Language educators are eager to transform their teaching by embracing new technologies, be they digital tools, Web-based resources, or ancillaries that accompany textbook packages. While there is no doubt that digital materials facilitate opportunities for exposing learners to authentic language and structuring interaction at a distance, many wonder when and how these technologies will cease to be add-ons begin to serve a more integrative function in transforming language teaching and learning. In this session we propose that the paper-based textbook has outlived its usefulness in today’s world, logistically and pedagogically. We focus on two aspects of the future paperless classroom: what students do on their own time and how; and what can be done during class time and how. Specific examples are provided from an existing digital learning environment and a project in development in Spanish, but the theoretical and practical principles are applicable to any language and level.

1. The world is not flat,
so why are our textbooks?
Digital transformations for the
real-world language classroom
Amy Rossomondo (arossomo@ku.edu)
Gillian Lord (glord@ufl.edu)
Please connect to the internet and open a web browser.

2. What do you think?
We’re going to ask you some questions
using an online polling program.
1. Open any web browser.
2. Go to
http://pollev.com/gillianlord055

9. The traditional language text
• Instructors rely on textbooks to determine
curricula (Byrnes, 1998; Lord, 2014; Richards,
n.d.; Wiggins & McTighe (1998, 2008)
• Language textbooks generally follow a
“coverage model” (Chaffee, 1992)
• Publishing houses and instructors tacitly
endorse the grammar-coverage approach,
which ends up excluding meaningful contexts
(Allen & Paesani, 2010)

10. Current approaches to language teaching
[as determined by leading textbooks]
• Focused on skills development (often) with
emphasis on oral/aural modalities
• Reading/writing seen as separate skills
independent of audience
• Content is mostly self-referential; often driven
by transactional concerns or "practical"
language use
• Culture is often conceptualized as a static 5th
skill, treated separately and often incidentally

11. BUT increasing criticisms of this approach
– Meyer’s (2009) assertion:
“ideas and concepts should anchor students’
intellectual and linguistic trajectories in the
college-level foreign language curriculum at all
levels of instruction,” despite the inherent
challenge in developing “students’ thinking
abilities at their intellectual levels while
developing their linguistic skills in the target
language, which are at a much lower level” (p. 86)
– And others, including: Allen & Paesani, 2010;
Blythe & Davis, 2007; Brager & Rice, 2000; Lord &
Isabelli, 2014; Rossomondo, 2012

12. All this points to the need for
a new approach to language
teaching and learning materials

13. 1) Transformed Approach
• Ability to “operate between languages and cultures”
• Textual (written and oral) resources serve as the basis
for language and cultural exploration
• Focus of the text-driven content gradually shifts from
inward- to outward-looking themes
• Integrated and intentional approach to cultural
exploration emphasizes identifying multiple
perspectives
• Culture as fluid, context-bound, and mediated through
language use
• Situate the textual within a communicative framework
• Emphasis on developing skills and strategies

14. Variety of texts serve as models
• fdsafdsa

15. Evolution towards
authentic texts by the end

16. 2) Emphasis on outcomes
• Clearly articulated unit-level goals
• Interface emphasizes mastery-based
learning and assessment
• Focus on student outcomes
• Tenets of BACKWARD DESIGN 

18. 3) Visible learning
• Carefully sequenced modules to facilitate the acquisition of a
broad range of language, communicative and content learning
outcomes
• Flexible enough to be used in a variety instructional settings /
sequences
• Summative portfolio activity for each unit: application of
unit’s linguistic, communicative, cultural and content-related
learning to the realization of a meaningful task
• Portfolios offer formative and summative assessment
opportunities that are critical for closing the assessment loop

19. ENCHÚFATE:
Student films selfie-
video as she walks
around campus
talking about her
favorite places and
what she does there
Sample structure: Module 4
ENCHUFADOS:
Post a video or photo
of your favorite
spot(s) on campus (or
other location) and
briefly describe
Vocabulary:
Campus and
housing; adjectives;
me/te gusta +
infinitive
Grammar:
Present tense AR
verbs; the verb
haber in contrast
with ser/estar
Strategies:
Using nonverbal cues
to aid comprehension;
Pronouncing vowels a,
e, o; incorporating
nonverbal cues
Culture:
University life in
the Spanish-
speaking world

20. 4 macro-portafolios

21. 4) Components
• No artificial division between presenting,
practicing, using and assessing language.
• Adaptive learning paths.
• Student exploration is as important as
instructor-led learning paths.
• Practice is meaningful, not busy-
work!

22. Interactive out-of-class instruction

23. Paired and communicative tasks for
in-class meetings

24. 5) Digital interface
• Online, native-digital
• Mobile adaptive
• Suitable for all class delivery modes
– Face-to-face | Hybrid |Online
• Accommodate instructor preferences

26. Discussion
• Do you agree that the time has come for a
new approach to the ‘textbook’?
• Do you believe that digital programs should be
the future of language learning?
• Do you think you could implement a text, like
the one described here, in your language
classes?
– Why or why not?
– What would you want to see that we didn’t
address?
• Other thoughts or reactions to share?

27. Thank you.
Allen, Heather Willis, and Kate Paesani. (2010). “Exploring the Feasibility of a Pedagogy
of Multiliteracies in Introductory Foreign Language Courses.” L2 Journal 2.1. Print.
Blyth, Carl S., and James N. Davis. (2013). “Using Formative Evaluation in the
Development of Learner-Centered Materials.” CALICO Journal 25.1: 48-68. Print.
Bragger, J. D., & Rice, D. B. (2000). “FL Materials: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” Agents of change in a changing
age. Ed. Frank. W. Medley & Robert M. Terry. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Print.
Byrnes, Heidi. (1998). “Constructing Curricula In collegiate Foreign Language Departments.” Learning foreign and
second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship. Ed. Heidi Byrnes. New York: The Modern Language
Association of America. 262-295. Print.
Chaffee, John. (1992). “Teaching Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum.” New Directions for Community Colleges
77: 25-35.Print.
Lord, Gillian. (2014). Language Program Direction: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Print.
Lord, Gillian, and Christina Isabelli-García. (2014) “Program Articulation and Management.” The Routledge
Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics. Ed. Manel Lacorte. Print.
Meyer, Carol. (2009). “The Role of Thinking in the College Language Classroom.” ADFL Bulletin, 41.1: 86-93. Print.
Modern Language Association. (2007). “Foreign Languages and Higher Education: New Structures for a Changed
World: MLA Ad Hoc Committee on Foreign Languages.” Profession. 234-245.Print.
Richards, Jack C. (2001). “The Role of Textbooks in a Language Program.” Guidelines 23.2: 12-16. Web.
Rossomondo, Amy. (2012). “Integrating Foundational Language and Content Study Through New Approaches to
Hybrid Learning And Teaching.” Hybrid Language Teaching and Learning: Exploring Theoretical, Pedagogical and
Curricular Issues, Heinle Cengage, Boston 219-238. Print.
Wiggins, Grant and Jay McTighe. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development. Print.

28. • http://www.slideshare.net/glord/the-world-is-
not-flat-rossomondo-lord-actfl2015