Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Exploring TPACK-SLA interface: insights from the

computer-enhanced classroom

Jun-Jie Tseng

To cite this article: Jun-Jie Tseng (2018) Exploring TPACK-SLA interface: insights from the
computer-enhanced classroom, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31:4, 390-412, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2017.1412324

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1412324

Published online: 18 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 87

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING, 2018
VOL. 31, NO. 4, 390–412
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1412324

Exploring TPACK-SLA interface: insights from the

computer-enhanced classroom
Jun-Jie Tseng
English Department, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) Technological pedagogical
proposed by Mishra and Koehler is a theoretical construct of content knowledge;
teacher knowledge that describes how teachers teach instructed SLA; L2
subject matter content using certain instructional methods interaction; Cool English
with specific technology in particular contexts. This study
aims to explore the interface between TPACK and SLA,
intending to examine (a) how a Taiwanese English teacher
enhanced L2 interaction and (b) how her students perceived
such teaching. While data regarding the teacher’s TPACK-SLA
knowledge was collected through lesson plans, classroom
observations, and interviews, data associated with students’
perceptions was obtained through a questionnaire survey
and focus-group interviews. The findings suggest that the
teacher enhanced L2 interaction by(a) drawing students’
attention to grammatical patterns through annotated
animations, (b) consolidating vocabulary use through image-
based exercises and a bilingual concordancer, and (c)
evaluating the use of sentence patterns through text-chatting
with a chatbot. While the students could improve learner-
computer interaction through obtaining enhanced input,
they could also develop inter-personal communication
competency through negotiating meaning. In addition, the
students appreciated the ways their teacher taught English
using Cool English. This study contributes some empirical
insights into how EFL teachers can draw upon practices
explored in instructed SLA to develop TPACK.

Introduction
There has been a tremendous growth in ICT available for educational use over
the past two decades (Godwin-Jones, 2016; Motteram, 2013). Despite the abun-
dance of ICT, research has shown that language teachers do not seem to realize
the full potential of ICT or even integrate it into their curricular teaching
(Andrei, 2017; Hutchison & Reinking, 2011; Kuure et al., 2016). Indeed, simply
adding a new piece of technology to existing teaching procedures and structures
does not necessarily lead to technology integration that enhances student

CONTACT Jun-Jie Tseng [email protected]

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 391

learning (Andrei, 2017; Koehler, Mishra, Akcaoglu, & Rosenberg, 2016). Teach-
ers need to understand how technology, pedagogy, and content interrelate in
order to develop an integrated form of knowledge, i.e. technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK), which would illustrate how ICT can be success-
fully integrated with appropriate pedagogical methods and the content of subject
matter (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Research on TPACK has indicated that the ways teachers integrate technol-
ogy into teaching are limited: mostly promoting student engagement and moti-
vation (Heitink, Voogt, Verplanken, Braak, & Fisser, 2016; Liu, 2016; Tseng,
2015; Wu & Wang, 2015), delivering instructional content and materials
(Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, & Freynik, 2014; Wu & Wang, 2015),
and/or supporting teacher lectures and students’ homework (Almas & Krums-
vik, 2008). Therefore, there is a need to expand the use of technology for instruc-
tional practices (Andrei, 2017). In the context of foreign language education, it
remains an open question as to how foreign language teachers can utilize tech-
nology beyond displaying content and increasing motivation. To address this
problem, SLA principles were employed to examine teachers’ TPACK, with par-
ticular attention on how teachers can promote technology-mediated interaction.
The present study intends to explore how an English teacher enhanced L2 inter-
action in the context of Cool English (CE, http://coolenglish.edu.tw), a portal
website created recently by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan, to help elemen-
tary and junior high school students to improve English learning. Currently,
there is little research on the interface between TPACK and SLA; thus, the find-
ings obtained in this study will add to an understanding of how EFL teachers
might draw upon practices and processes explored in instructed SLA to develop
or adapt TPACK.
A great bulk of research on students’ perceptions of using technologies to
learn foreign languages has been conducted; however, few studies have
attempted to investigate their perceptions of the ways their teachers apply
TPACK to curriculum teaching. Thus, the present study sought to explore EFL
students’ perceptions of the ways in which their teacher enacted TPACK to pro-
mote L2 interaction using CE, an area that is worth researching to examine the
impact of teachers’ TPACK on student’s perceptions.

Literature review
Technological pedagogical content knowledge
Extended from Shulman’s (1986, 1987) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
TPACK is a theoretical construct of teacher knowledge proposed by Mishra and
Koehler (2006). It describes how teachers teach subject matter content using cer-
tain instructional methods with specific technology in particular contexts.
TPACK is enacted as they develop three domains of core knowledge,
392 J.-J. TSENG

Figure 1. The TPACK framework (reproduced by permission of the publisher, ©2011 by http://
tpack.org).

i.e. technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), and content

knowledge (CK), as well as manage the complexity of the interplay among the
three knowledge bodies, i.e. technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), tech-
nological content knowledge (TCK), PCK, and then TPACK itself. See Figure 1
for an illustration of the TPACK framework. TPACK refers to the integrated
knowledge that underlines teachers’ actions for technology integration and thus
serves to guide teachers to achieve creative integration of technology into teach-
ing practice. Since the TPACK framework was created, researchers have been
examining TPACK in subject-specific contexts, investigating TPACK develop-
ment in various teacher development contexts, and assessing the TPACK con-
struct (e.g. AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology, 2008; Angeli &
Valanides, 2015; Herring, Koehler, & Mishra, 2016).
TPACK is concerned with the knowledge base teachers need for technology
integration. One aspect of knowledge base needs teachers to identify and actual-
ize the affordances of a specific technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Affordan-
ces refer to how technology is meaningful and beneficial to its users. In an
educational context, teachers need to develop a deep understanding of techno-
logical affordances so that they can help students to learn critically with technol-
ogy. As teachers design their curriculum, they should assess the potentials and
limits of technology and subsequently actualize technological affordances in
practice. In fact, technology integration is not merely about maximizing techno-
logical affordances; it is a process in which teachers need to find appropriate
matches between those affordances and their pedagogical goals (Haines, 2015).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 393

