CHAPTER 1

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING:
AN INTRODUCTION

Gökçe KURT
Before reading questions:
1. What are your thoughts on the role of technology in English language
teaching (ELT)?
2. What do you believe are the essential skills and competencies
needed for students to thrive in the 21st century?
3. How familiar are you with the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK) framework?
4. What do you think the SAMR framework entails in terms of technology
integration in educational settings?
5. What prior knowledge or understanding do you have about the field
of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL)?
6. How would technology contribute to Task-based Language Teaching
(TBLT)?

What we will see in this chapter: At the end of the chapter, readers will be able to:
• The role of technology in 21st • Gain an understanding of 21st century learning with
century learning essential skills, competencies, and dispositions
• Digital literacy •Explore the role of technology in fostering the
• The TPACK framework development of these skills and competencies
• The Learning by Design approach •Learn about TPACK as a framework that guides
effective technology integration in the classroom
• The SAMR framework
• Discover the SAMR framework
• CALL
• Acquire an insight of how CALL facilitates second/
• Technology-mediated TBLT
foreign language learning
•Consider the implications and receive suggestions
specifically aimed at pre- and in-service teachers of
English.

1
 I. INTRODUCTION
The 21st century has witnessed significant changes in the nature
of teaching and learning as well as in the profile of learners, primarily
driven by the rapid and continuous advancements in technology. A new
generation of learners are inherently inclined to learn digitally, have
different expectations for their educational environments, and bring with
them constantly evolving skills that align with technological innovations.
Educational institutions have responded to these changes by integrating
educational technology into their pedagogical practices. In many
countries, the adoption of educational technology has been considered
a significant advancement and a nationwide initiative, leading to the
establishment of numerous educational institutions and organizations for
its effective utilization (Rahmati et al., 2021).
Educational technology refers to the use of emerging and existing
technologies to support and enhance teaching, learning, and educational
processes in a variety of instructional settings, such as formal, informal,
or lifelong learning. It encompasses hardware devices like computers and
interactive whiteboards, as well as software applications, online learning
platforms, and digital resources. In recent years, educational technology
has evolved to include mobile and smart technologies, augmented and
virtual realities, online collaborative tools, social networking, artificial
intelligence, blended learning, and gamification techniques (Huang et al.,
2019).
The use of educational technology in second/foreign language
teaching has a long history dating back to the 1950s. Computer-Assisted
Language Learning (CALL), as a subfield within the broader domain
of educational technology, emerged in the 1980s to refer to the use of
computer technology specifically in language education. Despite its
early focus on computer technology, today CALL aims to identify ways to
optimally use existing technologies in language education (Chen et al.,
2021). Over the last few decades, an increasing number of studies have
been conducted to investigate the effectiveness of various technologies
for language learning and teaching. Recently, the discussion on CALL has
moved from whether technology is effective for language learning to how
the affordances of technology might be exploited to provide learners with
engaging and empowering learning experiences (Plonsky & Ziegler, 2016).
Technologies have distinct affordances that transform and redefine
learning environments. To illustrate, technologies allow for multimodality,
representing information through multiple and simultaneous
representations including text, pictures, audio or video; enhance the

2
adaptivity of teaching and learning processes by providing individualized
learning activities using, for example, intelligent tutoring systems; and
foster the interactivity on the individual level (e.g., interacting with the
material in an immersive virtual environment) and on the class level,
facilitating collaboration among students (e.g., using online collaborative
writing tools) (Backfisch et al., 2021). The quality of technology integration
depends on the extent to which teachers can understand and implement
the distinct potential of educational technologies to design an innovative
learning environment.
For long years, teachers have been integrating various tools into
their teaching with the aim of improving their classroom practices and
enhancing students’ learning experiences. However, several factors,
including the accelerating pace in the development of new technologies,
lack of continuous and adequate training on technology integration,
insufficient digital literacies, and teacher beliefs or motivation have
posed challenges for teachers in choosing the most relevant tools for
their pedagogical purposes and using them in the best way to create a
productive and effective learning environment. Despite being technology
users themselves and usually willing to embrace change, pre-service
teachers of today are also challenged with the aforementioned factors.
Given the fact that most of the pre- and in-service teachers have not
learned English in technology-enhanced learning environments, they
struggle to combine their technological, pedagogical, and subject
knowledge, which is needed for effective technology integration (e.g.,
Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Mishra, 2019). Thus, practicing teachers and
teacher candidates should not only be equipped with technological skills
and competencies, but also with an ability to make informed pedagogical
decisions in relation to integration of particular technologies into their
teaching and an understanding of creative uses of technology in language
teaching.
This introductory chapter on the use of educational technology in the
field of English Language Teaching (ELT) will first introduce the notion
of 21st century learning by referring to the skills, competencies, and
dispositions required for students to thrive in today’s world and discuss the
role of technology in their development. Then, Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) will be introduced as a framework guiding
teacher training on effective technology integration in the classroom. The
chapter will continue with the SAMR, i.e., Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, and Redefinition, framework as a model for understanding
and evaluating the level of technology integration in educational settings.
The following discussion will be on CALL, including the presentation of a

3
brief history of CALL and findings of relevant research. Finally, Technology-
mediated Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) will be explored as the
methodology presenting an ideal platform for effective technology
integration in the English language classroom. The chapter will end with
implications and suggestions for pre-and in-service teachers of English.

2. THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN 21ST CENTURY LEARNING

The increased global connectivity facilitated by technology requires a
new set of skills, knowledge, and learning approaches to prepare students
to navigate an ever-changing world. Policymakers and educators are now
challenged to adapt their approaches and embrace a more engaging,
collaborative, and student-centered learning model to better prepare
students for the future of work (Kuhlthau et al., 2015; Hockly, 2016).
The discussion of what knowledge and skills students of the 21st century
should possess is often framed within the broad label of “21st century
learning” (Mishra & Mehta, 2017; Teo, 2019). Numerous frameworks have
been offered by organizations, institutions, and individuals to identify
21st century skills and knowledge bases. Kereluik et al. (2013) analyzed
15 of these frameworks 1 to identify their common recommendations and
elements. Their analysis led to the identification of three broad categories
with three subcategories within them (see Figure 1).1

Figure 1 The 3x3 model of 21st century learning, based on the Kereluik et al.
(2013) framework

1 The 15 frameworks analyzed by Kereluik et al. (2013) included reports from educational organizations (such as the American
Association of Colleges and Universities, Cisco, Microsoft and Intel, the Educational Testing Service, the Center for Public Education,
the International Society for Technology in Education, WestEd, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, the MacArthur Foundation,
Center for Public Education, the National Academy of Engineering); international bodies (such as the European Union); business
interests (such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Metiri Group); and individual scholars (such
as Howard Gardner and Yong Zhao) and popular writers (such as Daniel Pink).

