Computer Assisted Language Learning
Name : Arifin
NIM/Class : 0908066004/ 1A
Evaluations of ready-made computerized language programs (CD)
| KINDS OF ASSESSMENT | CD’S PROGRAMME | |||
| Learn English | Speak English | Issues in English | Easy to sing | |
| Interactivity | The program is very interactive, attractive and efficient. It leads the user by giving the user clear instructions, Those instructions are very interactive and can be used by the user easily. The content of the program varies in some sources, such as Food, Colors, Phrases, Body, Numbers, Time, Shopping, etc. interesting? The performance can attract the user to keep learning without feeling bored. The layout of the presentation is really good and colorful. |
This program cannot stimulate interactively, because the instruction is not clear enough.
In general, this CD is good enough for studying speaking and listening. |
This program cannot stimulate interaction because the instruction of the program is unclear, especially in speaking. | The contents of materials are lack of interactivity because it doesn’t stimulate the students’ activities. |
| Usability | The menu can be chosen easily in random. This program is easy to understand. The instruction is clear enough. | This CD program is very useful to lead the user to learn some materials and improve the user’s competence in listening, speaking accuracy. | This program is not easy for students to do. Students need instructions from teachers before using it themselves. | This program can help students to learn and practice English in context, especially their vocabulary and pronunciation. |
| Content Appropriateness | The content of this program is appropriate for elementary school students. There are some exercises (easy to hard one) by using games that can be applied for students. | Overall the program is interesting and it is suitable for basic to intermediate students to practice their listening and speaking skills | The content of this program is too general. For vocational students, the contents should be added by the material that related to students’ activity in their major. This CD is useful for the students age 13 to 20 or from Primary school to university students. | This program is suitable for kindergarten and elementary students. |
| Effectiveness | This program can assist language learners to improve their vocabulary rapidly. Teachers do not need much time to focus on teaching vocabulary merely. | This program will be effective to help students to practice their English in pronunciation. | This CD is quite good because it’s able to make the students listen what the speaker says with the models. In other word, It can support the students to speak. | Students can improve their vocabularies and pronunciation by listening to the songs. |
| Performance | The demonstration, the colors, the illustration of this program are very attractive and rich of tricks. | The presentation of this program does not run smoothly, but the pictures and the color are interesting. | The pictures and the colors used in this program are interesting enough; therefore, students will be interested to use this program.
The performance in this CD is good because the sounds is clear enough, and the content is quite easy for the university students to understand the meaning of the content. |
Real situation makes the song more interesting- The color and the pictures are very attractive |
Mid-Test of ICT
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Implementing Computer Assisted Learning in Teaching and Learning Language
By Arifin 1A
Introduction
The advance in technology has made it quite possible to take advantage of many modern facilities in different facets of communication. The language learning/teaching process is no exception, since language in its strict technical sense is a means of communication.
Audio-visual devices such as tape-recorders and video-tapes have frequently been used effectively in language classes. However, since both human nature and the language learning/teaching process are dynamic phenomena, the need for the newest techniques and technological devices is felt.
Similarly, a computer stores as much information as its capacity allows. Thus, this is a good opportunity to utilize it as a complementary device to other audio visual aids in teaching language to learners. In fact, it is a sort of Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), previously well-known as CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) which is, as Cook (2003:126) says, “…communication via a computer network. It may be one-to-one or one-to-many, and synchronous (in which participants are on-line simultaneously) or asynchronous (in which they are on line at different times).”
Objectives
Here I will state the advantages and disadvantages of computer technology especially Computer – assisted language learning as is usual called CALL applied in current second language instruction.
Review of Literature
- 1. The Definition
CALL is the acronym for Computer Assisted Language Learning and it is related to the use of computers for language teaching and learning. It is an approach in which the computer-based resources such as multimedia computing, the internet and World Wide Web are used to present, reinforce and assess material to be learned. The most important aspect of this approach is its interactive element for which it provides the self-study feature meant to supplement the face-to-face language instruction. Thanks to the developing technologies, CALL is finally achieving the recognition it deserves as a substantial part in the application of the teaching and learning process.
