16New media in teaching and learning business languages
3.Languages for specific (business) purposes, technology and globalisation
4.Focus on the setting: Technology in four types of learning environments
5.Focus on the “technology solution”: Examples of technology use in different settings
6.Focus on learner differences
1Introduction
Despite the ubiquity of the so-called new media in business life, the extent to which they are employed in the service of (business) language teaching and learning varies greatly. This contribution explores developments and research in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), where the introduction of second generation Internet-based applications (Web 2.0) has redefined the concept of interactivity and created completely new affordances for foreign language communication and practice. Blogs, webinars and podcasts, for instance, not only facilitate exposure to up-to-date, authentic language and business skills such as meetings and presentations, but also allow learners and native speakers to interact across borders. Integration into (business) language courses accordingly takes any number of forms, encompassing in-class use as well as blended and distance learning environments; and a wealth of technology solutions are available that promise to meet the most specific learning needs. Yet despite the unprecedented opportunities that technology undoubtedly offers, a number of caveats also need to be addressed. The new learning spaces such as the Internet or video-conferencing tools are not replications of conventional face-to-face contexts, but pose different challenges for learners in terms of independence and self-regulation. What is more, the characteristics of a technology application need to be considered and tasks carefully devised to make it a valuable tool for language learning in a specific context and for particular types of learners.
2Main terms and issues
Historically, the field of research that is concerned with technology in language learning has been referred to as computer-assisted language learning (CALL). CALL is still a current, and perhaps even the most commonly used acronym amongst researchers (Motteram 2013), despite the exponential advance of technological capabilities and the concomitant emergence of newer sub-fields such as mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) and Web 2.0. English being the dominant lingua franca in international business contexts, much of the literature that deals with the teaching of business languages – whether technology-mediated or not – tends to focus on that language. Given that the author’s expertise also lies in the field of business English, a propensity towards English-language examples will be noticeable in this contribution. This, however, should not convey the impression that technology is less relevant for other languages; on the contrary, some might even argue that teachers of lesser taught languages have to rely more on new media in order to source appropriate input and communication opportunities. The promises and constraints of using technology in language learning, as discussed in the following, tend to remain the same across languages.
The principal reasons for using information and communication technologies (ICT) in today’s fast-changing professional and educational contexts are generally considered to be access to authentic as well as discipline-specific language, and the opportunity to interact with native speakers or other learners in distant locations. With regard to teaching languages for specific purposes (LSP) it has even been argued that, given the need to devise material and communicative situations relevant to students’ professional needs, Web 2.0 applications have proven particularly appropriate (Uber Grosse and Voght 2012; Arnó-Macià, Soler, and Rueda 2006). Kern sees the strengths of Web 2.0 in “allowing ESP [English for Specific Purposes] learners to collaborate and engage in authentic communication in their professional discourse community, to access up-to-date information relevant to their profession, and to publish their ideas” (Kern 2013: 92).
So what exactly is Web 2.0? The term refers to the development of the Internet beyond its original ‘Web 1.0’ guise as a tool used primarily to retrieve information and authentic materials from real contexts – of itself invaluable for language teachers – to a platform that facilitates and encourages interaction and collaboration. In this new form it allows teachers without specialist computer knowledge to introduce projects which focus on language production and involve participants in different geographical locations. Travis and Joseph (2009) put the beginnings of Web 2.0 at around 2004. Since then, it has evolved into a technological platform that supports a multitude of social media applications enabling users to create, share and manipulate content (Zourou 2012). Communicative pedagogies, in particular, value the Internet’s transition from a mainly “read-only resource” (Rüschoff 2009: 45) to a truly “participatory platform” (Freedman 2006: 13) which enables users to “interact through blogs, collaborate through Wikis, play multiplayer games, publish podcasts and video, and build relationships through social network sites” (Thomas 2009: xix).
Amongst the range of Web 2.0 applications used in education today, there are a number that seem of particular promise to language teachers as they provide excellent opportunities to train productive skills (such as speaking and writing). These include:
–Chat, discussion forums and instant messaging (i.e., applications facilitating one-to-one or one-to-many conversations between Internet users);
–Social networking sites (i.e., websites structuring social interaction between members);
–Blogs (Internet-based journals or diaries allowing users to post text and digital material while others can comment);
–Wikis (Web based services that allow users unrestricted access to create, edit and link pages) (Crook et al., 2008).
In addition to the above, a multitude of dedicated websites and online language learning communities have sprung up that make use of the new interactive affordances of the Internet.
This “second wave of online learning” (Kern, Ware, and Warschauer 2004) has been made possible by the ubiquity of Internet access via portable, mobile and desktop devices, often owned by students themselves (but see Warschauer and Matuchniak 2010 on “the digital divide”). It constitutes a huge contrast to the early days of computer-assisted language learning, when students had to visit multimedia language labs or share one computer in the classroom. Broadband connectivity and wireless access have led to a dramatic surge in independent, out-of-class engagement with the target language. As Thomas, Reinders, and Warschauer (2013: 3) put it:
Whereas only two decades ago language learners would have to access CALL [computerassisted language learning] applications and foreign language tutorials on CD-ROMs, the growing centrality of digital media to people’s everyday lives, both within and outside formal teaching and learning contexts, has put thousands of language learning applications, dictionaries and e-books within reach of everybody’s pockets.
Interestingly though, the questions that are being asked about the effective use, integration and constraints of technology are much the same as in the 1990s. In other words, though technologies have evolved and many have become normalised (Bax 2003) in daily and professional life, if not always in language education, the main concerns and issues have remained largely unchanged. Thus, one of the “oldest” central tenets of the field is that use of a new technology must be driven by pedagogy rather than by the technology itself (e.g., Levy 2009; Blake 2013). Researchers and practitioners have long agreed on the importance of the learning context and its main stakeholders when it comes to choosing the most effective technological support. And support is the operative term here, since the use of technology does not in itself constitute a language teaching methodology: rather, if used judiciously, it complements and enhances what can be done in the traditional classroom. Garret (2009) expands on this theme by revisiting her seminal article on technology trends (Garret 1991). She reminds us that, now as then, any investigation of efficacy needs to take a number of learner and context-dependent factors into account:
The need to explore the “interrelated and complex research variables” that I posited then is equally urgent now: What kind of technology-based learning activities, integrated how, into what kind of syllabus, at what level of language learning, for what kind of language learners, is likely to be effective for what specific learning purposes? (Garrett 2009: 721; original emphasis)
In the following pages, specific attention will be paid to the variables identified by Garrett when weighing the benefits of particular technology solutions.