4
 The category of Foundational Knowledge provides an answer to the
“what” question (i.e., “What do students need to know?”) and involves the
subcategories of Core Content Knowledge, Digital Literacy, and Cross-
Disciplinary Knowledge. Core content knowledge and high academic
achievement in traditional domains like English and mathematics
are considered foundational. Digital and Information Literacy, which
involves evaluating, navigating, and constructing information using
digital technologies, is critical to functioning fluently in a digital world.
Responsible use of technology and media is also important, as it involves
moral and ethical considerations. Cross-disciplinary knowledge, which
integrates and synthesizes information from different fields or domains, is
also crucial in the pursuit of specific goals in the 21st century.
The Meta Knowledge category refers to the knowledge of working with
foundational knowledge and is divided into three subcategories: Problem
Solving & Critical Thinking, Communication & Collaboration, and Creativity
& Innovation. Critical thinking involves making informed decisions based
on the available information. Problem solving requires critical thinking to
be able to solve a specific problem effectively. Communication skills are
about the ability to express oneself effectively in oral, written, nonverbal,
and digital forms of language while collaboration includes abilities such
as flexibility, willingness to participate, and acknowledging group and
individual efforts and successes. Both communication and collaboration
are considered to be essential 21st century skills as working in diverse
groups have become a common practice in today’s globalized world.
Creativity and innovation are among the skills that have been most
commonly highlighted as necessary for success in the 21st century. They
are the skills needed to generate novel ideas and transform them into
worthwhile products as well as to produce creative solutions to complex
problems (Kereluik et al., 2013; Laar et al., 2017).
The last category of Humanistic Knowledge is about the learner’s
self and includes the subcategories of Life/Job Skills and Leadership,
Cultural Competence, and Ethical/Emotional Awareness. Life/Job Skills
and Leadership include becoming a life-long learner, learning to learn,
productivity and quality, and acting autonomously (Mishra & Kereluik,
2011). Cultural competence often involves appreciation of the creative
expression of ideas and emotions by all types of individuals and are
referred to as intercultural knowledge, skills for a global world, or global
awareness in the reviewed frameworks. A learner with Ethical/Emotional
Awareness can imagine himself in someone else’s position and feel with
that individual.

5
 As discussed by Kereluik et al. (2013), these 21st century learning
categories have always been significant in learning, long before the
emergence of technology. However, technology has transformed their
instantiation. For example, technology has significantly changed the way
of access, representation and learning of content knowledge; transformed
meta knowledge by enabling the reuse and adaptation of technology
to fulfill specific educational needs and achieve teaching and learning
objectives; and modified humanistic knowledge by expanding the
complexity of regulating one’s efforts, requiring individuals to organize
their responsibilities in various aspects of life to achieve desired outcomes
in an increasingly globalized and interconnected world.
Implications of the 21st century learning frameworks can be listed as
follows: (1) Teachers and students need to be well equipped with the
knowledge of their relevant disciplines; (2) Teachers and students must
know when, why, and how to use technology for effective teaching and
learning experiences; (3) Teachers should know how they can enhance
their students’ cultural competence, emotional awareness, and leadership
skills for meaningful and effective communication and relationships in
today’s highly connected world (Kereluik et al., 2013). Given the significant
impact of technology on the skills, knowledge, and expertise teachers and
students should possess in the 21st century, a more detailed examination
of digital literacy becomes a necessity.

2.1. Digital Literacy

The term digital literacy was coined in 1997 by Gilster as “the ability to
both understand and use digitized information” (p. 2). It encompasses the
ability to effectively utilize the available technologies. This includes not
only technical abilities but also an understanding of the social practices
associated with the appropriate use of new technologies (Dudeney
& Hockly, 2016). Despite being largely discredited through empirical
research, a frequently debated viewpoint on digital literacy proposes that
students who grow up as digital natives in the internet age automatically
acquire digital literacy skills (Dudeney & Hockly, 2016; List, 2019). Prensky
(2001), who coined the term “digital natives,” characterizes them as
individuals who are inherently fluent in the language of computers, video
games, and the internet. In contrast, digital immigrants are the ones
who were not born into the digital world but adapted to and began to
use new technologies later in life. The notion that students of today are
digital natives has been criticized and rejected through empirical studies.
For example, students have been discovered to lack the essential skills
for critically evaluating internet usage, despite having been exposed

6
to technology from an early age and for a significant period of time (Li
& Ranieri, 2010; List, 2019). Additionally, the availability and access to
technology have been unevenly distributed among different socio-
demographic groups, potentially contributing to a “digital divide.”
The term digital divide is usually used to refer to the gap or disparity
that exists between individuals or groups in terms of their access to, use
of, and proficiency in using digital technologies and the internet. The
digital divide is influenced not only by factors such as purchasing power
and access to hardware but also by socio-cultural status, the distinction
between rural and urban environments, gender, and level of education
(Hockly & Dudeney, 2018). Hockly and Dudeney list several other factors.
For example, the digital divide can be observed within classrooms,
depending on whether students have access to technology at home and
how it is utilized. There might be a divide between teachers and students
who possess the necessary skills to effectively use technology and those
who do not. Additionally, attitudes towards technology can impact
its integration in learning. Even when teachers have access to digital
technologies, some may be hesitant to incorporate them into teaching.
Finally, socio-political factors like internet censorship or surveillance can
hinder teachers’ and students’ access to online learning materials and
websites. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to anticipate that every young
learner will possess digital literacy skills, and likewise, it should not be
automatically assumed that older learners are digitally illiterate.
Among the different frameworks suggested for conceptualizing digital
literacies, Pegrum et al.’s (2022) recently revised framework categorizes
and operationalizes digital literacies in the English language teaching
classroom. They define digital literacies as “the individual and social skills
needed to effectively manage meaning in an era of digitally networked,
often blended, communication” (p.4) and discuss that digital literacies
enrich students’ learning inside the classroom while also supporting their
participation in the world beyond the classroom. The literacies in their
framework are grouped under four general focus areas as Communicating,
Informing, Collaborating, and (Re)designing:
9 Literacies relevant to Communicating include
y print literacy: the ability to interpret, create, and interact effectively through
various written texts (e.g., blogs, wikis, or forum discussions), encompassing
proficiency in grammar, vocabulary, discourse features, as well as reading and
writing skills,
y texting (and reconstructive) literacy: the ability to read and create the
abbreviated forms in text messaging, to actively engage in online text chat
conversations while adhering to appropriate social conventions, and to

