Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Beliefs About Web 2.0 Tools in
Language Learning: A Global Perspective
Gillian Lord (University of Florida)
Lara Lomicka (University of South Carolina)
2
• Researchers and educators alike have long recognized the potential benefits of incorporating various tools and technology based activities into our language curricula.
• Generally speaking, cited benefits include:– enhanced opportunities for target language input and output– cultural awareness– maximized student participation– the ability to meet the needs of different learner styles– increased motivation– and many others.
• Unfortunately, though, many of these claims arise from anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data.
3
• Session Overview:– Background– Survey development and administration– Results– Discussion– Conclusion: challenges, implications, future
research
4
BACKGROUND
5
What we know
• Surveys have…– Assessed faculty awareness of the potential of
technology and their experience (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Lomicka & Williams, 2011)
– Examined student and teacher views on technology (Li, 2007)
6
Web 2.0 definition
• wikis, blogs, social networking and web applications
• tools that provide a level of user interaction that is dynamic and interconnected
• tools that produce "online communities" • tools that make it easy to share information
on the Web
7
Benefits of incorporating technology
• Enhanced opportunities for target language input and output (Fuente, 2003; Ranalli, 2008)
• Cultural awareness (Adair-Hauck, Willingham-McLain, Youngs, 2000)
• Maximized student participation (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007)
• The ability to meet the needs of different learner styles (Chen, 2003; McAndrew, 2013)
• Increased motivation (Warschauer, 1996; Pu, 2009; Binnur, 2009; Wehner, Gump, & Downey, 2011 )
• Student achievement (Malhiwsky, 2010)
8
What we need to find out
• What web 2.0 tools do our language students use in their daily lives?
• What do language students really think about web 2.0 tools in education?
• Do language students think that web 2.0 tools have a role in language education?
9
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
10
Overview
• Participants in two graduate seminars on technology…– collaboratively researched the role of technology
in language teaching – collaboratively developed a survey tool – collaboratively administered the survey to the
language classes they were currently teaching
11
Survey designers• Survey designers
– Graduate students enrolled in Technology in Foreign Language Education courses at University of Florida and University of South Carolina.• N = 13 from UF• N = 16 from SC
– Grouped into seven cross-institutional groups (color coded)– Also worked locally with members of their color-coded
group
12
Survey areas and groups• RED
– Learner characteristics/individual differences (motivation, anxiety, etc.); and attitudes towards web 2.0 technologies
• ORANGE– Experience with web 2.0 technologies for personal use
• YELLOW– Experience with web 2.0 technologies for academic use
• GREEN– Web 2.0 technologies and target language input and output
• BLUE– Web 2.0 technologies and maximized student participation
• PURPLE– Web 2.0 technologies and the ability to meet the needs of different
learner styles• WHITE
– Web 2.0 technologies and increased motivation
13
Survey developmentClass period #1
• Discuss surveys• Explore
components of good surveys
• Discuss topics for our survey
• Form groups to work on specific topics, questions
Class period #2• Local groups share
and consolidate results of homework
• Chat with virtual groups to establish questions for group’s area of the survey
• Compose survey document (collaboratively)
HOMEWORK• Search for CALL
articles related to assigned group topic
• Note what previous research says about these areas
• Brainstorm questions for your area of the survey
14
Group wiki
15
Instrument
• Addressed student perspectives on using technology in language learning
• 49 items (approx 20 min)• Varied question types:
– Likert scale– Short answer– Open-ended– Close-ended
16
RESULTS
17
Response rate• Our graduate students taught approximately 600
students in various language classes during the semester– (Not counting students who worked in K-12 institutions,
where survey was not administered)• All language students were given the opportunity to
take the survey either in class (on mobile device) or as homework assignment.
• TOTAL RESPONSES = 425 (approx. 80%)(although most questions have 416 responses)
18
General demographics
Age Number of responses Percentage17 or under 6 1.4%
18-19 174 41.8%
20-21 159 38.2%
22-23 29 9.4%
Over 23 38 9.1%
Gender Number of Responses PercentageFemale 254 63%
Male 152 37%
19
Racial/ethnic backgroundBackground Number of responses Percentage
Caucasian/white 263 63.20%
Hispanic 55 13.20%
African American 38 9.10%
Asian 29 6.97%
Bi-racial 12 2.90%
Middle Eastern 7 1.70%
Arabic 3 0.70%
Black Caribbean 1 0.20%
European American 1 0.20%
European American 1 0.20%
Guyanese 1 0.20%
Haitian American 1 0.20%
Lebanese American 1 0.20%
Native American 1 0.20%
20
Language course enrollmentLanguage Number of responses Percentage
Spanish 278 66.8%
Italian 74 17.8%
French 37 8.9%
English 22 5.3%
Vietnamese 1 0.5%
Arabic 1 0.5%
Other 5 2.3%
Level Number of responses Percentage
Beginner/Introductory 216 51.9%
Intermediate 141 33.9%
Advanced/Content 59 14.2%
21
Motivations for studying language
• “21st century= everyone should. Americans are the only people who think its okay to speak just 1 language.”
