2 The role of technology,

motivation and SLA

Aims: This chapter considers the role of technologies in language education

by reviewing learning theories discussed in the literature. In particular, this
chapter looks at factors contributing to successful second language learning
(SLL) and the potential of technology for enhancing SLL. One of the important
benefits of technology in SLL is to enhance learner motivation and engage-
ment. Empirical studies will be used to illustrate how technologies enhance
the development of autonomous language learners. This chapter has three
sections, as follows:

1. Key factors contributing to effective second language learning

2. Affordances and roles of technology
3. Focus on motivation.

Introduction
A vast amount of research has been carried out over the last several decades
to gain insights into effective language learning. As a result, new methodo-
logical approaches have been proposed, abundant print and digital materials
have been developed and various learning strategies have been put forward.
In the review of the development of TESOL methodology and the under-
pinning theories of language and language learning, different factors may
account for effective L2 learning, including authentic input, conscious noticing
on form, opportunity for interaction, in-time and individualised feedback, low
affective filter and an environment where language can be used. In this chapter,
I will examine these influential factors and discuss affordances and roles of
technology in addressing these key elements of second language learning. Of
course, caution has to be advised regarding the possibility that other factors,
especially on a personal level, might contribute to effective learning, and this
is not an exhaustive list of elements on which any teacher or learner needs
to work. We also need to acknowledge that learning is not simply linear and
that many factors influence each other in the process of learning.

28
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 29

In this chapter, I will first examine these key elements for second language
learning, and then I will discuss the benefits and roles of CALL and evidence
of its ‘value and usability’ (Chapelle, 2003, p. 67). I will pay particular atten-
tion to its affective role in promoting motivation and autonomy.

Key factors contributing to effective second language

learning
When we talk about effective language learning, various theorists have
proposed different factors that contribute to it. Despite different theoretical
positions on what learning is and what language is, there are factors which
theorists, teachers and learners all agree are important. These are elaborated
below.

Authentic input and focus on meaning

Input, in particular authentic input that focuses on meaning, is of utmost

importance in second language learning. Second language acquisition (SLA)
theorist Rod Ellis (2005) remarks, ‘language learning, whether it occurs in a
naturalistic or an instructed context, is a slow and labour-intensive process. If
learners do not receive exposure to the target language they cannot acquire it.
In general, the more exposure they receive, the more and the faster they will
learn’ (p. 45). Simply put, input is the most influential factor contributing to
the speed and success of language learning. In this regard, SLA pioneer
Stephen Krashen established the Monitor
Because Krashen is one of the
Model, which highlights the importance
most influential theorists of SLA, of input in SLA.
his Monitor Model is probably the Krashen (1982) postulated that
most renowned among linguists and in SLA, the primary determinant is
language practitioners and also the comprehensible input, which triggers
one which has attracted an onslaught automatic processes that are ultimately
of criticism. The Monitor Model con- responsible for successful language
sists of five hypotheses, namely the learning. The input hypothesis explains
acquisition-learning hypothesis, the how SLA actually happens. According
monitor hypothesis, the natural order to this hypothesis, learners improve and
hypothesis, the input hypothesis and progress along the ‘natural order’ when
the affective filter hypothesis, and it
they receive second language input at
is an example of the ‘nativist theory’.
According to this model, to acquire
the level which is a little beyond their
an L2, the learner needs to focus on current level of (acquired) competence.
messages and meanings. For example, if a learner’s stage is ‘i’,
then acquisition occurs when he/she
30 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

is exposed to comprehensible input that belongs to the level ‘i+1’. This ‘i+1’
comprehensible input can be achieved by reading and hearing, and there-
fore, based on this assumption, the input hypothesis claims that listening
and reading comprehension are more important than writing and speaking,
which will come on in their own time. The hypothesis further points out that
speaking is not ‘taught’ but instead ‘“emerges” after the acquirer has built
up competence through comprehending input’ (Krashen and Terrell, 1983,
p. 32). Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of ‘i’, Krashen
suggests ‘natural communicative input’ as the key to designing a syllabus so
that every learner will receive some appropriate ‘i+1’ input to their current
linguistic competence. He also offers the idea of the input being finely – and
roughly – tuned. The finely tuned input targets the current level of the learn-
er’s acquisition, learning one structure at a time. The roughly tuned input
itself includes learners’ ‘i+1’, like a net spreading around the learner’s current
acquisition level. In such situations, the goal is to make oneself understood.
Krashen explains it as ‘when communication is successful, when the input is
understood and there is enough of it, ‘i+1’ will be provided automatically’
(Krashen, 1982, p. 22). Good roughly tuned input is caretaker speech, for-
eigner talk and teacher talk. Krashen and Terrell (1983) argued that roughly
tuned input has several real advantages over finely tuned exercises:

