Contact: Editors or Managing Editor Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Volume 15 Number 3 October 2011 Special Issue on Learner Autonomy and New Learning Environments Articles Learner Autonomy in a Task-Based 3D World and Production Abstract | Article PDF Karina Collentine, Northern Arizona University pp. 50–67 Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science: A Collaborative Digital Video Project in a Technological Learning Environment Abstract | Article PDF Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller, City University of Hong Kong pp. 68–86 Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy and Intercultural Competence through Study Abroad Abstract | Article PDF Lina Lee, University of New Hampshire pp. 87–109 Self-Study with Language Learning Software in the Workplace: What Happens? Abstract | Article PDF Katharine B. Nielson, University of Maryland pp. 110–129 Call for Papers – Mobile Language Learning Article PDF p. 130 Reviewer Acknowledgments Article PDF p. 131

Columns Special Issue Commentary Learner Autonomy and New Learning Environments Article PDF by Hayo Reinders and Cynthia White p. 1–3 Emerging Technologies Autonomous Language Learning Article PDF by Robert Godwin-Jones pp. 4–11 Action Research Edited by Fernando Naiditch Student Technology Use in a Self-Access Center Article PDF by Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch pp. 12–27 Announcements News From Sponsoring Organizations Article PDF pp. 28–31

Reviews Edited by Paige Ware Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders (Eds.) Article PDF Reviewed by Jim Ranalli pp. 32–36 Learning Languages through Technology Elizabeth Hanson-Smith and Sarah Rilling (Eds.) Article PDF

Contact: Editors or Managing Editor Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

Reviewed by Carmen Tomas pp. 37–40 En Una Palabra: Sevilla, España, Córdoba, Argentina, and Puebla, México Emmanuel Paris-Bouvret, Ana Pérez-Gironés, and Octavio Flores-Cuadra Article PDF Reviewed by Zahir Mumin pp. 41–46 Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies Rebecca Oxford Article PDF Reviewed by Mehreen Ahmed pp. 47–49

Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501. Articles are copyrighted by their respective authors.

About Language Learning & Technology

Language Learning & Technology is a refereed journal which began publication in July 1997. The journal seeks to disseminate research to foreign and second language educators in the US and around the world on issues related to technology and language education.

• Language Learning & Technology is sponsored and funded by the University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR), and is co-sponsored by the Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL).

• Language Learning & Technology is a fully refereed journal with an editorial board of scholars in the fields of second language acquisition and computer-assisted language learning. The focus of the publication is not technology per se, but rather issues related to language learning and language teaching, and how they are affected or enhanced by the use of technologies.

• Language Learning & Technology is published exclusively on the World Wide Web. In this way, the journal seeks to (a) reach a broad audience in a timely manner, (b) provide a multimedia format which can more fully illustrate the technologies under discussion, and (c) provide hypermedia links to related background information.

• Beginning with Volume 7, Number 1, Language Learning & Technology is indexed in the exclusive Institute for Scientific Information's (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), ISI Alerting Services, Social Scisearch, and Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences.

• Language Learning & Technology is currently published three times per year (February, June, and October).

Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Sponsors, Board, and Editorial Staff Volume 15, Number 3

SPONSORS University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)

CO-SPONSOR Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

ADVISORY AND EDITORIAL BOARDS Advisory Board Susan Gass Michigan State University Richard Schmidt University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

Editorial Board Nike Arnold Portland State University Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas Georgetown University Klaus Brandl University of Washington Thierry Chanier Universite Blaise Pascal Tracey Derwing University of Alberta Lara Ducate University of South Carolina Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University Regine Hampel The Open University Debra Hardison Michigan State University Claire Kennedy Griffith University, Brisbane Markus Kötter University of Siegen Eva Lam Northwestern University Marie-Noelle Lamy The Open University Lina Lee University of New Hampshire Meei-Ling Liaw National Taichung University Lara Lomicka University of South Carolina Paul Kei Matsuda Arizona State University Jill Pellettieri Santa Clara University Hayo Reinders Middlesex University, London Bryan Smith Arizona State University Patrick Snellings University of Amsterdam Maggie Sokolik University of California Berkeley Susana Sotillo Montclair State University Paige Ware Southern Methodist University Cynthia White Massey University

Copyright © 2011 Language Learning & Technology, ISSN 1094-3501.

The contents of this publication were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (CFDA 84.229, P229A60012-96 and P229A6007). However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and one should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

Bonnie Youngs Carnegie Mellon University

Editorial Staff Editors Dorothy Chun University of CA, Santa Barbara Mark Warschauer University of California, Irvine Associate Editors Trude Heift Simon Fraser University Philip Hubbard Stanford University Rick Kern University of California, Berkeley Carla Meskill State University of New York-

Albany Glenn Stockwell Waseda University Managing Editor Daniel Jackson University of Hawai‘i at Manoa Web Production Editor Carol Wilson-Duffy Michigan State University Book & Multimedia Review Editor

Paige Ware Southern Methodist University

Emerging Technologies Editor Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University Social Media Editor Chin-Hsi Lin University of California, Irvine Copy Editors Rebecca Estes University of California, Davis Dennis Koyama Kanda University of International

Studies Jake Kletzien Daegu National University of

Education Troy Rubesch Kanda University of International

Studies Shoko Sasayama University of Hawai‘i at Manoa

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/commentary.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 1–3

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 1

SPECIAL ISSUE COMMENTARY

LEARNER AUTONOMY AND NEW LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Hayo Reinders, Middlesex University Cynthia White, Massey University

INTRODUCTION

The areas of autonomy and technology in language education have a potentially very close but in practice often also uneasy relationship. In a narrow sense, technology is a tool that helps learners and educators to achieve certain educational goals. Autonomy can be one of those goals. But it can also in itself be an instrument towards the achievement of other educational goals. Process and product often get confused, especially when talking about the influence of technology on the development of autonomy. In the 1990s, for example, a common argument for the use of technology in the language classroom was that technology (e.g., the Internet) would give learners access to authentic examples of the target language and thus ‘increase’ their autonomy. We now better understand that unrestricted access to information, without proper guidance and feedback, can in fact inhibit learners from taking more responsibility (Murray, 1999), and thus developing themselves as autonomous learners.

Further confusion arises from the inconsistent use of the term autonomy. Although there is general agreement on the meaning of the term as learners’ ability to take charge of their own learning (Holec 1981), in practice it is unclear whether this involves or overlaps with such learner differences as motivation, metacognitive awareness and affect, and—perhaps more importantly—it is unclear how this can (and indeed should) be operationalized. How can we ‘measure’ autonomy? How do we know what impact instructional interventions have on learners’ autonomy, and how in turn do changes therein affect learning outcomes? Partly as a result of this confusion, there is a dearth of empirical studies in the area of autonomy. Claiming that participating in online chat with native speakers outside of the classroom empowers learners may well be true, but if and how that is related to language learning is unclear; even if it can be shown that learners interact more when given access to chat facilities, is this because they feel ‘in charge of their own learning’, or is it because they simply enjoy speaking more with people of their own age? To an extent such variables can be isolated, but on the whole autonomy has been treated and researched as a set of ‘learner-internal affordances’, which collectively impact on learning. So autonomy is a bit like art; we can’t agree on its definition, but all seem to know what it is. However, recognizing autonomous learning when we see it is one thing, understanding how we can better encourage it, and the role of technology in this, is another.

Technology has the potential to not only provide access to resources for learning in a superficial sense, but also to offer increased affordances for autonomous learning. Opportunities for interaction, situated learning, and support for learning outside formal contexts, have greatly improved because of technology. These affordances are not yet always capitalized on. However, and importantly in the context of this special issue, they offer the opportunity to support the learning process. At a superficial level, computers are good at monitoring students’ engagement and progress, and programs exist that use this information to guide learners and encourage them to make decisions about their own learning (Reinders, 2007).

More recently, and perhaps more liberatingly, mobile technologies allow learners to have access to resources in out-of-school contexts (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005), potentially linking affordances in the environment with immediate support. As a result, there is now a much richer appreciation of the role of learning outside the classroom (Benson & Reinders, 2011), not only in terms of the time learners spend learning, practicing and of course using the language in non-formal learning environments, but also in the ways in which educators can prepare learners for, as well as guide them in such learning. A

Hayo Reinders and Cynthia White Special Issue Commentary

reconceptualization of language education as the provision of a collection of affordances that start from the learners as individuals, and include classrooms, materials, native speakers, teachers, assessment, other learners, the workplace, and so on, has been made more practically feasible, and methodologically easier to investigate, through the pervasive use of technology. We therefore gradually see a shift in our understanding of autonomy as a rather vague set of skills or attitudes, to more specific abilities to navigate different (learning) environments, with technology playing an important facilitative role.

In addition, technology has revealed the extent and importance of the social networks learners engage in, and their effect on what and how people learn. This has helped researchers and practitioners to learn more about what it means to be an autonomous learner in practice. For example, it is now better understood that autonomy is very much about interdependence, not merely about independence. Such understanding opens opportunities for more meaningful instructional intervention, or support.

But technology also places constraints on the development of autonomy. As mentioned above, access to, for example, authentic materials or native speakers can be detrimental if learners are not prepared or supported for this. Reliance on technology can, for example, discourage learners from memorizing new vocabulary when they have direct access to an online dictionary. Technology can also give students a false sense of development; online games, for example, have a great deal of potential for language practice (Gee, 2003), but can be limited in terms of genre and domains and may not push learners to engage in other types of communication that are also important, such as extensive reading, or writing a longer text.

This tension between affordance and constraint is a recurring theme in the investigation of the relationship between technology and autonomy, and is one that is also apparent in the contributions to this special issue. The authors each take a different perspective on the intimate relationships between autonomy and technology outlined above.

Collentine takes the bold move of investigating the relationship between two aspects of autonomy, independent action and decision-making, with subsequent input, and ultimately with linguistic complexity and accuracy. To do this, she created a 3D environment in which 58 learners of Spanish were given a series of tasks to complete. On completion of the tasks, participants were assigned to dyads and asked to discuss their findings and come to a consensus using synchronous chat. By using the tracking data available from the game and combining this with the chat logs, Collentine was able to link students’ actions in the game with their subsequent language production. She finds a relationship between learners’ actions in the game, the input they receive as a result, and the accuracy and complexity of their language production during chat. However, the relationship is not always straightforward and Collentine makes the important observation that making choices in itself does not lead to more accuracy or complexity; the implication is that the quality of the input matters. This study is particularly interesting as it shows how learners’ choices, the language input they receive and their own output, are related. In this way, Collentine’s study links autonomy and language acquisition, and provides a strong rationale for a move away from a perception of ‘access to resources’ as linked directly to the development of autonomy.

Another important factor in developing learner autonomy is the guidance students receive while learning. Hafner and Miller report on a course developed in Hong Kong that used technology to bridge the structured environment of the course with the unstructured out-of-class learning environment of the students. By analyzing students’ blog contributions, through focus groups, and questionnaire responses, they identified a number of elements as particularly important in encouraging learners to take more responsibility for their learning. These included the use of authentic and motivational materials and modes of communication, the opportunity to work independently and to manage the learning process, both individually and in teams, to reflect on the learning and to learn with and from others. Hafner and Miller show that careful syllabus design can incorporate these elements and lead to greater student autonomy.

Language Learning & Technology 2

Hayo Reinders and Cynthia White Special Issue Commentary

Language Learning & Technology 3

A similar blend of structured support and increased responsibility for the learning process by learners themselves is evident in Lee’s article. She investigated the use of blogs and face-to-face interviews by 16 American undergraduate students preparing for study abroad, on their development of intercultural competence. She found that the blogs gave students the opportunity to work independently but that critical reflection was dependent to some extent on the teacher’s guidance and feedback, again highlighting the fact that autonomy is natural to human learning but does not come naturally.

The role of materials for self-study is investigated by Nielson. She studied two of the most popular self-study CD-ROM packages with 326, generally highly motivated, American adult learners. One of the main findings was a very high rate of attrition and among those who did not terminate their self-study, a limited engagement with the packages. She argues that this was due in part to logistical and technical problems, but also in large part due to a lack of support for autonomous learning. Participants indicated wanting more guidance and more content relevant to their work, among others. Nielson concludes by questioning the usefulness of packages such as these.

What these contributions show then, is the diversity in autonomy research. Its relationship with language acquisition, its role in course design, support for the learning process, and materials are only some of the elements in autonomy research and practice. This is both a strength and a weakness. We need more studies such as those above to conduct more detailed and more situated research. At the same time, this also means that autonomy is an important part of many teachers’ and researchers’ work, and deserves further recognition. The papers in this special issue also show the importance of the teacher or course designer; autonomy is ultimately about learners’ ability to take control over their own learning, but the quality of the input, the quality of the syllabus, the quality of the support and the materials provided by the teacher are crucial in its development. We hope this special issue makes a valuable contribution to this ongoing quest.

REFERENCES

Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.) (2011). Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (Eds.) (2005). Mobile learning: a handbook for educators and trainers. Open and Flexible Learning Series. London, UK: Routledge.

Murray, D. E. (1999). Access to information technology: Considerations for language educators. Prospect, 14(3), 4–12.

Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System 35(1), 93–111.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/emerging.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 4–11

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 4

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES

AUTONOMOUS LANGUAGE LEARNING

Robert Godwin-Jones Virginia Commonwealth University Interest in learner autonomy has increased substantially in the last decade. Given the emphasis on student-centered pedagogy and on accommodating student diversity, this is not surprising. What is also both driving and, to some extent, enabling this approach to learning are new directions and developments in technology. The dramatic increase in online resources, network services, and educational software, together provide new opportunities for self-directed learning. In the last few years, developments in mobile technology and the explosion in social media use have accelerated the level of interest.

LEARNING TO LEARN

The concept of learner autonomy of course pre-dates computing, traceable at least back to the enlightenment thinkers and likely to a much earlier period. Interestingly, its importance for language educators parallels the growth of computer-aided language learning (CALL), with the two intersecting increasingly in recent years. Most accounts reference Henri Holec’s work for the Council of Europe in the late 1970’s as the starting point for language educators’ work in this area. From the beginning it’s been recognized that developing learner autonomy does not just involve putting appropriate learning materials in front of a student, but necessitates helping the student develop the skills and mindset that can lead to successful self-guided language study. Part of that effort has a psychological side; the student needs to have the proper motivation for independent study. Partly the process is political and has to do with educational or school policies and the degree of individual freedom afforded learners to engage in autonomous learning, which may well entail making choices and taking actions that go counter to prevailing educational or cultural norms/guidelines.

The starting point for enabling language learning autonomy is for the student to develop effective strategies for pursuing individual learning, while being willing and able to change and improve those strategies over time, as the language learning progresses. Writing learner diaries has traditionally been one of the ways used to help learners develop this kind of metacognitive knowledge. Leni Dam has written extensively about “logbooks” used for this purpose, both by students and teachers. Writing works well for this purpose, as it invites self-reflection, an important component of learning to learn. Today, online writing through class or personal blogs, can serve this purpose, with the added benefits of sharable diaries, potential for resource linking, and inclusion in an electronic portfolio. Another possible tool is an online editor such as Google Docs. Documents created are by default private but can be shared as well, allowing learning diaries, as appropriate, to be read by teachers or peers. Dam herself sees the future as e-logs.

E-portfolios can be an effective means to document both personal achievements and learning trajectories. They serve a variety of purposes: personal, educational and vocational. The European Language Portfolio, as does the LinguaFolio on which it is based, includes a language biography, self-assessments based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, and a collection of learner-created language samples. Portfolios of this kind, in addition to their more formal role, can perform a powerful pedagogical function, in encouraging both further language study and learner autonomy. They give the student concrete evidence of achievement and build confidence in one’s ability, an important component in language learning success. As is the case for other mechanisms to encourage autonomous language learning, use of language portfolios works best if separated both from an educational setting and from a proprietary platform, so that the portfolios can be seen as personal documents (not a school assignment) and can be used long after schooling has been completed. The IMS ePortfolio project is an effort to

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

encourage a helpful development, namely compatibility of electronic portfolios across systems. Currently import/export of portfolios from systems such as Blackboard Learn is problematic.

THE TEACHER’S ROLE

It’s not only learner diaries that are being digitized, but so too are instruments for assessing student metacognitive and social-affective readiness for language learning. The widely used Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) are available online. Mei-Mei Change (2010) has written about her use of the online MSLQ. Karen Bond has created a Web accessible version of a questionnaire on successful language learners, broken down in sections dealing with language background, learning strategies, and motivational factors. Learning style questionnaires are available online as well. Such information is useful for all language learners but it is especially so in a distance learning environment. The higher percentage of students who drop or fail online courses compared to face-to-face courses points to the lack of preparedness of many students in terms of time management, online skills, and effective learning strategies. More studies such as that by Elke Stracke (2007) on why students drop online or hybrid language courses could be informative. Students in her study reported major concerns in the areas of support and course structure, factors which to a large extent are under the teacher’s control. Part of the difficulty in cultivating learner autonomy may be cultural. In many cultures, education is entirely teacher-centered. Students may well have difficulty breaking the mold of passivity. The difficulty may well lie on the teacher side as well; the loss of control that may accompany increased learner autonomy can be unsettling.

Most distance learning today is delivered in an environment that is not always conducive to autonomous learning, namely through a learning management system (LMS, also called a virtual learning environment, or VLE). Some LMS’s such as Moodle—popular in language learning—are more flexible and customizable than others. A recent study from Thailand discusses how one institution customized Moodle for delivery of language instruction (Wright & Wright, 2011). There are also examples of LMSs custom-designed for language learning. The CNAI Center in Pamplona has used their own LMS that incorporates not only administrative and content retrieval functions but also features a personal learning portfolio with student notes and individual vocabulary lists. The English Language Self-Access Centre (ELSAC) at the University of Auckland uses a similar system which includes student monitoring, enabling language advisors to base recommendations on actual student language performance. A Thai LMS called My English features an inviting user interface with nine different learning modules (Darasawang & Reinders, 2010).

Yet even if they incorporate language-specific tools or collaborative services, LMSs are essentially a teacher-centered tool. It is rare that anyone other than the teacher makes the decisions on what is presented in the LMS course Web site, how the materials are organized, and how the learner is expected to progress through the course. An alternative some teachers are beginning to embrace is to use a more flexible and customizable tool such as a personal learning environment (PLE). PLEs such as netvibes or pageflakes are designed to serve as containers for modules or widgets which can be added or deleted as the user wishes. This allows an instructor to create a master Web page or site, which can then be customized by individual learners, who might add resources they find useful. An example of this kind is the Laowai site, for learning Mandarin Chinese, created using iGoogle. Another benefit of PLE’s is the ability to add modules that may not be related to language learning at all but which are personally important to the learner, such as a twitter feed, messaging service, or webcam video. Widgets are built in Flash or HTML/JavaScript and are available for many different services and can be found in collector sites such as WidgetBox.

One of the primary roles teachers can play in enabling and encouraging learner autonomy in a face-to-face or online context, is to provide students with guidance on recommended online tools and services. For instructors lucky enough to have a language lab or self-access center, this role may be played by the

Language Learning & Technology 5

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

language professionals working there. Some such centers also do language advising, which can go considerably beyond the frequent role of administering a language placement exam, to include one-on-one counseling on possible approaches and resources appropriate to a student’s language interest and proficiency level. The Language Center at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology created an electronic advising service, Virtual English Language Advice (VELA), which enables students to develop individual learning plans with the help of the VELA system and in conjunction with center staff (Lázaro & Reinders, 2007).

Individual teachers can also play a useful role in helping students find and evaluate appropriate online resources. One of the folders I include in each of my language course Web sites provides links to the many online resources now available for learning German, including translation tools, online dictionaries, grammar sites, German language news, proofing tools, flashcard programs, and links to how-to-learn sites. Particularly useful for students who are interested in working with language materials beyond class assignments are sites which offer pedagogically assisted authentic content such as news broadcasts slowed down or articles with vocabulary aids and audio versions. For German, all of these are available from the Deutsche Welle. We know from second language acquisition (SLA) research how useful such enhanced input is to the learning process, but these resources also enable greater learner autonomy, encouraging students to go beyond course assignments. Teachers can also play an important role in demonstrating how specific online tools can best be used. Instead of discouraging use of a tool such as Google Translate, for example, teachers might discuss its use, point out how it works (mostly parallel corpus-based) and illustrate its benefits/problems with some sample translations. Some discussion of proofing tools (grammar and spelling) even at early stages of language study can also be very helpful. It would be nice to see more studies, such as that by Rimrott and Heift (2005) on the use of generic spellcheckers. Not unexpectedly, their study shows that a spelling tool designed for first language users has problems with second language errors. Studies on the effectiveness of students consulting online dictionaries are also helpful.

AUTONOMOUS, NOT ALONE

In addition to the teacher-student dynamic, another critical component in the development of effective learner autonomy is a peer network. Contrary to what the term might evoke in popular usage, learner autonomy does not involve secluding oneself in a cork-lined room with a mountain of learning materials. This is all the more true for the social phenomenon of human speech. Computer interactions can simulate aspects of this process, but it is not nearly the same as direct human-to-human communication. This aspect of autonomous language learning occupies a prominent place in published studies. The essays in the collection Maintaining Control: Autonomy and Language Learning (2009), an excellent introduction to the topic, virtually all highlight the social dimensions of learner autonomy. Edith Esch in that volume succinctly lays out how this use is often addressed in recent research, “Language teachers and researchers need to make a choice between two roads to guide their future practice and research: the road giving prominence to individual personal autonomy or the road giving prominence to autonomy as the capacity to exercise critical thinking about learning as a participant in a social milieu” (Kindle e-book location 731, emphasis in original). It is in fact “in the social milieu” that developments have accelerated in recent years. Improvements in network access and speed in the last 20 years have enabled a plethora of services for language learners to connect with peers. Not all are conducive necessarily to building language autonomy, and their use is one of personal choice (if not mandated by a class assignment). There is a great deal of difference in the approaches used by online services, ranging from the highly interactive immersive environment in Second Life to a predominantly email exchange system in tandem learning networks. Common to most computer mediated communication (CMC) is the possibility of moving beyond text exchanges, to include audio or video. Voice chat is a powerful addition to Second Life, as video conferencing is to tandem exchanges.

Language Learning & Technology 6

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

While teachers may provide the initial setup and basic guidance for CMC, the participants themselves ultimately determine how useful the communication becomes for language learning. Many studies, including a recent analysis by Lai and Li (2011), have shown that engagement in CMC helps learners to create a positive second language persona. As the authors discuss, this development may arrive incidentally to the pursuit of other online activities, such as multi-player gaming. Studies have shown that the changes taking place in CMC often provide, through peers, the kind of scaffolding helpful in guiding learners towards greater self-confidence and autonomy. We know from SLA research that enabling language learners to teach others provides a powerful mechanism for deep language acquisition. This is a process that peer exchanges in CMC can make possible.

Françoise Blin (2004) has pointed out, in reference to tandem learning and other online tools and services, that “some CALL applications may...promote the development and the exercise of learner autonomy, provided that learners are already significantly autonomous” (p. 381). Case studies in recent years of CMC tend to emphasize the importance of providing up-front guidance both on the use of the tool or service as well as on ways to leverage its use for the purpose of improving language skills. A crucial part of that process is leading students to be self-reflective in their use of language in CMC. This is not an easy thing to do, leading Schwienhorst (2007) in his recent study of MOOs (text-based online multi-user virtual reality systems) to wonder if creators of CALL tools might consider forcing users to do planning, reflection and self-assessment. Greg Kessler’s use of wikis in language learning (2009) also points to the difficulties in that environment of having students writing move beyond an exclusive concern with content editing to examine language forms, even if, as in his case, the users were aspiring language teachers. Kessler points to an important consideration in respect to CMC and linguistic accuracy, “[i]t may be important to provide students with varied contexts in which they can interact. They may benefit simultaneously from autonomous contexts in which they do not feel compelled to strive for accuracy as well as contexts that provide explicit demands for accuracy” (p. 92). Using multiple kinds of online writing is helpful as well in having students learn about different registers, and the appropriateness of language constructions in different contexts.

SELF-DIRECTED STUDY

From the beginning CALL programs have provided some degree of choice to the learner, but in the early days that was generally limited to the pace of program prompts or the mode of presentation. Today’s individualized CALL such as adaptive CALL (also called intelligent tutors) offers a wide variety of choice and an extensive set of tools for independent learning. They also can include advanced features such as voice recognition and multiple feedback options. Here, too, the challenge has been to convince users to take advantage of the multiplicity of choices as well as the available help mechanisms. The personalizing advantages are only available if the user actively selects them. As Carol Chapelle (2005) has pointed out in reference to reading and listening comprehension aids in CALL applications, the act of choosing to use such help leads to deeper mental processing that promotes language acquisition. Moving students to the point where they will take advantage of feedback and comprehension aids involves enhancing their metacognitive knowledge about language learning. If they can learn how to build on existing knowledge, how to profit from errors, how to examine more closely the forms they are using, this can only have a salutary effect on their language ability and on their capacity for autonomous learning.

Some individualized CALL programs have a wide sweep, aiming at virtual language and culture immersion. This is the case for the Operational Language & Culture Training Systems (from alelo) such as Tactical Iraqi Arabic. Less ambitious are the more common CALL projects which target individual learner improvement in discrete areas such as grammar and vocabulary. In these programs, too, guidance is seen as needed to help users to “notice” forms . Often such vocabulary and grammar training programs are language corpus based. Concordancers can be especially useful for working in an area that often gets short shrift in classroom instruction, namely collocations. Dealing directly with a corpus through use of a

Language Learning & Technology 7

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

concordancer or key word in context (KWIC) interface can be a demanding proposition for many learners. We are starting to see more experimentation on the use of concordances in different ways so as to make access available for students at all levels. The CANDLE project, for example, draws on a parallel corpus for constructing a bilingual concordancer, which may be easier to use for less advanced students (Liou et al., 2006). Chang and Sun (2009) effectively deployed a concordancer in lower level language instruction by supplying abundant scaffolding. The Intelligent Academic Discourse Evaluator (IADE) is a corpus-based automated writing tool aimed at improving writing and good grammar usage through providing extensive color-coded feedback (Cotos, 2011). Vickers and Ene (2006) used typographical elements to make it easy for learners to compare usage of particular forms in their own writing and in a passage by a native speaker.

Many such studies show a marked improvement for individual learners compared to other methods. Geraughty and Quinn (2009) found their method for helping users learn Japanese characters through a Flash vocabulary program to be twice as effective as a paper approach. On the other hand, Jarvis and Szywczk (2010) in their study of students working with English grammar, found paper materials to be preferred to computer tutorials. Interestingly, one of the reasons for their preference was the portability of the print materials. This was also a concern expressed by students in Stracke’s (2007) study of students in a hybrid elementary language class. It would be interesting to see if the availability of easy to carry but powerful mobile devices causes a shift in favor of those devices.

Students preferring print materials also highlighted their ease of use, probably indicating navigational, logical, and structural issues with online resources. Ease of use and the inherent device-encouraged single focus have helped to make the Apple iPad a phenomenal commercial success. Developers for mobile devices including smartphones and tablets have reduced screen real estate at their disposal, which forces them to be more efficient in their content presentation and navigational structure. Debra Hoven and Agnieszka Palalas’ recent study (2011) indicates that not all design issues in the mobile setting have been solved, as students in their study, using iPod Touches, reported good experiences using multimedia, but not with text. Hoven and Palalas highlight another important aspect of design for mobile devices, namely the unique combination they offer of a highly personal device with powerful networking capabilities. This is ideal for enabling what they call “ecological constructivism,” focusing equally on the individual and on the group. By their nature mobile devices feature on-demand flexibility, adjusting automatically and instantaneously to new information. Hoven and Palalas advocate building on this environment to personalize learning by allowing for continual and dynamic content creation and modification.

OUTLOOK

For students mobile devices integrate real-life interests and academic roles. If learner autonomy is about personal choice, then mobile should serve as an ideal enabler. Examples of personal choice in action, that is, case histories of individual learner stories, can be an effective method for exploring how individual choice can work in a variety of circumstances. This kind of case history research is illustrated by Gao’s story of Zhang Haidi (2010), the disabled Chinese woman who famously learned English on her own during the Cultural Revolution, or Murray’s story (2011) of the Japanese student who becomes motivated to study English after falling for a Norwegian girl (like a Rosetta Stone ad come true). Murray highlights the role of imagination in the process. Both Gao and Murray’s learners imagine a second self (in Zhang’s case an English girl from Yorkshire, inspired by Jane Eyre) that helps them to learn. Learner autonomy ultimately should provide the ability to choose modes of learning of significance to the individual. As Phil Benson has written (2009), learner autonomy viewed in this way has a socio-political significance:

Do we view autonomy as a matter of the production of responsible, active, flexible and adaptable worker-learners who are capable of fitting into and matching the demands of the new economic order? Or do we view autonomy as a matter of learner agency—the production of critically aware

Language Learning & Technology 8

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

learners who are capable of controlling their own learning and lives and of participating in the authoring of the worlds in which they live?” (Kindle e-book location 595).

“Critically aware learners” are the ones who will do well in a fast-changing world, in which knowledge is far from being fixed. In that sense, the capacity for autonomous learning can prepare students for a fulfilling future while also providing the flexibility and skills for the variety of work environments and demands they are likely to face in their lives.

In addition to individual learner stories, we are seeing as well compelling case histories of autonomous language learning in challenging social and economic conditions. One recent account (Kuchah & Smith, 2011) recounts the experience of teaching more than 200 African teenagers, engaging them in group work under trees, while striving to empower their learning without the help of textbooks. Learner autonomy is often seen as a Western concept, but more and more accounts are emerging that highlight successes around the world. An account from Vietnam (Dang, 2010) highlights achieving local and individual autonomy despite a variety of community constraints. A good number of studies have been published in recent years discussing autonomous learning projects in India and China. David Dixon’s recent review (2011) of projects promoting autonomous language learning world-wide discusses a number of such projects.

Learner autonomy will look different in different cultures, and teachers need to adopt to local, regional and national contexts. In the USA, for example, the emphasis on standardized testing has sent a chill through efforts to encourage student and teacher autonomy. Nevertheless, it seems likely that autonomous language learning will grow in importance as we continue to see increased interest in language learning and language maintenance for both personal and professional reasons. It would be helpful in that respect to see studies on learner autonomy and multilingualism. What benefits are there in having gone through learning a second language to the process of learning a third or fourth language? Desirable as well would be studies that show more evidence of how enhanced metacognition leads to actual language proficiency. Françoise Blin points out (2004) that there needs to be more attention paid in evaluating CALL projects not just to the effectiveness of the individual features and functions they incorporate but also to what extent they can be used effectively in wider contexts and how they might contribute to building learner autonomy. It would be useful too to have more studies/reviews of the increasing number of commercial Internet language learning services such as livemocha or byki from these perspectives as well. As we approach the 10-year anniversary of the decision by Drake University to abolish its language departments, in part in the name of self-directed learning, we can only hope that more emphasis on autonomous language learning results in empowering learners, not sacking teachers.

REFERENCES

Benson, P. (2009). Making sense of autonomy in language learning. In Pemberton, R., Toogood, S. & Barfield, A., (Eds.). Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Blin F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2), 377–395.

Chapelle, C. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert and G. Petrie (Eds.), Call research perspectives (53–64), Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chang, M. (2010). Effects of self-monitoring on web-based language learner’s performance and motivation. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 298–310.

Chang, W., & Sun, Y. (2009). Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 283–302.

Language Learning & Technology 9

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

Cotos, E. (2011). Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 420–459.

Dang, T. (2010). Learner autonomy in EFL studies in Vietnam: A discussion from sociocultural perspective. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 3–9.

Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2010). Encouraging autonomy with an online language support system. CALL-EJ Online, 11(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/11-2/darasawang_reinders.html

Dixon, D, (2011). Recent literature concerning the support of initiatives promoting language learner autonomy around the world. Language Teaching, 44(2), 266–276.

Esch, E. (2009). Crash or clash? Autonomy 10 years on. In Pemberton, R., Toogood, S. & Barfield, A., (Eds.). Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Gao, X. (2010). Autonomous language learning against all odds. System, 38, 580–590.

Geraughty, B., & Quinn, M. (2009). An evaluation of independent learning of the Japanese hiragana system using an interactive CD. ReCALL, 21(2), 227–240.

Hoven, D., & Palalas, A. (2011). (Re)conceptualizing design approaches for mobile language learning. CALICO Journal, 28(3), 699–720.

Jarvis, H., & Szymczyk, M. (2010). Student views on learning grammar with web and book-based materials. ELT-J, 64(1), 32–44.

Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79–95. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf

Kuchah, K., & Smith, R. (2011). Pedagogy of autonomy for difficult circumstances: From practice to principles. Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching, 5(2), 119–140.

Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.

Lázaro, N., & Reinders, H. (2007). Innovation in self-access: Three case studies. CALL-EJ Online, 8(2). Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/8-2/lazaro_reinders.html

Liou, H, Chang, J., Chen, H., Lin, C., Liaw, M., Gao, Z.,…You, G. (2006). Corpora processing and computational scaffolding for a web-based English learning environment: The CANDLE Project. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 77–95.

Murray, G. (2011). Metacognition and imagination in self-access language learning. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (5–16). Gaziantep: Zirve University. Retrieved from http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr

Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., & Barfield, A. (Eds). (2009). Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Rimrott, A., & Trude, H. (2005). Language learners and generic spell checkers in CALL. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 17–48.

Schwienhorst, K. (2007). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. London: Routledge.

Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57–78.

Vickers, C., & Ene, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT-J, 60(2), 109–116.

Wright, G., & Wright, P. (2011). Using Moodle to enhance Thai language learning: Instructor and learner

Language Learning & Technology 10

Robert Godwin-Jones Emerging Technologies: Autonomous Language Learning

Language Learning & Technology 11

perspectives. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 23, 375–398.

RESOURCE LIST

Learner Autonomy

Learner autonomy - EduTech Wiki

CALL-EJ Online: Encouraging Autonomy with an Online Language Support System

Learning for Life

ALL project

CALPER: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Language and Research

Metacognition

Logbooks (PDF)

Google Docs

One to One Consultations

European Language Portfolio

LinguaFolio - National Council of State Supervisors for Languages

IMS GLC: ePortfolio Specification

MSLQ Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (PDF)

SILL Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (PDF)

Identifying the Characteristics, Strategies & Techniques of Successful Language Learners

LEARNING STYLE INVENTORY

Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire

Comparing Electronic Dictionary Functions and Use - CALICO Journal

Computer-mediated Communication

Tandem Server Bochum - language learning exchange partnerships - eTandem

Language Exchange Community - Practice and Learn Foreign Languages

VoiceThread - Group conversations around images, documents, and videos

Self-directed learning

Operational Language & Culture Training Systems | Tactical Iraqi, Tactical Pashto, Tactical Dari, Tactical French

CALPER: Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Language and Research

netvibes

pageflakes

Laowai Chinese 老外中文

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/actionresearch.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 12–27

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 12

ACTION RESEARCH

STUDENT TECHNOLOGY USE IN A SELF-ACCESS CENTER

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan

Technology has played an increasingly vital role in self-access learning over the past twenty years or so, yet little research has been conducted into learners’ actual use of the technology both for self-directed learning and as part of everyday life. This paper describes an ongoing action research project at a self-access learning center (SALC) at a university in Japan. Previous research has mainly looked at resource availability in a self-access setting (see for example Lázaro & Reinders, 2007) or has evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of various technology tools (for example Ruiz-Madrid, 2006; Mynard, 2009). This paper presents an expansive view of technology-based language learning tools that includes materials design, support, and purchasing decisions. The paper shares findings of a qualitative research study involving a questionnaire and interviews with self-access center users. Concrete, corrective actions to remedy issues and improve language-learning opportunities for SALC users are reported. These include: raising awareness of the materials, improving formal and informal support, developing materials based on students’ patterns of use, and making more strategic purchasing decisions. Broader implications of the research are that technology deployment and support can be improved by focusing careful attention on the students served by a particular self-access center.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, the authors provide a description of an action research project based in a self-access learning center (SALC) at a small private university in Japan. A self-access center is a facility which “consists of a number of resources (in the form of materials, activities and support), usually located in one place, and is designed to accommodate learners of different levels, goals, styles and interests” (Cotterall & Reinders, 2001, p. 2). The aims of SALCs can be pragmatic, ideological, or both (Sheerin, 1997). The pragmatic goal is usually to offer ways of individualized learning, and the ideological goal is to promote learner autonomy. Sturtridge (1997) noted that unless SALCs succeed in fostering autonomy, they are not likely to achieve their language-learning goals. Learner autonomy is fostered in various ways. For example, by offering learner development courses, access to advising services, opportunities for individualization, collaboration and interdependence, and through the design and layout of materials. One of the ways in which language learning goals have been supported over the past twenty years is through the use of computer technology. As various technology-based language learning tools (TLLT) and resources have become more readily available, diverse and easy to use, they have become an increasingly important component of SALCs. In this context, TLLT is defined here as any piece of hardware or software that can be leveraged for language acquisition regardless of whether or not it was originally designed for that purpose (see Appendix A, Section C for a list of the TLLT examined in the study).

The researchers were interested in the extent to which SALC users used TLLT for learning and leisure activities. The aim of this study was to investigate the ways in which SALC users currently use technology outside of class and how they might consider using TLLT in the future for self-access language study and practice. Results of this research will assist the SALC team (which consists of managers, learning advisors, and materials developers) in providing and supporting appropriate, technology-rich materials targeted to learners’ desires, needs, and interests.

The researchers noticed that TLLT were under-used in an otherwise busy and popular SALC, despite the

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

reported use of such resources for self-access learning elsewhere (Gardner & Miller, 2010). For example, over a period of one recent 14-week semester, students borrowed only 65 pieces of software. These included stand-alone software and CD-ROMs accompanying books. Considering that the center frequently lends over 300 items per day including books, magazines, music CDs and DVDs, this number is very small indeed. Table 1 shows borrowing records for a typical day in the SALC.

Table 1. SALC Borrowing Records for a Typical Day (Chosen at Random from the Past Year’s Records)

23-Jun-10

Books 218

DVDs 98

Equipment 18

Music CDs 12

Worksheets 8

Video recordings 6

Magazines 2

Total 362

The most popular materials that students borrow are books (around 60% of items borrowed), and DVDs (around 30%). The university subscribes to commercially produced online language learning programs accessible through the SALC Web site. Students are informed about the programs via orientations, classes and workshops, newsletters, and periodic e-mail bulletins, yet access reports indicate that only a handful of students have ever utilized these programs.

The researchers adopted an action research approach to addressing the problem which is illustrated via Coghlan and Brannick’s (2010) spiral model of action research (Figure 1). This paper is concerned with Cycle 1 moving into Cycle 2 of Coghlan and Brannick’s model.

Figure 1. A visualization of Coghlan & Brannick’s (2010) spiral model of action research.