This is ‘techno-pedagogical competence’ (Guichon & Hauck, 2011), which iden-

tifies skills and understanding that teachers need for appropriate technology
integration in the classroom (Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Hubbard & Levy, 2006).
Teachers need to not only recognize specific features of the technological tool
but also appreciate the pedagogical possibilities it offers.
How the TPACK framework contributes to research on teacher knowledge of
technology integration is to highlight teachers’ capability to juggle technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge. Hofer and Harris (2012) suggest that
teachers should focus more on what to teach with particular technological tools
rather than how to teach with the tools. As the TPACK research community
continues to help teachers improve their content-specific TPACK, research on
integrating English as a foreign language (EFL) curriculum into TPACK has
been lagging behind. In the present study, content-specific technology, CE, was
adopted to investigate EFL teachers’ TPACK, since the portal website provides
EFL teachers with an ideal opportunity to explore conditions that help integrate
content-appropriate technology into the existing EFL curriculum.

Improving L2 interaction in the interface between TPACK and SLA

The TPACK framework is often used to understand how teachers apply their
TPACK to what they do with technology in the classroom, and why and how
they do it. However, the theoretical framework is merely an abstracted represen-
tation of reality, unable to detail particular aspects of teaching phenomena (Her-
ring, Koehler, Mishra, Rosenberg, & Teske, 2016). Therefore, there is a need to
clarify the framework (Benton-Borghi, 2013). In the context of foreign language
education, SLA theory has proven useful for evaluating the qualities of technol-
ogy-enhanced language teaching and learning (Chapelle, 2003, 2016a; Chun,
2016; Peterson, 2013), so SLA principles probably have a role to play in deepen-
ing our understanding of teacher knowledge. In this sense, SLA principles can
be considered to be subsumed or integrated within the TPACK framework. This
enhanced model provides the interface of TPACK-SLA, shedding light on how
EFL teachers apply SLA principles to technology integration.
In fact, little is known about how TPACK can be enacted in the process of
foreign language teaching and learning from the perspective of SLA. Of particu-
lar interest is how EFL teachers make use of content-specific technological affor-
dances to enhance L2 interaction when EFL learners receive input as well as
when they communicate with English speakers. Chapelle (2003) applies three
types of interaction to various forms of Computer Assisted Language Learning
(CALL) tasks: intra-personal interaction within the person’s mind, interaction
between person and computer, and inter-personal communication between peo-
ple. Intra-personal interaction needs learners to attend to linguistic form; per-
son-computer interaction describes the process of obtaining enhanced input;
inter-personal communication engages learners in negotiating meaning. The
394 J.-J. TSENG

present study focuses on person-computer interaction and person-person inter-

action, excluding intra-personal interaction which is not directly and/or explic-
itly observable.
Technology has been explored in CALL research in relation to SLA processes
(Chapelle, 2003, 2016a; Chun, 2016). In particular, hypermedia has been used to
enhance interaction between the learner and the computer. As Chapelle (2003)
indicates, input enhancement refers to how linguistic input is made comprehen-
sible to the learner through hypermedia such as text marking, images, and
online help – L2 dictionary definition and L1 translation. Input enhancement
can also take place in the form of input salience. For example, target forms can
be made salient through repeated exposure via a concordancer that can provide
example sentences repeating particular vocabulary usage. Input enhancement
has been proven helpful to the learner in the learning of vocabulary and gram-
mar (e.g. Deridder, 2002; Doughty, 1991; Yoshii, 2013). With regard to promot-
ing inter-personal interaction, computer-mediated communication (CMC)
technology is applied to meaning negotiation in social interaction (K€ otter, 2002;
Smith, 2003). Text-based chat in particular is often adopted to develop students’
communicative competence. Studies have confirmed that chat helps promote
the noticing of meaning negotiation, thus increasing the learner’s focus on form
(Kitade, 2000; K€otter, 2002; Lai & Zhao, 2006; Lee, 2008; Schenker, 2015; Yuksel
& Inan, 2014). Furthermore, as Golonka et al. (2014) have reviewed, the learner
is able to construct or practice complex structures through chat. Chat can also
be integrated into meaning negotiation among beginning language learners
(Schenker, 2015).
A number of research studies have been conducted to explore Taiwanese EFL
teachers’ TPACK (Chien, 2016; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Tai, 2015; Tseng, 2015;
Wang, 2016; Wu & Wang, 2015). What these studies have commonly found is
that EFL teachers seem to use technology to represent content and input for the
purpose of motivating and attracting students, but rarely providing them with
opportunities of technology-enhanced interaction. As Wu and Wang (2015)
reported, 22 in-service EFL elementary school teachers in Taiwan applied their
TPACK generally to motivating students rather than engaging them in the
meaningful and authentic communication of English language. Similarly, Tai
(2015) carried out 15-hour TPACK-in-Action CALL workshops, in which 24
elementary school English teachers learned to integrate various technology into
EFL teaching for the development of CALL competency. She found that the
teachers would particularly use online materials and video clips to represent
content. By the same token, Tseng (2015) unraveled an elementary school
English teacher’s TPACK in the context of improving L2 learner engagement
via the use of tablets. To draw the interest, attention, and curiosity of 234 fifth-
and sixth-graders, the teacher enhanced linguistic input by taking advantage of
audio and image capture capabilities to create and annotate multimedia-based
supplementary teaching materials in her classes.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 395

Although much has been written on examining EFL teachers’ TPACK, there
is little direct evidence on how SLA principles can be integrated into their exist-
ing TPACK. The present study fills this gap by addressing the interface between
TPACK and SLA with a focus on an EFL teacher’s experience of maximizing L2
interaction using CE, specifically with regard to learner-computer interaction
and inter-personal communication.

