The pedagogical value of technology-enhanced instruction lies more in its ability to increase the quantity of learner output in the target language rather than the quality, depending upon the skill.

1. Kripps 2015
How Much Does Technology Enhance Learning?
Anthony Kripps
www.polyglot12.pw
According to Salaberry (2001), one of the first questions that must be answered before
integrating technology into the curriculum is “does the technology enhance learning?” To
answer this question, we will examine three meta-analyses of technology-enhanced
instruction research. These involve Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL),
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), and Game-based Learning (GBL).
Among 575 quantitative studies published between 1994 to 2102 and surveyed by
Burston (2013), the majority of research shows that MALL is not significantly more
effective than tradition instruction to enhance the quality of L2 output (diagram 1).
Diagram 1
Learning Outcomes for Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Examining these research results according to skill (table 1) reveals a slightly different
picture. However, overall we find that fewer studies show significant improvement in
quality of skill.
MALL vs. F2F
Burston 2013
Significant
Not significant

2. Kripps 2015
Table 1
Effectiveness of Mobile Technology versus Low Tech Modalities (Burston, 2013)
In her meta-analysis of 14 quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012, Ziegler
(2013) found no significant effect for Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) in
enhancing the quality of spoken/written, productive/receptive skills over F2F regardless
of modality, audio, video or graph, nor were native-speaker (NS) and non-native-speaker
(NNS) interaction dyads, both NS-NNS and NNS-NNS, significant factors.
At first blush, five out of the 14 studies reported significant results for the CMC
experimental group, as shown the table 2 and diagram 2 below. However, subsequent
reanalysis found that the data has been misinterpreted, meaning that none of the results
were statistically significant.
Table 2
Summary of Research Findings from Ziegler’s Meta-analysis (2013)
Researchers L1 L2 greater improvement for
experimental group
Abrams 2003 English German (+)
Baralt 2010 English Spanish (-)
Bueno-Alastue 2011 Turkish English (+)
Conaim & Wong 2004 Chinese English (-)
de la Fuente 2003 English Japanese (-)
Hirotani 2009 English Japanese (-)
Kost 2004 English German (-)
Lin 2009 varied English (-)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Vocabulary Writing Pronunciation
No
Yes

3. Kripps 2015
Payne & Whitney 2002 English Spanish (+)
Petersen 2010 varied English (-)
Sequeira 2010 English Spanish (+)
Sullivan & Pratt 1996 varied English (-)
Sykes 2005 English Spanish (+)
Yanguas 2012 English Spanish (-)
Diagram 2
Summary of Research Findings from Ziegler’s Meta-analysis (2013)
In a survey of 32 quantitative studies of game-based learning (GBL) for ELT between
1988 and 2012 (Kripps, 2015), it was found that most of these favored vocabulary
acquisition. However, for grammar and pronunciation most studies for the results to be
insignificant for use of GBL versus traditional instructional methods (diagram 3). In a
subsequent survey of eleven quantitative ELT studies devoted to GBL for Arab learners
published between 1995 and 2012, all of them found significant improvement for the
experimental group for all skills. Hence, the ELT studies for Arab learners seem dubious
in light of general ELT research findings.
CMC vs. F2F
Ziegler 2013
significant
not significant

4. Kripps 2015
Diagram 3
General ELT Quantitative GBL Research (Kripps, 2015)
Finally, when we survey research for Arabic L1 learners of English, the results are
overwhelming in favor of technology over F2F. Besides Patronis (2014), only one Arab
researcher found negative results (table 3). In light of the meta-analyses mentioned
above, the preponderance of positive evidence from research for Arab learners raises
serious questions about its veracity and reliability.
Table 3
Technology-Enhanced Learning for Arabic L1 Speakers
Researcher Technology Significant improvement for
experimental group
Ahmad, 2013 Internet capable mobile-
phones
(+)
Al-Jarf, 2005 LMS (+)
Almekhlafi, 2006 multimedia CD ROM (-)
Alsaleem, 2013 "WhatsApp" graphic chat (+)
Fageeh, 2013 mobile phone (+)
Patronis, 2014 iPad (-)
In conclusion, whereas Zhao, on the basis of his meta-analysis of 16 studies, concludes
that there is an “overwhelmingly positive effect of technology applications on language
learning” (2003 p. 19), a more modest conclusion has been reached here. The
pedagogical value of technology-enhanced instruction lies more in its ability to increase
the quantity of learner output in the target language rather than the quality, depending
upon the skill. In addition, technology and virtual learning environments have the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
vocabulary grammar pronunciation
No
Yes

5. Kripps 2015
advantage of improving learner’s motivation and attitude toward the target language
while reducing anxiety compared to traditional F2F instruction.
References
Ahmad, J. (2013). Effectiveness of Internet Capable Mobile-Phones in Learning
Vocabulary with Special Reference to Working Class Saudi EFL Learners. Archives Des
Sciences, 66, 1, Retrieved from
https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/0053226/Researches/65163_36510.pdf
Al-Jarf, R. (2005). Using Three Online Course Management Systems in EFL Instruction.
Paper presented at the 4th
Asia CALL Conference. Sorabol College, Geongju, South Korea.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497937.pdf
Almekhlafi, A. (2006). The Effect of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) on
United Arab Emirates English as a Foreign Language (EFL) School Students'
Achievement and Attitude. Journal of Interactive Language Learning, 17, 2, 121-142.
Alsaleem, B. (2013). The Effect of "WhatsApp" Electronic Dialogue Journaling on
Improving Writing Vocabulary Word Choice and Voice of EFL Undergraduate Saudi
Students. Arab World English Journal,4, 3, 213-225.
Burston, J. (2013). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning: A Selected Bibliography of
Implementation Studies 1994-2012. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 3, 157-225
Fageeh, A. (2013). Effects of MALL Applications on Vocabulary Acquisition and
Motivation. Arab World English Journal,4,4, 420-447.
Kripps, A. (2015). English Games for Arab Learners. Proceedings of TESOL Arabia.
Dubai: TESOL Arabia.
Patronis, M. (2014). The Effect of Using the iPad on Students’ Performance in Writing and
Reading Comprehension: Pilot Study Report. Arab World English Journal, 1, 67-80.
Salaberry, M.R. 2001. The use of technology for second language learning and teaching:
A retrospective. Modern Language Journal 85, 1: 39–56.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent Developments in Technology and Language Learning: A
Literature Review and Meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21, 1, 7-27.
Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous Computer-mediated Communication and Interaction: A
Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgetown
University.