21st Century Language Learning and Teaching Implementation Of ICT-Oriented Language Education.pdf

21st
Century Language Learning and Teaching:
Implementation Of ICT-Oriented Language Education
Monthon Kanokpermpoon
Language Institute, Thammasat University
ABSTRACT
This paper aims to investigate and implement various uses of technologies in
language education in the 21st
century. Research explored in this paper show that
there are a wide variety of technology to choose from, either offline or online media.
Teachers and students who are digital immigrants can benefit from integrating
technology in their learning and teaching. If only these teachers and students
understood the importance of and practiced Network-based language teaching and e-
learning skills.
Keywords: 21st
Century, ICT, Language learning, Language education
INTRODUCTION
At the turn of the 21st
century, there are many changes in the role of education
in the world, especially an addition of digital literacies in education (Solomon, 2010).
Some people were born with technologies surrounding them and become native users
of technology language, or as Prensky (2001a) coins this idea with the term, digital
natives . ’ome people, such as those born in the 19th
or 20th
century, however,
become digital immigrants who need to adapt themselves to the emergence of
technology (Prensky, 2001a).
Comparing new generations with older generations, we might face a big gap in
understanding each other, especially in terms of education and learning. To be more
specific, English education, among various disciplines, might seem to be learnable and
teachable from different perspectives (John & ’utherland, 2004). As for digital
immigrants , using printed materials seems to be safer and more comfortable to use
than learning and reading from e-books, for example. On the other hands, digital

natives might learn a foreign language faster and better when they play online games
or interact with their online friends (See more examples in Prensky, 2001a, 2001b ;
John & Sutherland, 2004).
In this article, we will explore different views of language learning from different
perspectives and take a closer look at how new technologies can be embedded in and
enhance language education from existing research studies. Implication for language
teachers and students will also be discussed.
21ST CENTURY LEARNING
It is generally accepted that the world is changing, be it physically, socially and
economically. The way education was settled and provided in the past seems to
mismatch the reality (Kay, 2010). In other words, what we are teaching and training
students in schools seem not to be practical and applicable in the real labour world.
Trilling & Fadel (2009) explain that routine work in the 20th
century was originally
performed by people, but it was gradually substituted by machines. However, with the
expansion of computers and telecommunications, people need to change their skills
to adapt to more complicated, creative tasks (Dede, 2009).
With reference to the Population Reference Bureau (2012), there are
approximately two million people, or 27%, who are under 15 years old and have been
surrounded by technology since they were born. However, the majority of people and
students are considered digital immigrants and they need to re-learn and make use
of technology so as to blend in the future society (Buraphadeja, 2012).
In the next section, we intend to take a careful look at how technology can be
blended in the teaching and learning of languages, among other diverse areas of
subjects.
EMBEDDING TECHNOLOGY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
As information and communications technology (ICT) becomes part of everyday
practices in the 21st
century, it is important to note that (digital) immigrant educators
implement and try to include technology in routine teaching and learning (Dede, 2012).
At a broad level, especially in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO (2003) conducted a
series of ICT trainings for teachers. The aims were to develop teachers ICT skills for

every aspect of teaching and learning core subjects and to develop individual
computer literacies for practical purposes. The study was concluded with a successful
story of general understanding in terms of computer implementation in education and
policy. However, some specific issues such as troubleshooting and technical
maintenance, extending training facilities and programmes, and continuing support
were still of a great concern in a continuing success of training.
In 2004, UNESCO further synthesised lessons learned from integrating ICT in
education in six countries, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South
Korea and Thailand. The case studies were to look into eight categories: (1) broader
environmental context; (2) policy and regulatory environment; (3) management and
financing; (4) ICT in schools – policy, vision and strategy; (5) technology infrastructure
and connectivity; (6) curriculum, pedagogy and content development; (7) professional
development; and (8) monitoring and evaluation. The results of analysis and synthesis
were that these countries were grouped into [1] advanced countries with integrated
ICT in the education system, [2] countries where national ICT policies and master plans
have been formulated and various ICT integration strategies are being applied and
tested, and [3] countries where efforts towards ICT integration efforts and formulation
of national policies have just begun. (for further analysis of policies in ICT integration,
please see UNESCO, 2004).
Shifting from regional region to local level, a group of researchers (Sutherland,
Armstrong, Barnes, Brawn, Breeze, Gall, Matthewman, Olivero, Taylor, Triggs, Wishart &
John, 2004) conducted a research study on the effect of embedding ICT into everyday
classroom practices in the UK. They designed and redesigned a curriculum with an
inclusion of ICT on core subject areas in English, mathematics, modern foreign
languages, history, music and science. The theory that they based their attention on
was sociocultural theory1
. The sample teachers under this research were informed of
the theory and trained to embed ICT tools in their subject teaching. What was found in
this research is that project teachers embraced learning for themselves and used ICT
tools to transform their own knowledge of subject areas and develop, expand and
adjust their teaching repertoire. (p.420). The researchers concluded that teachers and
policy makers discuss potentials of including ICT in teaching and learning core subjects

and treat technology as a part of blended learning and teaching. This is for the
possibility of digital literacies transferred to outside classrooms.
In terms of embedding ICT training for language teachers, Maneekao (2001)
conducted an internet training session for Thai EFL teachers. Her training was arranged
into changing attitudes, theory explanation, getting to know the Internet and hands-on
experience. What was found in her training and study is that Thai EFL teachers realised
the importance of the workshop and reported that, even though the content were
familiar, it was still relevant and practical to refresh their experience. What is needed
to be improved concerns time limitation and more practical experience.
Another case of study which trained language teachers to be equipped with ICT
competences can be found in Titova (2012). In 2012, Titova designed an online
professional development course in ICT for EFL school and college teachers from
Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine. The aim of her training was to train language teachers
how to create their own social networking system and virtual teaching environment.
What she found is that teacher trainees were satisfied with course contents and
feedbacks received from their assignments. However, the researcher reported that her
subjects were less satisfied with time allocation for online assignments, lack of ICT
competence level, no online discussion skills and many more. What is needed for
further research, as the researcher suggested, is collaborative interactions in the course.
Even though there are some lacks of certain issues in embedding ICT training in
language teaching and learning as reported in the above scenarios, Sharma & Barrett
(2007) and Lewis (2009) propose how to blend technology into a language classroom.
The following table summarises types of technology which can be blended in language
education.