Language Learning & Technology 13

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

Previous Research

The rapid growth of self-access centers particularly in the 1990s has been attributed to the increased number of language learners at universities (Gremmo & Riley, 1995) and the expanding interest in developing learner autonomy. Along with this growth came the provision of the latest technology and equipment (Gardner & Miller, 2010; Lázaro & Reinders, 2006). In an attempt to create a framework to evaluate technology use in SALCs, Lázaro and Reinders (2006) provide results of a comprehensive survey of technology available in SALCs worldwide. After examining forty-six centers in five countries, the authors found that many of the SALCs provided similar technological tools. For example, almost all of the centers employed language learning software, around three quarters of them provided access to Internet resources, and around half contained other electronic materials.

There are a number of reported benefits that TLLT might provide a self-directed language learner. Gremmo and Riley (1995) note that technological developments have provided a variety of opportunities for self-directed learning, even from older technologies such as tapes, photocopiers, TVs and VCRs. In addition, the electronic cataloguing of resources has made it easier for users to find materials of interest. However, new introductions of technology are often coupled with poor pedagogical purpose. The key factors that Gremmo and Riley (1995) presciently alluded to before the rapid digitization of resources “are the learner-training and counseling services they offer” (p. 160). New tools such as smartphones and tablet computers have further increased the richness of resources available to language learners, but their benefits might be thwarted by poor implementation. Murray (2005) discusses how newer technologies, particularly information and communication technologies (ICT) develop new digital literacies necessary for 21st century communication. Murray also describes other research trends on how technologies benefit language learning, particularly through computer-mediated communication and the Internet as an information resource: opportunities to interact with native English speakers, facilitation of language acquisition through student collaboration, identity formation, and increased motivation. However, all previously mentioned research emphasizes that technology by itself does not promote learner autonomy. Moreover, for technology to foster true learner autonomy, it must provide opportunities for learners to take responsibility for their learning and help them to make meaningful choices (Barnett, 1993).

However, when used effectively, technology offers appreciable benefits for language learners and there are many ways that TLLT may be deployed to facilitate self-access language learning. Reinders and Lázaro (2007) describe ten SALCs around the world where technology is characterized as “innovative” according to their framework. In their study, several of the best centers had some common characteristics: a wide range of tools available, and both practical and learner support. For example, all ten centers provided practical support through electronic catalogues and communication, and learner support through language learning materials. However, the study also found that learner training and assessment were lacking in most of these centers.

Choosing Appropriate TLLT for a SALC

The SALC team is tasked with equipping the centers with appropriate materials for language development and practice which appeal to learners with different learning needs, styles and preferences. Resources are likely to include, among others, a combination of print materials, technology tools, audio and video materials, and software.

As an alternative to commercially produced software, authentic Web sites are readily accessible for language learners and may have a number of benefits such as providing engaging and authentic content. Although authentic materials can form useful additions to learners’ study materials, learners can be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of authentic materials on the Web. They are likely to need guidance in finding appropriate sites (Murray, 2005), and also in understanding how to use them for language learning purposes (Mynard, 2009). Potential computer-based learning activities may either leave learners to struggle alone or direct them too much (Barnett, 1993). In directing learners too much, technology can

Language Learning & Technology 14

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

actually be a threat to autonomy because it simply transfers directive classroom methods onto a machine (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). Barnett suggests providing guided access to the Web sites and activities with multiple entry points and learner training elements so that students do not navigate aimlessly. Programs need to be augmented by introductory and help pages. Ideally, the scaffolding activities will promote learner autonomy by raising awareness to ways in which a learner can source his or her own authentic texts for additional tasks.

Admittedly, the value of technology does not only lie in the range of support it attempts to offer but in the ways that students actually draw on such support for their day-to-day learning. However, the studies mentioned above did not ask students directly what they needed in terms of support. For example, Lázaro and Reinders (2006) looked at the provision of technology, but did not look at its use by learners.

TLLT have the potential to promote learner autonomy if used appropriately (Mynard, 2009). For example, learners should ideally engage in (a) a needs analysis activity prior to selecting the resource, (b) self-monitoring during the task, and (c) reflection after completing the activity. Awareness of these skills can form part of the learner development services offered by a self-access center. TLLT that provide communication opportunities such as blogs, chat rooms, and social networking sites are examples of cognitive tools (Lajoie, 2005) and offer further benefits for learners. Cognitive tools assume high levels of engagement and require learners to “reorganize their knowledge in a manner that results in deeper understanding” (p. 87).

Other research of TLLT in SALCs has focused on resources and student use, attitudes, and expectations. A study conducted in Oman focused on students’ attitudes on technology use: frequency, reason, what they learned, what they liked, and ease of use (Al Saidi, 1991). To remedy a problem in which language learners here underused TLLT, Al Saidi suggested teachers’ feedback was a key factor in determining frequency of use and more training, support, and awareness of materials for learners. Deepwell and Malik (2008) used a case study approach to explore 250 English university students’ expectations of technology, lecturers’ engagement with technology, and how it supported transition from different educational contexts. Results showed that to maximize learners’ experience with TLLT in a self-directed environment, guidance and feedback from lecturers is essential. In Japan, the education ministries have made technology penetration in education a policy priority (Elwood & MacLean, 2009) by equipping schools with the latest technology, although not always in conjunction with appropriate teacher training to use these new tools. Recent surveys of Japanese students have reflected widespread exposure to these tools, although exposure does not always result in increased proficiency or confidence (Lockley, 2011).

In sum, many studies have investigated resources and some have looked into student use. However, an expansive view of TLLT which includes materials design, support, and purchasing decisions along with concrete, corrective actions to remedy issues and improve language learning opportunities for SALC users has not been widely reported.

The SALC

The context for the study is a private university in Japan serving approximately 3,400 undergraduate and 30 graduate students. The university specializes in international studies, particularly in the areas of foreign languages, culture, and intercultural communication. The university’s Self Access Learning Centre (SALC), a purpose-built language learning facility, was established in 2001 to support students in their English study.

The SALC features facilities such as: multi-purpose rooms (MPRs) equipped with a PC, audio and video equipment, and space for six students; edutainment booths with DVD players and English satellite-linked televisions; individual study areas; a reading lounge; a writing area; listening stations with MD and MP3 players; speaking booths with English pronunciation and karaoke software; and a free conversation area. The facility is filled with over 11,000 English resources including books, magazines, newspapers,

Language Learning & Technology 15

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

worksheets, games, DVDs, CDs, and CD-ROMs of language learning software. While some TLLT require students to be on site (e.g., DVDs, satellite television, computer terminals, and other facilities) some are available for use off campus as well (e.g., borrowed CD-ROMs and Internet-based materials accessed at home). The wide availability of such materials may affect their use in the SALC. Furthermore, although some language learning resources are available to students outside the SALC (e.g., DVDs, language Web sites, and English books), the real value lies in the way in which the SALC situates the resources, learner development programs, and advising services within a target language social hub. The English-only environment provides opportunities for students to not only study the language, but also to meaningfully practice communicating in English (opportunities for immersive experiences are rare in Japan).

Research Questions

The following three research questions were formulated:

1. How do SALC users currently use TLLT?

2. How could support for meaningful use of TLLT be provided most effectively?

3. Are there TLLT that the students would like to use in the SALC?

METHODOLOGY

An action research approach was chosen within an interpretative paradigm in order to understand and interpret TLLT use in an in-depth way and to make ongoing improvements. In accordance with the cycles of action research described by Coghlan and Brannick (2010), the research contained the following reflective stages: constructing, planning action, taking action, and evaluating action. In Cycle 1, the initial “constructing” phase began when the researchers observed that although technology could support self-access learning, few students appeared to be using available TLLT. The constructing phase was explored further through dialogue and co-construction. In the “planning action” stage, the researchers developed three research questions in order to learn more about how learners used technology in their lives. The “taking action” stage involved the data collection over a one-semester period. It also included initial actions that the researchers took based on ongoing interpretation of the data. The “evaluating action” phase involved more thorough interpretation of the data and discussions. Throughout these stages, the researchers reflected and speculated on what was being observed—an approach advocated by Burns (1999). Based on the interpretation of the results of the study conducted in Cycle 1, the researchers were able to co-construct the problem areas and continue the work into Cycle 2.

Procedure

Three researchers collected data using the following two instruments:

1. A questionnaire containing some closed-response items and more open-response items (Appendix A). The questionnaire was designed to gather important demographic information and also establish the purpose of the interview.

2. In-depth, semi-structured follow-up participant interviews. Each interview lasted 20 to 30 minutes and probed for more detail on the questionnaire responses.

Participants

Over a two-month period, interviews with 29 SALC users were conducted. For 26 of the interviews, students who were in the SALC at times pre-selected by the researchers were interviewed resulting in a convenience sample relying on “available subjects – those who are close at hand or easily accessible” (Berg, 2001, p. 32).

Language Learning & Technology 16

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

The researchers individually approached possible participants. Willing participants were then given around fifteen minutes to complete an ice-breaker questionnaire (Appendix A). The researchers then returned to conduct semi-structured interviews, using the questionnaire as a springboard. The researchers kept thorough notes during the interviews, which were later typed and analyzed.

In order to include the voices of other SALC users who may not necessarily be present in the SALC, but could offer other insights, three additional interviews were secured with users who had recently used computer-based resources from the SALC. Two had used installed software in speaking booths and one had recently borrowed a CD-ROM. The participants were selected using a systematic random-sampling method from the list of the semester’s borrowing records; every third user was highlighted and contacted by e-mail. The three users who responded were interviewed.

The 29 participants’ demographic information, by chance, closely matched those of the university and SALC users. There were twenty female (69%) and nine male (31%) participants. The participants proportionally represented SALC users with nine Freshmen (31%), ten Sophomores (34%), seven Juniors (24%) and three Seniors (11%). The average amount of times that the participants visited the SALC per week was between one and three times. Their self-reported computer proficiency spanned the whole range: great (7%), above average (24%), average, (45%), below average (21%), and poor (3% - one participant). Because it is a private university, a majority of the students are middle to upper-middle class. Some reside near campus, but most live with their parents in the Chiba or Tokyo metropolitan areas. Many have part time-jobs to earn spending money.

Data Analysis

The closed-response item results were tabulated (Appendix B; Table 2), and the qualitative data collected from the interviews and open-response items were collated. The qualitative data were analyzed by each of the three researchers independently in the first instance, with each researcher identifying and categorizing the data into the agreed ten themes that were explored through the questionnaires and interviews. Next, each researcher identified and coded the qualitative data into emergent subcategories within each theme. The three researchers then met to compare and discuss the ten themes, subcategories, and coded data. Differences in names, definitions, and categorization of items were inevitable, but at the end of the process, agreement was reached. The findings emerged through reflective discussion and exploration of multiple perspectives and interpretations of the data. Through this process, the researchers agreed on the most appropriate way to categorize the data. A summary of the themes and agreed subcategories was created immediately following the discussion and can be found represented in the appendices (Appendix C; Tables 3, 4 and 5).

RESULTS

Research Question 1: How do SALC Users Currently Use TLLT?

Technology Use Outside School

The study investigated whether or not students have a computer and Internet access at home, and which tools they normally use there. The results indicate that a majority of participants do in fact use TLLT at home, echoing similar research by colleagues at the same institution (Lockley, 2011). Students commonly use computers to access tools and Web sites to help them complete homework, to communicate with friends (through Facebook and Skype, for example), and for watching online videos for entertainment (see Appendix C; Table 3, Themes 1-4). This finding was of some interest because there is a belief among many staff that students do not use computers off campus. This belief may stem from teachers’ observations of some students’ lack of basic computer skills (e.g., start-up and shut-down procedures, search engine basics, and saving files).

Language Learning & Technology 17

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

TLLT in the SALC

Students indicated that they use a variety of TLLT on a regular basis in the SALC (Appendix B; Table 2). The results indicated that watching DVDs on DVD players is the most popular technology-based activity in the SALC. Moreover, a majority of participants listed watching DVDs as their favorite activity (Appendix C; Table 3, Theme 5). In most cases, learners select a DVD to watch without engaging in any additional tasks. In other cases, learners perform other production tasks such as focused pronunciation practice or note-taking.

The second most commonly reported activity in the SALC was using an MPR. While it is not known exactly how participants used the MPRs, several students mentioned using MPRs as a private space to plan group projects and some students indicated that they often used the same technological tools as in other areas of the SALC.

Using SALC computers for social networking, viewing Web sites and software-based language learning tools were also found to be common activities. Accessing news Web sites was popular and some participants commented that they use many of the Web sites to help them with their homework. A second year male student said, “Actually I use it for my homework. [My teacher] recommends Japan Times. It is good for collecting information about Japan or foreign countries, so I use this one.”

The use of the other tools listed in question 7 on the questionnaire was not so common. One participant (a freshman student) noted that her purpose for coming to the SALC was primarily social and she felt that she did not need computers to socialize with other SALC users. In fact, a recurrent theme that occurred in the interviews was that students tended to view the SALC as a social space—a place for meeting classmates and friends and for social networking both face to face and through the Internet.

Generally, the questionnaire revealed that respondents were more likely to focus on receptive language skills (listening and reading) rather than productive skills (speaking and writing). However, social networking, one of the most popular activities, provides opportunities for both receptive and productive skills.

Research Question 2: How Could Support for Meaningful Use of TLLT be Provided Most Effectively?

Ways of Finding Out about Tools for Learning English

The participants were asked about how they find out about ways to use technology to learn English and the results are summarized in Appendix C (Table 4; Theme 6). The majority of responses included informal ways such as asking people (other students, teachers, staff) or just trying something out, or as one respondent said “If I need to find something, I search on the Internet.” Seven participants mentioned formal ways of learning how to use technology for language learning purposes such as in class from teachers, advice from learning advisors, or by attending workshops.

Help with Using Technology

In order for the researchers to understand ways in which learners can be supported in using technology for meaningful language learning, the participants were first asked about how they usually received technology support in general (Appendix C; Table 4, Theme 7). Apart from the three people who said that they either did not ask for help (n = 1), or preferred to find out by themselves (n = 2), the participants told the researchers that they would usually ask someone such as a friend or teacher to help them.

Increasing TLLT Use in the SALC

Participants were asked for their ideas and opinions about how the SALC team could encourage students to use TLLT and support services for language learning. Twenty-three participants offered ideas and these are presented in Appendix C (Table 4; Theme 8). The suggestions included training, improving

Language Learning & Technology 18

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

equipment, promotion and guidelines or instructions for TLLT. The suggestions were taken into account in the next stage of the process, but it was interesting to note that many of the students’ suggestions such as Web links, information leaflets and workshops, were already available in the SALC. Clearly there is a gap between the support the SALC team is providing and the learners’ awareness of these support materials. Therefore awareness-raising should form a major effort of the next phase to close this awareness gap. A small number of participants (n = 4) indicated an unwillingness to use TLLT, which is certainly an area that needs further exploration. Negative factors are summarized in Appendix C (Table 4; Theme 9).

Research Question 3: Are there TLLT that the Students Would Like to Use in the SALC?

To get a better understanding of which language learning tools students would be interested in using in the SALC, participants ranked a variety of TLLT, Web sites and programs from most wanted to least wanted. As not all of the participants fully completed the question, a full analysis of the ranking cannot be given. However, tools that were ranked highly (i.e., 1st, 2nd, or 3rd) are indicated in Appendix D (Table 6). Among the choices provided, links to useful Web sites and language Web sites, and video games were ranked highly by a majority of participants. Students also requested Internet-based language learning programs and recommendations and advice on how to use them. In addition, participants provided further ideas during the interviews. For example, seven students mentioned an interest in learning about mobile technology for language learning, including the iPad. Other tools mentioned were mobile software, karaoke, and worksheet-based activities (Appendix C; Table 5, Theme 10).

DISCUSSION AND ACTION

The results indicated four key areas that need the most attention in the next action research cycle: awareness-raising, support, materials design, and purchasing decisions. Interpretations of the results led to further planning and constructing in these areas. This section will summarize the key issues and describe interventions that have begun as a result of the first phase of the action research.

Awareness-raising

The SALC already offers a wide variety of TLLT, yet the results of this study indicate an awareness gap. Greater promotion of SALC technological materials is needed to avoid appropriate materials being overlooked. This supports the points made in the literature review about students needing guidance in finding appropriate resources (Murray, 2005) and making appropriate choices (Barnett, 1993).

Students recommended promotional materials such as posters and informative e-mails to promote SALC use. The SALC team has begun to take steps in this direction, namely promoting the latest SALC materials, and events to teachers and students with regular e-mail updates which are archived on the Web site. TLLT are also being promoted through the printed SALC newsletter. In addition, TLLT will be featured on the teacher Web site (which is widely accessed by staff). The ongoing orientation activities (described in the next section) should also address this awareness gap, as students will be introduced to various TLLT in class gradually over the course of the semester.

Support

Lázaro and Reinders (2006) observed that learner training is often lacking for TLLT and this seems to be the case in the present study. The participants had several insightful ideas about how to increase the use of TLLT in the SALC, some of which are now being implemented. The most common recommendation was for more formal orientation, training, and workshops to teach students to use technology meaningfully for language learning purposes. Although all freshman English majors are introduced to the SALC in an orientation lesson, feedback indicated that this might be insufficient. Currently, the SALC team is designing a series of interactive worksheets that provide ongoing detailed orientations to online resources. As Barnett (1993) suggests, the worksheets will guide learners and provide step-by-step directions. These

Language Learning & Technology 19

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

activities are separate from other SALC orientations and will be introduced to students in class later in the semester. Next steps involve uploading these worksheets to the SALC Web site.

In order to be able to use TLLT effectively for learning purposes, users first need a degree of technological competence and confidence. This is relevant to the learning environment described in this study, as participants mentioned that they did not know how to use the equipment found in the SALC. Ideas for increasing this knowledge included providing simpler, clearer instructions and also offering more workshops on technology use. The SALC team has offered workshops in the past, but these were poorly attended, which indicates that a new approach may be needed. Work is already underway to further enhance the SALC’s Web site including reviewing the links to online language learning applications (Rubesch, 2010) and researching how users access the site.

Materials Development

This study has provided the SALC team with a deeper understanding of the students it serves: what TLLT they use in the SALC and at home, methods of support, and potential tools of interests. As a result of this study, materials that increase the learning potential of these tools can be created.

Furthermore, based on the research, the SALC team is better able to predict what tools students would be interested in. In this particular context, students may be interested in materials that enrich DVD and online video viewing and social networking language learning experiences. Also, students’ interest in social networking sites could be supported to provide language-building exercises. Furthermore, materials that recreate the active social environment of this SALC in virtual worlds might be beneficial to language learners. The SALC team now has an increased focus on developing materials that match student demand and interest.

Purchasing Decisions

A priority for the next stage of this ongoing action research project will be to offer adequate support for the resources that the students are clearly interested in using. Previously, software was purchased with perceived needs in mind. From now on, purchases will be need-driven and always accompanied by a variety of promotion activities and appropriate support for learners. The results of the study indicate that more software might not necessarily be a high priority. SALC users expressed an interest in movie-related resources and social networking, yet did not necessarily exploit the resources for effective language learning potential.

Mobile technology and tablet devices are an emerging area of interest among students, especially since some of the participants mentioned mobile learning explicitly during the interviews. In addition, many learners use the SALC as a place to socialize and it could be argued that mobile technology might facilitate this more effectively than fixed computers (although research is needed in this area).

LIMITATIONS

The researchers acknowledge that involving more participants in the study would have provided more data and represented more students’ voices. However, the aim of the study was not to generalize but to gain some insights at the early stages of the action research project through in-depth interviews with the participants. As the project continues, other opportunities for input will be sought. The authors intend to replicate this study annually in order to monitor progress from the initial action research cycle. With the dynamism of modern TLLT, constant adjustments appear necessary for any SALC that strives to provide the best guidance to its learners.

Secondly, although attempts were made to be as unbiased as possible during the semi-structured interviews, an inevitable fact of interpretative research is that researchers will be influenced by personal experience. However, through the data interpretation process, especially the reflective discussions

Language Learning & Technology 20

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

between the three researchers, this was minimized.

As the focus of this the study was on students who already use the SALC, the researchers did not include non-SALC users in the sample. This could arguably be an appropriate focus at a different phase of the research.

CONCLUSION AND REFLECTIONS

The present study aimed to report on student use of TLLT at a SALC, and, in order to facilitate language learning, how best to deploy them. Results showed an interest in TLLT by SALC users and highlighted that the reasons for the apparent low usage figures may be due to a combination of lack of awareness, lack of learner support, and uninformed purchasing decisions. Language learning might be advanced if a SALC focuses on improving each of these areas, especially if the technology serves as a guide for self-directed learning (Barnett, 1993). Furthermore, creating an evaluative framework based on these areas could ensure that language learning benefits of new TLLT are maximized. Finally, creating materials based on actual student TLLT use and interest could enrich already engaging activities. The results of the study provided direction to the SALC team and the next stage will be to implement some improvements (Cycle 2). A number of interventions have already begun, many of which were suggested by the students, and the researchers continue to work with the rest of the SALC team and reflect on their effectiveness.

Each SALC is unique and, although it is useful to look at what other SALCs are providing, educators will benefit from initiating similar action research projects in their own institutions not only to learn more about what the learners actually use, but also to make appropriate decisions involving resource allocation. In conclusion, the effective use of TLLT requires careful attention to the students served by a particular self-access center. A continuous action research cycle should provide students with well designed and supported TLLT for their own language learning development and autonomous learning needs.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. SALC Technology Student Survey

A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Male or Female

2. Student Year:

3. Major:

B. BASIC INFORMATION

4. What are you doing at the SALC today?

5. How many times a week do you come to SALC?

6. Are you good at computers? Rate yourself 1 (great) to 5 (poor).

C. TECHNOLOGY AT THE SALC

7. Which language learning tools/websites/technologies do you use regularly in English in the SALC for learning or practicing English? (Check all that apply.)

Language Learning & Technology 21

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

MD player/recorder Software/websites for language learners

MPR room Online quizzes

Blogs Skype

Nintendo Wii Podcasts

Video player (DVD) Social networking (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace)

Wikis karaoke microphone

Online discussion forums/ Chat rooms other:

Chatbots (talking robots online) other:

8. What’s your favorite tool/website/program for learning or practicing English at the SALC?

9. How do you find out about tools/websites/programs for learning or practicing English at the SALC?

10. How do you get help when you use technology at the SALC?

11. What should the SALC do to get people to use more language learning technologies at the SALC?

12. What types of language learning tools/websites/technologies would you like to see MORE of at the SALC?

Please Rank these #1 (most wanted in the future) to #6 (least wanted in the future).

For example, if you would like to see mobile software the MOST, write #1. #1 is the best!!

Rank Tool/Website/Programs

video games

links to useful websites

worksheet activities

links to language websites

karaoke

mobile software (for smartphones/ tablet computers)

other (if you have your own idea):

D. TECHNOLOGY AT HOME

13. Do you use internet/computer at home?

14. What tool/website/programs do you normally use in Japanese at home?

15. What tool/website/programs do you normally use in English at home?

Language Learning & Technology 22

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

16. Which language skill would you like to improve most- reading, writing, speaking, or listening?

17. What skill would you like to improve most using technology at home?

18. Do you ever use language learning programs at home? on the train? at the SALC?

APPENDIX B

Table 2. Responses to “Which language learning tools/websites/technologies do you use regularly in English in the SALC for learning or practicing English? (Check all that apply.)” (Question 7)

Answer Options Response Count

Video Player (DVD) 20

*MPR 15

Social networking (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace) 10

Wikis 7

Software/websites for language learners 6

Podcasts 3

Karaoke microphone 3

MD (Mini Disk) player/recorder 2

Online quizzes 2

Blogs 2

Skype 2

Online discussion forums/ Chat rooms 1

Chatbots (talking robots online) 1

Other – Word 1

Other - PowerPoint 1

Other - Moodle 1

Other - Google translator 1

Nintendo Wii 0

TOTAL 78

* Multi Purpose Room - a small room intended to be used for up to six students containing a computer and equipment for

viewing DVDs, listening to audio, practicing presentations and working on group projects.

Language Learning & Technology 23

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

APPENDIX C

The following tables summarize the qualitative data collected through the open-ended questionnaire data and follow-up interviews with the participants according to the agreed themes.

Table 3. How SALC users currently use technology

Themes Subcategories 1. Use of language learning programs on the train a. Listening 7

b. Watching 1

c. Playing 1

e. Reading 1

f. Planning 1

2. Use of language learning programs at home a. Listening 5

b. Watching 4

c. Learning sites 2

d. Reading 1

3. Tools / websites / programs used in English at home a. Communicating & Connecting 14

b. Entertainment 13

c. Study 13

d. News & information 10

4. Tools / websites / programs used in Japanese at home a. Information & news 19

b. Communicating & connecting 14

c. Entertainment 13

d. Study 7

5. Favorite tool / website/ program for learning or practicing English in the SALC

a. Watching DVDs 13

b. EFL websites & CDs 4

c. Music related 4

d. Online news/magazines 3

e. CMC 3

f. Nintendo 1

g. Reading books 1

Language Learning & Technology 24

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

Table 4. How students learn about technology tools and how they get help with using them

Themes Subcategories 6. Ways of finding out about new tools to improve your language learning

a. Asking teachers/staff 14

b. Asking friends 5

c. Online search 4

d. Workshops/orientations 4

7. Getting practical help with technology in the SALC a. Ask my friend / someone 11

b. Ask staff at the desk 7

c. Ask a teacher 8

d. By myself / don't ask 3

8. Ideas students had for encouraging technology use in the SALC

a. Formal training 10

b. Equipment/facilities 10

c. Promotion 10

d. Instructions 5

e. Make easier 2

9. Negative factors associated with technology use a. Unable to use technology 5

b. Lack of awareness 3

c. Unwillingness to use technology 4

Table 5. What TLLT could the SALC offer in the future?

Themes Subcategories 10. Activities students would like to try a. Mobile devices / iPad / iPhone 7

b. Skills development 3

c. Games 2

d. TOEIC 2

e. Excel 2

f. Skype 1

g. Twitter 1

h. Portuguese software 1

i. Websites 1

Language Learning & Technology 25

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

APPENDIX D

Table 6. Items ranked highly as “wanting to see more of” in the SALC (Question 12 on the questionnaire)

Item Number of respondents who ranked this item in their top 3 choices

Useful websites 26

Language websites 23

Video games 16

Software 10

Karaoke 9

Worksheet activities 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors appreciate the help of colleagues, the editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on earlier versions of the paper. We would also like to thank the SALC users for sharing their valuable opinions.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joachim Castellano is a video producer, media specialist, and CALL Research Coordinator and lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. He has worked for Apple and the EdLab at Teachers College Columbia University, where he was the managing editor for AfterEd.tv, a web-channel on the future of education.

E-mail: jec712@alum.northwestern.edu Jo Mynard is the director of the Self-Access Learning Centre at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She holds an M.Phil. in applied linguistics from Trinity College Dublin and an Ed.D. in TEFL from the University of Exeter. She is the editor of SiSAL Journal: http://sisaljournal.org.

E-mail: joanne-m@kanda.kuis.ac.jp Troy Rubesch is a lecturer in the English Department of Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. He earned his MA in Second Language Studies from the University of Hawaii. His professional interests include distance education, materials development, affect in language learning, and professional development for language teachers.

E-mail: troy-r@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

REFERENCES

Al Saidi, M. (1991). Investigating student attitudes towards CALL programs in the self-access centre at Sultan Qaboos University: an attempt towards improvement. Retrieved from http://www.squ.edu.om/Portals/28/Micro%20Gallery/forum/Forum8/mahmoud.pdf

Language Learning & Technology 26

Joachim Castellano, Jo Mynard, and Troy Rubesch Action Research: Student Technology Use

Language Learning & Technology 27

Barnett, L. (1993). Teacher off: Computer technology, guidance and self-access. System, 21, 295–304.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2010). Doing action research in your own organization (3rd ed.) London: Sage Publications.

Cotterall, S., & Reinders, H. (2001). Fortress or bridge? Learners’ perceptions and practice in self access language learning. Tesolanz, 8, 23–38.

Deepwell, F., & Malik, S. (2008). On campus, but out of class: an investigation into students’ experiences of learning technologies in their self-directed study. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 16(1), 5–14. Retrieved from http://www.alt.ac.uk/publications-and-resources/publications/alt-journal-research-learning-technology

Elwood, J., & MacLean, G. (2009). ICT usage and student perceptions in Cambodia and Japan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 65–82. Retrieved from http://www.swinburne.edu.au/hosting/ijets/ijets/index.html

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2010). Beliefs about self-access learning: Reflections on 15 years of change. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(3), 161–172. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/

Gremmo, M. J., & Riley, P. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System, 23(2), 151–164.

Lajoie, S. P. (2005). Cognitive tools for the mind: The promises of technology: Cognitive amplifiers or bionic prosthetics? In R. J. Sternberg & D. Preiss (Eds.), Intelligence and technology: Impact of tools on the nature and development of human skills (pp. 87–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lázaro, N., & Reinders, H. (2006). Technology in self-access: An evaluative framework. PacCALL Journal, 1(2), 21–30.

Lockley, T. (2011). Japanese students’ experience of ICT and other technology prior to university, a survey. JALT CALL Journal, 7(1).

Murray, D. E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 188–201.

Mynard, J. (2009, June). Benefits and challenges of computer-based resources for self-access. Paper presented at the Independent Learning Association conference, Hong Kong. Abstract retrieved from http://ilac2009.elc.polyu.edu.hk/docs/ilac2009/abstracts/114.pdf

Reinders, H., & Lázaro, N. (2007). Innovation in language support: The provision of technology in self-access. CALL Journal, 20(2), 117–130.

Rubesch, T. (2010). Enhancing a self-access website. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(2), 115–118. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/

Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access in independent learning. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 54–65). London: Longman

Sturtridge, G. (1997). Teaching and language learning in self-access centres: Changing roles? In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 66–78). London: Longman.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/news.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3pp. 28–31

Language Learning & Technology 28

NEWS FROM SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS

Sponsors

University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)

Co-Sponsor

Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC)

The University of Hawai‘i National Foreign Language Resource Center engages in research and materials development projects and conducts workshops and conferences for language professionals among its many activities.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The National Foreign Language Resources Center (NFLRC) and the National Resource Center East Asia (NRCEA) at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, together with Hamilton College, will host the 7th International Conference and Workshops on Technology and Chinese Language Teaching in the 21st Century (TCLT 7) from May 25 through 27, 2012 in Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Initiated by Hamilton College in 2000, this biennual event aims to bridge the gap between technology and teaching methodology and curriculum as well as enhance the exchange on technology-based Chinese language learning and instruction. The combination of in-depth panel discussions on technology-enhanced Chinese language teaching and hands-on workshops on new technologies for Chinese language teaching is a hallmark of TCLT conferences, which have made outstanding contributions to the field of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language. Over the years, 178 institutions in 17 countries have sent hundreds of professionals to join TCLT.

TCLT 7 will place emphases on frontier research topics: mobile learning, cloud technology, and application of Chinese computational linguistic research. The program will include keynote speeches, panel discussion sessions, paper presentations, hands-on workshops, computer program demonstration, and a technology-based educational product exhibition. Supported by more than 100 institutions worldwide, TCLT 7 will bring together about 250 academics for discussions and hands-on workshops. For more information as it becomes available, please visit http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/prodev.cfm

STAY IN TOUCH WITH SOCIAL MEDIA

Did you know that the NFLRC has its own Facebook page? It’s one of the best ways to hear about the latest news, publications, conferences, workshops, and resources we offer. Just click on the “Like” button to become a fan. For those who prefer getting up-to-the-minute “tweets,” you can follow us on our Twitter page. Finally, NFLRC has its own YouTube channel with a growing collection of free language learning and teaching videos for your perusal. Subscribe today!

News from Our Sponsoring Organizations

Language Learning & Technology 29

NEW NFLRC PUBLICATIONS

Tala Fa'asāmoa e faitau fa‘atasi, Samoan stories to read together, by Fa‘afetai Lesā

These three charming stories—“Speak to Me in Samoan,” “The Girl Who Plays Golf,” and “Lani and Lili”—depict everyday situations for a typical Samoan-American family in Hawai‘i. These generously illustrated stories are intended for families to read together. Each picture panel is accompanied by a sentence or two describing the action and one ortwo comprehension questions. Appropriate for children of all ag

es.

In partnership with UH Manoa ScholarSpace, NFLRC offers hundreds of language and research resources, all free for the download.

Check out our many other publications.

Michigan State University Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR)

CLEAR’s mission is to promote the teaching and learning of foreign languages in the United States. Projects focus on materials development, professional development training, and foreign language research.

CONFERENCES

CLEAR exhibits at local and national conferences year-round. We hope to see you at ACTFL, CALICO, MIWLA, Central States, and other conferences.

We will be presenting sessions at at MIWLA 2011, ACTFL 2011, and Central States 2012. We hope to

News from Our Sponsoring Organizations

meet you in person!

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

We are planning to launch a series of webinars this fall! These low-cost, online, interactive workshops will allow language teachers from around the country (and the world) to access CLEAR’s professional development on demand. The initial webinars will focus on CLEAR’s Rich Internet Applications, and future planned webinars include content on language assessment, culture in the classroom, and other topics of interest to language educators. Webinar participants will be able to apply for State Board Continuing Education Units. Detailed information on all webinars will be posted on our Web site. Also watch for the launch on our Facebook page.

MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

CLEAR is developing several new products during our fifth funding cycle. Check our Web site for updates on new products and services. Some of our upcoming projects include:

Expansion of our Rich Internet Applications for language learning on mobile devices

Professional development webinars on diverse topics (see above)

Online videos for language teaching techniques

Online listening and speaking tests for LCTLs

NEWSLETTER

CLEAR News is a free bi-yearly publication covering FL teaching techniques, research, and materials. Download PDFs of back issues and subscribe at http://clear.msu.edu/clear/newsletter/.

The Center for Applied Linguistics (CAL)

The Center for Applied Linguistics is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes and improves the teaching and learning of languages, identifies and solves problems related to language and culture, and serves as a resource for information about language and culture. CAL carries out a wide range of activities in the fields of English as a second language, foreign languages, cultural education, and linguistics.

Featured Resources:

Language Policy Research Network (LPREN)

CAL is pleased to host the Language Policy Research Network (LPREN), created in 2006 by the Research Networks committee of the Association Internationale de Linguistique Appliquée, (International Association of Applied Linguistics). Visit the LPREN Web site to learn more or to join the email discussion group.

CAL News

CAL News is our electronic newsletter created to provide periodic updates about our projects and research as well as information about new publications, online resources, products, and services of interest to our readers. Visit our Web site to sign up.

Alliance for the Advancement of Heritage Languages

Language Learning & Technology 30

News from Our Sponsoring Organizations

Language Learning & Technology 31

Visit the Alliance Web site to browse the Heritage Language Program Profiles, view the Heritage Voices Collection, and sign up to receive the quarterly electronic newsletter, Alliance News Flash.

Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language

Learners (CREATE)

Visit the CREATE Web site to learn more about CREATE, its research, free resources, and upcoming November 2011 conference.

CAL SIOP Professional Development Services

CAL works with schools, states, and districts to design and deliver high-quality, client-centered professional development services on the SIOP Model.

CAL Solutions: Adult ESL Education

This new Web site provides access to evidence-based resources and practical tools for practitioners working with the growing population of adult English language learners throughout the United States.

CAL Solutions: PreK-12 ELL Education

CAL provides a variety of professional development and technical assistance services related to language education and assessment needs. In order to meet the growing demand from K-8 educators for training material on teaching reading to English language learners, CAL continues to offer its successful series of institutes in Washington, DC, in June and July 2011.

Featured Publications:

Connecting Diverse Cultures: A Video Guide for A New Day and Be Who You Are

Improving Education for English Language Learners: Research-Based Approaches

Education for Adult English Language Learners in the United States: Trends, Research, and Promising Practices

Foreign Language Teaching in U.S. Schools: Results of a National Survey

Realizing the Vision of Two-Way Immersion: Fostering Effective Programs and Classrooms

Using the SIOP Model: Professional Development Manual for Sheltered Instruction

What’s Different About Teaching Reading to Students Learning English?

Visit CAL’s Web site to learn more about our projects, resources, and services.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/review1.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 32–36

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 32

REVIEW OF TASK-BASED LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY

Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology

Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders (Eds.) 2010 ISBN: 978-1-4411-0153-2 US $140.00 272 pp. Continuum London

Review by Jim Ranalli, Iowa State University1 It is interesting to consider that task-based learning and teaching (TBLT) and computer-assisted language learning (CALL) both originated in the 1980s, were long considered marginal to mainstream language education (though this has thankfully changed), and more recently have been the focus of increasing scholarly attention, and yet to date no book has explicitly addressed the potential links between these two fields. What antecedents and principles do they share, and how can they mutually inform each other’s contributions to second language pedagogy and research? Task-based language learning and teaching with technology, edited by Michael Thomas and Hayo Reinders, attempts to answer such questions and “initiate a closer dialogue between these areas of theory, research and practice in order to explore synergies and differences as well as potential future directions” (p. 1).

The book consists of 11 chapters contributed by researchers and practitioners in Canada, Japan, Germany, the UK, and the US. Although the editors do not specify a target audience, they have focused on recent research rather than practical guidelines, so the book will likely be of primary interest to researchers and graduate students rather than language teachers. The predominance of research studies in the collection, as opposed to reviews of research or theory, means there is overlap of topics across several chapters and a lack of attention to some areas. The result is a thought-provoking if somewhat fragmentary perspective on technology-mediated tasks.

A challenge for anyone working in TBLT is to define task. In the opening chapter, Thomas and Reinders adopt the six criteria identified by Ellis (2003):

tasks involve a plan for learner activity; they have a primary focus on making meaning; they engage with real-world authentic language use; they focus on any or all of the four language skills; they engage learners in cognitive skills in order to accomplish them; and they have a defined communication-based learning outcome. (pp. 9-10)

The editors further clarify that they prefer task-based learning and teaching to task-based language teaching, noting the importance of learner interpretation in the implementation of tasks, and the fact that technology tends to deconstruct the traditional roles of learner and teacher. They also mention the book’s

Jim Ranalli Review of Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology

scope will be limited to micro- rather than macro-level concerns—that is, to the design, use and evaluation of tasks in particular teaching contexts, rather than to issues of needs analysis, syllabus and curriculum design, because with respect to these, CALL “remains on the periphery” (p. 4).

Following the introductory chapter, the remainder of the book is divided into two parts. Part I, including Chapters 2-6, is entitled Research on Tasks in CALL, which the editors say will be used to “map the broader theoretical questions shared by L2 task-based research and their influence on computer-mediated communication”; Part II, comprising Chapters 7-11, is called Applying Technology-Mediated Tasks and focuses on “design, development and application” (p. 8).