7
 accurately reconstruct messages incorrectly transcribed by voice recognition
or predictive software, or erroneously modified by autocorrect software,
y hypertext literacy: the ability to navigate, comprehend, and create online texts
that employ hyperlinks effectively,
y multimodal literacy: the ability to interpret, produce, and communicate
through texts in a range of media, including images, audio, and video,
y immersive (and gaming/XR) literacy: the ability to effectively navigate, interact
with, and communicate and create within multimodal and multisensory
immersive, gaming, and VR/AR environments,
y spatial literacy: the capacity to navigate meaning across various representations,
including 2D, 3D, and 4D formats,
y mobile literacy: the skills and competencies required to navigate, interpret, and
create information and to communicate effectively through mobile devices,
y code literacy: the skills needed to read, produce, evaluate, and adapt computer
code for informational, communicational, and design purposes.
9 Literacies based on Informing are
y tagging literacy: being able to interpret and create labels or tags in online
materials,
y search literacy: the competence in conducting effective online searches,
y filtering literacy: the ability to reduce information overload by using manual
(such as setting up RSS feeds) or automated strategies (such as online social
and professional networks) as screening mechanism,
y information literacy: the skill to critically analyze and assess the origin and
accuracy of online information.
9 Collaboration-based literacies involve
y personal literacy: the knowledge and skills required to effectively manage
one’s digital identity or online persona,
y network literacy: the capacity to filter information from online networks, while
actively participating within these networks by sharing information, ideas, or
resources with others,
y participatory literacy: the ability to create and produce digital content,
y intercultural literacy: the ability to communicate effectively and constructively
across diverse cultural contexts,
y ethical literacy: the ability to recognize diverse perspectives, worldviews, and
modes of self-expression, communicating respectfully across differences, and
contributing to global projects.
9 Among (Re)design literacies are
y attentional literacy: the ability to consciously focus one’s attention on
information from oneself, others, and the environment (analog, digital, or
blended), while maintaining non-judgmental awareness of new perspectives,

8
 multiple viewpoints, and changing contexts.
y critical literacy: the ability to critically evaluate digital technologies, including
digital information, and to develop informed perspectives on their design
and/or redesign.
y remix literacy: the skills to change original content, typically with images,
audio, and/or video, to communicate new meanings (Pegrum et al., 2022).
Teachers play a significant role in helping learners acquire these
literacies through the creative uses of technologies. However, despite
the worldwide effort to promote the implementation of 21st century
learning models supporting the development of digital literacies, most
teachers, particularly those lacking confidence or adequate training in
using technology appropriately with students, may find it difficult to
integrate technology into their teaching practices (Hockly, 2016). One
useful framework to address inadequacies of teacher training in the age
of digital literacies is the TPACK framework.

3. THE TPACK FRAMEWORK

TPACK describes the multi-faceted forms of knowledge required for
effective integration of technology in the classroom (Koehler & Mishra,
2008). The framework builds on Shulman’s (1986) construct of pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) as the specialized knowledge that teachers
possess, which combines their understanding of the subject matter
(content knowledge) with their knowledge of effective teaching methods
(pedagogical knowledge). The TPACK framework consists of three
main components of knowledge, i.e., content (CK), pedagogy (PK) and
technology (TK) and their intersections represented as PCK, technological
content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK)
and TPACK (see Figure 2).

9
 Figure 2
The TPACK Framework (adopted from [Link]

The three key knowledge bases necessary for enhanced technology

integration of teachers can be described as follows (Koehler & Mishra,
2009; Koehler et al., 2013; Mishra, 2019):
y CK refers to an understanding of the subject matter to be taught. It involves
knowledge of concepts, principles, and theories within a specific discipline.
Teachers are expected to possess a thorough understanding of the knowledge
fundamentals of their subject areas.
y PK, as a generic form of knowledge, involves understanding of how students
learn, classroom management skills, lesson planning, and student assessment.
It focuses on effective teaching strategies and instructional methods.
y TK refers to understanding the capabilities and applications of various
technologies. TK allows a teacher to accomplish a variety of tasks using
technology. It is conceptualized as a continuous process that develops
throughout one’s lifetime through open-ended interaction with technology.
The TPACK framework recognizes that effective technology integration
goes beyond the mere presence of technology in the classroom. It
emphasizes the intersection and integration of these three knowledge
domains:
y TCK involves understanding how technology and content influence and
constrain each other. Teachers should know how technology can be used to
represent the content differently, which technologies are suitable to address
the specific content in their subject areas, and how the content dictates or

10
 changes the technology.
y TPK refers to the knowledge of how to effectively use technology in teaching
and learning contexts. It requires a deep understanding of the pedagogical
affordances and constraints of technologies and the disciplinary contexts
within which they function, so that they can customize technologies for their
specific pedagogical purposes.
y TPACK represents the integration of technological knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and content knowledge. It focuses on the synergy between
these three knowledge domains, emphasizing how technology can be used
to enhance teaching and learning within specific content areas. TPACK also
helps teachers make informed decisions about when and how to integrate
technology effectively into their instructional practices.
Finally, the outer-dotted circle is referred to as “contexts” to emphasize
that the integration of technology, pedagogy, and content takes place
in specific learning and teaching contexts. In a later publication, Mishra
(2019) renamed “contexts” as “contextual knowledge,” emphasizing that
it is another knowledge base that teachers must possess for effective
technology integration. As he posited, contextual knowledge would
range from an awareness of available technologies to knowledge of the
school, district, state, or national policies. A lack of contextual knowledge
would hinder the development of TPACK.
The development of teachers’ TPACK has emerged as a significant
aspect of pre- and in-service teacher education worldwide (Voogt et
al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018). Learning by Design (LBD), grounded in the
situated view of teacher learning, was first proposed by Mishra and his
colleagues as an approach to engage teachers in collaborative design
to develop their TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2003; Koehler & Mishra,
2005; Koehler & Mishra, 2008; Koehler et al., 2004). While in a traditional
workshop or technology class teachers are typically trained on the latest
tools in the hopes that they can apply them in their teaching, LBD allows
teachers to work in design teams with individuals of varying levels of
expertise in content, pedagogy, and technology, and develop solutions
to authentic pedagogical problems by using technology through iterative
cycles of design, redesign, and reflective practices (Baran et al., 2016; Kurt
et al., 2014; Voogt et al., 2015). In this approach, teachers concentrate on
a specific problem they face in their practice and explore how technology
can be utilized to address that problem. By linking their technology
exploration to problem-solving in education, teachers develop the skills
to learn about technology and think critically about its application.
The design process enhances the teachers’ agency and allows them

11
to take ownership of knowledge (Papanikolaou et al., 2017; Voogt et al.,
2015). Teachers consider tool affordances, learner needs, and pedagogical
concerns aligned with the important concepts of specific topics in
meaningful and authentic contexts (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). Overall, this
approach empowers teachers and teacher candidates as active designers
of technology-rich environments within their unique contexts rather
than being passive recipients of knowledge about technology-enhanced
teaching.
Today, most teachers still tend to operate at basic levels of technology
integration across the world. Students’ technology use for learning
purposes might also be constrained. The SAMR framework has been
suggested as a model for understanding and evaluating the level of
technology integration in educational settings and can be examined at
both student and teacher levels.