Students’ perceptions
As Golonka et al. (2014) reviewed, several studies confirmed that EFL learners
generally exhibited a positive attitude towards technology-enhanced language
learning in that technology was observed to create an engaging, enjoyable learn-
ing environment. With regard to interaction in CALL environments, Ariew and
Ercetin (2004) investigated whether reading comprehension was facilitated by
certain types of hypermedia annotations, such as text, graphics, audio, and video
annotations, when 103 adult ESL students at the University of Arizona were
developing reading comprehension through hypermedia reading software.
Word definition was perceived as highly useful by the participants because this
annotation increased their speed of reading. Some of them also rated word pro-
nunciation and audio recording highly due to the opportunity to improve their
pronunciation. Similarly, Tsang (2010) explored 10 students’ perceptions of
learner-content interaction in an online learning environment. While text-based
online content ranked lowest, multiple representations were considered useful.
Although the affordances of technologies have been identified and confirmed in
research on learners’ perceptions, little is known about how EFL students’ per-
spectives buttress the applications of TPACK to interaction procedures and
tasks. Therefore, this study intends to investigate whether TPACK-SLA enact-
ments can be validated through learners’ perceptions.

Research questions
The purpose of the present study is to explore the interface between TPACK and
SLA, thus intending to shed light on how EFL teachers might draw upon practi-
ces and processes explored in instructed SLA to develop or adapt TPACK. Of
particular interest is how the teacher utilized CE to promote L2 interaction. Fur-
thermore, this study also investigated how EFL students perceived such
TPACK-SLA enactments. These research purposes serve to frame the research
questions that follow, intending to enable foreign language teachers and TPACK
researchers to better understand the representation of TPACK in foreign/second
language teaching and learning.

(1) How did the EFL teacher apply Cool English to enhancing L2 interaction?
(2) How did the students perceive the ways their teacher taught with Cool
English?
396 J.-J. TSENG

Methodology
Participants
The present study focuses on one English teacher, Cynthia pseudonymously, a
purposive sample due to the recommendation of a more experienced colleague,
Cheryl, who was studying in the doctoral TESOL program of the university
where the researcher works. At the time of the study, Cynthia was 30 years old,
with four years’ teaching experience at a junior high school in Taipei city. She
often applied technology to her teaching; for example, playing publisher-
provided videos to facilitate students’ reading and listening, playing Power-
Point-based games to engage students, and playing Internet-based videos to
extend student learning. These two teachers and the researcher formed a profes-
sor-teacher teaching community. While Cheryl’s main role was to support Cyn-
thia as an assistant pedagogically, technically, and psychologically in class, the
researcher served as a pedagogical expert to help Cynthia align SLA with
TPACK through class observations and post-teaching discussions.
The present study used a convenience sample of 24 first-year junior high stu-
dents in Cynthia’s class. Of the cohort of 24 students, 15 were male and 9 female.
All of the participants were aged between 13 and 14. They had studied English
since the third year of elementary school. Their English proficiency was gener-
ally at the beginning level, with a few tending towards intermediate level.

Teaching with Cool English

CE is an English learning website (http://www.coolenglish.edu.tw), which was
created in 2015 and has been continually developed and maintained by a team
led by Professor Howard Hao-Jan Chen of National Taiwan Normal University
under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. The purpose of
establishing this platform was to help elementary and junior high school stu-
dents improve their English proficiency, boost their learning motivation, and
satisfy their autonomy needs. CE features include an alignment with the national
curriculum, the inclusion of all relevant language knowledge and skill develop-
ment, and the incorporation of various technologies. In particular, multimedia,
automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, a corpus, and games
are utilized to facilitate the learning of vocabulary, grammar, reading, listening,
pronunciation, speaking, and writing. For example, animation is used to provide
visual dialogues for listening and speaking practice; automatic speech recogni-
tion to offer corrective feedback on pronunciation errors; natural language proc-
essing to enable interaction between the chatbot and students for text-based
communication; a corpus to afford bilingual comparisons for vocabulary usage;
and games to engage students in role-play adventures embedded with vocabu-
lary and grammar exercises.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 397

For the CE project, Cynthia took students to a computer classroom for actual
practice with CE two periods a week for 6 weeks. The first session dealt with par-
ticipant training on CE, including signing up to the platform, navigating its
interface, understanding its features and functions, and trialing sample lessons.
Afterwards, Cynthia proceeded to carry out CE teaching.

Data collection
Based on Sequential Mixed Method Design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007), this
study collected data qualitatively and quantitatively in three phrases. The first
phrase was to examine how Cynthia applied TPACK to enhancing L2 interac-
tion in the context of CE through qualitative methods such as lesson plans, class-
room observations, and interviews. She wrote up brief lesson plans for each
teaching session. To ensure his understanding of the lesson plans, the researcher
went to observe the teacher’s teaching three times, i.e. in the beginning, the mid-
dle, and the end of the CE project. He took field notes on the three classroom
observations. Right after each observation, he proceeded to interview the teacher
with an in-depth look at her narratives of how she applied CE to the curriculum
from the perspective of TPACK-SLA interface. The interviews were audio-
recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim.
The second phase dealt with the design of the questionnaire survey and focus-
group interviews to elicit students’ perceptions of learning with CE. After ana-
lyzing the data collected in the first phase, the researcher identified technologies
that Cynthia incorporated into her teaching, i.e. while situated dialogue anima-
tions and chatbot were used to facilitate the learning of grammar, image-based
vocabulary exercises and an English-Chinese concordancer served the purpose
of enhancing the learning of vocabulary. Subsequently, a 12-item survey instru-
ment was developed to investigate the degree to which the students perceived
Cynthia’s teaching as (a) the enjoyment of interacting with CE, (b) the opportu-
nity to practice English on CE, and (c) the helpfulness of learning activities with
CE. Each question type included four statements that involved students’ percep-
tions of learning English through situated dialogue animations (items 1, 5, 9),
themed vocabulary exercises (items 2, 6, 10), the English-Chinese concordancer
(items 3, 7, 11), and text-chatting with a chatbot (items 4, 8, 12). Each item was
rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale. In addition, focus-group interviews were
employed to triangulate questionnaire results by seeking students’ multiple
viewpoints on the ways they interacted with CE and to develop a deeper under-
standing of why they favored particular technologies.
The final phase involved implementing the questionnaire survey and focus-
group interviews. The questionnaire was administered to all participating stu-
dents (N = 24) at the end of the project. Subsequently, two interviews were con-
ducted respectively with four students at a time: two of high-level English
proficiency and two of middle-level or below. They were encouraged to express
398 J.-J. TSENG

their thoughts and echo each other’s ideas. Each interview, taking about
30 minutes, was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for data analysis.