It has been made possible since the supporting devices such as desktop computers that are now able to play natural human speech together with full-screen interactive video. Users can now communicate and interact with one another in real-time. Such virtual chats provide solid opportunities for authentic language use among native and non-native speakers on an unprecedented scale in terms of the numbers of users and the geographical distances involved. Another thing is the proliferation of commercial CD-ROMs that help boost the widespread application of CALL. A lot of programs have been produced to assist the practices of all the language skills, including the grammar and vocabulary.
- 2. The Advantages of Using CALL
Actually, CALL has much to offer to English language teachers and will have more to offer in the future. That is why teachers cannot just ignore its existence and never care to the seductive and powerful technology that it represents since any life aspects nowadays, including education, are not separable far from the advancement of technology. So, it is vital for teachers and any educational elements to keep up to date with the latest issues developed worldwide and maintain critical or responsive attitude towards the changes.
One way is by introducing CALL program into the classroom and implementing it as one of the teaching and learning methodologies to enhance the improvement of the English teaching and learning process. Among others, some general advantages of CALL can be defined as follow:
2.1. Self-Access Study
The greatest advantage of utilizing the computer (Philip: 1986) is that it offers a powerful self-access facility that helps to generate autonomous learners who will experience freedom of choice. The tools that learners find in computers allow them to assume mastery of their own learning experience. They can explore the exercises and the practices based on their capability and interests to measure how much they have learned. They can call up the programs held by computers whenever they want to adjust their learning pace.
Besides, computers are sensitive to the learners’ level of proficiency. Some CALL programs are created meticulously to anticipate any responses given by the students properly and of course with encouraging feedback. This is to stimulate the students not to give up easily and also to help them recognize the mistakes. This means that students do not have to take risks of losing their face among their peers whenever they make mistakes. Some programs are enriched with colorful and interesting illustrations or visualizations. This can be very helpful and attractive for students whose learning styles are various. For those who are visual learners, they will be overwhelmed with things that can be seen on the screen while they are studying. While for auditory learners, they can satisfy their needs of hearing something such as read out sentences, instructions, or just background music. On the other way around, for kinesthetic learners who prefer the hands-on practices, they fulfill their curiosity by typing their answers, dragging the mouse to the appointed objects, and making or building up something based on read out instructions.
2. 2. A New Role to Teaching Materials
As mention before, CALL programs can function either as a complementary tool to classroom sessions or to their greater extent as a major tool to present teaching materials? Out of the context of CALL, teaching materials are passive. There are no two-way interactions. Nothing the student said or did could influence in any deep sense the linear progression of the content (Philips: 1986). In CALL, materials adapt themselves to the requirement of the individual student. That is how they are created to become interactive.
Anticipations of any given responses or answers have been prepared. Consequently, there will always be mutual interactions between the programs and the students before they finally find the correct answers or give proper responses and before the students decide to quit the section then move to another. These programs are also typically demanding since the students’ individual active participations are ultimately required for the programs to be run and operated. Unlike material given as a classroom activity, there may be only several students who are willing to be actively involved while the others may stay behind and still the class session goes on, no matter how much participation has been attracted.
2.3. Changes in the Teaching Methodologies of English
Using CALL programs is highly expected to be effective since there are cases in which they are just used to give old materials a new aspect. This is the case of teachers who put students in front of the computer just to make fill-in-the-gap exercises. Therefore, there is an important fact in the application of CALL that should be constantly analyzed whether the uses of CALL are just to reinforce current practices or to promote curriculum renewal.
In order to fully benefit from the potentials of the computer for language learning, language teaching specialists have to promote a complementary relationship with computers. The technology that computers offer has to be integrated with pedagogic programs that guarantee a real evolution of the teaching methodologies and procedures. This is the opportunity given by the KTSP curriculum for creative teachers to make necessary adjustments to modify the way or methodology used in conducting the class and delivering the materials using CALL programs.