3Languages for specific (business) purposes, technology and globalisation
In university-delivered courses on languages for specific purposes (LSP), the syllabus and learning aims Garrett (2009) urges us to consider are defined within the context of a specific discipline such as engineering, medicine or business studies. However, “specific languages”, and in particular business languages, are also taught in other settings, for example in the form of in-company courses and one-to-one tutorials (see Section 4). Rather than pre-experience university students, the “customers” or “target-groups” are frequently job-experienced professionals who need to be able to participate – nowadays more often than not, via digital means – in discourse that is relevant to their particular work situation and their professional community. This constitutes quite a different context to that of universities, and may well be accompanied by a completely different set of communicative requirements. As needs-relevance, authenticity, and specificity are key concepts not only in languages for specific purposes (e.g., Dudley-Evans and St John 1998), but also in the field of online language learning, the new media appear to be well placed to cater for specific as well as diverse demands. “Languages for specific business purposes” (LSBP) has been defined as “an approach to language teaching based on the learner’s need to participate effectively in the target academic or professional community” (Arnó-Macià 2012: 90). Moreover, for pre-experienced (i.e., non-professional) students, it involves “the acquisition of content knowledge of a specific field” as well as the development of field-specific language skills (Butler-Pascoe 2009: 1).
Arguably, the teaching of business languages has been particularly affected by the twin drivers of globalisation and advances in networked technologies. Uber Grosse and Voght (2012: 191) comment on how the growth of languages for specific purposes, manifested in more varied and more deeply entrenched offerings of specialist courses in university language curricula, has been contingent on socio-economic and political changes:
Globalization, the tightening of the job market, internationalization of education, immigration, multiculturalism, technology, and academic social responsibility have all contributed to increased demand and subsequent growth and development in LSP [languages for specific purposes]. [. . .] Globalization has increased the demand for LSP courses and programs at universities around the world. As a result of globalization, local economies have become transformed so that knowing more than one language and culture is needed to be competitive.
Globalisation and the Internet have thus not only “transformed the contexts, means and uses of foreign language learning” (Kern 2014: 340), but also those of professional/ business communication, generating new possibilities and new needs. Networked technologies have come to play a central and routine role in the workplace; the same technologies, if wisely exploited, may offer solutions for specific language needs. Examples of such technology solutions in different teaching/ learning settings will be presented in Sections 5 and 6.
4Focus on the setting: Technology in four types of learning environments
Any attempt to learn a foreign language today, whether for business or other purposes, will likely incorporate some or all of the following elements:
–didactic as well as authentic materials (e.g., course books and company reports) sourced by the teacher or the learner and accessed/presented on old as well as new media (on paper and digitally);
–engagement with the target language in and out-of-class, in formal and informal contexts (e.g., doing exercises vs. chatting to a native speaker);
–time spent on self-study and independent learning;
–time spent with a teacher/native or a more expert peer.
The development of foreign language skills is a time-consuming process which depends crucially on the nature and extent of the language input and interaction (see Ellis 2008). Today’s technologies can play a significant role in increasing such exposure to the target language.
Depending on the relative balance between technology and face-to-face instruction in university and professional contexts, we can differentiate between four main types of settings for the teaching/learning of business languages. The first two of these settings relate to formal, often tertiary, education: teacher-delivered business language courses at university and technology-mediated distance learning. The other two settings, independent self-study and in-company courses, involve learning in professional rather than pre-experience, educational contexts.
Starting with instruction delivered by/ in educational institutions, we can distinguish between two formats according to the predominance of classroom or online tuition. Business English courses taught at university with a strong face-to-face teacher presence are located at one end of the scale, distance learning formats at the other. The latter are defined by the fact that they are technology-mediated, but even courses held entirely in “brick-and-mortar” classrooms are resorting more and more to technology. Bringing technology into the classroom is nothing new; as Salaberry (2001) points out, “old media” such as audio cassettes or video tapes have long been a staple in language classrooms and are now simply being replaced by their digital reincarnations. What has changed is the degree of convenience of working with audio-visual materials: digitalised film-clips can be accessed, played and reviewed in class, they can be uploaded on learning management systems, so students can work with them independently; or they can be created in class, with students’ role-plays or presentations being recorded and the results made digitally available. What also certainly enhances business languages classrooms around the world, even if they lack advanced technological infrastructure, is the wealth of opportunities the Internet offers the teacher for sourcing appropriate, authentic and up-to-date input. Examples of technology use in this type of setting will be discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2.
The second educational/institutional environment is distance education. Distance learning formats, defined as technology-delivered instruction to remote (off-campus) sites (White 2003), have proliferated in recent years. Distance learning is an option that places heavy demands on the learner in terms of self-direction; it is, however, sometimes the only realistic choice for people with busy work schedules, home responsibilities or no other access to tertiary education (Blake 2009). Since autonomy, defined as “the ability to take charge of one’s learning” (Holec 1981: 3), is a learnerinternal quality rather than a by-product of the situation, purely online courses tend to suffer from higher drop-out rates than conventionally-delivered formats – particularly if learners lack the necessary self-management strategies (Hauck and Hurd 2005; White 2003).
What these two settings have in common is that they are forms of planned learning according to a curriculum designed by an educational institution or a teacher. In fact, they rely strongly on teacher support (even if it is mainly online in the case of distance learning) and teacher-selected materials (authentic and didactic). What distinguishes them is the role technology plays in the delivery of content and communication opportunities, the amount of direct contact between teacher and student, and the emphasis on self-organisation (scheduled class meetings vs. geographical and temporal independence). Increasingly, both formats are offered by universities, either as alternatives (“dual-track approach”) or as “integrated blended learning courses” (Motteram and Sharma 2009: 91). In fact, facilitated by the recent advances in technology (and generally promoted by university administrations intent on reducing contact hours whilst attracting paying students with “cutting-edge resources”), blended and hybrid learning environments have become the rule rather than the exception. White (2006: 259) observes that “the boundaries between distance education and conventional education are fading, as more and more teachers move parts of their curriculum and learning tasks to the Web”. Students’ perceptions of the relative pros and cons of online and face-to-face modes, as evidenced by a number of empirical studies, will be discussed in Section 5.3.
As already mentioned, the other dimension of this taxonomy focuses on learning in and for professional contexts. This kind of learning tends to be motivated by very concrete goals: it can and will be shaped much more by individual requirements and language needs than the institutional dimension referred to above. Yet in the professional context, too, it makes sense to differentiate between solutions that rely strongly on face-to-face teacher contact (e.g., in-company tuition in small groups or one-to-one formats) and individual self-study.