Data analysis
Cynthia’s TPACK in relation to L2 interaction was analyzed through her lesson
plans, triangulated with the researcher’s observation notes and interview tran-
scriptions. Data analysis was guided by the TPACK-SLA interface framework,
which integrates Koehler and Mishra’s (2006) TPACK with Chapelle’s (2003)
instructed SLA principles in CALL environments, as discussed previously in the
section of literature review. To put it simply, special attention was paid to how
the teacher applied her knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content with a
focus on the enhancement of computer-mediated interaction. Adopting
grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), data analysis was conducted in an
inductive process, in which the researcher and his research assistant separately
conducted open coding, developed relationships among the open codes, and
finally identified themes. First of all, they read through lesson plans several times
and tentatively created labels for any instances of technology integration. For
example, a scenario where the students were asked to go through example sen-
tences shown on the bilingual concordancer for a particular vocabulary word
would be coded as ‘examining example sentences generated through the concor-
dancer.’ Then, this open coding was probably categorized with other coding
results respectively into ‘exploring multiple-meaning vocabulary words via the
concordancer’ from the perspective of TPACK and into ‘accessing example sen-
tences that repeat particular usage’ from the perspective of SLA. Such theoretical
coding might further develop into a theme: ‘consolidating vocabulary use
through the concordancer,’ with a focus on ‘obtaining enhanced input’ that is
claimed to contribute to learner-computer interaction.
To establish the inter-rater reliability, the researcher and his research assistant
initially met for reaching a consensus on coding procedures and principles, and
finally confirmed with each other for coding discrepancies and conflicts. Coding
consistency was assessed through Kappa statistic that can measure the degree of
agreement between two coders. In consequence, the coding results were gener-
ally consistent with a Kappa-statistic value, 0.68, according to Landis and Koch’s
(1977) interpretation that a Kappa value between 0.41 and 0.60 is moderate,
between 0.61 and 0.80 substantial, and greater than 0.80 almost perfect.
With regard to students’ perceptions, data collected from the questionnaire
was calculated into percentiles, indicating the degree to which students agreed
on the ways CE affected their English learning: specifically (a) the enjoyment of
interacting with CE, (b) the opportunity to practice English on CE, and (c) the
helpfulness of CE. Furthermore, the interview transcriptions were inductively
analyzed to seek patterns (Silverman, 2000). The researcher coded the data,
searching for passages that revealed students’ thoughts on using CE to learn
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 399

English. The passages were labeled and subsequently compared to identify

patterns.

Findings
Applying CE to enhancing L2 interaction
The teacher applied CE to the curriculum lessons when she finished teaching a
certain textbook lesson and reviewed it with students through a particular CE
unit she selected. The content she would like to review involved vocabulary and
grammatical patterns. To ensure individual practice on the content, she would
take students to the computer classroom where they could work individually on
online lessons and exercises available on CE. Although CE content was not an
exact online version of the textbook she was teaching, the digital resource was
considered a potential way to supplement textbook teaching. Three ways to inte-
grate CE into the textbook curriculum were identified as follows: (a) drawing
students’ attention to grammatical patterns through annotated animations, (b)
consolidating vocabulary use through image-based exercises and the bilingual
concordancer, and (c) evaluating the use of sentence patterns through text-chat-
ting with a chatbot. As for other CE resources, they are not covered in this study
for two reasons: the teacher quit incorporating automatic speech recognition
due to the unavailability of microphones in the computer classroom and she
failed in her attempt to install the RPG game on a number of laptop computers
due to access to a weak Wi-Fi signal in the general classroom.

Drawing students’ attention to grammatical patterns through annotated

animations
Learner-computer interaction could be enhanced when the students were
afforded with an opportunity to access enhanced input, i.e. annotated anima-
tions. To begin with, the teacher would design and create a worksheet based on
a particular unit of situated dialogue animation. Students were asked to watch
the dialogue animation and subsequently complete the worksheet. As the stu-
dents listened to dialogues, they also watched animations that illustrated the use
of particular grammatical patterns in certain situations. Figure 2 shows a screen-
shot of a particular unit of one such situated dialogue animation. To ensure
student comprehension, the teacher would prompt the students with compre-
hension exercises created on the worksheet, such as fill-in-the-blank (e.g. This is
a park. There are trees, flowers and birds in the park. Two boys and a girl are
playing under a tree.) and short-answer questions (e.g. Where is the boy’s note-
book?). Grammatical patterns for review included the expletive ‘there’ (e.g. Is
there food in your room?), the imperative (e.g. Look at this picture.), and prepo-
sitions (e.g. It’s on your chair.).
The situated dialogue animations consist of two versions: with or without
annotation. The annotated version involved gloss notes, such as L1 translation
400 J.-J. TSENG

Figure 2. A screenshot of a situated dialogue animation.

Figure 3. A screenshot of an annotated animation.

and oral explanations. If students had a problem comprehending the non-anno-

tated version, they could access the annotated versions for help. This option
could promote learner-computer interaction in which students could pay atten-
tion to enhanced input, i.e. gloss notes. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of an anno-
tated animation.