With rough tuning, we are always assured that i+1 will be covered, while with
finely tuned exercises, we are taking a guess as to where the student is. With
roughly tuned input, we are assured of constant recycling and review; this is
not the case with ‘lock-step’ exercises. Third, roughly tuned input will be good
for more than one acquirer at a time, even when they are at slightly different
levels. Finally, roughly tuned caretaker-like speech in the form of teacher talk
or foreigner talk, will nearly always be more interesting than an exercise that
focuses just on one grammatical point. (p. 35)

Task 2.1: Does ‘i+1’ make sense to you?

Think about your own learning experience or your teaching context. Are there
any problems you can observe about ‘i+1’?

Although Krashen’s ‘i+1’ attempts to explain how language is acquired and

provides a theoretical environment for language development, the theory
has raised some questions; for instance, Ellis (1992) points out that Krashen
fails to provide a single study that has demonstrated the input hypothesis.
Several theorists have also proposed that SLA can take place without two-
way communication or interactional modifications (Larsen-Freeman, 1983;
Ellis, 1985). This means input is not entirely necessary for language learning.
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 31

Further, Hadley (1993) proposes that

Developed by Merrill Swain, the com- this comprehensive input happens only
prehensible output (CO) hypothesis
when the learners use the language in
states that learning takes place when
context and when they communicate
a learner encounters a gap in his or
her linguistic knowledge of the second or interact with the environment.
language (L2). By noticing this gap, Moreover, Swain (1983) has argued that
the learner becomes aware of it and the input hypothesis fails to recognise
may be able to modify his output so the importance of comprehensible out-
that he learns something new about put (this is discussed later on). Lee and
the language. VanPatten (1995) have made the point
that while input is critical, it is far from
the only factor that determines SLA.
Krashen (1982) acknowledged that comprehensible input alone is an insuffi-
cient condition for SLA; SLA happens only when input becomes intake. It is
still not entirely known how the learner selects input and what is assimilated
and fed into their internal system (e.g. Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
In addition, it is difficult to define what ‘i’ level the learner is at, and how
to cover the learners’ different ‘i’ levels in actual classrooms. Mitchell and
Myles (1998) argue ‘the concepts of “understanding” and “noticing gap”
are not clearly operationalised or consistently proposed; it is not clear how
the learner’s present state of knowledge (“i”) is to be characterised or indeed
whether the “i+1” formulation is intended to apply to all aspects of language,
from lexis to phonology and syntax’ (p. 126). In reviewing comprehensible
input, Krashen (2011) further argued that in order for learning to happen,
the input must be compelling, meaning that the input is so interesting that
the learners forget that it is in another language. When input is compelling,
learners are in a state of ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Compelling goes
beyond ‘interesting’ because it requires learners to take an active role in the
learning process, such as when learners select their own reading materials.
Despite the debates and controversial views regarding Krashen’s ‘i+1’
input, very few would dispute the role of authentic input in second language
learning. Omaggio (1986) suggests ‘a proficiency-oriented methodology that
emphasizes the use of authentic language in instructional materials wherever
and whenever possible’ (p. 41). The underpinning theory is that through
using authentic sources in instruction, learners will be able to acquire ‘usable
skills’ in real-life situations (Nunan, 1989, p. 54). Ellis (2005), in his review
of the literature of SLA, suggests that learners need to develop ‘both a rich
repertoire of formulaic expressions and a rule-based competence’ (p. 39). It is
the rich repertoire of formulaic expressions that caters to fluency, and it is the
rule-based competence that consists of the knowledge of specific grammati-
cal rules that caters to complexity and accuracy (Skehan, 1998). Ellis (2005)
further proposes that learners need to focus predominantly on meaning in

Licensed to Ahmed Alghamdi (Xdunhill707@[Link])

32 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

learning activities: not only semantic meaning (i.e. the meanings of lexical
items or of specific grammatical structures) but also meaning relating to
pragmatic meaning (i.e. the highly contextualised meanings that arise in acts
of communication). Therefore, it is clear that any input needs to be authen-
tic in these ways if it is to enable learners to acquire the language that exists
in real-life situations.