According to Chris Harrison, teachers should ask themselves about what, why and how they are teaching their students before they enter the class. They should bear in mind that students learn English in order to build up their communicative abilities. That is why teachers should place more emphasis on fluency than accuracy activities, even though accuracy is also crucial in the EFL context. They also should stress more on interactions between students rather than on one-way teacher-students traffic. They need to allow students to take risks without being threatened by penalties, to cooperate rather than compete, to introduce the unexpected and to take the initiative. Those are the needs that should be provided in the student-centred setting in which the teacher abandons his informative role and delegate it to the computer as the new source of information. This would result in an innovative teaching methodology in which the dichotomy between teacher as transmission and student as receiver is broken. Now, teachers are going to promote communication and interaction mainly among students. The teacher’s role is only as the analyst and planner that make him possible to analyze potential drawbacks or errors in the development of the teaching-learning process.
In order to attain this objective, teachers should encourage students to take risks, leaving aside penalties for producing incorrect bits of language. Finally, the introduction of the unexpected will be determinant to give students enough motivation to take an active part in their learning process. With the practice of this kind of activities, curriculum renewal is guaranteed, so that there is no doubt that a real and evident progress in teaching methodologies is taking place.
So far the priceless benefits of CALL are not comparable to the slight disadvantages that actually can be overcome whenever the preparations are well-managed. First, CALL programs are in fact very demanding in terms of time. A good CD-ROM can take hours to explore. And to add value to the program by creating supplementary materials or study-paths is an extremely time-consuming process. Similarly, the riches of the Internet, especially since the advent of the Worldwide Web, can lead tempt students into hours of “surfing” with very little concrete to show at the end of it.
These problems relates to the school policy about the cost of the internet connection and about how good that the teacher’s lesson plan can facilitate the process of achieving the lesson’s objective and which parts of the programs that should be accessed. Another challenging aspect in classroom management is about the number of computers provided should ideally match with the number of the students in a class at the maximum. It is like that since the computer is aimed more at individual student rather than groups. Though, if it is only due to the insufficient number of computers, CALL program still can be conducted in groups of three at the most for the teaching experience to be effective.
- 3. The Disadvantages of Using CALL
Moreover, there is often a difficulty in implementing ICT in class for teachers even who have had some training about ICT because there are insufficient ICT resources in the school or there is not enough time to review then and plan lessons incorporating their use. Actually, the majority of teachers’ first priority is to maintain order in the classroom and to have a controlled learning environment.
Any suggestion of adopting very innovative teaching techniques such as using ICT is therefore seen as threatening this orderly pattern and therefore not desirable. There is a genuine fear amongst many teachers about ICT and skepticism of its value to their pupils. Moreover, Margaret Cox, Christina Preston and Kate Cox (1999) based on their research in their article said that the negative factor /the obstacle of for teacher in using ICT in class are:
a. difficulties in using software/hardware
b. need more technical support
c. not enough time to use ICT
d. is too expensive to use regularly
e. insufficient access to the resources
f. restricts the content of the lessons
All the factors above are obstacles that from internal factors for teacher in using ICT in class. Moreover, the external factors that influence the teacher in using ICT are
• The requirements of a national curriculum or national
• The changes in society with the rapid growth in the uses of the Internet and ICT in general
• School policies on using ICT
• Opinions of colleagues
• Responsibilities of the teacher
• Pressure from parents and pupils
• The influence of the local education authority
Summary and Recommendation
However, realizing some disadvantages of using ICT in class for teacher does not equivalence with the advantages that the teacher will get. By using ICT in class, it has good benefit for teacher not only in adding material or sources for teaching and learning process but also increasing the students’ motivation. Therefore, the teacher should increase the knowledge not only understanding ICT but also in implementing it in class.