Reason Number of responses PercentageSchool requirement 270 64.9%
Better job opportunities 196 46.4%
Study abroad 133 31.9%
Personal enjoyment 217 51.9%
Speak to friend or S.O. 87 20.4%
22
General Observations
• 73% of students are daily users of web 2.0 technologies outside of the classroom
• 48% spend 1-3 hours on personal use
23
Use of different devices
not at all occasionally often very frequently
smartphone 38 35 73 267
desktop computer
213 130 33 37
laptop computer
14 32 88 279
mobile tablet 227 80 55 51
other 352 30 15 16
24
Tools students use for personal experiences
social networking
sites
texting blogs wikis other
interacting with others 372 381 45 11 28planning/organizing 281 284 29 29 87gathering information 179 138 95 201 62entertainment 330 226 165 66 117
25
Tools students have used for (non-language) educational
experiencesTool Number of responses Percentageblogs 110 26.63%
wikis 238 57.63%
discussion boards 243 58.84%
social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
201 48.67%
chat 100 24.21%
other 32 7.75%
none 38 9.20%
26
Where students access tools
Tool Number of responses Percentagehome desktop computer 69 16.71%
mobile tablet 75 18.16%
smartphone 194 46.97%
laptop computer 381 92.25%
public or school library 166 40.19%
school language lab 50 12.11%
other 1 0.24%
not applicable 6 1.45%
27
Online tools used in language class
Tool Number of responses
Percentage
social networking (e.g., Facebook/MySpace)
67 16.22%
microblogging (e.g., Twitter) 9 2.18%
Pinterest 4 0.97%blogs 25 6.05%wikis 100 24.21%collaborative storytelling 14 3.39%other 42 10.17%none 152 36.80%
28
Tools students would like to use in language classroom
Tool Number of responses
Percentage
social networking (e.g., Facebook/MySpace)
97 23.49%
microblogging (e.g., Twitter) 20 4.84%
Pinterest 28 6.78%blogs 51 12.35%wikis 52 12.59%collaborative storytelling 40 9.69%other 20 4.84%none 105 25.42%
29
Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:
1. Students are comfortable using technology (60% SA)
2. Students want to learn more about technology (42% A)
3. Students enjoy using Web 2.0 tools (49% A)
4. Students can manage to use technology independently (48% A)
30
Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:
1. Completing work with technology gives students a greater sense of accomplishment (41% N)2. Technology improves my achievement in class (37% N)
3. Technology impacts my motivation toward learning (41% N)
4. Working online helps students produce longer responses (34% N)
5. The use of technology increases students’ level of participation during class time (42%)6. The use of technology increases my level of participation during class time (46% A)
7. Students (would) participate more in class when technology is involved (46% N)
8. I would contribute more to an online collaborative project than I would to a face-to-face collaboration (30% N / 25% D)9. Students’ level of motivation to learn a foreign language increases when they can use web 2.0 technologies (44% N)
31
Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:
1. Using web 2.0 technologies in or outside of my language class could help students improve language skills (51% A)2. Reading texts online in the target language has improved skills (54% A)
3. Video chat has/could improve listening skills (42% A)
4. Students frequently use an online dictionary while reading (51% A)
5. Instructor use of technology in my language classes makes me/ would make me feel more engaged (44% A)
32
Discussion
• Social networking (30%)• Texting (27%)
What students use for fun
•Nothing (38%)•Wikis (24%)
What students use in classes
• Nothing (25%)• Social networking (24%)
What students want to use in
language classes
33
Question 1
• What web 2.0 tools do our language students use in their daily lives?
34
Question 2
• What do language students really think about web 2.0 tools in education?– They are indifferent to their use in education– If anything, they would like to use social
networking tools
35
Question 3
• Do language students think that web 2.0 tools have a role in language education?– They could help improve language skills and
engagement• BUT…
• “None have a place in the classroom.” • “I don't like online tools or websites so I don't think any are useful in helping me learn
a foreign language. Besides google for looking up all the words in Spanish I don't know.”
• “None. Technology used in class makes me zone out.“• “Personally, I prefer face-to-face interaction learning.”
36
Challenges and Implications
• Why are we using technology?
• How are we using technology?
• How are students using tools for fun?
37
Challenges and Implications
• Language classroom technology use tends to be traditional (wikis, blogs, etc.) – Rather than innovative (pinterest, facebook,
etc.) • Educators should think about ways that
technology can be used creatively outside of the classroom.
• We should try to use the tools that students use, rather than imposing our (older?) tools on them.
38
Future Directions
• Lots more data to analyze!
• Track case study responses
• Compare student and teacher data
• Work with students as we develop new ideas for integrating technology in our classes.
40
Works cited• Adair-Hauck,B., Willingham-McLain, L., Youngs, B. (2000). “Evaluating the integration of technology and second language
learning.” CALICO Journal 17(2), 269-306.• Chen, P-C. (2003). “EFL student learning style preferences and attitudes toward technology-integrated instruction.” UMI
Dissertations Publishing: University of South Dakota, ProQuest.• de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). "Is SLA Interactionist Theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated
interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition." CALL 16(1), 47-81.• Haya A., Hartshorne, R. (2008). “Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests.”
Internet and Higher Education 11, 71–80.• Li, Q (2007). “Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?” Journal of Research on Technology in
Education 39(4), 377-397.• Lomicka, L. & Williams, L. (2011). "The use of new technologies in the French curriculum: A national survey". The French
Review 84(4), 764-781.• Malhiwsky, D. R. (2010). "Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: A mixed methods study."
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska – Lincoln. http://goo.gl/gS7FR• McAndrew, A (2009). "Learning styles and Web 2.0: Is there any connection?" ASSETT RSS. University of Colorado Boulder,
10 Aug. 2009. • McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology
affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf
• Ranalli, J. (2008). "Learning English with the Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning" CALL 21(5), 441-455.
• Warschauer, M (1996). “Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication.” In M. Warshauer (Ed.), Telecollabortaion in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i Symposium. (Technical Report #2), pp. 29-46. Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
• Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). “The effects of second life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(3), 277-289.