The third setting to be discussed, in-company tuition, tends to comprise instances of personalised learning and to be tailored very much to the needs of the “students”. Very often client-provided materials such as company websites or reports constitute some of the authentic language input. To accommodate the schedule of busy professionals, these courses are also increasingly offered in more flexible, blended formats, e.g., incorporating Skype rather than face-to-face sessions. Section 5.4 focuses on this kind of environment.
Finally, independent (autonomous, informal) self-study is the vaguest and least clearly demarcated of the four formats proposed above. For the purpose of this particular classification, however, the absence of face-to-face teaching and a formal programme are considered its defining qualities. Consequently, individual preferences and goals will determine whether the focus of the mix (and a mix it almost invariably is) of resources is virtual or traditional. Technology offers for this learning environment will be presented in Sections 5.5 and 5.6.
Admittedly, the amount of technology use varies between settings (and, of course, in accordance with a variety of other factors such as learner/ teacher preferences and tech-savviness, accessibility and reliability of technological resources, availability of time, expertise to create technology-integrated solutions, and so on). However, ICT is playing an increasingly important role in all of the environments described above. And, what is more, technology promises to deliver all of the factors driving the increasing demand for personalised and individualised language learning (convenience, flexibility, access to resources, self-selection of material, skills focus) that, according to large-scale surveys, is causing more and more adults to move between formal and informal, in and out-of-class, and content and communication-based learning (e.g., EACEA 2009).
5Focus on the “technology solution”: Examples of technology use in different settings
This section deals with the potential and the perils of various technologies in specific learning environments. Where available, stakeholders’ views of the benefits and challenges of the technology experience are offered.
5.1The Internet as a source of authentic language input
The Internet provides searchable access to enormous collections of texts, websites and videos as well as the tools to make language input comprehensible (i.e. online dictionaries, glossaries, grammar sites, etc.). These possibilities are of particular interest to business language teachers, who will trawl the web to find appropriate, needs-relevant and authentic materials for use with their students. And whilst company websites, annual reports and market analyses already yield rich pickings, there is, of course, more visual and auditory input waiting to be discovered and redeployed.
In what is now called the Web 1.0 phase, the majority of potentially useful online materials tended to be written texts, enhanced by the teacher or course developer with interactive quizzes to test knowledge, and perhaps providing some kind of automated feedback. Videos and films in their old, analogue form have long enriched language teaching; what is new in Web 2.0 is the convenience of delivering and sharing huge amounts of sound, graphics and video data at no or very low cost. Many would agree with Butler-Pascoe (2009: 3) that “web-based videos related to a particular field are especially effective for modelling the social and functional uses of the language” as they represent an opportunity to enhance awareness of intercultural differences – body language, business etiquette – as well as praxis-relevant discourse patterns.
A word of caution though – as noted by Conole and Alevizou (2010: 42), there is often “a gap between the expectations/promise of the use of technologies and the actual experiences and uses”. To give an example of how the reality of Internetsourced (free) video may fall short of expectations, let us suppose a teacher wants to enhance a class on negotiation skills. She/ he intends to present authentic spoken language by selecting an appropriate video, and decides on YouTube as the biggest searchable free video sharing platform. In August 2014, using the search term “business negotiation” in YouTube’s gigantic archive yielded 101,000 results – impressive, but only at first glance. The vast majority were recordings of “communication experts” holding forth about the importance of negotiation skills or sharing their “top ten negotiation tips” via so-called tutorials. A number of sites necessitated registration and payment; and some clips were dramatized scenarios created by trainee teachers as part of a university assignment. Hardly any of them seemed appropriate for the purpose.
As we will most likely not come across the chance to watch a real company conducting sales negotiations on YouTube, we may well have to settle for the second best, such as scenes from films set in business contexts. The fact that a large percentage of Web 2.0 is made up of user-created content, it being “a platform in which content is created, shared, remixed, repurposed and passed along” (Downes 2005: 21), means that vast quantities of materials will have to be sifted, only to be discarded in an often frustrating search for the one pedagogically usable nugget.
Uber Grosse and Voght (2012: 191) observe how advances in technology appear to have transformed the teaching and learning of specialist languages:
Twenty years ago, students suffered from a lack of LSP [languages for specific purposes] pedagogical materials and from limited possibilities for communicating with native speakers in their chosen professional fields. [. . .]. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet [. . .] has made it possible for LSP teachers and learners to access instantly rich resources of authentic language materials in their content field. (emphasis added)
This comment reflects reality in so far as the potential of the more recent Internet tools and services for specialist languages is concerned. Still, as mentioned above, it shows only one side of the coin. On the one hand, the ease of creating content, of publishing and sharing speeches, sound bites, film clips etc. via social networking spaces and other platforms creates lots of exciting opportunities. Internet users can showcase their own learning, and comment on each other’s work. They can collaborate on projects and exchange ideas. On the other hand, as argued for instance by Keen (2007), the affordances of Web 2.0 encourage the “cult of the amateur” – with the possible consequences of downgrading expertise and advancing self-promotion (Conole and Alevizou 2010).
Consequently, the promised “instant access to rich resources of authentic language materials” is offset by the necessity to carefully filter content. The identification of useful, reliable and sound resources that can be turned into pedagogical material to be effectively integrated into a class at an appropriate point in time may constitute an extremely time-consuming and often frustrating process, requiring a certain type of digital literacy skills. It places a different kind of burden on teachers, who need to evaluate the relevance, accuracy, and attractiveness of resources. Benito-Ruiz has coined the term “Infoxication 2.0” to refer to the problem of information overload infinitely aggravated by “the barrage of Web 2.0 plethora”. Indeed, she sees “the massive abundance of fragmented Web 2.0 informational and communicative resources” (2009: 60) as one of the main potential problems for language learners. Likewise, Conole and Alevizou (2010: 24) cite “death of expertise/ everyone an expert” as one of the paradoxical effects of the “expansive knowledge domain” the Internet represents.
5.2Published business courses with extra digital material
Publishers of educational resources have long reacted to the demands of the market and invested heavily in supplementing course books with a multitude of digital extras. In pre-Internet times, the media that accompanied books were audio and video cassettes; these were followed by DVDs and multimedia CD-ROMs. Today, a typical package aimed at the business-languages market (see, for example, elt.oup.com) contains the following core elements:
–Student’s book with interactive workbook (including video), on DVD-ROM or online; “skills for business studies” pack;
–Teacher’s book pack with teacher training DVD & Class DVD.
Multifarious downloadable online resources aimed at teachers and learners, respectively, are also available. They include every imaginable kind of artefact for the teacher to exploit in class, from writing files (“Writing lessons covering different types of documents that students may need to write in their jobs, such as short reports, memos, and minutes of meetings”) to class DVDs, worksheets, progress reports and quizzes. Learners have their own site where they find “lots of interesting activities” to be done online.