Table 1 Technology for blended language learning
(adapted from Sharma & Barrett, 2007 ; Lewis, 2009)
Types of technology Blended skills of language learning
Offline tools
 Electronic dictionaries  Searching skills
 Pronunciation practice
 Word processing tools
(Word processors and PowerPoint)
 Writing and editing skills
 Research skills
 File management
 Reading comprehension
 Presentation skills
 Interactive whiteboards  Dynamic presentation skills
Online tools
 Computer-mediated communication
(e.g. email, chats and text messaging)
 Interpersonal communication skills
 Presenting information
 Critical and analytical thinking skills
 Writing and editing skills
 The world wide web
(e.g. web browsers, search engines,
RSS feeds, webquests)
 Authentic learning experience
 Research skills
 Organising skills
 Summarising skills
 Evaluating skills
 Web 2.0 technology
(e.g. blogs, wikis, podcasts, digital
portfolios, social networking)
 Authentic learning experience
 Interpersonal communication skills
 Research skills
 Organising skills
 Summarising skills
 Evaluating skills
As can be seen from Table 1, it can be genearalised that teachers can choose
between online and offline technologies to blend in their language teaching. If they

would like to use technology for training basic language skills, including reading
comprehension, writing and editing skills, pronunciation, and presentation skills, offline
mode is possible. However, for more advanced language skills such as critical and
analytical thinking skills, evaluating skills, etc., teachers might need to adapt online
media in their language education.
In the following section, hands-on experiences and studies on each type of
technologies will be discussed.
IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY USED IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION:
WHAT RESEARCH SHOWS?
In this section, each type of technology presented in the aforementioned
section will be discussed.
ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES
Sharma & Barrett (2007) assert that there are many types of electronic
dictionaries. They can be available on CD-ROMs, online and concordances (Kobayashi,
2006). Regarding the availability of different forms of electronic dictionaries, it is
important to explore how students and teachers react to the use of electronic
dictionaries which can be explained in the following studies.
In 2000, Weschler and Pitts compared Japanese students use of paper and
electronic dictionaries. The dictionaries used in this study were Japanese-English and
English-Japanese paper dictionaries as well as Seiko TR-7700 electronic dictionaries.
Students were divided into two groups: one given paper bilingual dictionaries and the
other given electronic dictionaries. The result of the study revealed that Japanese EFL
students could use electronic dictionary 23% faster than paper dictionary. However,
the researchers discovered that their subject of study rarely used electronic
dictionaries. This is because, comparing faster speed of finding unknown words, high
price of owning an electronic dictionary was a main factor diminishing students
motivation to afford one. Also, even though an electronic dictionary was presented to
these students, students simply used it for translating English to Japanese, not even
listening to pronunciation from the electronic dictionary.

Another study conducted by Kobayashi (2006) revealed that 72% of Japanese
learners of English owned pocket electronic dictionaries (PEDs). The researcher
reported that those who owned PEDs tend to use them more often than their paper
dictionaries. Dictionary consultations were found to increase more frequently, enabling
long-term language learning and greater vocabulary repertoire.
In his study of pocket electronic dictionaries (PEDs), Boonmoh (2009)
investigated Thai EFL teachers and learners uses of PEDs. What he found from the
teachers perspective is that Thai EFL teachers preferred to use and have their
students use a monolingual dictionary. However, they were not well-informed of what
contents and capacities of Thai PEDs were. ‘egarding students perspectives, the
researcher found that the majority of Thai EFL students owned paper dictionaries more
than half of those who owned PEDs. When it comes to use, however, very few
students used paper dictionaries comparing to those who owned PEDs. The results of
his experiment were that students reported less teachers influence on the use of PEDs
and their limited knowledge in using PEDs.
As can be seen from the above examples, it can be stated that electronic
dictionaries are playing a significant role in language learning, especially for Asian
students. However, Sharma & Barrett (2007) emphasise their concern on an overuse of
electronic dictionaries since this might lead EFL students to over-reliant on translation
and lack or ignore word-guessing strategies in language learning.
The next session will discuss how other offline media is used in the present
world.
WORD PROCESSING TOOLS
Word processors are commonly used in this 21st
century. Generally, basic
functions of word processing are inserting and deleting, cutting and pasting, highlighting,
underlining and circling (Lewis, 2009).
Word processors can be used to teach and practice writing skills such as letters,
reports, memos, essays and assignments, academic papers, articles, instruction
manuals, text for websites, creative writing, etc. (Sharma & Barrett, 2007). Besides basic
writing practices, Torres (2000) asserts that there many uses of word processors in
teaching and learning vocabulary. She proposes that EFL teachers can use word

