1 / 25

Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using Wimba Voice: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Sel

Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using Wimba Voice: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Selves. Jesse Gleason and Ruslan Suvorov Iowa State University Antwerp CALL 2010: Motivation and beyond August 19, 2010. Agenda. Introduction Literature Review

trory
Download Presentation

Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using Wimba Voice: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Sel

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. Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using WimbaVoice: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Selves Jesse Gleason and Ruslan Suvorov Iowa State University Antwerp CALL 2010: Motivation and beyond August 19, 2010

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Literature Review • Research Questions • Methodology • Results and Discussion • Conclusion Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  3. Introduction • New technologies and new challenges • CMC and L2 oral proficiency • Wimba Voice (WV) • Motivation and L2 selves (Dörnyei, 2005) Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  4. Wimba Voice Board Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  5. Wimba Voice Presentation Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  6. Literature Review • Pioneer work on motivation and L2 learning: socio-educational model (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972): • Integrative orientation • Instrumental orientation • + six variables • Current perspective on L2 motivation: L2 self system (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009): • Ideal L2 self • Ought-to L2 self Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  7. Literature Review • Linking motivation, CMC, and L2 oral skills: • CMC and L2 oral proficiency in CALL • Benefits of asynchronous CMC • Research on WV and oral performance: • Dearth of theory-driven research (e.g., Charle Poza, 2005; Rosen, 2009; Tognozzi & Truong, 2009) • No studies on WV and L2 motivation Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  8. Research Questions • What are students' perceptions of WV’s effectiveness as a tool for the development of their L2 oral proficiency? • To what extent does the use of WV for language learning tasks affect students’ perceptions of their future L2 selves and motivation to use their English speaking skills in the future? Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  9. Methodology: Participants • Ten international teaching assistants • Eight Chinese and two Koreans • Enrolled in English communication skills class • Age M=25, number of years studying English M=11 • Variety of majors Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  10. Methodology: Context • Conducted at a large public university in the USA • Graduate-level English class • SPEAK/TEACH test • WVB and WVP in Moodle Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  11. Methodology: Materials • Pre- and post-surveys: • Five sections (three used in this study) • Likert-scale items and open-ended questions • Focus on ideal, ought-to L2 selves, and motivation • Adapted from other surveys • Semi-structured interviews: • Perceptions of WV • Future L2 selves Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  12. Methodology: Procedure • Informed consent forms and pre-survey (Week 11) • Post-survey and interviews (Week 15) Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  13. Methodology: Analysis • Quantitative: • Descriptive statistics (M, SD, Cohen’s d) of Likert-scale items from pre- and post-surveys • Qualitative: • Analysis of interview transcripts • Analysis of responses to open-ended questions from the post-survey Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  14. Example Survey Questions Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  15. Results and Discussion RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency Pre- and post-survey results Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  16. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency Interview results Positive perceptions: • Convenience and user-friendliness • Facilitation of self-noticing and error diagnosis • Interactivity and exchange of ideas Negative perceptions: • Technical problems • Similarity to other recording software (lack of uniqueness) • Absence of real-time interaction, thus, negotiation of meaning Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  17. Results and Discussion (cont.) Positive perceptions: WVB is "very good for recording... and the most important thing that I think is it can give us a chance to exchange our ideas, to know what my classmates think of my speaking” (P3). "I saw sometimes I pronounced some words correctly, but when I listen to myself, it's actually not that correct” (P6). Negative perceptions: “I can't record from the middle of a recording. If I'm satisfied with the first half of my recording but want to do the second part again and join them together, I'm not be able to do that in wimba. Instead I have to record the whole thing again” (P8). "[I] just feel, cause you speak with a computer, not with the human, that's a negative feeling” (P10). Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  18. Example Survey Question Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  19. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves Pre- and post-survey results Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  20. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves “[M]y future plan is (…) that I will…focus on research and teaching, then maybe I will still stay here or some place else and maybe I will, after, during this speak research and teaching time…use English …I will use English almost all the time. And the second choice is that I will…go in the industry and find a job. And in that case I …think that speaking English is the best choice for me in the future career” (P3). "I don't know," "I am not sure," "I don't think so," "I don't have many confidence on my English” (P5). Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  21. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves "Um, in my opinion, the only way that I can improve my confidence is to speak and practice more English, so... so in this sense Wimba kind of has helped me improve my confidence” (P4). Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  22. Conclusion • Students have an array of perceptions regarding the efficacy of WV for developing L2 speaking -> individual differences. • L2 learners have mixed opinions concerning the role of WV tasks in facilitating the vision of their future L2 selves and motivation -> clear vision = higher motivation (Al-Shehri, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009). Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  23. Limitations • Timing issues • Small sample size • Only self-reported data Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  24. Ideas for Future Research • Longitudinal studies • Effect of WV-based tasks on L2 learners’ performance • Relationship between L2 confidence and motivation • Potential of WV for facilitating collaboration in online/hybrid and distance L2 courses Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

  25. Questions? Suggestions? Thank you! Jesse Gleason jgleas@iastate.edu Ruslan Suvorov rsuvorov@iastate.edu Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

More Related