This is an edited version of a plenary address given to the English Teachers Association of Israel Annual conference, Jerusalem, July 1998.

Please cite as:

 Warschauer, M. (1998, July). New media, new literacies: Challenges for the next century. Plenary address at the annual conference of the English Teachers Association of Israel, Jerusalem.

Shalom. Zdrasviteh. Sabah il-chir.

Having labored in the sugar fields of Kibbutz Mizra as a youth, and later lectured for one year at Moscow Linguistic University in Russia, and now working as an educational technology consultant on a U.S. project in Cairo, Egypt, I can honestly say that I do not discriminateóI speak three of Israel's main official and unofficial languages equally badly. Fortunately, though, due to the accident of my birthplace, I can also speak a bit of Israel's other unofficial language, English, so I'm glad that we can use that language today. And I'm especially happy to be doing so in a conference here in Jerusalem, after such a long absence. I thank the organizers for inviting me, and I thank all of you for coming to my talk to today. It's nice to be able to say "naim shevet achim gam yachad."

My having lived and worked in several different countries is a reflection not only of my own personal curiosity, but also of the times we live in. The world is a much smaller place today, with globalized media, sports, trade, and tourism bringing people together like never before. This new globalized world is naturally affecting our mission as language teachers. Language teaching has always been tied to the broader politic, economic, and social trends of society. Let's compare for example, language teaching 100 years ago, 50 years ago, and today.

One hundred years ago, the world was principally agricultural, and there was much less of the type of international contact which exists today. The main need for foreign language teaching was to translate and interpret written texts from other countries, texts which arrived rather infrequently via boat or train rather than instantly over the air. Thus it is not surprising that what is known as the Grammar-Translation method (with a focus on careful translation and interpretation of written texts) dominated language teaching of that era.

A half century ago, the world had become much more industrialized, and, I might add, militarized. The intensified international contact brought about by World War II and by the host of international cooperative efforts that followed the war, created a greater need for face-to-face communication across languages than ever before. This created the context for the emergence of the Audio-Lingual method, which shifted the focus of foreign language teaching from reading and translation to oral production of language.

In the last 50 years, though, the world has gone through another major shift, as profound as the earlier change from agriculture to industry. A new informational revolution in the United States, Europe, Israel, and elsewhere is reshaping the way we work, study, play, and communicate, and new media and technologies are collapsing barriers of time and distance.

The global question I will thus address today is how recent economic, technological, and social changes affect the context, goals, and nature of language teaching.

I will first discuss three major features of today's society, and then look at some of the implications of these features for our work as English teachers.

These three features I will discuss are
(1) The Rise of an Information Economy and Society,
(2) The Emergence of Global English, and
(3) the Development of New Language and Literacy Practices

(1) So first, the Rise of an Information Economy and Society. In the age of processing chips, personal computers, and telecommunications, the central factor in producing wealth and power is the ability to access, adapt, and make intelligent use of new information technology. Witness for example the rapid demise of the Soviet Union, which was unable to meet this challenge, and the comparative economic success of places such as California and, dare I say, Israel, which are building new industries based on science, technology, and information processing.

What is true of societies is also true of individuals. Those people who are able to access, adapt, and make use of information and knowledge, using new information technologies are those who will most succeed in all walks of life. It is no longer a matter of having skills, as any particular skills will rapidly go out of date. It is a matter of being "self-programmable," of being able to rapidly and flexibly change to learn new skills as the occasion emerges--and once again this comes from having the ability to access, analyze, and critically interpret information and knowledge.

Robert Reich (1991), Secretary of Labor in the first Clinton administration, conducted an analysis of the changing nature of jobs in the United States and other developed countries. He found that in today's world, the earlier split between blue collar factory workers and white collar office workers no longer holds true. Rather, employees now fall overwhelmingly into one of three categories. The first category is routine-production services. These include factory workers but also routine information workers such as data processors or payroll clerks. A second category is in-person services . These include workers such as janitors, hospital attendants, and taxi drivers. A third category is symbolic analyst services. These include software engineers, management consultants, and strategic planners. What is important about this--and this is clearly seen in Israel--is that the income, status, and opportunities for workers in the first two categories are continually diminishing, whereas the income, status, and career opportunities for symbolic analysts is continually rising. What's more, symbolic analysts do work which is enjoyable and personally rewarding, whereas those in routine-production and in-person services do work which is too often dreary and dull.