4. THE SAMR FRAMEWORK

Developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura (2006), SAMR stands for
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. It offers a
hierarchical model that guides teachers in transforming their teaching
practices through technology integration (Caukin & Trail, 2019; Crompton
& Burke, 2020). The levels of substitution and augmentation are further
defined as the category of enhancement, while modification and
redefinition as the category of transformation (see Figure 3).

Figure 3
The SAMR framework (adopted from Crompton & Burke, 2020).

12
 The definition of each level is as follows:
y At the substitution level, technology is used as a direct substitute for traditional
tools or methods without any significant changes in the task or learning
outcome. Students and/or teachers produce the same type of product and/
or follow the same learning process that can be achieved if digital technology
was not used. Replacing a printed worksheet with a digital version or using a
word processor instead of a pen and paper can be example uses of technology
at this level.
y Augmentation takes technology integration a step further by enhancing
tasks and providing additional functionalities. Digital technology is used
by students and/or teachers to make small adjustments to products and/
or learning processes that cannot be achieved without the use of digital
technology. Example practices might include using a spell-check feature in a
word processor or providing multimedia elements like images and videos to
support understanding.
y Modification involves significant redesign of tasks through technology
integration, allowing for substantial changes in the learning experience.
Students and/or teachers use digital technology to either generate products
that would be impossible to create without the use of digital tools or engage
in learning processes that would be attainable without digital technologies.
Students collaborating on a shared document in real-time or creating digital
stories using multimedia tools such as interactive storytelling apps or websites.
y Technology integration at the highest level of transformation, i.e., redefinition,
leads to entirely new tasks and learning experiences that were previously
inconceivable without technology. Students are engaged in creative and
authentic learning experiences. For example, students collaborating with
peers globally through video conferencing to solve real-world problems or
students going on a virtual trip to a museum.
The SAMR model encourages teachers for higher levels of technology
integration, moving beyond substitution and augmentation toward
modification and redefinition, thus enabling transformative learning
experiences that foster higher-order thinking skills, collaboration,
and creativity. It has the potential to assist teachers in navigating the
complexities of technology integration by providing a simplified approach
to a multifaceted process.
While the SAMR model has gained popularity as a framework for
understanding technology integration, it is not without its criticism.
Among the common criticism are linear progression assumption,
oversimplifying the complex nature of technology integration and
organizing uses of technology in predefined ways; overemphasis on
technology rather than focusing on the pedagogical strategies and
learning outcomes; lack of systematic theoretical explanations and

13
research; lack of clear differentiation among the SAMR levels, leading to
subjective interpretations and inconsistent classifications; and limited
consideration of context, ignoring factors such as school policies,
infrastructure, teacher expertise, and student readiness (Geer et al., 2017;
Hamilton et al., 2016; Hilton, 2016). Therefore, teachers should be receptive
to carefully considering the criticism of the model when applying it to
their classroom practice.
In relation to different technology integration practices, it should be
kept in mind that “there is no single technological solution that applies
for every teacher, every course, or for every view of teaching” (Koehler
et al., 2013, p. 17). In certain circumstances, substituting one tool for
another, representing the lowest level in the SAMR model, may be the
most suitable choice for a teacher based on specific motivational and
learning objectives, the design of the learning environment, and/or the
characteristics of the students in the classroom. The teacher’s choice
exemplifies the ever-changing and fluid nature of the teaching and
learning process (Hamilton et al., 2016). However, teachers should be
mindful of the limitations of such usage. They should actively explore and
experiment with new technologies, seeking ways to integrate them into
their teaching practice in innovative and meaningful ways. By doing so,
teachers can create a learning environment that empowers students to
develop essential 21st century skills.
With the understanding that informed decision-making is crucial for
teachers’ effective technology integration in the language classroom, it
would be significant to understand the evolution of CALL and explore
research on how technology promotes second/foreign language learning
and teaching.

5. CALL
Historically rooted in educational technology, CALL refers to the use of
digital technology in the language teaching and learning process (Fotos &
Browne, 2013). During the last few decades, CALL has evolved to include
a diverse range of computer-mediated language learning activities, tools,
materials, and technology-enhanced learning environments (Ziegler et al.,
2017). Dating back to the 1950s through 1970s, the time of mainframes,
the early stages of CALL was text-based, focusing on drill-and-practice
programs that aimed to foster language skills through repetitive
practice. The advent of microcomputers in the late 70s allowed for more
computer use in the classroom, with interactive software becoming
available. Several language teachers began experimenting with the

14
integration of technology into their teaching. It was not until the 1990s
that CALL developed to include video, audio, and hypermedia through
interactive multimedia and CD-ROMS. The 90s marked a significant
turning point in CALL with the evolution and widespread adoption of the
internet and web-based technologies, offering opportunities for online
communication and virtual language exchanges. Serving as transmission
technologies, the early stages of the internet and the Web, referred
to as read-only Web 1.0, allowed users to view existing content rather
than creating content or contributing to it. During that era, teachers
and students had access to online resources, authentic materials, and
native speakers. Widespread access to the internet allowed for various
forms of networking and telecollaboration, including synchronous text
chat, email, and text-based virtual worlds called MOOs, i.e., multiuser,
object-oriented environments. Students, for example, could seek a
native speaker’s opinion on the accuracy of their sentences and search
for people, places, and events, broadening their cultural knowledge of
the target language. It was the era when technology was perceived as
a means of promoting authentic interaction rather than merely focusing
on learning predetermined syntactic or lexical patterns (Stockwell, 2022).
Mobile technologies emerged in the late 90s and early 2000s, leading to
the creation of mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) as a subset of
CALL. Learning at anytime and anywhere was facilitated through mobile
apps.
The emergence of Web 2.0, also known as the social web, further
transformed CALL at the beginning of the 21st century, enabling user-
generated content, collaboration, and social interaction. Blogs, wikis,
and podcasts, as well as social networking websites and virtual worlds,
promoting sharing, collaboration, and interaction, emerged as powerful
tools for language learning. In the 2000s, web-based language learning
platforms and online language courses also emerged, offering a wide
range of interactive exercises, virtual classrooms, and language practice
opportunities accessible anytime and anywhere (Davies et al., 2013). As
technology has become increasingly prevalent, teachers and learners
began to feel more comfortable using it in their personal, educational,
and professional lives (Stockwell, 2022).
Today, Web 3.0, commonly referred to as semantic web, is considered
to be the next evolution of the World Wide Web, “where data can be
linked and understood by computers, resulting in more intelligent
and intuitive applications” (Nasar, 2023, p. 41). It aims to establish a
more intelligent, decentralized, and secure web that is capable of

15
understanding natural language queries and providing personalized
results based on users’ location, preferences, and browsing history. Web
3.0 incorporates technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine
learning, blockchain, and decentralized protocols. Learning with 3D
virtual worlds and avatars, intelligent search engines, online 3D virtual
labs/educational labs/simulations, and 3D web will be among common
practices in education (Gupta et al., 2022) and once they are well settled
and developed, will continue to transform learning, including language
learning.

