Overview

Some 15 years ago, the late Stephen Bax (Reference Bax2003) published a seminal article that has had a wide-reaching impact on the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The element of that article that had the greatest impact was his discussion of normalization, where he argued that technologies would become such a natural part of the learning environment that they would no longer be noticed, and the separation of the field of CALL from that of language teaching and learning in a larger sense would in essence become redundant. To a certain extent, Bax's prediction has indeed come true, and it is quite normal to see technologies being discussed as a natural part of many language teaching and learning environments.

A less-often cited element of Bax's (Reference Bax2003) article is, however, one that has surprisingly far-reaching implications for the field of CALL, where he described two fallacies that he considered to inhibit the normalization of technology in language teaching and learning. First, he argued that there was a widespread view that technology (specifically software) should be able to do everything, and that the more features that the technology has, the more inherently effective it would be. Second, he suggested that it was believed that the mere existence of technology is the only relevant factor in the successful implementation of technology as a (seamless) part of a language teaching and learning curriculum. Technology should not be viewed as a “miracle cure-all” (Chambers & Bax, Reference Chambers and Bax2006, p. 465). Both of these views pointed to an unrealistic perspective of technology, where technology is somehow able to inherently contribute to language learning, largely irrespective of other factors. Technology has often been given “black box” status, where it is expected to be able to contribute to enhanced motivation, more active engagement in learning activities, and enhanced autonomy.

While research into technology in language teaching and learning has come a long way since Bax's (Reference Bax2003) observations, the question remains as to whether these fallacies from more than 15 years ago have been resolved. Language teachers need to ask themselves if they hold a more realistic perspective regarding technology today, in particular about the potential for technology to lead to more successful learning compared with nonuse, and if they, as educators, comprehend the need for adequate training along with pedagogical, administrative, and technical support.

It would be difficult to argue that these overstated views have in fact been invalidated in any universal sense. The emergence of mobile technologies has provided some evidence of this persisting view. Questions are frequently asked about the best app to learn a certain language, most often without accompanying information such as the level of the students, the skills to be targeted, and the anticipated learning outcomes. This perspective is very clearly in line with the first fallacy that Bax (Reference Bax2003) highlighted, indicating that this view continues to persist. Compounded with this, an underlying assumption often held by teachers is that learners will be motivated to use their mobile devices to carry out these app-based learning activities. This corresponds very closely with the second fallacy, where the mere existence of technologies will result in meaningful engagement in activities using them.

With regard to learners, autonomy and motivation are two main areas that have gained considerable attention over the past quarter century (see Little, Dam, & Legenhausen, Reference Little, Dam and Legenhausen2017; Ushioda, Reference Ushioda and Ushioda2013). While autonomy is often described as being closely linked to motivation, it certainly should not be confused with being the same thing. Not all motivated learners are autonomous, and similarly, not all learners who have the potential to be autonomous actually are. That being said, few would argue against there being a definite interdependence between motivation and autonomy (Spratt, Humphreys, & Chan, Reference Spratt, Humphreys and Chan2002). The importance of motivation in language learning cannot be overstated, given that having sufficient motivation can make up for various deficiencies in learner aptitude and the learning environment (Dörnyei & Ryan, Reference Dörnyei and Ryan2015). Needless to say, the opposite could also be said, in that even when the learner has sufficient aptitude and an ideal learning environment, a lack of motivation can result in an inability to make the most of these.