Part I begins with Chapter 2, in which Andreas Müller-Hartmann and Marita Schocker-v. Ditfurth summarize recent research on telecollaboration to illustrate the value of sociocultural theory in general, and Activity Theory (AT) in particular, as frames for investigating TBLT in CALL. Citing Samuda and Bygate (2008), the authors note how task-based research often neglects the instructional dimensions of tasks and leads to a one-way transmission of imperatives from researchers to teachers. The authors argue that AT affords multiple perspectives and levels of analyses for studying important task-related phenomena, such as the distinction between task-as-workplan and task-as-process; that is, the differences in the way a teacher or researcher envisages a task versus how it is actually engaged in by learners. While informative, this chapter may present a challenge for readers unfamiliar with AT’s terms and concepts.

Sociocultural theory is discussed again in Chapter 3, in which Mark Peterson combines a sociocultural account of interaction (based on mediation, scaffolding and intersubjectivity) with a psycholinguistic account (based on negotiation of meaning and focus on form). Using this dual perspective, Peterson reviews nine studies addressing interaction in tasks used for text-based synchronous CMC. While confirming earlier findings that this technology facilitates negotiation of meaning, the review also highlights shortcomings related to focus on form, such as a high frequency of errors and little evidence of self-correction. Peterson suggests these issues might arise from the researchers’ use of tasks designed for the classroom, and as remedies he proposes new designs that “fully maximize the potential of interaction in the online medium” (p. 59), as well as learner training.

Theories make way for a more technology-driven discussion in Chapter 4, in which Mathias Schulze summarizes the relevance of intelligent CALL (iCALL) for task-based learning. This is no easy task, given that iCALL—which comprises natural language processing (NLP), user modeling, expert systems, and intelligent tutoring systems—can be viewed as an essentially form-focused endeavor, in sharp contrast to TBLT. iCALL’s potential contributions are grouped into pre-task activities and those suitable for “during-task and post-task support” (p. 73). Regarding the latter, Schulze provides examples of iCALL tools that can be used during reading tasks to provide contextualized access to online dictionaries and “inflectional paradigms of words generated on the fly” (p. 74); with writing tasks, learners can be encouraged to notice errors or particular linguistic features via automated text annotation. Pre-task activities might include NLP-based grammar and vocabulary practice. This final point in particular requires a much more inclusive definition of TBLT than many of its proponents may be willing to concede, but regardless, Schulze’s chapter offers plenty of food for thought.

In Chapter 5, we return to the domain of CMC to examine how, in its synchronous versus asynchronous modes, differential effects are seen on the accuracy, complexity and discourse features of learner language. Glenn Stockwell describes a within-subjects study of tertiary-level Japanese learners of EFL which found, among other things, that although vocabulary and spelling exhibited no significant differences across modes, language was generally more syntactically complex in the asynchronous forum postings and more accurate in synchronous text-chat, contrary to some previous research. A potential limitation of this study is that slightly different tasks were employed for each modality and the assignments to which they were related were graded differently. It is thus possible that the design may have confounded the effects of modality, task type and task condition. While this may be considered

Language Learning & Technology 33

Jim Ranalli Review of Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology

hairsplitting, given the topic of this book, some discussion of these issues seems warranted.

Chapter 6 takes up synchronous CMC once more, this time to focus exclusively on the issue of complexity, with proficiency introduced as a dependent variable. Karina Collentine describes a within-subjects study involving intermediate and advanced L2 learners of Spanish at a U.S. university. The task was an opinion exchange in which students had to solve a fictitious murder by first collecting information from characters in a Flash-based activity and then discussing their findings in dyads via text-based chat. Complexity was manipulated by displacing production differently across two conditions; in the first, information gathering was interrupted at regular intervals for the exchange of opinions, while in the second, all information gathering was completed before the opinion exchange. Collentine’s findings provide some support for the hypothesis that less time pressure leads to greater complexity, although the specific indicators of complexity differed between levels. This study is noteworthy for, among other things, a detailed description of the task input and conditions employed.

Part II begins with Chapter 7, in which Regine Hampel broaches the topic of task design in distance foreign-language courses conducted through Virtual Learning Environments (also known as Learning Management Systems). To frame the discussion, Hampel uses a three-level model of CALL task development based on Richards and Rodgers (1986/2001), which covers approach (theories of learning and language), design (syllabus, task types and teacher/learner roles) and procedure (actual implementation and use of tasks by learners). Hampel describes some of the approach- and design-level decisions her team made in creating an intensive German course offered through the Open University (UK). The chapter illustrates the challenges institutions face as they increasingly turn to distance and blended language courses, most notably “the apparent conflict between adopting a centralized approach to task design that presupposes a linear format, while also using Web 2.0 tools that are based on a decentralized and anti-linear style of teaching and learning” (p. 150). It is regrettable that a procedure-level analysis of the tasks employed could not be included because the course was still ongoing at the time of writing.

Thomas Raith and Volker Hegelheimer take up task-based learning, technology and teacher development in Chapter 8. Their focus is the use of e-portfolios to implement standards-based reflective practice of TBLT among student teachers in Germany. Like traditional portfolios, e-portfolios usually include artifacts documenting a teacher’s learning processes, such as lesson plans, teaching reflections, and examples of student work. Used in the context of Web 2.0 tools, however, they can also integrate supervisor feedback with more objective, video-based self-assessments and the support of a community of peers. Qualitative data from the study showed, however, that even technology-enhanced reflection can fall short without standards grounded in theory. Some of the study’s participants were found to be engaging in critical analysis of their teaching, but the analysis was not informed by TBLT principles. This shortcoming was addressed by adding more explicit categories to reflection tasks to help student teachers connect theoretical knowledge to experience. This chapter contains a thought-provoking review of research on task-as-process; although the context is face-to-face teaching, it raises important questions about teacher competencies for TBLT in CALL as well.

Chapter 9 is a case study of TBLT through virtual reality and virtual worlds. Kenneth Reeder describes a CD-ROM based simulation called Edubba, which puts learners in the role of intern newspaper reporters in a fictional city where they are tasked with collecting information from numerous sources about a pressing municipal water issue. Like most simulations, Edubba features a number of possible outcomes with different costs and benefits. What makes the program unique, however, is the NLP engine used to power its interactions with learners. In contrast to the iCALL systems in Chapter 4, Edubba’s is not designed to provide feedback on form. Rather, the linguistic aim of the whole enterprise is to teach the stages of process writing. Simulation tasks are linked to classroom activities such as writing conferences with teachers and peers. This is one of the few cases in the book in which technology is used primarily as task input rather than the medium of communication. Reeder helpfully frames this chapter as a response

Language Learning & Technology 34

Jim Ranalli Review of Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology

to the question of whether and to what extent Edubba qualifies as a task in a TBLT sense.

In Chapter 10, Mirjam Hauck returns to the themes of telecollaboration and teacher development to discuss factors that shape task design and enactment. The setting was a four-way telecollaboration among pre- and in-service trainee teachers of EFL in the U.S. and Germany, as well as L2 learners of German in the UK and Poland. Hauck focuses on a single, three-part task implemented over three weeks, whose aim was to raise participants’ awareness about the unique affordances of written, spoken, and visual modalities in Web 2.0 technologies, as well as their impact on communication and meaning making, by means of a “hands-on analysis of web resources” (p. 201). Problems arose when one of the collaborating teacher-researchers faced student resistance to the project. As a result, the task had to be modified and the original aims of developing e-literacy skills were marginalized. The abundance of innovations here means this chapter may also challenge some TBLT-oriented readers’ conceptualization of task.

In the final chapter, Gary Motteram and Michael Thomas address the present and the future of technology-mediated tasks. The present is illustrated through “vignettes” about two European Commission-funded projects: LANCELOT, which investigated language instruction through desktop videoconferencing (or ‘virtual classrooms’); and AVALON, which did the same thing for multi-user virtual environments, specifically Second Life. Two interesting frameworks for designing and implementing tasks in these complex environments, which were among the outcomes of the projects, are presented and discussed. Next, the authors highlight three main criticisms of TBLT and show how the use of technology can go some way towards addressing them. They conclude with a reminder to keep expectations realistic about what can be achieved through technology and task-based learning, and with a call for these fields to continue to inform and challenge each other.

No book is perfect, and this one might be taken to task (to further abrade a well-worn pun) for equating Chapelle’s concerns regarding SLA in CALL (2001) with the concerns of task-based learning, as occurs in the first and last chapters. It goes without saying that while task-based research and SLA have a great many things in common, their concerns are not coextensive. In a similar vein, the use of even a well-designed task in a study should not mean we automatically consider it task-based research. Ellis says one of the goals of such research is “to establish what language and cognitive processes are likely to occur when input, conditions, and procedures are systematically varied” (2003, p. 20; italics added). This suggests that researchers’ descriptions of tasks must go further than simple categorizations such as “jigsaw” or “open-ended discussion,” and that their decisions regarding task selection and implementation must be treated as more than “an unproblematic fait accompli” (O’Dowd & Ware, 2009, p. 174). While this collection makes a very persuasive case that task-based research can no longer afford to marginalize technology-mediated tasks, it also demonstrates that CALL research must do more to burnish its task-based credentials. Regardless, it is recommended reading for anyone interested in research from a CALL or TBLT perspective.

NOTE

1. The reviewer wishes to acknowledge that one of the contributors to this book, Dr. Volker Hegelheimer, is his co-major professor.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Jim Ranalli is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University. His research interests lie at the intersection of L2 vocabulary, technology, and self-regulated learning.

E-mail: jranalli@iastate.edu

Language Learning & Technology 35

Jim Ranalli Review of Task-based Language Learning and Teaching with Technology

Language Learning & Technology 36

REFERENCES

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173–188.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1986/2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Samuda, V., & Bygate, M. (2008). Tasks in second language learning: Research and practice in applied linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/review2.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 37–40

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 37

REVIEW OF LEARNING LANGUAGES THROUGH TECHNOLOGY

Learning Languages through Technology

Elizabeth Hanson-Smith & Sarah Rilling, Eds. 2007 ISBN: 978-193118536-3 US $49.95 332 pp. TESOL Baltimore, MD, USA

Review by Carmen Tomas, Nottingham Trent University Learning Languages through Technology, edited by Elizabeth Hanson-Smith and Sarah Rilling, examines language learning and technology covering a wide range of technological applications from e-mail, chats, blogs, and the use of multimedia. It also has geographic representation from different regions including the Americas, Europe, and Asia and includes examples from both secondary and tertiary education.

Previous books have also captured the pervasive role of technologies in language learning (Cameron, 1999; Dudeney & Hockly, 2007; Richardson, 2006), but this book places special emphasis on the practitioner’s perspective. Each chapter contains a chapter preview and initial questions, theoretical underpinnings, and application and implementation. Each chapter contains a theoretical rationale for the activities designed that address principles of language learning and also establish the role of technology. However, the most interesting part in each chapter is how the practitioners relate their experiences sharing their good practices as well as the reality and challenges of implementing any technology-related initiative, which is an aspect that will be useful to others learning to plan activities. The chapters reveal how to deal with typical issues such as resource scarcity, time constraints, and technical help as well as issues of a different nature such as poor student engagement. The chapters include academic style accounts, narratives and practical guidance, all of which make practitioners new to the use of technologies an appropriate audience.

The volume is divided into four sections detailed below. Each section contains a number of chapters and ends with a chapter on a special issue. This end of each section addresses important questions that emerge from the practice discussed in that section (e.g., student engagement, autonomy, or the teacher’s role). Each section ends with further questions for reflection and resources for practitioners.

Elizabeth Hanson-Smith and Sarah Rilling introduce the book in the Chapter 1. They describe parameters of good practice in language learning and describe the field of CALL as mature on the grounds of the acumen of research in this field, which raises the expectation that the chapters are informed by research.

The first section, Language Development Online: Skill Building through Technology, contains five chapters dealing with key language learning skills: speaking, reading, writing and listening. Dafne Gonzalez in Chapter 2 deals with speaking and the role of chat rooms for communicative learning. Technology’s role in this case is to add connectivity with real international audiences by providing motivation and an incentive for students to practice the target language. This chapter provides a lot of

Carmen Tomas Review of Learning Languages through Technology

detail on how to organise activities using the medium in an effective way (jigsaw activities, video chat, online presentations, and international guests). Marti Sevier in Chapter 3 presents the use of a concordancing tool (Compleat lexical tutor) for reading and vocabulary development in the context of reading. In Chapter 4 Randi Reppen and Camilla Vasquez present a broad range of tools to support foreign language students in academic writing. They present the development of an online module to support a range of writing sub-skills: paraphrasing with the use of colours, use of referencing, evaluating online sources, and grammar and adverbials using concordancers. In-Seok Kim in Chapter 5 addresses listening skills via a Web-based listening course. This chapter contains practical descriptions of the process of designing and implementing the course. The course includes a range of tools to develop listening: matching images and oral descriptions; video lectures on sounds; and the use of transcripts. The chapter unfolds covering skills other than listening and presents a full course that encompasses all skills (reading in Hot Potatoes, ancillary visual resources, writing in bulletin boards). The section finishes with Thomas Robb (Chapter 6) discussing the issue of technology and non-autonomous learners. This is an interesting reflection on the problem of independent learning brought about by technology use. The proposed solution is enhanced tracking of student activity.

The second section is Content-Based and Task-Based Learning: Collaborative CALL. Theresa J. Kennedy in Chapter 7 describes the use of an Internet-based programme for Science teaching. Through a range of activities, schools can communicate across the world with other schools and look at other countries’ data, hold international videoconferences and chats. In Chapter 8, Bernard Susser describes a range of word processing and Internet browsing related activities in the context of Tourism, Culture and Technology. The activities cover Internet-based reading, use of word processing to structure essays, Web searches, concordancers, communication via e-mail, and creating brochures. Nicolas Gromik in Chapter 9 presents a project-oriented activity in which students make a movie. The chapter includes many tips and practical guidelines on how to structure activities and assessment. Sarah Rilling in Chapter 10 considers the role of the teacher as facilitator in English for special purposes and how to provide feedback to help students. She describes the importance of helping students identify errors with the use of colour codes and the use of e-mail as a communication tool. Future developments are the use of bulletin boards and concordancers. Maggie Sokolik in Chapter 11 reports on students expectations of technology. The chapter reports on a survey of students’ use of technology and their perceptions of their teachers’ aptitude and use of technologies. The chapter concludes with a set of goals to improve use of technologies for communication with students, help students evaluate material, and create more variety in the classroom.

The third section covers Authentic Audience in a Web-Based World. In Chapter 12 Teresa Almeida Eca exemplifies the use of technologies from simple to complex applications. She starts with the use of e-mail and goes on to describe authoring tools (Hot Potatoes) and ends with exploring blogs and net-based exercises. Mary Jewell in Chapter 13 proposes the creation of brochures in an authentic context with the use of generic tools such as PowerPoint and Word with the use of templates. Graham Stanley (Chapter 14) is written differently from other chapters that are written as narratives and instead more directly reports tips for the effective use of blogs derived from his own experience. The chapter also explores the affordances of the tool in relation to language learning. Latricia Trites (Chapter 15) presents the dilemmas faced by the teacher and the amount of tutor input. The chapter also incorporates, in a narrative style, the decisions made in the design of a course.

The fourth section focuses on Constructivism in Professional Development. Anne Dahlman and Sarah Tahtinen show the creation of a network of teachers in their first year after training (Chapter 16). The network is established via e-mail exchanges, e-forum (to support with interaction) and a Web site to support with resources. Klaus Gommlich and Theresa Minick (Chapter 17) present the creation and design of a Master’s degree in teacher education. It incorporates a project in which training teachers develop a module for students online. This hands-on project is valued by trainee teachers as it ends with reflection and evaluation of the experience. In Chapter 18, Andreas Schramm and Ann Mabbott present

Language Learning & Technology 38

Carmen Tomas Review of Learning Languages through Technology

generic considerations in converting a face-to-face traditional course to online and describes programme level and management issues. Vance Stevens (Chapter 19) narrates the development in the past decade of the Webheads in action. It describes how teachers can put into practice things they learnt in a Web-based community of practice by addressing the challenge of the paucity of skills sometimes found in educational settings.

Generally, the book will serve practitioners well who seek to start using and integrating technologies in their teaching. The strength of the book is the communication of practitioner experiences that will help others plan in advance to set realistic goals. Providing such descriptive and practical information was a challenging aspect to convey in this written format. Most chapters provide narratives, contextual descriptions and guidelines. However, the balance between these elements is varied in different chapters.

The scope of the book is broad as it goes beyond specific applications to include student-teachers development in the final section of the book. The issues raised at the end of each section are also interesting and open up spaces for reflection on key issues. Notwithstanding this, the scope of the book in terms of the technological applications covered inevitably reflects the state of the field in 2005 prior to its publication. In a fast-moving field such as language learning and technology, the book might feel outdated to experienced practitioners in the application of technology in their teaching. Although the book covers a wide range of technological applications, blogs and bulletin boards are portrayed in some chapters as the next or future avenues for exploration.

In Chapter 1 the expectation of a strong research-informed focus is raised, and this expectation is met with varying success by different authors. In particular, Graham Stanley in Chapter 14 addresses research beyond foreign language learning. For the most part, however, the theoretical rationale for the use of technologies does not meet the expectations set at the start. All chapters revisit well-established foreign language learning constructs (input, interaction, autonomy, authenticity). When dealing with the crucial question of providing the rationale for the use of a particular application, most chapters focus on motivation, authenticity, or improved communication and draw only modestly from published research in the field of learning and technology. A pedagogical rationale based on motivation and improved communication could be criticised as insufficient. A rationale based on more aspects of student learning would be much stronger.

The book is well structured but some of the content feels repetitive. The reader wonders at some point about the relationship between section headings and content of some chapters. For example, in the first section of the book the titles suggest a specific focus on a language skill (reading, writing, speaking or listening). However, some of these chapters in the first section reflect much more than one particular skill (speaking or listening, for example) and deal with a greater range of skills in the development of full courses. This aspect of course and module development becomes repetitive as it is encountered in other sections of the book. In addition, either implicitly or explicitly, a number of chapters throughout the book deal with engaging with authentic audiences and for authentic purposes and hence, some of the elements of the third section are not strictly exclusive to the section but have been dealt with elsewhere in the book.

As stated at the start of the review, practitioners will benefit from sections on challenges and future directions, in which authors provide realistic accounts of their experiences. The issues raised for reflection are informative and no less important today than they were in 2006.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Carmen Tomás received her PhD from the University of Nottingham and focuses her research on foreign language reading and the uses of ICT in educational settings. She received a postdoctoral fellowship at the Learning Sciences Research Institute at the University of Nottingham. She currently works in

Language Learning & Technology 39

Carmen Tomas Review of Learning Languages through Technology

Language Learning & Technology 40

Research and Development in HE at Nottingham Trent University. Prior to this she has collaborated on multiple research and teaching initiatives involving the use of technology.

E-mail: carmen.tomas@ntu.ac.uk

REFERENCES

Cameron, K. (Ed.) (1999) CALL and the learning community: Proceedings of the Eighth Biennial Exeter CALL Conference. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.

Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2007) How to teach English with technology (with CD-Rom). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Longman.

Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, Wikis and other powerful Web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/review3.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 41–46

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 41

REVIEW OF EN UNA PALABRA: SEVILLA, ESPAÑA, CÓRDOBA, ARGENTINA, AND PUEBLA, MÉXICO

En una palabra: Sevilla, España

Emmanuel Paris-Bouvret & Ana Pérez-Gironés 2006 ISBN: 9781589011366 US $29.95 (CD-ROM)

En una palabra: Córdoba, Argentina

Emmanuel Paris-Bouvret & Ana Pérez-Gironés 2007 ISBN: 9781589011861 US $29.95 (CD-ROM)

En una palabra: Puebla, México

Emmanuel Paris-Bouvret, Ana Pérez-Gironés, & Octavio Flores-Cuadra 2010 ISBN: 9781589016477 US $29.95 (CD-ROM)

Minimum Technical Requirements (for all): Windows: Pentium II or III, 64 MB RAM or higher, QuickTime Macintosh: Power Mac G3 with OS 10.1.5 or higher, 128 MB RAM, QuickTime Georgetown University Press Washington, D.C.

Review by Zahir Mumin, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY)

INTRODUCTION

The video series En una palabra provides teachers with an innovative multimedia resource for teaching Spanish culture and language to second language learners. Paris-Bouvret, Pérez-Gironés, and Flores-

Zahir Mumin Review of En una Palabra

Cuadra’s main objective is to develop students’ cultural competence and linguistic knowledge by exposing them to authentic Spanish language conversations about the following ten general concepts: ambición (ambition), amigos (friends), libertad (freedom), familia (family), felicidad (happiness), individualismo (individualism), éxito (success), orgullo (pride), país (country), and trabajo (work). Each CD-ROM includes a diverse group of fifteen native speakers from different educational, socioeconomic, employment, and generational backgrounds who define and interpret the meaning of these concepts according to their personal experiences. The authors demonstrate that these definitions and interpretations facilitate students’ acquisition of language use in different contexts—a variety of sociocultural circumstances which influence how speakers use language. All of these CD-ROMs exhibit the same structure of content which constitutes the following: a summary of pedagogical objectives; quick guide instructions; historical information about Seville, Spain, Cordoba, Argentina, and Puebla, Mexico; phonetic speech tendencies; interactive word transcriptions of speech; an interactive glossary of key terms; tab functions for the aforementioned ten concepts; and photo images of the fifteen speakers featured in informal interview conversations. Below is a sample screen shot which shows the structure of content on the main page of the Seville, Spain CD-ROM.

Figure 1. Screen shot of Sevilla, España.

The authors chose these various regions in order to capture semantic and phonetic differences amongst three general dialect varieties of Spanish: Southern Spain Spanish, Southern Mexican Spanish, and Central Argentinian Spanish. The authors support their selection of these different Spanish-speaking populations by implying that in the near future, users should expect more, similar interactive CD-ROMs which depict native Spanish speakers from other regions.

SUMMARY OF PEDAGOGICAL OBJECTIVES

In the este programa (this program) section of the CD-ROMs, the authors provide a brief description of the general objectives for using this interactive language learning resource. They contend that the spontaneous definitions given by the native Spanish speakers from the same and different regions enhance

Language Learning & Technology 42

Zahir Mumin Review of En una Palabra

students’ knowledge of cultural connotations. The authors strengthen this argument by offering students a wide variety of explanations of words such as ambición (ambition), individualismo (individualism), and trabajo (work). For example, Omar Coyopol Polis, featured in the Puebla, Mexico CD-ROM, expresses opposing arguments regarding ambición (ambition):

…La palabra ambición me suena así como alguien que quiera más. Y puede ser alguien que quiera más para bien o para mal…[…The word ambition sounds to me like someone who wants more. And it can be someone who wants more for better or for worse…]. (En una palabra, Puebla, México, 2010)

On the other hand, María Paz Conde Martín, depicted in the Seville, Spain CD-ROM, contends that ambición (ambition) is extremely negative:

…Pienso que es más bien un afán desmesurado, y generalmente no controlado de querer conseguir algo, con lo cual lleva también a sentirse mal, a provocar cierto estado de ánimo de intranquilidad y descontento [I think that it is rather an immeasurable desire and generally uncontrolled in getting something, which also leads to feeling bad, to provoking a certain restlessness and discontent mood]. (En una palabra, Sevilla, España, 2006)

These examples are effective for students’ language acquisition because they allow them to analyze how language is used differently by different people. However, the CD-ROMs could be enhanced by providing students with specific learner objectives such as having students summarize and compare definitions and interpretations of speakers from the three different regions to help make explicit these language use differences.

QUICK GUIDE INSTRUCTIONS

The este programa (this program) section of the CD-ROMs also helps users learn how to use the different functions of this interactive program. The authors employ square-shaped message boxes with arrow pointers to describe how to operate different functions such as returning to the main program menu by pressing entrar (to enter), opening the word transcription box by clicking transcripción (transcription), and by pressing on images of speakers in order to listen to their definitions. They also provide written instructions that emphasize that the interactive glossary only includes definitions for words such as apoyo (support), juventud (youth), and inalcanzable (unattainable). Adding voice-over instructions spoken in Spanish would enhance students’ learning experience because they could easily associate the sounds of basic Spanish words with their corresponding meaning while they manage different program functions.

HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Easy access to the historical information is obtained by clicking on the city name: Sevilla, Córdoba, or Puebla. Each CD-ROM provides students with solid background information regarding the foundation of these cities, important churches, universities and monuments, and Web links to governmental resources and online newspapers. The authors expose students to this background information in order to stimulate their cultural understanding of the development of Spanish-speaking cultures. For example, they clearly arouse students’ interest in this development in their description of the Reales Alcazáres (Royal Alcazar) palace which exhibits an architectural design with both Arabic traits from the 12th century and Christian traits from the 14th century (En una palabra, Sevilla, España, 2006). The authors also include a photo image of this palace, as in other descriptions with historic information, to activate students’ internalization of historic facts. Although integral background information is provided in this section of the interactive program, it would be enhanced with the inclusion of footnote translations of vocabulary words such as afán (desire), arroyo (stream), and destacado (notable or prominent) which may be difficult for first and

Language Learning & Technology 43

Zahir Mumin Review of En una Palabra

second year L2 Spanish students to understand. This historic information section is quite useful for beginner, intermediate, and advanced-level L2 Spanish students who might need to learn facts about the general historic development of Spanish-speaking cultures.

PHONETIC SPEECH TENDENCIES

The authors foster students’ language acquisition of Spanish sounds by discussing the most common phonetic characteristics of native speakers from Seville, Spain, Cordoba, Argentina, and Puebla, Mexico and furnishing audio examples of these characteristics: aspiration and deletion of the /s/ at the end of a syllable está (is) [eh-tá]1 [eØ-tá]2 and at the end of a word padres (parents) [pá-ð�eh]3 [pá-ð�eØ]4 in Seville, Spain; deletion of the /d/ in word-final position felicidad (happiness) [fe-li-si-ðáØ]5 in Cordoba, Argentina; and the elongation of vowels in the last syllable at the end of a word esposo (husband) [es-pó-so:]6 in Puebla, Mexico. The authors also employ short audio clips of the actual interview conversations in their explanations of phonetic characteristics to raise students’ consciousness about differences and similarities in Spanish-speaking dialects. One suggested improvement to the materials might be to supplement audio examples with detailed phonetic transcriptions, such as those provided above, in order to assist students who have previous experience using such phonetic transcriptions. They would likely be able to more coherently differentiate between allophones (phonetic variants of phonemes), graphemes (letters), and semantics (meanings of words and sentences).

INTERACTIVE WORD TRANSCRIPTIONS

Clicking on the transcripción (transcription) function while listening to the native Spanish speakers enlivens students’ interactive experience because they simultaneously view the words spoken while they hear spontaneous conversations. The authors’ use of word transcriptions of speech successfully underpins students’ listening and reading comprehension skills. Whenever students are unsure of what speakers are saying, they can quickly refer to the word transcriptions that appear directly beside the video clips they watch to facilitate their comprehension skills. These word transcriptions are most useful for beginner- and intermediate-level students because the majority of the speakers talk at a fast rate for students who do not have an advanced or superior level of linguistic competence in L2 Spanish. Whilst most of the word transcriptions are accurate representations of what speakers say, there are some inconsistencies. For example, when discussing ambición (ambition), the word transcription of Ramón Pérez Rueda says the following:

…Pero puedes ambicionar el más rico de tu calle o de tu bario, y entonces, es más, en fin, espúreo, que lo veo yo [But you can aspire the richest one of your street or of your barium, and so, it is more, in short, spurious, that is how I see it]. (En una palabra, Sevilla, España, 2006)

However, Ramón Pérez Rueda actually says the following, with differences marked in bold:

…Pero puedes ambicionar ser el más rico de tu calle o de tu barrio, y entonces, y aquí, un poquito más, en fin, espúreo, que lo veo yo. (En una palabra, Sevilla, España, 2006)

The clear inconsistencies between the word transcription and the oral speech manifested in this example are the lack of the Spanish verb ser (to be), the use of the word bario (barium)7 instead of barrio (neighborhood), and the lack of the phrases y aquí (and here) and un poquito más (a little more). These inconsistencies may negatively affect students’ language acquisition process, especially in the case of bario (barium), because native English-speaking students often have difficulty with their pronunciation of the multiple vibrant /r/ sound of Spanish (Azevedo, 2009; Hualde, Olarrea, Escobar, & Travis, 2010) which is necessary to correctly pronounce the word barrio (neighborhood). On the other hand, this sound may not be problematic for students whose L1s encompass languages such as Italian, Polish, and Czech

Language Learning & Technology 44

Zahir Mumin Review of En una Palabra

because these languages have vibrant /r/ sounds that are similar to those of the Spanish language (Bussmann, 1998; Clark, Yallop, & Fletcher, 2007). Despite the aforementioned inconsistencies, Paris-Bouvret, Pérez-Gironés, and Flores-Cuadra supplement students’ interactive experience by including speakers’ interjection remarks such as ¡puf! (ugh!) ¡uy! (oops!) and ¡olé! (bravo!). Including these remarks helps solidify the authors’ main objective to increase students’ levels of cultural competence because they are exposed to authentic conversation tendencies exhibited in spontaneous conversations.

INTERACTIVE GLOSSARY OF TERMS

The interactive glossary of terms furnishes students with definitions of words that appear in the word transcription box. Pressing on different words in the word transcription box activates the appearance of either definitions of these words or of the sentence No hay definición disponible para esta palabra (There is not an available definition for this word). The authors employ this glossary of terms in order to buttress students’ listening comprehension when watching the interview conversations. They also provide students with definitions and/or explanations of common Spanish expressions such as estar a punto de (to be about to), al menos (at least), and siempre y cuando (as long as). These additional definitions and explanations enhance the quality of the glossary because they encourage students to think beyond the use of individual words in context. A vivid example of some common expressions related to the word vez (time) appear when clicking on this word: cada día más (everyday more and more), cada vez más (more and more), una vez que (once), En el momento en que (at the moment in which), and cada vez (each time) (En una palabra, Córdoba, Argentina, 2007). Their use of common Spanish expressions in the glossary of terms is effective for students’ learning because this use highlights the importance of Spanish terminology in both conversational and written Spanish. The authors’ decision to use the Real Academia Española online dictionary (http://www.rae.es) for the definitions included in the glossary is appropriate for maintaining semantic coherence amongst these definitions. This glossary is suitable for students at the beginner, intermediate, and advanced levels of L2 Spanish.

TAB FUNCTIONS AND PHOTO IMAGES

One of the most dynamic aspects of user-friendliness of this interactive program deals with the interplay between the tab functions of the ten general concepts (see “introduction” above) and the photo images that depict the fifteen native speakers. The authors made an effective decision to include an innovative pop-out window feature which tells users to choose a speaker after they choose a concept or vice versa. Users can toggle to different speakers discussing this same topic by clicking on the corresponding image. The flexibility to rapidly switch to different speakers discussing the same concept allows students to receive enough input which will allow them to objectively understand how Spanish words are interpreted by native speakers with different sociocultural backgrounds. The authors’ use of tab functions and photo images to gain access to and view different interview conversations develops students’ awareness of the relationship between the cultural diversity of Spanish speakers’ backgrounds and the pragmatic knowledge necessary to understand their definitions and interpretations of the ten general concepts.

CONCLUSION

En una palabra is an enthralling video series which intrigues students who are simultaneously learning about Spanish language and culture. It also fascinates teachers who would like to expose students to authentic spontaneous conversations which illuminate the variety of cultural connotations exhibited when concepts are interpreted by different speakers. Overall, this is an innovative interactive program suitable for any L2 Spanish language classroom because it comprises important historic facts, examples of common linguistic phenomena, and authentic spontaneous speech. This En una palabra series, which exclusively uses the target language to enhance students’ acquisition of Spanish, is different from other interactive programs such as the Fluenz (2009) Spanish video series which uses both English and Spanish

Language Learning & Technology 45

Zahir Mumin Review of En una Palabra

Language Learning & Technology 46

to enhance students’ acquisition of Spanish. Fluenz (2009) assists students’ learning through direct one-on-one bilingual interactive tutoring as if they were in a classroom setting. En una palabra assists students’ learning by exposing them to authentic Spanish language used in exclusively Spanish-speaking environments.

NOTES

1. The phonetic and phonemic transcriptions of this word are identical. The authors provide a phonemic transcription of this word indicated by the oblique bars: /ehtá/. All syllabifications in these transcriptions are provided by Zahir Mumin to facilitate the understanding of the examples.

2. This demonstrates the difference between deletion and aspiration of the /s/ at the end of a syllable.

3. The authors phonetically transcribe only the /s/ sound in this word: /padreh/.

4. This phonetic transcription shows the difference between deletion and aspiration of the /s/ at the end of a word.

5. The authors do not provide a transcription for this word.

6. The authors do not provide a transcription for this word.

7. bario (barium) is a chemical element.

All of the English translations of Spanish words and phrases are provided by Zahir Mumin. All three CD-ROMs exclusively use the Spanish language.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Zahir Mumin teaches Spanish courses at the University at Albany, SUNY, USA, and conducts research in the fields of linguistics and language teaching. His primary research interests include teaching with technology, sociolinguistics, phonetics, phonology, language acquisition, language contact, bilingualism, multilingualism, and language change.

E-mail: zm227418@albany.edu

REFERENCES

Azevedo, M. (2009). Introducción a la lingüística española (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bussman, H. (1998). Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Clark, J., Yallop, C., & Fletcher, J. (2007). An introduction to phonetics and phonology (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Fluenz. (2009). Fluenz versión F2: Spanish 1+2+3+4+5 with supplemental audio CDs and podcasts. Hollywood, FL: Fluenz.

Hualde, J. I., Olarrea, A., Escobar, A. M., & Travis, C. E. (2010). Introducción a la lingüística hispánica (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schwegler, A., Kempff, J., & Ameal-Guerra, A. (2010). Fonética y fonología españolas (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/review4.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 47–49

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 47

REVIEW OF TEACHING AND RESEARCHING LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Teaching and Researching Language earning Strategies L

 Rebecca Oxford 2011 ISBN-13: 9780582381292 US $39.00 360 pp. Longman Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA

Review by Mehreen Ahmed, University of Queensland An exhaustive book, Oxford’s Teaching and Researching Learning Strategies is an in-depth study of learning strategies in the acquisition of a second language. It is divided into four sections and nine chapters with sub-sections in each chapter that explore issues and types of strategies. One of the key issues addressed is the use of strategies for self-regulation to enable learners to become independent so that they can be in control of their own learning. Notably, Oxford’s previous writings (1990) are echoed throughout this book, however this provides a fresh organization of ideas, detailed analysis of her research, and a demonstration of her knowledge of the wider research base on strategy instruction. The current book’s contribution demonstrates concepts of the meta or general level, drawing heavily on learners’ meta-knowledge.

The following review provides a brief synopsis of the topics of meta-strategies and strategies covered in chapters two and three; of theories and concepts from chapters five and six; and of mapping and further exploration in chapters seven and eight.

Chapter one elaborates on the three major traditions of learning theory and research, namely psychological, socio-cognitive and socio-cultural theories. It contains four sub-sections that both define and justify the need for strategic self-regulation. Although the concept of self-regulation is often synonymous with autonomous or discovery-based learning in which learning might take place through exploration, Oxford takes the concept further by arguing that the learner has control over learning in the sense that he or she manages her lessons without the teacher’s aid. Self-regulation includes ‘self-adjustment,’ meaning that if something goes wrong or needs improvement, the learner may very well manage that unaided.

In chapter two, Oxford argues that learners need to develop skills from strategic learning that will enable them to develop an understanding of the task that can help them in the decision-making process. She explains cognitive dimensions and strategies for remembering and processing language. This chapter provides a detailed analysis of cognitive strategies, schema theories, and eight meta-cognitive strategies, including explicit examples of students’ use of meta-cognitive strategies. A potential useful addition might have been examples in which students might have tried to use a strategy but with limited success.

In chapter three, Oxford introduces the use of strategies to manage affective aspects such as emotions or

Mehreen Ahmed Review of Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies

motivations at a meta level. The affective dimension encompasses learners’ emotions, beliefs, attitudes and motivation in relation to their emotive experiences in the L2 environment that effect behavioral issues rather than schematic issues discussed above. What follows then are strategies integrated into meta-strategies such as cognitive strategies within the meta-cognitive, affective strategies within the meta-affective and social strategies within the meta-social strategies. Again in this chapter, items are broken into discrete components and pinpoint which strategies are employed by students at the meta-level.

Chapter four deals with the component of meta-knowledge which deals with culture or socio-cultural interaction. This relates to how to get communication activities to take place within the immediate context concerning all cultural, social, cognitive and political aspects of an individual learner. The eight meta-strategies discussed here are the same ones discussed in the previous chapters as well, but these are related to socio-cultural interaction or communication. Also covered are familiar strategies discussed previously in the literature such as paraphrasing, borrowing, code switching and avoidance tactics. Oxford provides her definition of discourse and extends it by making it more inclusive and integrating within its boundaries both linguistic as well as socio-cultural/socio-political aspects.

In chapters five and six Oxford explores various cultural models, also discussed in her earlier work (e.g., Oxford & Crookall, 1989). Culture here has been deemed as a factor in strategy assistance (p. 176), which is also promoted by Holliday (2003), in that the teachers of L2 should be more cognizant of the learning strategies used in other cultures and at the same time should also introduce effective new ones. In this case, cultural strategies have been associated with memorization, but misunderstood by uninformed teachers as learning by memorization. As with Holliday, Oxford argues that teachers are encouraged to be more discerning of cultural differences in their teaching practices. A potential strategy would be to try and incorporate any strategies that are already prevalent in the learning cultures of the students, even if not in the teacher’s repertoire.

In chapters seven and eight, Oxford reflects on current and future research in learning strategies, and in chapter nine explains what “intellectual geography” is and provides resources for further exploration. This chapter highlights how important mapping is for autonomous learners. It is essential because it gives them the proper direction as to how to reach the target outcome successfully. Such maps as demonstrated in this chapter are related to the strategic use of the cognitive dimension (i.e., tactics used for the development of schema and issues related to affective and socio-cultural interactive dimensions). This map is a record of the intellectual plan which would eventually enable learners to meet specific goals.

In a short review such as this, it is not always possible to discuss the book in its entirety, but overall the book is praiseworthy despite the potential limitations discussed. As an analytical study of learning tools or strategies, it provides sufficient insight into various components of meta-knowledge and self-regulation. It is comprehensive and takes into account all the disparate strands of issues and synthesizes them. Teachers can use the book as a resource with helpful guidelines, as strategy instruction is necessary so that learners are able to avail themselves of appropriate strategies according to their needs (e.g., age, culture, interests). In the lead-up to empowering them, what needs to be done then is to “conduct a strategy instruction or brainstorming session with students to raise meta-cognitive awareness or (MAR) to help them organize information and take ownership of it” (Oxford, 2011, p. 178).

