J. Raphael HolmesOctober 16, 2012

Thesis Advisory Committee: Dr. Ross Perkins, Dr. Dazhi Yang, Dr. Arturo Rodriguez

Technology-Assisted Independent Study of English as a Second Language

• Definitions• Research problem and purpose• Research questions and significance• CALL overview and background information• Gaps in research• Study design, instruments, and data analysis • Findings- who participated• Findings- answers to research questions• Implications• Recommendations

Presentation outline

Independent, in-service ESL learners were interviewed and surveyed to learn about their use of CALL technology.

Research in brief:

Image from flickr.com/photos/bartelomeus/4184705426/

CALL – Computer assisted language learning (umbrella term, includes CALI, TELL, MALL, CAPT)

ESL – English as a second language (studied in an English-speaking country)

EFL – English as a foreign language (studied in a non-English-speaking country)

ICT – Information and communications technology

NLP – Natural language processing

Acronyms

Independent learner – A learner who is not enrolled in a formal class or taking private lessons

In-service learner – A learner who is living in an English-speaking country and using the language on a daily basis

Learner autonomy – A learner’s ability to take charge of his or her own learning (Holec, 1981), encompassing initiative, persistence, and resourcefulness (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010)

Definitions

Independent, in-service ESL learners- insufficient returns on effort, particularly acute with modern ICT developments.

“The web for language learning remains an interconnected quagmire of unorganized opportunities” (Howard, 2010, p. 196).

“[Tertiary EFL students] reported limited knowledge of how various technologies could be used for language learning” (Lai & Gu, 2011, p. 324).

“…students tend not to have adequate access to or literacy in using specialized tools that are often necessary for CALL” (Winke & Goertler, 2008, p. 482).

Research problem

• to explore the use of CALL technology by these learners

• to examine what technologies they use and what aspects of independent language learning are aided by technology

• to examine the relationship between CALL technology use and learner autonomy

Purpose of the study

1. What do they use?

2. What do they use it for?

3. How does this relate to learner autonomy?

Research questions (in brief)

1. What technologies do adult, independent, in-service learners use to engage in English language study?

2. Out of seven key components of language learning in generala and four that are specific to independent language learningb, which are facilitated by these learners’ uses of technology?

3. What is the relationship between the nature of these learners’ uses of technology and their levels of learner autonomy?

Research questions

a Reading, writing, listening, speaking, grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciationb Motivation, management, reflection, and feedback

• Independent language learners

• Language education, independent learning, & CALL researchers.

• Creators of CALL technology

• Classroom instructors

Who cares?

• A series of historical phases or approaches

• A collection of language learning technologies

• Essential components of language learning being provided by technology

Multiple ways to organize CALL

Historical phases / approaches

Image from humsci.stanford.edu/faculty/discoveries/

• Historical phases (Warschauer, 1996)

• behaviorist

• communicative

• integrative

• Approaches: (Bax, 2003)

• restricted

• open

• integrated

• Final phase and approach both imply normalization.

(This connects to RQ1, how CALL manifests itself for participants.)

• Media

• Communication technology

• Software

• Internet resources/tools/environments

• Old or new

• Maybe specific to language learners, maybe not

What does CALL look like?

(These form the basis of RQ2, what CALL is used for.)

• Reading, writing, listening, speaking- universally agreed upon

• Grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation- also broad consensus on these secondary components (e.g. Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2003; Levy & Hubbard, 2005)

Components of language learning

(These form the basis of RQ2.)

• Motivation- “fuel” driving learning endeavors (Garrison, 1997). Close ties to language learning (Ushioda, 2011) and technology use (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2009).

• Management- selection of objectives, materials, activities (Garrison, 1997; Pilling-Cormick, 1997; Chan et al., 2002).

• Reflection- metacognition, metalinguistic awareness (Schwienhorst, 2008; Garrison, 1997; Pilling-Cormick, 1997; Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991).

• Feedback- from technology or facilitated by technology (Nagata, 1993; Pilling-Cormick, 1997; Alm, 2006)

Components of independent learning

(This is the subject of RQ3, measured with an instrument.)

• As with other similar terms (e.g. self-directed learning, self-access learning, andragogy) can describe a behavior, a perspective, or an ability

• Thought to contribute to independent learning success (Ponton & Carr, 2000; Benson, 2007)

• Frequently studied in the context of classroom instruction

• Special relationship with language learning

More on learner autonomy

Gaps in research- what’s missing?

Image from jamesdawson.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

• Research on non-undergraduate learners

• Research on independent learning

• Studies with broad focus, rather than one or two aspects of language learning

• Studies addressing affective components (e.g. motivation)

• Studies addressing pronunciation

• Research connecting theoretically generalized learner autonomy and actual attitudes/behaviors

• Longitudinal studies

• Research on non-adult learners

• Research on languages other than English

Gaps in research- what’s missing?