processors to generate activities for vocabulary revision, synonyms, vocabulary building,
and phrasal verbs and definitions.
In 2001, Li and Cumming conducted a longitudinal case study on how word
processing was used to improve the quality of essay writing by a Mandarin EFL student.
The result of their research revealed that the subject employed electronic word
processing more than pen-and-paper medium. The researchers also found that there
was a greater revision frequency made at discourse and syntactic levels with higher
scores for content on analytic ratings of the completed compositions. When it comes
to evaluation, the subject was found to produce extensive evaluation of written texts
in think-aloud verbal reports.
Another study by Biesenbach-Lucas, Meloni & Weasenforth (2000) compared
how Arab EFL students wrote using two different types of media, namely word
processor and e-mail. What was found in their research is that students employed
different cohesive devices and text length in their writing from both media. However,
even though the length of writing on both media was short, Arab students were found
to use more cohesive features than Asian students.
As presented in the above scenarios, it can be implied that word processing
becomes part of our daily practice and it is less taught in language teaching. However,
if we try to follow the research studies conducted by Biesenbach-Lucas, Meloni &
Weasenforth (2000) and Li & Cumming (2001) discussed above, we might be able to
use word processors to teach our students areas of written discourse and process
writing.
Since word processing seems to be a document programme that people might
take it for granted and assume our young generation knows how to use it, it is
important to reinforce the teaching through word processing, possibly with an
integration of interactive whiteboards (Sharma & Barrette, 2007) to be discussed in the
following section.
INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS
Lewis (2009) defines an interactive whiteboard (IWB) as
… a touch-sensitive board that is connected to a computer and a projector
(and other peripherals such as DVD players if necessary) and displays

on a computer desktop. (p.33)
As interactive whiteboards are becoming exciting tools that are widely used in
language classrooms around the world, there are several researchers (such as Cuthell,
2003 ; Xu & Moloney, 2011 ; Schmid & Whyte, 2012) reporting different uses and
perspectives of students and teachers towards interactive whiteboard use in language
classrooms.
In 2003, Cuthell conducted a research study on teacher s reflections on
interactive whiteboard uses in education. His subjects of study were primary and
secondary school teachers in the UK. The result of his research revealed that the
majority of primary schools (54%) had 11-15 boards installed, while 47% of secondary
schools possessed 20 or more boards installed. Sample teachers were highly
motivated and empowered, especially primary school teachers, when they had an
interactive whiteboard in their own room. The researcher also discovered that teachers
felt interactive whiteboards helped them prepare better lessons, supporting a variety
of learning styles and intelligences among their students.
In 2011, Xu and Moloney conducted a case study of Chinese language learning
in Sydney. What was found in their research is that students supported the use of new
technology in education which helped them acquire various features of the Chinese
language. Teachers in this study also confirmed that using interactive whiteboards
could enhance their success in delivering effective teaching and learning of Chinese.
This study is similar to a case study conducted by Schmid (2010) who found that an
EFL teacher at a German secondary school developed several competences in utilising
an interactive whiteboard in her language classroom. The subject of her case study was
found to find tune with the use of an interactive whiteboard in terms of (1) the ability
to design IWB-based materials in line with social interactions between whiteboard and
learning context, (2) appropriate management of interaction around IWB, and (3) her
ability to find the right balance of using technology.
Even though there are some studies revealing positive attitudes towards uses of
IWBs in language classrooms, Schmid and Whyte (2012) reported that EFL teachers in
French and German state schools employed different approaches in implementing the
use of IWBs. Teachers in their study used different methods, ranging from grammar-

translation to communicative tasks. This, as suggested by the researchers, was shaped
by teachers teaching and learning experience, pedagogical beliefs and institutional
demands. The researchers summarised their findings that teachers often adapted or
ignored different pedagogies to construct their own and institutional goals in
embedding technology into classrooms.
As reported in the above case studies, it can be concluded that interactive
whiteboards are very new to language teachers and students. Some teachers and
students may react differently to the use of IWBs in a language classroom. It is the job
of policy maker to implement whether this type of new technology is suitable for
prospective educational settings.
In the next section, different types of online technologies will be explored.
COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION
Computer-mediated communication is defined by Sharma & Barrett (2007) as
follows:
Computer-mediated communication, or CMC, refers to situations as diverse
as communicating through the keyboard with penpals overseas, sending an
email across the world, or making a telephone call across the Internet,
using a system such as SkypeTM
. (p.98)
With the emergence of face-two-face communications via technology, we can
claim that this type of technology, or CMC, was the first generation of online
communication. Sharma & Barrett (2007) explained that computer-mediated
communication can be divided into two categories, constituting synchronous and
asynchronous communication.
1. Synchronous communication is real-time communication such as instant
messaging (IM), computer conferencing, multiuser dimensions, chat, etc.
2. Asynchronous communication is communication which takes place at
different time, such as email, texting, blogs, etc.
Baron (2008) categorises different types of online communication based on the
two criteria above and adds his views towards the number of interacting people as
follows:

Table 2 Different dimensions of CMC (adapted from Baron, 2008, p.14)
Asynchronous Synchronous
one-to-one
email, texting on mobile
phones
instant messaging
one-to-many
newsgroup, listservs, blogs,
MySpace, Facebook, Youtube,
Twitter
computer conferencing, MUDs,
MOOs, chat, Second Life
In the following section, samples of different types of CMC will be discussed
based on implications on language learning and teaching.
Emails
Email first appeared in the world in 1971 (Baron, 2008). It has been used
alongside with telephones for more than almost two centuries. Here are samples of
how emails can be used in language teaching and learning.
In 1993, Barson, Frommer & Schwartz reported their experimental studies in
communication and collaboration of French classes in four different universities in the
USA. Subject students were assigned tasks to email their friends from different
universities during 1988-1993. The result of this particular study found that task-based
model was an effective way of using emails. It was also discovered that students used
discourse features more frequently since they were highly motivated to use technology
integrated in their language classes.
Another similar study was conducted by Ruhe in 2008. What she did is to have
students exchange their email messages with their friends from two pairs of American
universities. The researcher concluded in her study that email exchanges could
enhance intercultural awareness, improve a more positive affective climate by
providing greater privacy and intimacy, and serve the needs of young students towards
EAP curriculum in the 21st
century.
Even though email exchanges are reflected as an ideal way of teaching and
learning languages, Keyuravong and Maneekhao (2006) investigated the use of emails in
large class consultation. The result of their study found that among 120 Thai EFL