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

With publications appearing in Computer Assisted Language Learning Special Issue, ISTE, and On-Call, Mehreen Ahmed has twelve years of experience writing and teaching English Literature and ESL in Bangladesh, Canada and Australia. She has two MA degrees in English (Dhaka University) and in Computer Assisted Language Learning (University of Queensland, Australia).

Language Learning & Technology 48

Mehreen Ahmed Review of Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies

Language Learning & Technology 49

E-mail: mehreen10@gmail.com

REFERENCES

Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 110–126). London: Palgrave.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle.

Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies: Methods, findings, and instructional issues. Modern Language Journal, 73, 404–419.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/collentine.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 50–67

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 50

LEARNER AUTONOMY IN A TASK-BASED 3D WORLD AND PRODUCTION

Karina Collentine Northern Arizona University

This study contributes to the research on learner autonomy by examining the relationship between Little’s (1991) notions of ‘independent action’ and ‘decision-making’, input, and L2 production in computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Operationalizing ‘independent action’ and ‘decision-making’ with Dam’s (1995) definition that focuses on ‘choice’, the present study examines whether, while learners are engaged in a CALL task, their choices—termed autonomous moves—within a 3D environment and the subsequent input they receive predict the linguistic complexity and accuracy of their production in synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC). A total of 58 third-year university-level learners of Spanish participated in two murder-mystery tasks coupling a 3D segment—containing embedded user-tracking features—with an SCMC segment. Four regression analyses examined the potential impact of learners’ choices within the 3D environment and the input resulting from those decisions on their production. The results suggest that learners’ linguistic complexity and accuracy while completing CALL-based tasks is influenced by both their autonomous moves and the linguistic characteristics of the input they receive (as a result of their autonomous moves).

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Second Language Acquisition, Task-based Instruction

INTRODUCTION

With widespread access to technology, learners are increasingly using CALL materials in a learner-centered approach where they take control of their own learning, on their own time, and for their own purposes. These materials include virtual and 3D environments with gaming-like experiences (Darasawang & Reinders, 2010; Sykes, 2009). Highly interactive, multi-sensory environments provide access to real world simulations (Pantelidis, 1993; Schwienhorst, 2008), popularizing online multiuser virtual environments (e.g., Second Life) and massively multiplayer online games (e.g., World of Warcraft). In these autonomous learning environments entailing “independent action” and “decision-making” (Little, 1991, p. 4), it is essential that learners become cognizant of how to learn by raising their metalinguistic awareness and participating in tasks that motivate L2 communication. Fischer (2007) and Schwienhorst (2008) argue that learners in these environments should develop metacognitive abilities, strategies, and have opportunities for reflection (e.g., on input characteristics or their own learning strategies).

According to van Lier (2010), studying autonomy—and so its operationalization—with empirical rigor in controlled experimental settings has been a challenge since the construct ‘learner autonomy’ is multifaceted. One ramification is that autonomy research has not addressed the direct impact of autonomous learning on L2 communicative competence. Therefore, this study examines autonomous learning in a task-based 3D CALL environment, operationalizing autonomy with Dam’s (1995) notion of ‘choice’: decisions learners make in the 3D world to interact with the environment towards solving the task. Specifically, it explores the relationship between what learners choose to interact with—termed ‘autonomous moves’—in CALL, the nature of the subsequent input they receive, and the linguistic complexity and accuracy of their production.

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Learner Autonomy in CALL

According to Little (1991), autonomy is “the learner’s psychological relation to the process and content of learning—a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action” (p. 45). Schwienhorst (2003) emphasizes that autonomy in CALL involves learners in critical self-evaluation and reflection as well as self-determination so that they take control over and responsibility for their development. Autonomous learning in CALL can help learners modify input and gauge learning, monitor their progress, and reflect on and prioritize their learning (Darasawang & Reinders, 2010; Gick, 2002; Reinders, 2006, 2007; Toogood & Pemberton, 2002).

Van Lier (2010) encourages researchers to find ways to increase autonomy research’s ecological validity by bringing experimental, quantitative approaches to the conversation. Fischer (2007) argues that CALL researchers can study learner autonomy in one of two ways: (1) collecting data on students’ learning strategies and degree of reflection while using CALL materials (e.g., self reports); or (2) identifying (e.g., for future CALL developers) design principles that will promote learner autonomy. The latter approach has been underutilized (cf. Fischer, 2007, p. 418) and is adopted in the present study.

In the context of this challenge, van Lier (2010) argues that autonomy is multifaceted, noting: “we have no clear, universally accepted definitions of the terms under discussion, let alone operationalized ones [author emphasis] that can be used to conduct rigorous empirical research” (p. xiv). Operationalization depends on the CALL materials one uses to foster learner autonomy. Much autonomy research takes a social-interactive approach (Schwienhorst, 2003). Yet, many CALL activities do not entail social interaction. For instance, in the 3D environment described below, students independently interact and gather information from objects and non-player characters (NPCs), or 3D representations of humans that users have the option of prompting for information relevant to the task (as programmed by the 3D environment’s designer). Dam’s (1995) definition of autonomy is particularly helpful in operationalizing the construct in non-social-interaction environments because it encourages researchers to consider learners’ choices: “a learner qualifies as an autonomous learner when he independently chooses aims and purposes and sets goals; chooses materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice and purpose in organizing and carrying out the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for evaluation” (Dam, 1995, p. 45). Admittedly, this operationalization limits the study of autonomy to focusing on Little’s (1991) criteria of ‘decision-making’, and ‘independent action’. Still, such a focus may have the benefit of contributing ecological validity to the body of research.

Since the present study examines the relationship between autonomy in CALL and learner production, the role of the input must also be considered. Input in autonomous learning affects linguistic awareness (cf. Schwienhorst, 2003), and so learner output. In this study’s 3D world (as well as in many CALL applications), learners make choices about what and how much input they access. Such input, thus, has the potential to predict production as much as learner choices. Statistical analyses such as regression analysis (as shown below) provide insights into the relative contribution of choices versus input features. Since the learners in this study select the input they receive, rather than examining input within an interactionist framework (e.g., recasts, clarification requests) that would be compatible with a social interactive research design, the present study examines the input’s linguistic features (e.g., lexical density, structural complexity; Ellis & Schmidt, 1997) in providing an understanding of the complex interplay between choices, input, and learner output.

Design Features Promoting Autonomy in CALL

Schwienhorst (2003) outlines for CALL researchers and developers three approaches to promoting learner autonomy. In the individual-cognitive approach, reflective processes are aided through the act of writing (as opposed to speaking). In the social-interactive approach, interactions with peers or native speakers such as in project-based tasks promote autonomy. In the experimental-participatory approach, learners are made to be their own agents, and their own actions and choices promote autonomous learning. The

Language Learning & Technology 51

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

experiment presented below contains all three of these design features.

Studying Autonomy and L2 Production in a 3D World Task

The present study on the relationship between autonomy in a 3D world task and L2 production incorporates the design principles outlined in the section above. And, while the experiment as a whole encourages learner autonomy in ways that are consistent with Schwienhorst (2003), the empirical study presented limits itself to studying the potential effects of learner autonomy on L2 production by focusing on learners’ choices and those decisions’ immediate consequences (i.e., the subsequent input they receive). First, a task-based 3D CALL environment encouraging learners to make choices about the L2 input they process aims at promoting an experimental-participatory approach. User-tracking technologies record learners’ actions, allowing the researcher to study the choices they make (Fischer, 2007). Second, synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) related to a 3D task provides an avenue for the promotion of the individual-cognitive approach to autonomy and the social interactive approach through written L2 expression while interacting with a peer to achieve a common goal. SCMC data provides a convenient, text-based format for examining learners’ production in relationship to their choices in the 3D environment. The following section reviews the CALL literature, as it relates to autonomy, on user-tracking technologies, SCMC, tasks and 3D environments. The research questions and hypotheses follow.

User-tracking technologies as a tool for studying learner autonomy

User-tracking technologies capture and archive users’ actions or moves along with time and date stamps. In a 3D world program, user-tracking technologies can document various learner decisions: which NPCs they interact with, how long they read input that they encounter, and so forth. Tracking might also record the number of times a learner returns to retrieve input provided by an object or NPC. In short, tracking technologies can help us understand self-determination in a 3D learning environment, showing us the choices learners make to access L2 input that they themselves decide to process and (perhaps) contemplate. The present study uses these technologies to examine learners’ choices about the L2 input to which they expose themselves.

CALL researchers have employed user-tracking technologies for a number of purposes, including whether learners fully take advantage of available software components and features (Fischer, 2007). From a learner autonomy perspective, user-tracking technologies can help us to measure the extent to which learners will decide to be ‘agents’ in CALL. Cobb and Stevens (1996) discovered that few students employed the optional software components of reading courseware even after practicing them and understanding their benefits. Hsu, Chapelle, and Thompson’s (1993) learners neglected to use a component of an English grammar program that would aid with problematic answers. Pujolà (2002) found that learners seldom explored strategy-training components embedded in listening and reading comprehension courseware. However, word translators or dictionaries are frequently employed (Bland, Noblitt, Gay, & Armington, 1990; Davis & Lyman-Hager, 1997; Laufer & Hill, 2000; Noblitt & Bland, 1991), although learners may avoid this feature to complete activities more quickly (Hulstijn, 1993). Overall, despite the inclusion of software components that could aid learners in becoming more autonomous, the research employing user-tracking technologies shows that few learners utilize them consistently (Fischer, 2007).

SCMC and Learner Autonomy

Schwienhorst (2003) argues that writing is one medium that facilitates reflective processes and self-critiques, and so tasks incorporating this mode of communication promote individual cognition. SCMC, such as iChat, provides such conditions. Research shows that SCMC engages learners in collaborative knowledge construction (Beauvois, 1997; Berge & Collins, 1995; Meunier, 1994; Warschauer, 1996, 1997). SCMC research is keenly focused on the nature of the L2 that dyads produce (Abrams, 2003; Blake, 2000; Collentine, 2009; de la Fuente, 2003; Keller-Lally, 2006; Smith 2003, 2005; Sotillo, 2000).

Language Learning & Technology 52

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

TB-SCMC in 3D environments

SCMC can promote autonomy when dyads are charged with a common task, termed task-based SCMC (TB-SCMC; Collentine, 2009). Doughty and Long (2003) suggest that computer-mediated communication (CMC) activities should follow task-based language teaching (TBLT) design principles, in which “meaning is primary; there is a relationship to the real world; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of task performance is in terms of task outcome” (Skehan, 1996, p. 38). As far as autonomy is concerned, one potential advantage for learners engaged in TB-SCMC using a technology like iChat is enhanced awareness through L2 reflection (Schwienhorst, 2003): they can view their discourse during its production and refer to and even modify comments made at earlier points in the conversation because a running, written record is available to interlocutors.

Scant research is available on TB-SCMC set in 3D environments, although the little that exists has provided some insights into autonomy in CALL. Using synchronous and asynchronous communication in a virtual world, Zheng, Young, Brewer and Wagner (2009) investigated the effects of task completion on self-efficacy (i.e., learners’ beliefs about their capabilities to complete a task; Bandura, 1977). They found that learners solving tasks within a virtual world reported higher levels of self-efficacy than learners in a control group. Three studies examine autonomy in relation to learners’ usage of their avatar’s communicative features (e.g., waving to get another avatar’s attention), which demonstrate learners’ propensity for taking control over their learning. Toyoda and Harrison (2002) as well as Peterson (2005) found that few learners employed their avatar’s communicative features. Yet, Peterson’s (2006) questionnaire revealed that, while most learners employed waving, few used other communicative features because the rapid exchanges in the chat impeded their use. More extensive use of user-tracking technologies could provide a better picture of learners’ propensity for experimentation and self-determination in these learning contexts.

Interestingly, although SLA research ultimately attempts to understand how learners develop communicative competence in an L2, few researchers have explored either the relationship between autonomy and learner output or TB-SCMC in 3D environments and output. Sykes (2009) examined the effects of tasks in a 3D world on pragmatic development, namely, learner requests in Spanish; her analysis was unable to corroborate a facilitative effect for this environment on the pragmatic feature in question. Jones, Squires, and Hicks (2007) investigated the effects of a 3D environment on Japanese learners’ pronunciation. Learners were to complete a series of questions in order to get a table at a restaurant (the task); the software recorded learners’ responses and evaluated their approximation to standard Japanese. Beginning learners had greater gains in pronunciation than intermediate learners after using the 3D environment.

Research Question and Hypothesis

This study contributes to the research on learner autonomy by studying the NPCs and objects with which learners choose to interact in TB-SCMC in a 3D world and the possible impact of such decisions on learner production. Advanced foreign language learners of Spanish participated in two tasks consisting of a 3D exploration segment followed by an SCMC chat segment (see Tasks below). Each 3D segment was a virtual environment providing opportunities to interact in an unsupervised fashion with various NPCs and objects for gathering information. Since participants were only compelled to interact with the 3D world by the demands of the task motivating them, interactions constitute choices—an important indicator of autonomous learning (cf., Dam 1995)—that each individual participant makes toward the task’s goal. The study operationalizes choice by measuring with user-tracking technologies these self-determined interactions, referring to them as ‘autonomous moves’ (see Analysis below for a complete definition). As mentioned above, the input learners receive as a result of those choices could also mitigate their output. The study explores the relationship between autonomy and learner production by measuring the extent to which ‘autonomous moves’ and/or resulting input features predict linguistic complexity and accuracy in

Language Learning & Technology 53

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

the written output of the participants during the chat portion of the task.

Thus, this study asks the following:

In task-based CALL, do the type and quantity of autonomous moves and/or resulting input features while exploring a 3D environment predict linguistic complexity and/or accuracy in SCMC production?

The study employs four regression analyses to study the relationship between autonomy, input, and L2 production. The analyses’ predictor variables (i.e., independent variables) are various calculations from the user-tracking data in the 3D segment; the response variables (i.e., dependent variables) are four measures of linguistic complexity and accuracy from the SCMC data. The researcher also provides a qualitative analysis of the data set.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 58 third-year university-level learners at a medium-sized university in the United States from intact classes participated in the study. They were enrolled in a junior-level course designed to review major grammatical structures and in a junior-level course focusing on developing conversational fluency. All participants had met or exceeded the learning outcomes from the previous course, a fourth-semester Spanish course. The classes were traditional, face-to-face (FTF) courses employing group activities as well as a variety of multimedia activities (e.g., watching videos, Internet exploration/research). While the courses required writing, speaking, and inductive/exploration activities, they did not entail any chat or instant messaging beyond the segments of this study. The researcher was the instructor of these classes but did not participate in the experimental tasks. The tasks were integrated into two lesson plans lasting two class periods of 1.5 hours for a total of three hours. No grades were awarded for participation since the tasks were incorporated into the class syllabus.

Tasks

Learners participated in two tasks designed by the present author, each containing a 3D exploration segment and a subsequent SCMC segment. The 3D segments were authored in the Unity game development tool (http://unity3d.com/unity/). The SCMC segments occurred in a local area network via iChat, a synchronous conference application. The laboratory where both segments took place was equipped with individual Mac laptops placed on conference tables arranged in a semicircle.

Each task first took learners to a 3D island containing NPCs and objects relevant to a crime that was committed. Learners explored the island to collect clues as first-person characters (FPCs), queried NPCs, and collected clues from objects in the environment (e.g., notes, letters). The first task asked learners to find clues to solve a missing persons case, while the second task required learners to solve a murder-mystery. To explore the island, learners used the arrow keys for horizontal movement (e.g., walking) and the space bar for vertical movement (e.g., jumping). The 3D tasks contained two user interfaces within which to gather clues and information, one involving NPCs and another involving objects. Participants roamed within the 3D environment and freely chose what to approach and how often.

When learners approached an NPC, they were prompted with three possible questions that they could ask, by clicking on any of the three questions—written in Spanish—within a button, whereupon they received a written answer—again, in Spanish.1

Language Learning & Technology 54

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Figure 1. Sample NPC question dialog.

When learners approached an object, they were presented with a written message in Spanish containing information to read (e.g., a learner could approach a diary to see an entry).

Figure 2. Sample message dialog.

The researcher emphasized that they should explore the environment all they wanted to solve the task. In both 3D segments, the researcher directed the learners to close the application after 10 minutes of gathering clues.

Language Learning & Technology 55

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Regarding the SCMC segments, after each task students were paired up into predetermined, randomly assigned dyads. Each dyad was to come to a consensus relating to the relevant crime: for the missing-persons task, dyads were to determine the reason(s) for the person’s disappearance; for the murder-mystery, dyads had to determine the reason(s) for the murder. The chat phase lasted 25 minutes.

To familiarize the learners with both the 3D technology and iChat, the day before the experiment the learners navigated a sample 3D world (not employed in the present analyses) containing examples/instances of the technologies described here. Subsequently, the participants practiced chatting about the sample 3D world.

The data for assessing linguistic complexity and accuracy took place in an SCMC environment because it offers processing conditions favorable to learners generating linguistic complexity. Resource depleting processing, such as FTF conversations, works against the production of linguistic complexity (Skehan, 1996). SCMC requires a certain degree of spontaneity at a pace similar to FTF interactions (Smith, 2003). Yet, SCMC lessens the pressure that unfilled pauses place on the need for spontaneity in FTF oral interactions, which can lead to incomplete processing of complex linguistic elements due to the limited resources available to short-term memory (Kern, 1995; Warschauer & Kern, 2000). Sotillo (2000) as well as Keller-Lally (2006) found that the delayed nature of asynchronous discussions led to the production of more syntactically complex language. There is also evidence that participants’ production may contain more complex language in SCMC than in oral, FTF tasks (Kern, 1995; Salaberry, 2000).

Dataset: User-Tracking Data and Chatscripts

Two types of user-tracking data were collected for the study. Each 3D application tracked the learners’ movements, actions, and choices to a MySQL database with Javascript and PHP. The applications also tracked the time at which each recorded event occurred, permitting the calculation of the number of types of events a learner’s movements or choices affected as well as the amount of time events took and how often they were repeated. The database represented a total of 7,339 recorded events.

Each dyad’s iChat transcript was archived to a text document and collated by participant, allowing the measurement of various aspects of a learner’s linguistic complexity and accuracy. The corpus totaled 27,315 words.

Analysis

A mixed-method analysis was employed for data analysis, combining quantitative and qualitative perspectives (Green & Caracelli, 1997). The quantitative analysis examined the extent to which features of the user-tracking data from the 3D segments predicted the production of four measures of linguistic complexity and accuracy in SCMC segments.

There were three types of predictor variables: (a) interaction-based features, (b) input features, and (c) time spent without interacting with NPCs and objects.

Table 1 represents measurements of learner interactions with NPCs and objects in the virtual environment. These variables measure various choices that the user-tracking technologies recorded. For instance, if a learner approached many NPCs, which would in turn present him or her with a series of question dialogs as in Figure 1, his or her question events count would be relatively high. If that same learner were to approach the question dialog in Figure 1 two or more times, his or her repeated question events count would increase. And, if s/he were to approach a message dialog such as that of Figure 2 more than once, his or her repeated message events count would increase.

Language Learning & Technology 56

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Table 1. Predictor variables: Interaction-based features affected by learners in 3D environment

Label Description

Question events The number of times a learner cued question dialogs (i.e., by approaching a NPC) or clicked a written question button to cue a written answer.

Question time Time (in seconds) within a question dialog (i.e., where the screen showed question buttons to click), as well as when time was spent reading question buttons and their corresponding answers.

Message events The number of times a learner cued message dialogs (i.e., by approaching an object) to receive written information (e.g., a note, letter).

Message time Time (in seconds) spent reading the contents of message dialogs.

Total interaction events

The sum of question and message events.

Total interaction time The sum of question and message time.

Average interaction time

Average time per question and message event.

Repeated question events

The number of times a learner cued a question event two or more times.

Repeated message events

The number of times a learner cued a message two or more times.

Repeated interaction events

The sum of repeated question events and repeated message events.

The predictor variables in Table 2 represent calculations of the linguistic features of the questions, answers, and messages a student read in the virtual environment.

Table 2. Predictor variables: Input features of 3D environment

Label Description

Clauses read Number of clauses read in questions, answers and messages.

Tokens read Number of tokens (i.e., words) read in questions, answers and messages.

Reading type-token ratio Type-token ratio of all questions, answers and messages read: the ratio of unique words to total words in input read. The higher the ratio, the more unique words the input had.

Reading lexical density Lexical density of all questions, answers and messages read: the ratio of unique main parts-of-speech words (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) to total main parts-of-speech words in input read. The higher the ratio, the more semantically dense the input was.

Based on the recordings of the user-tracking technologies, the researcher was able to identify particular statements the participants read and assess the statements’ linguistic characteristics. For instance, if a learner approached the question dialog in Figure 1, on that screen alone, s/he would read 4 clauses (i.e., each visible statement here has 1 clause) and 13 tokens (i.e., the statement Vi a la mujer el jueves, ayer plus the tokens in the visible buttons). The type-token ratio of the message in Figure 2 would be 0.88 (15 unique words/17 total words); calculating the ratio of total unique words to total words that a learner read

Language Learning & Technology 57

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

in all questions and dialogs would yield the learner’s reading type-token ratio.

Finally, the variable titled non-interaction time represents the time (in seconds) when neither a question nor message dialog was cued on the screen, such as moving from one NPC to an object or simply viewing the 3D surroundings.

Three response variables were calculated from the chatscripts to measure linguistic complexity and one response variable to measure accuracy, all common to task-based research. The first two response variables represent measures of lexical complexity (cf., Ellis, 2003). The third variable represents a measure of structural complexity, and the fourth linguistic accuracy.

Table 3. Response variables: Measures of linguistic complexity in learner production

Label Description

Learner type token ratio Type-token ratio of a learner’s production: the ratio of unique words to total words produced in the SCMC segment. The higher the ratio, the more unique words a learner produced.

Learner lexical density ratio Lexical density of a learner’s production: the ratio of unique main parts-of-speech (i.e., nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) words to total main parts-of-speech words in input read. The higher the ratio, the more semantically dense the learner’s production was.

Learner clauses per c-unit A c-unit is an utterance containing a single complete sentence, phrase, or word and that has a clear semantic and pragmatic meaning in the context in which it occurs. This is similar to the T-unit, although it is more appropriate for the elliptical nature of conversations and SCMC (cf., Skehan, 1996).

Learner percentage of error-free clauses

The percentage of clauses a learner produced that contained no grammatical or lexical errors. All errors in syntax, morphology, and lexical choice were considered (cf., Ellis, 2003).

The type token and lexical density ratios were calculated for each learner with concordance software. For example, a particular participant’s type-token ratio was calculated by dividing the unique words s/he produced by the total number of words s/he produced in the SCMC portion of the experiment. The error-free clauses were derived for each learner by counting the frequency of clauses containing no errors divided by the total number of clauses the learner produced, which was calculated by totaling the number of independent and dependent clauses per learner. For example, if a learner produced a statement such as creo que Angela *está *el culpable (“I think Angela is the guilty one”), s/he would be counted as having one error-free clause (i.e., creo que) and one erred clause (i.e., Angela *está *el culpable). An independent clause represented the first clause of a c-unit. A dependent clause was headed by either a subordinating conjunction such as que (“that”) or a coordinate conjunction such as y (“and”) or o (“or”).

An inter-rater reliability analysis was employed to check the construct validity of the researcher’s coding of erred clauses and c-units since identifying both constructs requires a certain degree of judgment. Specifically, a fellow researcher with experience in this field was presented with a random sample of 100 segments from the corpus. She was to both count the number of c-units and the errorless clauses. Her two sets of scores were compared with those of the researcher with a Pearson correlation, as each of the 4 datasets (n = 100) was on an interval scale. Concerning the count of errorless clauses, the correlation between the two researchers was significant, r = .92, p =.01. Regarding the count of c-units, the correlation between the two researchers was also significant, r = .91, p =.01.

For all-subsets regression analyses were conducted, each employing one of the response variables and all

Language Learning & Technology 58

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

of the predictor variables. The process involves screening a set of potential predictor variables for standard assumptions of linear regression and then submitting the reduced set to an all-subsets analysis—rather than a stepwise procedure—to identify the so-called “best subset”. Social scientists frequently employ stepwise procedures for building regression models; yet, many statisticians do not recommend stepwise analyses when the number of predictor variables is more than five or so (Rencher, 2002).

The researcher employed a standard data-screening process, identifying with scatter plots the potential predictor variables that had discernible correlations with the response variables. Three predictor variables had no correlation with any of the response variables, and so they were excluded from the all-subsets analyses: repeated question events, repeated message events, and non-interaction time.

Since the all-subsets analysis is computationally intensive and not available in many commercial software packages for the social sciences, the researcher used the R statistical package and its all-subsets regression package to identify the optimal predictor variables for each of the four response variables (see Dalgaard, 2002). SPSS then produced the regression statistics for the four resulting models.

Regarding the qualitative analysis, the researcher includes a narrative of two learners’ interactions in the 3D environment and samples of the Spanish that they produced in the SCMC segments to provide a complementary depiction of the role of autonomy and learner production.

RESULTS

Regarding the quantitative analysis,2 the all-subsets analysis revealed that four of the 11 potential predictor variables (14 original variables less the three discarded by scatter-plot analyses) significantly predicted learner type-token ratio.

Table 4. Regression analysis for response variable learner type-token ratio

Variable Model B 95% CI

Constant 0.547** [0.493, 0.601]

Message time -0.001* [-0.002, 0.001]

Clauses read -0.001** [-0.002, 0.000]

Reading lexical density 0.108* [0.001, 0.216]

Repeated interaction events 0.013** [0.004, 0.022]

R2 .085

F 3.680**

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Two predictor variables were interaction-based features affected by learners in the 3D environment. Message time (beta = -0.001), with its significant yet negative coefficient, was disassociated with the response variable. Repeated interaction events (beta = 0.013), with its significant, positive coefficient, was associated with the response. Two of the predictor variables were input features of the 3D environment. Clauses read (beta = -.001) was disassociated with the response variable, while reading lexical density (beta = .108) was associated with the response variable.

All told, regarding the relationship between autonomy and learners’ lexical production, choosing to re-interview an NPC or re-read a message correlates with higher levels of lexical complexity in learner production, although this observation is most applicable to learners who spent little time reading those messages. Concerning input features, input with higher levels of lexical density was associated with more

Language Learning & Technology 59

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

lexical complexity in the learners’ production, especially when learners read relatively few clauses overall.

The all-subsets analysis revealed that the same four predictor variables significantly predicted learner lexical density ratio.

Table 5. Regression analysis for response variable learner lexical density ratio

Variable Model B 95% CI

Constant 0.642** [0.591, 0.693]

Message time -0.001 [-0.001, 0.000]

Clauses read -0.001* [-0.002, 0.000]

Reading lexical density 0.098 [-0.004, 0.200]

Repeated interaction events 0.010* [0.002, 0.019]

R2 .052

F 2.578*

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Furthermore, the associations and disassociations of the four identified predictor variables were the same as in the learner type-token ratio analysis. While this may appear to be a redundant analysis, it nonetheless provides a certain level of corroboration for the above assessments of the relationship between autonomous moves and input features with respect to learners’ lexical complexity.

The all-subsets analysis revealed that only two of the potential predictor variables significantly predicted learner clauses per c-unit.

Table 6. Regression analysis for response variable learner clauses per c-unit

Variable Model B 95% CI

Constant 27.087** [21.347, 32.827]

Question time 0.029* [0.006, 0.053]

Reading type-token ratio -14.587* [-25.700, -3.474]

R2 .047

F 3.842*

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

One variable, question time (beta = .029), was an interaction-based feature, indicating that the more time learners spent interacting with the question dialogs (e.g., selecting and reading questions, reading their answers), the more structurally complex their output was. However, the reading type-token ratio (beta = -14.587) was disassociated with the production of structural complexity. Thus, the positive effect of interacting with question dialogs on the structural complexity of output occurs when the lexical variety of what learners read is low.

The all-subsets analysis revealed that four of the potential predictor variables significantly predicted learner percentage of error-free clauses.

Language Learning & Technology 60

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Table 7. Regression analysis for response variable learner percentage of error-free clauses

Variable Model B 95% CI

Constant 1.924 [1.619, 2.228]

Message events -0.025* [-0.049, -0.002]

Message time 0.003* [0.000, 0.007]

Clauses read 0.005* [0.001, 0.009]

Reading type-token ratio -0.865** [-1.496, -0.233]

R2 .047

F 2.422*

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01.

As in the first two regression analyses above, two of the predictor variables were interaction-based features affected by learners in the 3D environment while the other two constituted input features. Concerning the interaction features, message events (beta = -0.025) were disassociated with the response variable, while message time (beta = 0.003) was correlated positively. Regarding the two input variables, clauses read (beta = 0.005) was associated with the predictor variable while reading type-token ratio (beta = -0.865) was disassociated.

All told, this is the only model that hints that interacting with messages—specifically, the amount of time reading messages—facilitates production in the sense that it is associated here with more error-free production. However, as in the two lexical-complexity analyses, this model also indicates that, concerning accuracy, there is little benefit to reading numerous message dialogs. This analysis finds a facilitative effect for clauses read—as opposed to the two analyses on learners’ lexical complexity—on accuracy. In contrast to the two analyses on the predictors of the learners’ lexical complexity where this was associated with greater lexical complexity in the input, lexical complexity in the input in this analysis was associated with more errors, as was the case in the learner clauses per c-unit analysis. Thus, lexical complexity in learner input is associated with more lexical complexity in learner output, but lexical complexity in input is not associated with structural complexity or accuracy.

Regarding the qualitative analysis, a perusal of various learners’ 3D and chat activities revealed that not all learners explored the 3D world alike. The following describes two learners, DT and JK, whose choices and production differ. Still, it is important to note that there were no significant differences in terms of each learner’s total amount of time in the 3D segment: DT spent 678 seconds (11.3 minutes) in the 3D world while JK spent 718 seconds, or 12 minutes, 2(1) = 1.15, p = .28. Yet, DT had a total of 114 interaction-based events while JK logged a total of 79, a difference that was significant, 2(1) = 6.35, p = .01. DT interacted with significantly more question events (49 total) than message events (20 total), 2(1) = 12.19, p = .01, while there were no significant differences between the number of question events (27 total) and object events (19 total) for JK, 2(1) = 1.39, p = .24.

Specifically, DT’s first move entailed approaching an NPC and reading the three possible questions and answers, spending on average 4.7 seconds with each question event. He chose to approach another NPC and did the same, spending 5.8 seconds on average per question event. Next, he interacted with a message dialog, moved away, and then returned to it immediately afterwards, spending a total of 8.5 seconds on this message. After 2.7 seconds, DT interviewed another NPC for a total of 33 seconds, viewing all three of the dialog’s question-answer pairs, and one pair twice. A mere 1.6 seconds later, DT approached an object and read its message twice (i.e., entering its vicinity and cuing its dialog twice) for a total of 6.5 seconds; then he proceeded to interview another NPC, and then another NPC, and another object,

Language Learning & Technology 61

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

seemingly to explore all of the possible interactions during the 10-minute 3D segment. DT’s interactions in the 3D world remained the same throughout the activity, and his choices led him to interactions with NPCs and objects that provided him with the input necessary to solve the task. He did not miss any clues and interviewed all of the NPCs rather quickly, returning to a few of the NPCs and objects near the end of the 3D activity.

In his chat, DT provided lexically and syntactically complex hypotheses with few errors, stating, Sí, pienso que era Tito también. Pero, ?por qué? ?Qué es la relación? “Yes, I think it was Tito too. But, why? What is the relationship?”. DT then reasons: pero nadie le cae bien a Pedro “but Pedro doesn’t like anyone”, employing the complex gustar-like construction. DT is not quoting what people said; everything he writes is in the abstract.

JK spent almost the same amount of time interacting with question events (483 seconds) as did DT (469 seconds), 2(1) = 0.21, p = .65; however, DT had 49 question events and JK logged significantly fewer, 27 events, 2(1) = 6.37, p = .01. JK interviewed only four of the six NPCs and would, with a few exceptions, spend quite a bit of time reading each question-answer dialog. In one instance, JK spent 91.4 seconds (about 1.5 minutes of the 10 minutes spent on the task) reading the question-answer dialogue for one NPC; in another she spent 79.2 seconds. She approached two NPCs three consecutive times each (i.e., moving in and out of their respective vicinities to re-prompt their respective dialogs), but only apparently read the questions; she never cued any of the answers. DT never exhibited this move: every time he approached an NPC, he clicked on a question to see its answer.

JK also interacted differently with message events (i.e., objects). For example, she spent 136.3 seconds (2.23 minutes) with just three message events, apparently reading each an average of eight times. In one instance, she interacted with the same message (i.e., Esta es la ropa que se puso Nora para bailar en la fiesta. “These are the clothes that Nora put on for the dance at the party”) nine consecutive times for a total of 45.8 seconds.

JK’s production contains little lexical or syntactic complexity, various errors, and code-switching, such as: pero quién ‘would’ querer ‘kill’ su compañero o amigo? “But who would want to kill his roommate or friend?” As another example: no. yo no creo. Tito dijo que el bailé con Nora para los 30 minutos. “No. I don’t think so. Tito said that I danced (should be: he danced) with Nora for the 30 minutes.”

Clearly, there were differences in these learners’ proficiency level, and it remains to be researched whether L2 proficiency affects the manner and amount learners interact with L2 materials autonomously. Nonetheless, this admittedly cursory quantitative analysis suggests that learners who do not actively seek out task-relevant input are less prepared to communicate fully about the task, even within an SCMC environment offering more time to process individual utterances.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Since it has been posited that autonomy positively affects language learning (Schwienhorst, 2002, 2003, 2008), this study examined whether learners’ choices (Dam, 1995) in a task-based, 3D environment affect learner production in terms of complexity and accuracy. Third-year university learners of Spanish interacted with NPCs and objects to gather information and then chat with a classmate in an SCMC environment. The tasks required dyads to solve a murder mystery and a missing-persons case. Moving within the 3D environment, the task compelled learners to interview NPCs and obtain information from objects, gathering written input from both. The amount of interaction with NPCs and objects was a function of self determination—some learners chose to gather more data and return to data more often than others.

Regarding interaction variables, learners exhibiting high levels of exploratory strategies by re-interviewing an NPC or reflective strategies by re-reading a message in the 3D segment yielded relatively

Language Learning & Technology 62

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

high levels of lexical complexity. Time spent reflecting on written input has varying effects on output. On the one hand, spending time interacting with question-answer dialogs is associated with syntactic complexity. On the other hand, large amounts of time reading messages do not seem to help lexical complexity. The data are not clear-cut with respect to accuracy; interacting with messages seems to affect the amount of error-free clauses learners produce if learners do not read a large number of messages.

Nonetheless, the characteristics of the input learners receive as a result of their choices also influences learner production. The lexical density of the input influences the lexical complexity of learner production if the input does not contain numerous clauses. Reading numerous clauses seems to facilitate learners’ abilities to generate error-free clauses, but only if learners are reading sentences with little lexical variety (i.e., low type-token ratios). However, having a low lexical variety can have a positive impact on syntactic complexity because the analysis shows that reading input with lower type-token ratios is associated with the production of more clauses per c-unit.

All told then, the statistical analysis indicates that self determination in combination with the nature of the input learners receive determines the complexity and accuracy of what they produce. The analysis reveals a complex interaction between autonomy, input, and production.

Figure 3. Autonomy, task, input and production.

Making more choices in a 3D environment does not necessarily lead to the production of linguistic complexity or accuracy. Both the learners’ choices and the subsequent input they receive affect their production. This is not a trivial observation, since it implies that CALL developers should not only provide opportunities for learner autonomy, they should also consider the features of and access to input learners will have. 3D worlds providing a visually and culturally authentic experience for learners (e.g., a garden centrally located in a home) may have less effect on production than the extent to which such environments encourage autonomous learning and the type of input they receive in the 3D environment. Additionally, learners may need a well-defined task to complete in the virtual environment to encourage autonomy.

Despite the study’s larger sample size, there are limitations to its generalizability. While all learners were

Language Learning & Technology 63

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

enrolled in third-year courses, the variability in the participants’ overall proficiency in Spanish is not accounted for. In future studies a proficiency level predictor variable in the analysis could reveal whether proficiency level in speaking and/or reading mitigates autonomy, input processing, and production. That said, it is important to keep in mind that the correlations between individual predictor variables and individual response variables were highly significant. Additionally, as is common to TBLT research, the measures representing linguistic complexity and accuracy are general in nature, and surely mask more subtle effects of autonomy and input on production. Future research could explore in greater depth this relationship, and even consider the factors of comprehension and intake. Technology that records learners’ moves and tracks what they read (and perhaps even hear) can help us to understand the effects of virtual input not only on production but also on comprehension abilities. Finally, regression analysis is considered a first step in establishing causality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). A study employing this data set with structural equation modeling or an independent sample verifying the study’s regression models could test the strength of the causality relationships explored in the conclusions.

NOTES

1. Technically speaking, learners navigated the virtual environment with keyboard controls. NPCs and objects (e.g., diary entries) were surrounded by transparent collider boxes, which triggered the appearance of controls such as buttons (e.g., questions whose answer appeared once clicked) and non-modifiable textboxes (e.g., written answers to questions, written information).

2. Three of the models produced by the all-subsets analysis contained four predictor variables, and one contained two predictor variables. Given the sample size of 58 and the number of cases in sample per variable of 116, the three models with four predictor variables averaged 29 cases per predictor variable and the two variable model averaged 58 cases per predictor variable. These cases-per-predictor ratios represent adequate sample sizes to detect reliable correlation estimates (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Additionally, none of the four data sets contained multicollinearity (or singularity) violations, such that no two variables correlated at r = 0.90 or higher.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Karina Collentine is Assistant Professor of Spanish and Secondary Spanish Education at Northern Arizona University.

E-mail: Karina.Collentine@nau.edu

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. (2003). The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. Modern Language Journal, 87, 157–167.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Beauvois, M. (1997). High tech, high touch: From discussion to composition in the networked classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10, 57–69.

Berge, Z., & Collins, M. (Eds.), (1995). Computer mediated communication and the on-line classroom in distance learning. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer-mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage.

Language Learning & Technology 64

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120–136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/ blake/default.html

Bland, S., Noblitt, J., Gay, G., & Armington, S. (1990). The naïve lexical hypothesis: Evidence from CALL. Modern Language Journal, 74, 440–450.

Cobb, T., & Stevens, V. (1996). A principled consideration of computers and reading in a second language. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 115–136). Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Collentine, K. (2009). Learner use of holistic language units in multimodal, task-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 68–87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/collentine.pdf

Dalgaard, P. (2002). Introductory statistics with R. New York: Springer.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice, Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Darasawang, P., & Reinders, H. (2010). Encouraging autonomy with an online language support system. CALL-EJ Online, 11, Retrieved August 29, 2010, from http://callej.org/journal/11-2/darasawang_reinders.html.