Investigations into motivation as a determinant of success in learning a second language have been subject to some degree of criticism. Clearly, one of the major reasons for this has been the difficulty in defining motivation in any quantifiable sense, mainly because the term is used extremely broadly to refer to rather different, albeit related, things, such as overall attitudes toward learning, motivation to engage in a task or activity, or even the reasons why a learner has undertaken language study in the first place. Motivation itself has been the focus of research into second language teaching and learning for decades, often influenced by research from behavioral psychology (e.g., Deci & Ryan, Reference Deci and Ryan1985; Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei2005; Gardner & Lambert, Reference Gardner and Lambert1972; Gardner & MacIntyre, Reference Gardner and MacIntyre1993). Without going into the various perspectives on the role of motivation and second language learning, the numerous discussions and research results to date make it clear that motivation is an individual, an environmental, and a social construct that is prone to change and influence from both direct and indirect factors (see Dörnyei, MacIntyre, & Henry, Reference Dörnyei, MacIntyre, Henry, Dörnyei, MacIntyre and Henry2015; Larsen-Freeman, Reference Larsen-Freeman, Dörnyei, MacIntyre and Henry2015). Even in the absence of a clear and quantifiable definition of motivation, most teachers have some fundamental idea of what it means for their learners to be motivated in a broad sense, and the “motivated” learner is seen as being desirable, with the expectation of more successful learning outcomes than with learners who do not possess this motivation.

Autonomy is another area where a good deal of discussion has taken place over the last several years, with learning moving from a largely teacher-centered undertaking through to a more learner-centered one. The term autonomy itself has been notoriously difficult to define, often expressed in rather broad terms such as experiencing oneself as the origin of one's behavior (Dörnyei & Ushioda, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2011) and the capacity to take control of one's learning (Benson, Reference Benson2013). A more operationalized definition from Murray (Reference Murray and Murray2014) categorizes autonomy as taking responsibility for goal setting, materials selection, strategy implementation, monitoring progress, and assessment. As Schwienhorst (Reference Schwienhorst2011) pointed out, autonomy is likely to vary greatly across skills, and it is difficult to make a case for autonomy associated with one particular area as having any degree of transferability to other areas. Others have argued that Holec's (Reference Holec1981) view of autonomy as an individual internal construct that is independent of outside social interactions does not accurately reflect the various evolving independencies and interdependencies that take place during the learning process (see Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014). Each of these positions on autonomy combine to illustrate the elusiveness of the term. For the most part, teachers would tend to have an idea of what it is that they would like learners to achieve with regard to their learning (e.g., to be able to go beyond the teacher requirements for learning and to select and undertake activities that develop their own language learning skills without direct instruction), but the factors that lead to this state remain more difficult to pin down accurately. Part of this complexity can be seen in the discussion by Benson (Reference Benson, Benson and Voller1997), who provided three versions of autonomy: technical, psychological, and political. In this distinction, Benson saw technical autonomy as “the act of learning a language outside the framework of an educational institution and without the intervention of a teacher” (p. 19). Psychological autonomy includes the attitudes and abilities that allow the learner to take responsibility for their learning, and political autonomy includes the framework—most commonly the educational environment—that can lend support to learners’ individual learning. While this is far from the only way in which autonomy can be dissected, this example does serve to show the sheer range of interpretations of autonomy that can be derived from the notion. In much the same way as motivation, however, when teachers use the term autonomy, it is likely that they have some broad concept of desirable behavior that they look for in their learners. There would, of course, be some individual variation, but one would generally expect that teachers would consider autonomous learners to be those learners who are willing and able to go beyond the requirements of the course to seek out learning resources for themselves and use them in an effective manner.

The position of the teacher in the overall equation with regard to facilitating technology usage is another important area, with teachers often possessing exaggerated expectations as to what learners are capable of with technology (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard, Fotos and Browne2004) and underestimating their own abilities to use technology effectively in teaching as well as the potential learning outcomes from technology (Yaghi & Abu-Saba, Reference Yaghi and Abu-Saba1998). The digital natives concept proposed by Prensky (Reference Prensky2001) has done very little to alleviate these concerns. While some younger users of technology may have some advantages in terms of the ways in which they use technology for private purposes, this has not been shown to be an accurate determinant of their ability to use it for learning purposes (Stockwell & Hubbard, Reference Stockwell and Hubbard2013). The perception that learners are more capable users of technology than teachers can lead to unrealistic expectations as to what they can achieve with the technology in educational contexts as well, which can potentially impact teacher motivation. Pressure from the institution (Stockwell, Reference Stockwell and Ushioda2013), fears regarding the superiority of learners with regard to technology usage (Levy & Stockwell, Reference Levy and Stockwell2006), and unrealistic outlooks concerning technology making language teachers obsolete or redundant (Wray & Medwell, Reference Wray and Medwell1991) have the potential to detrimentally affect the way in which the teacher engages with the technology, which ultimately has the potential to impact the learning environment.