How then does what we do in the schools affect who becomes a symbolic analyst, and who pursues other paths with less opportunity? Reich analyzed the education of those who later went into different job categories. He found that the education of routine production servers and in-person servers concentrated overwhelming on memorization of facts and development of basic functional skills. In contrast, the education of symbolic analysts focused neither on facts or an basic skills.

Rather, quoting Reich:

Budding symbolic analysts learn to read, write, and do calculations, of course, but such basic skills are developed and focused in particular ways. They often accumulate a large number of facts along the way, yet these facts are not central to their education; they will live their adult lives in a world where most facts learned years before (even including some historical ones) will have changed or have been reinterpreted. In any event, whatever data they need will be available to them at the touch of a computer key. (p. 229)

He explains that in the best schools and colleges, the curriculum is "fluid and interactive" (p. 230). Instead of emphasizing the transmission of information, the focus is on judgment and interpretation. Students are taught to get behind the data, to examine reality from many angles, and to visualize new possibilities and choices. The symbolic-analytic mind "is trained to be skeptical, curious, and creative" (p. 230). This involves an education which is based on abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and collaboration. Students learn to "articulate, clarify, and then restate for one another how they identify and find answers" (p. 233). They learn how to "seek and accept criticism from peers, solicit help, and give credit to others" (p. 233). They also learn to "negotiateóto explain their own needs, to discern what others need and view things from others' perspectives, and to discover mutually beneficial resolutions"(p. 233). All of this prepare them for their future careers, in which they will "spend much of their time communicating conceptsóthrough oral presentations, reports, designs, memoranda, layouts, scripts, and projectionsóand then seeking a consensus to go forward with the plan" (p. 233).

Now, I will return to this issue later when we look at the implications of these changes for language teaching, but in the meantime, I'd like you to think about this crucial question. Are we as English teachers preparing our students to have the fullest opportunities to become symbolic analysts? Are we teaching them skills of abstraction, system thinking, experimentation, and collaboration? Or are we instead focusing on accumulation of facts and basic language skills?

(2) The second issue I'll address is the emergence of global English. A major condition of today's world is the vast globalization of world production, distribution, trade, and media. Today, capital, production, management, markets, labor, information, and technology are organized across national boundaries more than ever before. Globalization extends as well to sports, entertainment, friendship (for example, via the Internet), and certainly to media. And what is the lingua franca of this new globalized society? As we all know, English. The worldwide spread of English is unprecedented in the history of human civilization.

According to one estimate, nearly 1.5 billion people around the world--fully 1/4 of the world's population, are either fluent or competent in English (Crystal, 1997). The following are some statistics that indicate the spread of English (as adapted from Crystal, 1997):

85% of international associations make official use of English
70% of the linguistics journals in the world are published exclusively in English
85% of the world film market is in English
85% of scientific articles in the world are written in English
80% of the world's electronically stored information is currently in English

Other lingua franca have existed before, such as Latin or French, but none have ever had the global reach of English, in terms of either the number of countries where it is spoken or the number of people who speak it. This represents not just a quantitative change, but a qualitative change. First of all, English is increasingly becoming a "second" (or third, fourth), rather than a "foreign" language all around the world. In our field we often make a distinction between studying English as a Second language, for immigrants or visitors to places like the U.S., Britain, and Australia, to English as a foreign language, in places like Japan, France, or Israel.

Using similar logic, Kachru (1986)has divided the world into three English-speaking circles: an inner circle, consisting of the U.S., UK, Australia and other countries, where English is spoken as a first language, an outer circle, of countries such as India and Singapore, where English is spoken as a second or additional language of broader communication in a multilingual setting, and a third circle, of countries such as Japan, France, Argentina or Israel, where English is a foreign language. But if we look at the real impact of globalization on media, business relations, and communications, especially as enhanced by the Internet, the border between the outer circle and the expanding circle is blurring. A growing number of people involved in international business, media, and technology-related activities use English as an additional language almost every day, no matter what country they live in, including countries where English is traditionally seen as a foreign language, such as Israel.

