Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 2(3) by Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! Special Issue on CALL, E-learning and M-learning Contents: Volume 2, Number 3, September 2011 •

Editorial by Jo Mynard (100-106)

Articles • Emerging Technologies for Autonomous Language Learning by Mark Warschauer and Meei-Ling Liaw (107-118) •

Investigating Language Learning Activity Using a CALL Task in the Self-access Centre by Carlos Montoro and Regine Hampel (119-135)

• Alternatives for Making Language Learning Games More Appealing for Self-access Learning by Charatdao Intratat (136-152) • Enhancing Learner Autonomy in an On-line Editing Programme by Hebe Wong (153-169) • A Two Year Cross-Section of Student Use of Self-Access eLearning by Richard S. Pinner (170-181) • Pre-University Experience of ICT and Self-Access Learning in Japan by Thomas Lockley (182-194) • Web 2.0 Sites for Collaborative Self-Access: The Learning Advisor vs. Google® by Craig D. Howard (195-211) Perspectives • Retooling Perspectives on Technology’s Role in Language Education by Randall Davis (212-218) Summaries and work in progress • Cell Phones + Self-Access: A Summer Campaign by Kirsten Mashinter (219-227)

• Mobility in Learning: The Feasibility of Encouraging Language Learning on Smartphones by Keith Barrs (228-233) Resources • Introducing ‘Prepare for Success’, a Web-based Learning Resource to Help International Students get Ready for Study in the UK by Julie Watson (234-237)

"! ##! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 !

Editorial Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan CALL and Self-Access Welcome to the September 2011 issue of SiSAL Journal, a special issue on CALL, e-learning and m-learning. Technology has, in one form of another, been a part of self-access learning since the very first self-access centres (SACs) of the 1980s. Some of the better-funded centres featured elaborate listening and recording machinery and (occasionally) early personal computers. Early software programmes and language-learning websites available for self-access use tended to be aimed at individual study, initially following the language lab model, and were often designed to teach or test discrete language points. Of course, in 2011 programmes aimed at individual study do still exist and certainly have a place in self-access learning, particularly if a learner has identified a target language area that the software or website covers. However, in this special issue we go beyond language learning software and look at tools and technologies currently available to the learner as selfaccess resources. CALL and Learner Autonomy SACs are spaces (physical or virtual) offering opportunities and resources for outside-class learning. In addition to this pragmatic goal of providing access to such resources and opportunities, the other, ideological, goal of SACs is usually the promotion of learner autonomy (Sheerin, 1997). The question is, do current CALL resources available to learners support this philosophy? The perceived role of the computer by learners can have an impact on the way they approach a learning opportunity. For example, when a computer is assumed to have the role of a substitute teacher or tutor, â&#x20AC;&#x153;[c]ontrol is delegated to the computer to manage the learning, and in consequence, students will rely on its judgmentsâ&#x20AC;? (Levy, 1997, p 199). Despite being designed for self-study, software which presents units of work in a structured way can serve to make the learners less autonomous rather than more autonomous unless there is some mechanism in place to help the learners to critically evaluate their language learning needs before choosing the material (Mynard, 2009). Learning advisors or

"! #"! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! teachers may be available to assist with this, or there may be activities that encourage this critical reflection (Mynard, 2009). In this special issue the contributors consider powerful ways in which CALL can be used for supporting learner autonomy when learners take more responsibility for their learning by using computers as a tool rather than relying on computers to direct their learning. In particular, contributors explore ways in which CALL is currently being used for meaningful communication, collaboration, problem-solving, personalized language learning opportunities, and supporting learners. Social Dimensions of Learning Some of the contributors draw on the social element associated with effective language learning and consider tools that enable communication, collaboration and negotiation with others. For example, in the first article by Mark Warschauer and Meei-Ling Liaw, the authors discuss how new technologies can meet the diverse needs of adult language learners. They describe a range of emerging technologies that provide opportunities for learners to learn languages while interacting and collaborating with others. Kirsten Mashinter describes how a photography contest project at a university in Japan managed to engage learners in an English activity during the summer break by taking and sharing photos with others. The author provides some tips and considerations for educators thinking of establishing something similar at their institutions. Personalisation of Learning Experiences As educators, we recognized the importance of providing motivating texts and activities in order to sustain self-directed learning. CALL is one way to tap into a large pool of potentially motivating resources. It is also useful to consider studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; interests outside the learning environment. For example, one pastime that appeals to many people is gaming, and researchers have begun to discover how various kinds of computer-based games can be used by language learners. Charatdao Intratat surveyed one hundred students at her university in Thailand to understand more about