5.1. Research on CALL

Advances in technology-mediated tools and environments have led
to close examination of how technology can assist, enable, and further
second/foreign language education. Several meta-analyses have been
conducted to synthesize and summarize results across studies, aiming to
identify the technologies used and how they were effective for language
learning and teaching. In an earlier analysis, Liu et al. (2002) reviewed
246 studies during 1990-2000, providing evidence for the potential of
technology in second/foreign language learning. Technology led to an
improvement in vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, writing
skills, and overall language proficiency of learners. Studies also indicated
positive learner attitudes toward technology use. Among specific
technologies included in the reviewed studies, computer-mediated
communication (CMC) allowed for more equal and increased participation
than in regular face-to-face instruction, positive learner attitudes, greater
student empowerment, the use of a wider variety of discourse functions
and interactional modifications, and opportunities for individualized
teaching to meet diverse student needs. Computer-supported glossing
assisted the learners in understanding the meaning of words or phrases,
improving their reading comprehension. Multimedia appealed to
different learning styles and facilitated the development of listening
skills. Multimedia software was also found to be useful for meaningful
communicative exchanges. Similarly, in her extensive review covering
the studies between 1981 and 2005, Felix (2008) reported positive effects
of CALL on motivation, computer literacy, target culture awareness,
reading and listening skills, classroom climate, comfort, and participation.
Specifically, programs such as glossing and visual annotations for word
learning were found to be useful. Multimedia appealed to different
learning styles. Technology led to positive learner attitudes and higher
engagement. Concerns regarding technical difficulties interfering with
the learning process and the need for the development of computer

16
literacies of both learners and teachers were also stated.
Golonka et al.’s (2014) review over 350 articles during 1993-2010
revealed the effectiveness of technologies categorized as schoolhouse/
classroom-based technologies, individual study tools, network-based
social computing, and mobile and portable devices in improving
learning efficiency, motivation, communication frequency, and language
knowledge/skills. The strongest support on the effectiveness of technology
use in language learning and teaching came from the studies on automatic
speech recognition (ASR) and chat. ASR contributed to the improvement
of pronunciation and provided feedback effectively while chat improved
the amount and complexity of learners’ language production. The support
regarding the effect of technology on improving language learners’
speaking, reading comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, and fluency
was moderate. The theme of affect and motivation was evident across
several technologies, such as IWB, electronic dictionary, blogs, and virtual
worlds. Numerous studies showed learners’ positive attitudes towards
and preference for using technology in foreign language learning. They
were more engaged in learning supported by technology.
Ghanizadeh et al. (2015) reviewed articles on technology-enhanced
language learning published between 2004 and 2014 and found
that technology had a positive effect on language learning when its
potential capabilities were integrated into teaching and curriculum.
The findings indicated an improvement in learners’ listening, writing,
speaking, and reading skills as well as the sub-skills such as grammar
and vocabulary. Multimedia technology created an authentic learning
situation and motivated students towards learning. Technologies such
as PowerPoint, internet, games, and audio-visual devices improved the
quality of input, made communication authentic, and provided timely
and relevant feedback. Learners’ problem-solving skills improved, and
they demonstrated positive attitudes towards learning English with
technology.
In their review covering the studies conducted between the years of
2014 and 2019, Shadiev and Yang (2020) identified games, online videos,
and collaborative writing as the most used technologies. The study
findings indicated that learners had better outcomes when their learning
was supported by technology. Learners’ attitudes towards technology
were also positive. The findings were not without some issues to be
improved. For example, in some studies, learners did not know how to use
technology effectively in their language learning process, implying the
need for teacher guidance throughout the integration process, effective

17
learning strategies, and training on the technology. Some studies also
reported negative effects on learners’ well-being including physical
discomfort, negative emotions, and cognitive load.
In another recent review, Zhang and Zou (2020) analyzed 57 articles
published between the years 2016-2019. Their review indicated that
among different technologies, the most commonly investigated ones
were the technologies for mobile learning, multimedia learning, socialized
learning, speech-to-text or text-to-speech recognition, and game-based
learning. They were mainly used to promote language learning practices,
deliver instructional content, facilitate interactions, and restructure
teaching approaches. The findings indicated an overall positive impact
of these technologies on language learning and teaching processes.
Specifically, digital game elements integrated into MALL prompted learner
motivation, multimedia elements facilitated learners’ development of
speaking, vocabulary, and comprehensive language skills, social networks
and online collaborative writing tools facilitated interaction among
students improving their ability in speaking, listening, writing, vocabulary,
and learning motivation, and flipped classroom model enhanced learning
motivation leading to improvements in learners’ speaking, vocabulary,
and comprehensive language skills.
Chen et al.’s (2021) extensive review of 1.295 articles between the
years 1995-2020 revealed that MALL, blended learning, project-based
learning, wiki-based learning, and virtual reality (VR) were among the
topics commonly investigated. Earlier studies in the review indicated
advantages of multimedia and computer-mediated communication in
facilitating vocabulary acquisition, reading comprehension, and authentic
communication. Wikis facilitated the development of language and literacy
skills through asynchronous online collaboration and communication
and immediate and individualized feedback. Using mobile-assisted
multimedia annotations assisted learners to understand the meaning of
vocabulary and fostered learner autonomy. CMCs had the potential to
develop intercultural awareness by connecting learners worldwide. The
integration of VR not only improved language skills but also contributed to
learners’ development of competences such as teamwork, critical thinking,
and cultural awareness. The benefits of digital game-based learning
including immersive exposure to the target language context, reduction
of affective barriers to language learning, and the increase in the target
language use were also recognized, leading to an increase in language
skills and development, improvements in self-efficacy, collaboration,
and motivation. AI also contributed to personalized learning. In another

18
recent review based on 1799 articles during the years from 1977 to 2020,
Lim and Aryadoust (2021) found that synchronous CMC and negotiated
interaction, multimedia, telecollaboration or e-mail exchanges, blogs,
digital games, wikis, and podcasts was beneficial to support language
learning. However, the level of support for each technology in language
learning differed.
To conclude, despite the variability among the reviewed studies in
relation to the theories adopted, research design, profile of the subjects,
and data collection and analysis tools, there is a widespread recognition of
the potential of technologies to enhance language learning and teaching
processes. In years, studies have moved from questioning whether CALL
is effective to how the affordances of technology might best be exploited
to offer learners the best possible opportunities for language learning.
This change towards the “how” question has brought Technology-
mediated Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) to the forefront. Van den
Branden (2015) noted that tasks and technology go seamlessly together.
The following section will focus on this specific pedagogy due to its
effectiveness in promoting language learning outcomes and its alignment
with the affordances of educational technology.

