Received: 19 October 2017

DOI: 10.1111/flan.12318
| Accepted: 30 November 2017

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Technology and the future of language teaching

Greg Kessler

Challenges
Technology offers unprecedented opportunities to communicate with others in authentic and
compelling, linguistically and culturally contextualized domains. How can we leverage
learners’ technologically mediated and highly participatory culture and an array of quickly
emerging technologies, including language learning media, artificial intelligence, big data,
and augmented reality to enhance language teaching and learning?

Ohio University
Abstract
Greg Kessler (PhD, Ohio University) is We are living in a time with unprecedented opportunities to
Associate Professor of Instructional
communicate with others in authentic and compelling linguistically
Technology, Ohio University, Athens,
OH. and culturally contextualized domains. In fact, language teachers today
are faced with so many fascinating options for using technology to
enhance language learning that it can be overwhelming. Even for those
who are inclined to experiment with emerging technologies, it can be
challenging to identify which resources, tools, or Web sites may best fit
a particular lesson, activity, or goal. Many of the most compelling
opportunities are situated within the same global social and technology
trends that have become commonplace in our daily lives, including
social media, artificial intelligence, big data, and augmented reality.
This article addresses the extent to which technology-mediated social
interactions dominate our daily lives, how we can leverage those
interactions to the benefit of our learners, and how we can engage them
in learning experiences in ways that will encourage them to practice
language extensively.

KEYWORDS
authentic materials, computer-assisted language learning, computer-
mediated communication, teaching methods (communicative), teacher
preparation

© 2018 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages

Foreign Language Annals. 2018;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/flan | 1
2
| KESSLER

1 | INTRODUCTION

We are living in a time with unprecedented opportunities to communicate with others in authentic
and compelling linguistically and culturally contextualized domains. In fact, language teachers
today are faced with so many fascinating options for using technology to enhance language learning
that it can be overwhelming. Even for those who are inclined to experiment with emerging
technologies, it can be challenging to identify which resources, tools, or Web sites may best fit a
particular lesson, activity, or goal. We are also teaching students who expect us to use social
technologies in ways that align with their established social practices. In fact, such technology use
has become so ubiquitous in our daily lives that the absence in our classroom is quite noticeable.
Many of the most compelling opportunities are situated within the same global social and
technology trends that have become commonplace in our daily lives, including social media,
artificial intelligence, big data, and augmented reality. These technologies are familiar to many of
us, and learning to use them for our personal lives has become an expected societal norm. However,
using them for language teaching is often overlooked. Unfortunately, many language teachers are
unfamiliar with the extensive body of research and practice produced by professionals in the field of
computer-assisted language learning (CALL).
Yet we can easily create opportunities for learners to record their oral production for speaking and
pronunciation improvement while presenting them with feedback from native speakers, peers,
instructors, and others. We can easily gather extensive authentic language samples of specific
vocabulary relevant to their lexical development and present it to students in a manner that is
compellingly contextualized and familiar. We can easily create opportunities for them to engage in
extensive and meaningful target language practice both in and out of the classroom with interlocutors
who offer salient, nonthreatening feedback. We can do all this within contexts that are familiar and
promising. We can also anticipate an increasing array of options for creating engaging experiences for
learners. Learning to use these contemporary CALL technologies is so much easier than previous
iterations of technology that were designed for language teaching. What teachers seem to lack is the
support and encouragement to use these increasingly familiar tools in the context of teaching. This
article addresses the extent to which technology-mediated social interactions dominate our daily lives,
how we can leverage those interactions to the benefit of our learners, and how we can engage them in
learning experiences in ways that will encourage them to practice language extensively.

2 | SOCIAL MEDIA AND PARTICIPATORY CULTURE

Not surprisingly, we are communicating with one another in more varied ways and more extensively
than at any time in the past thanks to social media and Internet-based communication technologies.
This communication is taking place in varied contexts through a diversity of modalities. Text, audio,
video, images, and a variety of mashups involving these mediums are created, shared, and distributed
widely as a normal daily part of the participatory culture that is ubiquitous across the Internet today
(Kessler, 2013). Social media contexts are so compelling that there are now more than three billion
active social media users on the planet. That is slightly more than 40% of the entire world population,
and it is growing more rapidly than experts had predicted (Kemp, 2017). The sheer number of
participants and the extended periods of time that people voluntarily devote to technology-mediated
social activities both attest to the power of such environments. In fact, participation in informal
communities has become so compelling that many people around the world often interact with and
learn new languages in order to be a participating member of a new community.
KESSLER
| 3

