In their well-written and well-researched essay, “Digital Language Learning (DLL): Insights from Behavior, Cognition, and the Brain”, Li and Lan (Reference Li and Lanin press) pose the straight-forward question of how to use computer-based instructional technologies to foster second language learning. Rather than reviewing the existing literature on L2 learning with digital media, the authors offer fundamental issues, highlight fundamental concepts, and point to exciting trends in technologies intended to support second language learning.

When we focus on digital language learning, it is tempting to focus on instructional media that promote excitement – such as mobile-assisted language learning, virtual reality, game-based learning, and artificial intelligence – rather than instructional methods that can promote learning with each of these media. In this commentary, I suggest a shift in focus from a media-based approach to a methods-based approach, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1:

Approaches to Digital Language Learning

As shown in the first row of Table 1, the media-based approach places technology at the center of the instructional design process whereas the methods-based approach places the learner at the center of the instructional design process. Thus, the instructional focus of the media-centered approach is on using the new cutting edge technologies of digital language learning (such as mobile-assisted language learning, virtual reality, game-based learning, and artificial intelligence) to replace older technologies of computer-assisted language learning. In contrast, the instructional focus of the methods-based approach is on how to design digital learning environments in light of what we know about how people learn, in order to promote productive learning processes and outcomes for L2 learning. A problem with the media-based approach is that the history of educational technology shows that cutting-edge technologies (such as motion pictures, radio, educational television, and computer-based programmed instruction) often come onto the scene with great fanfare, but ultimately fade away because they are not used effectively to promote learning (Cuban, Reference Cuban1986; Mayer, Reference Mayer2021).

As shown in the second row of Table 1, the underlying conceptual basis of the media-based approach is that instructional media cause learning (e.g., digital language learning venues as instructional media) whereas the underlying conceptual basis of a methods-based approach is that instructional methods cause learning (e.g., digital language learning venues as providing affordances for effective instructional methods). A problem with the media-based approach is that evidence-based theories of academic learning generally focus on instructional methods that cause learning processes (e.g., cognitive activity during learning) and thereby cause learning outcomes (e.g., meaningful knowledge) as manifested on posttest measures (Mayer, Reference Mayer2011).

As shown in the third line of Table 1, the media-based approach views active learning as manifested in hands-on activity during learning in which the learner discovers the to-be-learned material through behavioral exploration. The problem with a focus on behavioral activity is that research has shown that pure discovery methods are less effective than guided discovery and direct methods of instruction (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, Reference Kirschner, Sweller and Clark2006; Mayer, Reference Mayer2004). In contrast, the methods-based approach views active learning as the learner engaging in appropriate cognitive processing during learning – including attending to the relevant material, mentally organizing it into a coherent representation, and integrating it with relevant prior knowledge. This approach requires guidance from an instructor in the form of a guided activity and/or direct instruction, aimed at priming and guiding the learner's cognitive processing during learning.

Finally, as shown in the last row of Table 1, the media-based approach is consistent with media comparison studies in which researchers compare the learning outcomes of L2 students who learn with advanced technologies (such as mobile assisted language learning, virtual reality, game-based learning, or artificial intelligence) with those who learn with conventional media. A criticism of media research (Clark, Reference Clark2001) is that media are not the cause of learning but rather instructional methods cause learning; thus, asking which medium is best is not a fruitful question. In contrast, the methods-based approach is consistent with value added studies in which researchers compare the learning outcomes of L2 students who learn from a lesson delivered via an advanced technology with those who learn the same lesson using technology but with one feature added or altered (Mayer, Reference Mayer2014). This allows us to determine how to isolate which instructional features contribute to the effectiveness of digital language learning.

In summary, instead of asking, “What are the cool new technologies of the day that we can use for L2 learning?”, the methods-based approach suggests that a more productive question is, “How can we adapt today's technologies to design effective instructional methods for L2 learning?” Accordingly, instead of asking learners to adapt to cutting edge technologies, we should be adapting cutting-edge technologies to fit the way that people learn. In short, my hope is that Li and Lan's thoughtful analysis will encourage researchers to examine ways to design instruction in digital language learning environments that aid student learning. The fruits of this ongoing effort could be a growing set of evidence-based design principles to better guide instructional designers involved in current L2 learning projects such as Babbel, Duolingo, and Rosetta Stone, as well as digital language learning projects of the future.