"! #$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! the kinds of games they liked best. The author was then able to analyse the characteristics of the games in order to see what made them so popular. The article may help readers understand why some language learning games are never used, and consider whether alternative games could be provided in SACs. Training and Planning Careful consideration is necessary when purchasing software or providing CALL resources and this includes planning and training. Randall Davis is well known by students and educators alike as the person who established one of the earliest self-access listening practice sites, Randallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ESL Cyber Listening Lab (http://&&&'()*+*,-'./01. In this special issue, the author shares his thoughts on the role of technology in language education. He considers learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs and expectations and comments on the importance of investing in training for CALL. Continuing on the theme of teacher training for CALL, Richard S. Pinner shares results of a large-scale, two-year study in language schools in the UK and Ireland. The author shows how teacher education of an e-learning programme resulted in increased usage of the programme by students. He suggests that educators need to also investigate how learners are engaging in eLearning in addition to how many learners are doing so. One factor that SAC managers might take into consideration when purchasing and offering CALL resources in a SAC is the extent to which learners will be ready and willing to use those resources. Thomas Lockley shares research he did in Japan that identified the extent to which learners had become familiar with technology use before starting university. Whereas students are taught various computer skills in high school, they are unlikely to use them and may even forget them. However, the author points out that these students are using technology as part of their daily lives and SAC managers should not shy away from promoting CALL in a self-access centre because of their perceived views of the students technological competence. Support for Learners Two of the contributions specifically cover ways in which learners can be supported by teachers and learning advisors in accessing precisely the kinds of CALL "! #%! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! materials that they need. Hebe Wong describes how learners in Hong Kong are given support with their writing by tutors making use of a bank of common mistakes and comments stored on a course management system (Blackboard). Learners are given feedback on their problematic writing areas and support in seeking relevant activities in order to address their writing problems. The results of a research project at the author’s institution suggest that learners provided with the feedback and self-access materials are able to reduce the number of errors in their writing effectively and also develop learner autonomy. Craig D. Howard notes how difficult it is for learners to locate collaborative language learning websites by themselves using search engines and makes the point the learners will need help from teachers and learning advisors in finding suitable websites. In his article he presents the results of a study which surveyed Web 2.0 sites and ranked their interactivity features. The author recommends a strategic shortcut for identifying sites that are highly interactive and can be recommended to learners who are interested in using CALL resources to interact and collaborate with others. Julie Watson also makes the point in her article that learners are not always able to find the resources they need. The author describes the features of a free online resource called Prepare for Success, which offers resources and support for international students preparing to study in the UK. Future Directions We have seen a shift in the nature of CALL in self-access over the last three decades from opportunities for individual study in a designated place, to anytime, anywhere access freely available from portable devices owned by the learners themselves. Keith Barrs has noticed the increase in the number of students with smartphones in his language classes in Japan. In his “work in progress” article, the author shares some preliminary findings related to how students are currently using smartphones for language study and practice and also makes some predictions about the normalisation of mobile technology use for language learning. Another future focus of CALL for self-access learning should be to investigate the ways in which learners are currently using technology (see, for example, Casellano, Mynard & Rubesch, 2011) and also the ways in which learners’ experience CALL tasks. In their article, Carlos Montoro and Regine Hampel take an activity"! #2! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! theoretical approach to studying how learners in a self-access centre in Mexico interact with CALL tools. The authors highlight the potential value of using activity theory to analyse various elements of a language learning activity. Implications for Learning Advisors The contributors cover a wide range of CALL resources offering students exciting possibilities for self-access learning. Even before the advent of such resources, challenges existed for self-directed learners in relation to identifying their language learning needs and also finding appropriate resources to address those needs. Perhaps increasing the choice has made things more difficult for learners. Language textbooks, software and websites usually contain a series of language points deemed the most useful and appropriate to learners at particular levels. In a language classroom, a teacher can decide the extent to which the language points should be covered and supplement the activities where necessary in order to meet the needs of his or her students. When learners are working independently without a teacher, the tendency might be for them to follow the materials in the textbook or piece of software in the order they are presented, regardless of whether the language points are necessary for them. With the amount of resources and tools available increasing, the role of the learning advisor may become increasingly more crucial in order to help the learners access appropriate materials in ways which target their specific language learning needs and goals.

Notes on the editor Jo Mynard is the Director of the Self-Access Learning Centre and Assistant Director of the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. She holds an Ed.D. in TEFL from the University of Exeter, UK and an M.Phil. in applied linguistics from Trinity College, Dublin. She has taught EFL in Ireland, Spain, England, the UAE and Japan, and has been involved in facilitating self-access learning since 1996. She is the convener of the upcoming conference â&#x20AC;&#x153;Advising for language learner autonomyâ&#x20AC;? to be held at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan on November 12th, 2011. http://learnerautonomy.org/advising2011

"! #3! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 100-106 ! References Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Technology use in a self-access center. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 12-27. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-Assisted Language Learning context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mynard, J. (2009). Benefits and challenges of computer-based resources for selfaccess. Paper given at the Independent Learning Association conference in Hong Kong. Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access in independent learning. In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 54-65). London: Longman.

Acknowledgements Many thanks to the contributors for submitting their work to SiSAL Journal, to the reviewers for their feedback and to the editorial team once again for their input, support and editing skills. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Elton LaClare as a new member of the SiSAL Journal editorial team. I particularly appreciated all the help this time with what turned into a bumper special issue.

Upcoming Issues We are still receiving submissions for the December 2011 issue on self-access success stories. Following that, we will be publishing the proceedings of the Advising 2011 conference as our March 2012 issue. We will then publish general issues rather than themed special issue for the remainder of the year. For submission details and deadlines, please check the website.

"! #4! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

Emerging Technologies for Autonomous Language Learning Mark Warschauer, University of California, Irvine Meei-Ling Liaw, National Taichung University, Taiwan Abstract Drawing on a lengthier review completed for the US National Institute for Literacy, this paper examines emerging technologies that are applicable to self-access and autonomous learning in the areas of listening and speaking, collaborative writing, reading and language structure, and online interaction. Digital media reviewed include podcasts, blogs, wikis, online writing sites, text-scaffolding software, concordancers, multiuser virtual environments, multiplayer games, and chatbots. For each of these technologies, we summarize recent research and discuss possible uses for autonomous language learning. Keywords: technology, computer-assisted language learning, CALL, online

We recently completed an in-depth analysis for the US National Institute for Literacy on the role of emerging technologies in adult language education (Warschauer & Liaw, 2010). In this paper, considering the diverse needs and various proficiency levels of adult learners, we summarize and update key points from that analysis that are most applicable to self-access and autonomous language learning. We consider four areas: (1) speaking and listening, (2) collaborative writing, (3) reading and language structure, and (4) online interaction. In each of these areas, we discuss technologies that have emerged or changed substantially in the last ten years, rather than earlier digital technologies such as word processing, e-mail, or Web browsing. Listening and Speaking The development and diffusion of software for producing, uploading, downloading and playing digital audio files (i.e., podcasts) make the flexible use of a wide range of audio material easier than ever for language learners. Hegelheimer and Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Bryan (2009) conducted a review of podcast resources and technologies for second-language education,

107

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

highlighting one resource, ESLpod.com, which includes more than 500 free downloadable audio files organized by topic and developed especially for Englishlanguage learners. Other premade podcasts are available to promote academic listening skills, facilitate preparation for listening tests, provide grammar tips or cover business English topics. As O’Bryan and Hegelheimer (2007) point out, beyond providing listening material for in-class use, podcasts can be a repository of classroom discussions or lectures for use outside of class to extend and amplify autonomous learning. An example of podcast use in adult education is provided by Ramírez and Thomsen (2008), who document a program titled “Teaching English and Careers in Hospitality, The Hotel TEACH Project.” Developed by the Center for Immigrant Education and Training at LaGuardia Community College in New York City, the program used a Blackboard site and podcasts to help adult immigrants develop the language skills expected of workers in the hospital industry. All students in the program were provided MP3 players to “extend the class” beyond normal instructional hours, “address varying skill levels,” and “individualize lessons” for students who worked in different hotel areas (p. 58). Podcast lessons included pronunciation or listening exercises geared to the particular needs of students, such as lessons on wines and spirits designed for a student who worked as a banquet server. A formal evaluation indicated that students in the program made substantial gains in both English and computer skills, resulting in many cases in increased career opportunities. Audio podcasts also offer learners the opportunity to record their own speech in multiple genres (reports, simulated broadcasts, oral presentations, etc.) to share with classmates or others (Lu, 2009) or to review themselves later to reflect on their languagelearning progress (Warschauer, 2006). Some educators report that students pay especially close attention to detailed aspects of their speech when recording such podcasts. Moving beyond podcasting, EnglishCentral (http://EnglishCentral.com) uses speech recognition to assist second language learners in improving their pronunciation and spoken language. The free online site was launched in 2009 with funding from Google. Learners choose from popular videos on the site, listen to words or sentences from them at controlled speeds, read and repeat what they have heard, and receive feedback on their pronunciation and syntax.