students only an average of 1.65 messages was posted which seems to be too low for
language learning benefits. The researchers concluded that this low number of posts
were due to practical problems such as time limitation, unfamiliarity use of technology
and technical problems.
In 2011, Motallebzadeh conducted a study by integrating emailing tasks into
EFL reading comprehension classes in Iran. He compared students performance
between two groups: one with email tasks and the other with printed exercises. What
the research found was that there was a significant difference between
interchange/passages objective placement test C and posttest in emailing groups and
those in the control groups (p≤0.05). However, there was no significant difference
between the two groups performances in the posttest unseen section. The researcher
concluded in his study that emailing tasks can contribute to the improvement in ability
of EFL reading comprehension.
Since email become a standard means of communication, many teachers shift
their attention to other means of communication to promote their language learning
and teaching. In the next section, bulletin board, a type of email exchanges, will be
discussed.
Bulletin boards
’harma & Barrett (2007) explained that a bulletin board is an electronic version
of a noticeboard. A writer can post a message available for any members to read and
respond.
As the name suggests, bulletin boards are noticeboards that require those who
use them to discuss and share their ideas. Here are some examples of how language
teachers use discussion boards in their language classrooms.
In 2011, Yilmaz & Saglam investigated the effects of using online discussion on
Turkish EFL students achievement in online courses. The result of study revealed that
students who used discussion boards produced higher scores than those who did not
use the platforms. The researchers also found that students who participated in
discussion board activities tended to write better using morphosyntactic operation and
access more additional resources for their response writing.

In term of language improvement found in Yilmaz & Saglam (2011) discussed
above, it is also found that Thai EFL students tended to use more modality in their
writing on the bulletin board (Tangpijaikul, 2008). Subjects in the study of Tangpijaikul
(2008) were to write three responses on the bulletin board and three academic essays.
What was found in his study is that Thai EFL students used more modal markers in
online bulletin board writing than in academic writing.
As reported in the above cases, bulletin boards are useful tools for developing
students discussion and writing skills. However, it is important to note here that
listening and speaking skills can also be enhanced by the use of bulletin boards
(Sharma & Barrett, 2007).
In the next section, an instant voice discussion, or video conferencing, such as
Skype will be discussed.
Video-conferencing
Video-conferencing is widely used in the business world (Sharma & Barrett,
2007). It is an instant video and audio link which allows people to connect each other
in real time. A generally used application for video-conferencing in the 21st
century is
widely known as Skype.
Skype is a type of video-conferencing which enables users to experiment new
way of communication. Eaton (2010) suggests that teachers can use Skype to connect
other teachers within and outside their professions, to empower language teachers, to
give appropriate presentations and workshops, and to be a stepping stone to using
more sophisticated technology in the classroom.
Based on the benefits of using Skye proposed by Eaton (2010) above,
Tsukamoto, Nuspliger & Senzaki (2009) conducted a study providing Japanese students
to explore the use of Skype in EFL discussion seminars. What they found in these web
conferences is that students were highly motivated in using Skype and began to speak
more English during conference calls. This study was not similar to a study conducted
by Yang & Chang (2008), however. What was found in Yang & Chang s study is that
Taiwanese college students did not appear to be highly effective for improving oral
skills. This might be due to the fact that students were at similar abilities and there
was a lack of native or highly proficient Chinese interlocutors.

Even though all of the media discussed above are useful and effective in
language education, it is important to note that the emergence of user s interface on
the web since the late eighties and early nineties leads to significant changes in
language learning and teaching (Sharma & Barrett, 2007). In the next section, we will
explore more about new user s interface on the web and its latest development.
World Wide Web
The World Wide Web exists in the world since the late eighties (Sharma &
Barrett, 2007). Lewis (2009) explains that the World Wide Web is widely used as a basis
for sharing information. However, in terms of education, Sharma & Barrett (2007)
propose many uses of the web for language learning because each website constitutes
either one or all of the following media:
 Search engines
 Multimedia of images, audios and videos
 Push technologies such as email newsletters, RSS (Really Simply Syndicate),
blogs and podcasts
In addition to various types of media to support (language) learning presented
above, Murray & McPherson (2004) assert how to use the World Wide Web to support
language learning which can be categorised into the following groups:
 Finding and selecting information on websites
 Using appropriate websites for language learning
 Practicing listening using videos or audios posted online
 Increasing reading skills on the web
 Learning language features through intaking content subjects on the web
 Using WebQuest as a platform for designing language projects
 Interacting through the use of learning management system
 Designing websites using appropriate language forms
Besides several techniques of how to use websites to promote language
learning presented above, Osuna & Meskill (1998) conducted a study using websites to
expand language and culture of Basic Spanish among American college students. What

they found in their study is that websites were appropriate teaching tools for Spanish
language and culture. Also, they discovered that using websites for language and
culture learning could increase higher motivation in the subject students.
In line with the study of Osuna & Meskill (1998) discussed above, what was
found in a study conducted by Piper, Watson & Wright (1996) regarding website
evaluation at the University of Southampton is that both teachers and students were
highly satisfied with topicality of target languages available on websites. However,
they found that the majority of students regarded websites simply as an online library.
These sample students also lacked skills in research, language, and learning strategies
in fully utilising websites for their learning.
In 2008, however, there was another study undergone by Son in evaluating ESL
websites for promoting language learning. The researcher found that when ESL
teachers and students engaged in creating website and using websites for task-based
activities, his subject appreciated the use of websites in learning English. The sample
subjects also showed that they would like to explore more on how to use websites to
learn English within and outside classrooms.
As presented in the aforementioned studies, World Wide Web becomes a
significant use in language education. However, thanks to the emergence of new
technology on the World Wide Web, some changes in language education also exist.
The following session will discuss this issue.
Web 2.0 technologies
Web 2.0 is the term used in describing a phenomenon where the web is
transferred into more uses as many media and new technologies are emerging and
embedded in the web. The term was originally coined by Tim O ‘eilly in 2005 who
describes Web 2.0 as an umbrella platform covering various types of media and
technologies. The diagram below shows how Web 2.0 develops into its existence
today.

