Technology f or French Learning: A Mismatch B e tween Expectations a nd Reality

CALICO Journal, 29(2), p-p 341-366. © 2012 CALICO Journal

341

Technology for French Learning: A Mismatch Between Expectations and Reality ALIYE KARABULUT

KIMBERLY LEVELLE

JINRONG LI

RUSLAN SUVOROV

Iowa State University ABSTRACT

The qualitative study reported in this article explored the use of technology for lan-guage learning in a third-year French class at a public university in the Midwest of the USA. To address the need for a more holistic study of technology for language learning (Basharina, 2007; Thorne, 2003), an Activity Theory framework was employed to in-vestigate the relationships among different elements within a learning environment. Specifically, this multiple-case study examined the relationships between students' reasons for using different types of technology and the instructor's rationale for using technology in the French class. The analysis of interviews conducted with the partici-pants throughout a semester revealed a mismatch between the students' and teacher's rationales for using technology for learning French. The findings suggest that to make technology-enhanced language learning more effective, instructors should as-sess students' use of technology, their preferences and needs, and thus structure class activities and assignments accordingly.

KEYWORDS

Technology, Language Learning, French INTRODUCTION

Research on the use of technologies for language learning has been a central focus of lan-guage learning studies during the past decade (e.g., Blasszauer, 2001; Brandl, 2002; Chapelle, 2003; Jones, 2003; Jones & Plass, 2002; Meskill & Anthony, 2005; Osuna & Meskill, 1998; Salaberry, 2001; Stepp-Greany, 2002; Weininger & Shield, 2003; Yang & Chen, 2007). In particular, studies have analyzed the effect of e-mail-based activities on the development of writing skills (Hertel, 2003), the use of computers for peer response in writ-ing classes (Beauvois, 1998), the use of synchronous chat for the development of communi-cation skills (Lee, 2002), the role of telecollaboration in foreign language learning and use (Belz, 2001, 2002), and the effect of video-conferencing on language learning (Coverdale-Jones, 2000), to name a few. Aside from the Internet, video and movies have been widely employed for language learning purposes (e.g., Baltova, 1994; Jones, 2003; Jones & Plass, 2002). In addition, recent developments in computer technologies ranging from stand-alone software (both CD-ROM and web-based) to multi-user generated social networking sites (e.g., Skype, Facebook, multi-user games) hold enormous potential for creating interactive language-learning environments. Despite the above-mentioned research, there are still issues concerning the use of technol-ogy for language learning that need further exploration. Specifically, there is limited re-search on second language (L2) learners' preferences for various types of technology-

CALICO Journal, 29(2) Technology for French Learning

342

mediated activities for language learning (Weinberg, Peters, & Sarma, 2005), students’ per-ceptions and attitudes regarding the use and benefits of technology for language learning (Stepp-Greany, 2002; Yang, 2001b), and language instructors' use of technology in their classrooms and their perceptions of technology (Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-VanStrander, Tseng, & You, 2006). Although a number of studies have investigated the contradictions that emerged in telecollaboration projects among students from different cultures (Basharina, 2007; Belz, 2001; Thorne, 2003), little research has focused on the contradic-tions between teachers' expectations and students' perspectives concerning the use of tech-nology in language education. While most previous studies have focused on isolated tools and resources for language learning, some research has begun to take a more holistic approach to the study of technol-ogy for language learning (e.g., Basharina, 2007; Thorne, 2003), revealing that various fac-tors impact the effectiveness of technology for language learning. Following this more holis-tic approach, the current paper aims to apply Activity Theory to better understand L2 learners’ perceptions, preferences, and behaviors related to the use of technology for lan-guage and culture learning both in and outside of class, instructor's perceptions and prac-tices of technology use in language education, as well as the possible reasons for any dis-crepancies between the two. Technology Use in Language Learning

The use of technology for foreign language teaching and learning has drastically increased during the last decade, as witnessed by the number of studies on the effectiveness of tech-nology-enhanced language instruction, as well as critical reviews of pedagogical uses of technological resources for language learning (e.g., Salaberry, 2001). On the one hand, studies indicate that technology can be beneficial. For example, Stepp-Greany (2002) main-tains that technology-enhanced language learning can have two types of benefits for stu-dents: affective benefits, such as increased motivation (Blasszauer, 2001; Osuna & Meskill, 1998), lower anxiety, and more active participation and interaction among students (Yang & Chen, 2007); and linguistic benefits, such as the improvement of students’ second language skills, namely L2 reading (Brandl, 2002), writing (Beauvois, 1998; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996), listening (Baltova, 1994), and speaking (Beauvois, 1998). According to Chapelle (2003), the use of the Internet can provide learners with immense opportunities for practicing the target language skills in online speech communities. In a similar vein, there is a growing literature on telecollaborative projects that provide opportunities for language learners to interact with native speakers of the target language or other language learners with different back-grounds and practice language skills focusing on both form and function (Basharina, 2007; Belz, 2001, 2002; Lee, 2004, 2008; Thorne, 2003; Ware & O'Dowd, 2008). Such technol-ogy-mediated language practice can be an excellent alternative to face-to-face communica-tion for language learners who do not have real-life access to native speakers (Warschauer, 1996). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the use of web-based materials and multi-media can significantly enhance students’ knowledge of other cultures (Osuna & Meskill, 1998; Rogers, 2002). On the other hand, some research has pointed out the negative impact of technology on student learning (e.g., Conole, 2008; Ushida, 2005). Ushida (2005), for instance, found that learners in online classes have high levels of anxiety at the beginning of the course and that these levels drop later during the semester. Technology also demands access to resources for both the teacher and students and adds another level of complexity to lesson planning. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate how technology should be integrated in language classrooms so that it makes language teaching and learning most effective and efficient (Chapelle, 2003).