Reference
PHILIP, M. 1986. CALL in its Educational Context, in LEECH, G. and CANDLIN, N.L. Computers in English Language Teaching and Research. London: Longman, 2- 10.
DAVIES, G. 1986. Authoring CALL courseware: A Practical Approach, in LEECH, G. and CANDLIN, N.L. Computers in English Language Teaching and Research. London: Longman, 12-29
HIGGINS, J. 1986. The Computer and Grammar Teaching, in LEECH, G. and CANDLIN, N.L. Computers in English Language Teaching and Research. London: Longman, 31-45.
SKINNER, B. and AUSTIN, R. Computer conferencing- does it motivate EFL students. ELT Journal 53/4: 270-279
Warschauer, M. 2008. Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction“.Retrieved. 04-11.
Ten Hacken, P. 2003. Computer-assisted language learning and the revolution in computational linguistics. Linguistic online 17.
Ravichandran, T. 2000. Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the perspective of the interactive approach: Advantages and apprehensions”.
Stepp,J, Jonita. 2003. Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium”. Language Learning and Technology.
Name : ARIFIN
Class : 1A
Subject : ICT FINAL TEST
English Language Teaching (ELT) and Technological Innovations
1. The growth of ELT
English Language Teaching (ELT) has been significantly continues to grow, partially at least, by the Internet. Graddol’s study (2000) suggests that in the year 2000 there were about a billion English learners – but a decade later, the numbers will have doubled. The same study indicates that over 80% of information stored on the Internet is in English. For the first time in history there are more non-native than native users of the language and diversity of context in terms of learners’ age, nationality, learning background etcetera has become a defining characteristic of ELT today. What are the implications of this?
Technological innovations have gone with the growth of English in which we communicate, work, trade, entertain and learn and it is non-native users of English, frequently from Asian countries, who are arguably, at the heart of this. It is fair to assert that the growth of the Internet has facilitated the growth of the English language and that this has occurred at a time when computers are no longer the exclusive domain of the dedicated few, but rather widely available to many. Warchauer (2002) has discussed this change in terms of conflicts between local identities and the globalisation of the English language; whilst Jarvis and Atsilarat (2004), in this journal, have suggested that the Internet may be a contributory factor in shifting away from a communicative towards a context-based approach to language teaching pedagogy.
The notion of widespread availability requires some qualification as there are clearly important issues of a ‘digital divide’ and ‘electronic literacy’. This issue is frequently presented as being between nations and it is clearly the case that the most powerful economies dominate Internet activity; but such a perspective explains unequal power relations purely from the influence of external factors and the picture is surely more complex than this. The same type of economic power relations also exist within nations, and divisions of social classes within are equally important here. In short, it is the middle and upper classes in virtually every country who have much greater access to computers and, significantly for this paper, it is the Asian countries which are experiencing massive growth as their economies develop and change.
Change of this magnitude clearly raises a number of issues for ELT and, it is argued, necessitates a revision of traditional definitions of what constitutes the English language as well as a move away from the established EFL\ESL classifications and towards a less culturally loaded view of English as a global or international language (EIL/EIL). This in turn has implications for language pedagogy and approaches to syllabus design.
2. Computers in ELT
To understand fully the impact that computers are currently having on ELT it is firstly necessary to step back and consider how their role has developed.
2.1 Pre-Internet
In pre-Internet days computers in ELT could be viewed from one of two perspectives. Firstly, computer assisted language learning (CALL) developed and concerned itself with the pedagogical applications of the technology. Students used the computer to develop and practise their English. CALL is, of course, still with us today but in pre-Internet times rather limited text-based provisions were something of a novelty for both students and enthusiastic practitioners; this novelty factor has, of course, long since gone for many who use computers as part of their day-to-day life. A second perspective was in the use of computers for assisting and understanding of what constitutes the English language and how it works. Corpus linguistics and the arrival of lexis as an item to be included within the syllabus began in the 1980s with Sinclair (1987) and others, and work of this type continues today.