From this brief introductory discussion, it is clear that technology can have far-reaching effects in the language classroom, but that it is often surrounded by somewhat unrealistic expectations that can impact the way in which it is viewed and used by both teachers and learners. The realities of technology with regard to motivation and autonomy, along with the real and perceived issues faced by teachers, are discussed in more depth below.

Technology and Learner Motivation and Autonomy

The position of technology as a motivator has been quite widely observed in the literature, despite receiving only moderate support from empirical evidence (for a discussion, see Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, & Freynik, Reference Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson and Freynik2014). This viewpoint of technology as a means of motivating learners is based largely on short-term studies where the motivational impacts are for the most part anecdotal or based on subjective measures from the learners themselves (e.g., Felix, Reference Felix2005; Hubbard, Reference Hubbard2005). Indeed, technology as a motivator is likely a concept that is more associated with a time when technologies were more of a novelty (e.g., Murray, Reference Murray1998), but given the shift in the balance of power toward learners as predominant technology users, rather than teachers, it is not surprising that this view is no longer mainstream (Stockwell, Reference Stockwell and Ushioda2013). This being the case, the technology itself is unlikely to hold any long-term motivational value, and sustained usage of the technology will depend on other determining factors. Indeed, contrary to the opinion held by many teachers, according to Bax (Reference Bax2003), technology in itself has not shown to be an accurate predictor of task engagement. Stockwell (Reference Stockwell2019) found that an increased penetration rate of smart phones had very little impact on both the amount and quality of engagement for learners in completing online activities, and that other factors such as the environment and training were far more likely to have made a difference.

Technology in itself is highly unlikely to lead to autonomy, but rather, technology has the potential to provide opportunities for engaging with the target language for learners who possess some degree of autonomy. The complexities of autonomy have been outlined above, but technology emphasizes another issue that needs consideration for learners to move toward autonomous behaviors—the need for learners to have sufficient skills in order to engage in tasks in a meaningful manner (Hubbard & Romeo, Reference Hubbard, Romeo and Stockwell2012; Reinders, Reference Reinders and Liontas2018a). Autonomous behavior is highly unlikely to occur without a sufficient balance of motivation and skills (Stockwell, Reference Stockwellforthcoming). That is, learners who do not possess sufficient skills to know how to undertake the language learning activities without constant encouragement and support from the teacher (regardless of whether this takes either a carrot or a stick approach), they are unlikely to sustain this engagement for any meaningful duration. At the same time, even if the learners do indeed possess these skills, if they do not have the motivation to actually engage in the activities, then these skills may be largely wasted. Another important observation is that both motivation and skills need to be nurtured. The lack of transferability of skills (and even motivation) from one field of learning to another—be it learning vocabulary, developing listening skills, or writing an academic essay—means that autonomy should not be assumed just because it is exhibited in a given related area. Learners may find that they are more motivated to engage in one type of activity just because of the nature of this activity (and in the case of technology, the tools that are used may result in a more positive attitude toward this type of activity), but this motivation may be somewhat reduced in other areas. Needless to say, having sufficient skills to be able to engage in unfamiliar areas would be seen as a prerequisite to learning effectively, and thus support is once again vital for success.