CALICO Journal, 29(2) A. Karabulut, K. LeVelle, J. Li, and R. Suvorov

343

Instructors' and Students' Perceptions of Technology

While most of the previous research has focused on how, and whether, technology can sup-port and facilitate language learning, there are fewer studies that look into what language instructors do with technology in their classrooms and how they perceive the use of tech-nology. Meskill et al. (2006) reported the results of two surveys on ESOL teachers’ uses and preferences of technology conducted in the state of New York in 1997 and 2003. They found that although the instructional use of the Internet has drastically increased since 1997, in-structors’ use of technology for teaching English has declined and they were using it for a narrower range of purposes. According to Meskill et al. (2006), this change suggests that teachers are reluctant to experiment with new technology and have developed “established patterns of use that make sense for their specific purposes” (pp. 446-447). Similarly, Kim (2008) found that although teachers value computers as tools to assist their teaching, they limit their use to instructional delivery tools, rather than exploiting the possibilities of mul-timedia and interactive learning. In fact, the results of two national surveys conducted by Becker (2000) and Doherty and Orlofsky (2001) revealed that word processing was teach-ers' most frequently used technological tool in K-12 general education. Although the latter two studies did not specifically focus on language teaching in the context of higher educa-tion, they point to a general tendency towards teachers' use of technology for educational purposes. Certainly, teachers' use of and expectations about technology will influence not only their decisions in the classroom, but also the reactions of their students. Research has emphasized that successful integration of technology into a classroom de-pends, to a large extent, on the design and restructuring of activities based on pedagogical priorities (e.g., Richards, 2005). In other words, to avoid using technology for the sake of technology, instructors have to implement it on the basis of sound pedagogy and theoretical perspectives. However, few studies have looked at how a teacher’s perspective might shape learners’ experience of using technology or how it may or may not match students’ under-standing of technology use. To better understand how technology affects the process of language learning, it is also im-portant to consider learners' perceptions, preferences, and uses of technology. The results of existing research on L2 learners’ perceptions regarding the use of technology for L2 learning indicate that, in general, students have positive attitudes towards technology-enhanced language learning (Beauvois & Eledge, 1996; Holmes, 1998; Sokolik, 2003; Stepp-Greany, 2002; Strambi, 2004; Yang, 2001a, 2001b; Yang & Chen, 2007). The results of Sokolik’s (2003) study, for instance, revealed that students in a university writing class thought that technology “created variety and interest in the classroom” (p. 45). In her lon-gitudinal study on perceptions of a Web-enhanced learning environment, Strambi (2004) found that L2 learners of Italian considered their learning environment to be beneficial for interaction and collaboration with the teacher and other students. Weinberg et al. (2005) examined French learners’ preferences for technological activities, revealing that students had positive attitudes towards various types of technologies in the French classroom, but did not use them frequently. In Beauvois and Eledge’s (1996) study, the majority of French learners found the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) to be facilitative for the development of their L2 language skills. Meanwhile, there is also evidence that some students have a strong preference for tradi-tional language classrooms and interpersonal communication with a language instructor and classmates over a technology-based learning environment (Rogers, 2002) and enjoy “a tra-ditional, spoon-fed, lecturing style of learning” (Yang & Chen, 2007, p. 876). Along with some students' preferences for face-to-face communication, the technology itself can be a barrier for learners. Winke and Goertler's (2008) study found that typing non-English char-acters (such as accent marks) and creating audio files were challenging to many of the col-lege students, even though few of them had any difficulties accessing and navigating the


344

Internet, sending and receiving emails, and playing audio files. These conflicting findings suggest that learners’ view of technology is impacted by the way they are required to use it. Activity Theory Framework

While some studies have looked at how technology might be integrated more effectively into the L2 classroom (Richards, 2005) and at learners’ perceptions of technology-assisted lan-guage learning courses (Bradley & Lomicka, 2000; Yang & Chen, 2007), most studies have focused on the role of technology and its effectiveness (Mathison, Meyer, & Vargas, 1999), ignoring the sociocultural aspects of learning experiences, such as historical backgrounds, characteristics and motivations of language learners, and the dynamic relationships among entities within a learning environment (Koszalka & Wu, 2004; Lim & Hang, 2003). A few studies, however, have begun to incorporate sociocultural perspectives, particularly Activity Theory, in their investigation of computer-mediated communication and intercultural tele-collaborations (Basharina, 2007; Belz, 2002; Thorne, 2003). Activity Theory takes a holistic approach in analyzing language learners and learning activi-ties within an activity system. Through Activity Theory, learning is viewed as a complex phenomenon in which multiple factors are in constant interaction with each other. More spe-cifically, Activity Theory suggests that learning occurs when people encounter a novel situa-tion, then interpret and act on it by means of cultural mediation tools shared by others in the same culture (Cole, 1996). Thus, the use of tools for learning is examined in light of their interactions with other factors in an activity system, rather than being viewed as in-strumental alone. In addition, Activity Theory takes into account the social and material re-lations that affect complex human learning and tries to make sense of the complexity of human learning mediated by cultural tools rather than trying to control it. Vygotsky’s (1978) cultural-historical activity system involves subjects (people) acting on objects (goals or motives) by means of tools. Engeström (1987) has expanded Vygotsky's triangle by adding new elements (see Figure 1), which highlight the reciprocal relationships of the elements in an activity system. By analyzing this joint activity, it is possible to better understand how an activity system works or fails to work (Russell, 2002). Figure 1 Activity system model (Engeström, 1987)


345

For the purposes of the present study, it is important to examine the concepts of subject, object/motive, and tool (see Engeström, 2001; Russell, 2002). As seen in Figure 1, every activity system has a subject(s) who is an individual engaged in an activity. As the focus is on individuals, it needs to be highlighted that every individual might be a member of differ-ent activity systems and carry characteristics from one system to another. In our study, we focus on the analysis of two activity systems: an activity system of the students and an ac-tivity system of the teacher. The second element of an activity system is the object/motive, which is the goal that subjects are aiming to reach. In our case, the over-arching goal is to learn/teach French. However, behind that overall aim, individuals might have different mo-tives about why they would like to learn/teach French, and these different motives might result in conflicts and contradictions within and between the activity systems. Tools are any-thing that mediates between the subject and the object (for example, communication tools such as symbols, language, internet tools, etc.). They are the means for people to interact with the world, and they shape and are shaped by how people act in the activity system. The tools people share in their activity system might change over time as they interact with other elements both within and outside the activity system. In our study, tools are different types of technology that the students and their instructor use for learning and teaching French. The triangle also depicts the interrelations among the various elements. It views people as part of multiple activity systems within their everyday local and global contexts. Thus, their activities within one activity system can be influenced by elements within the same activity system, as well as those from other activity systems (Basharina, 2007; Kuuttii, 1996). Within an activity system, all elements are in perpetual interaction with each other and sub-ject to change, which would then be viewed as opportunities for learning. For instance, change in the design of the tools might result in change in the subject’s orientation towards the object, which in turn may influence the overall practices in a given community. In this sense, Engeström (1987) defines an activity system as “a virtual disturbance-and-innovation-producing machine" (p. 11). A change in any element may conflict with another element, placing people at cross purposes, which is referred to as a contradiction in Activity Theory framework. Contradictions may occur among the elements of an activity system, as well as between different activity systems, as suggested by Russell (2002) (see Figure 2). Thus, the use of the Activity Theory framework in our study allowed us to examine various elements of the activity systems of the students and the teacher. It also provided us with tools to analyze the interactions and possible contradictions within each activity system and between the systems.