Figure 1 shows a meme map of Web 2.0 technology
(Adapted from O ‘eilly, 2005 at http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228)
As can be seen from the above diagram, it is generally accepted that Web 2.0
plays a significant role in increasing human interactions. It also provides an owner (or
user) with authority in creating and inputting their data or information to share with
the world (O ‘eilly, 2005).
In terms of implications on the effects of using Web 2.0 technologies in
language education, Lewis (2009) proposes that there are many benefits of Web 2.0
technologies to teachers and students as follows:
 There are many inventories of authentic material available in various types of
media such as texts, photos, pictures, audio and video.
 They help and increase interactions among people from different parts of the
world who share the same interests, creating a sense of community of practice.

 The platform provided on Web 2.0 allows students to create and authorise
their own content faster and more professionally.
Given the above scenario of benefits of Web 2.0 in language education, Wang &
Vasquez (2012) investigated how Web 2.0 technology was implemented in language
learning and found that only blogs and wikis have been the most widely used and
studied comparing to other social networking applications and virtual worlds. They also
found that the most explored languages in using Web 2.0 tools were English, Spanish,
German and French which are considered more commonly taught as second or foreign
languages.
What was found in Wang & ”asquez s study implied that even though there are
many uses of Web 2.0 tools in language education, only limited areas of studies have
been examined. The researchers explained that most of the studies conducted to
explore the use of Web 2.0 fell into investigations of the technology in 4-skill language
learning, learner s identities, online collaboration and learning communities. There was
no grounded and common theory in investigating the use of Web 2.0 technologies.
In the following section, two main types of Web 2.0 technology will be
discussed and investigated.
Blogs and wikis
A blog is defied by Lewis (2009) as follows:
… an electronic journal where readers post their thoughts and opinions on
a
regular basis. It is usually arranged in backwards Chronological order, and
readers focus on the latest post and read down until they reach the place
they left the last time they logged on. (p.63)
As can be seen from the above definition, using blog in language learning can
promote core competencies of Web 2.0 technology in which students can be an
author of his/her own contents. Boas (2011) suggests that blogs can be used to teach
students process writing in a collaborative way. This is supported by a study
conducted by Blackstone, Spiri, & Naganuma (2007). The researchers underwent a

study of blog learning among 145 students in Japan and found that, when teachers
used blogs to have students help each other to write, peer-edit and publish articles,
there was greater learner interaction and skills development. They also found that
students are more interactive and show greater positive attitudes towards English
learning via blogging.
Besides using blog as a learning tool found in the above case, Murry, Hourigan &
Jeanneau (2007) also discovered that, when having 32 ESL students keep writing blogs
regarding their own language learning and strategies, most students realised the
possibility of using blogs to reflect their own language learning. When assigning
students to write an academic essay after the 5-week blog writing period, the
researchers found that teachers could benefit from an academically-valid assessment
framework . What these researchers concluded is that even though students and
teachers could benefit from using blogs in studying writing, there should be an
improvement on pedagogical and processing writing.
Another study conducted by Rezaee & Oladi (2008) showed that when their 60
EFL Iranian students took part in a class community weblog, there was a verifying social
interaction and increasing writing creativity from observation, questionnaire, interview
and IELTS writing proficiency test.
Besides written blogs used in teaching and learning language, Sun (2009)
conducted a research study to investigate the effect of using voice blog to promote
students speaking skills. What was found in her study is that 62 Taiwanese college
students of English developed a series of blogging stages, constituting conceptualising,
brainstorming, articulation, monitoring and evaluation. Her study subject also used
various strategies in dealing with blogging-related problems and regarded blogging as a
way of learning, self-presentation, information sharing and social networking.
As can be seen from various examples above, it can be concluded that using
blog in language learning and teaching can help promote learner autonomy, social
interaction as well as language learning skills.
Another means of promoting language learning within a collaborative
framework is to use wiki.
Wiki is generally understood to be a common webpage where people can help
each other write or create their own contents (Lewis, 2009, ; Sharma & Barrett, 2007).

The key element is to create collaboration among language learners (Augar, Raitman &
Zhou, 2004), resulting in creating community of practice (COP) for language learning
and teaching (Godwin-Jones, 2003).
Konieczby (2007) suggests that wiki can be used to teach reading and writing
classes. He describes that students can create and improve an article, invite new
contributors, criticise their peer writing, reflect upon themselves, and share with the
community. However, a study conducted by Zordo (2009) found that her three case
students showed some collaborative behaviors in learning English among themselves.
The researcher concluded that using wiki could contribute to language learning
collaboration, but it was less successful in facilitating among students. Her subject
study preferred to use more social network when it came to co-constructing products.
As wiki has been used for some time in language education, immigrant students
may prefer a newer media to interact among each other (as reported in Zordo, 2009
above). In the next section, learning language through social networking will be
discussed and explored.
Social network
Social network has played a significant role in social interaction in the present
world. There are many types of internet-based social media that exist today such as,
Facebook, Google, Twitter, YouTube, etc. (Stevenson & Liu, 2010).
Even though social network was originally designed for social interaction, it can
be a good learning tool for language education (Stevenson & Liu, 2010).
A study conducted by Hatane & Wijana (2010) is in line with idea postulated in
Stevenson & Liu (2010) in that using social network group discussion such as Facebook
can enhance students social communication skills. They found that, even though
there were some drawbacks in finding appropriate topics to post and limited Internet
connection, Indonesian EFL learners could still benefit from using Facebook discussion
group in terms of critical thinking, grammar and writing skill practice, nonverbal
communication and self-acknowledgement.
Kabilan, Ahmad, & Abidin (2010) conducted a study on how Facebook can be
integrated in language learning. What was found in their study is that 300
undergraduate students at Universiti Sains Malaysia regarded Facebook as a possible