108

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

Since podcasts give language learners access to content at the time and place of their choice, they can be used not only for authentic listening in the classroom but also for self-study outside the classroom. Self-access learning centers in tertiary education are increasingly using them to provide learners with authentic listening materials (Peterson, 2010). For example, the self-access center at Kanda University of International Studies provides podcasts for its students to listen to authentic materials, answer comprehension questions, and practice pronunciations (Kershaw et al., 2010). Dudney and Hockly (2007) also point out that lectures can be recorded as podcasts so that students who miss a class can download and later listen to them on their computers or mobile devices. Collaborative Writing Blogs are a potentially valuable tool for teaching writing in the students’ second language. Their capacity for allowing users to publish and share their writings quickly, easily, and with only a minimum of computer knowledge opens a number of possibilities for the learning of second language writing. Bloch (2007) describes the use of blogging to promote critical literacy and academic writing among college students. In the study, a class blog was created for students to read and respond to each other’s posts and later use them in their academic papers. Bloch’s account focuses on the experiences of Abdullah, a Somali student who came to the United States as a teenager from East African refugee camps. Like many “generation 1.5” immigrants (i.e., people who move to a new country before or during their early teens), Abdullah felt most comfortable with vernacular English, but had difficulties with academic writing. At first, Abdullah drew upon his vernacular forms of literacy to write about his personal experience. Later, as he felt more comfortable in the social community of the class blog, he was able to present and argue both sides of a controversy over the use of a plagiarism detection Web site. After more blog writing on evaluations of online papers, Abdullah demonstrated “an ability to ‘weave’ the texts he had read with his own ideas, which could serve him well for meeting the course goals for academic writing” (p. 12). The benefits of blogging were demonstrated among learners of English as a foreign

109

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

language (EFL) by Fellner and Apple (2006), who assigned Japanese university students to write daily blogs in English during an intensive EFL course. Over a single week, students increased the amount of words they wrote nearly fourfold, and also dramatically increased their use of academic vocabulary. Though these two examples come from class settings, the existence of free blogging software (see, e.g., http://blogger.com) provides a medium for students to create public blogs on their own to discuss their personal and career interests. A case study by Lam (2000) demonstrates the benefit of this kind of autonomous online publishing for developing an identity as a competent user of English. Though in Lam's study, the learner made use of a Webpage rather than a blog for his English-language computer-mediated communication, the kind of site that was involved could be much more easily produced now with blog software. Finally, for advanced students of English, having a positive online presence through a self-published blog can also be helpful in the job market, by demonstrating to an employer a learner's expertise in English, technology use, and the content area of the blog. Wikis provide another medium for self-directed writing, though some wikis, such as Wikipedia, might be at a too-high level for some language learners. A simplified version, Simple English Wikipedia, has been created to ensure greater access to information for English-language learners and low-literacy adults and youth. Contributors to this new version are encouraged to use more basic vocabulary and grammatical structures, avoid idioms and jargon, and write shorter articles. Simple English Wikipedia can serve as a student research site for learners with beginning or intermediate literacy skills, or a place for learners with intermediate or advanced writing ability to contribute meaningful writing. Though writing for wikis is often done in a course context, Simple English Wikipedia can easily be accessed for autonomous reading and writing. A selfaccess center could assist this by providing workshops or guidance to students who want to learn how to contribute to a wiki. Another valuable tool for autonomous writing and collaboration is FanFiction.net, a site for people to post fictional writing on topics related to books, cartoons, games, comics, movies and television shows. Black (2008) carried out a two-year study of English-language learners who voluntarily participated on FanFiction.net in their own

110

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

time to identify how learners exploited the social, textual and technological elements of the networked community to scaffold and promote their reading and writing development. She found that the peer-review practices of the site tempered critique of form with enthusiasm for content and rhetoric, discouraged hostile feedback and attended to authorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs as communicated in their notes or in communication between writers and reviewers. All of this, according to Black, allowed English-language learners to develop a strong sense of audience, understand the social nature of writing, explore their identity as writers and master multiple modes of representation to achieve their rhetorical intent. Collaborative writing tools are valuable for promoting writing fluency and strategies and for helping students develop a more confident identity as English writers. In general, the tools may be less useful for promoting writing accuracy or basic writing mechanics, but that will depend in part on how they are used. In contexts where a focus on mechanics and accuracy is the principal goal, teachers or advisors can set up special activities using these tools to accomplish that goal (e.g., using wikis to find and correct mechanical errors in previously written texts) or supplement the tools with other resources, including the language structure tools described later in this paper. Students can then engage in these activities autonomously. Reading and Language Structure IBM has developed a program called Reading Companion to exploit speech recognition technology for helping people learn to read. The company is making the program available free to public libraries, community colleges and agencies offering adult literacy services (IBM, 2008). According to IBM, users log on to the Reading Companion web site and are presented with material to read. An on-screen mentor, or companion, "reads" a phrase to the user and then provides an opportunity for the user to read the material, using a headset microphone. Depending on the accuracy of what was read, the companion provides positive reinforcement (e.g., "You sound great!"), gives the user an opportunity to try again, or offers the correct reading of the words on the screen. As the user's skill

111

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

improves, the technology reads less material so that the learner reads more. (IBM, 2008, fourth paragraph). An evaluation study, based on surveys, interviews and site visits, found that Reading Companion was especially effective for helping ESL learners develop their language skills at a school or community organization (Brunner & Menon, 2007, pp. 7â&#x20AC;&#x201C;8) The study found that students liked the self-paced nature of the program and the opportunity to master different levels of vocabulary in contexts relevant to their needs. Another program called Live Ink has been developed to help online readers better understand natural language presented digitally. The program presents digital texts in a cascading format similar to poetry that is intended to better match the way the brain and eyes process meaning. Early research with Live Ink indicates it is highly promising for improving learners' reading comprehension, retention, and proficiency (Walker, Schloss, Fletcher, Vogel, & Walker 2005) and a free version of Live Ink's ClipRead software is available for download from the company's Website. In contrast to software designed for improving reading comprehension and proficiency, computer-based concordancing is one type of language analysis and structure tool that offers direct linguistic support to language learners. It provides an alphabetical index of all words in a text or corpus of texts, showing every contextual occurrence of a word. After a word or a phrase is entered into a concordancer, a selection of the sentences from the corpus containing the word or phrase appears. Concordancing is therefore ideal for checking collocation, the way words co-occur in a predictable pattern. Teachers also can use concordancing to help learners notice and record the most useful terms in a text. Though concordancing has been used in language learning for some 20 years (see, for example, Tribble & Jones, 1990), two recent developments greatly enhance its accessibility and scope. The first is that concordancing tools and large-scale corpora are now accessible for free on the World Wide Web. Previous use of concordancers involved installing special software on individual computers and developing or purchasing specialized corpora. Today, any teacher can introduce concordancing to students simply by pointing to free online sites such as Corpus Concordance English (http://www.lextutor.ca/concordancers/concord_e.html). These sites allow students to