3 | PARTICIPATORY CULTURE AND THE TEACHING OF

FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Looking back, the influences of technology have been substantial throughout the history of CALL.
Innovative instructors have been creating ambitious CALL applications for decades using newly
discovered technologies. However, it has been common for these to only reach a very limited
community of like-minded individuals. In contrast, the new worldwide participatory culture presents
foreign language teachers with limitless opportunities to create for learners meaningful, authentic
language practice experiences that situate learning in truly compelling contexts. Thus, unlike at any
other point in our history as a profession, new technologies provide opportunities that truly support
effective learning: They allow us to create learning activities, tasks, and experiences that are authentic,
that take place in authentic contexts, and that involve authentic language in order to optimize language
learning (Egbert, Hanson-Smith, & Chao, 2007). Further, such opportunities have an important impact
on student motivation, which is known to be critical for success (Dörnyei, 2001). What is more,
creating opportunities for students to collaboratively coconstruct knowledge and collectively build
communities supports them in developing autonomy over their own learning and can increase their
motivation and also contribute to their engagement (Reinders & Hubbard, 2012). In sum, the qualities
that attract people to online communities as a whole can also inform our language teaching practices.

4 | LEARNING CONTEXTS AND TOOLS: LOOKING BACK

As we anticipate how current trends will influence future language teaching and learning practices, it is
important to reflect on what we know today. In recent years we have witnessed trends that have
dramatically altered how we think of language learning experiences. Until recently many have referred
to online and face-to-face as if they were a dichotomous set of teaching domains. Today we have
numerous variations within both of these categories. We also have blurred boundaries between the two.
Within these varied domains researchers have observed how learners interact with one another. It is
important for teachers to understand what we know about this kind of interaction. It is also important to
understand what we have done to try to make learning more appropriate and relevant for individual
learners. Ultimately, raising awareness of these current realities will help us best incorporate the next
generation of technologies and social practices that will accompany them.

4.1 | Variety of learning contexts

One of the biggest influences that technology has had on teaching and learning contexts is the
increasing variety of learning contexts. Just a few years ago, it would have been common for educators
and educational designers to refer to teaching contexts dichotomously, as either face-to-face or online.
Today, teachers and learners are faced with numerous options within both of these domains. In face-to-
face contexts, there is a growing interest in creating active learning spaces that support learner-centered
practices. Instructors can enhance the physical classroom space with simulations of target language
cultures, by means of augmented and virtual reality. Similarly, the variety of online contexts that are
available to support language teaching and learning is increasing as a direct result of the development
of these different informal social domains from what Thorne (2016) has called “the wilds” of authentic
language practice that is constantly being documented across the Internet as individuals engage with
one another. Each of these comes with its own set of social expectations and practices that create new
opportunities for learners to explore notions of genre, register, and culturally specific and appropriate
4
| KESSLER

interactions. These include a variety of social media contexts, gaming platforms, collaborative- and
telecollaborative-based projects, and numerous mashups. At the core of these experiences is the
application of various computer-mediated communication (CMC) tools. The use of these tools has
been the focus of much early research into the potential use of Web 2.0 in language learning and
continues to offer promising instructional avenues into the future.
Similarly, while numerous studies have explored the potential of instructional applications of
popular CMC tools, these tools have typically been identified as either synchronous or asynchronous.
Communication using synchronous tools tends to resemble face-to-face spoken communication and
includes technology such as texting, chats, and microblogging. In contrast, asynchronous
communication typically involves a period of time between turn-taking and involves technology
such as e-mail, online discussions, and blogging.
While numerous CMC tools still fit easily into this paradigm, new varieties come along frequently,
proving these established categories to be insufficient. Each of these tools offers unique affordances.
For example, wikis and tools such as Web-based word processing allow multiple writers to contribute
to a single shared document at the same time, an example of simultaneous CMC (Kessler, Bikowski, &
Boggs, 2012). This is different from synchronous CMC because an interlocutor does not have to wait
for others to finish their thought or contribution before he or she can contribute. In fact, in contexts such
Google Docs, authors can see their collaborative partners writing in real time with each keystroke as
they type. This can assist writers in some ways. For example, those faced with writer’s block may pause
and follow their partners’ contributions, which may help them come up with additional related ideas.
In addition to challenging existing dichotomies (face-to-face vs. online courses; synchronous vs.
asynchronous uses), it is also important to understand the extent to which research can inform our use
of technology. For example, studies have shown that wikis can support attention to audience (Lund,
2008), attention to form (Kessler, 2009), and attention to task type (Aydin & Yildiz, 2014). Other
researchers have observed that instructional blogging helps students focus on reflection and increases
agency (Lee, 2017). Chat-based activities have been found to promote cognitive processing skills,
while online discussion forums offer learners an opportunity to reflect and express themselves at
greater length (Sotillo, 2000). Unfortunately, some observations of the way in which these tools are
used in practice have tended to decontextualize their potential from the larger ecological context—the
learning environment and experience—and have led some to make sweeping generalizations about the
application of these tools. It is thus important to recognize not only that the ecological context in which
a tool or practice is used is important, but also that these tools are not created equal and do not all
function in the same way. Further, each iteration of a particular tool may differ from a previous version,
and an example from a previous study may be unrecognizable to a current user. Thus, readers should
take this into account when planning for, or reflecting on, the use of these tools. That said, teachers and
researchers have used a number of CMC tools to support collaborative learning practices (Elola &
Oskoz, 2010; Kost, 2011), and this work has provided the building blocks for considering the
development and use of additional forms of social media.