Focus on form and conscious noticing

Long (1988, 1991) proposed that
grammar instruction may be of Focusing on meaning does not neces-
one of two types: ‘focus on form’
sarily mean that students do not need
and ‘focus on forms’. Focus on form
to worry about form or accuracy. Some
refers to drawing students’ ‘attention
to linguistic elements as they theorists (e.g. Schmidt, 1990, 1995)
arise incidentally in lessons whose have argued that there is no learning
overriding focus is on meaning or without conscious attention to form.
communication’ (Long, 1991, This is in line with focus on form (Long,
pp. 45–46). The latter refers to the1988, 1991). In particular, Schmidt
(2001) is of the opinion that learners
traditional teaching of discrete points
of grammar in separate lessons. need to attend to specific forms as they
occur in the input to which learners are
exposed, not to an awareness of grammatical rules. Research has shown that
linguistic input increases when the learners notice linguistic features, using
techniques such as marking salience, modification or elaboration (Schmidt,
1990; Sharwood Smith, 1993; Robinson, 1995, 2001; Skehan, 1998) (see
Table 2.1 for explanations and examples).

Technique Explanation Example

Marking Marking up the structure Underline the grammatical
salience or particular feature of the structure of a sentence
input, or repeating the input
Modification Modifying the input so that Provide L1 translation for
it is understandable using new vocabulary
various methods, such as
images and L1 translation
Elaboration Increasing understanding by Provide an elaborated
adding grammatical phrases version of the sentence by
and clauses adding the grammatical parts
T able 2.1 E xplanations and examples of
some techniques to enhance input
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 33

Interaction

Interaction has been a mainstay in SLA research, and Ellis (1999) describes
the benefits of interaction to successful L2 learning through different theo-
retical perspectives: interaction hypothesis, sociocultural theory and depth of
processing theory. No matter what perspectives they take, cognitive (Gass,
2003) or sociocultural (Lantolf, 2001), the researchers in SLA agree that
interaction can prompt L2 development.
Long (1996), has combined Swain and Krashen’s positions to formulate
the Interaction Hypothesis, which proposes that language acquisition arises
from the negotiation for meaning that occurs during the use of the target lan-
guage in interaction, thus expressing the need for both language input and
output. Negotiation can come in the form of repetitions (when a speaker
repeats his/her own utterance), confirmation checks (when the listener
repeats the speaker’s utterance to ensure that it was understood correctly),
comprehension checks (where the speaker attempts to determine whether
or not the listener understood correctly) and clarification requests (when
the listener asks for assistance in understanding an utterance). According
to the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), interaction fosters acquisition
when a communication problem arises and learners then need to negotiate
for meaning. This has been ‘perceived as an important factor for successful
L2 acquisition’ (Ellis, 1990, p. 16) and facilitates L2 development (Long,
1996). Communicative efforts that learners make during the negotiation of
meaning provide them with opportunities for achieving fluency and there-
fore the acquisition of L2 knowledge (Ellis, 1990). In this view, a learning
environment which can provide students with opportunities to engage in
interactions for negotiation of meaning is crucial (Doughty and Pica, 1986;
Willis, 1996). In particular, tasks for language learning are important, and
they should be specifically designed to meet the needs of language develop-
ment rather than spontaneous conversations to achieve communicative goals
(Long, 1996) and to increase output comprehensibility (Nunan, 1993; see
e.g. Pica, 1995; Gass et al., 1998; Mackey and Philp, 1998). As a result, task
authenticity is required for meaningful and authentic communication, and
hence students should be provided with ‘actual tasks which a person may
undertake when communicating through the target language’ (Breen, 1987,
p. 162).
Noticing, according to Gass and Selinker (2001), is ‘at the heart of the
interaction hypothesis’ (p. 298). From the learners’ point of view, there is
a long period when they struggle to communicate in the target language
via their own interlanguage (Gass and Selinker, 1994, p. 11). During this
communication, learners typically encounter different difficulties: lexical,
grammatical or phonological. To clarify the confusion, learners need to
34 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