112

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

investigate immediately how particular words or phrases are used in context and with what collocations they tend to occur. Second, whereas early large-scale corpora were based exclusively on written texts, there are now corpora of spoken texts, such as the free online Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/), which includes 1.8 million spoken words searchable by gender, age and position or role of the speaker, as well as by category of speech event. Online Interaction Multiuser virtual environments allow interaction among people in digitally simulated contexts. One of the most popular and best-known sites, Second Life, brings together tens of thousands of users daily who design avatars, build communities and interact with the environment. The stimuli-rich Second Life environment offers a variety of opportunities for second-language learners to produce language. In Second Life, English learners can work with other learners and native English speakers, role-play situations such as ordering at a restaurant, and participate in scavenger hunts and guided tours (Silva, 2008). These Second Life experiences then can be shared in a language classroom via presentations and essays. A rapidly expanding cottage industry is emerging within and around Second Life to promote second-language learning (Cooke-Plagwitz, 2008; Stevens 2008), and other virtual environments (e.g., Active Worlds) are being used for language teaching and learning as well (Peterson, 2005; Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009). These environments potentially combine the advantages of several other types of online applications. First, as in Web-based searches, users can seek and use information on a variety of topics. Second, as in multimodal production, users can create and post content. Third, as in computer-mediated communication, users can interact with others. One excellent way of bringing all of these together is through virtual world quests, in which students are instructed to adopt new identities and interact with others as part of an online investigation. These can be developed by staff in self-access centers and then shared with interested learners. Examples can be seen in Monash Chinese Island

113

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

(http://www.virtualhanyu.com), developed for autonomous study of Mandarin, where students are directed to search for mooncakes, find an ancient poet, and tend to the grave of two famous lovers. Another area for networked communication is through multi-player games. A pilot study was carried out to investigate the potential of multi-layer online games for secondlanguage learning. A group of adult ESL learners at a university was recruited to play a fantasy game called “Everquest II”—which is based on alternative universe races among elves, dwarves, ogres and other characters—for at least four hours per week (Waters, 2007). “Everquest” has extensive audio built in, as well as visual labels for all items in the game. The study found that carrying out tasks in the game and being exposed to both visual and auditory reinforcement in the process assisted players in developing vocabulary, but not necessarily grammar. Also, at least in this study, only students with an intermediate level of English or better could benefit from the immersive experience. Currently, research relating to the actual effects of using multiuser virtual environments to promote language learning may still be limited, their potential benefits for out-ofschool noninstitutional communicative language practices and using language for identity development and management are exciting (see, e.g., Thorne, Black, & Sykes, 2009). Social network sites are Web-based services that allow users to create digital identities for themselves, list other users with whom they have relationships or connections, and view and communicate with these and other users all within a bounded system (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). What began as a tool to help friends and affiliates connect and send messages to each other has now evolved into a complex, globally ubiquitous system that serves many purposes, from marketing (bands on MySpace) to professional networking (LinkedIn). Several social network sites have been set up specifically to connect language learners and mentors in English and other languages, including Livemocha, Lang-8, Mixi and Praxis Language. These sites usually combine access to self-study material and opportunities to practice and communicate with others through peer-to-peer or peer-to-mentor synchronous or asynchronous interaction. Two studies have been done on the use of social network sites for languagelearning immersion, both in foreign language contexts. Halvorsen (2009) carried out a small pilot project involving his university ESL students in Japan. During the course, the

114

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

students were instructed step-by-step on how to sign up for and log into MySpace, customize pages and backgrounds, enter basic personal information in the profile section, and manage and maintain friend lists. The blogging feature of MySpace was introduced, and the students learned to record and upload audio files to their MySpace pages using Audacity software. Afterward, the students were required to create and maintain MySpace pages using all of the tools integrated therein, such as chats, blogs, audio and video uploads, and, of course, e-mail. Three important course components were the creation of and response to blogs on a variety of topics; recording and uploading of student-generated audio files; and cross-cohort interactions between students from two classes using chat, e-mail and responses to blogsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;all of which were to be accomplished in English. Halvorsen found that the study encouraged student creativity and autonomy, as well as student collaboration both face-to-face in the classroom and on MySpace, especially among mixed-ability language learners, with peer support increasing and students taking on the role of mentor. Harrison (2008), also based in Japan, had his students sign up for Livemocha (http://www.livemocha.com/pages/about) as a supplementary language-learning tool in a university course. In Livemocha, learners can study languages through audiovisual lessons and interactive tools, while also interacting with people who want to help tutor the language (for a review of Livemocha, see Liaw, 2011). Limited results were achieved in Harrisonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s course within a three-month period, due partly to issues of trust with unknown distant mentors. Finally, chatbots present an outline for online interaction with a software-powered avatar in situations where live human interaction is not available or not preferred. They are an ideal tool for autonomous learning in that they require no teacher or partner. Fryer & Carpenter (2006), for example, point out how learners can use chatbots to independently practice language structures and can also view or print the transcripts of chat sessions for further reflection and analysis (Fryer & Carpenter, 2006). Conclusion New technologies provide more tools than ever before for adult learners to hone

115

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

their language skills through autonomous reading, listening, writing, and interaction. There is also a wide range of new hardware available to assist in these tasks, from lowcost netbook computers to highly interactive tablets such as the iPad to a wide variety of smartphones. Adult language learners are a population with diverse needs who have a combination of functional, vocational and/or academic purposes for study, and who enter programs at beginning, intermediate or advanced levels with varied proficiencies in different skill areas. The emerging technologies described above provide flexible means to developed language and literacy skills through authentic communication, collaboration, networking and scaffolding. They represent autonomous learning tools that can be placed in the hands of each individual learner, thus offering excellent ways to meet the needs of diverse students. About the contributors Mark Warschauer is Professor of Education and Informatics at the University of California, Irvine and editor of Language Learning & Technology journal. His most recent book is Learning in the Cloud: How (and Why) to Transform Schools with Digital Media (Teachers College Press, 2011). Meei-Ling Liaw is Professor of English at National Taichung University in Taiwan. Her research focuses on the use of computer technology for EFL learning and intercultural communication. Her publications have appeared in System, Foreign Language Annals, Computer-Assisted Language Learning, ReCALL, and Language Learning & Technology. References Black, R. W. (2008). Adolescents and online fan fiction. New York: Peter Lang. Bloch, J. (2007). Abdullahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blogging: A generation 1.5 student enters the blogosphere. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 128â&#x20AC;&#x201C;141. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and