346

Figure 2 Contradictions within and among activity systems (adapted from Russell, 2002)

METHODOLOGY

The present study was designed as a qualitative multiple-case study. The use of this re-search method allowed us to collect extensive data through interviews that were subse-quently analyzed and used to answer the research questions that emerged during the analysis. It helped reveal the students’ preferences of certain types of technology for learn-ing French, as well as advance our understanding of students’ decisions to use or not to use technology. In addition, a case study design allowed us to get the language instructor's per-spectives on technology use in language instruction by conducting detailed interviews throughout the semester and observing any possible changes in the instructor’s perspective over this period of time. Finally, we employed the Activity Theory framework to analyze any possible mismatch between the instructor's and students' rationales for using technology. Activity Theory also afforded a better understanding of the types of technologies that stu-dents use for language learning, students' reasons for adopting or rejecting certain tech-nologies, and the relationships between students' and teacher's perspectives on the use of different types of technologies for learning French language and culture. Context

The study was conducted in an upper-intermediate level French class at a large Midwestern university where technology has been integrated into daily teaching and learning. The se-mester-long course was titled “Reading and Writing French I: Composition and Culture.” Ac-cording to the class syllabus, the course was intended to improve all four skills through dis-cussions and exploration of a variety of topics about French society and culture as represented in French cinema. The classroom where the French class met was a regular classroom equipped with multimedia and Internet access. The class followed a web-blended format in which students were expected to access course materials online through WebCT (a learning management system), as well as produce work using various types of technology.


347

Hence, tools such as "clickers" (or TurningPoint 2008)1, wikis, online dictionaries, French websites, and French movies were integrated into the class syllabus in such a way that stu-dents were expected to use them as mediating tools to meet their objective of learning French. An important feature of the course was that French films were used as content ma-terial for discussions and compositions within the class. All required assignments revolved around films watched in class and included "clicker" quizzes; an Internet Activity (Activité Internet), which was an oral presentation of a website; two in-class compositions; two out-of-class essays; wiki critiques (peer response activities conducted through a wiki page); and a final cartoon production group project. Materials

The instruments used in this study were a survey on motivational intensity and technology use for language learning (see Appendix A), and an interview protocol (Appendix B). The survey on motivational intensity and technology use for language learning consisted of three parts and was administered during the recruitment of participants. The first part, which con-tained ten questions on motivational intensity adapted from Gardner (1985), aimed at measuring students' motivation to learn French. Each question was followed by three choices that were assigned a corresponding score of 0, 1, or 2. The highest possible score for the first part of the survey was thus 20. The second part of the survey aimed to measure the extent to which the students used technology in English in their daily lives. Participants were asked ten questions in which they had to rate, on a five-point Likert scale, their fre-quency of using a particular computer application. Scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 were assigned to each statement accordingly and thus the highest possible score for the second question-naire was 40. The last part of the survey included ten questions that measured the students' use of technology for learning French. The content and format of the third section resem-bled the second one. Participants completed the three parts of the survey at the beginning of the study and their responses were entered into Excel. The scores for each item were added up for each of the participants. Thus, each participant got three overall scores: one each for motivational intensity, technology use in English, and technology use in French. We also designed an interview protocol for four semi-structured interviews with the stu-dents. During each interview, we employed the protocol for asking general questions about participants' overall use of technology for learning French in- and outside of class, and rea-sons for using or not using different types of technology for language learning (see Appen-dix B). Depending on their responses, we further asked them more specific questions that were not included in the protocol to encourage the interviewees to elaborate on certain is-sues. Participants

The participants2 in this study were six undergraduate students enrolled in a third-year French course and their language instructor. The Students

All six students were college students from different majors in their early 20s. Prior to our study, they had been studying French for at least five years. The students had a wide range of declared majors and minors from multiple colleges within the university system. Almost all of the students were seeking a degree related to foreign language (either a major or a minor). Table 1 below displays some basic background information concerning each of our participants.


348

Table 1 Background Information About Student Participants

Participant Gender Level Major Minor

David Male Freshman Engineering French;Music&Technology

Jane Female Junior Journalism&ArtDesign French&Int.Studies

Hannah Female Sophomore AnimalScience N/A

Brandee Female Sophomore Engineering N/A

Thomas Male Sophomore Engineering LanguagesandCulturesforProfessions

Alex Male Freshman Engineering LanguagesandCulturesforProfessions

As indicated by the survey results, the six students recruited for this study were representa-tive of the larger class in terms of motivational intensity and technology use for language learning. Figure 3 shows the range of responses to the motivational intensity part of the survey from our student participants as compared to the class (n=24) at large, whereas Figure 4 illustrates the range of responses to the other two sections of the survey (namely, computer use in English and computer use in French) from the study participants and the class as a whole. As can be seen in both figures, the six student participants of this study were, in general, within the range of the other students in the class. Only in one case did we find that one of the study students (Alex) fell slightly outside the range of the other stu-dents as he received the highest score for motivational intensity (see Figure 3). Figure 3 Survey Results: Motivational Intensity, study participants and class (n=24)

20


349

Figure 4 Survey Results: Computer Use, study participants and class (n=24)

To provide more context for the study, we asked our students questions about their lives and backgrounds. Although they do have some traits in common, their differences are more striking. David is a motivated student overall. His motivation in French learning originated from his passion for music and French culture. Although he did not have any experience traveling to French-speaking countries, he had been learning French for about five years before taking the class. Jane studies French because she is interested in different languages and cultures, wants to improve her speaking in French, and plans to study in France for one semester. Hannah is a highly motivated French learner and she considers herself lucky to be able to speak a foreign language. Hannah enjoys being in this class as it is different from a lot of the other classes that she has to take. She has been to France for two weeks and stayed with a friend with whom she still is in contact, chatting with her online occasionally. Brandee considers French as more like another class that she has to take off of the list rather than being a "skill set" to have. She had taken a more advanced French class before she took this particular class, so it was a relatively easy class for her. Thomas is an interna-tional student from Africa. He grew up speaking multiple languages, including French as a language of instruction for a few years. He moved to the US to start college. He hopes to be able to work as an engineer in France or a French-speaking part of Africa. Thomas speaks one of several home languages with his family and French with other African students as a lingua franca. Finally, Alex was born in Eastern Europe and moved to North America as a small child. His family lived in French speaking Canada where Alex began learning French for a few years before moving to the US. The Instructor