4.2 | Learner-centered instruction

Finally, when considering the use of existing, evolving, and new technologies, it is important to
consider the extent to which they facilitate learner-centered instruction. Education has been migrating
toward a more learner-centered focus for decades: Papalia (1976) described approaches to redesigning
methods and materials in order to create a more learner-centered foreign language classroom more than
40 years ago, and this tenet has provided the foundation for the communicative approach to language
teaching and learning.
KESSLER
| 5

However, many examples of actual current practice may not in fact be learner centered; that is, they
do not refocus education with the learner as the point of leverage—for example, by attending to
students’ learning styles or helping learners to develop awareness of how they learn best. Warschauer
and Kern (2000) described learner centeredness in technology-enhanced environments as allowing
students more control over the planning for what and how they learn. Today’s technologies enable
language educators to strive for a more robust and individualized learner centeredness, one that
benefits from technological innovations that influence enhanced individualized experiences, social
activity, and access to data.
It is important to develop an understanding of these foundational underpinnings before we can
effectively look toward the future. Teachers must be familiar with a variety of online and face-to-face
learning contexts in order to appropriately prepare for more robust and sophisticated future
interpretations of these domains. Similarly, understanding extant CMC practices undergirds the use
and adoption of the next generation of these tools. Understanding previous attempts to make learning
more student centered is necessary for anyone who wants to strive to create the individualized and
intelligent data-driven learning systems of the future. Of course, it is also important that language
teachers understand how this body of research about teaching with technology can inform our own
teaching practice. As we prepare to look toward the future of technology and language teaching, we
should be prepared for many opportunities along with many challenges.

5 | LOOKING FORWARD: INCREASED COLLABORATION,

EMERGING TOOLS AND SPACES

Early examples of next-generation technologies that will influence language teaching are already in use
in many language teaching contexts. We can anticipate that they will each evolve and diversify as their
use becomes more common and as we develop a better understanding of their true potential. There are
recent numerous examples of collaborative approaches in both local and remote contexts. The growth
in this area is largely the result of what have commonly become known as Web 2.0 tools that promote
sharing and collaborative practices. There is also an increase in the use of automation, particularly
around the productive skills of speaking and writing. In addition, there is growing interest in and much
anticipation for the potential of augmented reality and virtual reality.

5.1 | Collaborative approaches

World language teachers today are certainly already familiar with and have experienced the enormous
potential of a variety of collaborative, social media–based language learning approaches, practices, and
activities that make use of the aforementioned CMC tools, including wikis, blogs, and microblogs. For
example, research has indicated that wikis promote a shared responsibility for written activities among
multiple contributors and promote awareness of the concept of audience (Lund, 2008). They also
encourage more participation and support peer and self-editing (Kessler, 2009). Elola and Oskoz
(2010) found that collaborative writing practice can also have a washback effect of improving students’
individual writing performance. Collaborative writing contexts are also becoming more commonplace
in various professional settings as well, thus increasing the relevance of incorporating such activities
into our teaching.
In addition to collaborative writing, collaborative learning activities have often been constructed
around project-based experiences. Project-based learning experiences engage students in real-life tasks
that take place in important and authentic contexts. In these experiences, students need to work together
6
| KESSLER