negotiate meaning. In Gass’s words, (1997) negotiation of meaning refers

to ‘communication in which participants’ attention is focused on resolving
a communication problem as opposed to communication in which there is
a free-flowing exchange of information’ (p. 107). Through meaning nego-
tiation, the learners receive negative evidence. Negative evidence is ‘direct or
indirect information about what is ungrammatical’ (Long, 1996, p. 413),
and therefore, meaning negotiation increases input comprehensibility, which
results in continued language development. This kind of negotiation of
meaning is also described as ‘focus on form’: ‘focus on form … overtly draws
students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lessons
whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication’ (Long, 1991, pp.
45–46). Thus, learners benefit from form-focused instruction so that they
reach a high level of awareness of the correct forms (Dekeyser, 2000). Here,
it is important to mention that corrective feedback enhances linguistic forms
and raises the awareness of noticing, which facilitates bringing about correct
output.
Apart from the important role that input plays in L2 acquisition, research
has shown that the output during the interaction process (Pica et al., 1989;
Swain and Lapkin, 1995) and ‘negotiation of meaning’ are essential in
order for learners to reach their language learning potential (Ellis, 1999;
Gass, 1997; Lyster, 1998a, b). Some studies have suggested that interaction
facilitates comprehension better than conditions without the interactive
component (Gass and Varonis, 1994; Loschky, 1994; Polio and Gass, 1998),
and other studies have also pointed out a positive effect of negotiating for
meaning on the quality of immediate production (Holliday, 1995).
On the other hand, the sociocultural theory of mind offers a different
view of interaction in learning. According to this theory, interaction enables
learners to construct new meanings collaboratively (see Lantolf, 2000). The
sociocultural perspective highlights the interrelationship between language,
interaction, learning and community to offer a holistic perspective of lan-
guage learning (Ellis and Barkhuizen, 2005). Vygotsky (1978) posits that
human beings make use of symbolic tools to both interpret and regulate
the world and relationships with people around them. The relationship
with the world and people is therefore a mediated one, which is established
through the use of a symbolic tool: language (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf,
2000). Sociocultural theory also views language as a psychological tool, a
‘tool for thought’. Language is ‘a means for engaging in social and cognitive
activity’ (Ahmed, 1994, p. 158). While thought and speech are separate,
they are ‘tightly interrelated in a dialectic unity in which publicly derived
speech completes privately initiated thought’ (Lantolf, 2000, p. 7). It is
therefore critical of ‘transmission’ theories of communication, which assume
that ready-made messages are passed from speaker to hearer (e.g. Donato,
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 35

1994, pp. 33–36; Platt and Brooks, 1994, p. 498). Vygotsky (1978) sug-
gested that there is a close link between the use of these two functions of
language, and therefore, learning is seen as first social, then individual and
as first inter-mental, then intra-mental, with thinking embedded in the ways
in which language is used. In a language classroom, it very quickly becomes
apparent that learners access and acquire new knowledge and skills through
the talk, interaction and collaboration which take place. Language is learned,
problems are solved, new understandings are accomplished and breakdowns
are repaired through the ensuing talk and according to the ways in which
interaction is managed. Crucially, not only is language central to absolutely
everything which takes place; it is also very often the goal of the interac-
tion, the target of the talk; as Long (1983, p. 9) points out, language is ‘ the
vehicle and object of instruction’.
Clearly, there is a strong link between language and learning, and lan-
guage plays a mediational role in the learning which takes place (Vygotsky,
1978); in other words, all learning requires language, the basic ‘tool’ which
underpins or ‘mediates’ the learning process. Furthermore, interaction is
central to learning: it is ‘the most important element in the curriculum’ (van
Lier, 1996, p. 5). This is a position echoed by Ellis, who tells us that ‘learn-
ing arises not through interaction, but in interaction’ (2000, p. 209, original
emphasis). As such, the relationship between talk, interaction and learning is
central to classroom practice.

Task 2.2: Comparing the views of interaction

While comparing the views of interaction discussed above, could you elabo-
rate why interaction is important for learners? How do you understand the
role of interaction in your teaching context?

Motivation

When learners are motivated, they learn better. If learners are autonomous
and self-regulated, they take more control over their learning and become
more active. Both motivation and
autonomy fit with the model of the
According to Krashen (1985), the affective filter hypothesis, which argues
affective filter refers to ‘a mental
that a number of ‘affective variables’ act
block that prevents acquirers from
fully utilizing the comprehensible
in a facilitative role in SLA. These vari-
input they receive for language ables include motivation, self-confidence
acquisition’ (p. 3). and anxiety. Krashen claims that the
‘filter’ is ‘down’ with highly motivated,
36 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