The instructor, Susan, is a native speaker of English. She started learning French in high school and received her PhD degree in French cinema studies. At the time of this research, Susan had been a French instructor at a university for about nine years and had taught both French language and French culture courses. She described her language teaching philoso-phy as a productive communicative language teaching approach that emphasizes meaning-ful communicative engagement with the target language. Susan strongly believed that the use of technology, especially the Internet, had many benefits for language learning, includ-ing a virtually unlimited access to other cultures. Furthermore, she also pointed out that


350

technology, specifically French cinema and PowerPoints, helped her teach the class by pro-viding the context for the activities. Procedures

The study reported here was part of a larger research project that involved six researchers. After receiving approval for the study from the institutional review board (IRB), one of the six researchers introduced the study to the 24 students enrolled in French class and asked them to fill out the survey on motivational intensity and technology use (see Appendix A). Out of 24 students who completed the survey, ten students responded to requests to schedule the interviews. Students who participated in all four interviews were offered gift certificates worth 40 US dollars. This particular study involved only the six students who were interviewed by the co-authors of this paper. The surveys completed by the class were administered at the beginning of the semester at the same time that the students were re-cruited for the interview aspect of the study. The data for this study were collected through four semi-structured interviews with the six students and their language teacher. Each student was consistently interviewed by the same researcher throughout the duration of the study. The teacher was interviewed by pairs of interviewers that rotated during the study. Thus, each researcher was able to interview the teacher at least once. The interviews were conducted throughout the semester with relatively equal intervals of approximately one month. The average length of the student interviews was 22 minutes ranging from 11 to 32 minutes, whereas the average length of the teacher interviews was 35 minutes. The researchers' use of an interview protocol helped to ensure consistency. All the interviews were recorded with the help of digital recording de-vices. The recorded audio files were subsequently downloaded to a computer and labeled by participant name and date. DATA ANALYSIS

Each recorded interview was transcribed using the qualitative data analysis software Tran-sana 2.2. The transcripts were reviewed and coded in several steps as shown in Figure 5. During the first step, the researchers collaboratively developed an initial coding scheme guided by the overall question of “How do students in an intermediate/advanced French class use technology to aid their French learning?” The initial coding scheme was developed to identify technology-assisted activities that were suggested by the instructor and those that were used by the students, as well as the rationale behind them. In step 2, the tran-scripts from the first round of interviews were analyzed based on the initial coding scheme. Next, in step 3, the researchers simultaneously improved the coding scheme and developed the following specific research questions:

1. What are the reasons for students’ use of particular technological tools to connect with French language and culture?

2. What is the teacher's rationale for using technology for teaching French? 3. To what extent do the teacher’s and students’ reasons for using these technologies

match? As shown in Figure 5, there were several iterations between narrowing down to specific re-search questions and improving the coding scheme. Finally, in step 4 the researchers ap-plied the revised coding to the transcripts and identified the emerging themes, namely that a) there was a mismatch between the teacher’s expectations and students’ use of technol-ogy, and b) the students and instructor had different reasons for using and avoiding tech-nology use for L2 learning.


351

Figure 5 Process of data analysis

In this multiple-case study, we employed an Activity Theory framework to answer the re-search questions. In particular, to answer the first research question (What are the reasons for students’ use of particular technological tools to connect with French language and cul-ture?) we examined the interactions among subjects (student participants), tools (different types of technology for language learning), and motives (students' reasons for adopting or rejecting technology) within the activity system of students. To answer the second research question (What is the teacher's rationale for using technology for teaching French?), we in-vestigated the interactions between subject (French teacher) and motive (her rationale for using technology) within the activity system of the teacher. Finally, to address the third re-search question (To what extent do the teacher’s and students’ reasons for using these technologies match?), we focused on the analysis of interactions and possible contradictions between the activity system of the students and the activity system of the instructor, namely between their motives (i.e., rationales for technology use). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Students' Use of Technology and Rationales

Results indicated that students used a variety of technology to help with their French learn-ing, including YouTube videos (Thomas, Alex, Jane), authentic French websites (David, Brandee), and various websites teaching French grammar and verb conjugation (David). More importantly, we found that the students chose to use or not to use different types of technology for various reasons. Specifically, students accepted all the required technology-


352

assisted activities including films, online essays, clicker quizzes, a wiki critique, and Activité Internet. However, they demonstrated different preferences for the teacher-recommended technologies and for technologies that they chose to use on their own. For example, when talking about the use of an online spelling and grammar checker program suggested by the instructor, Brandee, Jane and David reported that they used these resources every time they had a class assignment, whereas Alex, Hannah and Thomas did not use them because they did not feel the need for it. Following from Activity Theory, students' reasons for adopting or rejecting technologies in-volved several factors that affected the students' interaction with technology and their use of technology for learning French. Of the factors identified, time seemed to be a major is-sue. Some participants believed that technology helped them work more efficiently; others, however, thought they did not have enough time to explore the many opportunities offered by the potential of using technology. The seemingly contradictory results are explained as the students were talking about different aspects of technology use. To illustrate, Brandee, Jane and David thought that using technology could make learning faster or provide more convenience. As suggested by Brandee,

[I]t [technology] allows us to have more time to like learn more things, inter-net things are faster on the computer so, I don’t know, it gives us more time to learn more things (Brandee, Interview 2).

Clearly, Brandee was referring to technology as a tool that she was familiar with and, thus, she could make better use of it. David also commented that using "clicker" quizzes instead of paper and pencil tests made things in class more organized and easier to follow (David, Interview 1). In both cases, the students saw technology as effective tools when they knew those tools well. However, Thomas, Alex, and Jane, when expressing their concern about the lack of time for using technology, seemed to think that they needed more time to ex-plore technology before they could decide how to use it. For example, Jane said that she was too busy during the school year to spend much time online for French learning pur-poses: “Not really, not during school. I never really have time for that" (Jane, Interview 2). Thomas expressed the same concern saying that had he had more free time, he would have spent more time learning French online, for example by browsing French websites:

It's, a lot of things I don't do now is ‘cause I simply don't have time to do it. I'm sure if I had time on my hands, and uh I mean some of the websites are interesting and I probably wouldn't have come across them had someone else not shown me. Yeah, there's some interesting stuff (Thomas, Interview 2).

Thus, students seemed to be saying that they would have used technology if they had had more time and they agreed that technology could make the language learning process more time-efficient. The second factor underlying students' choice of technologies was their overall French lan-guage proficiency level identified through interviews with them and their instructor. Some less advanced participants who commented on the positive effects of online writing tools saw the benefits of using online dictionaries and online spelling and grammar checkers, such as bonpatron.com, while writing in French:

She's [Susan] given us a website bonpatron.com and it allows you to... it doesn't translate for you, but if you put in your text, then it shows you where your grammar is wrong and what you need to change, whether like the mas-culine-feminine forms are correct or not, and things like that. So that really helps to have that (Jane, Interview 2).