5.2. Technology-mediated Task-based Language Teaching

Having emerged in the 1980s, TBLT continues to be influential in ELT.
It prioritizes meaning over form, while form remains important, and
emphasizes learners’ target language use for meaningful communication
to accomplish a real-life like task (Ellis, 2003; Willis & Willis, 2007). Despite
different interpretations of TBLT, tasks are widely accepted as its building
blocks (González-Lloret, 2017). Task is defined by Willis (1996) as a “goal-
oriented communicative activity with a specific outcome, where the
emphasis is on exchanging meaning, not producing specific language
forms” (p. 36). Van den Branden (2006) defines it as “an activity in which
a person engages in order to attain an objective, and which necessitates
the use of language” (p. 4). As the definitions imply, “learning by doing” or
“experiential learning” of Dewey (1997) forms the basis of TBLT. Students
are assumed to learn a language “by doing something with it rather than
knowing about it” (González-Lloret, 2017, p. 235).
TBLT, among all available methodologies for language teaching, presents
an ideal platform to realize the potential of technological advancements
for language learning (González-Lloret, 2017). Web 2.0 technologies
allow for a learning environment that enables students’ engagement in
doing things through technology-mediated transformation and creation
processes, which aligns well with the principles of TBLT (González-Lloret

19
& Ortega, 2014). Technology-mediated tasks were defined by González-
Lloret and Ortega (2014) as having the following key features:
y Primary focus on meaning: Learners should be focused on the meaning and
any particular language focus should be implicit to them.
y Goal-orientation: The task should entail a communicative purpose, considering
the needs and preferences of learners, as well as a communicative (e.g., the
production of an oral or written message) and/or a non-communicative
outcome (e.g., playing/winning a game) resulting from task completion.
y Learner-centeredness: The task should be learner-centered and address the
needs and wants of the learners. It should also enable learners to use their
own linguistic and non-linguistic resources as well as their digital skills, to
allow for flexibility and diversity in the task process.
y Holism: The task should be authentic, drawing on real-world processes of
language use, integrating form, function, and meaning.
y Reflective learning: The task should provide opportunities for reflection besides
offering learners the chance to learn by doing.
González-Lloret and Ortega discuss that these key definitional features
of tasks are to guide the process of “choosing ways to recruit technologies
and targeting desired affordances within technologies so as to integrate
cogently the digital design into the design of tasks for language learning”
(p. 6).
The findings of research based on the principles of TBLT and using
technology in the delivery and completion of tasks have revealed the
positive impact of Technology-mediated TBLT on language learning.
Among the affordances of technology in TBLT are providing rich sources of
input that might not be available otherwise, reducing learners’ anxiety and
fear of failure by creating a secure, non-threatening learning environment
for practicing the target language, raising students’ motivation to take
risks and be creative in using the language to express their meaning,
to facilitate interaction and feedback in ways that differ from traditional
classroom settings, for example, by enabling students to meet other
speakers of the language somewhere in the world (González-Lloret, 2017;
González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014; Ziegler, 2016).
Successful implementation of Technology-mediated TBLT depends
on some factors (González-Lloret, 2016; González-Lloret & Ortega, 2014;
Ziegler & González-Lloret, 2022). Contextual factors such as the availability
of appropriate technologies, internet connection, and the quality of
technical support facilitate the successful implementation of TBLT. Digital
literacies of teachers and students also play a role in effective practice.
Additionally, design of tasks based on the needs and preferences of the

20
learners and sensitive to the local context affects the implementation
process. Teachers need to be trained and supported to be able to design
effective technology-mediated tasks. One suggestion for teachers to
adapt to the task design process is that they begin incorporating tasks
such as giving directions with the help of a navigation or a map app such
as Google Maps, exchanging videos on social networking sites such as
TikTok, engaging in web writing via forums, wikis, blogs, or fandoms, or
writing a restaurant review on a review site such as Yelp that have become
normal in the learners’ first language. It should be reminded that not all
tasks in the language classroom need to be technology mediated. For
such technology-mediated target tasks, facilitating tasks in the task-based
sequence (term borrowed from Willis and Willis, 2007) might include
input-based work (e.g., reading several reviews), vocabulary practice, and
genre analysis (e.g., identifying the relevant moves in a restaurant review),
each of which might be completed with or without technology. Finally,
in line with the teaching methodology adopted, assessment should be
performance-based, evaluating “how students use the language, what
they can accomplish, and their ability to respond to real-life language
tasks rather than their knowledge about the language” (González-Lloret,
2016, p. 55, italics in original). Learners’ digital capabilities should also be
part of the assessment (Ziegler & González-Lloret, 2022).
To conclude, Technology-mediated TBLT addresses the need for a
structured approach to CALL to fully realize the potential of technology
for language learning and design pedagogically effective technology-
based activities. As Ziegler (2016) puts it:
Tasks and technology are ideal partners in a reciprocal relationship,
providing opportunities for researchers seeking to explore how the
integration of technology can enhance or facilitate the benefits of task-
based language teaching (TBLT) as well as addressing how TBLT can serve
as a framework in which to ground research conducted in CALL contexts
(p. 137).