Consolidating vocabulary use through image-based exercises and the bilingual

concordancer
Learner-computer interaction could be promoted when the teacher helped stu-
dents enhance vocabulary learning using image-based vocabulary exercises and
the bilingual concordancer. Image-based vocabulary exercises were thought to
reinforce or supplement the teaching of textbook vocabulary. If the teacher was
teaching vocabulary involving animals, she would assign a unit of animal vocab-
ulary exercises to students. For example, when doing such exercises, students
would be prompted with true/false definition-image vocabulary questions, as
shown in Figure 4. In this case, they could map word meaning and word form
by way of images that represent certain vocabulary definitions and concepts.
Such kind of image-based exercise helped the students to consolidate the recep-
tive use of vocabulary words.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 401

Figure 4. A screenshot of an image-based vocabulary exercise.

Figure 5. The English-Chinese concordancing results of there.

The mapping between vocabulary meaning and word form also took place
when the teacher asked the students to explore multiple-meaning vocabulary
words through the bilingual concordancer. For example, when the students
keyed in a target word, e.g. there, they would obtain several entries for the target
word used in both English sentences and their Chinese equivalents. They would
see how many meanings the target word conveys and how it is used in corre-
sponding sentences. Then, they had to write down one of the example sentences
for particular usage. As Figure 5 indicates, ‘there’ can be used as an adverb both
for existence and for location. This process afforded the students an opportunity
to map word meaning and form. Meanwhile, when viewing example sentences,
the students would be repetitively exposed to target words with changing sen-
tence contexts. Figure 6 shows a screenshot of the bilingual concordancer.

Evaluating the use of sentence patterns through text-chatting with a chatbot

Inter-personal communication arose when the students were afforded an oppor-
tunity to negotiate meaning with a chatbot. After teaching a particular sentence
pattern, the teacher would provide students with a chance to evaluate the use of
402 J.-J. TSENG

Figure 6. A screenshot of the bilingual concordancer.

Table 1. The model of initiation-reply-evaluation-rating.

Initiation A reply from the chatbot Evaluation Rating
Be nice to Tricia. OK, I’ll try to be nice to Tricia. It’s a good response. 4

the target sentence pattern through text-chatting with a chatbot. The way she
wanted them to use the sentence pattern was illustrated as follows: (1) initiate a
dialogue with the chatbot, (2) receive a reply from the chatbot, (3) evaluate the
appropriateness of the reply, and (4) give a score to the appropriateness on the
rating scale of 1–4. For example, the teacher demonstrated the use of the imper-
ative in a particular situation on the worksheet, as shown in Table 1. Following
the model of the initiation-reply-evaluation-rating, the students proceeded to
talk with the chatbot and meanwhile noted down any results. Occasionally, they
found the chatbot’s replies were ‘weird’ and grammatically incorrect, as demon-
strated in the extract following this paragraph. The process described above
illustrates an instance in which the students could question the language use of
the chatbot. While the students were engaged in the meaning-oriented CMC
exchanges, their attention could be drawn to grammatical features and errors.
Figure 7 presents a screenshot of text-chatting with a chatbot.

Student: Where are you from?

Chatbot: I am from Taiwan.
Student: I am from Taiwan, too.
Chatbot: I am interesting in where is Taiwan, too. [sic]

Students’ perceptions
At the end of the CE teaching project, the researcher investigated students’ per-
ceptions of the ways their teacher integrated CE into curriculum lessons using
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 403

Figure 7. A screenshot of text-chatting with a chatbot.

the questionnaire survey and focus-group interviews. The survey results are
shown in Tables 2–4, respectively followed by findings obtained through focus-
group interviews.

1. The degree to which I agree on enjoying interacting with CE for English

learning.
Q1: I enjoyed learning English by watching situated dialogue animations.
Q2: I enjoyed learning English by doing themed vocabulary exercises.
Q3: I enjoyed learning English by running the bilingual concordancer.
Q4: I enjoyed learning English by text-chatting with a chatbot.

In particular, the students enjoyed learning English through situated dialogue

animations with the convenience of gloss help, as well as through the chatbot

Table 2. The percentage of students with the degree of their agreement on the enjoyment of
learning English with CE.
Agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 17.4% 34.8% 43.5%
Q2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 21.7% 13.0% 52.2%
Q3 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 13.0% 8.7% 21.7% 47.8%
Q4 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 8.7% 17.4% 26.1% 43.5%

Table 3. The percentage of students with the degree of their agreement on more opportunity
provided by CE to practice English.
Agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q5 0.0% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 39.1% 47.8%
Q6 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 4.4% 13.0% 21.7% 56.5%
Q7 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 4.4% 17.4% 26.1% 47.8%
Q8 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 13.0% 21.7% 56.5%
404 J.-J. TSENG

Table 4. The percentage of students with the degree of their agreement on the helpfulness of
learning activities with CE.
Agreement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 13.0% 39.1% 43.5%
Q10 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 13.0% 17.4% 60.9%
Q11 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0% 13.0% 13.0% 60.9%
Q12 0.0% 0.0% 8.7% 13.0% 8.7% 26.1% 43.5%

with the simulation of meaning negotiation. The two benefits are revealed in the
following extracts.

! What I like the most is the situated dialogue animations because they pro-
vide not only … but also explanations of vocabulary and grammar.
! The situated dialogue animations are awesome with detailed explanations.
! I enjoyed talking with the chatbot. As I talked with him/her, I sometimes
had a feeling of engaging in an authentic chat despite an awareness that it
is merely a robot.
! What I like the most about the content of CE involves a talk with the chat-
bot because it not only increases my English proficiency but also enables us,
the children, to meet someone I can share the trivial affairs of my life with.

2. The degree to which I agree on the opportunity of practicing English

through CE.
Q5: I was provided with more opportunity to practice English through
watching situated dialogue animations.
Q6: I was provided with more opportunity to practice English through
doing themed vocabulary exercises.
Q7: I was provided with more opportunity to practice English through
running the bilingual concordancer.
Q8: I was provided with more opportunity to practice English through
text-chatting with a chatbot.

With regard to the opportunity of practicing English, the chatbot was thought to
provide favorable conditions for language practice, as evidenced in the accounts
below.