Davis, J., & Lyman-Hager, M. (1997). Computers and L2 reading: Student performance, student attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 58–72.

de la Fuente, M. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 47–81.

Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/ doughty/default.html

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University.

Ellis, N., & Schmidt, R. (1997). Morphology and longer-distance dependencies: Laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 145–172.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 409–442.

Greene, J. & Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. In J. Greene & V. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 5–18). New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 74. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gick, C. (2002). Autonomes Grammatiktraining in der Mediathek. Babylonia, 2, 55–58.

Hsu, J., Chapelle, C., & Thompson, A. (1993). Exploratory learning environments: What are they and do students explore? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 1–15.

Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of task and learner variables. Modern Language Journal, 77, 139–147.

Jones, G., Squires, T., & Hicks, J. (2007). Combining speech recognition natural language processing with 3D online learning environments to create distributed authentic and situated spoken language learning. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39, 375–392.

Keller-Lally, A. (2006). Effect of task-type and group size on foreign language learner output in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas,

Language Learning & Technology 65

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Austin.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–476.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Technology, 3, 58–76. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num2/laufer-hill/index.html

Meunier, L. (1994). Computer-assisted language instruction in cooperative learning. Applied Language Learning, 5, 31–56.

Noblitt, J., & Bland, S. (1991). Tracking the learner in computer-aided language learning. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 120–131). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Pantelidis, V. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33, 23–27.

Peterson, M. (2005). Learning interaction in an avatar-based virtual environment: A preliminary study. PacCALL Journal, 1, 29–40.

Peterson, M. (2006). Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19, 79–103.

Pujolà, J. T. (2002). CALLing for help: Researching language learning strategies using help facilities in a web-based multimedia program. ReCALL, 14, 235–262.

Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: issues and interventions (pp. 219–238). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.

Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System, 35, 93–111.

Rencher, A. (2002). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Salaberry, R. M. (2000). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 5–27.

Schwienhorst, K. (2002). Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality concepts in CALL. Simulation and Gaming, 33, 196–209.

Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 427–443.

Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17, 38–62.

Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. Modern Language Journal, 87, 38–57.

Smith, B. (2005). The relationship between negotiated interaction, learner uptake, and lexical acquisition in task-based computer-mediated communication. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 33–58.

Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous

Language Learning & Technology 66

Karina Collentine Learner Autonomy in a 3D World and Production

Language Learning & Technology 67

communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82–119. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol4num1/sotillo/default.html

Sykes, J. (2009). Learner requests in Spanish: Examining the potential of multiuser virtual environments for L2 pragmatics acquisition. In L. Lomicka & G. Lord (Eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration (pp. 199–234). San Marcos, TX: Texas State University: CALICO.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Toogood, S. & Pemberton, R. (2002). Integrating self-directed learning into curriculum: A case study. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Challenges to research and practice (pp. 86–110). Dublin: Authentik.

Toyoda, E. & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82–99. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol6num1/toyoda/default.html

van Lier, L. (2010). Forward: Agency, identity, and language learning. In B. O’Rourke & L. Carson (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom. A Festschrift in honor of David Little (pp. ix–xiv). Oxford: Peter Lang.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai‘i Symposium (29–46). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: Theory and practice. Modern Language Journal, 81, 470–481.

Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zheng, D., Young, M., Brewer, R., & Wagner., M. (2009). Attitude and self-efficacy change: English language learning in virtual worlds. CALICO Journal, 27, 205–231.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/hafnermiller.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 68–86

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 68

FOSTERING LEARNER AUTONOMY IN ENGLISH FOR SCIENCE: A COLLABORATIVE DIGITAL VIDEO PROJECT IN A

TECHNOLOGICAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT1

Christoph A. Hafner Lindsay Miller City University of Hong Kong

This paper reports on the syllabus design and implementation of an English for Science and Technology (EST) course at an English-medium university in Hong Kong. The course combined elements of project-based learning and a “pedagogy for multiliteracies” (New London Group, 1996) to produce a strong learner autonomy focus. A major component of the course was a student-centered digital video project, in which students created and shared a multimodal scientific documentary. A range of new technologies and Web 2.0 platforms (including YouTube and Edublogs) were integrated into the project process in order to create a technologically rich learning environment. The design of this structured technological learning environment was informed by existing case studies of students’ autonomous language learning in unstructured online spaces. In this paper, we draw on students’ accounts (from questionnaires, focus group interviews, and Weblog comments) to evaluate the digital video project and associated technological environment. In particular, we describe the potential of the project to provide students with opportunities to exercise their capacities as autonomous learners within a structured language learning context.

Keywords: Learner Autonomy, Digital Video, Digital Storytelling, Syllabus Design, English for Science and Technology, Qualitative Research Methods

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances in Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), including the development of various Web 2.0 platforms (O’Reilly, 2005), have contributed to the emergence of new literacy practices in online contexts. These new practices are characterized by an increased reliance on visual and hypertextual modes of representation, as well as increased possibilities for interaction and “communicational action” (Kress, 2003, p. 5). The affordances of new technologies make it possible for individuals to participate in the production and sharing of digital media and interact with a potentially global audience, in a way that is largely self-directed (Ito et al., 2008, p. 2). In addition, the new technologies offer the potential for autonomous language learning, especially in the context of “globalized online spaces” such as Flickr, YouTube, and FanFiction.net, where it is possible to share and discuss a range of digital artifacts (Benson & Chik, 2010, p. 63).

Research into these new literacy practices, conducted from the perspective of the “new literacy studies” (NLS) (Gee, 2008, p. 67), emphasises the need to develop pedagogical strategies that account for “the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies” (New London Group, 1996, p. 60). These scholars, working primarily in first language (L1) contexts, point to what they consider to be problematic differences between traditional literacy education at school and the “everyday literacies” (Knobel, 1999) which students engage in outside the classroom. They argue that the genres and practices associated with academic literacy development should more closely parallel the multimodal literacy practices of students’ everyday lives. Of particular interest to us here is one strand of this literature, which investigates the ways in which students can make use of digital technology, especially digital images and video, in order to construct personally meaningful digital stories that reflect the kind of media which students are exposed to out of class (e.g., Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010). Such

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

research provides useful insights into issues of pedagogical design for new technologies in second language contexts.

Although most NLS research has been conducted in L1 contexts, there are a small number of case studies that focus on second language learning in new media environments (Benson & Chik, 2010; Black, 2005, 2006, 2007; Lam, 2000, 2004, 2006). These studies highlight the potential for such environments to provide opportunities for self-directed, informal language learning. In this paper, we build upon the insights of existing research in order to design a technology rich environment that draws upon emerging literacy practices in order to promote opportunities for language learning. In particular, we evaluate the potential of such a technological learning environment to foster language learner autonomy. We begin by reviewing important concepts in autonomy in language learning especially as these relate to new technologies. Then we describe the implementation of a collaborative student digital video project as part of a course in English for Science and Technology. Finally, we evaluate the ways in which the affordances of the associated technological environment allowed the students to take control of their learning.

Autonomy in Language Learning

The concepts behind learner autonomy have been promoted in the literature over the past 30 years and it is a concept which has attracted interest by language teachers as we have moved toward more communicative pedagogical approaches which encourage students to participate in their learning more fully (Miller, 2009). Learner autonomy has been defined as the ability to take control over one’s learning (Holec, 1988) and is also described as a “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action” (Little, 1991, p. 4). Learner autonomy, though, can mean different things to different people (Benson, 2001; Sinclair, 2006), and trying to identify what the ability or capacity of an autonomous learner is can cause confusion.

Learner autonomy is often mistakenly equated solely with independent out-of-class learning in which learners are in control of all aspects of their learning process. In this view, an autonomous learner is one who is intrinsically motivated and learns outside the classroom, alone, and with no need for support from the teacher. However, learner autonomy can also develop in the structured learning environment of the classroom and become part of the pedagogical objectives of a language course. When a syllabus is designed to promote learner autonomy, the focus of the syllabus is clearly on a student-centered approach (Gardner & Miller, 1999); the teacher is still very much involved in assisting learners with their learning (Schwienhorst, 2003); the development of learner autonomy can have strong collaborative elements (Little, 1995); learners can choose to be more or less independent at different points in their learning process (Dickinson, 1987); and learners can be encouraged to reflect on their learning and ways to improve it (Little, 1997).

In courses that seek to promote learner autonomy through the use of technology, it can be useful to draw upon a constructionist view of language learning. A constructionist approach can encourage students “to learn in a social context and help them to develop an ability to readily create new knowledge, solve new problems and employ creativity and critical thinking” (Sadik, 2008, p. 488). Such an approach supports the concepts promoted by collaborative epistemologies and “emphasizes the agency of the learner in the learning process” (Suthers, 2006, p. 316). Experience is a central notion to constructionist theory as “knowledge can and can only be generated from experience” (von Glasersfeld, 2000, p. 4). Adopting such a theoretical approach to course design, the student is viewed as an active agent who brings his or her unique learning characteristics to the social learning context. Davies and Williamson (1998, p. 10) maintain that when using a constructionist approach we shift the responsibility for learning onto learners, which helps to motivate them in their learning processes.

In a classroom-based pedagogical approach that encourages learner autonomy, the teacher creates opportunities for learners to exercise their capacity for autonomy by providing an environment in which

Language Learning & Technology 69

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

they can negotiate new roles as learners within the “social context” (Breen, 1986) of the classroom setting. An example of this approach is the project-based work reported on by writers such as Dam (1995), and Beckett and Slater (2005). Common threads when using project-based approaches, as reported in Dam (working with young learners) and Beckett and Slater (working with young adults), are that: the lessons are not teacher-fronted; the teacher makes use of a range of activities, including learner diaries, group work, and poster presentations; and students become sensitized to the socialization process of working collaboratively and adopt different ways of thinking about their language learning. Both Dam and Beckett and Slater report that their students invested more time and effort into their language learning and were often proud of the work they had done. By using a project-based approach, new social contexts for language learning develop in the classroom and there is a shift in roles between teacher and students. Within this social constructionist view, we align ourselves with Dam’s (1995, p. 1) definition that learner autonomy “is characterized by a readiness to take charge of one’s own learning in the service of one’s needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a socially responsible person.”

The development of the capacity and willingness to act independently is perceived by many as an important goal in language education. To do this, an appropriate learner-autonomy-based pedagogy, for example project-based learning, should be adopted. Schwienhorst (2007) maintains that such a learner-autonomy-based pedagogy supports reflection, interaction, experimentation, and participation of learners, and that technology can play an important role. However, different technologies have their own particular affordances and constraints, and as a result support the development of learner autonomy in different ways. It is therefore necessary to consider the potential benefits of the technological environment we ask our students to engage with and consider how effective particular technologies might be as a learning tool.

New Technologies and New Literacy Practices in Language Learning

It is often assumed that the use of technology in language teaching and learning fosters learner autonomy by providing learners with easy access to a range of resources, tools, and environments for out-of-class learning (Benson, 2001; Motteram, 1997). However, in order to develop an approach to technology capable of fostering learner autonomy we must recognize that pedagogy and technology are inter-related. It is necessary to draw on an appropriate student-centered pedagogy, as well as consider the affordances of particular technological tools for autonomous language learning and how students will utilize these affordances (Hafner & Candlin, 2007; Schwienhorst, 2007). Case studies into language learners’ informal out-of-class learning in emerging communicative contexts provide a useful starting point in understanding these affordances.

Benson and Chik (2010) point out that emerging globalized online spaces provide new opportunities for language learning to occur autonomously as part of learners’ everyday literacy practices. An early case study of this kind of autonomous learning is provided by Lam (2000) who describes the way in which a US-based Hong Kong Chinese teenager (Almon) established a J-pop Web site and made use of a range of ICTs to interact with online chat mates from all over the world. This self-directed, out-of-class learning had a significant impact on Almon’s development of English. Lam (p. 476) comments that “whereas classroom English appeared to contribute to Almon’s sense of exclusion or marginalization (his inability to speak like a native), which paradoxically contradicts the school’s mandate to prepare students for the workplace and civic involvement, the English he controlled on the Internet enabled him to develop a sense of belonging and connectedness to a global English-speaking community.” This and similar case studies (Black, 2005, 2006, 2007; Lam, 2004, 2006) provide useful insights into the potential for technology rich environments to provide opportunities for informal, autonomous language learning. In designing technological learning environments in formal language learning settings, there is much to be gained by emulating the design of globalized online spaces.

Language Learning & Technology 70

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

One possible pedagogical strategy is to adopt a student-centered project-based learning approach (Warschauer, Schetzer, & Meloni, 2000), utilizing the same kind of media and technological environments that learners are engaged with outside of class. In the context of L1 literacy instruction, researchers and practitioners have been particularly interested in students’ creation and sharing of multimodal texts using digital images and digital video (see, e.g., Bull & Bell, 2010; Bull et al., 2008). It is thought that such multimodal digital compositions have the potential to bridge the gap between in-class and out-of-class literacy practices. As a result some educators have begun to explore the potential of digital storytelling projects, as a pedagogical tool to engage learners. In such projects students work either individually or in groups to design and construct a short, movie-like digital production, known as a digital story.

Digital stories combine traditional storytelling and narration with images, video, and audio (e.g., a soundtrack or other sound effects). The main features of a digital story, as described by Lambert (cited in Robin, 2006) are: a point of view, a dramatic question, emotional content, economy, pacing, the gift of your voice, and an accompanying soundtrack. Frequently digital stories focus on the telling of a personal narrative, which the storyteller is genuinely invested in because of its personal significance (Kajder & Swenson, 2004, pp. 19-20). In any case, regardless of their exact form, digital stories have a strong personal dimension and should “reflect, in one way or another, the student’s way of perceiving, interpreting and transmitting the knowledge s/he has acquired or is still acquiring” (Gregori Signes, 2008, p. 45). In spite of this strong personal dimension, digital stories are not limited to the personal narrative genre and may be designed to tie in to students’ academic skills, fostering the development of critical thinking and media literacy (Ohler, 2006). Thus, Robin (2008, pp. 224-225) reviews a range of different types of digital stories, including personal narratives, stories that inform or instruct, and stories that examine historical events.

Students constructing digital stories must combine a variety of traditional and new literacies to create their multimodal product. In addition, the construction of a digital story is an integrated task, which combines a wide range of roles (e.g., script writer, director, editor) and skill development opportunities. These include: research skills (e.g., finding and analyzing information), writing skills (e.g., preparing a script), organizational skills (e.g., managing the project), technology skills (e.g., learning new multimedia skills), presentation skills (e.g., deciding how best to present information to an audience), interpersonal skills (e.g., working with team-mates), problem solving skills (e.g., making decisions about the project), and evaluation skills (e.g, critiquing own and others’ work) (Robin, 2006, p. 5). In the context of language education, Rance-Roney (2008, p. 29) points out that “deep language acquisition and meaningful practice” is embedded in the digital storytelling process.

The construction of a digital story is considered motivating and empowering for learners. Bull and Kajder (2004, p. 49) note that:

[Digital storytelling] can provide a voice to struggling readers and writers who might not otherwise find an authentic means of expression. It places the technology in the hands of the learner, allowing him or her to control its use within objectives that are carefully constructed by the teacher.

In digital storytelling projects, the use of multimedia technology allows learners to create a multimodal artifact which, unlike many academic writing tasks, strongly resembles texts that students encounter through the media as part of their everyday lives. However, some caveats are in order. Language teachers planning a digital story project must encourage students to focus on the story, not the technology (Kajder & Swenson, 2004; Ohler, 2006) and focus on issues of language use (Gregori Signes, 2008).

Language Learning & Technology 71

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

This brief review suggests that digital storytelling projects have a number of features that lend themselves to the promotion of language learner autonomy. Such projects would provide a social context or learning environment within which learners are able to interact with one another as well as experiment with a range of digital video technology in order to create personally meaningful multimodal artifacts. Furthermore, learners’ ability to use such digital video technology to capture and play back their own performances as well as the performances of others would facilitate reflection on their language learning. However, there is as yet little empirical second language education research examining the affordances of digital storytelling projects to motivate second language learners and foster autonomy in the language learning classroom. In this paper, we describe and evaluate the implementation of one such digital video project, focusing on the ways in which the technological learning environment supported autonomy in language learning. Our investigation is guided by the following research questions: Does the technological learning environment promote autonomous language learning? If so, how?

CONTEXT, METHODS, AND DATA SOURCES

The study reported on here took place at an English-medium university in Hong Kong. The university has a high-technology environment with computers and audio-visual facilities provided in each classroom, and a well-established learning management system used by students and staff. In addition, most students own laptop computers and can bring them to tutorial classes in order to work on the kind of project reported on in this paper. The EST course offered to the students was a required course, with one 3-hour class per week, over a period of 13 weeks. Students taking the course were between 18-23 years of age, with a roughly equal mix of males and females, and were studying Applied Biology, Applied Chemistry, Environmental Science and Management, or Mathematics. Most students took the course in their first year of study, but there were also second and third year students in the class. It was assumed that the students entering the EST course already had an upper-intermediate standard of English proficiency and that they would be able to deal with complex content in their disciplines.

Implementation of the Digital Video Project

The course was primarily organized around a student English for Science project.2 The students were provided with a project prompt, similar to the prompts for practical lab or project work in their own disciplines, which detailed the procedure of a simple experiment. In order to complete the project students worked in groups of three to: (a) do background research and develop a hypothesis for the experiment; (b) carry out the experiment, documenting the procedure and results; (c) present findings to classmates in the form of a multimodal scientific documentary (group work due in week 7 of the course) and a written scientific report (individual work due in week 14). The multimodal scientific documentaries created were in many respects similar to digital stories (as described above), but instead of telling a personal story, students drew upon established scientific conventions in order to document their experiences with the experiment. The documentaries constructed thus blend rhetorical and linguistic features characteristic of highly authoritative scientific genres such as the research article or dissertation (Swales, 1990), with those more typical of popularizations of science (Hyland, 2010). These student products provide interesting insights into the language learning gains made by students. However, our primary focus in this article is on the language learning process and the extent to which that process fostered learner autonomy.

A number of measures were taken to facilitate collaborative learning on the digital video project. In order to assist students in forming their project teams we asked them to reflect on the roles that they would need to perform in completing the project: researcher, field-worker, script-writer, director, actor, camera-operator, and editor. Students were advised to identify team-mates with complementary interests and skills. In order to assist students with time management, we provided clear targets for different stages of the project and reviewed progress with students in class. For example, students were expected to have completed their data collection by week 4 of the course and have developed their script by week 5. Finally, in order to assist students in monitoring the group dynamics in their team, we asked them to

Language Learning & Technology 72

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

evaluate the effectiveness of their team functioning, by completing a short questionnaire on possible problems (following the procedure suggested by Oakley, Felder, Brent, & Elhajj, 2004). The main purpose of this last strategy was to raise students’ awareness of potential problems and provide a platform for discussion of such problems if the need should arise.

Design of the Technological Learning Environment

For the purposes of this paper, we use the term technological learning environment in a broad sense to include the full range of technological tools and resources used to support the learning process. The technological learning environment was primarily designed to support students in their project work, especially the planning, construction, and sharing of the scientific documentaries. The design followed a modular system, incorporating a range of technological tools, which include: (a) learning management system for course administration, (b) course Weblog for weekly reflective discussions on coursework, (c) DV cameras and editing software for video production, (d) resources Web site for support with video editing software (in the form of screencasts), (e) YouTube channel for sharing the videos created. The architecture of the technological learning environment can be conceptualized in terms of the stages of the English for Science project, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Architecture of the technological learning environment.

In the planning stage, students learned to use a variety of Internet search engines and online databases in order to locate and evaluate information relevant to their experiment. This process was supported by an in-class reading workshop, which took the form of a Webquest (Dodge, 1995) and aimed to develop critical literacy skills. In the filming and editing stage, students learned to use DV cameras to capture images and movies, and editing software to add narration, music, text, and simple effects such as transitions. This process was supported by two in-class video workshops: The first workshop, in week 3, focused on creating a digital story using Photostory 3 for Windows; the second, in week 6, was a trouble-shooting session. In addition to the technological tools introduced in class, technical support for a range of other tools (e.g., Windows MovieMaker, iMovie) was provided through online guides and screencasts on a course Web site, and students were encouraged to explore and utilize these other tools. Finally, in the sharing stage, students uploaded their videos to the course YouTube channel. These were then embedded

Language Learning & Technology 73

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

in the course Weblog, allowing students to post comments and feedback about the final products. This online sharing was supplemented by a face-to-face sharing session in class, in which students viewed each others’ documentaries and provided feedback. The aim of this session was to allow students the opportunity to showcase their work and celebrate the creation of the documentaries.

The use of technology in the English for Science project was always matched by face-to-face sessions, designed to provide students with the necessary support and scaffolding. In this sense, the technology was seamlessly integrated into course procedures and served to extend the learning environment in two important ways. Firstly, by using digital video, students were able to create a multimodal artifact, drawing on new (as well as traditional) literacies to incorporate images, movies, music, and audio narration into their documentaries. Secondly, in using the Internet to research and share their projects, students went beyond the traditional four walls of the classroom, drawing on authentic online sources to inform their projects and targeting an authentic, potentially global audience with their scientific documentaries.

Data Sources and Analytical Methods

In order to evaluate the video project innovation, we adopted a qualitative interpretive approach (Davis, 1995; Richards, 2003), aiming to provide a contextually rich account of the learning environment under investigation. Such an approach is particularly appropriate, we argue, for the evaluation of complex technological learning environments where numerous factors meet and interact as part of a dynamic learning ecology (van Lier, 1998): technology, people, processes, social and institutional constraints. With so many competing factors it is sometimes difficult to isolate contextual variables and establish clear relationships of cause and effect. A qualitative interpretive approach to evaluation assumes that the in-depth, “thick” description (Geertz, 1973) of a particular technological learning environment, based on a variety of data sources, can account for the range of contextual factors and yield insights into the social behaviour of actors in that environment.

As noted earlier, the participants in this study were drawn from a cohort of 67 university science students participating in a course in EST. The students were first surveyed through an anonymous questionnaire (59 responses), with both open and closed items (see Appendix A). This questionnaire was followed up by semi-structured focus-group interviews (see Appendix B) with approximately one third (21) of the students. In addition, the majority of students (62) reflected on their language learning in their weekly comments to the course Weblog.3 As course designers and teachers of the EST course in focus, our analysis of these primary data sources was also informed by our continuous involvement (over a period of more than two years) in the research site: weekly lessons with students, ongoing conversations as well as a formal focus group interview with the program leaders from students’ major subjects (i.e., Applied Biology, Applied Chemistry, Environmental Science and Management, Mathematics). Such intense and prolonged engagement is characteristic of a rigorous design in qualitative interpretive research (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 6). Finally, as teachers of this EST course, it is worth noting that standard procedures of ethical research were followed, with students participating in the evaluation providing informed consent for the collection of data. The primary data sources are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Primary Data Sources and Analysis

Research instrument Participants Analysis summary

Anonymous questionnaire 59 students 409 coded segments

Student focus groups 21 students in 12 focus groups (2-5 per group)

612 coded segments

Student Weblog comments 62 students, 378 comments 60 coded segments

The analysis of qualitative data collected (i.e., open questionnaire responses, interview transcripts, and

Language Learning & Technology 74

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Weblog comments) was carried out by a small team of researchers, all teachers on the EST course. The data analysis was facilitated by the use of qualitative data analysis software, MaxQDA (Belous, 2010), allowing for the easy coding, annotation, and retrieval of data (see Weitzman, 2003 for a review of such software). This software allows researchers to discover patterns in a bottom-up way, by coding important extracts, or segments, of the data. As the analysis proceeds, researchers can group similar codes in a tree-like code system in order to establish key emerging themes and relationships among them.

In the present study, the research team met and worked together to code a portion of the data, discussing the rationale for identifying particular emerging themes and categories. Next, the remaining data were coded by individuals according to the agreed categories. Finally, the research team met again in order to review the analysis and suggest refinements to the categories adopted. This process of constant comparison of codings, categories, and relationships in the data is important to ensure trustworthiness in qualitative data analysis (see Richards, 2003). Figure 2 shows the complete code system which emerged from the analysis (due to the volume of data only some of the sub-codes are displayed). After analysis, there were a total of 1,169 coded segments grouped into 10 primary categories and 52 subcategories.

FINDINGS

In this section we consider how the digital video project and associated technological learning environment appear to have promoted some form of learner autonomy, that is encouraged students to take responsibility for, monitor, and reflect on their learning. The main themes emerging from the data are: motivation, authenticity, independent learning, teamwork, peer-teaching, and reflection on learning. For each theme we describe students’ perceptions of the reported behaviour, as evidenced by extracts from the questionnaire, focus-group interviews, and Weblog comments. In order to protect the identity of student participants, students’ names are replaced with pseudonyms, following standard reporting practice in qualitative inquiry.

Motivation

The digital video project task appears to have been highly motivational for students. Their comments show that they found the project to be novel, fun, and challenging. Many of the students commented that the process of making a video was new to them, and some also observed that it was different to the kind of traditional academic reading and writing that they were used to:

[The most enjoyable thing about the video project is] to learn to make a video, because such work is new to me and I find it interesting to learn it. [Questionnaire ID54]

It’s very different than what we’ve done in the past year. We only did presentations and probably like lab projects. This is very different to us. So, it is challenging but I think it’s at the same time makes you to be more creative. You can be like add your own creativity into it instead of just reading and writing. [Focus group, Jane]

Thus, the novelty of the project appears to have caught the imagination of the students. When asked what they enjoyed about the video project, students commented especially on conducting their experiment, the video recording process, and sharing their projects, all of which they characterized as a fun process. It made them laugh and gave them a sense of satisfaction:

[The most enjoyable thing about the video project is] to shoot the video together and share our video. The process is funny, and we can make friends with many people. When sharing our video, I do feel that our efforts are worthy. [Questionnaire ID10]

Language Learning & Technology 75

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Figure 2. MaxQDA code system.

Language Learning & Technology 76

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

[The most enjoyable thing about the video project is] shooting, we got some funny shots while taking [video]. It made us laugh. [Questionnaire ID27]

Finally, some students commented that the project presented a special challenge, which they appeared to respond to in a positive way:

Yeah, I also enjoyed because this is a new kind of learning. So we never met such challenging in high school, so maybe it was a new approach for us to learn how to apply our knowledge in this - making a video in this aspect was very special and this is a new challenge and I think it’s interesting, yeah. [Focus group, Dan]

This last comment must be balanced against the perceptions of some students, that they had encountered problems using the technology. In some cases it seems that they were rather ambitious and so became frustrated that their technical abilities limited the quality of their final product, though it should be noted that all did in fact succeed in producing interesting videos:

I think, uh, we learned how to use the editing software, but I think it is really difficult to use this software because we haven’t used that software before and so we edited the movie and we face many technical problems. [Focus group, Mark]

It [the challenging thing] must be making the animation because we don’t want to simply catch the animation from the video that we can find in YouTube. We just want to create by ourselves but our technique is really low… And sometimes we cannot transfer what we think into the video to present to the others… [Focus group, Nancy]

On the whole, students met the challenge of learning new IT skills head on and in most cases reported that they enjoyed being given the opportunity to develop such skills.

Authenticity

Linked to the above comments on motivation is students’ perception of the digital video project as a meaningful and authentic task. Several students commented that this kind of task was suitable for “21st century” students and that the ability to create multimedia presentations could be useful for other courses and when they entered the job market:

Actually, in this project, I learned many skills besides case studies or content: the technique of making a video, also as we said before the presentation skills. It also let us become more creative and I have many other subjects require us to present in the class. And I would like to use more multimedia in my presentation later on and I think it would be attract my audience. [Focus group, Nancy]

[The most useful things learned were] the procedures and element to make a documentary. I think as a 21st university graduates, it’s better if we have some knowledge of multimedia production. [Questionnaire ID33]

In addition, many (though not all) students envisaged that their work would be viewed by a wide Internet audience, not only their class teacher. As a result of this perception, students put more effort into the final version of the video. The students understood that the teacher would assess their work, but it seemed equally important to showcase their best work to a larger audience of their classmates, friends via social networks, and the general public who might view their YouTube videos:

Language Learning & Technology 77

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Uh, I will consider the teacher will be the first audience because, uh, his documentary is a homework for me. [Focus group, Colin]

Because, um, a lot of people may [view] it not just our class, classmates, so I would do it, I will pay more effort to do it and I also will treat the documentary as a real documentary because it’s just like the documentary done by BBC or some others, although the topic is quite simple or quite basic… [Focus group, Joyce]

Independent Learning

In constructing their digital videos, students reported two kinds of independent learning: independently practising and using English, and independently searching for information related to the content of the video or the use of technological tools. Students commented that the video project “forced” them into practising their English. For instance, they were engaged in writing a script for the video, and then while filming, students mentioned that they had to re-take shots many times, thereby practising their oral English more. Some students described how the requirement to identify volunteers for their experiment brought them into contact with exchange students, whom they talked to in English. And of course, the students used English when presenting their ideas on the video:

Taking videos was the most enjoyable aspect because I can work with different people, volunteers and communicate with them. This action forces me to use English to communicate and it’s sometimes quite interesting. [Questionnaire ID57]

I also have record many times as I was responsible for the discussion part and [pause] and every time I record and then I listen to my voice, I just think that my pronunciation, my intonation is not good enough and I try to record it again and again. [Focus group, Cath]

As well as language practice, students reported being engaged in independent exploration of Internet resources when doing background research for the scientific documentary. In addition, they also reported using Internet resources in order to learn how to use the technology needed to construct the digital video. Although support for the relevant tools was provided through screencasts on a dedicated resources Web site, students preferred to do their own independent exploration:

That’s [the resource Web site is] one thing, but most of the time we Google it. [Focus group, Terry]

I would download some software from the Internet and just read the instruction, how to use it and try, and trial and error. So this is my way to overcome the technical problem. [Focus group, Dan]

Thus, students intuitively made use of the Internet as a tool for exploratory, just-in-time learning.

Teamwork and Managing the Learning Process

As noted earlier, an important feature of project-based learning is the opportunities it presents for collaborative learning as part of a team. There were many comments from students relating to this teamwork aspect of the project, with students describing how they learned to monitor not only their own learning process, but that of the whole group. Most students felt that it was necessary for one member of the group to take a leadership role, in order to facilitate time management and to co-ordinate the efforts of the whole team. In this respect, students emphasized the importance of good communication between team-mates for effective team functioning:

[As team leader] I have to set up the schedule, the planning and talk to my group mates about the

Language Learning & Technology 78

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

time we are going to do and before what day we have to finish this task and I have to distribute the work to them. [Focus group, Dan]

I think, um, the [pause] the regular meeting is very important… and also communication because if you have any problem and you don’t tell others, so no one can help you to solve it. [Focus group, Yong]

I can learn how to arrange everything in a limited time and get the work done. It is essential to have a planning before work so that in case a problem occurs there is still a room and time for correction and improvement. [Questionnaire ID20]

Students also described how they managed their own and team-mates’ roles on the project. They realized that the project was too involved and complex for them to do on their own, and as a result most groups negotiated specialist roles for individuals with particular skills or interests:

From this project, I learned how to know our own strength and weaknesses so that to divide the job or divide different people into doing different kinds of the assignments… So, um, also, I think my group have very good teamwork because, uh, for me, I’m working as for editing and Paul, uh, working as actor and Ralph for researching some information and writing the scripts. So I think it’s very effective. [Focus group, Vee]

This kind of specialization was restricted to a degree by a course requirement that every member of the team must present a (roughly equal) portion of the documentary. This requirement was adopted in order to ensure that all members of the team would practice English presentation skills as part of the project.

Peer Teaching

The collaborative group work project created a social context for learning which provided ample opportunities for peer teaching, either peer teaching of English or peer teaching of technology skills. Many of the students said that they turned to their team-mates for help in correcting their English while preparing the video:

I learned so much from my group mates because for me, my English is not good. But for my group mate, they have a good, good language, yes, so they help me for, uh, editing this video very much. [Focus group, Colin]

Furthermore, as students had adopted specialist roles to facilitate the team-work, they sometimes had to pass on their specialist knowledge, for instance of the English technical terms used in the script, to other team members responsible for editing the video:

For example, actually the script of the theory part is written by Janet and I’m going to edit it. And if she don’t explain the words to me, what is the theory about, [then] I must consume so much time on understanding the script… And so, she helped me out. [Focus group, Nancy]

Peer teaching was also a focus of discussion and feedback when learning to use the technology or finding suitable content for the video. In several cases students immediately identified someone in their group who was techno-savvy and who they could rely on to take care of the technical side of the project, or who could teach them how to do it:

For the technical challenges, I think I’m very lucky because I have Chris to help to us solve all the problem. [Focus group, Yong]

Language Learning & Technology 79

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

The problem is that I haven’t made a video before. I have just learn some from my groupmates. [Questionnaire ID04]

Significantly, peer teaching was not limited to peers in the same group or even peers in the same class. Some students described how they shared their YouTube videos with friends and how the feedback that their friends provided in response enabled them to notice problems in their own performances:

The students from the unit course and my friends are also my target audience because the students will give some comments on the video and my friends can also comment on the video before the deadline of my assignment so I can correct some mistake. [Focus group, Ian]

Later we also watch the final products many times I think and showed it to my friends. [Laughing]…and they also pointed out something that I should improve later… like you don’t need to nod my head all the times. [Focus group, Terry]

Such peer feedback would not have been possible if it were not for the technological affordances of the digital video, to create a permanent record of the performance capable of being shared through the Internet.

Reflection on Learning

Related to the notion of peer feedback are the weekly interactions in the course Weblog, similar to interactions in an online discussion forum, which provided students with an opportunity to reflect on their learning. Of particular interest here are students’ responses to the week seven post, where students’ YouTube videos were embedded and shared. The post invited students to comment on each others’ performances. An analysis of student comments shows that they were oriented towards issues of: language proficiency and presentation, content, and affect (e.g., showing support).

Throughout this video, there isn’t any subtitle. But I think since the pronunciations of narrators are good most of the time, it doesn’t affect the concept-understanding of the viewers. The language control is perfect; good English and good usage of certain words and sentences. [Weblog post, Sai Hee, October 22nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm]

Finally we have finished our filming! I think we all have done well in this project as most of us have never done this before! Watching the documentaries of other team we can know more about the inadequacy in our video. For example, Bill’s group does impress me the most! The filming technique is perfect and the video shows well balanced in both entertainment and academic aspect. We watch their video with our full attention, just like watching a real TV show! It is a very amazing and professional documentary! [Weblog post, Mark, October 19th, 2009 at 7:57 pm]

Thus, commenting on the digital videos in the course Weblog allowed students to celebrate their achievements and reflect, albeit in general terms, on content and use of English in the videos. It is possible that this evaluation of peers’ digital video projects, mediated as it is by online writing, helps students to achieve a degree of reflective detachment which would otherwise not be possible (e.g., in the context of the in-class sharing session).

DISCUSSION

We were guided in examining the data gathered from the study by the following research questions: Did the technological learning environment promote autonomous language learning? If so, how?

The students’ reported practices and perceptions illustrate the way in which the technological learning

Language Learning & Technology 80

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

environment afforded opportunities for autonomous language learning. Students’ comments suggest that they found the digital video project to be novel, fun, challenging, and meaningful. Their comments also indicate that they invested heavily in the digital video project and were motivated to take control over many aspects of their learning: independently practising and using English in the preparation of their videos, independently exploring the Internet when searching for information, working as a team to monitor each other’s learning, eliciting and providing peer support for issues of language and content, utilizing the course Weblog as an online space for reflection on learning. These reports show that the digital video project and associated technological learning environment provided students with opportunities to take control of their learning and that students took advantage of these to exercise their capacities as autonomous learners.

In the context of this digital video project, the exercise of learner autonomy observed can be attributed both to the pedagogy adopted, and the particular affordances of the technology used. First, the complexity of the digital video project, as well as the careful way in which it was scaffolded, encouraged students to cooperate in ways that fostered peer teaching and raised awareness of important aspects of the learning process, such as time management. The project-based learning methodology allowed us to create a realistic social context, within which learner autonomy could develop. Second, the use of digital video provided students with a record of their own spoken performances, which they were able to view and evaluate immediately. This frequently led students to notice their own weaknesses, motivating them to practice and improve. By viewing their video, students were able to develop the necessary critical detachment to reflect effectively on their language learning. In addition, the potential to share the videos through the Internet both motivated students, and provided them with further opportunities for peer feedback and support.

In their comments, students emphasized that the technological learning environment afforded the possibility to write for a real audience, and that this motivated them to put more effort into the construction of the documentary. Other studies into the use of digital video highlight the importance of providing learners with the opportunity to select personally meaningful content (e.g., Vasudevan, et al., 2010). In this study, students were provided with a topic that was intended to reflect the kind of academic work that they were doing for their major subject, following principles of course design in English for Specific Purposes. Here, it appears that students perceived meaning in the task because they felt that they were writing for a real audience in an online space that they were familiar with (i.e., YouTube and the course Weblog). Indeed, a number of existing studies highlight the motivating potential of writing for an authentic audience in such spaces (Black, 2005, 2006, 2007; Lam, 2000, 2004, 2006). In spite of this potential, it is not uncommon in educational settings for teachers to hide students’ work behind a protective firewall within an institutional intranet or learning management system. Such practices, understandable as they are, make it impossible for students to interact with a wider audience, and may therefore bring the meaningfulness of the coursework into question.

In the present study, students were using tools and media which they were familiar with from their own lives and which, as 21st century digital citizens, they regarded to be important to master. It seems likely that students perceived the digital video task as useful because they are themselves very aware of the ways in which communication practices are evolving in the digital age to rely more on multimodal content. We argue that in light of these developing communication practices, there is a need to rethink the scope of the language curriculum in order to include the construction of multimodal texts, in the same way as literacy instructors in L1 contexts (Bull & Kajder, 2004; Kajder & Swenson, 2004; Marquez-Zenkov & Harmon, 2007). Refocusing the curriculum in this way would help to re-establish its relevance to students’ literacy practices in informal, out-of-class contexts. The language classroom would become a place where students learn how to combine digital image and digital video with other semiotic resources such as written text, in order to effectively convey meaning, on their own terms and through a medium that makes sense to them.