6. CONCLUSION
In the third decade of the 21st century, the use of educational technology
has become increasingly prevalent in all facets of education, including
second/foreign language instruction. In the late 1990s and early 2000s,
the rapid advancement of technology, increasing globalization, and the
changing demands of the workforce led to a call for a new framework
to identify knowledge and skills needed by students to prepare for the
challenges and opportunities of the new century. This call received a

21
response from several educational reform and policy initiatives who
pioneered to establish different frameworks to guide the integration of 21st
century knowledge bases and skills into curricula. Kereluik et al.’s (2013)
review on various frameworks identified their common elements and
grouped them under three broad categories as foundational (to know),
humanistic (to value), and meta (to act), highlighting the significant
role of technology in transforming the ways these categories have been
instantiated. Development of learners’ digital literacies, among the other
skills, has received greater attention, creating an expectation from teachers
to help students acquire these literacies to become 21st century learners.
However, teachers might struggle to promote students’ digital literacies,
along with other essential skills, through creative uses of technology.
With its emphasis on the integration of technological, pedagogical, and
content knowledge, the TPACK framework would guide teacher training
for effective technology integration in their own classroom by taking the
contextual factors into consideration. Teachers might also benefit from
the SAMR framework to understand and evaluate their level of technology
integration, which would lead to an awareness of more transformative
uses of technologies. In the field of CALL, a great number of studies have
been conducted to highlight the potential of educational technology,
leading to a shift in the focus of research to how technological affordances
can be made use of in a pedagogically sound manner. TBLT has been
suggested as one such pedagogy to guide the design, use, and evaluation
of technology integration in language learning. Based on the principle
of learning by doing, it allows for students’ active engagement in the
learning process through completing technology-mediated tasks.
This chapter, as briefly summarized in the previous paragraph, has a
number of implications. The first one is in relation to the changing profile
of the learners. Irrespective of the digital divide issue, today’s young
generation consider technologies such as tablets or smartphones an
essential part of their daily lives. From early ages on, as active users of
technology, they engage with technology to learn, search for, entertain,
create content, and communicate, among others. Web 2.0 and Web 3.0
technologies allow for unprecedented environments in which learners
can be engaged in learning by doing through technology-mediated
experiences. Learners are no longer passive consumers of technology,
but they create and share their own content, collaborate in novel ways,
and become immersed in authentic, simulated learning environments.
Moreover, the intelligent and adaptive technologies allow for personalized
learning experiences for individual learners based on their technology use
behaviors, tailoring the content and the delivery methods to match their

22
specific learning styles, abilities, and needs. Therefore, this shift in the role
of the learners from passive recipients to active users is fundamental to
the transformative potential of technology in language education. This
change implies the need for teachers to put technology into the hands of
the learners and trust them for progressive uses of technology to benefit
their learning both inside and outside the classroom.
However, the digital divide issue cannot be ignored, and it still
persists today. To name a few factors impeding effective technology
integration into education, for example, many classrooms around the
world lack sufficient technology or have limited access, often restricted
to the teacher’s use rather than being available for individual student
engagement in technology-mediated tasks or activities. Similarly,
outside the classroom, the number of students with access to technology
is not high, especially in developing or underdeveloped countries. This
situation highlights the significance of context in shaping the technology-
integrated practices, creating a need to recognize that there is no one
best technological solution that can address diverse educational settings.
Thus, teachers and policymakers should consider contextual factors while
planning, designing, and implementing technology integration practices
to ensure equal access and effective use of technology for language
learning.
On the other hand, insufficient technology in the classroom should
not serve as an excuse for teachers’ adoption of traditional approaches to
technology integration. For example, using a smartboard as a replacement
of a blackboard does not fully exploit the potential of technology and
cannot be attributed only to limited technology access. Similarly, limiting
technology-based practices to PowerPoint presentations, Web searches,
or playing audio recordings would not engage learners in new digital
literacies. For more creative and innovative practices, teachers should
exploit the affordances and transformative power of technologies,
moving from mere substitution to more creative uses of technology to
promote ELT. However, it is important to acknowledge that this transition
is not always easy for teachers who have not learned their subject matter,
namely English, through technology-integrated practices or received any
or relevant training during their pre- or in-service education, despite being
regular users of digital technologies as a natural part of their daily life. This
implies the significant role of teacher education programs in equipping
teachers with digital literacy skills and allowing them to experience the
transformative potential of technologies firsthand. Through well-designed
programs informed by the TPACK framework, teachers can effectively

23
transform their roles, knowledge, and beliefs in integrating technology in
education.
To conclude, Bax’s (2000, 2003) prediction in the early 2000s about the
normalization of CALL anticipated a future where technology would be
used by language learners and teachers as an integral part of every lesson,
like a pen or a book, without any inhibitions or exaggerated respect.
However, after more than 20 years, technology integration in language
education has not reached the level of normalization observed in everyday
life. In other words, while technology has significantly changed language
teaching and learning, its integration into formal education has not reached
an anticipated state yet. This can be attributed to the challenge that lies in
closing the divide between the potential and affordances of technology
in education and its effective implementation in practice. To achieve true
normalization and create transformative learning environments, teachers,
policymakers, and researchers should continue to aim for effective and
creative technology integration that goes beyond mere use and engages
learners in meaningful ways.

Discussion Questions:
1. How has your understanding of the role of technology in
ELT evolved after reading this chapter?
2. What are some key skills, competencies, and dispositions
required for students to succeed in the 21st century, as
discussed in the chapter?
[Link] can the TPACK framework guide teachers in
effectively integrating technology in the English language
classroom? Can you provide examples?
[Link] the four levels of the SAMR framework and
provide examples of each level in the context of technology
integration in English language education.
5. What insights did you gain from the brief history of CALL
and the research findings discussed in the chapter?
[Link] can Technology-mediated TBLT serve as an effective
methodology for integrating technology in the English
language classroom? What are some advantages and
challenges associated with its implementation?
[Link] on the chapter's implications and suggestions
for pre- and in-service teachers, what specific actions
or changes would you implement in your own teaching
practice to enhance technology integration in ELT?

24
 REFERENCES
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for
the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT–TPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & education, 52(1),
154-168. [Link]
Backfisch, I., Lachner, A., Stürmer, K., & Scheiter, K. (2021). Variability of teachers’
technology integration in the classroom: A matter of utility!. Computers & Education,
166, 104159. [Link]
Baran, E., Canbazoğlu-Bilici, S., & Uygun, E. (2016). TPACK-based professional development
programs in in-service science teacher education. In M. C. Herring, Koehler, M.J., &
Mishra, P. (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
for educators (2 ed., pp. 271-283). Routledge
Bax, S., (2000). Putting technology in its place: ICT in modern foreign language learning. In
K. Field (Ed.), Issues in Modern Foreign Languages Teaching (pp. 208-219). Routledge
Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13–28.
[Link]
Blundell, C., Mukherjee, M., & Nykvist, S. (2022). A scoping review of the application of
the SAMR model in research. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100093. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2022.100093
Caukin, N., & Trail, L. (2019). SAMR: A tool for reflection for Ed Tech integration.
International Journal of the Whole Child, 4(1), 47-54
Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H. R., & Su, F. (2021). Twenty-five years of computer-assisted
language learning: A topic modeling analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3),
151–185. [Link]
Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2020). Mobile learning and pedagogical opportunities: A
configurative systematic review of PreK-12 research using the SAMR framework.
Computers & Education, 156, 103945.
[Link]
Davies, G., Otto, S. E. K. & Rüschoff, B. (2013). Historical perspectives on CALL. In M.
Thomas, H. Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted
language learning (pp. 19-38). Bloomsbury Academic Dewey, J. 1997. Democracy and
education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. Simon and Schuster.
Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2016). Literacies, technology and language teaching. In F. Farr,
& L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp.
141-152). Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2003). Designing a task-based syllabus. RELC journal, 34(1), 64-81.
[Link]
Felix, U. (2008). The unreasonable effectiveness of CALL: What have we learned in two
decades of research? ReCALL, 20(2), 141-161.
[Link]
Fotos, S., & Browne, C. (2013). The development of CALL and current options. In S. Fotos
& C. M.
Browne New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Routledge.
Geer, R., White, B. R., Zeegers, Y., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2015). Emerging pedagogies for