According to the above-mentioned website, this particular Business English package “features video clips for every unit, including documentary clips, authentic interviews and dramatized scenarios showcasing business communication skills”. In terms of input material, this is much the same as we used to encounter in the “old” video cassettes some twenty to thirty years ago. In fact, despite some progress in terms of possible individualisation and self-pacing due to the sheer multitude of downloadable extras, the basic pros and cons of using a course book remain much the same. Tomlinson (2001: 67) provides this succinct summary of the debate:
Proponents of the course book argue that it is the most convenient form of presenting materials, it helps to achieve consistency and continuation, it gives learners a sense of system, cohesion and progress, and it helps teachers prepare and learners revise. Opponents counter that it is inevitably reductionist in its coverage of language points and in its provision of language experience, it cannot cater for the diverse needs of all its users, it imposes uniformity of syllabus and approach, and it removes power and initiative from the teacher.
To the list of justifications for having recourse to the old-fashioned course book, albeit in its new guise with extra digital frills, should be added the fact that a reputable publisher and well-known authors provide a certain guarantee of quality (perhaps in contrast to much user-created content). Moreover, any classroom situation – with the possible exception of a one-to-one environment – which hinges on teacher-selected language input, whether course book-based or otherwise, will be reductionist and unable to fulfil all needs of all students. If it is taken as given that instructed, as opposed to naturalistic/autonomous, second language acquisition has its value, then it seems that the combination of (multimedia) course book input coupled with the flexibility of individual choice of supplementary online resources represents a workable compromise.
5.3Blended learning courses in educational/tertiary settings
Blended, or hybrid learning involves the combination of traditional classroom instruction with online learning. As mentioned in Section 4, blended learning is rapidly gaining popularity and pervasiveness throughout higher education institutions as well as in professional settings; indeed, as Leduning and Wah (2013: 25) state, it may well have become “one of the leading 21st century learning approaches”. Owston, York, and Murtha (2013: 38) point out that it offers mainly benefits to the stakeholders in question: “Institutions see it as a model that makes efficient use of classroom space; faculty benefit from increased flexibility in their teaching schedules; and students appear to be more satisfied and achieve higher grades than in either fully face-to-face or fully online classes”. However, studies that have addressed the question of preferred class modality in blended learning contexts have found that, although respondents appreciate the flexibility of deciding when and how to engage with online course materials outside traditional classes, very few would opt for a course delivered completely online. In fact, this alternative proved to be significantly less attractive than courses delivered entirely face-to-face (Leduning and Wah 2013; Owston, York, and Murtha 2013; Trinder 2016). Furthermore, there appears to be a link between course achievement and satisfaction in blended learning environments, which has been attributed to weaker or less experienced students’ inability to cope with the increased level of autonomy required to regulate independent forms of learning (Trinder 2006; Castle and McGuire 2010; Owsten, York, and Murtha 2013).
The latter claim is supported, first, by Palalas’s (2011) study, which describes the blend of in-class, online and mobile components in the context of a specialist language course for international students of accounting in Toronto. The hybrid format was introduced in answer to two previously defined needs: students’ insufficient language proficiency in view of the requirements of their college programme and present/ future workplace; and their exceptionally busy schedule, which necessitated greater temporal flexibility. In this well-integrated approach, the in-class component of the course focused on speaking competencies. Supplementary individualised practice was available online and via mobile phones, with the majority using the mobile environment for aural practice (iPod Touch devices were loaned to students, giving them access to in-house produced audio-video podcasts) and the online component for writing. Listening to audio, watching video and browsing the Internet were the most frequently cited mobile activities students engaged in. Barriers identified were mainly related to cost or technical aspects such as cost of connectivity, lack of hotspots, difficulty of typing on small screens and short battery life. The author concludes that it was the “blend of the appropriate content, method and technology that produced successful learning” (Palalas 2011: 21).
Yet, once again, it was in no small part due to learners’ characteristics that the blended learning format was so positively perceived. The respondents in Palalas’ study were “internationally trained immigrants”, adults who worked part-time while attending college, and who were highly motivated to become more proficient in the language of their new country and workplace. The “on-the-move” flexibility afforded by the mobile solutions was crucial to them, as it allowed productive utilisation of any chunks of down/dead time, such as time spent commuting. It stands to reason that these subjects differ from the “typical undergraduate” in several important respects, including age, perceived needs, learning aims, self-efficacy and study skills.
By contrast, Leduning and Wah (2013) report on a blended business English writing class in Malaysia in a much more typical college environment. In a context where temporal and spatial independence was far less of an issue, the introduction of an online component (Schoology.com, a social network-based tool that facilitated discussion threads, responses to relevant articles and videos, and sharing of information, thus allowing interactive communication and academic information exchange) was embraced less enthusiastically. Amongst the disadvantages of the digital classroom identified by students were feeling “overwhelmed by information”, experiencing a “lack of direction”, and the belief that they would “need to be self-motivated and highly disciplined” to fully exploit the online offer (Leduning and Wah 2013: 30). Results suggest that respondents lacked experience in finding their own learning path and the necessary self-direction to benefit from the dual delivery mode. This is also evident from their preferred class modality: 40% favoured instruction delivered entirely face-to-face over a blended format, and 27% would have liked only minimal use of the Web to supplement traditional classes. Results such as these underline that in any learning context that integrates an online component, renewed emphasis must be placed on the role of the learner as an independent and autonomous participant “for whom self-direction is both a requisite for participation in such courses and a learning goal, for which they need training and support” (Arnó-Macià 2012: 93).
5.4Blended learning in professional settings
As noted in Section 4, “classes” that take place in companies, particularly with small groups of higher-ranking managers, tend to be customised very much to the clients’ specific needs. Teachers are expected to devise activities that are relevant to their clients’ job-related communication requirements.
Kern (2013) describes several case studies of the use of technology to enhance such professional settings. One of them illustrates particularly well how a mix of technology tools can be used to practise different skills in exact alignment with learner requirements. In this particular course, the “students” were three managers who had limited time to devote to English practice and wanted that time spent profitably. As well as meeting face-to-face with their teacher, they were encouraged to do work online. The technologies employed were those they used in their workplace (e-mail, Skype, virtual conferencing rooms), plus an educational platform. The activities emulated real-life tasks such as delivering presentations and negotiating. For instance, participants were recorded giving presentations in class; students and teacher together watched the performance later to give feedback. Alternatively, as suggested by Motteram and Sharma (2009), it would also be possible to use software such as Audacity to edit in feedback and to mail the digital recording of the presentation to students.