116

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html Brunner, C., & Menon, R. (2007). Report to the IBM Corporation: Evaluating Reading Companion. New York: Education Development Center, Center for Children and Technology. Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008). New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 547–557. Cullimore, R. (2007). Blogging with ALDD learners—Advice for tutors. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.devon.gov.uk/contrast/daclbloggingwithalddlearners.pdf Dudneney, G., & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology. Harlow: Person Education Limited. Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15-26. Fryer, L., & Carpenter, R. (2006). Emerging Technologies: Bots as Language Learning Tools Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 8-14. Halvorsen, A. (2009). Social networking sites and critical language learning. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 237–258). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Harrison, R. (2008, December). Media in mediation: Teachers, learners, and learning environments. Paper presented at the Center for Language Studies International Conference (CLaSIC 2008), Singapore. Hegelheimer, V., & O’Bryan, A. (2009). Mobile technologies, podcasting, and language education. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 331–349). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. IBM. (2008). Welcome to Reading Companion! Retrieved November 25, 2008, from http://www.readingcompanion.org/aboutUs.html Kershaw, M., Mynard, J., Promnitz-Hayashi, L., Sakaguchi, M., Slobodniuk, A., Stillwell, C., & Yamamoto, K. (2010), Promoting autonomy through self-access materials design. In A. Stoke (Ed). JALT2009 Conference Proceedings: The Teaching-Learning Dialogue: An Active Mirror, pp. 151-159. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). Second language literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 457-482.

117

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 107-118

Liaw, M-L. (2011). Review of Livemocha. Language Learning and Technology, 15(1), 36-40. Lu, J. A. (2009). Podcasting as a next generation teaching resource. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning (pp. 350–365). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. O'Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL Journal, 19(2), 162–180. Peterson, E. (2010). Internet-based resources for developing listening. Studies in SelfAccess Learning, 1(2), 139-154. Peterson, M. (2005). Learning interaction in an avatar-based virtual environment: a preliminary study. PacCALL Journal 1(1), 29-40 Ramírez, T., & Thomsen, M. (2008). Immigrants in the workforce: The transition from worker to professional. In Transit, 3, 52–62. Silva, K. (2008). Second Life. TESL-EJ, 12(1). Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://teslej.org/ej45/m1.pdf Stevens, V. (2008). Class of the future. The Linguist, 47(3), 18–20. Thorne, S. Black, R. & Sykes, J. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in Internet interest communities and online gaming, The Modern Language Journal, 93, Focus Issue, 802-823. Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordancing in the classroom. Essex, UK: Longman. Walker, S., Schloss, P., Fletcher, C. R., Vogel, C. A., & Walker, R. C. (2005). Visualsyntactic text formatting: A new method to enhance online reading. Reading Online, 8(6). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.org/ Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: Learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Warschauer, M., & Liaw, M.-L. (2010). Emerging technologies in adult literacy and language education. Washington: National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http:///lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/technology_paper_2010.pdf Waters, J. K. (2007, October). On a quest for English. THE Journal. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.twelchconsulting.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/On_a_Quest_for_En glish.29872200.pdf.

118

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Investigating Language Learning Activity Using a CALL Task in the Self-access Centre Carlos Montoro, University of Guanajuato, Mexico Regine Hampel, The Open University, United Kingdom Abstract This article describes a small study of the language learning activity of individual learners using a CALL task in a self-access environment. The research focuses on the nature of the language learning activity, the most salient elements that make up its structure and major disturbances observed between and within some of those elements. It is set in the context of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and activity theory. A CALL task designed by the authors was made available online to be used as a research and learning tool. Empirical data was collected from two participants using ethnographic tools, such as participant observation and stimulated recall sessions. The analysis focuses on disturbances mainly involving the subject (i.e., the learner), mediating artefacts (e.g., the CALL task), the community (e.g., management and other self-access centre users) and the object of the activity (i.e., learning English). It is recommended that future studies should look deeper into contradictions in the learning activity from a cultural-historical perspective. Keywords: language learning activity, CALL task, activity theory, self-access, online

Learners and practitioners involved in processes of second language teaching and learning increasingly draw on the use of computers and online resources that mediate the learning to a greater or lesser extent. Research in this area often focuses on certain aspects of the learning process, such as the impact these tools have on the learners, to the detriment of other contributing factors, such as the community (i.e., those who are also involved in the learning activity system, such as peers and the institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s management), that make up a complex structure of activity where relationships between elements are dynamic, constantly shifting and occasionally contradictory, as shown below in this article. Therefore, a number of authors suggest that there is a need for research that captures the essence of the complex processes of learning rather than atomising the phenomenon under investigation. For instance, Ellis (2003) points out the lack of studies investigating tasks from a sociocultural perspective. In turn, Esteve, ArumĂ and

334!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Cañada (2003) argue for the need for empirical data. Benson (2007) draws attention to the scarcity of research on the use of self-study materials for self-instruction. Consequently, we aimed to address, from a sociocultural, activity-theoretical perspective, two fundamental questions in this study: (a) what is the nature and structure of the language learning activity of individual learners using a CALL task in the selfaccess centre and (b) what are the most salient disturbances (i.e., disruptions in the expected flow of learning actions) between and within the elements that make up the learning activity system. The research setting is one of ten new self-access centres recently opened by the University of Guanajuato (Mexico), where one of the authors works as a language adviser. The lack of real grounded knowledge of learner experiences and perceptions of learning languages in a self-access environment within the institution that seemed to accompany the expansion of language centres was one of the motivating factors of this study. CALL and Activity Theory The opening of the new self-access centres created new opportunities and challenges, such as the management and use of the state-of-the-art technology that came along with the new centres. Thus, a further source of motivation to conduct this study was the need to find out how learners would engage with the new technology. A CALL task1 was created by the authors to be used as a research and learning tool. CALL As this study involved the use of computers, it was all too tempting to place the focus of attention on the ‘computer’ element of the activity. Although the online medium operates according to certain affordances (“the constraints and possibilities for making meaning”, Hampel, 2006, p. 111), computers are not necessarily the only or the most important element in the learning activity. Levy’s (2000) thorough investigation suggests that CALL research has often focused on the effectiveness of technological resources, such as CALL tasks; in other words, the effect of those resources (and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1