Language Learning & Technology 81

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

This study suggests an approach to the design of language courses which aim to foster the development of language learner autonomy. Our experience shows that a structured learning environment can be designed to emulate the kind of informal learning opportunities found in learners’ unstructured learning environments (see Gardner & Miller, 1999, p. 57). The technological learning environment described in the present study is designed to draw upon the media and tools which students utilize in their unstructured, out-of-class learning. In the design, we have been assisted by new literacy studies that describe the affordances of new technologies and globalized online spaces to create out-of-class learning opportunities. These same studies also point to problematic differences in school literacy practices compared to students’ everyday literacy practices (e.g., Knobel, 1999). Indeed, the kind of autonomous language learning that we have described in this paper is only possible if it has the full support of the institution and its language teachers. First, it requires unfettered access to the Internet, which cannot necessarily be taken for granted in all educational settings. Second, language teachers must be willing to adopt a more facilitative role, moving from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side”. In this, they need to be supported by the institution, which must redefine language teaching and learning to include the kind of complex, high-level project-based learning that we have illustrated here.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have described the implementation of a digital video project for language learning, as used with undergraduate university science students. We have evaluated the digital video project in order to show the potential of the technological learning environment to provide opportunities for autonomous language learning. As a case study of one course in one tertiary institution, the study is necessarily an exploratory one. We do not intend to suggest that the practices reported here are uniform and indeed there is likely to be some variation in the way that different students approached the digital video project. Rather, our intention is to highlight the potential of the technological learning environment designed here, in order to make suggestions for best practice.

The findings of the study show how it is possible to draw upon students’ literacy practices in unstructured, informal learning contexts in order to design a technological learning environment capable of fostering learner autonomy in a structured setting. As we have seen, the students in this study took advantage of the affordances of the technological learning environment in order to exercise high degrees of autonomy. We argue that students invested in this digital video project because: (a) students were engaged in a 21st century task utilizing multimodal texts, media, and online environments that were meaningful to them; and (b) students were able to share their videos through the Internet, engaging an authentic audience including not only their peers but also their other social networks and the wider public. Thus, student learning in this project was not confined to the classroom in the traditional way. Rather, as students shared their videos, the traditional boundaries of the classroom broke down and learning extended into virtual spaces that were under the control of the learners, not the teachers. We have now entered a digital age which is characterized by widespread participation in globalized, online spaces which offer rich opportunities for informal, self-directed learning. The findings of this study suggest that language educators may draw upon the architecture of such spaces in order to design opportunities for autonomous learning in formal contexts.

APPENDIX A. Open items from questionnaire

What was the most enjoyable aspect of the video project? Why?

What was the most useful thing that you learned by doing the video project? Why?

What problems did you encounter when doing the video project? Please explain.

Language Learning & Technology 82

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

What would you like to change about the video project? Why?

APPENDIX B. Focus group topics

General perceptions of the digital video project

Authenticity and effectiveness

Audience and purpose/creativity

Multiliteracies and technology

Collaboration and task management

Medium of instruction/learning

NOTES

1. This paper draws on research conducted as part of a Teaching Development Project: Oral Presentations of Academic Projects: Developing Multiliteracies through English for Science. The project is funded by the Hong Kong University Grants Committee (TDG 6000302, City University of Hong Kong).

2. Examples of supporting teaching material for the English for Science project and examples of the digital video created by students is documented in greater detail at http://www1.english.cityu.edu.hk/acadlit.

3. Examples of students’ Weblog comments can be viewed at http://en2251.edublogs.org.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Dr. Christoph A. Hafner is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include academic and professional literacy, new literacies, educational technology and legal discourse. In addition to his other publications, he has written a book (with Rodney H. Jones) entitled Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction, to be published by Routledge in 2012.

E-mail: elhafner@cityu.edu.hk

Dr. Lindsay Miller is an Associate Professor in the Department of English at the City University of Hong Kong. He teaches on a variety of courses at BA and MA level and researches in self-access language learning, ESP, and academic listening. In addition to his many publications, Lindsay has published Establishing Self-Access: From theory to practice (with D. Gardner), and Second Language Listening (with J. Flowerdew). Both these books are published by Cambridge University Press.

E-mail: enlinds@cityu.edu.hk

REFERENCES

Beckett, G. H., & Slater, T. (2005). The Project Framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal, 59(2), 108–116. doi:10.1093/eltj/cci024

Belous, I. (2010). MaxQDA 2010 [Computer software]. Marburg: Verbi Software. Retrieved from http://www.maxqda.com/

Language Learning & Technology 83

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Longman.

Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2010). New literacies and autonomy in foreign language learning. In M. J. Luzon, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid, & M. L. Villanueva (Eds.), Digital genres, new literacies and autonomy in language learning (pp. 63–80). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118–128. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.2.4

Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(2), 170. doi:10.2304/elea.2006.3.2.170

Black, R. W. (2007). Digital design: English language learners and reader reviews in online fiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 115–136). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://www.soe.jcu.edu.au/sampler/Text.pdf

Breen, M. P. (1986). The social context for language learning: A neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135–158.

Bull, G., & Bell, L. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching with digital video: Watch, analyze, create. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Bull, G., & Kajder, S. (2004). Digital storytelling in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(4), 46–49.

Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.

Davies, T., & Williamson, R. (1998). The ghost in the machine: Are “teacherless” CALL programs really possible? Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 8–18.

Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 427–453.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based learning. Distance Educator, 1, 10–13.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

von Glasersfeld, E. (2000). Problems of constructivism. In L. P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action (pp. 3–10). New York: Routledge.

Gregori Signes, C. (2008). Integrating the old and the new: Digital storytelling in the EFL language classroom. GRETA, 16(1), 43–49.

Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303–318.

Holec, H. (1988). Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields of application. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Language Learning & Technology 84

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., boyd, D. M., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., Pascoe, C. J., & Robinson, L. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. Chicago, IL: The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Kajder, S., & Swenson, J. A. (2004). Digital images in the language arts classroom. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31(8), 18–46.

Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.

Lam, W. S. E. (2004). Second language socialization in a bilingual chat room: Global and local considerations. Language, Learning & Technology, 8(3), 44–66.

Lam, W. S. E. (2006). Re-envisioning language, literacy, and the immigrant subject in new mediascapes. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(3), 171–195.

van Lier, L. (1998). All hooked up: An ecological look at computers in the classroom. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 33, 281–301.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.

Little, D. (1997). Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness, 6(2/3), 93–104.

Marquez-Zenkov, K., & Harmon, J. A. (2007). Seeing English in the city: Using photography to understand students’ literacy relationships. English Journal, 6(96), 24–30.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, L. (2009). Reflective lesson planning: Promoting learner autonomy in the classroom. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning (pp. 109–124). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Motteram, G. (1997). Learner autonomy and the web. In V. Darleguy, A. Ding, & M. Svensson (Eds.), Educational technology in language learning: Theoretical considerations and practical applications (pp. 17–24). Lyon: INSA (National Institute of Applied Science).

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student-Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.

Ohler, J. (2006). The world of digital storytelling. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 44–47.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation. Retrieved from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Language Learning & Technology 85

Christoph A. Hafner and Lindsay Miller Fostering Learner Autonomy in English for Science

Language Learning & Technology 86

Rance-Roney, J. (2008). Digital storytelling for language and culture learning. Essential Teacher, 5(1), 29–31.

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Robin, B. R. (2006). The educational uses of digital storytelling. Retrieved from http://digitalliteracyintheclassroom.pbworks.com/f/Educ-Uses-DS.pdf

Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220. doi:10.1080/00405840802153916

Sadik, A. (2008). Digital storytelling: A meaningful technology-integrated approach for engaged student learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(4), 487–506.

Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(5), 427–443. doi:10.1076/call.16.5.427.29484

Schwienhorst, K. (2007). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.

Sinclair, B. (2006). Multiple voices: Negotiating pathways toward teacher and learner autonomy. In T. E. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp. 237–268). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 315–337.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217

Warschauer, M., Schetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English Teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Weitzman, E. A. (2003). Software and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 310–339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/lee.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 87–109

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 87

BLOGGING: PROMOTING LEARNER AUTONOMY AND INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCE THROUGH STUDY ABROAD

Lina Lee University of New Hampshire

The current study explores closely how using a combined modalities of asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) via blogs and face-to-face (FTF) interaction through ethnographic interviews with native speakers (L1s) supports autonomous learning as the result of reflective and social processes. The study involves 16 American undergraduate students who participated in blogs to develop their intercultural competence over the course of one-semester study abroad. The results show that blogs afforded students the opportunity to work independently (e.g., content creation) and reflect upon cross-cultural issues. Critical reflection, however, relied on the teacher’s guidance and feedback, as most of the students were cognitively challenged by not being able to clearly articulate different points of view. It is likely that students were not accustomed to reflecting. The findings also indicate that task type fostered autonomy in different ways. While free topics gave students more control of their own learning, teacher-assigned topics required them to critically think about the readings. Lack of access to Internet at the host institution and family also contributed to a limited level of social interaction. The study concludes that well-designed tasks, effective metacognitive and cognitive skills, and the accessibility to Internet are essential to maximize the potentials of blogs for learner autonomy and intercultural communication.

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Learner Autonomy, Task-based Instruction

INTRODUCTION

The traditional teacher-driven classroom has become pedagogically limited in making language learning a student-centered instruction that stresses learners’ capacity to learn autonomously. According to Little (2003), autonomy entails decision-making, critical reflection and social interaction. Autonomous learners are responsible for their own learning and are actively involved in the learning process by setting personal goals, planning and executing tasks, and reviewing their progress (Dam, 1995; Little, 1996). Teachers play a supportive and facilitative role in the autonomous learning by encouraging students to take an active part in decision-making and problem solving, and offering them guidance. From a social constructivist view, the development of autonomy is a result of interplay between social and reflective processes (Little, 2003). Benson (2003) notes that during social interaction, students work collaboratively with others through which they develop high order thinking skills by observing, analyzing and evaluating information.

While there are many ways to foster autonomous learning, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is increasingly recognized as a powerful means for developing learner autonomy (Benson, 2004, Lee, 2005; Murphy, 2006; O’Rourke & Schwienhorst, 2003). The advent of Web 2.0 technologies (wikis, blogs, podcastings) brings new dimensions to online learning. Blogs, for example, are used in various ways depending on their pedagogical purposes. Personal blogs are collections of online journals that foster self-expression and self-reflection (e.g., Lee, 2010; Yang, 2009), whereas collective blogs involving an entire class or small groups promote interactive and collaborative learning (Lee, 2009b). Blogging fosters learner autonomy, as students take charge of making their own decisions as to what, how much and when to publish their work (Lee, 2010). Accordingly, students develop the awareness of their ability to plan, understand and regulate their own learning (Baggetun & Wasson, 2006; Ward, 2004).

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Given that blogs are asynchronous CMC, students construct knowledge at their own pace, which enables them to reflect on the content (Armstrong & Retterer, 2008; Campbell, 2003; Murray & Hourigan, 2006; Richardson, 2005). In addition, Lee (2010) points out that blogs increase students’ participation and motivation because they are intended not only for a sole instructor but rather for a broad audience. While blogging presents pedagogical potentials with regard to autonomous learning, the accessibility to networking influences participation levels (Belz, 2002; Lee, 2004). Lacking Internet access at home or in school creates learner stress and frustration. Consequently, the level of engagement diminishes and the quality of work suffers (Peterson, 1997).

With the aforementioned benefits, blogs have been increasingly implemented in L2 instruction across contexts. Research findings have shed light on our understanding of the effectiveness of blogs for developing reading and writing skills (e.g., Bloch, 2007; Churchill, 2009; Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Lee, 2010; Murray & Hourigan, 2006). To promote intercultural learning, blogs have been incorporated into conventional classes and study abroad programs (e.g., Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Lee, 2009b; Sun, 2009). Existing CALL research, however, has not yet given much attention to issues of autonomy, as suggested by L2 researchers (Benson, 2006; Blin, 2004; Chapelle, 2001; White, 2003). To gain new insights regarding the emergence of autonomy beyond the classroom, the current study explored how blogs in conjunction with ethnographic interviews foster learner autonomy. Using a social constructivist approach, this study involved 16 American undergraduate students who participated in a blog project to develop their intercultural competence over the course of one-semester of a study abroad program. As a course requirement, the blog project aimed to use (a) personal blogs to give students individual spaces to write and reflect upon their experiences with the host culture and people on a regular basis, and (b) a class blog to open a social place where both students and L1s shared and exchanged cross-cultural perspectives using teacher-assigned topics. Real-time ethnographic interviews with local L1s as part of the class blog afforded abroad students additional opportunities for FTF intercultural exchanges. The combination of two modes of communication (CMC and FTF) was used to optimize students’ learning potential according to their learning styles and personal needs. Importantly, blogs and ethnographic interviews enabled students to develop cultural insights independently and collaboratively outside of class. The study examined the impact of reflective blogs on self-directed learning from students’ perspectives. Furthermore, factors that affected autonomous learning within the virtual learning environment were explored.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Learner Autonomy in Language Learning

In recent years, interest in learner autonomy has grown considerably in the field of language education (e.g., Benson, 2003; Hurd & Murphy, 2005; Lamb & Reinders, 2008; Little 2001; White, 2003). Despite the fact that autonomy has been defined in a number of ways, it emerges from the concept that an individual’s taking control of his or her own learning and is often manifested by the ability to take initiative, monitor progress and evaluate learning outcomes (Benson, 2001; Benson & Voller, 1997; Holec, 1981; Little, 2003). According to Little (1994), learner autonomy is “the product of interdependence rather than independence” (p. 435), which underscores the dynamics between collective and individual actions. Similarly, Benson (2001) maintains that autonomy is supported by the social constructivism of active learning. Autonomy does not mean that learners work in isolation. Rather, they socially construct knowledge by actively engaging in the process of learning. Through social interactions, learners develop a capacity to analyze, reflect upon and synthesize information to create new perspectives. In this view, Little (1996) stresses that critical reflection depends on “the internalization of a capacity to participate fully and critically in social interactions” (p. 211). The process of internalization makes the individual become a self-regulated learner who takes a proactive role in the learning process rather than simply reacting to external stimuli (Dörnyei, 2005).

Language Learning & Technology 88

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Other researchers highlight the importance of self-management (Rubin, 2001), self-motivation (Dickinson, 1995; Lamb, 2004; Ushioda 2006), self-confidence (Wenden, 2002) and learning strategies (Oxford, 2003) for learning autonomy. The challenge, however, lies in engaging learners in the cognitive, metacognitive, social, and affective dimensions of language learning (Little, 2001; Reinders, 2006). Effort, therefore, needs to be placed on training students to learn autonomously with teacher intervention guidance and support (Benson, 2001; Dam, 1995; Little, 2007). As shown in the aforementioned concepts and skills, the notion of autonomy covers a relatively large number of constructs widely accepted by L2 practitioners as pedagogical principles. For the purpose of the current study, self-directness, critical reflection and cognitive engagement through social interactions are the key principles of autonomous learning for the blog project. The following discussion focuses on autonomy in CALL for out-of-class learning supported by a social constructivist approach.

Social Constructivism for L2 Learning and Autonomy in CALL

Over the years, research on CALL has shifted away from learners’ interaction with computers to interaction with human beings through a computer (Warschauer, 2003). Consequently, a constructivist paradigm of language learning which emphasizes the shared and social construction of knowledge has been employed as the theoretical framework to support CALL (e.g., Hauck & Youngs, 2008; Lee, 2007, 2008). According to Duffy and Cunningham (1996), “[l]earning is a social, dialogical process of construction by distributed, multidimensional selves using tools and signs within context created by the various communities with which they interact” (pp. 181-182). Rather than learning residing in one-way delivery of knowledge from a teacher, it is an active, social, and collaborative process through which learners use a system of symbols (language) or a material tools (computers) to construct knowledge with others in order to accomplish a joint task (Lee, 2004; Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). L2 knowledge is constructed through collaborative scaffolding (Kenning, 2010; Lee, 2008). Scaffolding, being assisted by an expert (e.g., a teacher or a native speaker), enables the learner to expand their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978)—the distance between what they can achieve by themselves and what they can achieve with assistance from others. As a result, the learner becomes self-regulated and works independently (e.g., Donato, 2000; Lee, 2008).

Within the social constructivist framework, researchers advocate that CALL provide catalytic conditions for active involvement in constructing knowledge, critical reflection on content, and collaborative interaction with peers (Benson, 2001; Blin, 2004; Leahy, 2008; Meskill & Ranglova, 2000; Murphy, 2006; Schwienhorst, 2008). As such, Dang (2010) claims that these elements are prerequisites for the development of autonomous learning. Among other CALL applications, electronic tandem language learning (e-Tandem) permits L1s of two different languages to work together via the Internet in order to study each other’s language and culture. Over the years, many e-Tandem projects have been created in European countries including Germany and Spain. E-Tandem is underpinned by principles of reciprocity and autonomy, which allow both parties to benefit equally from the exchange and hold each party responsible for their own learning by deciding what, when, and how to execute learning tasks (see Brammerts, 2001 for review). Within the CMC context, researchers view online learning as an extension of classroom-based learning, which gives students more control of their own learning and promotes greater interaction and cognitive engagement (e.g., Hewitt, 2000; Jeong, 2004; Lee, 2005; Sykes, Oskoz, & Thorne, 2008). Unlike real-time CMC, asynchronous communication gives students more time to reflect on their ideas, which fosters critical thinking (e.g., Abrams, 2005; Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Jonassen, 2003; Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999). Lee (2009a), for example, reported that a discussion board enabled student teachers to gain an in-depth understanding of teaching principles and practices through critical reflections on others’ postings. While critical reflection on the content is crucial for promoting learner autonomy, Lamy and Hassan (2003) stress that such an expectation needs to be explicitly explained to students. In addition to cognitive and social dimensions of language learning, affective factors, such as attitudes toward learning tasks, affect how learners engage in online learning. Thus, tasks

Language Learning & Technology 89

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

need to be attainable and take into account students’ interests and motivation in order to inspire learner autonomy (Dang, 2006; Lee, 2002; Levy & Stockwell, 2006).

Developing Intercultural Competence: Blogs and Ethnographic Interviews

The need for language learners to develop intercultural communicative competence (ICC) has been strongly advocated as an essential component in L2 instruction. Byram’s (1997) ICC model which presents a conceptual framework consisting of four-interrelated components—knowledge, skills, attitudes and awareness—appears to be the most frequently adapted approach to develop intercultural competence (see pp. 50-63 for details). Within this framework, the goal is to promote cultural learning that goes beyond a superficial “facts only” approach. To become competent intercultural speakers, learners need to be open-minded to people of other cultures so that they understand cross-cultural perspectives with non-judgmental attitudes and respect (Bennett, 1993). In the process of developing ICC, learners are encouraged to reflect upon the cultural similarities and differences, and further develop the ability to tolerate differences that allow them to handle situations encountered with L1s. Common belief suggests that formal classroom instruction alone is not sufficient and close interaction with L1s is vital for students to gain ICC.

Among other approaches to intercultural learning, blog technology has been increasingly used to foster cross-cultural communication and awareness (e.g., Carney, 2007; Ducate & Lomicka, 2008; Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Lee, 2009b). Research findings have revealed that blogs afford students the opportunity to gain cultural knowledge from different perspectives (Elola & Oskoz, 2008; Pinkman, 2005). For example, using task-based activities, Lee (2009b) in her recent study of Spanish-American telecollaboration demonstrated how group blogs empowered students by raising cultural awareness through ethnographic interviews. Despite the favorable results, Carney argues that blogs open a new online discussion forum rather than a deeper cultural exchange due to the post-comment structure of blogs that results in brief exchanges and lack of continuity. Thus, teachers need to find ways, such as using guided questions, to stimulate students’ high order thinking to build upon further discussions.

Another prominent approach to develop ICC is the use of ethnographic interviews, which have been implemented in both CMC and FTF settings. Ethnographic interviews foster real-world interaction in which an insider perspective is revealed in order to better understand cross-cultural differences. Most importantly, ethnography relies primarily on an understanding of the values, beliefs and attitudes underlying behaviors of others through first-hand observations (Allen, 2000). Research findings in FTF settings show that ethnography promotes learners’ openness and curiosity toward the target culture and raises cross-cultural awareness (e.g., Bateman, 2002). Jackson (2008), for example, reported on a case study of Chinese students who engaged in ethnographic interviews. The results showed that the majority of the students increased their intercultural sensitivity and awareness after a 5-week overseas program. Within the CMC context, Lee (2009b) and O’Dowd and Ritter (2006) reported that students gained cross-cultural perspectives through interacting with L1s. A recent CMC study conducted by Jin and Erben (2007) indicated that students of Chinese developed greater intercultural sensitivity and showed respect for cultural differences when using an instant messenger (IM), a text-based chat tool. IM allowed both the students of Chinese and L1s to interact and exchange ideas in real-time. The process of analyzing and reflecting on L1 informants’ perspectives enables students as outsiders to learn about the cultural framework governing the what, how, and why of insiders’ expressions in everyday interactions (O’Dowd, 2006).

Based on these research findings, it appears that the use of combined modes of CMC via blogs and FTF interaction with L1s holds great potential for fostering self-directed learning1 within the context of study abroad. This study investigates the role of learner autonomy and its pedagogical impact. The study was designed to address three major questions using social constructivism as a theoretical framework:

1. How do students view the effectiveness of using CMC (blogs) and FTF (ethnographic interviews)

Language Learning & Technology 90

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

for intercultural learning in support of self-directed learning?

2. To what extent do blogs promote learner autonomy through social and cognitive engagement?

3. What factors affect how students learn independently and collaboratively within the virtual learning environment?

METHODOLOGY

Context of the Study

The project involved the students from the U.S. who participated in two study abroad programs sponsored by the Center of Modern Languages (CML) at the University of Granada in Spain. The researcher and a partner teacher were resident directors and they taught similar courses regarding the language and culture of Spain. To provide students with increased opportunities to explore the target culture and interact with L1s outside of class, they worked closely to design the project for intercultural learning. The project consisted of three major blog tasks outlined in the syllabus which were worth 60% of the course work (see the Tasks section for details). Blog technology was used to foster critical reflection on cross-cultural issues, whereas FTF interviews offered real-time intercultural dialogue with L1s. Within this context, it was hoped that the combined CMC and FTF modalities would empower students to take charge of their own learning through a socially mediated learning environment. A course management system—Blackboard—was used to supplement course materials and organize assignments. Blogger, a free software blogging program, was adopted to create blogs because they were not available in Blackboard at the researcher’s institution. A training session on how to use Blogger was provided to the students in a computer lab and a class discussion of how to conduct ethnographic interviews took place at the beginning of the semester.

Participants

Sixteen American students from two study abroad programs in Spain participated in the project in the fall of 2009. All participants completed a questionnaire concerning their personal, educational, and linguistic backgrounds. They ranged from 18 to 22 years of age. The students consisted of sophomores (n = 7), juniors (n = 8) and one senior. The majority of the students were either Spanish majors (n = 7) or minors (n = 6). The majority of the students had three years of Spanish in high school and completed one full year of college-level intermediate Spanish. Thus, they had sufficient language skills2 to participate in the project. None of them had used blogs prior to the project. Most of them did not have the experience of interacting with L1s prior to the study abroad. During the course of one-semester abroad, students lived with host families, took classes at the CML, and participated in cultural activities arranged through the study aboard programs.

L1s (n = 26) ranging in age from 17 to 64 from the local communities and the University of Granada, Spain were invited to participate in the project. More than 70% of the L1s (n = 19) had experience dealing with American students, as they were host family members of study abroad students or were conversation exchange partners from the CML. In addition to regular interactions with the students at home or outside of class, the L1s consulted with them in the ethnographic interviews3 and participated in the class blog discussions.

Tasks

Three types of blogs were created for the project: (1) PERSONAL blogs, (2) a CLASS blog and (3) a PROJECT blog using a combination of free and teacher-assigned topics. Teacher-assigned topics were used to engage students in discussing and debating on cross-cultural issues, whereas free topics gave them a certain degree of freedom in decision-making and personal choice. Table 1 summarizes blog tasks that students carried out within the allocation of time for each part of the project.

Language Learning & Technology 91

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Table 1. Description of Three Types of Blogs

Blog Type Description of Task Time Period

Personal blog

Each student is responsible for keeping a personal blog. The blog serves as a personal diary in which you write reflective observations about various aspects of the Spanish culture and address cultural differences from your own perspectives. To make meaningful cross-cultural observations, you should pay attention to current events, popular culture, native speakers’ behaviors and attitudes and your surroundings (e.g., at home, on the street or in school). You are required to write three entries per week through which you reflect on the chosen topics. Each entry should have approximately 150-200 words. You are strongly encouraged to take pictures from cultural activities and incorporate them into your blog.

September 2nd to October 29th

Class blog

After completing weekly assignments on readings, cultural activities and/or ethnographic interviews, you should post a 200-word entry to share your observations. You are strongly encouraged to ask questions regarding the assigned topic and/or make comments on others’ postings. Be sure to upload each interview to the blog for others to view. It is recommended that you use external resources (e.g., YouTube video clips, external links) to support the content.

September 3rd to November 19th

Project blog

For this project, you choose a topic that interests you the most and create a blog to compile and share information. You are required to read a minimum of 3 articles and conduct a minimum of 2 interviews with expert speakers to find out their own perspectives about the topic. You analyze the readings and interviews, and then write about your own observations. Be sure to upload the interviews and add additional sources (e.g., newspapers, podcasts, videos) to the blog.

November 10th December 8th

Procedure

At the beginning of the semester, the instructor informed the students that they were required to use blogs to carry out various tasks in order to develop their intercultural competence (see Table 1 for the description of each blog task). Students spent two weeks designing their personal blogs and posting the first three entries. Upon completion of the initial assignments, the instructor collected the blog addresses and made them available in Blackboard. For this assignment, no specific instructions were given to students. They, however, were asked to focus on cross-cultural comparisons through which they would bring their own perspectives to underlying values of the host culture. For corrective feedback, the instructor wrote comments on incorrect usage of lexical items and grammatical structures on students’ entries. The entries were then returned to the students via Digital DropBox in Blackboard or e-mail. After receiving the instructor’s feedback, students made error corrections by editing the entries on their blogs. Given that personal blogs were to promote self-reflection rather than idea exchange, students were not asked to read and make comments on each other’s blogs.

In addition to personal blogs, the researcher set up a class blog to open an exchange space where students shared and negotiated their understanding of intercultural issues through responses with comments.4 For weekly assignments, students read topic-specific readings, participated in cultural activities (e.g., film, play, excursions) and/or conducted interviews with L1s. For example, one of topics addressed immigrants in Spain. Students first read a poem written by the Spanish poet Luis García Montero entitled Piénsalo (Think about it), and viewed YouTube video clips regarding the immigration issues. They then attended

Language Learning & Technology 92

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

the play about immigrants, La vida por delante, in a local theater. Finally, they interviewed their native speaker (L1) partners to gain individual perspectives on immigration issues. To facilitate the interviewing process, the instructor provided students with guidelines and they spent one class practicing interview techniques, such as asking structural and contrast questions (see Spradley, 1980 for information). All interviews were recorded using a digital audio or video recorder.5 Students uploaded the recorded interviews to the class blog for viewing. Finally, students spent five weeks conducting a cultural project after choosing a topic that interested them the most.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collected from blog entries, reflective reports, and post surveys were used to report the affordable and challenging aspects of the blog project in relation to learner autonomy and intercultural learning. Selective postings from class blogs6 were analyzed to find occurrences of cognitive presence during social interactions. Analyses were undertaken by means of descriptive statistics and content analysis. The coding for the content analysis was derived from the Four-Phase Practical Inquiry Model created by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001). Because it is designed for asynchronous CMC analysis, the framework was employed to investigate whether blogs promoted critical reflection through social engagements in the development of autonomy. Significantly, the four phases entail the progression of cognitive presence from lower to higher order thinking to capture students’ thinking processes in the postings. Table 2 illustrates each phase of the model with examples7 taken from the current study. During Phase 1, students were able to indentify problems and ask questions for further discussion, whereas in Phase 2, they exchanged ideas, clarified problems and offered suggestions. In Phase 3, students began to find solutions to the problems and finally, were able to apply new ideas and articulate their views.

Fourty-six blog entries with comments and responses were read and analyzed for quality by the researcher and a trained graduate student. To maintain consistency, both coders first worked on 10% of the data to identify speech segments, “the smallest unit of delivery, linked to a single theme, directed at the same interlocutor” (Henri & Rigault, 1996, p. 62) and established a inter-rater reliability of 91%. They then used the criteria indicated in Table 2 to code cognitive instances in the same blog transcripts. The two coders compared and discussed the discrepancies until they reached the final agreement (Inter-rater reliability = .87). The rest of the data (90%) was equally divided into two sections and each coder analyzed one of the sections, which made up 45% of the data.

Students wrote a one page reflective paper to report on their experience with the project. The primary goal was to empower students to evaluate their own learning using the retrospective method (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). The following questions designed to elicit comments on different aspects of learner autonomy (e.g., self-regulation, interactive reflection) were used to guide students’ writing:8

1. How did you carry out your personal blog? Briefly explain the major steps you went through to undertake and maintain your blog. Was the use of the personal blog a worthwhile experience? Why and why not?

2. In your view, did the project (blogs and interviews) allow you to interact with others in a meaningful way? Why and why not? Use examples to justify your answers.

3. Did you enjoy participating in blog discussions? Did you find peer comments useful? If so, in what ways?

4. What did you gain from carrying out the project? How satisfied were you with the project? Did you experience any difficulties? Write any additional comments.

Language Learning & Technology 93

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Table 2. Four-Phase Practical Inquiry Model (adapted from Garrison et al., 2001)

Descriptor/Indicator Sociocognitive processes

Example

Phase 1/Triggering Identifying potential problems Asking questions to prompt more discussions

“I’ve noticed that here most people don’t give tips. One night I was in a bar with a couple of Spanish friends. They told me that Spain as a society is not big on tipping. I’m not sure I like the idea. What do you think about not tipping people?”

Phase 2/Exploration Exchanging ideas Discussing ambiguities Offering suggestions

“For me, it is strange that Spaniards would eat cookies for breakfast and have a piece of fruit or yogurt after the meal. My host mom often gives me a banana after lunch. I would eat it in the morning. She probably finds it weird. I’m curious to find out more about the Spanish culture.”

Phase 3/Integration Connecting ideas to construct new meanings Incorporating information from other sources Creating solutions

“I find your point quite interesting. I also had the same experience. I don’t understand why Spaniards would speak to us in English. Maybe they just see us as a bunch of tourists who do not understand Spanish. Or they want to impress us with their English to get tips. Maybe we should just insist on speaking Spanish to them.”

Phase 4/Resolution Applying new ideas Critically assessing and defending solutions

“Although I agree with what you have said, I still think that it is important for us to speak Spanish with local people. It’s so easy to just give up and switch to English. I’m here to improve my Spanish not English. I’ve learned things that I would never have learned from a textbook like No pasa nada (It is not a big deal) or venga (come on move or bye at the end of conversation). The point is that we need to take advantage of being in the target country. How many of us would have the opportunity to live in Spain again?”

A conceptual content analysis of students’ reflective reports was used to identify factors that afforded and challenged students to carry out the project. Reflective reports were read and analyzed using ‘open coding’ to identify the recurring themes that emerged in the reports. The common themes were subsequently sorted into three major categories: sources of self-directedness (e.g., making plans, taking initiative, level of commitment, assessing progress), gains from the project (e.g., critical thinking, community building, peer support), and hindrances for the project (lack of time, Internet access, instructor’s intervention).

Students voluntarily completed an online survey hosted by SurveyMonkey.com to gauge their reactions to the project relating to various aspects of autonomous learning. The purpose of the post survey was to find out students’ perceptions of benefits and/or challenges of using blog activities. The descriptive statistics shown in Table 3 provided a layer of interpretive triangulation to support the qualitative analysis. The online survey consisted of 12 statements using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to elicit students’ responses in four areas; metacognitive (items 1-3), cognitive (items 4-6), social (items 7-9) and affective (items 10-12) dimensions of online learning (Table 3).

Language Learning & Technology 94

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Table 3. Students’ Perceptions of Blog Assignments in Relation to Learner Autonomy

Statements of the Survey Mean SD

1. Using blogs gave me more freedom and control of my own learning. 4.43 0.63

2. I often developed a plan and found the best way for me to complete blog tasks. 3.13 0.51

3. I was able to monitor my own progress by revisiting my own blog and made changes based on the instructor’s feedback.

4.06 0.68

4. Blogging allowed me to actively engage in the process of reflection on my writing about cross-cultural observations.

3.81 0.54

5. By regularly writing reflective blogs, I was able to understand, generate and analyze cross-cultural issues.

3.69 0.60

6. Reading others’ postings helped me gain diverse cultural perspectives and reflect further about my own beliefs.

4.25 0.77

7. Social networking via blogs was an effective way to share knowledge and exchange ideas with others.

4.31 0.70

8. I found peer comments interesting and informative. 3.56 0.63

9. I gained intercultural knowledge and communication skills through working with my peers and native speakers.

4.13 0.72

10. I found blog assignments stimulating and meaningful. 4.19 0.75

11. I felt comfortable sharing my ideas and interacting with my peers and native speaker partners via blogging.

4.06 0.93

12. Using blogs was a motivational tool for me to learn about the Spanish culture and people.

4.19 0.91

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To answer the first research question, the effectiveness of blogs and ethnographic interviews for intercultural learning from students’ points of view was considered by exploring key constructs of learner autonomy using post surveys and reflective essays in conjunction with quotes from personal blogs. Class blog postings were analyzed for evidence of cognitive engagement to address the second research question. By discussing affordances and challenges that students perceived while carrying out the blog project, various factors that affected how they learned independently and collaboratively in the virtual learning environment were identified to respond to the third research question.

It should be noted that due to the limited space permitted in this paper to include a detailed discussion of each student’s blog entries, project blogs were excluded and quotes from personal blogs were used to support the qualitative findings.

Students’ Perceptions of Self-Directed Learning: Affordances and Challenges

Self-regulation, metacognition and motivation are vital for self-directed learning (Long, 2000). The overall survey findings show that the project created affordable conditions to support learner autonomy. The high ratings of Statements 1 (M = 4.43) and 3 (M = 4.06) indicate that most students considered themselves to be self-managed and problem solvers. They acknowledged that writing blog entries on a regular basis required them to be self-directed, as this student wrote in her reflective paper:

Writing three entries per week was not easy for me. At the beginning I waited

Language Learning & Technology 95

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

until the last minute to post my entries which gave me no time to check what I had written. Pretty soon I realized that I needed to get organized and make good plans for my assignments. After that, I was able to mange my time and meet the deadlines. I also needed to find ways to overcome the problems, such as finding Internet access close to my host house. I think blogging made me become a more independent and active learner.

The finding suggests that procrastination and the lack of easy computer access contributed to the student’s perception of learner autonomy. Moreover, a few students were frustrated by not being able to participate actively in the blogs. One student, for example, expressed her disappointment in the reflective essay:

My host family did not have Internet access. Many times I had to look for an Internet café so I could work on my blog and I ended up spending money for the Internet service. I wasn’t happy about that. I couldn’t really participate in blog discussions because I had limited access to Internet.

The comments confirms those reported in previous studies of CMC indicating that the accessibility of the Internet becomes essential for network-based learning and further affects students’ motivation (Thorne, 2003; Ware, 2005).

Students were instructed to take part in blogging as part of course requirements. Yet, they had the power to take an active role in their own learning. More than 60% of the students reported that they often thought about how to complete the blog assignments (Statement 2). One student, for example, reflected that blogging held her accountable for her own learning by requiring here to make her own decisions as to what, how much, and when to write. From another student’s point of view, the personal blog gave her the independence and freedom to choose cultural topics to build on her area of interest, while the class blog cultivated her ability to write and respond critically to a diversity of ideas. To this end, the students perceived that contributing to different types of blogs empowered them to become autonomous learners, as they made the informed choice of being self-regulated by working individually and collaboratively with others. Less self-regulated students, however, found maintaining three weekly entries challenging, as they acknowledged that they often failed to complete the assignments in a timely manner. Others students (n = 5) experienced difficulties expressing themselves fully using the L2. Consequently, they admitted that they failed to post blog entries in productive ways and were less motivated to participate in blog discussions. The findings indicate that the degree of autonomy was affected by the lack of willingness and self-determination to perform actively in learning tasks. Furthermore, the results suggest that the use of L1 should be an option because it would allow students to better reflect on their cross-cultural perspectives, as argued by CMC researchers (Elola & Oskoz, 2008; O’Dowd, 2006). The decision whether or not to use L1 should be subject to learning objectives. In this case, blogging was to develop cultural insights rather than linguistic gains. Thus, it would be appropriate to allow for the use of the L1 option.

Interestingly, nearly one third of the students (n = 6) noted in their reflective reports that it was not necessary for them to make plans as to ‘what’ to write since they were given the freedom to choose their own topics for the personal blogs. Rather, they had difficulty deciding ‘how’ to organize their ideas, as this student reflected:

Although blogging gave me a personal space to write about different cultural topics, I must admit that at times it was challenging for me to put my thoughts in order. I wasn’t exactly sure what I should focus on. I guess I needed more directions.

A few students suggested that the instructor should have discussed strategies for online posting along with writing samples with the students prior to the project. Although most of the students demonstrated a

Language Learning & Technology 96

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

capacity for taking initiative and control of their own learning, there is a certain disparity among students which suggests that some learners managed their learning more effectively than others. Learners’ self-regulation differs depending on personal style, skills and competence. The results may have been affected by the students’ learning styles. It would be worthwhile to conduct a follow-up study of how different learning styles affect the way students perform various types of tasks.

One of the beneficial effects of the blog project was the development of critical thinking. More than 70% of the students found that blogs allowed them to engage in the process of self-reflection (Statement 4) that helped them understand, generate and analyze cross-cultural similarities and differences (Statement 5). The following quotation illustrates the student’s positive view of using reflective blogs:

Blogging is the best way to keep track of your thoughts over time. It’s like writing a personal online journal that gives you freedom to express yourself and reflect upon everyday experiences. Looking back what I wrote early, I now realize how much my perceptions of stereotypes have changed. I think every study abroad student should keep a personal blog.

The chronologically archived entries that recorded her writing enabled her to view changes in her own cultural perspectives from the fourth week to the seventh week, as illustrated in the following personal blog:

Here I’m constantly reminded that I should not take a shower for more than five minutes and I cannot use Internet for more than two hours a day. I don’t really understand why. It seems that there are a lot of rules in the house. (Week 4)

By the seventh week, she showed a better understanding of host living conditions that led her to reflect on her own culture:

Now I understand that water and electricity are so expensive in Spain. I was not aware of this at all until I lived with my host family. I do think we Americans should pay more attention on things like this and we waste too much of everything. (Week 7)

The above posts demonstrated that the student manifested a reflective attitude and critical intercultural awareness. In addition, as shown on Statement 6 (M = 4.25), students believed that they benefited from reading each other’s blog entries through which they gained different cultural perspectives and further reflected on their own. Therefore, based on survey responses, blogging strengthened reflective thinking as a key element in the development of autonomous learning, as suggested by other studies (Lee, 2010; Yang, 2009).