to make decisions and design and create something tangible somewhat autonomously over an extended
period of time (Thomas, 2000). Projects can be constructed around virtually any kind of content or
product. Digital projects can include Web sites, movies, travel blogs, serialized podcasts, or
cookbooks. Black (2006) provided an overview of the potential for implementing fanfiction in
language learning. Sauro (2017) expanded upon this to provide an extensive perspective on the use of
fandom and affinity spaces in language education. Digital storytelling is another domain that allows
students to create extensive and compelling projects (Vinogradova, 2011). Students can also be
engaged in the collaborative process of designing a video game; see for example Dubriel and Staples’s
(2016) application in French. Not surprisingly, the use of authentic approaches to assessment can also
help keep projects relevant.
Telecollaboration, which O’Dowd (2007) has also referred to as online interactions and exchanges,
involves two groups of learners in geographically distinct areas learning online through a shared
experience. It can present language learners with access to other speakers, including native speakers, of
the language who would otherwise be inaccessible. In some cases, the ability to collaborate with others
in spite of or perhaps because of their distant and unique geographical location has presented a breadth
of opportunities for learners to participate in meaningful, engaging, and authentic contexts. Such
collaborative efforts not only allow learners to practice and use language but also to explore concepts
such as intercultural communicative competence (ICC). This complex concept reflects one’s ability to
effectively understand one’s role, the role of interlocutors, and the role of all participants’ respective
cultures in intercultural interactions. Numerous telecollaborative exchanges have focused on the
potential use of technology to increase learners’ ICC, and various telecollaborative practices have
already become commonplace in foreign language teaching. However, while there are many potential
benefits available to participants, managing these exchanges can be quite challenging. Research has
focused on the potential for miscommunication that can take place within these exchanges as well as
the role of feedback and attention given to each individual language.
In addition to the project-based applications of telecollaboration, this instructional approach has
also been applied to the increasingly popular domain of gaming. Given the need for groups of players
work together, gaming has also been explored as a means of increasing engagement and
contextualizing learning in authentic and meaningful language experience and use (Gee & Hayes,
2011). Game-based practices have also been shown to support autonomy, social engagement, and
motivation (Gee, 2003), and studies have shown that learning within a gaming context can increase
students’ willingness to participate (Reinders & Wattana, 2014) by helping to engage learners and
allow them to feel comfortable, confident, and connected to real-world goals.
Thus, as teachers develop a better awareness of the potential for collaborative tools, we are likely to
see them used more widely and in more varied ways (Kessler, 2013) and can anticipate the next-
generation communication functions that these systems will continue to inspire. For example, more
than 10 years ago, Storch anticipated that the many positive contributions of collaborative and
telecollaborative projects and games will require “[A] reconceptualization of classroom teaching”
(2005, p. 169). We are likely to witness a number of similarly dramatic changes to language education
in the near future.

5.2 | Mashups
Mashups are combinations of media forms—for example, the mix of text and images that are used in
memes or YouTube videos of popular songs that are combined with additional text or images or are
recontextualized in some other way—that result in something wholly new and unique, allowing
students to express their creativity in a way that encourages them to continue or even increase their
KESSLER
| 7

participation. Because mashups are popular across the social media landscape, they present
opportunities to experiment with language as one element of a communicative mashup.

5.3 | Automation
There have been numerous examples of automation in language teaching in recent years that some very
technology-savvy teachers have embraced; it is expected that we will soon see developments that
demand the attention of all language teachers. Automated speech recognition (ASR) has advanced
dramatically thanks to big data and artificial intelligence (AI). ASR presents the ability to use speech to
control computers and other devices, including digital assistants like the Amazon Echo and Google
Home. The functions that these devices can perform are increasing daily, and their expansion to many
languages is highly anticipated. These devices provide opportunities to practice speaking while getting
automated spoken feedback. They also allow language educators to create customized functions. For
example, work in the development of and research related to voice-controlled trivia and adventure
games for English language learners has indicated that learners who participate in these experiences
find them engaging and seek out additional, similar opportunities (Incerti, Franklin, & Kessler, 2017).
This technology will certainly be used in various promising applications in the future.
Automated writing evaluation (AWE) is also showing great promise, as there are many
developments that process text automatically in various ways. While readers are familiar with the
typical grammar and spelling tools that are offered in word processing software such as Microsoft
Word, they are less likely to be familiar with the robust tools that are emerging to help writers
choose appropriate vocabulary or avoid redundancy. Research has suggested that students find
automated writing feedback helpful but less useful than peer feedback, particularly within specific
genres (Ware, 2014). Although there have been many reports of challenges that are inherent in
AWE, including the tendency to encourage overly simplistic or formulaic writing, there are
numerous potential benefits to students interacting with automated feedback when instructors
intervene (Li, Link, & Hegelheimer, 2015).
One such approach involves the implementation of bots, which are programs that function
automatically to accomplish tasks that one might independently perform; it is estimated that as much as
60% of all Internet traffic is represented by bots (Glaser, 2017, n.p.). With the negative press that bots
have received recently, readers may assume that they are all negative and dangerous. Some of these, in
fact, are malicious; however, many are simply maintaining a presence for business, organizations, or
other entities. We all likely interact with bots daily in our online activities in spite of our lack of
awareness. In fact, that is the test of an effective bot!
It is easy to imagine how bots can be used to assist learners in their linguistic development. For
example, chatbots (automated interlocutors that function within text chat contexts) can be used to
engage learners in extensive language practice that might be tedious for a teacher to take on—it is
simply not possible to dialogue with numerous individual students. Bots, however, can do so and also
easily provide various kinds of formative and corrective automated feedback. Language teachers can
easily create bots to assist students using free Web sites like Chattypeople.com, Botsify.com, and
Robot.me, which guide those who are interested through the easy process of chatbot creation.