An improved version of the CALL task used in the study is available at http://labspace.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=5947

3'2!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

technology, more generally) on the learner (e.g., Pellerin 1999). Notwithstanding the value of this kind of approach, our aim was not to find out the effect of one of the elements involved in the learning activity on another element, but to consider the relationships affecting all the elements and eventually concentrate on those relationships where disturbances were observed. However, the importance of a CALL task as a learning instrument cannot be ignored. Levy and Stockwell (2006) include CALL tasks under the umbrella of CALL materials, which they define as “the wide range of CALL artifacts or products that language teachers and designers create using technological resources” (Levy and Stockwell, 2006, p. 3). Given our focus on the learner, a CALL task is seen primarily as learning tool, as illustrated below. Nevertheless, as Gibson (1998) points out, technology does not have effects on its own; it depends on learners’ responses and learning environment, which includes the institutional context and its effect in terms of demands and constraints on learners (Laurillard, 2002). Activity Theory This study is based on the hypothesis that learners and their learning activity are influenced in a significant way by their sociocultural context. In line with both the broad sociocultural paradigm and activity-theoretical principles, we are assuming that any learning is embedded in sociocultural practices (Little, 1994) that account for how learners make sense of their learning experience, as opposed to the meaning others may attempt to impose on them. It is precisely how learners reach that personal, sociallyconstructed sense that we attempt to understand. For those readers not familiar with key activity-theoretical concepts, the assumption is that human activity is driven by needs that account for a general motivation. Motivation determines the orientation to tasks (Leontiev, 1978). Motives are socioculturally determined, as Wertsch, Minick and Arns (1984) demonstrate. Actions (“goal-directed processes”, Leontiev, 1978, p. 63) are directed by specific goals in the pursuit of a more general motive. Importantly, Leontiev states that an activity can be realised by performing different actions (i.e., in different ways). However, the conditions of the activity may change and thus require certain operations (“methods for accomplishing actions”, Leontiev, 1978, p. 65).

3'3!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

All the above elements belong to the same system, that is, activity, which is the unit of analysis here, as opposed to other possible units, such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) (Kuutti, 1996), mediated action (Wertsch, 1995), task (Long & Crookes, 1993) or situated action (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Ohta, 2001). The validity of activity theory resides in the fact that it takes a holistic, thorough and systematic approach to analysis, which is not always present in CALL studies, as Blin suggests (2005). Activity theory argues (Leontiev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1987; Engeström, 1987) that human activity is mediated by cultural artefacts, which are culturally, historically and socially produced and reproduced, by means of complex and multidimensional relationships, as Figure 1 illustrates.

Figure 1. Basic structure of activity (based on Engeström 1987, p. 59 and Vygotsky 1978, p. 40) In the case of language learners, their general motivation is a need to learn English. The goal can be something specific such as speaking. The mediating artefacts can be a CALL task (tool) designed to provide the learner with the opportunity to speak English and the language involved in completing the task (signs). Also key is the concept of agency, defined as “the ability and the need to act” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p. 33) typical of human beings. What seems to be missing from the above structure is the social context, its rules and collaboration with others. In order to address this, Engeström (1987; 1999) developed the notion of activity further, adding more elements and complexity to the basic structure, as shown below (Figure 2).

3''!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Figure 2. Complex structure of activity (Engeström, 1999, p. 31, based on Engeström 1987) This complex structure of activity has been used to analyse and interpret the learning activity of this study, which is seen as a unique and unified whole. Disturbances Definitions of tasks (Breen, 1987; Bygate, Skehan & Swain, 2001; Ellis, 2003; Klapper, 2003; Prabhu, 1987; Skehan, 1996) reveal some of the tensions underneath approaches focusing primarily on tasks as a unit of analysis. Firstly, most of them define task as an activity (or activities), providing no clear indication of how they interpret the concept of activity. Secondly, it is indeed worth noting that tasks are often described from the task designers’ perspective. Contrary to this, Ellis (2003, p. 5) and Breen (1987, p. 24) refer to a task as “a workplan”, suggesting that what is actually planned at the design stage may not coincide with what learners do with tasks. It might therefore be useful to establish a clear distinction between the task as a “behavioral blueprint” for learning or research purposes (Coughlan & Duff, 1994, p. 175) and the activity, that is, “the behavior that is actually produced when an individual (or group) performs a task” (Coughlan & Duff, 1994, p. 175). It is not tasks but rather what people do with tasks that generates learning: “tasks – or rather the activities that comprise participants’ task performances – serve as a form of mediation that can bring about learning” (Ellis, 2003, p. 178; added emphasis). Ellis himself specifically uses the term ‘the activity’ (Ellis, 2003, p. 180) later referring to what people do with tasks, as do Oxford (2006) and Beetham (2007).

3'*!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Activity may be defined as “the purposeful interaction of the subject with the world” (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2006, p. 31). In this case, learning activity refers to “a specific interaction of learner(s) with other(s) using specific tools and resources, orientated towards specific outcomes” (Beetham 2007, p. 28). Thus, the assumption in this study is that discrepancies between the expectations of language teacher-designers2 and learner behaviour represent initial ports of entry into the analysis and understanding of the learning activity under study. Such discrepancies are captured by Engeström and Sannino’s (2011) concept of disturbances, defined as “deviations from the normal scripted course of events” (Engeström & Sannino, 2011, p. 372). Engeström and Sannino’s concept from organizational studies has been applied to this study to analyse disturbances as deviations in learner behaviour from the language teacher-designer’s expected course of events. Methodology Participants and research setting Two female digital arts students, Isabella and Núria (not their real names), were chosen as learner-participants. The authors of this paper acted as teacher-researchers. The research setting was a self-access centre located at the remote and isolated Salamanca site of the University of Guanajuato (Mexico), offering undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the areas of engineering, business, English language teaching and digital arts. The layout of the self-access centre is shown in Figure 3.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2

Language teacher-designers refers to practitioners “who are increasingly required to create online materials for independent study or distance learning” (Levy & Stockwell, 2006, p. xii) and captures the ‘practitioner’ role of the authors of this study well. Later on in the article, the term teacher-researchers is used to reflect the increasing relevance of their ‘researcher’ role.

3'7!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Figure 3. Self-access centre layout The task The study consisted of NĂşria and Isabella engaging with a CALL task (henceforth referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the taskâ&#x20AC;?) on the 5th and 10th November 2009 respectively, with stimulated recall sessions following a day later.

Figure 4. Screenshot of the Introductions task used in the study The task, designed by the authors, required the learners to introduce themselves on video. It included support tools (electronic and otherwise) available to them online and in the self-access centre. The duration of the task was estimated at 90 minutes.