353

More advanced learners, for example Alex and Hannah, did not use the online spelling and grammar corrector recommended by the French instructor. As Alex states,

[S]he [Susan] suggested there's a University of Alberta website, it's like an actual corrector. Like, I think you can submit your essay and they'll give you suggestions um how to fix it. I've never used it um, I didn't know about it un-til this year but we turned in a few essays and I haven't used it yet. Um I don't know, I'm not sure I necessarily need it ‘cause I've written quite a few French essays. They‘ve usually turned out fine. So, I think a [paper] diction-ary is really all I need (Alex, Interview 1).

Thus, it appears that the more advanced learners felt their writing skills in French were strong and, therefore, they did not need any additional help provided by technology. A third factor was the students' perception of the usefulness of technology in relation to their needs of French learning. More specifically, all of our participants acknowledged that by adopting and using technology they were exposed to authentic French language and cul-ture, which they saw as a big advantage. As David put it,

…[T]he French film, the French music, that's all part of the French culture. So watching a film is like to get a first-hand experience as close as you can with-out going to France. I'd say it's a very good thing 'cause reading about the history of the Eiffel Tower in the textbook isn't the same as being in front of the Eiffel Tower. Reading about how French film has evolved over the years isn't as the same as seeing a couple of examples of French film (David, Inter-view 1).

In other words, when the students saw an agreement between what they needed and what they could gain from using technology, they were more willing to use the technology. When such an agreement was in question, they resisted the technology, even though they did not necessarily reject it openly. For example, one of the reasons why students did not want to use technology was because they did not believe technology could be used to help to im-prove their oral skills. David and Jane were the two students who expressed such a view repeatedly throughout the interviews. David, for example, thought that watching films and doing other technology-assisted activities had a minimal, if any, impact on the development of speaking in French:

Yeah. Definitely my French speaking hasn't... I mean, being around the French language, it [watching films] allows me to at least maintain where I am, but I haven't gone much further with the speaking (David, Interview 3).

Similarly, Jane did not see the role of technology, and movies in particular, in developing her oral skills either:

There's very little actual conversation during the class… Most of the time we spend watching the movie. We do have discussion about it… But I would say most of the time if there is speaking going on, so it's [Susan] (Jane, Interview 3).

Thus, the fact that some participants claimed to be aware of their French proficiency levels and chose technologies accordingly reflected the idea that they benefited from their interac-tions with technology and using it not only as a tool but also as a learning opportunity. However, their limited understanding of the role of technology in learning French appeared to have a negative impact on their use of technology for learning French, particularly when compared with the instructor's rationale discussed in the following sections.


354

Teacher's Rationale Behind Technology Integration

To answer the second research question, we explored the activity system of the teacher. Specifically, the element of the system that we examined was the motive (i.e., teacher's rationale for using technology in French class). The instructor has supported her pedagogical rationale for using technology-assisted activi-ties in the classroom and suggested other types of technological tools for students to use on their own. In particular, Susan regarded input and output activities as helpful for students to make form and meaning connections and believed that the use of technology such as films, internet activity, and wiki could facilitate these connections. Her passion of applying tech-nology in the French class was also due to the support provided by the Language Studies Resource Center at the university. According to Susan, in order to develop their language skills, students had to have adequate exposure to authentic input. She believed that authentic French movies would help students develop their oral skills by providing them with content and interesting topics, without which it would have been difficult to engage students in class discussions:

Students relate to films. It's fun... they are comfortable with films, and they are comfortable about talking sensitive issues because it's not their personal experience or their personal view, but the characters' in the film. So they sort of, like by proxy, they could vicariously talk about opinions and judgments, but not have to attach their own identity to that. Because they were talking about as it was displayed in the film. So it made a nice framework to talk about things, difficult subjects or general subjects (Susan, Interview 1).

Additionally, the instructor believed that by watching films, students were exposed to French spoken by people from different backgrounds in various socioeconomic, cultural, and linguistic contexts. In other words, films helped expand students' exposure to French used in the real world. Moreover, in Susan's opinion, French films provided more opportunities for students to make form-meaning connections due to the visual support, which helped them process the audio input more effectively and scaffold their comprehension of the movie con-tent:

And I also like the film because you've got that visual support. So students could always fall back on what they saw happened in the film. And then they could associate those form-meaning connections, they could associate the language, they could associate ideas that they were learning in French with what they actually saw in the film. So I think for language acquisition pur-poses, it's a very useful tool, and this is what we should be doing. And I argue that in second language acquisition theory, making those form-meaning con-nections, you know, we need to give students that structure, that scaffolding, that support (Susan, Interview 1).

A second reason for the instructor's integration of technology in this French language class was the motivating factor stimulated by technology (Susan, Interview 1). For instance, the instructor adopted "clicker" quizzes instead of traditional paper-and-pencil tests to motivate students to learn better. She believed that the immediate feedback provided by these quiz-zes would motivate students to be better prepared before classes and pay more attention in classes: "I think that for the student that's motivated hopefully, … the immediate feedback… I've never seen students take so many notes before" (Susan, Interview 2). Another reason why the instructor used technology was its perceived supportive effects. For instance, toward the end of the semester, she assigned pairs of students to edit each oth-


355

ers' papers with the help of a wiki. The instructor perceived wiki as a tool that could make students feel more comfortable about critiquing each others' papers in an asynchronous mode and thus create an encouraging and less intimidating environment for language learn-ing:

A self-esteem focused and building, and positive, positive reinforcement… it's not two students who are criticizing each other face-to-face, they're doing that not in the same confrontational kind of manner. It's all mediated through the wiki software (Susan, Interview 1).

Moreover, the instructor believed in the usefulness of other online tools, such as online dic-tionaries, translators, and grammar checkers, and suggested that the students use them when writing their compositions in French. She stated that these kinds of tools, in particular a grammar checker, could help students identify and correct mistakes in their writing:

The corrector will highlight a significant number of errors and then jog them, like grammar consciousness raising sorts of tasks, will jog them with ques-tions to help guide them to correcting the answer for themselves (Susan, In-terview 3).

Additionally, there were also managerial benefits brought by technology, which, according to Susan, made teaching easier to handle. For instance, "clicker" quiz results could be di-rectly saved into WebCT where both the instructor and the students could check grades anytime anywhere, whereas wikis could prevent the hassle of paper exchanges for the peer review activities:

I just have to save this… and the data gets all aggregated and processed and it gets sent into an Excel form, which I can then send directly to WebCT. So, from that like management aspect from my side, I think it's a fabulous tool (Susan, Interview 2).