self-confident and relaxed learners and ‘up’ with poorly motivated, bored,
stressed and anxious learners. Therefore, ‘when the filter is “down” and
appropriate comprehensible input is presented (and comprehended), acqui-
sition is inevitable’ (Krashen, 1985, p. 4). This effect is of great importance
to the acquirer in a classroom setting, so Krashen and Terrell (1983) suggest
that ‘our pedagogical goals should include not only supplying optimal input,
but also creating a situation that promotes a low filter’ to ensure learners’
success in obtaining acquired competence (p. 38). For example, the Natural
Approach is a pedagogy that aims to provide good comprehensible input and
lower the affective filter.
What is motivation? In general, motivation is defined as ‘a psychological
construct that refers to the desire and incentive that an individual has to
engage in a specific activity’ (Loewen and Reinders, 2011, p. 119). In review-
ing the literature, many definitions have been proposed, and it is hard to
come up with a commonly agreed definition, because of the complexity of
the concept. However, very few would dispute the importance of motivation
in accomplishing a particular activity. For example, in a language learning
context, Hall (2011) suggests, ‘[I]t is difficult to imagine anyone learning a
language without some degree of motivation’ (p. 134). In teaching, we often
hear from teachers who comment that some students have high motivation
while others do not, and they ascribe achievement or disappointment mostly
to the absence or presence of motivation (ibid.).
In the SLA literature, Dörnyei (2005, p. 65) argues that motivation
provides ‘the primary impetus to initiate L2 learning and later the driving
force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process’. It is clear that
motivation refers to a process that starts with a need and leads to a behaviour
that moves an individual towards achieving a goal (Melendy, 2008).
L2 motivation research has gone through different stages, and research-
ers have conceptualised various L2 motivation models in the field, from the
psychological cognitive model to Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985,
2001, 2005) and Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (2005, 2009; see
also Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011). Motivation can be classified according
to different perspectives. From a cognitive viewpoint, they are recognised as
extrinsic and intrinsic. Whereas extrinsic motivation is applied by others and
involves systems of rewards and punishments, intrinsic motivation is self-
applied, lying in the affective domain of feelings and emotional responses
(Slavin, 2003). In other words, extrinsic motivation is related to doing/
accomplishing a task, in order to receive a reward or to avoid punishment,
while intrinsic motivation is about getting involved in order to achieve
inner satisfaction (Dörnyei, 2001). From a socio-educational perspective,
motivation can be viewed as integrative or instrumental (Gardner, 1985).
Integrative motivation refers to an individual’s openness to taking on charac-
teristics of another cultural/linguistic group (Gardner, 2005, p. 7), which has
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 37

frequently been cited to be related to second language learning achievement

(Hedge, 2000; Lightbown and Spada, 2006; Loewen and Reinders, 2011)
and cited as an indicator of a learner’s desire to identify with the culture
of the second language community (Ellis, 2008). Instrumental motivation
refers to a drive or need from a perception of the real benefits that learn-
ing the second language might bring about, such as passing exams, gaining
positions in overseas universities and job promotion (Loewen and Reinders,
2011). Therefore, integrative motivation can be viewed as socially or cultur-
ally oriented, and instrumental motivation can be viewed as academically
or career oriented (Brown, 2007). It is widely acknowledged that in second
language learning, both types of motivation play a key role, and the lack of
either would cause problems (Cook, 2001, p. 118).
In recent years, Dörnyei (2005) has proposed a new model of motivation
based on the empirical findings and theoretical considerations to reconcep-
tualise L2 motivation as part of the learner’s self system (see more about the
self-approach in Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009). In the self-
approach, Dörnyei (2005) proposes that the ‘L2 Motivational Self System’ is
made up of three key elements:

„„ The Ideal L2 Self is the L2-specific facet of one’s ‘ideal self ’. If the person
we would like to become speaks an L2, the ‘ideal L2 self  ’ is a powerful
motivator to learn the L2.
„„ The Ought-to L2 Self concerns the attributes that one believes one ought
to possess to meet expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes.
„„ The L2 Learning Experience concerns situated motives related to the
immediate learning environment and experience (e.g. the impact of the
teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, the experience of success).

Task 2.3: Your motivation

Think about your experience of learning a foreign language, and jot down a
list of motivating factors that got you started and prompted you to continue
learning it for a period of time.
Use different theories to analyse the motivating factors and explain how
they contributed to your learning of the language.

