Technology and Second Language Learning: Promises and Problems

Technology-Mediated Learning Environments for Young English Learners: Connections In and Out of School

Volumn , Issue , 2023, Pages 167-205

  Zhao, Yong ^a   Lai, Chun ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85162727455     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781003418009-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (145)

1. Abams, Z. I. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expand-ing the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503.
2. Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabu-lary acquisition. A comparative study. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 1, 202-232.
3. Bacon, S. & Finnemann, M. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies ofuniversity foreign language students and their disposition to authentic oral andwritten input. Modern Language Journal, 74, 459-473.
4. Beauvois, M. H. (1997). Computer-mediated communication: Technology for improv-ing speaking and writing. In M. D. Bush (Ed.), Technology enhanced language learning (pp. 165-184). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
5. Bernstein, J. (1997). Automatic spoken language assessment by telephone (Tech. Rep.No. 5-97). Menlo Park, CA: Entropic, Inc.
6. Bernstein, J., Cohen, M., Murveit, H., Rtischev, D., & Weintraub, M. (1990). Auto-matic evaluation and training in English pronunciation. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Spoken Language Processing (7CSLP), Kobe, Japan. November 18-22.
7. Bernstein, J., Najmi, A., & Ehsani, F. (1999). Subarashii: Encounters in Japanese spo-ken language education. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 361-384.
8. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication. A window on L2 Spanish inter-language. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136.
9. Branaman, L., Rhodes, N., & Rennie, J. (1998). A national survey of K-12 foreign lan-guage education. ERIC Review, 6(1), 13.
10. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges increating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learn-ing Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
11. Burston, J. (2001). Exploiting the potential of a computer-based grammar checker in conjunction with self-monitoring strategies with advanced level students of French. CALICO Journal, 18(3), 499-515.
12. Cahill, D., & Catanzaro, D. (1997). Teaching first-year Spanish online. CALICO Journal, 14(2), 97-114.
13. Candlin, C. N., & Mercer, N. (2001). English language teaching in its social context. Areader. London and New York: Routledge.
14. Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisi-tion. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
15. Carroll, S. E., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. An empiri-cal study of the learning of linguistic generalisations. Studies in Second Lan-guage Acquisition, 15(2), 357-386.
16. Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approach. An overview. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 1-3). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
17. Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1996). Cognitive load while learning to use a computerprogram. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 151-170.
18. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundationsfor teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
19. Choi, H. (2001). Peer interaction at the computer: Korean primary school childrenworking with software for learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College.
20. Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of inter-active competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
21. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1997). Research on text comprehension in multimedia environments. Language Learning and Technology, 1(1), 60-81.
22. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
23. Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications for instructional design. Educational Technology, January, 33-37.
24. Coniam, D. (1998). The use of speech recognition software as an English language oralassessment instrument. An Exploratory Study. CALICO Journal, 15(4), 7-24.
25. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.
26. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery andinvention. New York: HarperCollins.
27. Cziko, G. A. & Park, S. J. (2003). Internet audio communication for second languagelearning. A comparative review of six programs. Language Learning and Tech-nology, 7, 1, 15-27.
28. Dalby, J., and Kewley-Port, D. (1999). Explicit pronunciation training using automaticspeech recognition. CALICO Journal, 16, 425-445.
29. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acqui-sition. NY: Cambridge University Press.
31. Egan, K. B. (1999). Speaking. A critical skill and a challenge. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 277-293.
32. Egbert, J., Chao, C.-c., & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Computer-enhanced languagelearning environment. An overview. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 1-16). Alexan-dria, VA: TESOL.
33. Egbert, J. & Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Virginia: TESOL Publications.
34. Ehsani, F., & Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learn-ing: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 45-60.
35. Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y. & Yamazaki, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491.
36. Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
37. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESLclassroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
38. Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronun-ciation tutoring: Some issues and a prototype. Language Learning and Technol-ogy, 2(2), 62-76.
39. Farley, A. P. (2005). Structured input: Grammar instruction for the acquisition-orientedclassroom. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
40. Felix, U. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teach-ing. ReCALL, 14, 1, 2-15.
41. Fischer, P. M., & Mandl, H. (1988). Knowledge acquisition by computerized audiovi-sual feedback. European Journal of Psychologies of Education, 3, (2), 217-232.
42. Freeman, M. A., & Capper, J. M. (1999). Exploiting the web for education. An anony-mous asynchronous role simulation. Australian Journal of Educational Technol-ogy, 15(1), 95-116.
43. Freiermuth, M. (2001). Native speaker or non-native speakers: Who has the floor?Online and face-to-face interaction in culturally mixed small groups. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 169-199.
44. Garcia Carbonell, A., Rising, B., Montero, B., & Watts, F. (2001). Simulation/gamingand the acquisition of communicative competence in another language. Simulation and Gaming, 32(4), 481-491.
45. Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating research areas. A framework for second language stud-ies. Applied Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
46. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition. An introductory course(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-301.
49. Godwin-Jones, B. (2001). Emerging technologies: E-books and the Tablet PC. Lan-guage Learning and Technology, 5(3), 7-12.
50. Gonzalez-Bueno, M. (1998). The effects of electronic mail on Spanish L2 discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 55-70.
51. Green, A., & Youngs, B. E. (2000). Using the Web in elementary French and Ger-man courses: Quantitative and qualitative study results. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 89-123.
52. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 15-41).New York: Macmillan.
53. Hanson-Smith, E. (1999). Classroom practice: Content area tasks in CALL environ-ments. In J. Egbert & E. H. Smith (Eds.), CALL Environments (pp. 116-136). Bloomington, IL: TESOL.
54. Harless, W. G., Zier, M. A., & Duncan, R. C. (1999). Virtual dialogues with nativespeakers: The evaluation of an interactive multimedia method. CALICO Jour-nal, 16(3), 313-337.
55. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis, speech acts and second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie (Eds.), Second language acquisition research (pp. 137-55). New York. Academic Press.
56. Healey, D. (1999). Classroom practice: Communicative skill-building tasks in CALL envi-ronments. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues (pp. 302-314). Virginia: TESOL Publications.
57. Heift, T., Toole, J., McFetridge, P., Popowich, F., & Tsiplakou, S. (2000). LearningGreek with an adaptive and intelligent hypermedia system. Interactive Multi-media Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 2, 2.
58. Herron, C., Cole, S. P., Corrie, C., &Dubreil, S. (1999). The effectiveness of a video-basedcurriculum in teaching culture. Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 518-533.
59. Herron, C., Dubreil, S., Cole, S. P., & Corrie, C. (2000). Using instructional video to teachculture to beginning foreign language students. CALICO Journal, 17(3), 395-430.
60. Holland, V. M., Kaplan, J. D., & Sabol, M. A. (1999). Preliminary tests of languagelearning in a speech-interactive graphics microworld. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 339-359.
61. Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differential effects on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36.
62. Jacobs, G., & Rodgers, C. (1999). Treacherous allies: Foreign language grammar check-ers. CALICO Journal 16(4), 509-530.
63. Johnson, B. (1999). Theory and research: Classroom atmosphere. In J. Egbert & E.Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Virginia: TESOL Publications.
64. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redun-dancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351-371.
65. Kelm, O. R. (1998). The use of electronic mail in foreign language classes. In K. Arens (Ed.), Language Learning Online (pp. 141-154). Austin TX: The Daedalus Group Inc.
66. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Lan-guage Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
67. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-basedlanguage teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). NY: Cambridge University Press.
68. Kitajima, R., & Lyman-Hager, M. A. (1998). Theory-driven use of digital video in for-eign language instruction. CALICO Journal, 16(1), 37-48.
69. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman Press.
70. Krashen, S. (1977) The monitor model for adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.) Viewpoints in English as a second language (pp. 152-161). New York: Regents.
71. Labrie, G. (2000). A French vocabulary tutor for the web. CALICO Journal, 17(3), 475-499.
72. Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning language and culture with the Inter-net. In R. M. Terry (Ed.), Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (pp. 215-262). Lincolnwood, IL: The National Textbook Company.
73. Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introductionto the special issue. Modern Language Journal, 78, 418-420.
74. LaRocca, S. A., Morgan, J. J., & Bellinger, S. M. (1999). On the path to 2X learning: Exploring the possibilities of advanced speech recognition. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 295-309.
75. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second language acqui-sition research. New York: Longman.
76. Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning. Acquiring cultural knowledge viaonline newspapers and intercultural exchanges via online chatrooms. CALICOJournal, 16(2), 101-120.
77. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
78. Levy, M., & Hinckfuss, J. (1990). Program design and student talk at computers. CAELL Journal, 1, 4, 21-26.
79. Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177-193.
80. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acqui-sition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-454). London. Academic Press, Inc.
81. Long, M. H. (1998). Task-based language teaching. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
82. Long, M. H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback inSLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
83. Lyman-Hager, M. A. (2000). Bridging the language-literature gap: Introducing litera-ture electronically to the undergraduate language student. CALICO Journal, 17, 3, 431-452.
84. Macheak, T. (2002). Learner vs. Instructor correction in adult second language acquisi-tion: Effects of oral feedback type on the learning of French grammar. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.
85. Maclntyre, P. D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2. A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
86. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development-an empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557-587.
87. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). Learners’ perceptions about feedback.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
88. Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30(4), 460-477.
89. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback. An exploration of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66.
90. Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language devel-opment: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
91. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evi-dence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90, 312-320.
92. Mercer, N., Fernandez, M., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2003). Talk about textsat the computer: Using ICT to develop children’s oral and literate abilities. Read-ing Literacy and Language, July, 81-89.
