language learning. Language
Learning & Technology 20(2), 5â12. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44457
Godwin-Jones, R. (2017a). Data-informed language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 9â
27. doi: 10125/44629
Godwin-Jones, R. (2017b). Smartphones and language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 3â
17. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10125/44607
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V.M.,
Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies
for foreign language learning: a review of technology
types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Han, J. (2012). Emerging technologies â robot assisted
language learning. Language Learning & Technology,
16(3), 1-9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/
10125/44291
Haugh, M. (2017, October 15). Translation technology
is useful, but should not replace learning languages
[Web log post]. Retrieved from https://
theconversation.com/translation-technology-is-useful-
but-should-not-replace-learning-languages-85384
Hong, Z. W., Huang, Y. M., Hsu, M., & Shen, W. W.
(2016). Authoring robot-assisted instructional materials
for improving learning performance and motivation in
EFL classrooms. Educational Technology & Society,
19(1), 337â349. Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/
ETS/journals/19_1/27.pdf
Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training
in technology enhanced language learning
environments. CALICO Journal 30(2), 163â178. doi:
10.11139/cj.30.2.163-178
18. 18
â˘
Jones, A., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L., Gaved, M.,
Scanlon, E., Jones, J. & Brasher, A. (2017). Supporting
immigrant language learning on smartphones: A field
trial. Studies in the Education of Adults 49(2), 228-252.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning
and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly 40(1),
183-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40264516
Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of
language teaching. Foreign Language Annals 51(1),
205â218. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/
flan.12318
Li, G., & Ni, X. (2012). Use of technology to support the
learning and teaching of English in China. In J. Ruan &
C.B. Leung (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching and
learning English literacy in China (pp. 145-160). doi:
10.1007/978-94-007-4994-8_10.
Paul, C.M., & Liu, H.J. (2018). Technology and
innovation in Chinaâs EFL classrooms. In H.A. Spires
(Ed.) Digital transformation and innovation in Chinese
education (pp. 163-175). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global. Retrieved from http://
caseymedlockpaul.weebly.com/publications.html
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy
and technology: How far have we come and where to
next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143â
154. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44466
Sauro, S. (2016). Does CALL have an English problem?
Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 1â8. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44474
Sydorenko, T., Hsieh, C., Ahn, S., & Arnold N. (2017).
Foreign language learnersâ beliefs about CALL: The
case of a U.S. Midwestern university. CALICO
Journal, 34(2), 196â218. Retrieved from https://
doi.org/10.1558/cj.28226
Vogt, P., de Haas, M., de Jong, C., Baxter, P., &
Krahmer, E. (2017). Child-robot interactions for
second language tutoring to preschool children.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(73). doi:
10.3389/fnhum.2017.00073
Wang, Y. F., & Petrina, S. (2013). Using learning
analytics to understand the design of an intelligent
language tutor â Chatbot Lucy. (IJACSA)
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science
and Applications, 4(11), 124-131. doi: 10.14569/
IJACSA.2013.041117
Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and
the rebirth of CALL. English Teachersâ Journal 53,
61-67. Retrieved from http://education.uci.edu/
uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/cyberspace.pdf