Thus, the analysis of the motives in the activity system of the instructor revealed that Susan had clear and well-defined rationales for using technology in French class. These rationales were integrated in the pedagogical principles that guided her teach-ing and affected her choice of technological tools and activities that she used in the French class. Mismatch Between Students' and Teacher's Rationales For Using Technology

To answer the third research question, we examined the interactions between the activity system of the students and the activity system of the instructor. In particular, we explored contradictions between the motives of the two activity systems (namely, the mismatch be-tween students' and teacher's rationales for using technology). One of the key differences between the students' perspectives on technology and those of the instructor was the view on the purposes and functions of technology. Students seemed to view technology mostly as a tool — technology for technology's sake. The teacher, on the other hand, viewed technology as not only a tool to improve language, but also a conduit of language itself. This was evident from her rationale for choosing certain technological tools (e.g., French films, Activité Internet) and her overall belief structure about language learn-ing. Because students did not perceive technology as a source of authentic input to improve their language skills as the teacher did, some of them were reluctant to spend out-of-class time on practicing French using different types of technology. For instance, Jane and David complained about the lack of language practice in class, thus contrasting with the instruc-tor's view that watching the films and class presentations represented language practice.


356

Another mismatch between the motives of the two activity systems concerned the perceived usefulness of the tools recommended by the teacher. The teacher clearly suggested tools that she felt would be helpful to her students. However, some of these tools (e.g., grammar checker) were rejected by some students immediately because they did not perceive them as being helpful and appropriate for their level of language proficiency. Although, as men-tioned by Susan, some students told her that they were using the tools she suggested, most students who rejected these tools did not communicate their rejection to the instructor, which might have prompted her to suggest more advanced tools for language learning. Thus, it appears that this mismatch between the students' and teacher's perceptions con-cerning the efficiency of the instructor-recommended online tools involved only those sub-jects from the activity system of the students who were more proficient in French. The third contradiction between the students' and instructor's motives concerned the per-ceived ease of technology use. While the instructor believed that, despite some possible ini-tial frustration, using technology should be easy for students since they are "digital natives" (Prensky, 2001), some students found certain technological tools difficult to use and experi-enced problems integrating them into their French learning. This discrepancy in perceptions might be one of the reasons for some negative reactions among students to the use of technology. Hannah, for instance, experienced technical problems with the wiki tool when she could not login under her name and her wiki critique was deleted. This could be the rea-son why she did not like using a wiki for peer review and considered it problematic:

[I]n terms of just writing a paper and putting it on a wiki and I don't know, I don't really like that. I think it is kind of a hassle, and correcting it on the wiki is kind of a hassle because we have to do it in a certain way, and so I don't know, it's not my preferred way (Hannah, Interview 4).

As this example suggests, some technical difficulties experienced by the students were more frustrating than what the instructor expected. Thus, it seems that the instructor somewhat overestimated students' skills in using technology for learning French. Another contradiction involved the instructor's unawareness of all the types of technology that her students were using voluntarily outside of class. As mentioned above, students used a lot of other technologies, which they found effective for improving their French that were not suggested by the instructor. Although during our interviews with Susan she stated that some students had told her about their use of the suggested tools (e.g., grammar checkers), she did not seem to be fully aware of the tools that the students were using on their own. Finally, the instructor had a strong belief that technology could motivate students to study French, whereas the students did not always perceive technology as a big motivational tool. Susan saw movies as being fun for students and as something they felt comfortable with. Meanwhile, not all students found movies fun and motivating. In fact, Jane thought that watching movies in class took away from class time that otherwise could have been spent for practicing speaking skills. Furthermore, while the instructor considered Activité Internet to be motivating for students to learn authentic French language (Susan, Interview 1), David regarded it as another presentation activity (David, Interview 2). Additionally, Susan and some of her students (for example, Hannah) had different views toward the use of the wiki tool, which they perceived just as a technologically complicated and less preferred for-mat for peer reviews. However, the instructor expressed her awareness of the problem and pointed out that she felt the students were "indifferent" toward this technological tool and never fully realized its potential and purpose:


357

I think they saw it [wiki] as, well, instead of typing it up in Word, I'm just putting it in the wiki. I don't think they really saw. To them I think it was still word processing. I'm guessing. I never really asked them a lot about that. But that was sort of the impression that they gave me. They were kind of indiffer-ent about it. It was just another assignment. We're writing another paper, but instead of in Word, and then just, in the class, it's going to be in this format (Susan, Interview 1).

CONCLUSION This study attempted to investigate the use of technology for language learning using the Activity Theory framework. Specifically, we examined the types of technology (i.e., tools) used by university students enrolled in a technology-enhanced French language class, their reasons for adopting and rejecting certain types of technology (i.e., motives in the activity system of students), the teacher's rationale for implementing technology (i.e., motives in the activity system of the instructor), and a mismatch between students' and teacher's ra-tionales for the use of technology for French language learning purposes (i.e., contradictions between the motives of the two activity systems). We found that the students used a wide variety of technological tools, both those suggested by the French instructor (e.g., online dictionaries, grammar checker) and others that the students chose to use on their own (e.g., chat, YouTube, French websites). In addition, we discovered that the students had varied reasons for adopting or rejecting technology. On the one hand, the students used technologies because of their efficiency, effectiveness as tools, and their ability to access authentic French language produced by native speakers. On the other hand, they rejected technologies due to limited time, unnecessary help features, and the belief that technology did not help improve their French oral proficiency. The students seemed to have varied views of the affective benefits of using technology, and some of them appeared not to no-tice the linguistic benefits of using technology (namely, watching movies) for the develop-ment of L2 oral proficiency. Our major finding, however, concerned the mismatch between students' and instructor's rationale for using technology. In particular, our analysis revealed that the instructor had a wider perspective on technology use for language learning as her rationales for using tech-nology in L2 instruction were framed by theories of second language acquisition. The stu-dents, on the other hand, viewed technology mostly as a tool and rejected it when they did not see its purpose or did not need the skills the technology addressed. The mismatch also involved the instructor's lack of awareness of all the types of technology that the students were using voluntarily outside of class, as well as some technical problems that the students experienced when using technological tools suggested by the instructor. What these findings suggest is that technology appears to be an indispensable part of stu-dents' lives. Despite the claims that students are now increasingly digital natives (Prensky, 2001), it seems that a mere exposure to technology in everyday life does not automatically make them successful language learners who know how to effectively use technology for educational purposes. According to the findings of Winke and Goertler (2008), general com-puter skills do not equip L2 learners to handle complex CALL tasks and "training is indeed very much needed, even though students themselves are highly computer literate" (p. 497). Thus, in order to make technology-enhanced language classes more efficient, instructors still need to provide sufficient scaffolding for students when introducing new technological tools (such as a wiki) for language learning. Moreover, it seems essential for instructors to have a clear understanding of what types of technology students are using or not using to learn a foreign language, as well as students' rationales for adopting or rejecting certain technological tools. This can help instructors gear the class activities and assignments to-wards students' needs and preferences and re-purpose technological tools for use in L2 in-struction.


