Beliefs About
Web 2.0 Tools in
Language Learning:
A Global Perspective
Gillian Lord (University of Florida)
Lara Lomicka (University of South Carolina)
• Researchers and educators alike have long
recognized the potential benefits of incorporating
various tools and technology based activities into our
language curricula:
–
–
–
–
–
–
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
Etc.
• But many of these claims are based on anecdotal
evidence or small-scale studies that are difficult to
generalize.
2
• Session Overview:
–
–
–
–
Background
Survey development and administration
Results and discussion
Conclusion: challenges & implications, future
research
3
BACKGROUND
4
Web 2.0 definition
• Tools that …
– Provide a level of user interaction that is dynamic
and interconnected
– Facilitate the creation of "online communities"
– Make it easy to share information on the Web
– e.g., wikis, blogs, social networking, etc.
5
What we know
• Surveys regarding tech use have…
– Assessed faculty experiences and their awareness
of the potential of technology (Ajjan & Hartshorne,
2008; Lomicka & Williams, 2011)
– Examined student and teacher views on
technology (Li, 2007)
6
What we know
• Technology incorporation can help with:
– Enhanced opportunities for target language input and
output (de la 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)
7
What we want to find out
• What web 2.0 tools do our language students
use in their daily lives?
• What do language students think about web
2.0 tools in education?
• Do language students think that web 2.0 tools
have a role in language education?
8
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
9
Survey designers
• Survey designers
– Graduate students enrolled in Technology in
Foreign Language Education courses at University
of Florida and University of South Carolina
• 13 from UF, 16 from SC
– Collaboratively researched the role of technology
in language teaching
– Collaboratively developed a survey tool
– Administered the survey to the language classes
they were currently teaching
10
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
11
Survey development
Class period #1
• Discuss surveys
• Explore
components of
good surveys
• Discuss topics
for our survey
• Form groups to
work on specific
topics, questions
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
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)
12
Group wiki
13
Instrument
• Addressed student perspectives on using
technology in language learning
• 49 items (approx 20 min)
• Varied question types:
– Likert scale
– Short answer
– Open-ended
• Administered via Qualtrics
14
RESULTS
15
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 laptop or mobile
device) or as homework assignment.
• TOTAL RESPONSES = 425 (approx. 80%)
(although most questions have 416 responses)
16
General demographics
Gender
Number of Responses
Percentage
Female
254
63%
Male
152
37%
Age
Number of responses
Percentage
6
1.4%
18-19
174
41.8%
20-21
159
38.2%
22-23
29
9.4%
Over 23
38
9.1%
17 or under
17
Racial/ethnic background
Background
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%
18
Language course enrollment
Language
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%
19
Motivations for studying language
Reason
Number of responses
Percentage
School requirement
270
64.9%
Personal enjoyment
217
51.9%
Better job opportunities
196
46.4%
Study abroad
133
31.9%
Speak to friend or S.O.
87
20.4%
“21st century= everyone should. Americans are the only
people who think its okay to speak just 1 language.”
20
Web 2.0 use in general
• 73% of students are daily
users of web 2.0
technologies outside of
the classroom
• 48% spend 1-3 hours on
personal use
21
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
22
Tools students use for
personal experiences
social
networking
sites
texting
blogs
wikis
other
interacting with others
372
381
45
11
28
planning/organizing
281
284
29
29
87
gathering information
179
138
95
201
62
entertainment
330
226
165
66
117
23
Tools students have used for
(non-language) educational
experiences
Tool
Number of responses
Percentage
discussion boards
243
58.84%
wikis
238
57.63%
social media (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
201
48.67%
blogs
110
26.63%
chat
100
24.21%
none
38
9.20%
other
32
7.75%
24
Online tools used
in language class
Tool
Number of responses Percentage
none
152
36.80%
wikis
100
24.21%
social networking
(e.g., Facebook/MySpace)
67
16.22%
other
42
10.17%
blogs
25
6.05%
collaborative storytelling
14
3.39%
microblogging (e.g., Twitter)
9
2.18%
Pinterest
4
0.97%
25
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%
26
Likert type responses
What 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)
27
Likert type responses
What the survey told us:
1. Completing work with technology gives students a greater sense of accomplishment
(41% N)
2. Technology improves student achievement in class (37% N)
3. Technology impacts student motivation toward learning (41% N)
4. Working online helps students produce longer responses (34% N)
5. The use of technology increases level of participation during class time (46% A)
6. Students (would) participate more in class when technology is involved (46% N)
7. Students would contribute more to an online collaborative project than to a face-toface collaboration (30% N / 25% D)
8. Students’ level of motivation to learn a foreign language increases when they can
use web 2.0 technologies (44% N)
28
Likert type responses
What the survey told us:
1. Using web 2.0 technologies in or outside of language class could help students
improve language skills (51% A)
2. Reading texts online in the target language has/could improve skills (54% A)
3. Video chat has/could improve listening skills (42% A)
4. Instructor use of technology in my language classes makes me/would make me feel
more engaged (44% A)
29
Discussion
What students
use for fun
• Social networking (30%)
• Texting (27%)
What students
use in classes
•Nothing (38%)
•Wikis (24%)
What students
want to use in
language classes
• Nothing (25%)
• Social networking (24%)
30
Question 1
• What web 2.0 tools do our language students
use in their daily lives?
31
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
32
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.”
33
Implications
• Language classroom technology use tends to
be “traditional” (e.g., wikis, blogs, etc.), if at
all
• Overall, language teachers tend not to use
more innovative tools (e.g., Pinterest,
Facebook, etc.) that our students use in their
daily lives
• Students recognize that technology could help
them learn but still think it has no role in
language learning.
– Why??
34
Challenges for educators
• Ask ourselves:
– Why are we using technology?
– How are we using technology?
– How are students using tools for fun?
• Try to use the tools that students use, rather
than imposing our tools on them.
• Think about ways that technology can be used
creatively (in and?) outside of the classroom.
• Work with students as we develop new ideas
for integrating technology in our classes
35
glord@ufl.edu
lomicka@sc.edu
THANK YOU.
36
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.
37