This statistical analysis of language, initially analysis of written language, but more recently spoken language, has allowed us to examine the frequency of words and this has informed the profession from several perspectives. It has given us insights into the most useful vocabulary to teach and facilitated the emergence of the lexical syllabus. It has also allowed us to look at form-based words and this has given us insights into the grammar that we teach.
We can see that computers have had a role in pedagogical practice and in analysing language – both these aspects have further developed with the arrival of the Internet but the point here is that in pre-Internet days the role of the computer did not fundamentally influence the language itself and it is only with the arrival of the Internet (and related technologies such as text-messaging on mobile phones) that computers began to significantly change language.
2.2 The Internet and a changing language
The Internet (of which CMC forms a major aspect) is changing the language partly because it gives rise to new vocabulary, but more importantly because the medium and its users drive the language in certain directions (Crystal, 2001). The following verbs are just one illustration of the influences on vocabulary, they all either meant different things, or did not exist, only a few year ago; to … email, text, boot, chat, surf, bookmark, e-shop, google, etcetera. More fundamentally, the Internet is changing language. This changing language is rapidly evolving and does not have a long history to inform syllabus designers and ELT practitioners. Emails do not have, and arguably do not need, to follow punctuation conventions. Typos and spelling mistakes are also, depending on context, more acceptable with this medium.
To what extent should we allow this to influence the language content of emails in our teaching? Furthermore, synchronous emails, those in real time chat forums (e.g. MSN), are a kind of unique text version of spoken English and the language generated from this, along with text messaging on mobile phones, is at times completely different to anything else that we have hitherto known.
The Internet, as these simple examples show, is clearly impacting upon the ways in which we use language and what constitutes language. And this rapid and largely uncharted evolution of language is surely set to continue unabated – like it or loathe it we all, especially as language teachers, have to come to terms with it. Should we include Netspeak and Netiquette in our classroom practice? Can we avoid not including it?
Within a traditional approach to syllabus design we arguably need to plot these new items of language and include them in our programmes, but as we will see later, I shall argue here this in a sense futile and it will be more useful to specify a series of tasks for our learners and allow them to generate whatever appropriate language is required in order to successfully complete such tasks. But before we come to these implications for pedagogical practice, let us firstly explore the potential impact of change on our well-established notions of EFL and ESL.
3. Implications
3.1 From EFL/ESL to EIL/GL
To answer this question it would be helpful to firstly clarify what is meant by EFL and ESL. Jarvis (forthcoming) notes that, “These terms are used to describe learners and users whose native language is not English. It is a foreign language if used by non-native speakers in a non-native English-speaking country which has not adopted it as the “official” language of that country. Asian countries here would include Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Thailand, China and many more. Jarvis continues, “It is also a foreign language when used by a non-native speaker who is a temporary visitor to a native English-speaking country.” Asian students studying in the UK, Australia or the USA would fall into this category. “It is a second language if used by a non-native speaker who migrates to a native English-speaking country.”
The Chinese community who have settled in the UK, Australia or the USA would be an example of this group. “It is also a second language if used by a non-native speaker where it has been adopted as the official language in their country.” In Asia, Indian or Pakistani users of English would fall into such a category.
These definitions have been with the language teaching profession for half a century. However, they carry with them connotations that the language does not actually belong to the users; it is foreign (alien), or it is second (not first) – this despite the fact that today these users are now a majority. A case can be made (Phillipson, 1992) that these connotations are contributory factors in the manifestation of a linguistic imperialism. Certainly there is an implied uneven power relationship which centres on ownership. Furthermore, and of critical importance for the arguments presented here, these definitions tend to be based around the notion of learners and users in physical spaces, a notion which is very much undermined by the virtual world of the Internet. The work of Crystal (2003), McKay (2002), Burns and Coffin (2001) and others, echo a view that today it is more useful to think in terms of English as an international or global language. This new majority being non-native users has, as we have seen, been considerably facilitated by the Internet, and, it is argued, the English language today belongs just as much to this new majority as it does to the now minority native users. (Jarvis, forthcoming).