5.4 | Augmented and virtual reality

The potential for enhancing language learning experiences through augmented reality (AR) is
enormous. By layering digital content upon the physical world, we can enable students to interact with
one another within any space as if they were in a target language culture environment and thus engage
8
| KESSLER

with one another in a familiar space in wholly new and varied ways. Perhaps the best example of AR is
Pokémon Go! This highly compelling game has captured the imagination of thousands of players
around the world. What is more, these players go to great lengths to engage with the virtual
characters in a friendly form of competition. Similar forms of technology are being used by language
teachers with similarly engaging results. For example, Holden and Sykes (2011) described a highly
contextualized AR location-based murder mystery game that was designed to teach Spanish and
provide learners with a reason to engage. The game was created using ARIS (http://arisgames.com), a
free tool that allows users to create their own games. Aurasma (http://aurasma.com) is another very
accessible and simple way to embed digital material in any environment, and offers an easy-to-use
mobile game creation platform that takes advantage of AR. Godwin-Jones (2016) also provided a
number of practical examples that can help teachers get started implementing AR right away.
Language educators can expect to see numerous developments in AR in the near future.
In addition to AR, there is a growing interest in language education use of virtual reality (VR), a
concept that has been used in various forms for many years and thus may cause some confusion for
readers. For the purposes of this article, I refer to VR in the broadest terms possible to include any
simulated, artificial, or synthetic environment that creates a convincing presentation of a desired space.
VR allows learners to be transported to an immersive target language culture experience where they
can practice culturally appropriate tasks in ways that would otherwise only be possible by traveling.
Students can be transported to a museum such as the Louvre, where they can be encouraged to interact
with others as well as with the works of art and the space itself. They can also be immersed in a street
market within a target language culture where they feel compelled to interact with vendors.
A few years ago, the largest VR company in the world was consumed by Facebook in anticipation
of this future-learning context, and VR has taken many paths since. Google offers its very inexpensive,
and often free, cardboard VR headset, while systems like the HTC Vive, which allows a more enhanced
experience, costs hundreds of dollars per user. While one cannot be sure what the future of VR holds, it
is certain that there is a future and we should anticipate having the ability to easily customize VR
landscapes to cater to our students’ unique individual needs. Taken together, the implementation of
both AR and VR will continue to allow deeply contextualized, motivating, and collaborative learning
experiences in which learners use—and enjoy using—the language while simultaneously developing
sociopragmatic and intercultural competence.

5.5 | Future trends: AI and big data

While we should anticipate the widespread use of chatbots in future foreign language education,
these varied teaching and learning domains will certainly be enhanced by other trends that are
influencing the world of computing and social practices as well as nearly every domain across
society thanks to AI and big data. Readers may benefit from a brief description of these terms. AI is
computational processing that mimics the thinking of humans. This includes the technology
necessary for various forms of automation to function, including robots. Typically these functions
resemble human thinking, and one indication of successful AI is to convince people that they are
interacting with another person instead of a computer. Ideally, AI is transparent to users. AI is
empowered by big data, or the increasing accumulation of digital information that provides
opportunities to develop wholly new sophisticated ways of understanding the world and the way
humans behave within it. Because AI and big data are generally transparent megatrends that provide
a foundation for many forms of innovation, they are not the kind of topics that language teachers
spend much time reflecting on. However, considering their influence, it would be shortsighted to
overlook these important topics. Although it is rarely evident to most of us as users of these
KESSLER
| 9

emerging technologies, the common infrastructure they rely on is big data. This refers to the ability
to gather, aggregate, and make large collections of data meaningful and useful for a variety of
purposes. Developments in big data have dramatically influenced every profession. Most readers
have probably heard this term but have little awareness of what it means or how it contributes to our
digital activities. Following are examples of big data applications to language education.

