Background

The history of technology development in language learning starts with the

appearance of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) in the late 1950s
(Warchauer, 1996). Since that time, the development of the computer has been quite
rapid. Evidently, in the 1980s, there was a revolution on the existence of integrative
CALL and the internet which developed the presence of multimedia such as text,
graphics, sound animation, and video (Warchauer, 1996). Therefore, those
appearances become the way of the computer could be used for language learning
(Warchauer, 1996). This is in line with Becker (2000, p. 5) who stated that the
computer is an important instructional tool in language learning in which teachers
have useful access, are adequately prepared, and have some freedom in curriculum.
Therefore, the computer technology can be used by the teacher in assisting them to
get the appropriate media in supporting their teaching method and facilitating
students in learning.

Problem Formulation
1. how the history and evolution of IT in language teaching?
2. What is the opportunity of IT in language teaching?
3. What is the challenges of IT in language teaching?

A. History and Evolution

The use of Information Technology (IT) in language teaching has evolved
significantly over the years, shaped by advances in technology and changing
pedagogical approaches. Here’s a brief history of how IT has impacted language
teaching:
1. Before Computers (Before the 1960s)
a. Language Labs: The first use of technology in language teaching involved
"language labs." Students would listen to audio recordings and repeat words
or sentences to improve their pronunciation and listening. These labs used
devices like tape recorders.
b. Repetition and Drills : In this period, teaching focused on repeating phrases
and practicing speaking and listening, with the help of simple audio tools.
2. Early Computers in Language Learning (1960s-1980s)
a. Mainframe Computers: In the 1960s, universities started using large
computers (mainframes) to create language exercises. This was the
 beginning of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), where
computers were used to help students practice language skills.
Warschauer (2000) divided the history of CALL into three phases: i)
structural (1970s to 1980s), during which tutorials were developed for use
on mainframe computers to provide learners with drill-based grammar
practice for the purpose of accuracy; ii) communicative (1980s to 1990s),
during which personal computers were used for communicative exercises
for the purpose of accuracy and fluency; and iii) integrative (21st Century),
during which multimedia and the Internet have been used to expose learners
to authentic language for the purpose of accuracy, fluency, and agency.
Davies, Walker, Rendall, and Hewer (2012) renamed the stages as follows:
i) Dumb CALL (1970s to 1980s) due to the lack of sound and video
capabilities at the time; ii) Multimedia CALL (1990s onwards); and iii) Web
CALL (1993 onwards), which was used at first for more behavioristic
activities due to the limited capabilities of the web, but allowed more
interaction as sound and video quality improved with the advent of Web 2.0.
Changes to Warschauer’s phases were also proposed by Bax (2003), to
better reflect attitudes toward the integration of technology throughout the
history of CALL.
b. PLATO System: One of the first computer systems to teach languages was
PLATO. It allowed students to practice languages interactively on a screen.
c. Microcomputers: By the 1980s, smaller computers (like the Apple II) made
it easier for schools to use language learning programs. These programs had
basic exercises in vocabulary, grammar, and language games.
Some years later, although there is evidence that technology is being used to a lesser
or greater degree depending on the context, it appears that there is still some distance
to go before full integration (Bax, 2011; Godwin-Jones, 2015). Language education
experts generally agree that the holy grail in terms of the use of technology in
language education is normalisation, defined by Bax (2003) as “the stage when a
technology is invisible, hardly even recognised as a technology, taken for granted in
everyday life” (p. 23), when computers in all shapes and sizes will be used “without
fear or inhibition, and equally without an exaggerated respect for what they can do.
They will not be the centre of any lesson, but they will play a part in almost all…
They will go almost unnoticed” (p. 24). Garrett (2009) concurred that, ideally,
language educators should aim for “a dynamic complex in which technology, theory,
and pedagogy are inseparably interwoven” (pp. 719-720).

The options for technology use have expanded considerably since the early days of
CALL. In their review of over 350 empirical studies focused on language learning
technologies, Golonka et al. (2014) examined the effectiveness of a diverse range of
technologies, among them learning management systems (LMS), interactive white
boards, e-Portfolios, electronic dictionaries, intelligent tutoring systems, grammar
checkers, automatic speech recognition, network-based social computing, and mobile
and portable devices. Presently, there is a keen interest in mobile-assisted language
learning (MALL) and growing interest, as well, in robot-assisted language learning
(RALL).

