Developing a Multidimensional Checklist for Evaluating Language Learning Websites Coherent with the Communicative Approach: A Path for the Knowing How to Do Enhancement.
Introduction The great influence of the Internet on all areas of society (e.g. politics, economy, leisure, relationships, education) has managed to redefine and extend the boundaries of interpersonal communication, entertainment, information transfer, teaching practices, and so forth. Thereby, in the education realm, especially in the language teaching and learning context, the integration of the Internet as a supporting pedagogical means has brought new and innovating opportunities for students to encounter an endless number of authentic and motivating materials, to engage with subject content, to interact in real time and exchange meanings with people from other cultures, and to become autonomous, intercultural and collaborative learners (Warschauer, Shetzer, Meloni, 2000) These positive effects have been highly appreciated by language teachers seeking to approach pupils in a more innovative and meaningful learning environment beyond the traditional four wall classroom, where free access online resources such as language websites have become an increasingly appealing option to achieve this goal. However, it should also be noted that when resorting to websites for enhancing language learning outcomes, teachers must be aware of its limitations in regards to its internal architecture and its implications on a certain language teaching approach. Thus, in the first place, its possibilities of engaging users in real communicative exchanges appear to be slightly minor, unlike e learning spaces (e.g. Blackboard, WebCT) that are capable of simultaneously providing a multiplicity of management, communication and interaction features. Therefore, websites may exhibit some difficulties in terms of: (a) integrating asynchronous and synchronous communication tools that facilitate spontaneous language production; (b) centering more on discourse, contexts and culture rather than solely focusing on forms; and (c) giving less limited feedback that surpasses the automatic treatment of errors (Cruz, 2003; E. Fernandez, 2007; Garcia, 2000; Kartal, 2005; Lozano Ruiz Campillo, 2009; Magnusdottir, 2010; Torat, 2000) Consequently, the majority of websites tend to present language grounded on a behaviorist approach, by promoting deductive grammar explanations as well as structuralist and audio lingual exercises (e.g. multiple choice and close ended questions, true or false items, and fill in the blank, drills) that do not account for the authentic use of the target language. This has been mainly facilitated by the ease, attractiveness and immediate feedback delivery that authoring programs such as Hot Potatoes and WebPractest commonly offered to create language content (Cruz, 2002; Kartal, 2005; Magnusdottir, 2010) which in turn has led to a significant increase and never ending supply of free access websites that do not necessarily guarantee its overall quality and pedagogical potential. Hence, and unlike what everyone might think, web based teaching undeniably constitutes a difficult and demanding task for educators, as they might probably do not know to what extent websites support an effective communicative language learning process and which sites to choose from the wide array of possibilities offered by the Internet (Hassan Fakulti, 2011; Son, 2005; Susser, 2001; Yang Chan, 2008) This is the reason why teachers need to be discerning and thoughtful when deciding on the most reliable, practical and valid online resources, which should be ideally built on the principles of a teaching approach that encourages free and creative expression of the target language in realistic communicative contexts. In this sense, as 21st century citizens, educators are being asked to acquire the Knowing how to do skill as part of their Digital Competence (European Parliament and European Council, 2007) to be able to evaluate the instructional purposes and language teaching objectives of any online resource just before taking it to the class (Hubbard, 2006; Nomdedeu, n.