! When I talk with the chatbot, I can practice speaking and see how a coun-
terpart replies.
! I like the chatbot the most because he/she is unique and funny. However,
chatting with him/her is a little bit difficult, so for this reason I can have a
chance to fully practice English.

3. The degree to which I agree on the ways CE helped me learn English.

Q9: The way to learn English via situated dialogue animations was helpful
to me.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 405

Q10: The way to learn English via themed vocabulary exercises was help-
ful to me.
Q11: The way to learn English via the bilingual concordancer was helpful
to me.
Q12: The way to learn English via a chatbot was helpful to me.

In terms of the ways CE helped the students learn English, the gloss help on the
animations was considered most helpful, as illustrated in the following extracts.

! Cool English is very helpful to me. In particular, the animations can help to
promote English learning and furthermore provide explanations, which is
fantastic.
! The explanations provided in the animations help me obtain a better
understanding of the content.

To sum up, the above tables show that the degree to which the students
agreed on the ways to interact with CE, on the opportunity to practice English,
and on the helpfulness of CE was spotted largely between levels 6 and 7. This
indicates that the majority of the students held positive perceptions of the ways
in which CE was integrated into enhancing L2 interaction. In particular, they
acknowledged the interactions with situated dialogue animations and the chat-
bot for the benefits of obtaining gloss help and negotiating meaning.

Discussion
Applying CE to improving L2 interaction
As described previously, the ways the teacher applied CE to enhancing L2 inter-
action on CE were identified as follows: (a) drawing students’ attention to gram-
matical patterns through annotated animations, (b) consolidating vocabulary
use through image-based exercises and the bilingual concordancer, and (c) eval-
uating the use of sentence patterns through text-chatting with a chatbot. These
enactments of TPACK seemed to correspond to learner-computer interaction
and inter-personal communication, as hypothesized by Chapelle (2003). While
the students could promote learner-computer interaction through obtaining
enhanced input in the form of annotation, image, and repeated exposure, they
could also develop inter-personal communication competency through negoti-
ating meaning with a chatbot.
Leaner-computer interaction occurs in tasks in which students obtain
enhanced input (Chapelle, 2003). In this study, input enhancement took place
when the students reviewed grammar through the annotated animations. When
encountering comprehension problems, they could seek help through online
glosses, such as word definition, usage notes, L1 translation, and/or a brief oral
explanation. As the students comprehended the meaning of the dialogues, their
406 J.-J. TSENG

attention could be directed to language forms (Schmidt, 1990). This is a focus-

on-form instruction in which linguistic forms are made incidentally available in
meaning-oriented lessons (Long & Robinson, 1998). Input enhancement also
arose when they identified vocabulary definitions and concepts that were illus-
trated with images as well as when they searched for vocabulary usage through
the bilingual concordancer with example sentences that repeat particular usage.
The vocabulary exercises and the lexical concordancer provided an opportunity
to map word meaning and form as well as to consolidate the receptive use of
vocabulary words, the two stages highly promoted to enhance the effectiveness
of vocabulary learning in Ma’s (2017) four-stage vocabulary learning process
framework. To sum up, annotated animations, image-based vocabulary exer-
cises, and the concordancer created interaction opportunities in which students
could obtain enhanced input.
With regard to inter-personal communication, this occurred in tasks in which
the students text-chatted with a chatbot. Although the chatbot is not a real per-
son, the communication between the students and the chatbot, to an extent,
could be considered a simulation of meaning negotiation in that the students
attempted to notice and correct the errors spotted in the responses of the chat-
bot (Kitade, 2000) and to repair communication breakdowns in the case of inap-
propriate responses automatically generated by the chatbot (Chapelle, 2016b). In
fact, what was illustrated above involves language-related episodes in which lan-
guage learners can ‘talk about the language they are producing, question their
language use, or correct themselves or others’ (Swain & Lapkin, 1998, p. 326).
Language-related episodes can be incorporated into language lessons based on
meaning negotiation (Jackson, 2001), as demonstrated in the use of the chatbot
for practicing grammatical patterns in the present study.
The ways the teacher applied CE to improving L2 interaction revolved around
tasks in which the students could obtain enhanced input for learner-computer
interaction and negotiate meaning for inter-personal communication. Such find-
ings have not been reported in previous studies on EFL teachers’ TPACK, which
found EFL teachers mostly used technology to deliver content and motivate stu-
dents rather than for engaging students in interactive procedures or tasks (Chien,
2016; Liu & Kleinsasser, 2015; Tai, 2015; Tseng, 2015; Wang, 2016; Wu & Wang,
2015). In particular, the finding with regard to enabling students to obtain
enhanced input further advances Tseng’s (2015) research, which found a Taiwa-
nese elementary school English teacher applied TPACK to promoting learner
engagement with tablet technology rather than to enhance L2 interaction. Simi-
larly, the finding regarding negotiating meaning via the chatbot seems to further
extend Wu and Wang’s (2015) study, which suggested 22 in-service EFL elemen-
tary school teachers in Taiwan applied TPACK to motivating students rather
than engage them in meaningful communication. One reason for this discrepancy
may lie in not only the availability of personal computers to afford technology-
mediated interaction but also the teacher’s awareness of incorporating technology
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 407

into L2 interaction. The findings of the present study provide some evidence that
instructed SLA can play a role in contributing to TPACK development.