Individual reflection through social interaction supports the development of learner autonomy (Little, 2003). Students believed that social networking increased their autonomy by allowing them to share knowledge and exchange ideas with their peers and L1 partners (Statement 7). Overwhelmingly, nearly 90% of the students (n = 14) agreed that they gained cross-cultural perspectives from interacting with L1s. The following comments drawn from the reflective reports illustrate their optimistic experiences:

It was so interesting to learn about the host culture from personal views shared by real people not from a textbook. I became more aware of how I feel about my own culture by listening to and analyzing the information that emerged from the interviews. For me, it is the best way to get to know people from other cultures.

In my view, interviews created optimal conditions for me to interact socially with native speakers from whom I learned about their everyday lives, words and expressions that I would never have

Language Learning & Technology 97

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

learned from sitting in a regular class.

The above examples illustrate that learning the target culture from L1 perspectives is more meaningful than the surface learning of a set of simple facts about the target culture in a traditional classroom setting (Hauck & Youngs, 2008; O’Dowd & Ritter, 2006). As mentioned, the increased understanding of cultural norms and practices enabled students to become aware of their own beliefs and values, as illustrated in the following personal blog:

One of my favorite phrases is ‘it’s not a big deal’ It’s a very interesting expression that my interview partner explained to me. He told me that in Spain people try to enjoy life as much as possible. They don’t worry much about anything. I like this attitude a lot. I think we Americans obsess on living so perfectly that we have missed things that make us happy. Spain has taught me to relax more …

The above quotation demonstrates the positive result of using ethnographic interviews, as reported in Bateman’s study (2002) showing “an increase in understanding of and respect for Spanish speakers” (p. 327). It is evident that the student showed the ability to compare and contrast the two cultures, which is fundamental for the development of ICC.

Comments gathered from the reflective reports reveal that most students enjoyed participating in blog discussions, although they commented that reading blog entries was a time consuming task. As a result, students perceived that they gained cross-cultural awareness and intercultural communication skills (Statement 9). One student, for example, wrote: “The discussion about the immigration issues in Spain, especially in the southern region of Andalusia was very informative. Blogs gave everyone a voice to express opinions and concerns. I’ve learned so much from reading others’ comments about this debatable topic.” The same student enthusiastically wrote in her personal blog how she experienced a self-discovery and personal interest during the reflective period:

I was excited at the chance to learn more about immigration in Spain. Participating in blog discussions was so helpful. It was an eye opening experience for me to learn about immigration in Granada that I knew little about. I became more interested and passionate about this topic. After reading anecdotes about the lives of Moroccan immigrates posted by the Spaniards, I was intrigued with their own experiences as immigrants. I decided to spend more time in Elvira street where Moroccan shops and people are so I can get to know them.

More than 30% of the students (n = 5), however, did not find peer feedback useful to generate critical thinking (Statement 8). The following quotations taken from the students’ reflective essays exemplify this sentiment:

Most people made similar comments about the readings and some of them were repetitive. It seemed like people just ran out of things to say.

I was disappointed by the quality of the comments made by some of my peers. Their comments tended to be short and brief and were not terribly informative. They mostly praised each other’s work, which was fine but I think they could have given more feedback on the content.

The results coincide with the findings found in studies conducted by Carney (2009) and by Lee (2010), who found that the comments did not show in-depth discussions of the content but rather surface level issues. The findings suggest that while students were capable of socializing with each other through discussing cross-cultural topics, they had limited ability to engage in high-order thinking. It is possible that the lack of continuity due to the post-comment structure of blogging may have affected the quality of

Language Learning & Technology 98

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

critical reflection, as argued by Carney (2007). Garrison et al. (2001) suggest that teacher presence and scaffolding play a facilitative role in giving subject matter expertise and guidance to students during social interactions. To this view, teachers could use guided questions to cultivate reflective thinking to foster further discussions.

High motivation and positive attitudes towards the learning context including the learning task and affective support promote learner autonomy (Dörnyei, 2005; Ushioda, 2006). The results shown in Table 3 indicate that nearly 90% of the students found tasks stimulating (Statement 10). Students repeatedly pointed out in their reflective reports that they enjoyed using both teacher-assigned and free topics. For example, this student noted: “I really liked how free topics allowed me to write about issues that interested and concerned me the most and teacher-assigned readings drew my attention to focus on specific aspects/issues of the Spanish culture.” Topic choice appears to be motivational to the students. Despite the fact that blog tasks created affordable opportunities for students to share and exchange intercultural information, a few students (n = 4) commented that they put a lot of effort into the project and participated actively in blog discussions because the high percentage of the course grade was based on the project (60%). In this case, having a good academic record motivated the students to become self-directed and self-regulated. The finding appears to support the claim made by Ushioda (2006) regarding the impact of academic success on students’ autonomous motivation in engaging in learning tasks.

Little (1996) argues that social interaction plays a key role in autonomy, as learners develop a capacity to participate fully and critically in learning tasks through interacting with others. The better the social interpersonal rapport the group has, the more willing each member is to share perspectives, seek help, and offer support (Lee, 2009a).

When asking students whether they felt comfortable working with their peers and L1 partners (Statement 11), they responded favorably to the virtual learning environment. Many students felt connected and gained a sense of community where they worked collaboratively to construct cultural knowledge and receive support from each other. This student, for example, made a supportive comment about blogging:

I think technology has become part of our daily life. I’m quite comfortable with social networking. I personally use Facebook and Twitter to connect with my family and friends. Having the opportunity to use the class blog to share and exchange cross-cultural observations made me feel emotionally connected. I was able to relate to some of the feelings expressed by my classmates …

It is not surprising that students felt less intimidated writing and responding to comments made by their own peers than by L1s, as most of them were well acquainted with each other. Nevertheless, students remarked that questions raised by the L1 partners made them become more aware of cultural norms and practices. One student stressed that she would not have learned about intangible cultural practices (little c9), if expert speakers had not shared their personal viewpoints about their own culture (Byram, 1997). A number of students agreed that blogging was a motivational tool for them to learn about the host culture and people (Statement 12). Similar to the finding shown in Lee’s (2010) recent blog study, students commented on their reflective papers that they felt compelled to write when they knew that their peers and L1 partners, rather than a sole instructor, would read and respond to their entries. It is likely that students viewed their L1 partners as experts, facilitators or consultants, rather than authority figures, with whom they felt less anxious and more confident in expressing themselves.

Cognitive and Social Knowledge Construction via Blogging

Critical reflection through online collaborative interaction promotes learner autonomy (Schwienhorst, 2008). The results displayed in Table 4 reveal that students produced a total of 219 cognitive events through social interactions. 14% of them consisted of triggering events, whereas more than 50% occurred

Language Learning & Technology 99

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

in the exploration phase. 27% of cognitive presence belonged to the integration phase and only 6% of the blog segments reached the resolution phase.

Table 4. Students’ Cognitive Presence in Class Blog

Indicator/Descriptor Number Percentage

Phase 1/Trigger 31 14%

Phase 2/Exploration 117 53%

Phase 3/Integration 58 27%

Phase 4/Resolution 13 6%

Total 219 100%

Similar to the results reported in asynchronous CMC research (Arnold & Ducate, 2006; Liaw & Bunn-Le Master, 2010), the high rate of the exploration stage (53%) indicates that students mainly engaged in exchanging cultural information and brainstorming ideas. A typical example is shown in the following posting:

The truth is that not everyone watches or goes to bullfighting shows. I am against the idea of killing animals. The same thing can be said about flamenco. Some people cannot stand flamenco music. I have a friend who dances flamenco in a local bar near Elvira street. She also teaches flamenco if you are interested in taking flamenco dance lessons.

The student simply added his thoughts about the bullfight and flamenco music to previous messages without using sources to support his opinions. He then offered a suggestion for dance lessons but did not question or challenge others’ ideas. During the exploration stage, students were able to compare and contrast the two distinct cultures by sharing their perspectives with L1s, as shown in the following blog exchange:

Student: “I found the meals quite different from what we have in the U.S. Here people would eat a large midday meal but would start the day with a small breakfast. My host mom would give me Maria cookies for breakfast. In fact, I always find myself hungry in the morning. At home, we have all kinds of food for breakfast like eggs, sausage, French toast and cereal.”

L1: “That’s quite interesting. I guess because we eat so late at night. Most people are probably not hungry in the morning. The lunch (comida) is the main meal in Spain and it is always made with fresh ingredients and care. We don’t like the frozen food or TV dinners. Do you like finger food (tapas)?”

Despite the fact that students gained cultural knowledge and awareness from online exchange, the findings confirm the previous concerns raised by the students about the lack of substantial comments to generate critical thinking. It is possible that students were not accustomed to reflecting. They may also have felt reluctant to express their candid thoughts in an open source blog platform because they did not wish to make others feel uncomfortable or to provoke an unfriendly learning situation.

According to Garrison et al. (2001), the integration phase shows that the previous ideas are integrated into a new concept to construct meanings or solutions. Integration is the second highest cognitive presence (27%) found in the study. In this stage, students expanded on the discussion and develop a justified hypothesis, as shown in the following posting exchange:

Language Learning & Technology 100

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Student A: “I was curious about how Spaniards view gay marriage. During my interview with Isabel, my exchange partner, I learned that the president Zapatero actually supported marriage rights for gays and lesbians. I was thrilled to hear about that. In fact, many young Spaniards I know have no problem with gay couples. I think Spain is going more liberal after a long time under a conservative dictator, Franco.”

Student B: “I agree with you. I think Spanish people are open to gay marriage. Based on Wikipedia, it has been legal since 2005. My host father told me that some people in Spain are concerned about same sex couples; especially those who are faithful Catholics. I don’t think there is any damage to the family in allowing gay couples to get married. Maybe people just need to be more open-minded.”

The above student built on the message that her partner composed to construct new meanings by using information from other sources, such as Wikipedia and personal communication. At the end she proposed a solution by suggesting that people need to be more open to gay marriage.

Controversial topics, such as immigration, appear to engage students in different phases of cognitive engagement. The following interactive exchange reveals how the participants constructed knowledge through sharing, questioning and seeking a solution to the debate on immigration issues:

L1: “The number of immigrants in Spain has increased rapidly. I personally am not against any immigrants who live legally in this country. I think they contribute a lot to the society. My family is originally from Italy. We have lived in Granada for more than 20 years. However, I am opposed to an estimated 300,000 undocumented migrants. I think these people bring all kinds of problems to the society. Some of them live on the streets, selling and using drugs, etc.”

Student A: “But if the government is not willing to help them become legal in the country, how can they work and support themselves? In the U.S. we have people enter with visas as non-immigrants and stayed illegally. Sadly, some lost their lives by crossing the border illegally. I just think people have the right to seek a better life and we should find ways to help them. Any suggestions?”

Student B: “To be honest. I have mixed feelings about this issue. I know immigrants come to our country for different reasons. We need them but we really don’t know what to do with them once they enter the country. I also think it is not feasible to deport millions of people. Perhaps, the best solution is to grant them guest worker permits.”

In the above excerpt, while Student A expressed her point of view by bringing the source from her own country, Student B offered a solution to the debatable issue. The findings are in line with other studies (Lee, 2009a; Pawan, Paulus, Yalcin & Chang, 2003) showing that topic selections affect the degree of social presence and the level of cognitive engagement. Moreover, the blog data reveal that expert scaffolding played a facilitative role in challenging students’ critical reflection by raising further questions, such as “What would you do if you …?” or “Why do you think …?” As a result, despite the fact that certain tasks were cognitively demanding, students managed to engage in further discussions. The following is an example of how the student responded to her L1 partner:

You have raised an interesting question concerning raising children by gay couples. I think it depends on the quality of the living conditions. If parents are providing a loving and caring environment, the sexual orientation does not make a difference. For example, Jodie Foster, the famous actress was raised by lesbian mothers. I really don’t have a problem with the idea. At

Language Learning & Technology 101

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

least these are my two cents of thought!!

In the above example, the student was able to construct new meanings by answering her L1 partner’s question and giving an example to support her viewpoint.

Regarding the final stage of sociocognitive processes, the findings show that resolution was the cognitive activity that least frequently occurred (6%) during the social interaction. Given that the majority of the topics were based on cultural themes and most students had no prior knowledge of the content, it was challenging for them to engage in further discussions. Nevertheless, in the discussion about teaching methods used in Spain, one student successfully evaluated the solution proposed by his peer and offered an alternative solution, which was later accepted by others:

I agree with you that teaching methods are too traditional and it’s hard to sit in class for two or three hours without interaction with others. I like your idea of having group discussions. However, I wouldn’t want the whole class based on discussions. From my own personal experience, spending too much time on working in groups is a waste of time!! I would ask students to come with questions prepared before the class and spend the last ten minutes having students exchange ideas in small groups. I would then have them write an essay as homework to reflect upon the discussion. I think this is a better way to encourage class discussion.

This finding is not congruent with those of Pawan et al. (2003), who found that students who participated in asynchronous threaded discussions did not challenge other’s ideas and simply exchanged information. However, the low rate of resolution suggests that most of the students were cognitively challenged by not being able to clearly articulate different points of view. The instructor’s intervention plays a vital role in providing students with guidance and feedback to encourage critical reflection, as suggested by Garrison et al. (2001) in their study.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES

Although the findings of this study have shed light on our understanding of the affordances and challenges of using blogs along with FTF interviews with L1s to foster learner autonomy through intercultural learning, much more research is still needed. As suggested by Lamb and Reinders (2008), it would be worthwhile to explore the role of teacher autonomy in online learning environments using personal reflections. One limitation of this study is that the data collection included only one type of Web 2.0 tool. Further studies might consider the investigation of learners’ perceptions of autonomous online learning using other social networking tools, such as wikis or Tweets. The study included only L1s from Spain. Future research might include L1s from other Spanish-speaking countries, such as those of Latin America. This would illuminate how the target culture influences the way students socially construct meaning with others (e.g., sociolinguistic issues and lexical variation). In addition, given the complexity of self-directed learning, it is not possible to generalize from the findings of the current study which aspects of autonomous learning are the most prominent in the context of CMC. Replicating the study with the inclusion of other variables (e.g., gender, language proficiency level, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, learning styles and strategies) would enhance the conclusions. Finally, a follow-up study might consider instructor intervention at the various stages of monitoring students’ blog comments to determine its impact on the critical thinking process.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The blog project examined how students engaged in cognitive, metacognitive, social and affective dimensions of autonomous online learning. The project for the development of ICC presented both promises and challenges for the study abroad students. Overall, students found that blogging supported

Language Learning & Technology 102

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

self-directed learning, as they individually and socially constructed meanings to develop their intercultural knowledge and skills. According to the post-survey findings, blogging promoted learner autonomy through self-regulation and self-management. In addition, students maintained that using blogs gave them a sense of belonging, as they collaboratively shared and exchanged cultural perspectives. However, a few students experienced difficulty in putting their ideas in order and suggested that the instructor should take a more active role in assisting students during the execution of the project. Furthermore, the results reveal that lack of access to the Internet at the host institution and family contributed to a limited level of participation. Consequently, some students were frustrated by not being able to participate actively in the blog discussions. The findings corroborated those reported in previous studies of CMC indicating that the accessibility of networking is essential for network-based learning and influences students’ motivation to connect and interact with others (Lee, 2004; Ware, 2005).

Critical reflection as one of the major aspects of self-directing learning was manifested through collaborative interaction. Similar to Abrams’s (2005) and Lee’s (2009a) CMC findings, expert scaffolding played a facilitative role in cultivating critical thinking. The results of the study show that L1 partners went beyond offering cultural information and explanation of students’ understandings. Their questions challenged students to think further about the cross-cultural issues. As a result, students strove for more in-depth discussions. However, some students did not find peer comments stimulating enough to generate further discussion. The analysis of selected blog entries for cognitive presence affirms that students mostly exchanged cultural information rather than challenging others’ viewpoints by asking pertinent questions, as concluded in the recent CMC study of Liaw & Bunn-Le Master (2010). Despite the fact that all phases of cognitive presence were found in the blog entries, the exploration and integration occurred more frequently than the triggering and the resolution. According to Arnold and Ducate (2006), “individual resolutions were often based on collaborative integrations” (p. 57). Thus, teachers should make students aware of all four stages of sociocognitive processes and encourage them to actively engage in online exchange in order to take full advantage of their shared virtual space. Moreover, the findings suggest that topic selection (e.g., controversial issues vs. current events) and language proficiency (e.g., L1 vs. L2) may have affected the degree of interaction and quality of cognitive engagement. The option of using L1 should be considered to allow less proficient learners to fully express themselves.

In closing, this study contributes to the field of using digital technology for intercultural learning and its impact on learner autonomy, although the results reported from this study cannot be generalized to other settings. Without a doubt, the combination of CMC via blogging and FTF through interviews with L1s offered promising benefits to study abroad students, as they individually and collaboratively participated in blog activities. The findings show that the students’ perceptions toward blogging have offered valuable insights into our understanding of its effectiveness for self-directed learning. Blogs as a mediated tool for intercultural learning outside of class have the potential to create a stimulating online learning community that is conducive to collaborative learning and reflective thinking. In addition, the use of free and teacher-assigned tasks contributes to the success of a blog project. The study concludes that well-designed tasks, effective metacognitive, and cognitive skills are essential to maximize the potential of blogs for stimulating learner autonomy and intercultural communication.

NOTES

1. For the purpose of the study, self-directed learning refers to learners’ taking responsibility for planning, monitoring and evaluating their own learning. Learners are given certain freedom to make informal decisions and are encouraged to engage in critical thinking and collaborative interaction.

2. Students were required to take a proficiency-based test designed by the faculty of the CML and the majority of the students attained an intermediate level of Spanish proficiency to enroll in Hispanic

Language Learning & Technology 103

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Studies.

3. While the majority of students interviewed the same informants throughout the course of the project, others changed their partners due to scheduling difficulty.

4. It should be noted that native speakers were invited to participate in the class blog. However, only 46% of them (n = 12) regularly read postings and wrote comments due to the low accessibility to Internet and a lack of technological skills.

5. As the majority of students own a laptop with video capability, some of them used iMovie (Mac users) or Movie Maker (PC users) to record interviews.

6. According to Darhower (2002) data reduction is necessary to maintain consistent and systematic data analysis. Therefore, group blogs from the third, fifth and seventh sessions were selected to reduce the sizable corpus of data. In addition, the selected sessions were chosen because they included the ethnographic interviews in order to fully capture the participants’ behavior.

7. All examples were translated from Spanish to English.

8. It should be noted that students were allowed to use English to write reflective essays in order to fully express themselves.

9. Culture with a little c centers on the behavioral patterns and lifestyles of everyday people (see Byram, 1997).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lina Lee (PhD, University of Texas, Austin) is Professor of Spanish at the University of New Hampshire where she teaches courses in second language acquisition, applied linguistics and foreign language methodology. She has conducted research and published articles on language pedagogy, computer-mediated communication and discourse analysis.

E-mail: lina.lee@unh.edu

REFERENCES

Abrams, Z. (2005). Asynchronous CMC, collaboration and the development of critical thinking in a graduate seminar in applied linguistics. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(2), 23–47.

Allen, L. Q. (2000). Culture and the ethnographic interview in foreign language teacher development. Foreign Language Annals, 33(1), 51–57.

Armstrong, K., & Retterer, O. (2008). Blogging as L2 writing: A case study. AACE Journal, 16(3), 233–251.

Arnold, N., & Ducate, L. (2006). Future foreign language teachers’ social and cognitive collaboration in an online environment. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 4266. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num1/arnoldducate/default.html

Baggetun, R., & Wasson, B. (2006). Self-regulated learning and open writing. European Journal of Education, 41(3-4), 453–472.

Bateman, B. (2002). Promoting openness toward culture learning: Ethnographic interviews for students of Spanish. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 318–331.

Language Learning & Technology 104

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Belz, J. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60–81.

Bennett, M. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A development model of intercultural sensitivity. In M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 289–308). New York: McGraw Hill.

Benson, P. (2004). Autonomy and information technology in the educational discourse of the information age. In C. Davison (Ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education (pp. 173–192). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Benson, P. (2006). (Ed.). Learner autonomy 8: Insider perspectives on autonomy in language teaching and learning. Dublin: Authentik.

Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.

Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2), 377–395.

Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullah’s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128–141. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/bloch/default.html

Brammerts, H. (2001). Autonomes Sprachenlernen im Tandem: Entwicklung eines Konzepts. In H. Brammerts & K. Kleppin (Eds.), Selbstgesteuertes Sprachenlernen im Tandem: Ein Handbuch (pp. 9–16). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevendon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Campbell, A. P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. TESL Journal, IX(2). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Campbell-Weblogs.html

Carney, N. (2007). Language study through blog exchanges. Paper presented at the Wireless Ready Symposium: Podcasting Education and Mobile Assisted Language Learning, NUCB Graduate School, Nagoya, Japan. Retrieved from http://wirelessready.nucba.ac.jp/Carney.pdf

Carney, N. (2009). Blogging in foreign language education. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 292–312). IGI Global.

Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179–183.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.

Dang, H. V. (2006). Learner-centeredness and EFL instruction in Vietnam: A case study. International Education Journal, 7(4), 598–610.

Dang, T. T. (2010). Learner autonomy in EFL studies in Vietnam: A discussion from sociocultural perspective. English Language Teaching, 3(2), 3–9.

Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the

Language Learning & Technology 105

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249–277.

Dickinson, L. (1995) Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System, 23(2), 165–174.

Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language Classroom. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Educational communications and technology (pp. 170–199). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2008). Blogging: Fostering intercultural competence development in foreign language and study abroad contexts. Foreign Language Annals, 41(3), 454–478.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

Hauck, M., & Youngs, B. (2008). Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact of task design and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2), 87–124.

Henri, F., & Rigault, C. R. (1996). Collaborative distance learning and computer conferencing. In T. Liao (Ed.), Advanced educational technology: Research issues and future potential (pp. 45–76). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Hewitt, B. L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Hurd, S., & Murphy, L. (2005). (Eds.). Success with languages. London: Routledge.

Jackson, J. (2008). Language, identity, and study aboard: Sociocultural perspectives. London: Equinox.

Jeong, A. (2004). The combined effects of response time and message content on growth patterns of discussion threads in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Journal of Distance Education, 19(1), 36–53.

Jin, L., & Erben, T. (2007). Intercultural learning via instant messenger interaction. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 291–311.

Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Using cognitive tools to represent problems. Journal of Research in Technology in Education, 35(3), 362–381.

Kenning, M. (2010). Collaborative scaffolding in online task-based voice interactions between advanced learners. ReCALL, 22(2), 135–151.

Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 3–19.

Lamb, T., & Reinders, H. (2008). (Eds.). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses. AILA Applied Linguistics Series, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (1999). Supporting language students’ interactions in web-based conferencing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 457–477.

Language Learning & Technology 106

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Lamy, M. N., & Hassan, X. (2003) What influences reflective interaction in distance peer learning? Evidence from four long-term learners of French. Open Learning, 18(2), 39–59.

Leahy, C. (2008). Learner activities in a collaborative CALL task. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(3), 253–268.

Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16–23.

Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83–100. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/ vol8num1/lee/default.html

Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners’ perspectives. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 139–156.

Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second Language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4), 635–649.

Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interaction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53–72. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num3/lee.pdf

Lee, L. (2009a). Scaffolding collaborative exchanges between expert and novice language teachers in threaded discussions. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 212–228.

Lee, L. (2009b). Promoting intercultural exchanges with blogs and podcasting: A study of Spanish-American telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(5), 425–443.

Lee, L. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212–22.

Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liaw, M.-L., & Bunn-Le Master, S. (2010). Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 21–40.

Little, D. (1994). Learner autonomy: A theoretical construct and its practical applications. Die Neuren Sprachen, 93(5), 430–442.

Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In R. Pemberton, S. L. Edward, W. W. F. Or, & Pierson, H. D. (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 203–219). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Little, D. (2001) Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the Internet. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), ICT and language learning: A European perspective (pp. 29–38). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Little, D. (2003). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies, Guide to Good Practice. Retrieved from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/ gpg/1409

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29.

Long, M. (2000). Second language acquisition theories. In M. Byram (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language teaching (pp. 527–534). London: Routledge.

Language Learning & Technology 107

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Meskill, C., & Ranglova, K. (2000). Sociocollaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 20–40). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, L. (2006). Supporting learner autonomy in a distance learning context. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support (pp. 72–92). Dublin: Authentik.

Murray L., & Hourigan, T. (2006). Using micropublishing to facilitate writing in the foreign language. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.), Calling on CALL: From theory to research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 149–179). Texas: CALICO Monograph Series.

O’Dowd, R. (2006). Combining networked communication tools for students’ ethnographic research. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 147–176). Boston: Thomsen & Heinle.

O’Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with ‘failed communication’ in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 61(2), 623–642.

O’Rourke, B., & Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in computer-mediated communication. In D. Little, et al. (Eds.), Learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment (pp. 47–62). Dublin: Authentik.

Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 75–91). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. J. L. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pawan, F., Paulus, T. M., Yalcin, S., & Chang, C. F. (2003). Online learning: Patterns of engagement and interaction among in-service teachers. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 119–140. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/pawan/default.html

Peterson, M. (1997). Language teaching and networking. System, 25 (1), 29–37.

Pinkman, K. (2005). Using blogs in the foreign language classroom: Encouraging learner independence. The JALT CALL Journal, 1(1), 12–24.

Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: Issues and interventions (pp. 219–238). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Richardson, W. (2005). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asia-Pacific Communication, 11(1), 25–37.

Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge.

Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

Sun, Y.-C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2), 88–103. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num2/sun.pdf

Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, inmersive environments, and the future of language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528–546.

Language Learning & Technology 108

Lina Lee Blogging: Promoting Learner Autonomy

Language Learning & Technology 109

Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38–67. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/pdf/thorne.pdf

Ushioda, E. (2006). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (Ed.), Learner autonomy 8: Insider perspectives on autonomy in language teaching and learning (pp. 5–24). Dublin: Authentik.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ward, J. (2004). Blog assisted language learning (BALL): Push button publishing for the pupils. TEFL Web Journal, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/group/378/article/327972

Ware, P. (2005). “Missed communication” in online communication: Tensions in fostering successful online interactions. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 64–89. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu /vol9num2/ware/default.html

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenden, A. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics 23(1), 32–55.

White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yang, S.-H. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 11–21.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/nielson.pdf

October 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 pp. 110–129

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 110

SELF-STUDY WITH LANGUAGE LEARNING SOFTWARE IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT HAPPENS?

Katharine B. Nielson University of Maryland

Many language training software packages are intended for self-study and marketed as complete language learning solutions; however, little is known about how well they work or under what conditions they should be used. This article reports on a research study conducted at the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language that explores the way adult learners use Rosetta Stone and Auralog’s TELL ME MORE—two popular, commercially available, technology-mediated, self-study packages. Volunteers from different United States government agencies agreed to use these programs according to each manufacturer’s usage guidelines and to complete regular assessments to document their language proficiency throughout the study. The most striking finding was severe participant attrition, which was likely due to a variety of technological problems as well as the lack of sufficient support for autonomous learning in the workplace. This lack of compliance with self-study suggests that despite the logistical ease of providing language learning software, more resource-intensive types of language training are more likely to be effective.

Keywords: Computer-Assisted Language Learning, Distance Learning, Learner Autonomy, Online Teaching and Learning

Computers and the Internet have made foreign language self-study materials increasingly easy to access and use, and there are now many software applications marketed as complete language learning solutions, from free self-study courses such as the BBC’s online language offerings or LiveMocha®, to for-pay options through companies like Rosetta Stone®, Auralog®, and Transparent Language®. These organizations advertise their products for self-study, and the commercial products are especially appealing for novice learners, stating, for example, that they will help “you achieve your language learning goals faster than you ever thought possible” (Rosetta Stone), or that their program is “is the most advanced language training program available” (TELL ME MORE ®). However, to date, there has been no independent empirical research to support these claims, and little is known about learner experience or learning outcomes when individuals use computer assisted language learning (CALL) products as stand-alone resources. After a discussion of the existing research on self-study, distance language learning, and language learning software, the current article reports on a study designed to explore how independent language learners use stand-alone language training programs. The research presented here investigates learner use of two popular commercially available products: Rosetta Stone and Auralog’s TELL ME MORE.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

There is no existing empirical research on learning outcomes from foreign language self-study using commercially available, stand-alone CALL materials. There is, however, research from related areas that suggests the most effective learning is not achieved by learners working alone, and that any materials designed as stand-alone, self-study solutions will have to compensate for this lack of interpersonal interaction. For example, researchers investigating learner autonomy, or “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3), make it clear that achieving autonomy—a condition argued to be beneficial to the language acquisition process—does not necessarily come about as a result of self-study. In fact, according to Benson’s (2007) literature review on autonomous learning, “learners do not develop the ability to self-direct their learning simply by being placed in situations where they have no other

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

option” (p. 22). That is, autonomy is learner-internal, and not a situational condition. This acknowledgement that self-directed learners require interpersonal support is made explicit in Fernández-Toro’s (1999) training manual for foreign language self-study:

For the learning experience to be successful, learners require appropriate support, not only in the form of learning materials (many of which are produced by teachers), but also advice and training. No resource centre can operate effectively without the backup of adequate human resources (p. 7).

In other words, learners engaged in self-study require more than just access to resources if they are to succeed.

This claim is supported in the research on self-access centers, which are resource centers (usually affiliated with a university or other institution) that provide independent language learners with self-study materials. The research on these centers generally suggests that self-directed programs require support systems in order to be effective for language learning. For example, in her review of European universities with self-access language centers, Littlemore (2001) determined that these centers function best when they provide learners with well-thought-out support, guidance, and training. She found that when self-access language centers were implemented by universities as a method to cut costs, learner satisfaction was lower than when the centers were well-staffed and designed to foster the language learning process through advising, peer work, and other guided practice. In her overview of the history of the self-access language center at the University of Hull, Mozzon-McPherson (2007) supported Littleton’s finding by detailing the significant extent to which language advisors contribute to the autonomous language learning process.

In addition to the research on learner autonomy, a discussion of online, computer-mediated self-study should include some of the research findings from distance language instruction, which also indicate that interaction is critical to the success of online learners. While distance learning research has largely considered instructor-mediated distance courses, some of the findings are relevant to computer-mediated self-study. For example, a “sense of community” is critical to the success of any online learner (Liu, Magjuka, Bonk, & Lee, 2007; Sadera, Robertson, Song, & Midon, 2009; Rovai, 2002), and especially foreign language learners, who require an online community not only to engage them in learning but also to foster the second language acquisition (SLA) process (Compton, 2009; Fleming, Hiple, & Du, 2002; Hampel & Stickler, 2005; Lie, 2009; Murphy, 2008; White, 2006). In other words, any program intended to facilitate online foreign language acquisition must not only follow principles of effective online course design but also incorporate the elements of effective instructed SLA, including opportunities for output, interaction, and appropriate feedback, which generally require interpersonal communication (Blake, 2008, 2009; Lai, Zhao, & Li, 2008; Nielson & González-Lloret, 2010; White, 2006).

Since commercially available packages like Rosetta Stone and Auralog claim to work as all-in-one solutions for language learning, the software should be designed to establish the conditions conducive to SLA. However, there is very little empirical evidence about how to do this. This lack of research on materials is not unique to CALL. As Chappelle (2010) points out, “[t]he amount of published work on materials evaluation is surprisingly small in view of the impact that materials have in the instructional process” (p. 67). One of the few research studies on independent learning that cites specific foreign language software is Ulitsky’s (2000) examination of the learning strategies of highly motivated, experienced second language (L2) learners using one of two multimedia software packages intended for autonomous use. The software packages were custom-made by instructors at the University of Albany, who used the Annenberg video series Destinos and French in Action, along with interactive exercises and quizzes based on the videos’ contents. The participants in the study were experienced language learners who were either at the intermediate or beginning level in French or Spanish (the learners studied the

Language Learning & Technology 111

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

language with which they had the least experience). Ulitsky discusses various strategies employed by these experienced learners as they worked through the language learning materials, but important to the discussion here were the strategies of seeking out native speakers and using outside resources. All of the 26 participants in Ulitsky’s study sought outside resources to complement the self-study process with these particular materials.

Another study that considered independent use of specific software was Murray’s (1999) experiment with French learners using a simulated immersion software package, Á la rencontre de Philippe. This program allowed students to follow a pre-planned story line in a number of different directions, responding to questions and comments from the main character (Philippe) by selecting multiple choice text responses. As in Ulitsky (2000), participants in this study were highly motivated, autonomous learners who used a variety of outside resources with the software program, and there were no learning outcome measures to gauge the software’s effectiveness.

None of the research on self-study with specific software packages examined the use of the “all-in-one” commercial solutions (e.g., Rosetta Stone, TELL ME MORE, Pimsleur, etc.) marketed to independent learners. There are several possible reasons for this. First, because these packages are intended to be used in lieu of in-person instruction rather than as a supplement to instructor-mediated classes, many universities, which tend to be the setting for CALL research, do not provide students with access to them, instead offering supplemental CALL materials. In addition, because of the shift in SLA to an interactionist approach (Gass & Mackey, 2007), much CALL scholarship concerns how learners use technological tools for interaction, for example, the wealth of research on computer-mediated communication (Thorne & Payne, 2005; Sykes, Oskoz, & Thorne., 2008), or how specific CALL applications can promote interaction (González-Lloret, 2003) rather than evaluations of software packages. That said, there are a few references to either Rosetta Stone or Auralog in CALL scholarship. Godwin-Jones (2007) mentions Auralog’s TELL ME MORE and Rosetta Stone in his review of trends in self-paced instruction, stating that “these programs are built around pre-planned lessons with distinct goals prescribed in a linear, guided path,” and he goes on to say that the audio, graphics, video, and speech recognition software make these products potentially very powerful (p. 11). Another paper that mentions commercially available resources is Lafford, Lafford, and Sykes (2007), which evaluates software for Spanish lexical acquisition. Lafford et al. (2007) uses theories of SLA to evaluate the potential for several different language learning products, including those provided by Auralog and Rosetta Stone. Overall, the authors found that most of the Spanish CALL products they reviewed fall short of creating the environment necessary for lexical acquisition, pointing out specifically that:

Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin America, and Auralog’s TELL ME MORE Spanish have outstanding technical infrastructure (e.g., excellent graphics, videos, pictures, and speech recognition software), but these products do not incorporate a number of the aforementioned research-based insights (e.g., the need for culturally authentic, task-based activities) that informed SLA scholarship might have given them. (p. 516)

Another mention of Rosetta Stone is in Saury’s (1998) presentation on creating a psychological foundation for evaluating language learning software, in which she claims that Rosetta Stone is “one of the few software programs designed with an awareness of how multimedia can capitalize on the psychological processes of language learning” (p. 6). Saury then commends Rosetta Stone for having “consciously decontextualized” content so that learners can build an internal model of how language works. However, this claim was made in 1998 and is based on Krashen’s theories of natural learning, which have fallen out of favor in more recent SLA research. While the boundary between explicit and implicit learning and the subsequent development of automaticity has not yet been clearly established, the idea that acquisition occurs with language out of context is not supported.

Language Learning & Technology 112

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

There is ample evidence that language learners require support, interaction, feedback, and appropriate materials to benefit from self-study. However, none of the studies on independent or online learning specifically looks at currently available commercial products that tout themselves as complete solutions. Although products are occasionally mentioned in the SLA literature, there are conflicting assessments of their potential for success. Despite the logical reasons for this lack of research (e.g., many universities do not provide access to stand-alone software packages, most CALL research is focused on interaction, self-study is not an easy area to research given its isolated nature), the fact that there has been no investigation into how these products work is something that merits attention. With for-profit companies marketing themselves to individuals, corporations, and non-profits as the panacea for language training, consumers, theorists, and language teachers deserve to know how well these products work and under what conditions they should be used.

THE CURRENT STUDY

While commercially available, stand-alone language products are not generally found in schools or universities, there is a large population of learners currently relying on these CALL resources: employees of the United States government (USG). Although there is a great deal of high-quality, face-to-face language training available to some USG employees—for example, agency-based language training centers such as the Foreign Service Institute, and the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center—there are agencies that lack in-house language training as well as the resources to send all interested parties for off-site instruction. Products from companies like Rosetta Stone, TELL ME MORE, and Transparent Language have been adopted by agencies across the USG as they attempt to find a scalable solution to make language training available to individuals for whom in-person instruction is impractical or impossible. The article will report the results of a two-part research study conducted by the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) intended to explore how adult learners in USG workplaces use technology-mediated self-study packages.

There are many factors that could contribute to the success of self-directed learners, such as learner-internal beliefs and practices (Bown, 2006; White, 1999), the support available to learners (Murphy, 2008), the way the resources are used (White, 2005), and the content of the resources themselves (Lafford et al., 2007). Because of the number of potentially confounding variables with self-study, and because media or method comparison studies do not typically provide robust findings (Blake, 2009; Surry & Ensminger, 2001), the CASL researchers did not set up an experimental protocol to compare self-study packages—either to one another or to more traditional methods of language training. Instead, the study was designed to examine self-directed learner use and outcomes under typical agency workplace conditions in two different phases. The first phase (P1) examined the use of Rosetta Stone (RS) in Arabic, Mandarin, and Spanish throughout different government agencies, while the second phase (P2) examined the use of Auralog TELL ME MORE (ATMM) in Spanish by the employees in the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The conditions throughout the studies were designed to follow manufacturer’s guidelines and to replicate the conditions under which self-study packages are currently used throughout the USG in order to answer the following research questions:

1. Is self-study with stand-alone CALL materials an appropriate solution for USG employees?

2. What language gain can be expected from 0-beginners who use CALL materials according to the manufacturer’s instructions?

3. Does RS work equally well with Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish?

4. Is ATMM an effective tool for learners with previous Spanish training who want to improve their foreign language proficiency?

5. Should supervisors and/or trainees be given any guidelines for self-study?

Language Learning & Technology 113

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Based on the review of the literature on self-study and foreign language learning, the research team hypothesized that self-study CALL could be appropriate for some learners. Based on the content, scope, and sequence of both RS and ATMM described in the next section, the team predicted that 0-beginners would not gain much communicative competence but would master some vocabulary, and that learners with some prior language training would improve their Spanish proficiency after using ATMM. Finally, given the research findings from previous studies of autonomous learners, the final research hypothesis was that both supervisors and trainees would require guidelines for self-study.

METHOD

Participants

All participants in this research study were USG employees working for agencies that provide self-study CALL as a method of language training. They were recruited through announcements via e-mail and agency Web sites, which were generated by the USG clients who commissioned this research. In the P1 stage, employees from any level or position within participating agencies were given their first choice of target language (TL) as long as they were 0-beginners and therefore did not have any prior experience with the TL. Phase 2 was open to any USCG employee from any level or position who wished to study Spanish, so unlike the P1 participants, some of this group had prior experience with the TL. All volunteers who met the participation criteria were included in the study (P1: n = 150; P2: n = 176). All participants were motivated adult learners who sought out the opportunity for language training and readily agreed to the language study protocols required by this study. The Institutional Review Boards for the University of Maryland and the USG approved this research, and all participants gave informed consent.