This also means that English increasingly belongs to non-native speakers. Already, at least 1/2, and by some estimates as high as 3/4, of the people around the world who use English on a regular basis are non-native speakers of the language (see discussion in Crystal, 1997). In such circumstances, the relationship of language, culture, and identity changes dramatically. We no longer teach people English principally so they can interact with English or Americans, but so they can make use of English to fulfill their own instrumental needs with people from all over the world. Not surprisingly, it is the "symbolic analysts" described above who most use English on a daily basis--not just for simple communication, but for sophisticated complex analysis, negotiation and collaboration with colleagues around the world. And they use it as their own additional language, rather than as a foreign language belonging to America, Britain, or any place else.

(3) A third factor I want to look at is the development of new language and literacy practices. I'd like to start by introducing a survey that was conducted among business executives in the United States (American Management Association International, 1998).

According to this survey, at least among this group of people, electronic mail has surpassed telephone communication and face-to-face communication as the most frequent form of communication in the business world. Fully 36% find e-mail to be the most frequent means of communication, compared to only 26% who use the telephone most frequently, and 15% who rely most frequently on face-to-face communication. This is quite remarkable, given that electronic mail has been in existence less than 30 years and has been widely available in the business world for less than ten years. Other reports indicated that similar changes are taking place in other walks of life--in academia, in the professions, and even in people's personal lives, as increasing numbers of people spend long hours online communicating with friends or strangers or seeking information related to their interests (for discussion, see Warschauer, in press).

Now, when I first started doing research in this area some five years ago, I was trying to think about how we could use e-mail to teach English (see for example Warschauer, 1995a). But, if the above statistics are even partially true, we need to look at this the other way around. Rather than just using e-mail to teach English, don't we also need to teach English so that people can write e-mail? And I might add, to find information on the Internet, to produce their own Web pages, and otherwise become proficient users of this important medium in today's world? In other words, computer technology is no longer just a possible tool for teaching English--rather it is an essential new medium of language and literacy practices, alongside face-to-face communication and the printed page. Just as we teach our students to function in the world of print--by reading books, conducting research in libraries, preparing projects and writing essays--we must also teach them to function in the world of the screen, by reading Websites, conducting research on the Internet, and writing messages and multimedia documents for online partners around the world (see discussion in Warschauer, in press).

The question remains though, is the medium really that important? Shouldn't we just teach our students English, and they will go ahead and apply it in whatever domain they need it? Well, to a certain extent, perhaps.

But so often it seems that most of our teaching is based on TENOR--T.E.N.O.R. Have you heard of it? We have ESL, EFL, ESP, TESOL, and now TENOR. Do you know what that stands for? Well, TENOR stands for "Teaching English for No Obvious Reason" -- and it's unfortunately found to be prevalent in our field (Medgyes, 1986). Let's instead take advantage of principles of situated learning, in other words, the proven notion that people learn best when they can carry out tasks and practice in the same kind of environments that they will need to function in the future (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989). And since the online world is undoubtedly an environment which will be important to our students' lives and careers, let us go ahead and provide them with meaningful language learning activities and practice in that domain.

Plus we have the fact that to use English in an online environment means to use different skills and approaches than in other environments. Let's look for example how reading and writing change when moved to the screen. Let's say that we assign our students to do a project or research paper on a contemporary topic. In a traditional print environment, they will go to the library, gather some source material, bring it home, read through it, and write up an essay to turn in to their teacher. The students would assume that the sources were valid because they were (a) published in a book, and (b) included in the library's holdings. If any questions came up about the sources, they could clear these up with the teacher later.

Students looking for information on the Internet though would have to use very different reading and research strategies. On the Internet, reading skills are intimately bound up with search and evaluation skills, just to find the material that you want. This involves first knowing how to use search engines effectively, and then to be able to skim and scan to see if what you've found is remotely of interest to you, while simultaneously making judgements as to its source, validity, reliability, and accuracy--and then making on-the-spot judgments about whether to continue perusing that Web page, go to other links from the same page, go back to the search engine, or give up the Internet altogether for this particular investigation and try another source. Thus literacy in the online realm by necessity becomes critical literacy--because if you can't evaluate things critically, you can't even begin reading on the Internet. And literacy is also expanded to include receptive evaluation of audio and video, since audio-visual information is integrated with reading texts on Web pages, and forms an important part of the overall message (Lemke, in press).