358

LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH One of the limitations of the current study is that the analysis of students' use of technology for language learning was based on self-reported data alone. Including observations of stu-dents' in-class use of technology in the design of future studies, for example, would contrib-ute to data triangulation and verify the credibility of students' and instructors’ claims. Future research might also benefit from investigating the types of technology that students use voluntarily on a regular basis for non-language learning purposes and exploring the ways of re-purposing these technologies for second language learning. Of particular interest here are mobile technologies, such as smart phones, iPhones, and iPods that are becoming more and more ubiquitous among students. Finally, simultaneous investigation of both students' and instructors' perceptions regarding the usefulness of technology for second language ac-quisition, on the one hand, and the evaluation of the actual impact of technology on the de-velopment of students' different language skills, on the other hand, might shed more light on our understanding of how technology can be used best for teaching and learning a for-eign language. NOTES 1 TurningPoint 2008, or “clickers,” is an audience response system that allows students to submit their responses to instructor's questions using a wireless keypad.

2 The names of all participants in this study are pseudonyms.

REFERENCES

Baltova, I. (1994). The impact of video on the comprehension skills of core French students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(3), 507-531.

Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in interna-tional telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/default.html

Beauvois, M. (1998). Conversations in slow motion: Computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(2), 198–217.

Beauvois, M., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward com-puter mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2-3), 27-45. Available at https://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Becker, H. (2000). Findings from the teaching, learning and computing survey: Is Larry Cuban right? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(51). Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://epaa.asu. edu/epaa/v8n51/

Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13(2), 213-231.

Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 60-81. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/belz/default.html

Blasszauer, J. (2001). Collaborative projects via the Internet. Teaching English with Technology: A Journal for Teachers of English, 1(6), 1–7.

Bradley, T., & Lomicka, L. (2000). A case study of learner interaction in technology-enhanced lan-guage learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing, 22(3), 347-368.

Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating Internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher-to-student-centered approaches. Language Learning and Technology, 6(3), 87–107. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandl/default.html


359

Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publish-ing.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Conole, G. (2008). Listening to the learner voice: The ever changing landscape of technology use for language students. ReCALL, 20(2), 124-140.

Coverdale-Jones, T. (2000). The use of video-conferencing as a communication tool for language learning: Issues and considerations. IALL Journal, 32(1), 27–40.

Doherty, K. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2001). Student survey says: Schools are probably not using educa-tional technology as wisely or effectively as they could. Education Week, 20(35), 45–48.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental re-search. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm

Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and mo-tivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Hertel, T. (2003). Using an e-mail exchange to promote cultural learning. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 386–396.

Holmes, B. (1998). Initial perceptions of CALL by Japanese university students. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11(4), 397-409.

Jones, L. C. (2003). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition with multimedia annotations: The students’ voice. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 41-65. Available at https://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Jones, L .C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 546-561.

Kim, H. K. (2008). Beyond motivation: ESL/EFL teachers’ perceptions of the role of computers. CALICO Journal, 25(2), 241-259.

Koszalka, T. A., & Wu, C. P. (2004). A cultural historical activity theory [CHAT] analysis of technology integration: Case study of two teachers. AECT 2004 Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL. Re-trieved November 30, 2008, from http://suedweb.syr.edu/faculty/TaKoszal/eletronic_portfolio /scholarship/AECTproceedings2004_Koszalka_Wu.pdf

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners’ communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35(1), 16–24.

Lee, L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html

Lee, L. (2008). Focus-on-form through collaborative scaffolding in expert-to-novice online interac-tion. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 53-72. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/ vol12num3/lee.pdf

Lim, C. P., & Hang, D. (2003). An activity theory approach to research of ICT integration in Singapore schools. Computers & Education, 41(1), 49-63.

Mathison, S., Meyer, T. R., & Vargas, J. (1999). Using verbal protocol methodology in the evaluation of software and hardware. New Directions for Evaluation, 84, 73-86.


360

Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2005). Foreign language learning with CMC: Forms of online instructional discourse in a hybrid Russian class. System, 33(1), 89–105.

Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-VanStrander, S., Tseng, C., & You, J. (2006). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 283-291). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Osuna, M. M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the World Wide Web to integrate Spanish language and cul-ture: Pilot study. Language Learning and Technology, 1(2), 71–92. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article4/default.html

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), pp. 1-6. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives, %20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Richards, C. (2005). The design of effective ICT-supported learning activities: Exemplary models, changing requirements, and new possibilities. Language Learning and Technology, 9(1), p. 60-79. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/richards/default.html

Rogers, C. V. (2002). Tradition and technology in language teaching. Dimension, 17-32.

Russell, D. R. (2002). Looking beyond the interface: Activity theory and distributed learning. In M. R. Lea, & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice (pp. 64-82). London: Routledge Falmer.

Salaberry, M. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospec-tive. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 41–56.

Sokolik, M. (2003). Student perceptions of classroom technology. CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 43-50.

Stepp-Greany, J. (2002). Student perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 165-180. Avail-able at http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/steppgreany/default.html

Strambi, A. (2004). Learners' perceptions of a web-enhanced learning environment: Insights from a longitudinal study. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 81-96.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491–501.

Thorne, S. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html

Transana (Version 2.2) [Software]. Available from http://www.transana.org/index.htm.

Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 49-78. Available at https://calico.org/journal TOC.php

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ware, P. D., & O'Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol12num1/wareodowd/ default.html

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2/3), 7-26. Available at https://calico.org/journalTOC.php

Weinberg, A., Peters, M., & Sarma, N. (2005). Learners' preferences for the use of technology in learning languages/Preferences des apprenants face a l'utilisation de la technologie dans l'ap-prentissage des langues. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguis-tique appliquee, 8(2), 211-231.

Weininger, M. J., & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: An investigation of learner language in MOO. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 329–349.


361

Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students’ computer access and literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482-509.

Yang, S. C. (2001a). Integrating computer-mediated tools into the language curriculum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 85–93.

Yang, S. C. (2001b). Language learning on the World Wide Web: An investigation of EFL learners’ atti-tudes and perceptions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), 155–181.

Yang, S. C., & Chen, Y.-J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 860-879.