In Kern’s case study, participants accepted the use of technology because it helped “them with their real-life tasks”. Interaction via Skype conference calls and e-mail, for instance, are commonplace work-related activities; the educational platform provides practice activities for both forms of communication. The technology-mediated tasks thus correspond to two key concepts of business languages teaching, specificity and needs-relevance. Participants showed positive reactions to this goalrelevant employment of technology, even if they “valued human interaction” and thus “would not want a fully online course” (Kern 2013: 105).
5.5Self-study with language learning software
As Section 5.3 suggests, self-study poses even heavier demands on the learner in terms of independent study skills and self-motivation than blended environments. For most, the outside structure of regular face-to-face classes, the contact with peers and resulting sense of community, and the guidance and feedback of teachers are indispensable elements in language learning, outweighing the learning flexibility of the online format. Research in related fields such as distance learning and learner autonomy has contributed to our understanding of the kind of challenges faced by learners engaged in self-study, and has made it abundantly clear that “learners do not develop the ability to self-direct their learning simply by being placed in situations where they have no other option” (Benson 2007: 22). The common thread that has emerged in a number of studies is that various parameters located within the learner as an individual (“learner contributions”), the affordances of the online course/media, and the social/ interpersonal environment supporting the learner need to apply if learners are to persevere and succeed in self-study contexts (Bown 2006; Littlemore 2001; Hampel and Stickler 2005; Liu et al. 2007).
Still, there is a growing market for self-study packages, which has received fresh impetus from both the internationalisation of business and recent technological advances (see Section 3). Some learners find it impossible to fit class meetings around work and family commitments. Others simply value absolute independence from set schedules, yet still believe that “expert-designed” instructional materials guarantee a faster road to success. For both groups, “all-in-one” virtual courses such as TELL ME MORE or Rosetta Stone appear to be the answer. These packages are (relatively expensive) for-pay options delivered on software (and recently on dedicated websites or clouds), and are particularly appealing for beginners. The latest versions of these language courses usually offer live online tutoring to be booked as extras. Focussing on the profitable corporate market, we find online packages such as One by renowned textbook publisher Pearson. This business English course provides tailor-made components (“business-specific content customized to each learner’s role and ability level”); with the One Community, it furthermore boasts the opportunity to communicate and collaborate “with industry peers and other like-minded business people” (globalenglish.com).
Evidently, what many commercial providers are starting to realise is that it is not enough anymore to sell “one-size-fits-all” static language solutions on DVD or CD-ROM. The emphasis in marketing is on individualisation, and on providing interpersonal support and guidance, either by teachers or through access to a community of peers. This led the US behemoth Rosetta Stone, for instance, which for a remarkably long time continued to offer its courses only as disc sets, to acquire the online language learning community Livemocha in 2013. It now benefits not only from the latter’s cloud-based technology, but also from its lively online community of 16 million members in 195 countries (economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/06). Lingoda, another well-known commercial language-service provider, has put its emphasis on the “human” side of the online resources spectrum right from the beginning: it offers group classes in virtual classrooms, starting every hour on the hour, via video conferencing technology. The company further markets private online tuition by native speakers, also via video chat, and personal advisors “to build and optimize the lesson plan” and to familiarise users with the online resources (lingoda.com).
In view of these recent trends, a standardised approach with static digital materials – particularly without sufficient interpersonal support – is nowadays unlikely to be considered an effective or even viable self-study solution. There are, however, organisations which wish sizable numbers of employees to get to grips with the basics of a foreign language, even if in-company or off-site personal instruction is impracticable. A case in point is presented by Nielson’s (2011) survey on “Self-study with language software in the workplace”, in which US government employees attempted to learn Arabic, Mandarin or Spanish with the help of Rosetta Stone. The study was conducted before Rosetta Stone’s take-over of Livemocha and its learning community, and impressively illustrates the shortcomings of stand-alone digital learning resources without teacher/ peer support.
Nielson’s investigation confirms unequivocally that simply handing out learning software to employees is rarely an appropriate solution. Despite the fact that participants were highly motivated and had volunteered to take part in the project, most of them dropped out very early on, and even those who continued ended up using the software much less frequently than previously agreed. Reasons for the high attrition rate and general dissatisfaction with the product ranged from severe technical problems (system crashes, software did not work on work computers / with wireless connections, necessary plugins could not be downloaded . . .) to frustration concerning content and structure of materials (lack of explicit instruction, lack of guidance, lack of job-specific or conversational vocabulary and so on). Nielson concludes that even the most sophisticated piece of learning software cannot replace human interaction and support, and advises that “managers and learners alike should consider [language learning packages] as supplements to instructor-mediated training rather than stand-alone solutions” (2011: 126). It would be interesting to see if outcomes are more positive with packages that are more job-specific and thus relevant to users’ needs (e.g., One by Pearson) and with solutions that provide access to communities of peers (see Section 5.6). However, at the time of writing no empirical research studies could be found that dealt with these specific issues.
5.6Structured language-learning communities
Web 2.0 language learning communities are placed at the intersection of the Internet as a source of language input (authentic as well as targeted at the language learner) and the Internet as a tool for communication (e-mail, chat, social media). Zourou (2012) defines them as a subgroup of social network sites and characterised by having been designed especially for language learning. The author distinguishes between three types of such communities:
–Structured language learning communities: learning materials accompanied by structured learning pathways and the opportunity to interact with other learners and native speakers (e.g., Busuu, Babbel, Duolingo);
–Marketplaces: meeting places for online language learners and their tutors where services are offered in exchange for a fee (e.g., Palabea – based on video chat);
–Language exchange sites: free tandem-learning websites connecting learners interested in acquiring each other’s language, such as Scrabbing (e-mail, voice chat), or the Skype-based Mixxer (Zourou 2012).
Structured learning communities appear to provide an attractive form of learning for professionals: independent of class time tables, accessible from everywhere, yet still promising the convenience and dependability of didactically prepared materials with an innate element of guidance. For some, they may indeed represent the best of both worlds. Self-paced lessons incorporating Web 1.0 learning materials (input in the form of written text, audio/video and flashcards, vocabulary training, “expert-designed” interactive exercises and quizzes, translations, reviews, on-demand grammar explanations) in a single place are enriched by the motivation of a Web 2.0 social learning environment (access via chat to other learners or native speakers and the opportunity to practise with real people, albeit in a virtual environment).
But for others the negatives, encompassing pedagogical as well as technical usability issues, abound. Insufficiently structured pathways; apparent randomness in organisation of lesson content; “cartoony” user interface; confusing layout and navigation; inadequate voice recognition; outdated (or no) teaching methodology; lack of authentic materials, lack of context; isolated examples of language use (flashcard-based); over-reliance on translation; lesson reviews testing memory rather than comprehension; same input/ content for all languages offered: these were only some of the concerns mentioned by product reviewers (e.g., economist.com/blogs/Johnson, langology.org, streetsmartlanguagelearning.com). It is striking that these problems are so very reminiscent of those that haunted the early stand-alone CDROMS and multimedia packages (see Trinder 2000; Trinder 2002).