3'6!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

The task was made available on the institution’s electronic platform, Blackboard, which the learners were familiar with. Figure 4 is a screenshot showing a part of the task as it was presented to the learners. A YouTube video represented an idealised version of the task’s expected outcome. In designing the task, Ellis’ (2003) criterial features of a task and Chapelle’s (2001) six criteria for CALL task appropriateness were used. Wood, Bruner and Ross’ (1976) forms of scaffolding were also considered. Research approach An ethnographic, process-oriented, participatory, activity-theoretical approach was adopted in this study. Our focus was on learners and their interaction with a CALL task, in other words, on the learning process, and not the product. A desire to give learners a voice led us to choose a participatory research design. Activity theory gave this study direction because its cyclic nature makes it fit to understand the “transformations at the individual level, emphasizing the internalization of culturally given higher psychological functions” (Engeström, 1999, p. 35). Research methods The research methods used in the study were essentially qualitative (learner observation being our primary data source), in line with our interest in learners and what they say and do during their learning activity. During the experiment, data collection methods included recordings of computer-screen learner activity, webcam recordings of learner behaviour and utterances, and field notes. Other data-collection tools included a stimulated recall session (Gass & Mackey, 2000) with each individual participant after they completed the task. In the session, learners were presented with recall support in the form of a video recording of their performance, which was discussed in conversation with the researchers.

Data Analysis

3'8!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Data analysis was conducted using the complex structure of activity (see Figure 2) and activity theory concepts described earlier. The subject was each of the learners, Núria and Isabella. As for the object, the overall motive was learning English, whilst the specific goal set for the learner was oral practice for which the participants had expressed their preference earlier. Accordingly, the proposed outcome of this particular task was to create a video where the learners had to introduce themselves in English. Several tools or mediating artefacts were available, such as the computer, linguistic forms, the CALL task, online and physical dictionaries as well as other self-access tools and resources. Support was available within the community in the form of online and face-to-face teacher and peer support. There were a number of rules in place, such as time-limits (90 minutes to complete that section) and other task instructions, affordances of the self-access and online environments that shaped what learners could do, societal conventions that apply to meeting people and introductions, and the grammaticality of the language used. The community consisted of the teacher-researchers, stakeholders, peers, self-access centre staff, IT staff and the institution’s management. Additionally, imaginary Englishspeaking interlocutors (for instance, potential YouTube viewers) may also have been present as part of the community in the minds of the learners, affecting their behaviour and performance during the learning activity. The division of labour involved the teacher-researchers designing the task in advance, setting up the necessary software and hardware and being available during the task to provide support and after it to give feedback; the learners had to complete the task; peers could provide support if needed; self-access centre staff and IT staff helped during the set-up stage and were also available to provide support while learners engaged with the task. A number of disturbances observed between and within some of these elements are described below. In relation to the affordances of the online medium, closely linked to the use of a CALL task as a mediating artefact, some stability and reliability issues with Blackboard, the electronic platform hosting the task, became evident when Núria and Isabella had to send a questionnaire (included in the task) three times each, which involved retyping their answers with each new attempt, before it went through successfully in the case of the former (Isabella never managed to complete the task). As a result, the participants’ stress and frustration levels increased as it became impossible for them to complete whole sections of the task. This suggests that there is a

3'9!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

disturbance affecting the triangle consisting of the mediating artefact, that is, the task, the institution’s decision makers as members of the community who have a bearing on IT provision, and the object of the learning activity, as shown in Figure 5. Mediating artefact: CALL task

Object: Learning English

Community: University management

Figure 5. Disturbance affecting the triangle mediating artefact-community-object Another instance of this kind of disturbance was Núria’s attempt to open the chat-with-your-teacher application, which took 12 minutes to get established. What should have been a simple routine operation (i.e., asking a question online) became a labour-intensive action in response to unforeseen unfavourable conditions of this particular online medium. Later, Núria tried to open ebbudy.com, a web-based messenger application, to contact graduate friends who are more proficient in English (instances of more capable peers in the learning activity’s community) in case she needed help with the task; however, she could not get it to open due to connectivity issues. Likewise, learners could not watch the YouTube video provided as the task’s input nor could they use a recommended online dictionary application. Disturbances may also have existed at the level of the division of labour, as qualified IT support staff provision is less than adequate, although this arguably goes back to strategic decisions made by the institution’s management. As Laurillard (2002) argues, the institutional context has an impact on the learner context and learners’ responses. This is an area that deserves further analysis in future studies. Unlike Núria, Isabella was seen constantly reading out loud (which she later admitted to doing generally, not just when studying English). This could be a sign of what Vygotsky understands to be an intermediary stage prior to reading “in the head” and therefore a sign of underdeveloped literacy skills. A couple of months later, this

3':!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

issue was discussed with Isabella during an informal conversation in an attempt to raise her awareness and let her reap the benefits of taking part in the study. A similar issue was Núria’s refusal to write anything down in preparation for her video presentation. She later explained that she had been rehearsing what she was going to say in her video “in her head” on the bus, on her way to university, by remembering things she had already seen in class and lyrics from songs in English she often listens to. This appears to be a good example of dynamic shifts between inner speech and social speech, as described by Vygotsky (1987). On a practical level, most of the vocabulary she was going to use came from oral input sources, and was going to be used orally again in the task, which might explain her resistance to write down the vocabulary beforehand because, as she admitted, she could not even spell some of the words she was planning to use. However, the causes may also be connected to deeper systemic contradictions of a cultural-historical nature that could be revealed in future studies. In turn, Isabella did not make any notes either, which compounded with her level of stress resulted in her tendency to forget the meaning of words that she had just checked minutes earlier. An interesting turning point was her decision to abandon the Google translate tool she was using and pick up a physical dictionary from a self-access centre shelf instead. She found the latter helpful because it offered more than word-forword correspondences, such as notes on usage. Days later she came back to the selfaccess centre to make a note of the bibliographical details of the dictionary in order to buy it, which could mean that this experiment was formative in the Vygotskian sense after all and brought about desirable change at an individual level. Disturbances were observed too between the subject, the community of peers in the self-access centre and the object (Figure 6). Núria’s data shows that before she started speaking she looked around her in the self-access centre because she anticipated feeling self-conscious speaking within hearing distance of others. A similar feeling was echoed by Isabella, who was distracted by another self-access centre user who talked to her for seven minutes before she could begin work on the task, adding extra pressure to her limited time availability. The noise level in the self-access centre also affected Isabella, who whispered “Oh, shut up!” (Isabella experiment data) at one point when another user started speaking loudly nearby. The relationship between the participants and other self-access users seemed to play a significant role affecting the object of the learning activity (see Figure 6).