As for writing, students might well need writing as an essential part of the online research process--as they write to Internet newsgroups or to individuals via email to find people they might like to interview about the research topic. This involves mastering the genres of electronic mail for various types of formal and informal communication. And when they write up the project , essay or paper, it may likely be in the form of a multimedia web page, rather than an essay. In fact, some researchers in the U.S. believe that the essay is slowly dying out as an important form in business, government and even schools (Faigley, 1997; Lanham, 1993). In the future, students will thus have to learn to organize their material in a "hypertextual format" and effectively combine different media to emphasize a rhetorical point. In other word's, the information society has made writing more important than every before--bridging the full circle, where 100 years ago reading was important, and 50 years ago speaking and listening became important, writing now joins as an essential skill for large numbers of language students. But, at the very same time the very nature of writing is going through rapid changes.

Well, all of this is quite complex--and perhaps even overwhelming. Can we address these new issues in our English classes? Ought we? How should this change the way we teach? Let's review the three points mentioned so far and then discuss their more direct implications for language teaching.

We noted three points about today's world: First, we are moving from an industrial to an information society, in which the ability to communicate, collaborate, negotiate, and analyze complex systems of information is critical to success. Secondly, we are moving to a global society, in which communication frequently takes place across borders, in the English language, by combinations of non-native and native speakers of the language--all of whom can rightly claim English as part of their own social and cultural repertoire, rather than as a "foreign element". Finally, the media in which people use English is changing as well; online communication, reading, research, writing, and multimedia authoring skills are now joining the traditional skills needed for the world of face-to-face communication and print.

What then, are some implications of all this for our classrooms?

(1) The first I'll speak about is the need to promote critical, collaborative interaction and inquiry. As discussed before, it is not enough to teach English as an accumulation of facts about the language, or even as a set of basic communication skills--rather, we have to teach students to use English to carry out the kinds of complex critical inquiry, investigation, analysis, experimentation, and collaboration needed for success in today's world.

How can this be done in the English class? One way is through the development of collaborative projects involving social investigation, exploration of cultural themes, and critical analysis. If such projects can be organized internationally, this creates an even better basis for the development of cross-cultural negotiation and problem-solving skills (see discussion of these kinds of projects in Cummins & Sayers, 1995).

Collaborative social investigation occurs when students in two or more places gather data about social situations and seek ways to combine and compare that data. For young children, it might be as simple as having them interview local personalities or visit certain places in their community, such as a park or museum, and compare what they hear and see in English with other learners elsewhere. Teenage or adult students of English can carry out more complex investigations, gathering data on social phenomena in their communities on anything from air pollution to homelessness to attitudes of the people toward various social issues. Another type of social investigation is based on interviews and surveys conducted over long-distance--for example, when students in Israel survey people in different countries about their thoughts on a particular social or cultural issue.

These projects can be organized as international simulations, with students in two or more countries working on a complex problem involving collaboration, negotiation, research, and production of reports and documents. These include model United Nations projects, where groups of students agree to represent different countries in debates and proceedings, or scientific simulations. In one well-publicized project a few years ago, students from three different countries worked in teams, negotiating in English, to come up with a solution to a real-world environmental problem, such as nuclear power and toxic waste disposal, and completed a series of collaborative writing assignments directed toward solving the problem, including a descriptive report, a three-year plan, a budget, a technical report, and an abstract for a conference (Vilmi, 1995). In the end, the reports were shared on the World Wide Web and the students themselves voted on the best one.

The key element is not the number of partners nor the method of organization. It is the principles on which the project is based. If we are helping our students develop their abilities for sophisticated communication, abstract and critical thinking, complex negotiation, and long-distance collaboration, we will be preparing them to fully participate in today's world. And we can also be covering well the more traditional areas of English teaching, such as the development of fluency, syntactic and lexical competence, and pragmatic competence, as students use English in concentrated authentic interaction toward the development of high-quality end products.