5.5.1 | Corpora
In language education, the most obvious place to begin to address big data is the use of corpora, or
large collections of authentic language such as the entire works of an author; an entire library; or,
increasingly, digital databases. Researchers have relied on corpora as a means of identifying
authentic language use for decades, but extending this application to language learning pedagogical
purposes is still a fairly new practice. The Internet and various related technologies have made an
expanding number of corpora available for use across a number of languages. These large collections
of text are one example of many modern contexts in which big data and analytics are changing the
world around us. These large collections of linguistic data also serve as a source of authentic
language production. Recently, Boulton and Cobb (2017) conducted a meta-analysis that found
corpus-based or data-driven learning to result in better learning outcomes than traditional
approaches. Bennett (2010) has provided a number of suggestions for using corpora in language
classrooms while Cobb (2007) has written extensively about the use of corpora for teaching
vocabulary in context. More recently, researchers have studied the use of corpora to teach genre
(Cotos, Link, & Huffman, 2017), extensive reading (Hadley & Charles, 2017), pragmatics in
speaking (Bardovi-Harlig, Mossman, & Su, 2017), and collocational competence (Li, 2017). Some
have recognized the potential for using the entire Internet as a corpus. Han and Shin (2017) found
that this requires teacher support but has great potential. Considering this, we have a limitless supply
of authentic linguistic content for contextual reference. Further, the ever-increasing body of authentic
language that is captured on the Internet as people engage in these social activities provides us with
new opportunities. We can thus utilize these corpora to create authentic activities that take place in
authentic contexts and thus authentically represent the kind of language that learners will encounter
in the real world. Doing so can provide students with numerous contextualized authentic examples of
how any given word, phrase, sentence, or concept is described in any target language. As we develop
better abilities to observe, gather, and track student behavior, we will be able to use these corpora to
design individualized data-driven language activities that specifically target the language aspects that
are most critical or salient for any learners at a specific point in their linguistic development and are
tailored to the learners’ personal interests and professional goals. In fact, Leńko-Szymańska (2017)
proposed courses in corpus literacy for teachers in preparation.

5.5.2 | Tracking
In addition to having authentic linguistic corpora, we have access to increasingly large and valuable
collections of data about individual and collective student performance thanks to our ability to observe,
monitor, and track students’ behavior, performance, and usage of digital materials and environments
both in and beyond the classroom. In fact, we now have expanded and enhanced access to data across
learning contexts and tasks, such as the ability to observe every keystroke and decision point of a
learner as he or she interacts within learning experiences. Modern learning management systems, along
with social media sites, provide a window into such activity in a way that has allowed teachers to better
understand students’ abilities and challenges. This knowledge can help us design individualized
10
| KESSLER

instruction that caters to specific student needs, including increased uptake of feedback and awareness
of linguistic forms. With the intervention of increasingly intelligent tools, we can expect that this kind
of data will allow us to create customized, on-demand feedback and guidance that will address issues
related to accuracy in language production as well opportunities to expand fluency and that can be
disseminated at the points in the learning process where they are most salient to the learner. Tracking
data in conjunction with other data gathered through artificial intelligence can thus provide learners
with individualized and appropriate support.

5.5.3 | Translation tools

The increasing diversity and sophistication of translation tools is often perceived by foreign language
teachers as a threat to their own instruction: There is a widespread attitude that these tools are being
used by our students to avoid doing the work we require or expect of them. This was a reasonable
reaction when these translation tools offered limited functionality, accuracy, and usefulness because it
was obvious and easily detected by educators. In spite of this, some teachers have used translation tools
as a means of creating meaningful experiences for students. Until recently, the weaknesses of these
tools were actually exploited by some language teachers, turning their limitations into learning
opportunities. For example, having students translate texts and then identify or correct particular
incorrect characteristics could help students focus on specific aspects of language. Similar practices
could also help students identify the specific effectiveness and weaknesses of translation tools in order
to use them in a more informed manner. These activities could also be used to boost learners’
confidence as they could see how superior their language skills could be when compared to those
offered using technology. However, these tools have reached a level of accuracy and reliability that it is
now necessary to consider new ways to fit them into our teaching contexts. When using AI and big data,
it is important to point out that there are ethical considerations, particularly when using or sharing
individual student data. Thus we need to be constantly mindful of the many new challenges that we will
face when considering how we access, evaluate, and share such data.

6 | FUTURE TEACHER TECHNOLOGY PREPARATION

Because all of these ideal conditions for language learning can be positively influenced by these
digital domains and since the qualities that attract people to online communities make learning more
efficient, pleasurable, and tailored, world language teachers in the 21st century should have an
awareness of the potential for adopting digital tools and artifacts from real-world language practice
so that they can be adapted for the language classroom. More important, there is an expectation that
aspiring teachers will learn to integrate these technologies in their teaching: ACTFL released a
position statement in 2017 that strongly supports the integration of technology by teachers. It begins,
“ACTFL strongly recommends that a language educator be responsible for the planning, instruction,
assessment, and facilitation of any language course, leveraging technology to support language
learning” (ACTFL, 2017, n.p.). Because the language teacher is at the center of this important focus,
teacher candidates—in fact, all teachers—should be able to use existing and emerging social
communication technologies to create or enhance the spectrum of language learning experiences for
students, for example, to provide enhanced feedback, to engage learners in extensive language
practice, and to provide opportunities for students to participate in social media–supported activities
such as digital storytelling, fan fiction, various forms of gaming, and AR and VR that are associated
with meaningful and authentic language practices (Kessler, 2013).
KESSLER
| 11