93. Meskill, C. (1992). Off-screen talk and CALL: Role of the machine/participant. CAELL Journal, 3(1), 2-9.
94. Mostow, J., Aist, G. (2001) Evaluating tutors that listen. An overview of project LIS-TEN. In K. Forbus and P. Feltovich (Eds.) Smart machines in education: Thecoming revolution in educational technology (pp. 169-234). Menlo Park, CA: MIT/AAAI Press.
95. Muyskens, J. A. (1998). New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on technology andforeign language education. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
96. Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 330-339.
97. Nagata, N. (1995). An effective application of natural language processing in secondlanguage instruction. CALICO Journal, 13, 1, 47-67.
98. Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to languagelearners. Language Learning, 51, 4, 719-758.
99. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction. A research synthesisand quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
100. Nutta, J. (1998). Is computer-based grammar instruction as effective as teacher-directed grammar instruction for teaching L2 structures? CALICO Journal, 16(1), 49-61.
101. Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assis-tance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.51-78). Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press.
102. Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair-work. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
103. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.New York: Newbury House.
104. Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the develop-ment of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practices (pp. 59-86). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
105. Pennington, M. C. (1996). The power of the computer in language education. In M. C.Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 1-14). Houston, TX. Athelstan.
106. Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’ noticing of recastsinNS-NNS interaction. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
107. Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., & Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners’ inter-action: How does it address the input, output, and feedback needs of L2 learn-ers? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 1, 59-84.
108. Reppen, R. (2001). Review of Monoconc Pro and Wordsmith tools. Language Learningand Technology, 5(3), 32-36.
109. Romiszowski, A. J., & Mason, R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), The handbook of research for educational communications andtechnology (pp. 438-456). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
110. Salaberry, M. R. (1996). A theoretical foundation for the development of pedagogical tasks in computer mediated communication. CALICO Journal, 14(1), 5-34.
111. Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teach-ing. A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39-56.
112. Sauvignon, S. (2001). Communicative language teaching for the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language.(pp. 3-13). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
113. Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second LanguageResearch, 7, 89-102.
114. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. AppliedLinguistics, 11, 129-158.
115. Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second languageinstruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
116. Schultz, J. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language cur-riculum. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice, (pp. 121-150). New York: Cambridge University Press.
117. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics (10), 209-231.
118. Shea, P. (2000). Leveling the playing field. A study of captioned interactive video forsecond language learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 243-263.
119. Sinyor, R. (1997). An analysis of student behavior and error sources in an Italian CALL context. CALICO Journal, 14(2-4), 35-50.
120. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
121. Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing-Does it motivate EFL stu-dents? ELT Journal, 53, 270-277.
122. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction. An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
123. Surry, D. W., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What’s wrong with media comparison studies? Educational Technology, July-August, 32-35.
124. Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
125. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook &B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in hon-our of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
126. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierney, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load as a factor in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-eral, 119(2), 176-192.
127. Taylor, M. (1990). Simulations and adventure games in CALL. Simulation and Gam-ing, 21(4), 461-466.
128. Thorton, P., & Dudley, A. (1996). The CALL environment. An alternative to the lan-guage lab. CAELL Journal, 7(4), 29-34.
129. Trahey, M., & White, L. (1993). Positive evidence and preemption in the second lan-guage classroom. Studies of Second Language Acquisition, 15, 2, 181-204.
130. U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Home computer and internet uses in the United States. August 2000. Washington DC. Author.
131. VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction. Norwood, NJ. Ablex.
132. VanPatten, B. (2000). Thirty years of input. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. E. Ander-son, C. A. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.) Social and cognitive factors in second lan-guage acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 Second Language Research Forum (pp. 287-311). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
133. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Theconcept of activity in soviet psychology, (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
134. Wachowicz, K. A. & Scott, B. (1999). Software that listens: It’s not a question of whether, it’s a question of how. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 253-276.
135. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning. An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia Language Teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.
136. Warschauer, M. (1998). Researching technology in TESOL: Determinist, instrumentaland critical approaches. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 757-761.
137. Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
138. Weyers, J. R. (1999). The effects of authentic video on communicative competence. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 339-349.
139. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the devel-opment of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
140. White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some effects ofpositive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7(2), 133-161.
141. White, L. (1998). Universal grammar in second language acquisition: Thenature of interlanguage representation. Paper presented at the UG Access InL2 Acquisition: Reassessing The Question. Second Language Research Forum, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 15-18 October, 1998.
142. Wild, M., & Braid, P. (1996). Children’s talk in cooperative groups. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 12(4), 216-231.
143. Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listener’s control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 49-68.
144. Zhao, Y. (2003a). Recent developments in technology and language learning. A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7-27.
145. Zhao, Y. (2003b). What should teachers know about technology: Perspectives and prac-tices. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.