25
 the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 490–498.
[Link]
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Wiley.
Ghanizadeh, A., Razavi, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2015). Technology-enhanced language
learning (TELL): A review of recourses and upshots. International Letters of Chemistry,
Physics and Astronomy, 54, 73-87. [Link]
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. [Link]
org/10.1080/095 88221.2012.700315
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (2014). Towards technology-mediated TBLT. In M.
González-Lloret &, L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology
and tasks, 6, 1-22. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
González‐Lloret, M. (2017). Technology for task‐based language teaching. In C. A.
Chapelle & S. Sauro The handbook of technology and second language teaching and
learning (pp. 234-247.) Wiley.
Gupta, A. K., Katiyar, D., & Goel, M. G. (2022). Web 3.0 and its Reflections on the Future
of E-Learning. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering
Technology, 10(4), 507-512. [Link]
Hamilton, E. L., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akçaoğlu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation
Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: a Critical Review and Suggestions for its
Use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. [Link]
Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2018). Current and future digital trends in ELT. Relc Journal,
49(2), 164-178. [Link]
Hockly, N. (2016). Focus on learning technologies. Oxford University Press.
Hockly, N., Dudeney, G., & Pegrum, M. (2014). Digital literacies. Routledge.
Huang, R. (2019). Educational technology a primer for the 21st century. Springer.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth:
Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of digital learning in teacher
education, 29(4),127-140. [Link]
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of education, 193(3), 13-19. [Link]
org/10.1177/002205741319300303
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kuhlthau C.C., Maniotes L.K., & Caspari A.K. (2015). Guided Inquiry: Learning in the 21st
Century. Bloomsbury Academic.
Kurt, G., Akyel, A., Koçoğlu, Z., & Mishra, P. (2014). TPACK in practice: A qualitative study
on technology integrated lesson planning and implementation of Turkish pre-
service teachers of English. ELT Research Journal, 3(3), 153-166.
Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2010). Are ‘digital natives’ really digitally competent?—A study on
Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1029-1042.
[Link]
Lim, M. H., & Aryadoust, V. (2021). A scientometric review of research trends in computer-
assisted language learning (1977–2020). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-26.

26
 [Link]
List, A. (2019). Defining digital literacy development: An examination of pre-service
teachers’ beliefs. Computers & Education, 138, 146-158. [Link]
compedu.2019.03.009
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee, S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based
technology use in second language learning: A review of the literature from 1990–
2000. Journal of research on technology in education, 34(3), 250-273. [Link]
0.1080/15391523.2002.10782348
Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011, March). What 21st century learning? A review and a
synthesis.[Paper presentation] Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 3301-3312). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE). Waynesville, NC USA
Mishra, P., & Mehta, R. (2017). What we educators get wrong about 21st-century learning:
Results of a survey. Journal of Digital learning in Teacher education, 33(1), 6-19. https://
[Link]/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242392
Mishra, P. (2019). Considering contextual knowledge: The TPACK diagram gets an
upgrade. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(2), 76-78. [Link]
/10.1080/21532974.2019.1588611
Nasar, M. Web 3.0: A Review and its Future. International Journal of Computer Applications,
185(10), 41-46. [Link]
Rahmati, J., Izadpanah, S., & Shahnavaz, A. (2021). A meta-analysis on educational
technology in English language teaching. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1), 7.
[Link]
Papanikolaou, K., Makri, K., & Roussos, P. (2017). Learning design as a vehicle for
developing TPACK in blended teacher training on technology enhanced learning.
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1-14. https://
[Link]/10.1186/s41239-017-0072-z
Pegrum, M., Hockly, N., & Dudeney, G. (2022). Digital literacies. Routledge.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post].
[Link]
Plonsky, L., & Ziegler, N. (2016). The CALL-SLA interface: Insights from a second-order
synthesis. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 17-37. [Link]
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: Do They Really Think
Differently? On The Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. [Link]
Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language
learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524.
[Link]
Stockwell, G. (2022). Historical Foundations of Technology in SLA. In N. Ziegler, & M.
González-Lloret(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and
Technology (pp. 9-20). Routledge.
Teo, P. (2019). Teaching for the 21st century: A case for dialogic pedagogy. Learning,
Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 170-178. [Link]
Van den Branden, K. (Ed.) (2006). Task-based language education: From theory to practice.
Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Van den Branden, K. (2015). Task-based language education: From theory to practice…
and back again. In Domains and directions in the development of TBLT (pp. 303-320).

27
 John Benjamins.
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between
21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in
human behavior, 72, 577-588. [Link]
Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015).
Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional science, 43,
259-282. [Link]
Wang, W., Schmidt-Crawford, D., & Jin, Y. (2018). Preservice teachers’ TPACK development:
A review of literature. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 234-258.
[Link]
Willis, J. (1996) A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.)
Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann ELT.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University [Link], Y. F.,
Chan, K. K. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK
and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher
collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Computers & Education,
171, 104238. [Link]
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2020). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art
technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 1–47. [Link]
Ziegler, N. (2016). Taking technology to task: Technology-mediated TBLT, performance,
and production. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 136-163.
Ziegler, N., Meurers, D., Rebuschat, P., Ruiz, S., Moreno‐Vega, J. L., Chinkina, M., & Grey,
S. (2017). Interdisciplinary research at the intersection of CALL, NLP, and SLA:
Methodological implications from an input enhancement project. Language
Learning, 67(1), 209-231. [Link]
Ziegler, N., & González-Lloret, M. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second
language acquisition and technology. Routledge.

Gökçe KURT
Gökçe Kurt is an Associate Professor in the English Language Teaching department
at Marmara University in İstanbul, Turkey. Her research interests include technology
integration in ELT and pre- and -in-service teacher education. She has published
several articles and chapters on various topics, including flipped classroom approach,
student engagement, and writing anxiety. She offers courses at undergraduate and
graduate levels.
E-mail: [Link]@[Link]

28