Affordances and roles of technology

Learning a foreign language ‘requires more formal instruction and other
measures compensating for the lack of environmental support’ (Stern, 1983,
p. 16), and computer-mediated learning is viewed as providing an ideal con-
dition for successful L2 acquisition when natural learning takes place.
38 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

Task 2.4: Analysis of the role of technology

What roles do you think technology can play in second language learning?
Consider the context in which you (will) teach. What are the potential benefits
of technology for the learners? Could you think of an example of using tech-
nology to illustrate this and explain the rationale behind your thinking?

As early as the 1990s, Dunkel (1991) and Crookall et al. (1990) describe
in detail many advantages of using simulations for language learning. Since
2000, research has flourished in the use of technology in second and for-
eign language learning (Chapelle, 2001; Lim and Shen, 2006). There are a
number of benefits to integrating technologies into language teaching and
learning (for a review, see Liu, et al., 2002; Zhao, 2003; Macaro et al., 2012).
According to Egbert et al. (1999), technology seems to encompass

all the elements that SLA theory points to in order for the conditions for optimal
language learning to be created i.e. create opportunities for learners to interact
and negotiate meaning (using the internet and email services), learners interact
in the target language with an authentic audience (they can use email, video
conferencing, blogs to develop their target language and interact with their peers
in another country), they are involved in authentic tasks (which contain cogni-
tive challenges and resemble real-world tasks) set by the teacher, learners are
also encouraged to produce varied and creative language where Web-based
resources serve as language input, learners receive immediate feedback (the cor-
rect version can be returned to a pupil or placed in the school network). (p. 3)

Li (2015) conducted a systematic literature review and suggested six ben-

efits that technology can offer in language teaching and learning. These six
benefits are closely related to the second language learning key elements
addressed above.

„„ First, technology (e.g. the Internet and multimedia resources) provides

students with high quality and authentic linguistic and cultural materials.
„„ Second, technology can act as a cognitive tool to facilitate the acquisition
of linguistic knowledge and the development of language skills, such as by
increasing the noticing of linguistic forms.
„„ Third, technology is a tool that mediates learning and through which
learners acquire new understandings.
„„ Fourth, technology provides students with more opportunities to inter-
act, a key construct of sociocultural perspectives on learning, which attach
huge importance to the role of interaction in learning.
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 39

„„ Fifth, computers can also be used as a ‘tutor’, offering immediate and

individualised feedback.
„„ Finally,perhaps the most widely acknowledged benefit is that technology
increases student motivation and enhances engagement.

Authentic input

Technology is widely used as a language resource for authentic input, as well

as to provide a context for the study of language use. In language learning,
many teachers and researchers believe comprehensible input is the primary
determinant in SLA. Omaggio (1986, p. 41) suggests ‘a proficiency-oriented
methodology’ that emphasises the use of authentic language in instructional
materials wherever and whenever possible. The underpinning theory is
that through using authentic sources in instruction, learners will be able to
acquire ‘usable skills’ for real-life situations (Nunan, 1989, p. 54). An elec-
tronic medium is believed to serve well the authenticity of the text and the
authorship of the language user – the two key elements of communicative
language learning (Kramsch, et al., 2000). According to Jung (2005), 61
examples in the bibliometric analysis are about retrieving authentic materi-
als, and interestingly, 98 per cent of them are from after 1992. The Impact2
Study claims that technology can make the attractiveness, currency and vari-
ety of resources available to students (Harrison et al., 2003). The literature
also suggests that computers provide students with the necessary resources to
accomplish a task and to regulate it online. The issue about how technology
assists teachers to explore authentic materials and enhance authentic input
will be explored in the following chapters.

Conscious noticing

Computers are believed not only to provide authentic resources for language
learning but also to increase learners’ linguistic knowledge. Multimedia pres-
entations, including graphics and video clips, have a positive effect on vocab-
ulary acquisition (e.g. O’Hara and Pritchard, 2008; Silverman and Hines,
2009) and in writing (e.g. Mak and Coniam, 2008), but there is insufficient
research concerning technology in enhancing grammar acquisition or read-
ing. Of course, facilitating knowledge acquisition is not limited to linguistic
information: studies show the value of technology for the development of
intercultural awareness (Müeller-Hartmann, 2000; O’Dowd, 2006a, b),
especially with CMC and network-based learning.
For some researchers, ‘noticing’ is a necessary condition in successful SLA
(Schmidt, 1990, 2001), and it is something that technology can be used to
40 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