Plus ça change. . .? Perhaps not quite. The strengths and weaknesses of such language-learning websites vary, as does their cost, since some are free, many have certain features or trial lessons for free, and others are based entirely on subscription fees. Yet of course, it is evident that interface design and technical features have overcome many of the early glitches. Moreover, users have a variety of different learning preferences and goals. Whilst for some a logical structure, tutorial-like explanations and opportunities for language analysis are essential, others do ot mind a bit of randomness. And if the content lacks sophistication, it might still be a convenient resource for someone interested in quickly picking up some basic vocabulary of one of the lesser taught languages.
In the eyes of many reviewers and researchers, structured learning communities are elevated above the older generation of CD-Rom or web-based courses by their social network features facilitating contact to other learners via video, audio or text-based chat. These communities are active and very large: Busuu, the largest one, boasted 35 million users in 2013, thus offering intriguing possibilities for language learning. For one, such sites encompass opportunities to work on productive skills and accuracy. Many of the communities, for instance, offer awards (taking learners up to a higher level or allowing free access to premium features) for giving feedback on other learners’ work. Even if there may again be some issues concerning quality, reliability and immediacy of feedback and corrections, this approach offers users speaking and writing practice, something many learners feel in need of and the new technologies are not usually good at. What is more, the “online exchange environments” facilitating conversation practice with native speakers (oral or in writing) add a social and collaborative dimension to what is in effect a form of distance learning, helping users to remain motivated and feel less isolated in their efforts.
In view of all this, some of the results Stevenson and Liu (2010) present in an empirical study of user perceptions and use of the popular sites LiveMocha, Palabea and Babbel certainly present food for thought. Based on a survey of 164 users as well as a usability test, they conclude that, despite some misgivings concerning the quality and organisation of contents, the majority found the “traditional” Web 1.0 learning materials more appropriate for reaching their learning goals than the communication/chat sites. It is worth noting that adult learners, particularly those who have not grown up with social media, may look askance at the respectability and quality of a website that reminds them of Facebook & Co. Some respondents actually expressed concern about the “social” aspect of the site, which for them was too indirectly linked to language learning. Sample comments pointing in that direction included reactions like: “Some people seem to think this is more of a dating website”; “I am disappointed because this area [chat] is mostly used by people who want to meet other people” (Stevenson and Liu 2010: 241).
The authors further report that, even though overall there was some interest in the social/collaborative aspect of these sites, the large majority of survey respondents rated the traditional “vocab training” section of Babbel as the most useful for reaching their aims, and the “discussion board” and “people chat page” as the least helpful. The authors conclude that “there is a need within these sites to ease adult learners’ concerns over whether they are engaged in high-quality learning in a website or not” (Stevenson and Liu 2010: 251). The study suggests that the desire to engage with strangers over the Internet, even if they can be considered a learning resource, should not be considered a universal given. As already inferred, there seem to be personality issues and proficiency-based constraints and reservations: some feel too shy, some not proficient enough to exchange small talk; others appear to doubt the quality and relevance of user-created content and feedback. Despite the new fascination with social computing on the part of both students and instructors, many (adults) want a clearer line drawn between the “goal-oriented business of language learning” and the more social aspects of Web 2.0. In other words, the very features that for some researchers/reviewers are the redeeming elements of such sites in view of the often frankly mediocre (static) language learning content might in fact alienate a sizable group of users.
6Focus on learner differences
Throughout this chapter it has been emphasised that, whilst technology offerings in a variety of contexts might be appropriate for some types of learners, they will be experienced as less effective by others. In this final section, the focus is explicitly on the question “beneficial for what kind of learner?”, in particular in relation to the development of communicative skills.
Thanks to the interactive capabilities of email, online forums, blogs, chats and videoconferencing tools, computer-mediated communication (CMC) nowadays facilitates “new kinds of social encounters, new kinds of communities, and new prospects for learning” (Kern 2014: 340). The different characteristics of different media, particularly in terms of synchronicity (e.g., chat) vs. asynchronicity (e.g., email), make them more suitable for certain pedagogical purposes and certain learners than for others. Wertsch (2002) points out that, in contrast to real time encounters, asynchronous forms of written discourse such as email and online forums allow uninterrupted, explicit, and extended commentary. In other words, there is less (time) pressure for weaker or shyer students to formulate their thoughts. In fact, interaction via asynchronous forms of computer-mediated communication “has long been viewed as an equalizing tool that encourages universal participation as opposed to the more complex dynamics found in face-to-face dialogues, where certain individuals can often dominate the flow of discourse” (Blake 2009: 825).
Individual learner differences encompassing a wide array of characteristics, ranging from personality (e.g., extroversion vs. introversion) to affective factors such as motivation and anxiety, contribute to the fact that students display diverse likes and dislikes in the classroom, as well as regarding use of technologies. Thus, learning-style conflicts can occur when a learning activity, resource or approach runs counter to students’ inclinations; for example, when a visual learner receives mainly auditory input, or when an analytic learner is required to learn mainly through communication (Ehrman 1996). Consequently, to judge the effectiveness of a technology-mediated activity, we must take account of learner-inherent variables, that is, aptitudes and attitudes arising from individual differences. This latter aspect has received only intermittent attention in research. Yet, as indicated above, chat tools and other forms of computer-mediated communication can offer safe practice spaces for students who display communication reticence in face-to-face learning contexts (so-called “communication anxiety” or “foreign-language class-room anxiety”; e.g., Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope 1986; Dewaele, Petrides, and Furnham 2008).
This claim is supported by Sun (2009), who reports on Chinese students’ assessment of voice blogging, an activity that involves recording a speech in private and subsequently publishing it on an intranet site. The interactive element is provided by the chance for other users to comment. This form of computer-mediated communication allows planning, practising and monitoring, and may consequently be experienced as a safer, less face-threatening environment by less confident learners. Asian students, as confirmed by a number of studies on cultural-based learner differences (e.g., Liu 2006; Liu and Jackson 2008), are notoriously reluctant to speak in foreign language classes. And indeed, when interviewed about their perceptions of voice blogs as a learning tool, participants in Sun’s study singled out anxietyreduction as a reason for their positive perceptions of the technology:
–“Voice blogs are helpful because they promote speaking among people like me who don’t speak English on a regular basis. Unlike the classroom environment, blogs make me feel relaxed and thus help me speak more fluently”;
–“Speaking on a voice blog increases the opportunities for me to speak English and to provide oral feedback to peers. It really helps me reduce speaking anxiety” (Participants’ comments, cited in Sun 2009: 97).