online platform that can facilitate learning. However, the researchers suggested that it
is the job of language educators and teachers to plan how to integrate Facebook as
part of their language teaching, learning objectives and learning outcomes.
In 2012, Akbari, ’imons, & Eghtesad investigated students attitude towards the
use of Facebook in learning English. The results from their questionnaires showed that
there was a significant difference between students attitude towards using Facebook
before and after an online English course. They also found that, when students spent
more time interacting on Facebook, their linguistic abilities increased by the end of the
course.
The effective use of social network system in promoting language learning is
also supported by Boonmoh (2012). What is found in Boonmoh s study is that 18 Thai
EFL students were highly motivated to post messages, photos and videos on Facebook
under task-based language learning activities. These sample students also revealed
positive attitudes towards using Facebook as a tool for language learning, especially in
terms of authentic social interaction and self-expression.
Besides using Facebook as a tool for promoting language learning, Acer &
Kimura (2012) underwent an investigation on how Twitter is used by 70 Japanese
students. What they discovered is that these Japanese EFL learners tweeted (or
posted) English messages mostly relating to greetings and daily reports. In addition to
this, these students frequently responded to messages posted by other language
learners.
Although there is much potential for the use of social media in language
learning, there might be some difficulties in doing so. Fullmer (2011) reported that
using Facebook is likely to post a big challenge in promoting the mastery of standard
English reading and writing among EFL Filipino students. He also proposed that high
order thinking such as remembering, analysing and evaluating may or may not be
mastered via the use of Facebook.
A study conducted by Acar, Nishimuta, Takamuea, Sakamoto, & Muraki (2012)
revealed that the use of social media such as Facebook is sometimes not particularly
popular among Japanese students. The researchers explained that some features of
the media itself such as real name policy, complication of the interface and security
issue are major reasons these Japanese students are not comfortable with. Another

reason derived from this particular group of non-users is that of personal preference.
These sample students prefer local social media to international ones.
IMPLICATION ON THE USE OF ICT IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
As presented in the previous section, technology has developed more
significantly today than in the past, and teachers and students react to diverse uses of
technology differently.
In this section, implication of the use of ICT in language education will be
discussed.
To cope with the emergence of information technology, Kern, Ware &
Warschauer (2008) postulate that teachers and students in the 21st
century use
network-based language teaching (NBLT) as a basis for language education. What
these educators propose is that language educators take careful consideration in
pedagogical use of computers in connection to local or global networks. This results in
a better one-to-one, one-to-many, or many-to-many communication.
In addition to the above suggestion, language educators should be concerned
with the social and cultural construction of knowledge offered by technology; the
important of collaboration in micro and macro levels, such as individuals and groups;
and a learner- and problem-based approach to language teaching.
What language teachers should be prepared to face in the 21st
century learning
contexts, as asserted by Kern, Ware & Warschauer (2008), are the followings:
 Non-classroom contexts: As students in the 21st
century tend to employ more
technology in their language learning, it is the job of the teachers to adapt and
embed technology in their pedagogy. In order to do so, the teachers should
create a sense of community of practice. This means that teachers should
develop common interests in their students prior to putting students into
online learning.
 Multimodality: Teachers should understand their students as an individual with
personalised characteristics. However, it is also teachers responsibility to train
their students to be flexible in reacting to different modes of online learning
within the framework of personal preferences.

Besides the above suggestions, it is also the job of a learner to develop their
own e-learning skills. Clarke (2008) recommends that students develop their own
traditional skills to be a grounded basis for e-learning skills. This will help facilitate a
success in language learning.
Traditional skills which should be learned as a basis for online learning, as
Clarke (2008) suggest, fall into:
 Writing notes
 Reading process
 Writing process
 Self-assessment
 Research skills
 Learning in face-to-face groups
 Managing stress
 Reflection on personal learning and studying
 Listening skills
In addition to the traditional skills presented above, Clarke (2008) discusses that
it is also important for language learners to increase their own computer skills. These
skills include assessing personal skills, accessibility, file management, compressing files,
tracking changes, saving and backing up information, applications, searching the world
wide web, assessing the quality of online information, presenting information,
transferring information, saving and backing up information, digital images, e-portfolios,
podcasting, blogging, plagiarism, copyright, and utilities.
Following the suggestions proposed by Kern, Ware & Warschauer (2008) and
Clarke (2008) above, teachers and students may be able to deal with their language
learning and teaching in the 21st
century technology.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of information technology plays a significant role in the change
of how language learners learn today. Various studies show that teachers (or digital
immigrants) can choose to use any of the media, either from offline or online