Where we see technology having the opportunity to assist in motivating learners is through the social interactions that new communication tools make possible (Ushioda, Reference Ushioda2011). Both motivation and autonomy are thought to exist within social contexts that can be enhanced by technology, but simply engaging in online communication is highly unlikely to automatically result in autonomy or have any long-term impact on motivation. Teachers often place expectations on learners to interact with one another through social tools such as Facebook, but communication is rarely sustained and is highly dependent upon ongoing intervention from the teacher (Appel & Mullen, Reference Appel and Mullen2002; Tran, Reference Tran2018). Such behavior could hardly be called autonomous, and motivation is extremely closely linked to the degree to which the teacher is willing and able to interact with others. Spontaneous interaction by learners is indeed possible, but this is more likely to be seen with higher-level learners or those who have already been able to establish links with members of the online communities in which they participate (Choi & Nunan, Reference Choi and Nunan2018; Pasfield-Neofitou, Reference Pasfield-Neofitou2012). What becomes evident is that technology itself is not the key issue in motivating learners, but rather what they can do with the technology and whether or not they see how this relates to their individual language learning objectives.

Technology and Teacher Psychology

Only in the past several years has the importance of teacher psychology started to attract the attention that it deserves. The psychology of the learner has long been an important aspect of research and discussion in language teaching and learning (e.g., Dörnyei & Ryan, Reference Dörnyei and Ryan2015; Williams & Burden, Reference Williams and Burden1997; Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, Reference Williams, Mercer and Ryan2016), and this has formed the foundation for the majority of theories that account for how learners learn a language, how they interact with others, their motivation for learning languages, and how they regulate themselves in the learning process. However, we have seen less research regarding the psychology of language teachers. In much the same way as learners develop a self-image of themselves as learners of a language, teachers also develop a self-image as users of technology (Sahakyan, Lamb, & Chambers, Reference Sahakyan, Lamb, Chambers, Mercer and Kostoulas2018). Hardly surprising, in much the same way that learners come into the classroom with an idealistic image of what they expect the language classroom and teacher to be like, teachers possess similar ideas, with expectations of the types of learners that they hope to have in their classes (Dewaele & Mercer, Reference Dewaele, Mercer, Mercer and Kostoulas2018; Kalaja & Mäntylä, Reference Kalaja, Mäntylä, Mercer and Kostoulas2018).

Teacher education itself is an enormous field and has been the focus of numerous publications over the years that attempt to provide teachers with some foundation to prepare them for teaching from a range of different perspectives, including historical, practical, and social viewpoints (e.g., Horwitz, Reference Horwitz2013; Johnson, Reference Johnson2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, Reference Larsen-Freeman and Anderson2011). Training for using technology in language teaching and learning has, however, been somewhat less prevalent. There have been a number of publications targeted toward teacher education with technology (e.g., Hubbard & Levy, Reference Hubbard and Levy2006; Son & Windeatt, Reference Son and Windeatt2017), but technology has remained an area that has been somewhat neglected in courses in terms of having clear objectives in achieving relevant competencies and understanding how to make sense of the range of tools that are available (Son, Reference Son2018). The motivation for teachers to use technology itself is also extremely varied, ranging from internal-initiated (i.e., the teacher makes the decision to use the technology) to external-initiated (i.e., the decision to use the technology is made by others; see Stockwell, Reference Stockwell and Ushioda2013, for a discussion). Teachers have often expressed reluctance to accept new approaches (Reinders, Reference Reinders and Liontas2018b), and it is not surprising that this is also evidenced in adoption of technology.

In the absence of comprehensive in-service teaching, the onus for learning how to use technologies effectively for their individual environments falls squarely on the teachers themselves. Teachers who possess a certain degree of agency will find it less imposing to do this (White, Reference White, Mercer and Kostoulas2018), but teachers often struggle with gaining recognition for their efforts to improve their skills (Costley, Reference Costley, Malloch, Cairns, Evans and O'Connor2011) and are faced with inequities regarding access to such learning (Evans, Guile, & Harris, Reference Evans, Guile, Harris, Malloch, Cairns, Evans and O'Connor2011). External pressures to use technology are often the result of decisions that were made by administrators without sufficient consultation with the teachers who become the end users of the technology, so it is not surprising to see that there is some degree of reluctance expressed by teachers who feel dissatisfied or even distrust of the technologies. Such negative attitudes often filter down to the learners, who can sense their teachers’ lack of enthusiasm (or even criticism) about the technologies that they are required to use, and this can have a detrimental effect on the learning environment on the whole.