promote (Chapelle, 1998; Hegelheimer and Chapelle, 2000). Research has

shown that linguistic input increases when learners notice linguistic features,
using techniques such as marking salience, modification or elaboration
(Schmidt, 1990; Skehan, 1998). Modification, making the input under-
standable to the learner through any means that ‘gets at the meaning’ – for
example, images, second language (L2) dictionaries and first language (L1)
translation – enhances linguistic acquisition. Salaberry (2000) states that,
‘arguably, the specific characteristics of the medium of communication
represented in CMC may increase the chances that learners will focus their
attention on both function and form, thereby increasing the likelihood that
morphological development will occur in such an environment rather than
in face-to-face settings’ (p. 19). Lai and Zhao (2006) have reported that text-
based online chat promotes noticing (including their own mistakes). Further,
they argue in their study that noticing plays a significant role in negotiating
meaning. These studies share the feature that text-based online chat helps
learners ‘notice both their own problematic L2 utterances and the feedback
on problematic linguistic forms provided by their interlocutors’ (Lai and
Zhao, 2006, p. 104). The ways in which technology can raise learners’ notic-
ing will be illustrated further in Chapter 4.

Interaction

Long (1985) proposed that interaction is important for ideal target language
episodes for SLA and that it has been an important research area. Interaction
can be classified in the CALL context as ‘interaction between people’, ‘inter-
action between a person and the computer’ and ‘interaction within a person’s
mind’ (Chapelle, 2003). Interaction between people can benefit L2 learning
because it provides opportunities for negotiating meaning, participation and
collaboration. The negotiation of meaning is ‘an important factor for suc-
cessful L2 acquisition’ (Ellis, 1990, p. 16), and CMC enhances opportunities
for meaning negotiation (Blake, 2000; Warner, 2004; see also Shekary and
Tahririan, 2006; Yanguas, 2010).
It is suggested that computers not only provide students with the same
opportunities as face-to-face interactions do but also produce more complex
and accurate instances of language because the learners are allowed more time
to reflect on and monitor their language as well as more access to the refer-
ences (e.g. González-Bueno, 1998). This translates into their better noticing
their utterances as well as their better capability to monitor their output.
There is also evidence that CMC provides an ideal medium for students to
benefit from interaction because the written nature of discussion fosters a
focus on form as well as communicative interaction (Lamy and Goodfellow,
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 41

1999; Kern and Warschauer, 2000). Along the same lines, Peterson (1997)
claims that CMC provides a non-threatening and less restrictive language
environment such that learners have a ‘free space’ where they take control
over the learning process (Cooper and Selfe, 1990, p. 857). Interaction
between a learner and the machine actually promotes enhanced input while
offering help for using language (for example, online dictionaries, glossaries,
transcripts, grammar aids, etc.). Intrapersonal interaction provides learners
with an opportunity to focus on linguistic forms as well as deep thinking, to
enhance the process of input. A more social constructivist model of ‘blended
environments’ is a recent trend, given its unique feature of combining both
e-learning and face-to-face learning based on the same pedagogical approach
(Wolff, 2003). Felix (2005) confirmed the Web as a viable environment for
language learning, especially as an add-on to face-to-face teaching.
Students are engaged in more social aspects of the language when they
work on an authentic task, and research suggests that computer-mediated
tasks facilitate natural language use (Blake, 2000; Smith, 2004). In such
learning environments, computer technologies also provide students with
a context in which they can collaborate. This is especially true with Web
2.0 technologies (e.g. blogs, wikis and other social networking websites) and
knowledge co-construction tools (e.g. computer-supported collaborative
learning). The role of technology here is to create a social context where
learners are able to use the language in social interactions. Technology
becomes an environment where students use the language, the ‘symbolic
tool’, to clarify and make sense of new knowledge, with their relying heavily
on discussions with the ‘expert knower’.

Output

If ‘comprehensible input’ and ‘interaction’ are the main criteria for language
learning potential, linguistic output is almost as crucial as they are. Swain
(1985) suggests that only when learners produce ‘comprehensible output’
can they realise what lexicogrammatical forms they do not yet master.
Nagata (1998, p. 29) states that ‘given the same grammatical instruction,
output-focused practice is more effective than input-focused practice for the
development of skills in producing Japanese honorifics and is equally effec-
tive for the comprehension of these structure’. The results support Swain’s
argument that ‘there are roles for output in SLA that are independent of
comprehensible input’ (Swain, 1985, p. 34).
Jamieson et al. (2005) have pointed out that from the cognitive view,
‘the benefits of producing language may be enhanced when learners have
the opportunity to plan before speaking or writing and to correct linguistic

Licensed to Ahmed Alghamdi (Xdunhill707@[Link])

42 NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

output, which can be promoted by feedback from others or from self-evalua-

tion’ (p. 406). Computer-mediated communication provides such a planning
opportunity for learners to notice their utterances. Swain (1995) identifies
three functions of output – to notice the gap, to test learner hypotheses and
‘to internalize linguistic knowledge’ (p. 126). Leahy’s study (2004) suggests
that CALL serves well the first and the third of these functions.