(Zhao, 2003; Gan, 2004; Hurd, 2008; Validvia et al., 2011; Tanner & London, 2009)

• Semi-structured interview (10 participants)

• Electronic questionnaire (112 general participants, 40 specific to independent language learning website, antimoon.com)

• Mixed interview and survey design allowed for

• triangulation

• deeper interpretation of questionnaire results

• revision of questionnaire

Research design

• Interview: 30 minutes, 28 questions in five categories:• background info• English studying• technology• independence• two hypotheticals

• Questionnaire: 10 minutes, four sections: • demographic info• brief ESL self-assessment • technology use questions• learner autonomy instrument

Brief overview of instruments

• Interview- transcripts coded, then codes merged into six themes

• Questionnaire- Descriptive statistics for means and variances

• Questionnaire- Learner autonomy scores checked for correlation with other responses, looking for Pearson’s correlation coefficients > 0.3

Data analysis

• Interview• six native languages• narrow age range• mostly professional/technical occupations• all participants feeling that English was important to their

professional goals

• Questionnaire• 37 native languages• broad age range• spread of primary reasons for studying English• some differences between two sample groups

Findings- who participated?

• Linguistic isolationNobody corrects me. And I don’t have many chances to speak.If there are no American friends, I cannot expand my vocabulary.

• Motivating factorsSometimes Americans laugh a lot, and I want to understand why they

laugh.…I cannot express my opinion, or what I was thinking. That’s the big

motivation.

• Continuous learningIf I’m not sleeping, I think I’m learning English.

…I feel [studying is] something natural… I wouldn’t explicitly sit down to it.

Findings- 3 interview themes

Findings- continuous learning

• What CALL technologies do they use?• Media

• Communication tools

• Reference tools

• What don’t they use?• Language learning software

• Language learning websites

Findings- research question 1

• What do they use CALL technologies for?• Reading

• Listening

• Vocabulary

• Feedback*

• What don’t they use CALL for?• Speaking

• Learning management

• Feedback*

Findings- research question 2

Findings- research question 3

Is there a relationship between their use of CALL technology and their learner autonomy?

• Yes. Learner autonomy scores were correlated with • mobile/smart phone use*• use of spell check/grammar check• use of automatic translation• use of technology for grammar, reflection*, management*

The *’s denote correlations with p ≤ 0.01. Even with a large number of correlations checked, this is highly unlikely to occur by chance alone. All correlations were positive, as expected.

Findings- research question 3

Is there a relationship between their use of CALL technology and their learner autonomy?

• No. • Most tools and attitudes show no correlation with learner autonomy• No overlap in correlations between two survey samples• Interview data contradict the potential for a relationship

The study doesn’t provide a compelling answer to this question, but the findings raise interesting additional questions.

Implications• CALL developments may not reach these learners

• Some CALL tools may match these learners’ “study” habits better than others

• Sophisticated NLP tools may impact both these issues

Image from Edge et al., 2011

Recommendations• Find out more about these learners with more

rigorous data collection.

• Consider how CALL is serving these learners.

• Explore relationship between CALL and learner autonomy further. Address specific practices.

• Explore the degree to which generalizable learner autonomy applies to advanced language learning.

Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(3), 29-38.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL–past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28.

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003958

Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(1), 1-18.

Edge, D., Searle, E., Chiu, K., Zhao, J., & Landay, J. A. (2011). MicroMandarin: Mobile language learning in context. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 3169–3178). Vancouver, CA. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1979413

Gan, Z. (2004). Attitudes and strategies as predictors of self-directed language learning in an EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 389-411. doi:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2004.00071.x

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33. doi:10.1177/074171369704800103

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

Howard, C. D. (2011). Web 2.0 sites for collaborative self-access: The learning advisor vs. Google®. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(3), 159-211.

Hurd, S. (2008). Affect and strategy use in independent language learning. In: S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 218-236). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 218–236. Retrieved from http://http://oro.open.ac.uk/10049/

References

Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.568417

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2003). Students’ evaluation of CALL software programs. Educational Media International, 40(3-4), 293-304. doi:10.1080/0952398032000113211

Levy, M., & Hubbard, P. (2005). Why call CALL “CALL”? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 143-149. doi:10.1080/09588220500208884

Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.

Pilling-Cormick, J. (1997). Transformative and self-directed learning in practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 69-77.

Ponton, M.K., & Carr, P.B. (2000). Understanding and promoting autonomy in self-directed learning. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5(19), 271-284.

Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology investment: A review of findings from research. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. Routledge studies in computer assisted language learning. New York: Routledge.

Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 365-383. doi:10.1080/09588220701745817

Tanner, M. W., & Landon, M. M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13(3), 51-65.

References (cont’d)

Tarvin, W. L., & Al-Arishi, A. Y. (1991). Rethinking communicative language-teaching: Reflection and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 9-27.

Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3), 199-210. doi:10.1080/09588221.2010.538701

Valdivia, S., McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2011). The importance of affective factors in self-access language learning courses. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(2), 91-96.

Warschauer M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 43-62). Tokyo: Logos International. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm

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

Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. Calico Journal, 21(1), 7-28.

References (cont’d)