technologies. Learners of the 21st
century indicate that their performance in learning
through any kinds of technology is possible. It is, therefore, the job of language
teachers to embed technology in their language learning and teaching. Students should
also be ready to imprint themselves with appropriate skills for the 21st
century.
Note:
1
According to Vygotsky (1978), sociocultural theory of learning concerns interplay
between individual and social levels. A child needs to expose to the society in order
for him/her to develop his/her own intelligence and understanding of the world.
REFERENCES
[1] Acar, A., Nishimuta, A., Takamuea, D., Sakamoto, K. & Muraki, Y. (2012). Qualitative
Analysis Of Facebook Quitters In Japan. Proceedings of the Eight International
Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-based Society, 23-24 February 2012,
Assumption University, Thailand.
[2] Acer, A., & Kimura, N. (2012). Twitter As A Tool For Language Learning: The Case
Of Japanese Learners Of English. Proceedings of the Eight International
Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-based Society, 23-24 February 2012,
Assumption University, Thailand.
[3] Akbari, E., Simons, R.-J., Eghtesad, ’. (2012). ’tudents Attitudes Towards The Use
Of Facebook For Learning The English Language. Paper presented at the
International Conference ICT for Language Learning 5th
edition, Retrieved, 1
November 2012, from http://www.pixel-
online.net/ICT4LL2012/common/download/Abstract_pdf/357-IBT70-ABS-Akbari-
ICT2012.pdf.
[4] Augar, N., Raitman, R., & Zhou, W. (2004). Teaching and Learning Online With
Wikis. Beyond The Comfort Zone: Proceedings Of The 21st
ASCILITE Conference,
Perth, 5-8 December 2004, Perth, Australia, 95-104.
[5] Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. New
York: Oxford University Press.

[6] Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign Language Learning Using E-
Mail In A Task-Oriented Perspective: Interuniversriy Experiments In
Communication And Collaboration. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 2 (4), 565-584.
[7] Biesenbach-Lucas, S., Meloni, C., & Weasenforth, D. (2000). Use Of Cohesive
Features In ESL ’tudents E-Mail And Word-Processed Texts: A Comparative
Study. Computer Assisted Language Learning¸13 (3), 221-237.
[8] Blackstone, B., Spiri, J., Naganuma, N. (2007). Blogs In English Language Teaching
And Learning: Pedagogical Uses And Student Responses. Reflections on English
Language Teaching, 6 (2), 1-20.
[9] Boas, I. V. (2011). Process Writing and The Internet: Blogs And Ning Networks In
The Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 49 (2), 26-33.
[10] Boonmoh, A. (2005). Facebook: What Students Did And What They Would Like To
Do. Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Technology in the Classroom 2012,
Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from http://iafor.org/acll_actc2012.html.
[11] Boonmoh, A. (2009). The Use Of Pocket Electronic Dictionaries By Thai Learners
Of English. PhD thesis, University of Warwick.
[12] Buraphadeja, V. (2012). Passport to The Digital Nation. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge- Based Society. 23-24
February 2012, Assumption University, Thailand.
[13] Clarke, A. (2008). E-Learning Skills. (2nd
edition). Hampshire, RG: Palgrave
Macmillan.
[14] Cuthell, J. P. (2003). Interactive Whiteboards: New Tools, New Pedagogies, New
Learning? Reflections From Teachers. Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from
http://www.virtuallearning.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Interactive-
whiteboard-survey.pdf.
[15] Dede, C. (2009). Comparing Frameworks for 21st
Century Skills . Retrieved, 1
November 2012, from
http://www.watertown.k12.ma.us/dept/ed_tech/research/pdf/ChrisDede.pdf.
[16] Eaton, S. E. (2010). Using Skype In The Second And Foreign Language Classroom.
Proceedings of ’ocial Media Workshop Get Your ACT(FL) Together Online:

Standards Based Language Instruction via Social Media, 4 August 2010, Language
Acquisition Resource Center, San Diego State University.
[17] Fullmer, M. (2011). Literacy in The Facebook Era: A Pedagogical Approach to
Internet English And Filipino Education. Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from
http://markfullmer.com/files/literacy-facebook-era.pdf.
[18] Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging Technologies: Blogs and Wikis: Environments
For On-Line Collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12-16.
[19] Hatane, M. Y., & Wijana, H. P. S. (2010). The Impacts and Efficacy Of Social
Networks As Part Of Elearning In English Department, Petra Christian University.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on eLearning for
Knowledge-Based Society, 16-17 December 2010, Assumption University,
Thailand.
[20] John, P. D., & Sutherland, R. S. (2004). Teaching and Learning With ICT: New
Technology, New Pedagogy? Education, Communication & Information, 4(1), 101-
107.
[21] Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, A. F. Z. (2010). Facebook: An Online
Environment For Learning of English In Institutions of Higher Education? Internet
and Higher Education, 13, 179-187.
[22] Kay, K. (2010). Enriching Minds for The 21st
Century. In James Bellanca & Ron
Brandt (ed.). Leading edge anthology on 21st
century skills. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
[23] Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Network-Based Language Teaching. In
N. Van Deusen-School & N. H. Hornberger (eds.). Encyclopedia of language and
education, 2nd
edition, Volume 4: Second and foreign language education, 281-
292. New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.
[24] Keyuravong, S., and Maneekhao, K. (2006). Using E-Mail Consultations in a Large
Class. rEFLections, 9, 50-66.
[25] Koieczny, P. (2007). Wikis and Wikipedia as a Teaching Tool. International Journal
of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4 (1), 15-34.
[26] Lewis, G. (2009). Bringing Technology into the Classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