Feedback

Feedback is an important element in second language learning. Ellis et al.

(2002, p. 430) conclude ‘there are strong theoretical reasons for claiming
that the teacher’s role in a communicative task should not be limited to that
of a communicative partner. The teacher also needs to pay attention to form’.
However, there are some problems with face-to-face feedback: for example,
(1) feedback from the teacher can be inconsistent and unpredictable; (2) the
teacher might find it difficult to realise the full range of feedback types; and
(3) the teacher may sometimes be unwilling to encourage learner output
during feedback due to time constraints or student embarrassment (Van den
Branden, 1997).
Empirical research suggests that computers provide more consistent and
individualised feedback (Tsutsui, 2004). Studies also suggest that natural
language processors generate linguistic feedback (Coniam, 2004; Nagata,
2002), such as immediate individualised grammatical feedback (Nagata,
1993, 1997). The comprehensible meta-linguistic feedback is more effective
than traditional feedback, and the students who receive the former perform
much better on a post-test than those receiving no feedback (Nagata, 1993,
1997; see also Yang and Akahori, 1999). Pellettieri (2000) examined task-
based, real-time computer interaction between adult learners of Spanish,
finding that computer-mediated interaction helps learners achieve higher
levels of meta-linguistic awareness with corrective feedback during meaning
negotiation. This will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

An affective tool

The ‘affective filter’, posited by Dulay and Burt (1977), has a claim to being
a very influential variable outside the language acquisition device. The ‘filter’
acts to facilitate or impede the delivery of input to the language acquisition
device. Motivation, self-confidence and anxiety are all key affective variables
which decide the degree and rate of second language learning.
Technologies in general are widely reported to engage and motivate learn-
ers (Braine, 2004; Warschauer, 2000a). As Stockwell (2013) has pointed out
 The role of technology, motivation and SLA 43

in his comprehensive discussion of motivation and technology, there are two

ways that technology can motivate or engage learners. First, there are learn-
ers who are motivated because they possess a genuine interest in technology,
which promotes language learning through the use of computers and other
electronic devices. Second, learners who are interested in language learning
will take advantage of technology to enhance the learning process.
It is widely recognised in the CMC literature that electronic devices offer
non-threatening and less restrictive language environments, which provide
learners with spaces where they can take control. Research also suggests CALL
feedback reduces embarrassment and psychological anxiety (Torlakovic and
Deugo, 2004). The use of CMC also provides learners with opportunities to
‘operate their agency’. For example, Warschauer (2000a) claims that ‘agency
is really what makes students so excited about using computers in the class-
room: the computer provides them a powerful means to make their stamp
on the world’ (p. 65).

A mediational tool

In facilitating linguistic acquisition, technology is also used as a mediational

tool. Mediation can be defined as the way in which people use ‘culturally
constructed artefacts, concepts and activities to regulate the material world or
their own and each other’s social and mental activity’ (Lantolf and Thorne,
2006, p. 79). Language is considered the primary mediational tool relevant
to thinking, learning and other cognitive development. Haas (1996) extends
Vygotsky’s idea of language as a psychological tool and proposes that the use
of technologies is a new psychological tool which can mediate interaction
between a user and the environment around him/her. The use of shared
screens, images, music and other artefacts can enhance shared understand-
ings and facilitate linguistic acquisition (Li, 2015).

Focus on motivation
The positive effects of CALL on students’ motivation was one of the very early
research foci of CALL. There is ample evidence that technology-enhanced
language learning has a positive effect on students’ confidence, motivation,
learning opportunities and language output. Chun (1994), Kern (1995),
Warschauer (1996a) and Brinton, (2001) for example, have highlighted the
positive effects of computer-assisted classroom discussion (CACD), com-
pared to face-to-face class discussion on university-level L2 students in the
areas of opportunities to participate in discussion, their motivation and anxi-
ety, turn-taking patterns and so on. These studies clearly report that CACD