7 | CHALLENGES IN TEACHER TECHNOLOGY PREPARATION

Unfortunately, teacher preparation for technology use in language education has faced many
challenges: It is still often neglected completely or focused on learning to use existing technologies
rather than looking forward to the ways in which cutting-edge technologies can enhance or
revolutionize teaching and learning. With the many demands of language teacher preparation,
technology use is often sacrificed but is becoming increasingly important across the spectrum of
language teacher preparation. The literacy practices associated with these emerging domains are
likely to be unique from established practices in various ways. This is an important consideration
regarding teacher preparation. Guikema and Menke (2014) discussed the importance of
incorporating current and emerging forms of digital literacy in teacher preparation. There are
many other aspects of teacher preparation impacted by these developments. Many researchers have
observed an appreciation for the importance of using technology in teaching (Hlas, Conroy, &
Hildebrandt, 2017; Kessler, 2006). However, there has long been a reluctance to use technology for
language teaching even when teachers have received preparation. Researchers have observed that
the preparation that teachers receive is often inadequate, inappropriate, irrelevant, or outdated
(Kessler, 2010; Williams, Abraham, & Bostelmann, 2014). There have been numerous suggestions
for how to address this disconnect, but the challenge persists.
This article has presented a number of opportunities to embrace emerging technologies and the
associated social practices they promote in order to make technology integration relevant and
engaging. Introducing such practices to teachers in preparation would help them toward
considering possible future applications. The potential for adapting our digital social practices in
teaching and learning contexts is vast and should be explored by those who prepare future
teachers. In fact, these new domains require that we reflect upon our current approaches to teacher
preparation. It is reasonable to suggest that all aspects of language teaching may benefit from
some integration of technology. Whether we are monitoring student progress, creating
opportunities for extensive language practice, or performing assessment, technology presents
enhancements and efficiencies.
Kessler and Hubbard (2017) suggested that teachers need to be equipped for these changing
realities, including being prepared for increased mobility, interactivity, and social experiences. These
suggestions are built upon the foundation of the TESOL Technology Standards (Healey et al., 2011).
This set of standards establishes benchmark expectations for technology knowledge and use by
students, teachers, and administrators in language learning contexts, including sample vignettes that
can be adapted to various teaching contexts. The standards also include a series of can-do statements
and a program assessment guide that can help readers identify strengths and weaknesses in order to
focus on opportunities for improvement. While these standards were created for English teaching,
they have also been adopted in a number of foreign language teaching contexts (Arnold, 2013;
Kessler, 2016). Frameworks such as the TESOL Technology Standards can help guide teachers
toward thoughtful, reflective technology use, but this is just a foundation. We need to intentionally
prepare teachers who are already likely to bring extensive participation in social networks and are
comfortable investigating a range of emerging technologies to go beyond what is provided by their
textbook and create exciting experiences for tomorrow’s language learners. What is more, we need to
help teacher candidates develop a mindset that acknowledges the need to evaluate their use of
technology; embrace what will certainly be continually emerging contexts, tools, and social practices
that support language practice and retention; and evaluate the relationships between technology and
learning goals so as to discard or disregard technological advances that may represent an engaging
but ineffectual distraction.
12
| KESSLER

8 | CONCLUSION

Given the accelerated evolution of technology and the social interaction and learning opportunities it
supports, it becomes increasingly important for prospective teachers, teacher trainers, and K–12 and
postsecondary teachers at all stages in their careers across a range of languages and with differing
professional interests and specializations to be attentive to these changes. Furthermore, I also emphasize
that significant and sustained professional development opportunities will be needed in order to help
guide all professionals to recognize the potential of these established and quickly emerging opportunities,
take into account the participatory nature of modern society, and actively move beyond their current
foundation of pedagogical and CALL skills. In sum, it is clear that all language teachers must become
comfortable with what are currently new, intelligent, and increasingly sophisticated resources as well as
with those that will succeed them and make time to understand the great opportunities and obligations
that will form the new landscape of world language teaching and learning.