3. Multimedia and Internet-Based Learning (1990s-2000s)

a. CD-ROM Language Programs: In the 1990s, CD-ROMs became popular
for language learning. They combined audio, video, text, and graphics,
creating interactive lessons that felt like real-life communication.
b. The Internet: The Internet changed everything for language learners in
the late 1990s. People could now access language lessons, online
dictionaries, and language communities. This made it easier to practice
languages with people worldwide.
c. Email and Chat: Students started using email and chat rooms to practice
languages by writing and chatting with native speakers in real-time.
d. Online Language Courses: Schools and universities began offering
complete online language courses, where students could learn and
interact with teachers and other students.
4. Mobile Learning and E-learning (2000s-2010s)
a. E-learning Platforms: Platforms like Moodle and Blackboard allowed
teachers to share lessons and assignments online, making learning more
flexible.
b. Mobile Apps: The rise of smartphones and apps made language learning
more accessible. Apps like Duolingo and Babbel allowed users to
practice languages anytime, anywhere.
c. Podcasts and Videos: With platforms like YouTube and podcasts,
learners could listen to real conversations, lectures, and language lessons,
making it easier to improve their listening and understanding.
The literature reveals that learners at different levels of language proficiency use
mobile devices, particularly smartphones, for language learning purposes. This usage
appears likely to increase as more teachers learn how to better leverage mobile
technology to achieve desired language learning outcomes and as learners become
more adept at designing their own learning activities (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015;
Burston, 2014; Chwo, Marek, & Wu, 2016; Demouy, Jones, Kan, Kukulska-Hulme,
& Eardley, 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2016, 2017b). Mobile devices offer convenient
access to technology for all learners, but they are especially useful for distance
language learners (Demouy et al., 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2017b); as well, they are a
powerful tool for migrants and refugees (Godwin-Jones, 2017b; see also Jones et al.,
2017). Yet, in spite of their many affordances, the most common use of mobile
devices in language education has been described as behaviorist and teacher-centered
(Burston, 2014; Godwin-Jones, 2017b), not unlike the use of computers in the early
days of CALL. Many language teachers have not yet learned how to tap into the
opportunities for communication, collaboration, project-based and task-based
learning that mobile devices afford (Burston, 2014; Godwin-Jones, 2017b).
Furthermore, due to lack of guidance (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015; Godwin-Jones,
2016), learners generally limit the use of mobile devices, in terms of their language
learning, to online dictionaries and translation tools (Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015).
5. Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Learning (2010s-Present)
RALL
Inspired by AI (artificial intelligence) technology (Kessler, 2018), the research
and development of RALL started around 2004 in a small number of Asian
countries (Han, 2012). Robots have since proven to be an effective tool for
motivating children to learn in foreign language learning contexts where it is
often difficult to find native-speaking teachers of the target language (Han, 2012;
Hong, Huang, Hsu, & Shen, 2016; Vogt, de Haas, de Jong, Baxter, & Krahmer,
2017). One of the challenges with this technology, however, is its limited ability
to recognize children’s speech (Vogt et al., 2017). Since the concept is still in its
infancy, considerable research is needed in the area of RALL to ensure that
robots are designed to meet the needs of learners and teachers in different
language learning contexts (Han, 2012; Hong et al., 2016). Artificial Intelligence
and Virtual Learning as follows:
 a. AI-Powered Tools: AI tools analyze a student’s mistakes and personalize
lessons to help them improve. Examples include apps that adjust
difficulty based on the learner's progress.
b. Voice Assistants: Devices like Siri or Alexa allow students to practice
speaking and listening by asking questions or holding simple
conversations with the assistant.
c. Virtual Reality (VR): VR lets students practice language skills in a
simulated environment, like taking a virtual trip to a foreign country and
practicing conversations in real situations.
d. MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses): Free and paid online courses
from universities offer language learning through platforms like
Coursera, allowing people worldwide to access expert instruction.
6. Current and Future Trends
a. Gamification: Language learning apps use game-like features (points,
levels, challenges) to make learning fun and engaging.
b. Social Learning: Many platforms now encourage students to learn
together by interacting and competing with other learners.
c. Hybrid Learning: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools
adopted "hybrid" teaching, combining both online and in-person
language learning.
B. Opportunity
The following list offers an overview of some of the affordances of
technology for language education:

• Enables multimodal language activities in which reading, writing, speaking,

and listening skills are integrated, not isolated, thereby accommodating the
strengths of different learners (Blake, 2016; Felix, 2008)
• Reduces language learning anxiety (Hong et al., 2016) and increases
motivation and participation (Felix, 2008; Kessler, 2018), e.g., through game-
based activities and opportunities to be creative, such as via mashups and
digital storytelling (Kessler, 2018)
• Enables learners to collaborate, co-construct knowledge, and build
communities (Kessler, 2018; Reinders & White, 2016)
• Allows learners to construct a new social identity online which may give
them confidence to interact with native speakers, i.e., to find a medium
between their first language and the target language (Blake, 2016; Garrett,
2009; Godwin-Jones, 2015; Kern, 2006; Kessler, 2018)
• Facilitates individualized learning experiences for learner-centered
instruction (Kessler, 2018), in which learner analytics is expected to play an
increasing role as the ability to monitor and track students’ progress increases
(Adams Becker, Rodriguez, Estrada, & Davis, 2016; Kessler, 2018), e.g.,
with adaptive learning tools like the online language learning platform Busuu
(Adams Becker et al., 2016) and intelligent language tutors like Chatbot Lucy
(Wang & Petrina, 2013)
• Enables access to big data such as corpora (large collections of authentic
language) that can be used by teachers to create authentic learning activities
(Godwin-Jones, 2017a; Kessler, 2018)
• Enables immersion in authentic contexts via the use of immersive
technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), online
games and simulations, and telepresence or videoconferencing tools (Adams
Becker et al., 2016; Blyth, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2014)
• Develops learner autonomy (Kessler, 2018; Reinders & White, 2016) and
allows informal learning experiences that empower learners (Adams Becker
et al., 2016; Godwin-Jones, 2017b; Jones et al., 2017)
• Allows learners to explore and engage in meaningful, authentic language
practice with native speakers via computer-mediated communication (CMC)
tools (Blake, 2016; Garrett, 2009), such as texting, chats, e-mail, online
discussions, blogging, wikis, and web-based word processing, e.g., Google
Docs (Kessler, 2018)
• Enables computer-adaptive testing, which improves test security and
prevents cheating (Chapelle & Voss, 2016)
• Allows for real-time feedback on assessments (Chapelle & Voss, 2016)
• Enables automated feedback on written tasks via automated writing
evaluation and chatbots, which can be created by teachers for text chat
practice; also enables spoken feedback via automated speech recognition
(ASR) (Golonka et al., 2014; Kessler, 2018), although a few reservations
have been expressed concerning the effectiveness of ASR for some language
learners (Blyth, 2018; Chapelle & Voss, 2016; Golonka et al., 2014; Vogt et
al., 2017)
 • Enables localization (situated learning) and personalization via the use of
mobile devices (Godwin-Jones, 2016), as with the MASELTOV project
(http://www.maseltov.eu/), which proved effective in accommodating the
language learning and settlement needs of migrants in Europe (Jones et al.,
2017)
• Facilitates one-on-one language advising/language support between teachers
and students via online access (Reinders & White, 2016)
C. Challenges
The following presents additional challenges with technology use in language
education, a few of which are common to other teaching disciplines.
• Godwin-Jones (2016) observed that exposure to different types of online
genres provides opportunities for learners to become acquainted with
informal language not typically found in textbooks. Kern (2006) found this
somewhat problematic in that “CMC language is often less correct, less
complex, less coherent than other forms of language use” (p. 194) and that
learners might lack the ability to distinguish between standard and non-
standard uses of language; thus, he advised teaching students appropriate
registers (levels of formal and informal language) for different
communicative contexts. Chapelle and Jamieson (2008) offered similar
advice. Blyth (2018) further suggested that the dynamic nature of speaker
identity in online cultural interaction requires teachers to help learners make
sense of such language exchanges. Somewhat related, Haugh (2017)
cautioned against learner reliance on translation tools that might miss cultural
nuances.
• As learning becomes more personalized, teachers in all disciplines are
increasingly required to take on new roles such as facilitating and guiding
(Adams Becker et al., 2016; Blyth, 2018; Godwin-Jones, 2015; Kern, 2006;
Kessler, 2018; Reinders & White, 2016). Adoption of new roles may be
disruptive for some (Reinders & White, 2016), particularly those who lack
the know-how to effectively adapt technology for use in their specific context
(Godwin-Jones, 2015; Kessler, 2018); yet, they will need to take on the
responsibility of researching and testing tools for learners to use inside and
outside the classroom (Godwin-Jones, 2015, 2016). Godwin-Jones (2015)
suggested that these tasks might be facilitated by a basic working knowledge
of the design and coding of certain digital tools (Godwin-Jones, 2015). Such
 expectations of teacher autonomy (Reinders & White, 2016) may seem
daunting, but enrolment in a MOOC or active participation in a community of
practice (CoP) are two recommended ways to gain the skills and knowledge
to ease the process (Godwin-Jones, 2015).
• To reasonably assess the use of the technologies they wish to incorporate
into their teaching, teachers need to acquire practical knowledge of such tools
(Brick & Cervi-Wilson, 2015; Godwin-Jones, 2016); as well, they should be
prepared to train learners, even the most tech-savvy ones, to use various tools
effectively, to reduce anxiety and cognitive load, and enable achievement of
language learning goals (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008; Chwo et al., 2016;
Felix, 2008; Garrett, 2009; Godwin-Jones, 2015, 2016; Hubbard, 2013; Kern,
2006; Sydorenko, Hsieh, Ahn, & Arnold, 2017). This is critical for learners of
less commonly taught languages, who should be provided with resources and
training early in their language learning experience (Garrett, 2009; Godwin-
Jones,