It is in this sense that it is not a foreign or second language because it is their language too – it “belongs” to all users. Every minute, hour, day, week, month and year there are millions of users of English across the Asian region and beyond; more often than not the medium for such users is the Internet. When somebody from Indonesia, Korea, China, or Thailand communicates with A.N. Other from Japan, Malaysia, they are likely to do so in English and they are likely to do so primarily via the Internet. These people may well meet in person but a great deal of any communication is computer-mediated and they will use a variety of language appropriate to the medium. Given this situation, our challenge, it seems to me, is to promote a pedagogy which reflects what users are actually doing with language, rather than prescribing items to be taught.
3.2 Towards a task-based approach
Typically, a traditional ELT syllabus lists learning items in terms of structures, functions, notions and vocabulary which are then set in situations and which usually integrate a variety of skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking). This dominant approach has been characterised as product-orientated because it focuses on what is to be learnt or on products (White, 1988). The problem with this approach, as Nunan (1988) has pointed out, is that input cannot be equated with output and that teaching cannot be equated with learning. In short, what the teacher teaches is not what the learner learns. It is a problem which is compounded within our proposed EIL framework.
Nunn (2005) has argued that linguistic, communicative and other kinds of competences have not been adequately addressed in relation to EIL and goes on to argue that “… international communication seems to require the ability to adjust to almost infinitely diverse intercultural communication situations” (pp. 61-62). An alternative approach can be characterised as process-orientated because it focuses not on items to be taught and learned, but on what the learner does with the language. A task-based approach is very much process-orientated because it focuses on “learning through doing” i.e. on tasks.
For our purposes it is useful to distinguish between pedagogic and authentic tasks. In the case of the former, students are asked to do things which are unlikely to occur outside the classroom, information gap activities or ordering scrambled sentences are examples of these. With authentic tasks students are asked to complete activities which are likely to be carried out in real life once the student has left the classroom. Working with a map to ask a classmate for directions, or listening for a departure time and gate number for a specific flight, would be examples of this. The example discussed below can be viewed as authentic, given certain assumptions about the learners. But let us firstly address a reservation by some to adopting a task-based approach.
A primary objection to task-based approaches is that they are considered unworkable and removed from every-day teaching and learning contexts. It is an argument which I have never really accepted because the approach can be implemented at various levels – it is really about encouraging learners to do useful, interesting and meaningful activities with language and this can be applied in a range of contexts. Indeed, the various levels at which task-based approaches can be delivered (even within a traditional structural syllabus) and a variety of case studies exploring how to do so is discussed in an excellent edited publication by Breen and Littlejohn (2000).
This work goes a considerable way to addressing these objections. However, once computers are introduced into the ELT curriculum, and our discussion to date touches upon the case for doing so, then task-based approaches become arguably the only way to effectively take into account the changes in language that we have identified and to shift to an EIL/EGL perspective.
We have already noted the issue of the digital divide and I am addressing the discussion here at those practitioners who, along with their students, have regular access to networked computers in their teaching context. It would be undesirable and arguably quite impossible to list the variety of language generated by CMC and/or posted on web pages. It is, as we have noted, rapidly changing, subject to trend and fashion and varies in different contexts. This makes product-based approaches virtually impossible; in contrast, as we will see, task-based approaches represent a perfect match! It is very easy to devise simple, achievable tasks which encourage students to use email to communicate with each other, their tutors and the wider world; likewise it is not difficult to find useful meaningful ways in which students access and even post information on the web. The needs of the learners and the contexts in which they work will ultimately determine the most appropriate tasks.