[27] Li, J., & Cumming, A. (2001). Word Processing and Second Language Writing: A
Longitudinal Case Study. International Journal of English Studies, 1 (2), 127-152.
[28] Maneekhao, K. (2001). Familiarising Non-Computer Literate Teachers with the
Internet. ThaiTESOL Newsletter, 15 (2), 5-9.
[29] Motallebzadeh, K. (2011). Integrating Emailing Tasks into EFL Reading
Comprehension Classrooms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (4),
pp.881-886.
[30] Murray, D., & McPherson, P. (2004). Using the Web to Support Language Learning.
Sydney: Macquarie University Press.
[31] Murry, L., Hourigan, T., Heanneau, C. (2007). Blog Writing Integration for Academic
Language Learning Purposes: Towards an Assessment Framework. IBERICA, 14, 9-
32.
[32] O ‘eilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the
Next Generation of Software. Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from
http:///www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html.
[33] Obayashi, C. (2006). The Use of Pocket Electronic Dictionaries as Compared with
Printed Dictionaries by Japanese Learners of English. PhD thesis, The Graduate
School of Ohio State University.
[34] Osuna, M. M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to Integrate Spanish
Language and Culture: A Pilot Study. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 71-
92.
[35] Piper, A., Watson J., Wright, V. (1998). The World Wide Web and Its Contribution
to Foreign Language Learning: An Evaluation of the Use of the Web by Teachers
and Students. Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from
http://www.agocg.ac.uk/reports/mmedia/foreign/title.htm.
[36] Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part 1. On the Horizon, 9
(5), 1-6.
[37] Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part 2. On the Horizon, 9
(6), 1-6.
[38] Pupolation Reference Bereau. (2012). 2012 World Population Data Sheet.
Washington, DC: PRB.

[39] Rezaee, A. A., & Oladi, S. (2008). The Effect of Blogging on Language Learners
Improvement in Social Interactions and Writing Proficiency. Iranian Journal of
Language Studies, 2 (1), 73-88.
[40] Ruhe, V. (1998). E-Mail Exchanges: Teaching Language, Culture, and Technology
for the 21st
Century. TESL Canada Journal, 16 (1), 88-95.
[41] Schmid, E. C. (2010). Developing Competencies for Using the Interactive
Whiteboard to Implement Communicative Language Teaching in the English as a
Foreign Language Classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (2),
pp.159-172.
[42] Schmid, E. C., & Whyte, S. (2012). Interactive Whiteboards in State School Settings:
Teacher Responses to Socio-Constructivist Hegemonies. Language Learning and
Technology, 16 (2), 65-86.
[43] Sharma, P., Barret, B. (2007). Blended Learning: Using Technology in and Beyond
the Language Classroom. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
[44] Solomon, G. (2010). Education for the 21st
Century: The Basics. Retrieved, 1
November 2012, from
http://www.smlcs.org/publications/21stcenturyeducation.pdf.
[45] Son, J.-B. (2008). Using Web-Based Language Learning Activities in the ESL
Classroom. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4 (4), 34-43.
[46] Stevenson, M. P., & Liu, M. 2010). Learning a Language with Web 2.0: Exploring
the Use of Social Networking Features of Foreign Language Learning Websites.
CALICO Journal, 27 (2), 233-259.
[47] Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Voice Blog: An Exploratory Study of Language Learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 13 (2), 88-103.
[48] Sutherland, R., Armstrong, V., Barnes, S., Brawn, R., Breeze, R., Gall, M.,
Matthewman, S., Olivero, F., Taylor, A., Triggs, P., Wishart, J., & John, P. (2004).
Transforming Teaching And Learning: Embedding ICT into Everyday Classroom
Practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 413-425.
[49] Tangpijaikul, M. (2008). Thai EFL Learner s ‘epertoire Of English Modality in
Academic and Electronic Bulletin Board Writing. rEFLections, 11, 19-27.
[50] Titova, S. (2012). Developing of ICT Competence Of Language Teachers Through
an Online Professional Development Course: Strategies and Challenges.

Retrieved, 1 November 2012, from
http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2012/sites/iatefl/files/session/documents/nandouts
_valencia.pdf.
[51] Torres, M. I. P. (2000). The Word Processor in the English Classroom (Part 1). A
Visual and Colourful Way of Working with Vocabulary. GRETA Revista para
profesores de inglés, 8 (1), 30-34.
[52] Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st
century skills: Learning for Life in Our Times.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[53] Tsukamoto, M., Nuspliger, B., & Senzaki, Y. (2009). Using Skype to Connect a
Classroom to the World: Providing Students an Authentic Language Experience
Within the Classroom. CamTESOL Conference on English Language Teaching:
Selected Papers, 5, 162-168.
[54] UNESCO. (2003). Teacher Training on ICT Use in Education in Asia and the Pacific:
Overview from Selected Countries. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional
Bureau for Education.
[55] UNESCO. (2004). Integrating ICTs into Education: Lessons Learned. Bangkok:
UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.
[56] Wang, S., & Vasquez, C. (2012). Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning: What
Does the Research Tell Us? CALICO Journal, 29 (3), 412-430.
[57] Weschler, R., & Pitts, C. (2000). An Experiment Using Electronic Dictionaries with
EFL Students. The Internet TESL Journal, VI (8), Retrieved, 1 November 2012,
from http://iteslj.org/Articles/Weschler-ElectroDict.html.
[58] Xu, H. L., & Moloney, R. (2011). Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboard Pedagogy in
the Teaching of Chinese Language. Australasian Journal of Educaitonal
Technology, 27 (2), 307-325.
[59] Yang, Y. C. & Chang, L. (2008). No Improvement-Reflections and Suggestions on
the Use of Skype to Enhance College ’tudents Oral English Proficiency. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 721-725.
[60] Yilmaz, H., & Saglam, D. (2011). Impact of Discussion Boards to the Success of
English Lesson. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (1), 26-31.

[61] Zorko, V. (2009). Factors Affecting the Way Students Collaborate in a Wiki for
English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25 (5),
645-665.

21st Century Language Learning and Teaching Implementation Of ICT-Oriented Language Education.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to 21st Century Language Learning and Teaching Implementation Of ICT-Oriented Language Education.pdf (20)

More from Rhonda Cetnar (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

21st Century Language Learning and Teaching Implementation Of ICT-Oriented Language Education.pdf