In this case, the integration of a technology tool proved successful because it managed to meet the specific individual needs and goals of a group of learners. Its implementation demonstrated awareness of the characteristics of the technology as well as of those of the learners. The asynchronous nature of the application provided freedom from the time constraints operative in face-to-face interaction, facilitating attention to form and promoting accuracy and complexity of language. What is more, the sheltered practice environment offered scaffolding for those who feel shy and anxious when having to communicate spontaneously.
Thus some types of computer-mediated communication succeed in offering the nurturing qualities necessary for anxious, introvert or low proficiency learners, “allowing them to hold the floor as long as they wish” (Kern 2014: 342). But what can they contribute at the other end of the learner-type spectrum, that is, for advanced learners who relish challenge, and whose learner beliefs and extrovert orientations predispose them to direct human contact? Does the immediacy of synchronous video chat, for instance, replicate face-to-face interaction to such an extent as to be considered a viable and equally effective alternative?
Kern’s (2014) and Trinder’s (2016) empirical studies suggest that there seem to be issues related, not to technology itself but to its mediation that have an impact on how the environment is perceived by learners. In a study involving intermediate students of French, Kern focused on the role of the medium in communication via Skype and observed several technology-induced problems that inhibited the natural flow of conversation. For example, the video camera exaggerated gestures and facial expressions, the position of the camera on top of the screen prohibited eye-contact, the added time-delay of transmission was experienced as awkward, speech was garbled at times without the speaker noticing and, last but not least, watching themselves on the computer interface increased self-consciousness amongst participants (Kern 2014). These are of course minor problems in view of the learning benefits the technology offers, and Kern’s respondents were by and large very positive as to its impact on their communicative skills. Yet the study also clearly shows that technology not only enables, but at the same time slightly distorts and disturbs remote communication.
The subjects in Trinder’s (2016) study were advanced students of business English who strongly preferred face-to-face interaction to the technology-mediated variety. Reasons given included both technical issues (sound quality, delays in transmission) that hindered comprehension and motivational ones arising from perceived lack of authenticity and real-life conditions (conversations divorced from shared physical surroundings were experienced as artificial and impoverished). Respondents further found that communication contexts that allowed them to consult tools they would not have in face-to-face encounters (e.g., electronic dictionaries) did not adequately reflect the challenges of communicating in real life, and that other applications (e.g., messages coming in) presented a distraction. In general, and arguably due to their advanced proficiency as well as mostly extrovert personalities, students assessed direct personal encounters, which put their language skills to a realistic test, as far more beneficial.
7Conclusion
This contribution has attempted to illustrate that successful pedagogical exploitation of technologies depends on a number of parameters located within the learning context, the technology and the individual learner. It is indeed a set of “interrelated and complex research variables” (to re-quote Garrett 2009) that we need to look at if we are to assess the viability of using technology for part or all of the complex business of learning languages for business purposes.
The ways in which various media are integrated into different learning contexts are varied and numerous. We have seen that the array of blended learning scenarios encompasses everything from technological “add-on” in face-to-face courses to the primary input-delivery function in distance learning formats. Despite these differences, any form of technology use tends to entail greater learner control in terms of access and self-pacing. The lack of temporal and geographical constraints represents another major benefit greatly appreciated by professionals.
Yet, as stressed throughout this chapter, pedagogical exploitation of the new media involves more than simply expecting learners “to get on with it” in their own time. Familiarity with and proficient use of certain technologies for private and business purposes does not guarantee that they are considered effective tools for language learning; as Levy (2009: 779) asserts, “the default position of users is different from that of learners”. Use and usefulness of a given resource’s affordances may need to be demonstrated by a teacher; tasks and projects must be devised carefully in order to enhance language learning. This poses new challenges for teachers, who need to adapt to new demands and acquire different sets of skills in the quickly changing world of technology. In fact, “sustainability” and the need to provide training for teachers as well as learners have become central issues in the field.
What is more, learner differences encompassing such diverse factors as proficiency level, autonomous learning skills and personality aspects are further important variables when assessing opportunities and pitfalls of technology-mediated language learning. Research has confirmed the paradox frequently intuited by teachers that, in self-study and blended learning contexts, it is often the most motivated, selfdirected and experienced students who make best use of internet and CALL resources. By contrast, weaker learners, who could do with extra practice, may be overwhelmed by the virtual world’s abundance of materials and lack of structure. A certain level of autonomy is necessary if learners are to be able to identify their weak points as well as the appropriate “digital remedy”. At the same time, differences in proficiency and confidence also mean that lower-level or shy learners may feel more comfortable in having a technology-mediated conversation, whereas extrovert, proficient students feel insufficiently challenged. For the former group, computer-mediated communication represents a helpful stepping stone towards managing real-life encounters. For the latter, on the other hand, the technology intervention constitutes an unwelcome distraction, and the computer environment is deemed a poor substitute for direct contact.
To conclude, in assessing the efficacy of technology-mediated learning, it is crucial to remember that perceived and actual effectiveness of any resource, whether real-life or virtual, human or material, must be seen in relation to its ability to meet specific learning aims and learner preferences. Researchers have long agreed that, rather than comparing technology with face-to-face environments, more specific questions have to be asked about what type of technology should be employed in realizing different types of outcomes in diverse learning contexts (Lafford 2009). In short, technology can be used in the services of language learning for a great variety of reasons and with widely differening aims, but it should never be considered a panacea.
References
Arnó-Macià, Elisabet. 2012. The role of technology in teaching languages for specific purposes courses. Modern Language Journal 96 (Focus Issue). 89–104.
Arnó-Macià, Elisabet, Antonia Soler Cervera & Carmen Rueda Ramos (eds.). 2006. Information technology in languages for specific purposes: Issues and prospects (Series: Educational Linguistics). New York: Springer.
Bax, Stephen. 2003. CALL – past, present and future. System 31(1). 13–28.
Benito-Ruiz, Elena. 2009. Infoxication 2.0. In Michael Thomas (ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning, 60–79. London: IGI Global.
Benson, Phil. 2007. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40(1). 21–40.
Blake, Robert. 2009. The use of technology for second language distance learning. Modern Language Journal 93(5). 822–837.
Blake, Robert. 2013. Brave new digital classrooms: Technology and foreign language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bown, Jennifer. 2006. Locus of learning and affective strategy use: Two factors affecting success in self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Annals 39(4). 640–659.