Materials

Self-Study Materials

Participants in P1 used RS Version 2 (V2) in Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish, and P2 participants used ATMM Version 9 (V9) in Spanish; all software was accessed via the Internet—while both packages can be accessed via CDs, the procedure at the USG agencies participating in this research was to provide online access, so the CDs were not available to participants. Both RS and ATMM contain reading, writing, listening, and speaking exercises, and each includes voice recognition tools so learners can provide spoken responses (to match pre-determined scripts) in addition to comparing their recordings to those of a native speaker. Rosetta Stone is based primarily on exercises that require learners to match images with written or spoken language, while ATMM has a combination of vocabulary and grammar drills in a variety of formats, from fill-in-the-blanks to word scrambles, and also includes exposure to scripted dialogues as well as reading and listening passages. Rosetta Stone does not contain grammatical explanations or a glossary, while ATMM does provide these features. Both programs appear to have content sequenced in terms of grammatical complexity, with the units and levels in each program based on themes. Both programs track learner progress and recycle material based on performance. Both ATMM and RS provide limited exposure to vocabulary in context and genuine discourse. ATMM provides some specific cultural information.

Assessments

Participants in P1 took oral achievement assessments that were administered over the phone. Because the content of RS is heavily weighted toward vocabulary acquisition, and because participants were 0-beginners, existing general proficiency tests were unlikely to effectively measure learner progress with RS. Designed by CASL researchers, the over-the-phone achievement tests were criterion-referenced and dichotomously scored assessments, which were created specifically to assess the information taught throughout RS Level 1. The tests involved asking participants to go to a Web site to view several picture-

Language Learning & Technology 114

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

based prompts and then asking them to describe each image in the target language; after the description, learners were asked three specific questions about each image.1 Three experienced language instructors (one each for Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish) scored the achievement tests. Each RS language course contained identical images and content, with equivalent descriptions of each image provided in each language, so the same achievement test was used for Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish, with the intention to compare success between groups. Participants in P1 were asked to take a telephonic American Council for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) as an exit test because this test was available in all languages, could be administered over the phone, and is intended to assess general proficiency.

Participants in P2 were asked to take the ATMM placement test, which comes with the software. In addition, participants in P2 took the Versant for Spanish oral proficiency assessment, which is a standardized test administered over the phone and computer-scored, using a scale from 20 to 80. Scores on this assessment correlate highly with other measures of oral language proficiency (e.g., a correlation of .88 with the ACTFL OPI and a correlation of .92 with OPI scores on the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) scale by government-trained raters [Pearson, 2008]). See http://www.ordinate.com/products/spanish.jsp or Fox and Fraser (2009) for more information on this assessment. The Versant Spanish test has been used in other empirical studies to measure learner proficiency after Spanish language training (Blake, Wilson, Cetto, & Pardo-Ballester, 2008; Burwell, González-Lloret, & Nielson, 2009). During P2, the Versant test was used as a pre-test for learners with some Spanish proficiency at the outset of the research and as a post-test for all participants.

Hardware

In addition to PCs, all participants were required to obtain a headset with a microphone to use the self-study materials and complete the assessments.

Procedures

The procedures for each phase were slightly different because of the nature of the language learning software and the research questions. In addition, because P1 was completed before P2, some of the findings from P1 influenced the protocol for P2.2

Phase 1 (June 2008): Participants completed a pre-study survey detailing prior language study/use and agreed to use RS for 10 hours per week for 20 weeks—following the manufacturer’s guidelines that it would take 200 hours to complete level 1 of the program. They also agreed to study for no more than three hours in a particular day; this study protocol was included as a mechanism to keep study time distributed throughout the week. In addition, participants agreed to keep a weekly “learner log,” in which they could record the time they spent working, technical difficulties, and whether or not they consulted any additional language resources. All P1 participants agreed to complete a listening/speaking assessment over the phone every five weeks or after 50 hours of study, and they agreed to complete an ACTFL telephone OPI at the end of 200 hours of study.

Phase 2 (November 2009): Participants completed the pre-study survey detailing prior language study/use that was administered during P1 and agreed to use ATMM for at least five hours per week for 26 weeks. This protocol was established to mimic the training requirements established by the USCG for ATMM participation. Each week, participants were given three hours of release time from their job duties to use the software at work, and they were asked to use the materials for an additional two hours per week on their own. Phase 2 included students who had some Spanish proficiency at the start of the research; these participants agreed to take the Versant for Spanish test as a pre-test as well as the ATMM placement test to determine starting level. In addition, all participants agreed to keep a weekly “learner log” as well as to complete two exit tests: the ATMM proficiency test and the Versant for Spanish computerized oral proficiency test.

Language Learning & Technology 115

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

The purpose of this research was to determine how well self-study works under typical agency workplace conditions. When resources for independent learning are made available at the agencies employing participants in this study, they are generally provided with little guidance or supervision. However, previous research on autonomous learning made it clear that learners require support. For this reason, the lead researcher on this project maintained frequent contact with participants, working with agency personnel to provide software licenses, and serving as the point of contact for any issues encountered during the study. In addition, she provided encouragement, monitored progress, and followed-up individually with all participants who were not regularly using the software. The research team scheduled all assessments for both P1 and P2 by working with participants to identify convenient times.

RESULTS

Software Usage

The most striking finding of both P1 and P2 was severe attrition in participation. Despite initial participant interest as well as active researcher involvement and encouragement, participants in both phases of the study spent very little time using the CALL materials before stopping completely, if they used the materials at all. In fact, many participants never managed to access the software—51% (n = 77) of the P1 participants and 41% (n = 73) of the P2 participants never logged in to their accounts. Only one participant in P1 and four participants in P2 completed the full study protocol. Tables 1 and 2 provide participation records.

Table 1. Record of Participation in P1 (RS)

Participant Activity Arabic Chinese Spanish Total

Volunteered and signed consent forms 50 50 50 150

Obtained RS accounts 50 37 33 120

Actually accessed accounts 38 19 17 73

Spent more than 10 hours using Rosetta Stone™

18 13 5 32

Completed the first assessment (50 hours of use)

13 5 3 21

Completed the second assessment (100 hours of use)

5 0 1 6

Completed third and fourth assessments and OPI (200 hours of use)

1 0 0 1

Language Learning & Technology 116

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Table 2. Record of Participation in P2 (ATMM)

Participant Activity 0-beginner Non-zero beginner

Total

Signed consent forms and received accounts 82 94 176

Took Auralog Placement Test 52 51 103

Used Auralog for .5 to 5 hours 32 29 61

Used Auralog for 5.5 to 10 hours 7 9 16

Used Auralog for 10.5 to 15 hours 5 12 17

Used Auralog 15.5 to 25 hours 2 7 9

Used Auralog for more than 25 hours 0 7 7

Took Versant Post-test 3 19 22

Took Auralog Exit Test 0 4 4

Assessment Outcomes

The attrition from both P1 and P2 meant that the assessment outcomes data were extremely sparse. There were 21 P1 participants (Arabic = 13, Chinese = 5, Spanish = 3) who took the first assessment, which was designed to test learners on mastery of the content presented in the first 25% of RS Level 1. There were five Arabic participants and one Spanish participant who took the second assessment; none of the Chinese participants took the second assessment. There was only one Arabic participant who completed the full study protocol and took assessments three and four. The single successful Arabic participant received a 96% on the first interim assessment, and then perfect scores on the final three assessments. Because of low n-sizes, it is not statistically sound to compare scores between language groups. In general, using the software prepared some students to describe and answer questions about the images on the assessments.3 See Figure 1 for a graph of the student scores on the first assessment by the number of hours they spent using RS.

Figure 1. Scores on P1 Interim Assessment #1 by number of hours logged by each participant using RS.

Language Learning & Technology 117

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Due to the low n-size as well as the fact that the interim assessments were designed to be achievement tests rather than proficiency tests, it is difficult to generalize about potential proficiency outcomes after using RS based on participant performances; however, there are some observable trends in the available data. For example, hours logged using RS in Arabic correlates with performance on the interim assessment (r = .72, p = .005). In addition, learners studying Spanish were able to score an average of 46/100 points on the interim assessment after an average of just 16 hours. Learners studying Chinese appeared to have a harder time than either the Arabic or the Spanish participants with the interim assessments—four of these participants received a score of 0 on the test, with hours logged ranging from 0 to 77. Additionally, it is worth noting the large standard deviation values for both the test scores and the hours logged, especially for Chinese and Arabic, indicating that the means do not reflect the distributions well and that there were huge variations in both the number of hours logged and performance on the achievement tests. See Table 3 for the mean hours logged and scores earned for the P1 interim assessment.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for P1 Interim Assessment 1

Language Data N Min. Max. M SD

Arabic Score 13 0 96 51.15 34.91

Logged Hours 0 60 31.08 19.51

Chinese Score 5 0 58 11.60 25.94

Logged Hours 0 77 21.80 31.20

Spanish Score 3 29 67 46.00 19.31

Logged Hours 13 21 16.00 4.36

The proficiency outcomes data from P2 are very similar to P1—sparse. The instrument used to measure learner proficiency in P2 was the Versant for Spanish oral proficiency exam. Subjects who complete this test receive an overall proficiency score as well as a score for each of the following categories: sentence mastery, vocabulary, fluency, and pronunciation. For more information on how the test is scored, see Blake et al. (2008). There were only three 0-beginners who took the post-test Versant Spanish assessment. The 0-beginners were not pre-tested because they identified as being absolute novices with no previous exposure to or instruction in Spanish. Table 4 shows the P2 0-beginner group’s ATMM placement test scores (scored from 0 to 10), their Versant post-test scores (scored from 20 to 80), and the number of hours they logged using ATMM prior to the assessment. It is striking that these participants hardly used the software at all—the longest a 0-beginner used ATMM was an hour and twenty minutes4—and that their Versant test scores, for participants claiming to be 0-beginners with under two hours of instruction, were so high. Their placement test scores also indicate that they were not absolute beginners (particularly participant 265, who tested at the level of an intermediate student); however, they are included as a separate group here because they self-identified as novices and, for that reason, they were not asked to complete a pre-test.

Language Learning & Technology 118

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Table 4. P2 Test Scores for 0-beginners

Subject Number

ATMM Placement Test Score

Time Logged (h:mm)

Overall Score

Sentence Mastery

Vocabulary Fluency Pronunciation

P206 2.5 1:19 24 20 20 21 42

P279 1.1 1:42 23 20 20 32 36

P265 4.4 0:20 40 28 20 55 55

There were 19 non-0-beginner participants in P2 who took the Versant for Spanish exit test. Based on their pre-test scores, these participants were divided into three groups: Novice (n = 12), Intermediate (n = 4), and Advanced (n = 3).5 Table 5 provides the descriptive statistics for these groups.6 The novice and intermediate learners spent significantly more time using ATMM (novice mean hours logged = 14:06; intermediate mean hours logged = 15:45) than either the 0-beginners (mean hours logged = 1:07) or the advanced learners (mean hours logged = 3:20).

Table 5. P2 Mean Test Scores for Participants with Starting Spanish Proficiency

Proficiency Level

N ATMM Placement

Test Score

Time Logged (h:mm)

Overall Gain Score

Sentence Mastery

Gain Score

Vocabulary Gain Score

Fluency Gain Score

Pronunciation Gain Score

Novice 11 3.12 14:06 2.55 2.90 0.09 2.18 2.64

Intermediate 4 4.25 15:45 1.25 6.00 -1.25 0.75 -0.50

Advanced 3 6.60 3:20 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4.60 -1.00

Note. One novice participant who logged 134 hours with ATMM is excluded here.

The results for the novice group and the intermediate group were similar in some respects. Both groups improved their overall scores on the Versant test, averaged roughly the same number of hours with the software (novice = 14:06 and intermediate = 15:45), and improved their sentence mastery scores (which is a measure of grammar/syntax) and their fluency and pronunciation scores (which measures timing, rhythm, and phonology). Neither group improved its vocabulary scores (the intermediate scores dropped by 1.25 points). The advanced group did not show any improvement in its overall scores, and in some areas, the advanced participants’ scores went down after using the software. This decrease for the advanced group is likely a ceiling effect from the Versant for Spanish proficiency instrument. The learners tested at the very top of the scale for the pre-test, and the categories for which they lost points were fluency and pronunciation, which the advanced learners could have inadvertently manipulated by deliberately speaking slowly. As a group, the three advanced learners hardly used the software at all, so their decrease in proficiency likely has nothing to do with their use of Auralog.

Figure 2 depicts the change in scores on the Versant test during P2 by the hours logged by all of the participants for each of the three proficiency levels—this figure does not include the 0-beginners because they did not take a pre-test. As suggested by the descriptive statistics, many of the scores are clustered around 0, with 9 of the participants using the software for up to 20 hours and having their scores stay the same. There were 5 participants who used the software from 10 to 28 hours who had gain scores of 3 to 7 points.7 There is one outlier in the data, the single novice participant who used the software for 134 hours (close to the total number of hours required by the P2 protocol) and increased her overall Versant proficiency score by 10 points.

Language Learning & Technology 119

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Figure 2. Overall P2 Versant gain score by hours logged using ATMM.

Learner Feedback

In keeping with their limited usage of the self-study CALL materials, the participants in P1 were similarly non-compliant with the learner logs, which were intended to collect information about learner use of the software, technical problems, and the use of outside materials and resources. In the first week of the study, only 46 of the 73 participants completed the learner log. By week four, 19 participants used the learner log, and by week 10, there were just three. Figure 3 shows P1 learner log usage throughout the 20 week study, with a rapid decrease in the first half of the study (weeks one to 11). Unfortunately, there are no learner log data from the P2 participants; the USCG agreed to distribute a weekly survey to all study participants in order to collect their learner use data, but was never able to do so because of internal technical problems. Learner feedback from the participants in P2 came from personal e-mails to the CASL researchers and an end-of-study anonymous survey completed by 30 P2 participants (17%).

Language Learning & Technology 120

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Figure 3. P1 learner log usage in terms of number of participants by week of the study.

User feedback from the P1 learner logs suggests that, at least initially, technological problems were a great source of user frustration. During week one, there were complaints from 20 different participants who had technical difficulties while using the CALL materials. Among other issues, participants had trouble with system crashes, were unable to use microphones in their workplaces, were unable to access the materials using wireless connections, and could not download required plugins to their work computers. There were six questions on the P2 end-of-study survey, and 30 (17%) participants responded; of the 180 total responses, 48 identified technical problems with the software. The chief complaint was that the software did not ever work on the USCG computers, so participants had to use the materials at home. There were also complaints that the software didn’t work at home, and that microphones and speakers did not work. Finally, there were comments from participants in both P1 and P2 that when they were required to travel for work, they were unable to access the CALL materials remotely. These technological complaints in both P1 and P2 persisted despite continuous support from the lead researcher as well as the agencies’ technology specialists.

In addition to technological complaints about using the software, there was also negative user feedback about the content of the CALL materials. The P1 participants who continued with either Arabic or Chinese until the first interim assessment commented that it was difficult to learn the non-Roman characters without any explicit instruction; eight P1 participants mentioned needing additional resources to understand the RS content, from online grammar guides and dictionaries to native speakers. Nineteen of the 30 P2 participants who completed the exit survey reported seeking outside resources to supplement the ATMM materials, including eight learners who sought out native Spanish speakers for conversational

Language Learning & Technology 121

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

practice. There were 35 negative comments about either the content or the structure of the ATMM materials. These comments largely concerned the lack of job-specific vocabulary, the lack of a guided plan to the materials, the lack of explicit instruction for 0-beginners, and the lack of conversational vocabulary and practice. There were four comments from P2 participants that the software was useful.

The final source of learner feedback was through personal communication with the lead CASL researcher during P1, usually to explain the reasons for attrition. Of the 119 participants in P1 who dropped out of the study, 72 did not provide a reason, even when asked directly (46 did not begin using the software, and 26 e-mailed the researcher to drop out without stating why). Thirty-five people dropped out because they were sent overseas for work, their work situations changed, or they simply did not have enough time. Nine people dropped out for personal reasons, five dropped out because they could not access the software, and two dropped out because they did not like RS. Participants in P2 did not provide specific reasons for attrition; their responses to the exit survey suggest that technological problems, lack of job-specific content, and lack of time were the chief obstacles to participation.

DISCUSSION

The discussion of the results is organized by the research questions. Q1 asked whether or not self-study with CALL materials was an appropriate solution for USG employees. Given the high attrition rate, and the limited usage of the materials by those participants who did not immediately drop out, self-study with CALL does not seem to be a particularly promising solution for adults in the workplace. Aside from the outlier in each of the two phases of the study, 0-beginners do not appear to be a good fit for this training method. In addition to the very low participation in P1 (which consisted exclusively of 0-beginners) and the extremely high attrition of 0-beginners in P2—only five of the 82 absolute beginners who began the study persisted with the ATMM software for more than 10 hours—there were several telling comments from 0-beginners in both P1 and P2, who wanted more guidance with the materials, more explicit information about how the languages worked, more help navigating through the self-study packages, and more content relevant to their job needs. These requests for more support are not surprising in light of the research findings discussed at the outset of this article, which indicate that independent learners using CALL require support (Littlemore, 2001; Mozzon-McPherson, 2007) perhaps because, as suggested by Jones (2001), “CALL should not be too closely associated with self-access or autonomy, and … teachers are needed to drive the CALL process” (p. 360).

The participation results from the non-0-beginners are slightly better; there were 92 participants in P2 who did not identify as 0-beginners, and there were 12 participants in this group who used the software for more than 10 hours. While this is slightly better than the five 0-beginners who persisted for more than 10 hours, this dropout rate of 93% is not encouraging. The severe technical problems experienced by all P2 participants may have caused much of this attrition. While this study did not provide sufficient data to support this conclusion, it is possible that self-study with CALL could be appropriate for learners with some prior language training who have adequate support, as suggested by Ulitsky (2000) and Murray (1999).

The overwhelming technological problems throughout the studies suggest that autonomous use of CALL materials requires more technical support than is currently available in the agencies participating in this study. In P1, many of the participants using RS worked in locations that did not permit them to download the applications necessary to run the software, and there were also many employees who were not allowed to use microphones at their workstations, which limited the usability of the RS software. As for P2, the language program manager at the USCG agreed to procure and distribute ATMM licenses to 250 employees, and he arranged for them to receive release time from their job duties to use the software at work. However, despite spending six months on the technical set up, the software was never successfully installed on the USCG computer workstations, so despite being told that they could use the software at work, many participants were required to use the materials offsite. Finally, the USCG intended to use

Language Learning & Technology 122

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

ATMM as a language maintenance program for its linguists and interpreters as well as a language training program for other interested employees. However, in general, the linguists and interpreters were unable to use the materials because they did not have reliable Internet access while at sea.

The second research question concerned the language gains that could be expected from 0-beginners who use CALL materials according to the manufacturer’s instructions; however, due to severe attrition, there are very little data on which to base the answer to this question. Fifteen of the 19 P1 participants who persisted through the first assessment were able to ask and answer some questions about the images on the interim assessment. The performance of the 11 Arabic students did correlate with the number of hours they logged using RS. However, six of those 11 participants reported the use of outside resources as well, so it is difficult to know to what extent their proficiency can be attributed to the CALL materials. There were three self-described 0-beginners who took the Versant exit test during P2; however, those participants did not actually appear to be true absolute beginners. Regardless of this, none of them used the software for more than two hours, so no data exist on 0-beginners who used ATMM.

While it is impossible to make any sound claims about learner outcomes from the performance of a single participant, it is worth discussing the case of the single 0-beginner who completed the full P1 study protocol of 200 hours of self-study with RS. This participant received perfect or nearly perfect scores on all the interim assessments, yet his score on a post-study ACTFL OPI was a 0+ or Novice-High.8 When reached for comment after having finished the study, he stated that “While Rosetta Stone does teach a lot of words, they are not always the words you need to have an actual conversation.”9 It is important to report that this participant was a career linguist who, before beginning this study, could already speak Korean, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese to very high levels. His profile is not representative of the other USG employees who participated in this study and to whom these self-study materials are generally directed.

The third research question asked whether or not RS worked equally well with Arabic, Chinese, and Spanish. Again, due to the lack of proficiency outcomes data in P1 it is difficult to answer this question definitively. The three students who studied Spanish were able to score an average of 46/100 points on the first interim assessment after an average of 16 hours, rather than the 50 hours suggested as necessary to complete the first quarter of RS V2. The Arabic students, on the other hand, needed to spend the full 50 hours in order to do well on the first interim assessments. The five Chinese participants simply did not do well, regardless of the amount of time they studied, with 4 of them scoring no points on the first interim assessment. The learner logs contained many complaints about the program from those students studying Arabic and Chinese; participants commented that it was difficult to grasp the script without an instructor and that they had trouble figuring out which words went with which pictures. Six of the 13 participants who completed the first Arabic assessment reported seeking outside resources to help them with the program. Rosetta Stone includes no explicit instructions for how to read and write Arabic script or Chinese characters, or for how the Chinese tonal system works. This suggests that, at least initially, RS does not work equally well for all languages, and that the RS model of avoiding metalinguistic information is problematic for 0-beginners who need to learn to write in a TL with an unfamiliar writing system. Further, the CASL review of RS V2 in Arabic, Spanish, and Chinese revealed that the materials do not use any authentic discourse and that they are all translations of one another, with the software presenting the same vocabulary and structures regardless of language. This approach is at odds with recent theories of SLA which call for exposure to contextually appropriate target language discourse, both from an interactionist perspective (Gass, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2007; Long, 1981, 1996) and from a sociocultural perspective (Lantolf, 2000).

Research question four addresses the effectiveness of ATMM for Spanish learners who were not absolute beginners. There were 19 learners with some starting proficiency who used the program over the six month study period; instead of the 130 hours indicated by the study protocol, 18 of these learners used the materials for an average time of 14:06 (novice), 15:45 (intermediate), and 3:20 (advanced). In addition,

Language Learning & Technology 123

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

some of these learners sought out additional language learning resources. There was some improvement by a few points on the Versant Spanish proficiency test for some of these learners in the sentence mastery category, the pronunciation category, and the fluency category, but there was no correlation between time spent using the software and gains on the Versant test. There was one participant in the novice group who used the software for 134 hours over the six-month period, adhering closely to the original study protocol. See Figure 4 for the Versant scores of this participant, which are slightly different from those of other novice learners, with improvements in vocabulary, pronunciation, and fluency, but no change in sentence mastery. Unfortunately, this participant did not provide the CASL research team with any additional information, so it was impossible to determine whether or not she undertook outside language learning activities along with her ATMM use; accordingly, we have no way of knowing whether or not we can attribute her gain scores on the Versant assessment to her use of ATMM. Based on the limited available data, some learners with some prior Spanish proficiency did improve their scores after a period of self-study with ATMM.

Figure 4. Versant gains by participant with 134 hours of ATMM software use.

The final research question was whether or not supervisors and trainees should be given any guidelines for self-study. Because research from the fields of autonomous foreign language learning and CALL suggests that learner support is necessary for effective self-study, the research design included a point of contact from the CASL research team to provide encouragement and assistance to participants. Despite this additional measure of support, which was not generally supplied by the participating agencies, there was very little use of the materials. Based on the significant pattern of attrition, including the large number of participants who never logged into the CALL materials at all, as well as the technology issues that plagued users in both P1 and P2, it is clear that both supervisors and trainees need guidelines for self-study. Supervisors must be prepared to provide learners with release time from their job duties, ensure CALL materials are suitable for their workplaces (in terms of both content and technological accessibility), and make sure that technical support is available.

In addition, supervisors should understand that merely providing access to self-study materials does not guarantee usage; additional resources to help users compensate for the inadequacies of stand-alone CALL

Language Learning & Technology 124

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

products as well as face-to-face support should be provided (Jones, 2001; Wegerif, 1998). Participants should anticipate the time commitment involved with self-study and be prepared for the difficulty associated with learning a language alone. The user manuals for autonomous learners (e.g., Fernandez-Toro, 1999) or language learning in general (e.g., Hurd & Murphy, 2005) might be a useful place to start. Further, while the CASL lead researcher did provide continuous support to participants in these studies, she was not a USG employee and had nothing to do with the participants’ day-to-day job activities. It is possible that the same levels of encouragement and support from a direct supervisor would have resulted in more consistent learner engagement with the CALL materials. It is likely that a dedicated, online instructor would have been able to provide learners with crucial support; as discussed in the introduction, both instructor-mediated distance learning and supported self-access instruction are approaches to CALL that have been shown to be effective (Blake et al., 2008; Mozzon-McPherson, 2007; Murphy, 2008). Following this model, CALL products could be developed that provide learners with the means to interact with other learners or instructors, something which RS has begun with its new TOTALe product, and which other software developers offer as well (e.g., LiveMocha and WordChamp, among others).

Leaving aside the issue of interaction, participants in P1 and P2 commented that the content of the CALL packages was very generalized, with several P2 participants requesting a training program with nautical content so that the language would be job specific. These comments suggest that perhaps generalized self-study solutions—including ATMM and RS, as well as other products that claim to work for all learners—are not the best approach for working adults with specific language needs. As with all decision makers responsible for selecting foreign language training, supervisors in the USG should make sure to conduct a needs analysis before choosing a CALL program so that the content of the materials matches the job requirements of the learners (See Long (2005) for a discussion of the importance of a needs analysis in order to provide learners with relevant materials and tasks). Because learners were using these materials as part of their work-related activities there would likely have been more persistence if the training had included job-specific content (e.g., the Operational Language and Culture Series by Alelo or the USG-specific products created by Transparent Language).

CONCLUSION

This investigation of the use of self-study CALL materials by motivated USG employees in the workplace had one major finding: severe attrition. Despite beginning with large n-sizes, a wide range of enthusiastic participants from different positions within the USG, and researcher encouragement and support, this method of language training yielded very limited proficiency gains in only a handful of learners. These results are very important; this was the first empirical study intended to establish what happens when independent learners use commercial self-study materials in the workplace, and the lack of use suggests that this approach is not likely to be an effective approach for improving overall language proficiency in this context, especially for 0-beginners. Yet the USG continues to invest millions of dollars in self-study language products, and companies like ATMM and RS continue to advertise themselves as complete solutions to language learning, using endorsements from successful language learners and other clients to appeal to institutions and individuals eager to find a simple solution to their language training needs.

The truth is that learning a language is far from simple, especially for adult learners. Research from self-access centers and online learners indicates that independent language learners require support, guidance, and access to a wide-range of materials and resources in order to benefit from self-study. While CALL products offer increasingly sophisticated graphics and interfaces, they are not yet able to offer an alternative to human support or interaction. The participants in this study were adult learners eager for the opportunity to use these materials to study a second language. It is unlikely that any future study with these stand-alone products could find a more motivated group of people, and the results of both P1 and P2 indicate that these resources are unlikely to work by themselves. Managers and learners alike should

Language Learning & Technology 125

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

consider them as supplements to instructor-mediated training rather than stand-alone solutions. Future research with self-study materials would likely have more robust results if the products were selected according to learners’ needs, if the learners were given specific (and measureable) learning goals, and if the participants began the study with some proficiency in the target languages.

NOTES

1. A Rasch analysis was completed on the first interim assessment to determine how well the test items fit the subject pool. The item-person map indicated a reasonable spread of difficulty across items as well as an expected pattern of ability across persons. The number of subjects who actually completed the first assessment was very low (n = 21), so absolute conclusions cannot be drawn, but the analysis did support the use of this assessment as a tool to measure learner acquisition of the RS content.

2. One of the findings of P1 was that participants had difficulty fitting 10 hours/week of self-study into their workdays, so the protocol for P2 was modified to require less work and to secure supervisor permission for participant release time from job duties. In addition, P2 also controlled for other obstacles to success identified during P1, such as technological problems and an exclusively 0-beginner subject pool.

3. A Rasch analysis of the test items and learner performances revealed that across all three languages, the images that were the most difficult to describe were those that depicted static images. This is most likely because RS focused on photos of people doing things and described all of the images in terms of actions (e.g., “the boy is jumping”). In addition, for participants who did not get perfect scores, the questions on the assessment that were the most difficult were those that requested specific information about pictures. The participants were better able to complete the monologic description task than to answer questions, most likely because the software did not prepare learners to answer questions.

4. While some 0-beginners actually used the software longer than that (see Table 2), none of those who did took the exit Versant assessment.

5. Participants were sorted into proficiency groups based on their initial Versant score—novice participants had scores from 20 to 39, intermediates had scores from 40 to 59, and advanced participants had scores from 60 to 80. Versant scores correlated with the ATMM placement test scores (r = .86).

6. One novice participant had a usage and performance pattern unlike the rest of the participants; her scores are not included in the descriptive statistics in Table 5, and are instead discussed separately in Figure 4.

7. Versant reports that the test/re-test scores (N = 140) changed an average of less than one point (Pearson, 2008).

8. See the following Web site for a description of learner oral proficiency at the 0+ level: http://www.languagetesting.com/actfl_guidelines8.html

9. It is important to note that this exploratory study of RS was conducted using Version 2 of the software, and while the study was underway, Version 3 (V3) was released. The changes made to the V3 product are not likely to have affected the outcome of the present study. For example, V3 continues to use the same images and content for every language taught by the program. In addition, there is no explicit information about grammar or a language’s writing system. There is more vocabulary in V3 geared toward basic communicative tasks and greetings, but there is no chance to observe communication in a genuine context. Finally, V3 has newer photos and there is more variety in the drills, but the overall approach is the same. Learners use the materials to match images with sounds or words.

Language Learning & Technology 126

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank several research scientists at the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language: Dr. Catherine Doughty, for her guidance and detailed feedback throughout this research project, from the study design to the data analyses; and Dr. Richard Brecht, Dr. Joseph Danks, and Dr. Greg Iverson for their support and encouragement. She would also like to thank Suzanne Freynik for collaborating on data collection and analysis; Dr. Victor Frank, Megan Masters, and Susan Luce for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript; and the anonymous reviewers at Language Learning and Technology for their helpful comments. Finally, she is very grateful for the USG volunteers and their supervisors for their willingness to participate in the study.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Katharine B. Nielson is a Principal Research Assistant at the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) and a Ph.D. student in the Second Language Acquisition program at the University of Maryland. Her research interests include technology-mediated language training, SLA and cognition, and instructed SLA.

E-mail: knielson@casl.umd.edu

REFERENCES

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40.

Blake, R. (2008).The brave new digital classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Blake, R. (2009). The use of technology for second language distance learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), 822–835.

Blake, R., Wilson, N., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face, and blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114–127. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num3/blakeetal.pdf

Bown, J. (2006). Locus of learning and affective strategy use: Two factors affecting success in self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 640–659.

Burwell, G., González-Lloret, M., & Nielson, K. (2009). Assessment in a TBLT Spanish immersion course. Paper presented at 3rd Biennial International Conference on Task Based Language Teaching, Lancaster, UK.

Chapelle, C. (2010). The spread of computer assisted language learning. Language Teaching, 43(1), 66–74.

Compton, L. K. (2009). Preparing language teachers to teach language online: A look at skills, roles, and responsibilities, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 73–99.

Fernández-Toro, M. (1999). Training learners for self-instruction. London: Center for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Fleming, S., Hiple, D., & Du, Y. (2002). Foreign language distance education at the University of Hawai’i. In C. A. Spreen (Ed.), New technologies and language learning: Issues and options (Technical Report #25), (pp. 13–54). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Language Learning & Technology 127

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Fox, J., & Fraser, W. (2009). Test Reviews: The Versant™ Spanish test. Language Testing, 26(2), 312–322.

Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224–255). New York: Basil Blackwell.

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Godwin-Jones, R. (2007). Emerging technologies tools and trends in self-paced language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 10–17. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/ emerging/default.html

González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca de esmereldas. Language Learning and Technology, 7(1), 86–104. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/ gonzalez/default.html

Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages online. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning (first published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe). Oxford: Pergamon.

Hurd, S., & Murphy, L. (2005). Success with languages. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Jones, J. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators. ELT Journal, 55(4), 360–367.

Lai, C., Zhao, Y., & Li, N. (2008). Designing a distance foreign language learning environment. In Goertler, S., & P. Winke (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (pp. 85–108). Texas: CALICO.

Lafford, B., Lafford, P., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre dicho y hecho …: An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 497–529.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lie, K. (2009). Virtual communication: An investigation of foreign language interaction in a Distance Education course in Norwegian. Dissertation Abstracts International, 69(9-A), 3484.

Littlemore, J. (2001). Learner autonomy, self-instruction and new technologies in language learning: Current theory and practice in higher education in Europe. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (Eds.), ICT and language learning: A European perspective (pp. 39–60). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

Liu, X., Magjuka, R., Bonk, C., & Lee, S. (2007). Does sense of community matter? An examination of participants’ perspectives of building learning communities in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(1), 9–24.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Foreign Language Acquisition: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–78.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.

Language Learning & Technology 128

Katharine B. Nielson Self-study with Language Learning Software

Language Learning & Technology 129

Long, M. H. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2007). Supporting independent learning environments: An analysis of structures and roles of language learning advisers. System, 35(1), 66–92.

Murphy, L. (2008). Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 83–02.

Murray, G. (1999). Autonomy and language learning in a simulated environment. System, 27(3), 295–308.

Nielson, K., & González-Lloret, M. (2010). Effective online foreign language courses: Theoretical framework and practical application. EUROCALL Review, 17. Retrieved from http://www.eurocall-languages.org/review/17/index.html#nielson_gonzalez

Pearson. (2008). Versant Spanish Test Description and Validation. Retrieved from http://www.ordinate. com/technology/VersantSpanishTestValidation.pdf

Rosetta Stone. (2011). How it works. Retrieved from http://secure.rosettastone.com/global/ endangered/howitworks

Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building a sense of community at a distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1), 1–16.

Sadera, J., Robertson, J., Song, L., & Midon, N. (2009). The role of community in online learning success. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 277–284.

Saury, R.E. (1998). Creating a psychological foundation for the evaluation of pre-packaged software in second language learning. Proceedings of ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Telecommunications, Freiburg, Germany.

Surry, D., & Ensminger, D. (2001). What’s wrong with media comparison studies? Educational Technology, 41(4), 32–35.

Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and mobile resources for language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528–546.

Tell Me More. Auralog difference. Retrieved from http://www.tellmemore.com/about/aboutus/auralog_difference.

Thorne, S., & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371–397.

Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learner strategies with technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 285–322.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 34–49.

White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System, 27(4), 443–457.

White, C. (2005). Towards a learner-based theory of distance language learning: The concept of the learner-context interface. In B. Holmberg, M. Shelley, & C. White (Eds.), Distance education and languages: Evolution and change (pp. 55–71). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

White, C. (2006). State of the art: Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39(4), 247–264.

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/call.pdf

October, 2011, Volume 15, Number 3 p. 130

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 130

Call for Papers for Special Issue of LLT

Theme: Mobile Language Learning

Special Issue Editors: Glenn Stockwell & Susana Sotillo

There has been increased interest in portable technologies which allow learners to access tools for learning languages in virtually any time or place that suits them. The quickly developing functionalities of mobile phones, MP3 players, laptop and tablet computers, and other hand-held devices with touch screen technology mean that the range of possibilities for language learning has greatly diversified. Godwin-Jones (2011), for example, points out that iPhone and Android phones have ushered in a phenomenal expansion in the development of Apps for just about every topic under the sun, and educators have been exploring the value of Apps for learning specific skills (e.g., math, geometry) and language since 2009. The interest in such mobile technologies for learning languages has also been reflected in recent literature, with the appearance of studies using mobile technologies, such as podcasts (e.g., Rosell-Aguilar, 2006), short message service (SMS) (e.g., Levy & Kennedy, 2008; Sotillo, 2010; Thurlow, 2003, 2009), and mobile phones (Stockwell, 2010), to name a few. This special issue of Language Learning & Technology seeks to provide a variety of perspectives on learning through mobile technologies, with a particular focus on corpus-based or empirical studies investigating how the use of these technologies affect and are affected by the language learning environment, or discussions of theoretical issues associated with learning through mobile technologies. Please consult the LLT Website for general guidelines on submission (http://llt.msu.edu/contrib.html) and research (http://llt.msu.edu/resguide.html) and note that articles containing only descriptions of software or pedagogical procedures without presenting in-depth empirical data and analysis on language learning processes or outcomes will not be considered.

Possible topics include, but are not limited to:

• Practical issues of mobile language learning • Theories applicable to mobile language learning • Autonomy and/or self-directed learning through mobile technologies • Teacher education for mobile language learning • Development of Apps and software for mobile language learning • Using mobile technologies for specialized language learning • Teaching second language pragmatics through mobile technologies

Please send letter of intent and 250-word abstract by February 1, 2012 to llted@hawaii.edu.

Publication timeline:

• February 1, 2012: Submission deadline for abstracts • February 15, 2012: Invitation to authors to submit a manuscript • July 1, 2012: Submission deadline for manuscripts • October 1, 2013: Publication of special issue

Language Learning & Technology http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/ackn.pdf

October 2011, Vol. 15, Num. 3p. 131

Copyright © 2011, ISSN 1094-3501 131

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS

Language Learning & Technology would like to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the following people who reviewed manuscripts for us throughout the 2010 production year. Their contribution has helped the journal to maintain its high quality and continue its success.

Antonie Alm

Leonel Alvarado

Nike Arnold

Clara Bauler

Robert Blake

Françoise Blin

Joel Bloch

Jozef Colpaert

David Crabbe

Françoise Demaizière

Lara Ducate

Irina Elgort

Aline Germain-Rutherford

April Ginther

Stefan Th. Gries

Senta Goertler

Ricky Goldman-Segall

Regine Hampel

Atsushi Hasegawa

Mirjam Hauck

Shannon Hilliker-VanStrander

Joe Hopkins

Phil Hubbard

Fenfang Hwu

Sake Jager

Chris Jones

Orlando Kelm

Greg Kessler

Claudia Kost

Agnes Kukulska-Hulme

Marie-Noëlle Lamy

Jenifer Larson-Hall

Lina Lee

David Little

Gillian Lord

Andreas Lund

Tony Lynch

Martina Möllering

David Nunan

Robert O’Dowd

Ana Oskoz

Kwanghyun Park

Martin Paviour-Smith

Jill Pellettieri

Tom Robb

Fernando Rosell-Aguilar

Michael Rost

Muge Satar

Shannon Sauro

Miriam Schcolnik

Klaus Schwienhorst

Alison Sealey

Gillian Skyrme

Bryan Smith

Patrick Snellings

Susana Sotillo

Glenn Stockwell

Elke Stracke

Tetyana Sydorenko

Julie Sykes

Maija Tammelin

Patricia Thornton

Vincenza Tudini

Jason Vickers

Elvis Wagner

Ute Walker

Yuping Wang

Paige Ware

Mark Warschauer

Kristen Wilcox

Iñigo Yanguas

Dongping Zheng