(2) The second point I would like to make is about the use of language as a means of cultural exploration and expression. As discussed earlier, English must no longer be seen as the exclusive realm of the native speaker. This means that the content of the curriculum should be diffused with what is of significance to Israeli life. At a recent conference in Taiwan, one speaker asked why the country's school children were taught how to discuss the British parliament or the U.S. House of Representatives in English, but could not talk about their own government structure in English. And why indeed? Global English now means that it is not necessary or desirable for students to "become American" (or British or Canadian or Australian) to have ownership of English. Ownership instead comes from a sense that they can communicate effectively in English about what's important in their own lives and communities.

And new technological realms provide an excellent medium to accomplish this by bringing people together from across the globe to discuss in an atmosphere of relative freedom of expression. By choosing themes which are of concern to our students and their lives, we can provide an important opportunity to develop their sense of identity in a new language. One example of an outstanding project of this type was an exchange between university students of French in Berkeley and high school students of English in France (Kern, 1996). Almost all the students in each class were either immigrants or children of immigrants. So the teachers organized a project that encouraged students to explore their family history and how this related to their life in a new country. The students had e-mail discussions with each other, in both English and French, and then completed a series of writing assignments that they shared with each other on different themes and in different genres: in the first one, they reported on the history of their family; in the second one, they described their current community and life; and in the third one, they put forth their own opinion on what it means to be an American or a French.

Similar projects have involved Israelis. One for example, included students in Israel and several other countries to discuss the meaning of the holocaust and its relationship to genocide today. Another exchange between students in Israel, the West Bank and the U.S. included debate and discussion of the nature of Israeli occupation. In these types of projects, students do not perceive themselves to be practicing a foreign language, but rather using new linguistic resources to express issues of social and cultural importance to their lives. I know that every time you get two Israelis together, you have three opinions. Let's create international forums to have those opinions expressed and debated with peers from around the world, together with structured assignments that allow students to fully use the English language for reports, position papers, and multimedia web documents.

(3) A third point I'd like to make--and one that I believe is especially important for Israel-- is about equality and diversity in the age of information. At the same time that the era of information is making our societies richer, it is also making them more unequal (Castells, 1996). And this is based to a large extent on unequal access to the educational, technological, and language skills needed for success in today's world. What this means is that many of our students will have the access to computers, and to coaching from their parents, to learn technological skills, analytical skills, and perhaps even English-language skills, rapidly and easily in their home environment. But others of our students are not in this situation. They lack home computers and guidance in how to use them. Thus if we don't introduce technology-enhanced communication skills into our schools, including into our English classes, we will be depriving these students of ever catching up. Because the low-skill, manual labor jobs which the poorly education could rely on are rapidly disappearing (Reich, 1991; Rifkin, 1995).

Similarly, equality of individuals should extend to equality of languages. Though English has become a language of global communication, this does not and must not mean the triumph of English over other languages. Rather a full diversity of languages is as important for social, cultural, and human purposes as ever before. And indeed, while the Internet has strengthened the role of English, it has also created possibilities for increased communication and collaboration in hundreds if not thousands of other languages (The Coming Global Tongue, 1996). As Israel becomes a more integrated multilingual society, with large numbers of native speakers of Hebrew, Arabic, Russian, and other languages interacting in school, native language long-distance exchanges can be a way for students to work on maintaining and developing their own language while learning new ones. Similarly, those who study other foreign languages such as French, Spanish, or Chinese will also find extensive opportunities for online expression (see examples in Warschauer, 1995b). The Internet is an ideal "multi-channel" medium; unlike newspapers, radio, or television, the Internet easily allows for the creation of additional channels of communication at little or not cost. We need to find ways to exploit this multi-channel possibility to allow students to create online content in two, three, or even more languages, making use of English, their native language, and other languages as resources of expression and communication in cyberspace.

(4) My final point is that we need to help students become active masters of technology. Computers have traditionally been seen as a way to deliver information to students, who could learn through passive absorption. I recall for example a limerick which appeared in an early book on computer-assisted language learning some 25 years ago (see Patrikis, 1997):

Word has come down from the dean
That by Aid of the Computing Machine
Young Oedipus Rex
Could have learned about Sex
Without ever touching the Queen

In other words, you can learn an activity at the computer--such as language--without having to engage in the real thing.