Butler-Pascoe, Mary Ellen. 2009. English for Specific Purposes (ESP), innovation, and technology. English Education and ESP. 1–15. http://www.ouralliant.com/mbutler/Monograph_Taiwan2009.pdf
Castle, Sidney R. & Chad McGuire. 2010. An analysis of student self-assessment of implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies 3(3). 36–40.
Conole, G. Gráinne & Giota Alevizou. 2010. A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education (Report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy). Milton Keynes: HEA.
Crook, Charles, John Cummings, Tony Fisher, Rebecca Graber, Colin Harrison, Cathy Lewin, Kit Logan, Rose Luckin, Martin Oliver & Mike Sharples. 2008. Web2.0 technologies for learning: The current landscape. Opportunities, challenges and tensions. Becta Report. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1474/1/becta_2008_web2_currentlandscape_litrev.pdf (accessed 15 March 2014).
Dewaele, Jean.-Marc, K. V. Petrides & Adrian Furnham. 2008. Effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning 58(4). 911–960.
Downes, Stephen. 2005. E-learning 2.0. E-Learn Magazine. http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1104968 (accessed 20 July 2014).
Dudley-Evans, Tony & Maggie Jo St John. 1998. Developments in English for Specific Purposes: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EACEA. 2009. Study on the impact of information and communications technology (ICT) and new media on language learning: Final report. European Commission. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/documents/study_impact_ict_new_media_language_learning/final_report_en.pdf(accessed 15 March 2014).
Ehrman, Madeline. 1996. Understanding second language difficulties: Looking beneath the surface. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, Rod. 2008. The study of second language acquisition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freedman, Terry (ed.). 2006. Coming of age: An introduction to the new World Wide Web. http:// www.shambles.net/web2/comingofage/Coming_of_age_v1-2.pdf (accessed 20 July 2014).
Garrett, Nina. 1991. Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal 75(1). 74–101.
Garrett, Nina. 2009. CALL trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal 93(5). 719–740.
Hampel, Regina & Ursula Stickler. 2005. New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(4). 311–326.
Hauck, Mirjam & Stella Hurd. 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). http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2005/Mirjam_Hauck.htm (accessed 21 October 2014).
Holec, Henry. 1981. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Horwitz, Elaine, Michael K. Horwitz, M. & Joann Cope. 1986. Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70(2). 125–132.
Keen, Andrew. 2007. The cult of the amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy. Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Kern, Nergiz. 2013. Technology-integrated English for Specific Purposes lessons: Real-life language, tasks, and tools for professionals. In Gary Motteram (ed.), Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching, 67–116. London: British Council.
Kern, Richard. 2014. Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the Internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal 98(1). 340–357.
Kern, Richard, Paige Ware & Mark Warschauer. 2004. Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 243–260.
Lafford, Barbara. 2009. Toward an econological CALL: Update to Garett (1991). The Modern Language Journal 93(1). 673–696.
Leduning, Deborah & Lee Kean Wah. 2013. Focus on students: A blended business English writing class in Sabah. Jurnal Teknologi 65(2). 25–31.
Levy, Mike. 2009. Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal 93(1). 769–782.
Littlemore, Jeanette. 2001. Learner autonomy, self-instruction and new technologies in language learning: Current theory and practice in higher education in Europe. In Angela Chambers & Graham Davies (eds.), ICT and language learning: A European perspective, 39–60. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Liu, Meihua. 2006. Reticence, anxiety and performance of Chinese university students in oral English lessons and tests. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Information and Learning Company, University of Michigan.
Liu, Meihua & Jane Jackson. 2008. An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 92(1). 71–86.
Liu, Xiaojing, Richard Magjuka, Curtis Bonk & Seung-Hee Lee. 2007. Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perspectives of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 8(1). 9–24.
Motteram, Gary (ed.). 2013. Innovations in learning technologies for English language teaching. London: British Council.
Motteram, Gary and Pete Sharma. 2009. Blended learning in a Web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society 7(2). 83–96.
Nielson, Katharine. 2011. Self-study with language learning software in the workplace: What happens? Language Learning and Technology 15(3). 110–129.
Owston, Ron, Dennis York & Susan Murtha. 2013. Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. The Internet and Higher Education 18. 38–46.
Palalas, Agnieszka. 2011. ESP for busy college students: Is the blend of in-class, online & mobile learning the answer? IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies 41(1). 108–136.
Rüschoff, Bernd. 2009. Output-oriented language learning with digital media. In Michael Thomas (ed.), Web 2.0 and second language learning, 42–59. London: IGI Global.
Salaberry, M. Rafael. 2001. The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal 85(1). 39–56.
Stevenson, Megan & Min Liu. 2010. Learning a Language with Web 2.0: Exploring the use of social networking features of foreign language learning websites. CALICO 27(2). 233–259.
Sun, Yu-Chih. 2009. Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology 13. 88–103.
Thomas, Michael (ed.). 2009. Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning. London: IGI Global.
Thomas, Michael, Hayo Reinders & Mark Warschauer (eds.). 2013. Contemporary computer-assisted language learning. London & New York: Bloomsbury.
Tomlinson, Brian. 2001. Materials development. In Ron Carter & David Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, 66–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Travis, Pete & Fiona Joseph. 2009. Improving learners’ speaking skills with podcasts. In Michael Thomas, (ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning, 313–330. London: IGI Global.
Trinder, Ruth. 2000. A critical evaluation of the New Media in language learning and teaching with special reference to multimedia CD-ROMs for Business English. Dissertation, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
Trinder, Ruth. 2002. Multimedia in the Business English classroom: The learners’ point of view. Computer Assisted Language Learning 15(1). 69–83.
Trinder, Ruth. 2006. Integration of e-learning into a tertiary educational context. In Elisabet Arnó-Macia, Antonia Soler Cervera &Carmen Rueda Ramos (eds.), Information technology in languages for specific purposes: Issues and prospects (Series: Educational Linguistics), 191–212. New York: Springer.
Trinder, Ruth. 2016. Blending technology and face-to-face: Advanced students’ choices. Recall 28(1). 83‒102.
Uber Grosse, Christine & Geoffrey M. Voght. 2012. The continuing evolution of languages for specific purposes. Modern Language Journal 95(2). 190–202.
Warschauer, Mark & Tina Matuchniak. 2010. New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education 34(1). 179–225.
Wertsch, James. 2002. Computer mediation, PBL, and dialogicality. Distance Education 23(1). 105–108.
White, Cynthia. 2003. Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, Cynthia. 2006. State of the art review article: The distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching 39(4). 247–264.
Zourou, Katarina. 2012. On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: A look at the state of the art. Alsic 15(1) (n.p). http://alsic.revues.org/2436 (accessed 13 July 2014).