Jarvis (2004, 2003, 2001) for example provides extensive accounts of how such ideas can be realised with English for Academic Purposes students. Similar ideas can be utilised with general English students, they might for example be asked to prepare a travel itinerary for a visitor to their country, province or city. This could involve accessing web sites to note and decide upon the best places to visit, using the web and email to arrange flight bookings to and from the city, negotiating amongst themselves (via email) on the best options etcetera.
4. Conclusions
Several key threads emerge from our discussions. Computers are, on the one hand, impacting on the way in which we define our subject matter (EFL/ESL vs. EIL/EGL) and, on the other hand, are also impacting upon the English language, upon the subject matter itself. This new age would seem to go hand in hand with task-based approaches and represents challenges for everyone involved in ELT. For practitioners, applied linguists and educators there is a changed dynamic in which computers have now become much more than a tool or a tutor for developing language skills. This traditional distinction (Levy, 1997) would no longer seem adequate. Warschauer and Healey (1998) have observed that it is now less a question of the role of computers in the language classroom and more a question of the role of the language classroom in an information technology society.
Language teaching education is clearly entering a new and largely uncharted phase and we would seem to be at a crossroads. Warchauer and Kern (2000) have identified this as a “sociocognitive phase” where, unlike in previous phases, students interact with each other and the world via the computer. A great deal of work has focused on the value of computers in learning or second language acquisition (see for example Cameron, 1999; Chambers and Davies, 2001; Chapelle, 2000; Debski and Levy, 1999; Egbert and Hanson-Smith, 1999) but rather less, beyond resource publications (Dudeney, 2000; Sperling, 1998; Teeler, 2000; Windeatt et. al. 2000), on the implications of the content of teaching itself, i.e. the syllabus.
The task-based syllabus offers a way forward and practitioners will need to reflect upon what is achievable within their own contexts. In addressing these challenges we will clearly need to develop a sense in which English belongs to the students and their fellow countrymen and women just as much as anyone else and to do this we will need to avoid classifying the vast majority of users as “foreign” or “second” language learners. ELT would seem to be at a crossroads and it is heartening to see that much of the momentum for change is coming from, and driven by, practitioners and students from the Asian nations and from journals such as this one.
References
Breen, M. and Littlejohn, A. (Eds.). (2000). Classroom decision-making negotiation and process syllabus in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. and Coffin, C. (Eds.). (2001). Analysing English in a global context. London and New York: Routledge.
Chambers, A. and Davies, G. (Eds.). (2001). ICT and language learning. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Chapelle, C. (2000). Computers applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Debski, R. and Levy, M. (Eds.). (1999). World CALL. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Dudeney, G. (2000). The Internet and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, J. and Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, Virginia: TESOL Inc.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graddol, D. (2000). The future of English?: A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century (2nd Edition). The British Council.
Jarvis, H. (in press). Issues of computer mediated communication (CMC) for English Language Teaching. British Journal of Education Technology.
Jarvis, H. and Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shifting paradigms: From a communicative to a context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal, 6(4).
Jarvis, H. (2004). Investigating the classroom applications of computers on EFL courses at Higher Education Institutions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 111-137.
Jarvis, H. (2001). Internet usage of English for academic purposes courses. ReCall. 13(2), 206-212.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nunan D. (1988). The learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunn, R. (2005). Competence and teaching English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 61-74.
Phan Le Ha. (2005). Towards a critical notion of appropriation of English as an international language. Asian EFL Journal, 7(4), 34-46.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1987). Looking up: An account of the Cobuild Project in lexical computing. London & Glasgow: Collins ELT.
Sperling, D. (1998). Internet guide (2nd Edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Teeler, D. with Gray, P. (2000). How to use the Internet in ELT. Harlow: Longman.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Languages.com: The Internet and linguistic pluralism. In Snyder (Ed.), Silicon literacies: Communication, innovation and education in the electronic age (pp. 62-74). London: Routledge.
Warschauer, M. and Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
White, R. (1988). The ELT curriculum: Design, innovation & management. Oxford: Blackwell.
Windeatt, S., Hardisty, D., & Eastment, D. (2000). The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