AUTHORS’ BIODATA

Aliye Karabulut is a PhD student in Curriculum and Instructional Technology at Iowa State University. Her research interests are teacher development, CALL teacher education and Web 2.0 tools in education. Kimberly R. LeVelle is a PhD student in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University. Her research interests include computer-assisted language learning, teacher de-velopment, and materials development for online teaching. Jinrong Li is a PhD student in the program of Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State University. Her research interests are computer-mediated communication and second language acquisition, CALL and language assessment, and L2 grammar acquisition. Ruslan Suvorov is a PhD student in Applied Linguistics and Technology at Iowa State Uni-versity. His research interests include computer-assisted language learning and testing, and instructional technology and design. AUTHOR’S ADDRESS

Aliye Karabulut N062 Lagomarcino Hall Ames, IA 50011 USA E-mail: [email protected]


362

APPENDIX A Survey on Motivational Intensity and Technology Use PART 1: Motivational Intensity Please respond to each of the following questions by circling the letter of the option that best describes your typical opinion or behavior. 1. I actively think about what I have learned in my French class:

a) very frequently. b) hardly ever. c) once in a while.

2. If French were not taught in school, I would:

a) pick up French in everyday situations (i.e., read French books and newspa-pers, try to speak it whenever possible, etc.).

b) not bother learning French at all. c) try to obtain lessons in French somewhere else.

3. When I have a problem understanding something we are learning in French class, I:

a) immediately ask the teacher for help. b) only seek help just before the exam. c) just forget about it.

4. When it comes to French homework, I:

a) put some effort into it, but not as much as I could. b) work very carefully, making sure I understand everything. c) just skim over it.

5. Considering how I study French, I can honestly say that I:

a) do just enough work to get along. b) will pass on the basis of sheer luck or intelligence because I do very little

work. c) really try to learn French.

6. If my teacher wanted someone to participate in an extra French activity, I would:

a) definitely not volunteer. b) definitely volunteer. c) only do it if the teacher asked me directly.

7. After I get my French assignment back, I:

a) always rewrite them, correcting my mistakes. b) just throw them in my desk and forget them. c) look them over, but don’t bother correcting mistakes.

8. When I am in French class, I:

a) volunteer answers as much as possible. b) answer only the easier questions. c) never say anything.

9. If there were a local French T.V. station, I would:

a) never watch it. b) turn it on occasionally. c) try to watch it often.


363

10. When I hear a French song on the radio, I: a) listen to the music, paying attention only to the easy words. b) listen carefully and try to understand all the words. c) change the station.

From Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and mo-

tivation. London: Edward Arnold.

PART 2: Technology Use in English Please circle the position on the continuum that best describes your technology use in Eng-lish. 1. I use the Internet and other computer technology to go about my normal communica-tion, work, and entertainment. Many times each day

A few times a day

About once a day

At least once a week

Seldom or never

2. If I am writing a paper in English and need help finding or spelling a word, I use the lan-guage help in the word processing program or on the Internet. Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

3. I search on the Web for information that I need when I am writing a paper for class or for my job. Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

4. I shop for things like books, clothes, music, DVDs and other things on the Internet. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

5. I use the Internet to get access to news and other information in English. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

6. I use email, instant messenger, or an Internet voice communication tool such as Skype to communicate with friends and relatives. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

7. I surf the Web for fun to find interesting blogs to read, images to look at, videos to watch and music to listen to. For more than an hour every day

Almost everyday

About once a week

Less than once a week

Never


364

8. I participate in chat rooms and contribute to discussion groups and Wikis on the Web to extend my activities beyond my everyday circle of friends. For more than an hour every day

Almost everyday

About once a week


Never

9. I keep a blog to communicate in English with anyone who wants to know what I am do-ing or what I am writing about. Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never I don’t know

what a blog is. 10. I have an avatar that participates in Second Life. Frequently Occasionally Rarely I don’t have an

avatar. I don’t know what Second Life is.

PART 3: Technology Use in French Please circle the position on the continuum that best describes your technology use in French. 1. I use the Internet and other computer technology to get access to French language learning opportunities by using CD-ROMs, word processing, or the Internet. Many times each day

A few times a day

About once a day

At least once a week

Seldom or never

2. If I am writing a paper in French and need help finding or spelling a word, I use the lan-guage help in the word processing program or on the Internet. Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

3. I search on the Web for information in French that I need when I am writing a paper for a French class. Always Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

4. I shop on French Web sites for things like books, clothes, music, DVDs and other things on the Internet. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

5. I use the Internet to get access to news and other information in French. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never

6. I use email, instant messenger, or an Internet voice communication tool such as Skype to communicate with people in French. Normally Frequently Sometimes Seldom Never


365

7. I surf the Web for fun to find interesting things to look at in French—i.e., blogs to read, videos to watch and music to listen to. For more than an hour every day

Almost everyday

About once a week


Never

8. I participate in chat rooms and contribute to discussion groups and Wikis in French on the Web to extend my opportunities for learning French. For more than an hour every day

Almost everyday

About once a week


Never

9. I keep a blog to communicate in French with anyone who wants to know what I am do-ing or what I am writing about. Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never I don’t know

what a blog is. 10. I have an avatar that participates in a French language Second Life. Frequently Occasionally Rarely I don’t have an

avatar. I don’t know what Second Life is.


366

APPENDIX B Student Interview Protocol 1. Warm up

• Interviewer greets student and asks how things are going, then moves more specifi-cally about how things are going in the French class.

2. Technology use for French in General

• Interviewer finds out about any of the technologies student have been working with for their French (e.g., blogs, wikis, Second Life, chat, Skype, ICQ, Google, etc.)

• Interviewer probes as needed to elicit any technology use that the student has en-gaged in and the duration.

• Interviewer asks for specific descriptions about what the student did. • Interviewer asks about reasons for technology use, attempting to get at what

prompted the student to choose the technology. 3. Technology use for French in class

• Interviewer asks the students what more they learned through the Internet about the films they studied in class.

• Interviewer asks specifically about any technology-related project that the students were assigned for class and gets student to explain what he or she did, etc.

4. Effects of technology use

• Interviewer elicits the student’s perspectives about French that was learned by work-ing with the technology. This can include vocabulary, syntax, and expressions that students’ were able to associate with particular contexts.

• Interviewer asks the student about areas of French culture, history, and geography they learned by working with the technology.

• Interviewer asks the student about any new interests gained about French or French-speaking people through the use of technology (e.g., interest in study abroad).

• Interviewer asks student about any new technology skills learned by working on French through technology.

Technology f or French Learning: A Mismatch B e tween Expectations a nd Reality

Documents

Transcript of Technology f or French Learning: A Mismatch B e tween Expectations a nd Reality