I would suggest that we have come to the exact opposite in terms of language and computers. It is precisely "the real thing" that students must engage in on the computer; real problem solving, real writing, real collaborating, real communicating, real group work, real interpretation and criticism and analysis of complex problems. This can be accomplished by helping students develop active mastery of computers for their own production of knowledge, rather than passive use. So much of modern media, and especially television, is based on turning youth into passive consumers. Computers, and especially computer multimedia, offer the choice between further pacifying students--by delivering pre-packaged content to them in the form of learning and game software --or empowering students by giving them the open tools to shape their own content. The latter process is more time consuming, perhaps more sloppy, but ultimately, in my eyes, more beneficial.

It is also important to help students develop media-appropriate rhetorical skills. As discussed earlier, the literacy and rhetorical requirements of using language online--whether in email messages or the World Wide Web, are different than in other media. Students will be more motivated, and learn better lessons about language and communication, if they are able to produce work which is appropriate to that medium. If you are having your students communicate via electronic mail, help them learn to write effectively in that medium. If students are developing pages to put on the World Wide Web, don't have them just paste up the essays they wrote in class--let them design web pages that include features effective in that medium. Learning how to communicate effectively must take into account audience, genre, and medium; and that is impossible if students merely transpose items from one medium to the next.

And lastly, don't let the computer, or even language itself, become the focus of instruction--but rather focus on how students can combine use of language with new technology to achieve a meaningful social, cultural or personal purpose. Using the computer is not an end in itself. As Neil Postman (1993)commented, there are no great "computerers" (p. 118), as there are great writers, scientists, designers, artists, musicians, educators and engineers (all of whom might well make use of computers in their work.) So technology-based learning should not focus just on how to use the computer.

Similarly, simple communication is probably not a legitimate purpose either, unless you are dealing with learners at a very beginning level. So while e-mail penpal exchanges may be a nice activity for beginning language students, penpal projects alone lose value over time without another broader purpose other than just chatting. Allow students to find something of real value and to work on it using a new language and new media. Let them cooperate together to discuss, debate, investigate, and try to solve problems which are significant for their lives and their community.

In closing, I think we can agree that incorporating new technology into the language classroom is complex and challenging, especially for those of us who grew up in an era of different media and different methods. But if we learn to do this well, to make use of technology to enhance a pedagogy of critical collaborative inquiry and problem-solving, we can succeed in teaching our students not only how to surf the net, but also how to make waves (Shneiderman, 1997). And that, after all, is what education is all about.

Thank you. Shokran, spacibo bolshoi, todah rabah! Shalom!!!

---

References

1. American Management Association International (1998). E-Mail tops telephone, say HR execs at 69th annual human resources conference [Article]. Retrieved May 29, 1998 from the World Wide Web: http://www.amanet.org/survey/hrc98.htm
2. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
3. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin's Press.
6. Faigley, L. (1997). Literacy after the revolution. College Composition and Communication, 48(1), 30-43.
7. Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non-native Englishes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
8. R. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 105-19). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
9. Lanham, R. A. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Lemke, J. L. (in press). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Literacy for the 21st century: Technological transformation in a post-typographic world . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Medgyes, P. (1986). Queries from a communicative teacher. ELT Journal, 40(2), 107-112.
12. Patrikis, P. C. (1997). The evolution of computer technology. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing . Parkville, Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
13. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
14. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York: Knopf.
15. Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
16. Shneiderman, B. (1997). Foreword. In R. Debski, J. Gassin, & M. Smith (Eds.), Language learning through social computing (pp. v-viii). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.
17. Coming Global Tongue (1996, December 21). The coming global tongue. Economist, p. 75-77.
18. Vilmi, R. (1995). International environment activity. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 205-207). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
19. Warschauer, M. (1995a). E-Mail for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.
20. Warschauer, M. (Ed.) (1995b). Virtual connections: Online activities and projects for networking language learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
21. Warschauer, M. (in press). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.