REFERENCES
ACTFL. (2017). Statement on the role of technology in language learning. Retrieved January 22, 2018, from https://
www.actfl.org/news/position-statements/statement-the-role-technology-language-learning
Arnold, N. (2013). The role of methods textbooks in providing early training for teaching with technology in the language
classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 46, 230–245.
Aydin, Z., & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18,
160–180. Retrieved January 18, 2018, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2014/aydinyildiz.pdf
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Su, Y. (2017). The effect of corpus-based instruction on pragmatic routines.
Language Learning & Technology, 21, 76–103.
Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3, 170–184.
https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.170
Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67, 348–393.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11, 38–64.
Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. (2017). A move/step model for methods sections: Demonstrating rigour and
credibility. English for Specific Purposes, 46, 90–106.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Dubriel, S., & Staples, C. (2016). App and game design as a model to facilitate language learning and culture in context.
East Lansing, MI: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), Michigan State University.
Egbert, J., Hanson-Smith, E., & Chao, C. C. (2007). Introduction: Foundations for teaching and learning. In J. Egbert & E.
Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (2nd ed., pp. 1–18). Alexandria,
VA: TESOL.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development.
Language Learning & Technology, 14, 51–71.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. London: Routledge.
Glaser, A. (2017, May 31). Internet traffic from bots surpassed human-generated traffic in 2016. Retrieved January 22,
2018, from https://www.recode.net/2017/5/31/15720396/internet-traffic-bots-surpass-human-2016-mary-meeker-
code-conference.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Augmented reality and language learning: From annotated vocabulary to place-based mobile
games. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 9–19. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/
october2016/emerging.pdf
Guikema, J. P., & Menke, M. R. (2014). Preparing future foreign language teachers: The role of digital literacies. In J. P.
Guikema & L. Williams (Eds.), Digital literacies in foreign and second language education (CALICO monograph
series, Vol. 2, pp. 265–285). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
KESSLER
| 13

Hadley, G., & Charles, M. (2017). Enhancing extensive reading with data-driven learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 21, 131–152.
Han, S., & Shin, J.-A. (2017). Teaching Google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning
& Technology, 21, 172–194.
Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgious, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011). TESOL technology
standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Hlas, A. C., Conroy, K., & Hildebrandt, S. A. (2017). Student teachers and CALL: Personal and pedagogical uses and
beliefs. CALICO Journal, 34, 336–354.
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. (2011). Leveraging mobile games for place-based language learning. International Journal of
Game-Based Learning, 1, 1–18.
Incerti, F., Franklin, T., & Kessler, G. (2017). Amazon Echo: Perceptions of an emerging technology for formal and
informal learning. In Y. Baek (Ed.), Game-based learning: Theory, strategies, and performance outcomes (Chapter
2). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Kemp, S. (2017). Three billion people now use social media. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from https://wearesocial.com/
blog/2017/08/three-billion-people-now-use-social-media
Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard &
M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 22–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning &
Technology, 13, 79–95.
Kessler, G. (2010). When they talk about CALL: Discourse in a required CALL class. CALICO Journal, 27, 376–392.
Kessler, G. (2013). Collaborative language learning in co-constructed participatory culture. CALICO Journal, 30,
307–322.
Kessler, G. (2016). Technology standards for language teacher preparation. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 57–70). London: Routledge.
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic Web-
based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 91–109.
Kessler, G., & Hubbard, P. (2017). Language teacher education and technology. In C. A. Chapelle & S. Sauro (Eds.), The
handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp. 278–292). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kost, C. (2011). Investigating writing strategies and revision behavior in collaborative wiki projects. CALICO Journal,
28, 606–620.
Lee, L. (2017). Learners’ perceptions of the effectiveness of blogging for L2 writing in fully online language courses.
International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 19–33.
Leńko-Szymańska, A. (2017). Training teachers in data-driven learning: Tackling the challenge. Language Learning &
Technology, 21, 217–241.
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation in ESL writing
instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44, 66–78.
Li, S. (2017). Using corpora to develop learners’ collocational competence. Language Learning & Technology, 21,
153–171.
Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20, 35–54.
O’Dowd, R. (Ed.). (2007). Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Papalia, A. (1976). Learner-centered language teaching: Methods and materials. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2012). CALL and autonomy. Affordances and constraints. In M. Thomas, H., Reinders, &
M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary CALL (pp. 359–375). New York: Continuum.
Reinders, H., & Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital gameplay on willingness to
communicate. Language Learning & Technology, 18, 101–123. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2014/
reinderswattana.pdf
Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal, 34 (2), 131–146.
Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language
Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82–119. Retrieved January 21, 2018, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ interactions. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 153–173.
Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.
14
| KESSLER

Thorne, S. (2016, November 2). Invited address: Rewilding language education. International symposium on language
learning in the digital era: Challenges and opportunities for global universities. Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Vinogradova, P. (2011). Digital storytelling in ESL instruction: Identity negotiation through a pedagogy of
multiliteracies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD.
Ware, P. (2014). Feedback for adolescent writers in the English classroom: Exploring pen-and-paper, electronic, and
automated options. Writing & Pedagogy, 6, 223–249.
Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, L., Abraham, L. B., & Bostelmann, E. D. (2014). A discourse-based approach to CALL training and
professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 47, 614–629.

How to cite this article: Kessler G. Technology and the future of language teaching.
Foreign Language Annals. 2018;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12318