Summary
- Early days (pre-1960s): Language labs with simple audio tools.
- 1960s-1980s: The first use of computers in language learning (CALL) with
programs like PLATO.
- 1990s-2000s: The Internet and multimedia (CD-ROMs, websites) transformed
language learning (MALL)
- 2000s-2010s: E-learning platforms, mobile apps, and podcasts made language
learning more accessible. (MALL)
- 2010s-Present: AI, VR, and online courses (MOOCs) offer personalized and
immersive language learning experiences. (RALL)

This progression shows how IT has made language learning more interactive,
flexible, and accessible for students worldwide.

References
Adams Becker, S., Rodriguez, J.C., Estrada, V., & Davis, A. (2016). Innovating
Language Education: An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief (Volume 3.1).
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-strategic-brief-language_ed.pdf

Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present, and future. System, 31(1), 13–28. doi:
10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00071-4
Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language
education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and
Teaching, 1(2), 1-15. doi: 10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101

Blake, R. (2016). Technology and the four skills. Language Learning & Technology,
20(2), 129–142. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44465

Bloomberg News. (2017, September 11). Virtual American tutors are helping
Chinese kids to learn English online. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/virtual-
american-tutors-chinese-kids-learn-english-china-high-tech-online-education-
a7936006.html

Blyth C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language

Annals, 51(1), 225–232. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12327

Brick, B., & Cervi-Wilson, T. (2015). Technological diversity: A case study into
language learners’ mobile technology use inside and outside the classroom. In K.
Borthwick, E. Corradini, & A. Dickens (Eds.), 10 years of the LLAS elearning
symposium: Case studies in good practice (pp. 21-30). Dublin: Research-
publishing.net. doi: 10.14705/rpnet.2015.000264

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Burston, J. (2014). MALL: The pedagogical challenges. Computer Assisted

Language Learning, 27(4), 344-357. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2014.914539

Chapelle, C.A. & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with CALL: Practical
Approaches to Computer-Assisted Language Learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson-
Longman.

Chapelle, C. A., & Voss, E. (2016). 20 years of technology and language assessment
in Language Learning & Technology. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2),
116–128. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44464

Chwo, S. M. G., Marek, M. W., & Wu, W. C. V. (2016). Curriculum integration of

MALL in L1/L2 pedagogy: Perspectives on research. Educational Technology &
Society, 19(2), 340–354. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281801662

Davies G., Walker R., Rendall H., & Hewer S. (2012). Introduction to computer
assisted language learning (CALL). Module 1.4 in Davies G. (Ed.) Information and
Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames
Valley University [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_mod1-4.htm
[Accessed 16 June 2018].