Students’ perceptions
As reported in the results gained through the questionnaire survey and the
focus-group interviews, the students appreciated the way situated dialogue ani-
mations were applied to enhancing the learning of grammatical patterns, placing
a high value on the situated animations and gloss help in developing a better
understanding of the content. This finding affirms previous studies on input
enhancement, which has proved helpful and effective to the learner in the learn-
ing of vocabulary and grammar (Deridder, 2002; Doughty, 1991; Golonka et al.,
2014; Tsang, 2010; Yoshii, 2013). For example, this result supports Ariew and
Ercetin (2004), who found that hypermedia annotations, such as word defini-
tion, were perceived highly useful in developing reading comprehension.
In addition, the students enjoyed learning in the task in which they text-chat-
ted with the chatbot practicing particular sentence patterns. The simulated
inter-personal communication, to an extent, enables technology-mediated inter-
action, in which the learner can engage in meaning negotiation and furthermore
develop communicative competence (K€ otter, 2002; Smith, 2003). As the stu-
dents evaluated the automatic responses of the chatbot, they found some of the
responses inappropriate and weird. This process prompted the students to
notice meaning negotiation, thus increasing their focus on form (Lai & Zhao,
2006; Schenker, 2015; Yuksel & Inan, 2014). Such a finding seems to echo
Schenker’s (2015) study, in which beginning foreign language learners, who
were thought to be anxious about handling the immediacy of synchronous
CMC, were eventually able to negotiate meaning and modify their responses in
synchronous one-on-one chats with native speakers. As one of the students
stated, it would be easier to talk to the chatbot than real people. The chatbot
could potentially serve as an effective communication tool for novice language
learners if they are anxious about engaging in immediate communication with
native speakers or if they do not have access to target counterparts.
With regard to the students’ appreciation of the language practice provided,
image-based vocabulary exercises involving visual word recognition required
less attention and effort, as compared to situated dialogue animations, the bilin-
gual concordancing, and text-chatting with the chatbot. However, this kind of
practice is needed for language learners to promote fluency, as argued by Gass
(2003) and Segalowitz (2003). The drill-based exercises are artificial and non-
communicative, but they can provide automaticity in which language learners
can be trained to read rapidly, accurately, and without undue hesitation (Segalo-
witz, 2003). Therefore, foreign language teachers can incorporate automaticity-
based exercises into their teaching for the development of learners’ linguistic
fluency.
408 J.-J. TSENG

Overall, the students acknowledged the ways their teacher integrated the CE
into the curriculum lessons, with a preference for enhancing grammar learning
through situated dialogue animations and the chatbot. The teacher’s TPACK
was empirically validated by the students’ perceptions. In other words, the
teacher’s TPACK exerted a discernible impact on student learning, in response
to Chai, Koh, and Tsai (2013) call for more research on Asian students’ percep-
tion of learning with technology.

Conclusion
The teacher applied CE to enhancing L2 interaction: specifically (a) drawing stu-
dents’ attention to grammatical patterns through annotated animations, (b) con-
solidating vocabulary use through image-based exercises and the bilingual
concordancer, and (c) evaluating the use of sentence patterns through text-
chatting with a chatbot. While the students could improve learner-computer
interaction through obtaining enhanced input in the form of annotation, image,
and repeated exposure, they could also develop inter-personal communication
competency through negotiating meaning with a chatbot. The present study has
explored how EFL teachers’ TPACK can expand from promoting motivation
and delivering content to enhancing L2 interaction. The results regarding the
interface of TPACK and SLA add to a deeper understanding of the particular
nature of TPACK, contributing some empirical insights into how EFL teachers
could draw upon practices and processes explored in instructed SLA to develop
or adapt TPACK. In addition, the teacher’s TPACK was acknowledged by the
students in that gloss help could help develop a better understanding of the con-
tent and chatbot could help foster their competency in negotiating meaning.
The ways the teacher applied TPACK to promoting L2 interaction were vali-
dated through students’ perceptions.
In addressing these research questions, the study had a number of limitations.
First, it should be noted that the findings of this study were restricted to the
computer classroom where one-on-one computers were provided; however, this
kind of special classroom may not be easily and conveniently accessible to EFL
teachers compared to computer science teachers. Future studies that incorporate
mobile technology into general classrooms could be a promising way forward.
Second, the generalization of the findings was limited to only one Taiwanese
junior high school English teacher’s TPACK, so they may not be applicable to
EFL teachers in other educational contexts. Future research could be conducted
on EFL teachers in other contexts, in order to illustrate the impact of the context
on teachers’ TPACK. Third, research analysis regarding students’ perceptions
relied on self-reported data collected through a questionnaire survey and inter-
views, likely failing to capture their actual learning in the classroom. It might be
beneficial to track L2 interaction on the CE through video capture software or
eye-tracking technology. Finally, learning effectiveness that is influenced by the
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 409

ways teachers apply their TPACK to the teaching was not specifically measured
here and is an obvious area for future investigation.

Acknowledgement
I am very grateful to the participating teachers involved in this study. My gratitude also goes
to the reviewers and the editor-in-chief. This article was subsidized by the National Taiwan
Normal University (NTNU), Taiwan, ROC.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
This work was supported by Center for Research on Foreign Language Teaching, Ministry of
Education, Taiwan [grant number 2015-R-002].

Notes on contributor
Jun-Jie Tseng is an associate professor in English Department of National Taiwan Normal
University, Taiwan. His research interests involve technological pedagogical content knowl-
edge, teacher education in CALL, online language teaching and learning, and multimodal
representation and communication. Research gate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Junç Jieç Tseng. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-tseng-292ba121/.

ORCID
Jun-Jie Tseng http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3738-9657

References
AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York, : Routledge.
Almas, A., & Krumsvik, R. (2008). Teaching in technology-rich classrooms: Is there a gap
between teachers’ intentions and ICT practices ? Research in Comparative and Interna-
tional Education, 3(2), 103–121.
Andrei, E. (2017). Technology in teaching English language learners: The case of three mid-
dle school teachers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 409–431.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (Eds.). (2015). Technological pedagogical content knowledge:
Exploring, developing, and assessing TPCK. New York, NY: Springer.
Ariew, R., & Ercetin, G. (2004). Exploring the potential of hypermedia annotations for sec-
ond language reading. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 237–259.
doi:10.1080/0958822042000334253
Benton-Borghi, B.H. (2013). A universally-designed for learning (UDL) infused technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) practitioners’ model essential for teacher prepa-
ration in the 21st century. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(2), 245–265.
Chai, C.-S., Koh, J.H.-L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content
knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51.
Chapelle, C.A. (2003). English language learning and technology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
410 J.-J. TSENG