For most teachers, gaining sufficient skills in using technology without training has proven to be difficult (Robb, Reference Robb, Hubbard and Levy2006), with the burden of when, where, and how to gain these skills falling on the shoulders of the teachers themselves, often in their own time. Teachers need to have a knowledge of the range of tools available, and they must also know the best ways in which to apply appropriate technologies to the learning goals of the varied contexts in which they find themselves, but finding ways of acquiring such knowledge without assistance requires teachers to seek out information about the resources through accessing relevant research and engaging in dialogue with others who have experience (Stockwell, Reference Stockwell2009). As has been addressed above, another ongoing problem is finding ways to train learners to use resources effectively for language learning, but in many cases the teachers themselves are also somewhere along the learning curve. To achieve better training, Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann, and Hubbard (Reference Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann, Hubbard, Hubbard and Levy2006) suggested a collaborative approach where teachers can start on a smaller scale in project groups initially while interacting with more experienced peers, and as teachers become more capable of supporting one another in technology training groups, they can then extend their new technology skills to regular classroom settings. To do this successfully, the teacher needs to be able to view the materials and the environment from the perspective of the learner (Hubbard, Reference Hubbard, Fotos and Browne2004); working in project groups enables participants to experience new materials and approaches from the perspective of both the teacher and the learner. Given the importance of learner training so that learners will be able to use technological resources as a part of their learning, sufficient time needs to be devoted for teachers to learn the technology. Both teachers and learners will need to find the best way of providing training that suits the dynamics of that particular group, often in the midst of the curricular constraints.

Pedagogical Considerations

The complexities of maintaining motivation and encouraging autonomous behavior through technology are intertwined with a range of factors relating to the technologies themselves; the experiences, goals, views, and expectations of both the learners and teachers; the institutional environment; and the support for learning how to use these technologies effectively and to deal with difficulties as they arise. Learning to use a technology for language learning does not necessarily mean that the technology is something they have not used before, although it might be the case with emerging technologies, such as a new learning management system or a smart board. Learning how to use the range of functions of existing technologies, even as simple as an audio player, in a way that can enhance the learning process can contribute to improved learning outcomes (e.g., Romeo & Hubbard, Reference Romeo, Hubbard, Levy, Blin, Siskin and Takeuchi2010).

Motivation is extremely dynamic and volatile and may be affected by a range of factors that go beyond the technology itself. The short-term motivational benefits of certain technologies are unlikely to lead to any meaningful sustained interaction, so teachers need to try to maintain motivation in other ways that do not depend on the technology itself. Similarly, autonomy is not a natural outcome of using technology, but is rather very much a product of the skills and attitudes toward learning certain elements of the language. Finally, teacher considerations in the overall context must also be given attention, as they will directly impact learner attitudes toward technology, the ways in which learners use the technology, and the longevity of usage (see Stockwell, Reference Stockwell and Ushioda2013). These include how teachers are able to maintain their own motivation and skills with the use of technologies, often in the face of unrealistic expectations regarding what learners are capable of.

A list of pedagogical principles for using technology in the classroom are provided below, based on the discussion above. These principles were designed as a way to promote best practices with regard to deriving maximum benefit from technology use for language teaching and learning. The choice of technologies will depend heavily on the individual context, given that access to technology will differ among learners. Indeed, arguing for the latest technologies relates very much to the fallacies pointed out by Bax (Reference Bax2003), and as such, the salient point is not what the technologies themselves are, but that the available technologies are used in a way that enhances the learning process as much as possible.