1 / 37

Beliefs About Web 2.0 Tools in Language Learning: A Global Perspective

Beliefs About Web 2.0 Tools in Language Learning: A Global Perspective. Gillian Lord (University of Florida) Lara Lomicka (University of South Carolina).

lael
Download Presentation

Beliefs About Web 2.0 Tools in Language Learning: A Global Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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: • 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.

  3. Session Overview: • Background • Survey development and administration • Results and discussion • Conclusion: challenges & implications, future research

  4. Background

  5. 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.

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. 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?

  9. Survey development

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. Survey development • 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 #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)

  13. Group wiki

  14. 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

  15. RESULTS

  16. 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)

  17. General demographics

  18. Racial/ethnic background

  19. Language course enrollment

  20. Motivations for studying language “21st century= everyone should. Americans are the only people who think its okay to speak just 1 language.”

  21. 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

  22. Use of different devices

  23. Tools students use for personal experiences

  24. Tools students have used for (non-language) educational experiences

  25. Online tools used in language class

  26. Tools students would like to use in language classroom

  27. Likert type responses

  28. Likert type responses

  29. Likert type responses

  30. Discussion

  31. Question 1 • What web 2.0 tools do our language students use in their daily lives?

  32. 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

  33. 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.”

  34. 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??

  35. 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 withstudents as we develop new ideas for integrating technology in our classes

  36. glord@ufl.edu lomicka@sc.edu Thank you.

  37. 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." CALL16(1), 47-81. • Haya A., Hartshorne, R. (2008). “Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests.” Internet and Higher Education11, 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 Review84(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" CALL21(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.

More Related