Chapelle, C.A. (2016a). CALL in the year 2000: A look back from 2016. Language Learning &
Technology, 20(2), 159–161.
Chapelle, C.A. (2016b). Second language learning online. In C. Haythornthwaite, R.
Andrews, J. Fransman, & E.M. Meyers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of e-learning research
(2nd ed., pp. 170–186). London: SAGE.
Chien, C.-W. (2016). Investigating Taiwanese EFL digital natives’ TPCK in teaching English
to digital immigrants. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(2), 151–
168.
Chun, D.M. (2016). The role of technology in SLA research. Language Learning & Technol-
ogy, 20(2), 98–115.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Deridder, I. (2002). Electronic glosses revisited. In J. Colpaert, W. Decoo, M. Simons, & S.V.
Bueren (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth international CALL conference: CALL Conference
2002–CALL professionals and the future of CALL research (pp. 65–76). Antwerp: Univer-
sity of Antwerp.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an
empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
Gass, S.M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), The handbook
of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2016). Looking back and ahead: 20 years of technologies for language
learning. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 5–12.
Golonka, E.M., Bowles, A.R., Frank, V.M., Richardson, D.L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technolo-
gies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
Guichon, N., & Hauck, M. (2011). Teacher education research in CALL and CMC: More in
demand than ever. ReCALL, 23, 187–199.
Haines, K.J. (2015). Learning to identify and actualize affordances in a new tool. Language
Learning & Technology, 19(1), 165–180.
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach
languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 311–326.
Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., Braak, J. V., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional
reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education, 101, 70–83.
Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of technological pedagog-
ical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Herring, M.C., Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Rosenberg, J.M., & Teske, J. (2016). Introduction to
the second edition of the TPACK handbook. In M.C. Herring, M.J. Koehler, & P. Mishra
(Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators
(2nd ed., pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hofer, M.J., & Harris, J. (2012). TPACK research with inservice teachers: Where’s the TCK ?
In C.D. Maddux & D. Gibson (Eds.), Research highlights in technology and teacher educa-
tion 2012 (pp. 31–36). Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education from
https://www.learntechlib/p/41222.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). The scope of CALL education. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy
(Eds.), Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and
communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United
States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 312–333.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 411

Jackson, D.O. (2001). Key concepts in ELT: Language-related episodes. ELT Journal, 55(3),
298–299.
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction
in Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143–166.
Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK)
for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Akcaoglu, M., & Rosenberg, J.M. (2016). The technological peda-
gogical content knowledge framework for teachers and teacher educators. In M.R. Pani-
grahi (Ed.), Resource book on ICT integrated teacher education (pp. 20–30). New Delhi:
Commonwealth Educational Media Centre for Asia.
K€otter, M. (2002). Tandem learning on the Internet: Learner interactions in virtual online
environments (MOOs). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Kuure, L., Molin-Juustila, T., Keisanen, T., Riekki, M., Iivari, N., & Kinnula, M. (2016).
Switching perspectives: From a language teacher to a designer of language learning with
new technologies. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 925–941.
Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology,
10(3), 102–120.
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174
Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online
interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 53–72.
Liu, P. (2016). Technology integration in elementary classrooms: Teaching practices of stu-
dent teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3, 87–104). doi:10.14221/
ajte.2016v41n3.6
Liu, M.H., & Kleinsasser, R.C. (2015). Exploring EFL teachers’ CALL knowledge and compe-
tencies: In-service program perspectives. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 119–
138.
Long, M.H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ma, Q. (2017). Technologies for teaching and learning L2 vocabulary. In C.A. Chapelle & S.
Sauro (Eds.), The handbook of technology and second language teaching and learning (pp.
45–61). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A frame-
work for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Motteram, G. (Ed.). (2013). Innovations in learning technologies for English language teach-
ing. London: British Council.
Peterson, M. (2013). Recent studies on computer gaming in CALL: An analysis of findings. In
Computer games and language learning (pp. 73–100). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schenker, T. (2015). Telecollaboration for novice language learners–negotiation of meaning
in text chats between nonnative and native speakers. In E. Dixon & M. Thomas (Eds.),
Researching language learner interactions online: From social media to MOOCs (pp. 237–
257). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Lin-
guistics, 11(2), 129–158.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long
(Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382–408). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
412 J.-J. TSENG

Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: SAGE.
Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Mod-
ern Language Journal, 87(1), 38–57.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent
French immersion learners working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–
337.
Tai, S.-J.D. (2015). From TPACK-in-action workshops to classrooms: CALL competency
developed and integrated. Language Learning & Technology, 19(1), 139–164.
Tsang, E.Y.M. (2010). Learner-content interactions and learning effectiveness: A study of stu-
dent perceptions (Doctoral dissertation). Minneapolis, MN: Capella University.
Tseng, J.-J. (2015). A TPACK perspective on improving L2 learner engagement via tablet
technology: A case study. International Journal on Digital Learning Technology, 7(3), 15–
42. doi:10.3966/2071260X2015070703002
Wang, A.Y. (2016). The impact of digital storytelling on the development of TPACK among
student teachers in Taiwan. In M.C. Herring, M.J. Koehler, & P. Mishra (Eds.), Handbook
of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for educators (2nd ed., pp. 297–
308). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wu, Y.-T., & Wang, A.Y. (2015). Technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in
teaching English as a foreign language: Representation of primary teachers of English in
Taiwan. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(3), 525–533. doi:10.1007/s40299-015-
0240-7
Yoshii, M. (2013). Effects of gloss types on vocabulary learning through reading: Comparison
of single and multiple gloss types. In P. Hubbard, M. Schulze, & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner–
computer interaction in language education: A Festschrift in honor of Robert Fischer (pp.
203–229). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Yuksel, D., & Inan, B. (2014). The effects of communication mode on negotiation of meaning
and its noticing. ReCALL, 26(3), 333–354.