Demouy, V., Jones, A., Kan, Q., Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Eardley, A. (2016). Why
and how do distance learners use mobile devices for language learning? The
EUROCALL Review, 24(1), 10–24. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2016.5663

Emmanuel, N. (2018, January 19). Education technology is a global opportunity

[Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/19/education-technology-is-a-global-opportunity

Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in

two decades of research? ReCALL 20(2), 141-161. doi:
10.1017/S0958344008000323
Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited:
Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 719-740. doi:
10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00969.x

Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). The technological imperative in teaching and learning less

commonly taught languages. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 7–19.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/24502

Godwin-Jones, R. (2014). Games in language learning: Opportunities and challenges.

Language Learning & Technology 18(2), 9–19. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44363

Godwin-Jones, R. (2015). The evolving roles of language teachers: Trained coders,

local researchers, global citizens. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 10–22.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44395

Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Looking back and ahead: 20 years of technologies for

language learning. Language Learning & Technology 20(2), 5–12. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44457

Godwin-Jones, R. (2017a). Data-informed language learning. Language Learning &

Technology, 21(3), 9–27. doi: 10125/44629

Godwin-Jones, R. (2017b). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning

& Technology, 21(2), 3–17. Retrieved from https://dx.doi.org/10125/44607

Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S.
(2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and
their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105. doi:
10.1080/09588221.2012.700315

Han, J. (2012). Emerging technologies – robot assisted language learning. Language

Learning & Technology, 16(3), 1-9. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44291

Haugh, M. (2017, October 15). Translation technology is useful, but should not
replace learning languages [Web log post]. Retrieved from
https://theconversation.com/translation-technology-is-useful-but-should-not-replace-
learning-languages-85384

Hong, Z. W., Huang, Y. M., Hsu, M., & Shen, W. W. (2016). Authoring robot-
assisted instructional materials for improving learning performance and motivation in
EFL classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 337–349. Retrieved
from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/19_1/27.pdf

Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced

language learning environments. CALICO Journal 30(2), 163–178. doi:
10.11139/cj.30.2.163-178

Jones, A., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Norris, L., Gaved, M., Scanlon, E., Jones, J. &
Brasher, A. (2017). Supporting immigrant language learning on smartphones: A field
trial. Studies in the Education of Adults 49(2), 228-252. doi:
10.1080/02660830.2018.1463655

Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages.

TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 183-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40264516

Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign

Language Annals 51(1), 205–218. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318

Li, G., & Ni, X. (2012). Use of technology to support the learning and teaching of
English in China. In J. Ruan & C.B. Leung (Eds.), Perspectives on teaching and
learning English literacy in China (pp. 145-160). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4994
8_10.

Paul, C.M., & Liu, H.J. (2018). Technology and innovation in China’s EFL
classrooms. In H.A. Spires (Ed.) Digital transformation and innovation in Chinese
education (pp. 163-175). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Retrieved from
http://caseymedlockpaul.weebly.com/publications.html

Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far
have we come and where to next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143–
154. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44466

Sauro, S. (2016). Does CALL have an English problem? Language Learning &
Technology, 20(3), 1–8. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10125/44474

Sydorenko, T., Hsieh, C., Ahn, S., & Arnold N. (2017). Foreign language learners’
beliefs about CALL: The case of a U.S. Midwestern university. CALICO Journal,
34(2), 196–218. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.28226

Vogt, P., de Haas, M., de Jong, C., Baxter, P., & Krahmer, E. (2017). Child-robot
interactions for second language tutoring to preschool children. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 11(73). doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00073

Wang, Y. F., & Petrina, S. (2013). Using learning analytics to understand the design
of an intelligent language tutor – Chatbot Lucy. (IJACSA) International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 4(11), 124-131. doi:
10.14569/IJACSA.2013.041117

Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English
Teachers’ Journal 53, 61-67. Retrieved from
http://education.uci.edu/uploads/7/2/7/6/72769947/cyberspace.pdf

Kalo nda ta paham kak, jangki tanyaka nah, ka sy jg bru belajar