3'4!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Subject: Learner

Object: Learning English

Community: Other self-access centre users

Figure 6. Disturbance affecting the triangle subject-community-object By the time NĂşria and Isabella moved on to a grammar section of the task, it was evident by observing their facial expressions and deep sighs that they were overwhelmed by the complexity of the task. This issue seemed to be related not only to the actual learning environment but also to the overambitious design of the task and it informed changes we made to the task design subsequently. This is a clear sign of a disturbance existing between the subject, the task as a mediating artefact and the object, as shown in Figure 7.

Mediating artefact: CALL task

Subject: Learner

Object: Learning English

Figure 7. Disturbance affecting the triangle subject-mediating artefact-object Conclusions To summarise, we would like to highlight a number of key findings and point out some limitations. Firstly, the study has shown the potential value of using activity theory to analyse the various elements of the language learning activity and focus on the disturbances within and between elements as they emerged during the activity. Secondly, in terms of task design, the analysis of disturbances has revealed the complexity of designing and using a CALL task. In future designs, simpler task stages

3*2!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

and more support seem necessary to control learner frustration, especially in a context where the technology available is not fully reliable. Thirdly, in online and self-access environments, support is key (Benson, 2007, pp. 26-27, Ohta, 2001, p. 10). Hence, researchers may do well in conducting further analyses of the relationship between the subject (the learner), the mediating artefacts (especially the CALL task, but also the support tools such as dictionaries) and the object (learning English). Our study of only two individuals may raise questions about its generalisability. Although this small study had no aspirations for generalisability, further research should be conducted with larger samples in order to address this issue. As for our analysis of a single episode of learning activity, such a short timescale has been criticised by some authors (e.g., Lemke, 2001). Indeed, future studies would do well in engaging in a cultural-historical analysis of the institution in its context over a greater timespan to gain insights into collective practices and developmental issues. In short, the findings from our study could be the starting point for future largescale projects. Looking for deep-seated, systemic contradictions and exploring neighbouring activities, such as the institutional activity and the teaching activity, may prove to be productive avenues.

About the contributors Carlos Montoro is a Lecturer and a self-access centre adviser at the University of Guanajuato, Mexico. He is currently pursuing Doctorate in Education (EdD) studies at the Open University (UK). His research focuses on the use of online tasks in language learning from an activity-theoretical perspective. Dr. Regine Hampel is a Senior Lecturer in Modern Languages at the Open University (UK) and Director of Postgraduate Studies at the Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology. She has published widely on the use of technology in the context of language learning and teaching. Her current research focuses on Computer Mediated Communication (CMC), Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and the use of audio and videoconferencing and other online tools in educational settings.

3*3!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

References Beetham, H. (2007). An approach to learning activity design. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 26-40). London: Routledge. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), 21-40. Blin, F. (2005). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: an activity theoretical study. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Milton Keynes: Open University. Breen, M. (1987). Learner contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds.) Language learning tasks (pp. 23-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (Eds.) (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Longman. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. A. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an Activity Theory perspective. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.) Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity Theory and transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2011). Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 368-387. Esteve, O., Arumí, M., & Cañada, M. D. (2003). Hacia la autonomía del aprendiz en la enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras en el ámbito universitario: el enfoque por tareas como puente de unión entre el aprendizaje en el aula y el trabajo de autoaprendizaje. BELLS. Barcelona: Publicacions On-line de la Universitat de Barcelona.

3*'!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gibson, C. (1998). The distance learner in context. In C. C. Gibson (Ed.) Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes (pp. 113-125). Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity Theory and interaction design. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Klapper, J. (2003). Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent trends in language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 27, 33-42. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for Human-Computer Interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.) Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nded.). London: Routledge. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lemke, J. L. (2001).The long and the short of it. Comments on multiple timescale studies of human activity. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 10(1&2), 17-26. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Levy, M. (2000). Scope, goals and methods in CALL research: questions of coherence and autonomy. ReCALL 12(2), 170-195. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Little, D. (1994). Learner autonomy: A theoretical construct and its practical application. Die NeuerenSprachen, 93(5), 430-442. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1993). Units of analysis in syllabus design â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the case for task. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.) Tasks in a pedagogical context: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9-54). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

3**!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!33453*6! !

Ohta, A.S. (2001). Second languageaAcquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Oxford, R. (2006). Task-based language teaching and learning: An overview. Asian EFL Journal, 8(3), 94-121. Pellerin, M. (1999). Ordinateurs: Effaces ou pas? (La perspective dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;une enseignante). Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 381-390. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Problems of general psychology: including the volume Thinking and speech. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Mediated action and the study of communication: The lessons of L. S. Vygotsky & M. M. Bakhtin. The Communication Review, 1(2), 133-154. Wertsch, J., Minick, N., & Arns, F. (1984). The creation of context in joint problem solving. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Eds.) Everyday cognition. Its development in social contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.

3*7!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152

Alternatives for Making Language Learning Games More Appealing for Self-Access Learning Charatdao Intratat, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand Abstract This investigation of popular computer games in comparison with language learning games was designed to offer an insight into the potential of games to the field of self-access. The study surveyed and analyzed common characteristics of popular computer games and then compared them with characteristics of several language learning games. It also investigated the participants’ recommended characteristics of computer games for learning English. The data were collected from undergraduate students at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand. The results showed that the most conducive characteristics for attractive language learning games included animation, variety, planning strategy, virtual background, challenging action and accumulated reward. Keywords: game-based learning, language learning games, self-access learning material design Introduction The purpose of this paper is to investigate alternatives for making language learning games more appealing to learners in order to encourage their self-access learning. First, popular computer games were rated by the participants, and then their characteristics were analyzed and compared with language learning games. The study aimed to examine the typical characteristics of popular computer games that the participants recommended for learning English, including games designed specifically for that purpose. Evolution of Computer Games for Educational Purposes In the early days of computer-assisted instruction (CAI), materials were designed drawing on existing paper-based materials and the only changes were the interface. This was due to technological restrictions such as lack of hardware and software equipment, which effected downloading time and accessibility of the materials (Intratat, 2006). Later, with more advances in technology, CAI materials were more elaborately designed in order to motivate the learners and provide positive experiences. These experiences, according to many educational psychologists, stimulate the learner’s behavior and enhance his or her persistence on learning activities (Stipek, 1998).

136

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 The popularity of computer games has inspired educators to implement games into the learning process or to develop games for educational purposes. For example, Rosas et al. (2003) evaluated the effects of the introduction of educational videogames on learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics. Teacher reports and classroom observations confirmed an improvement in motivation to learn and a positive technological transfer of the experiment tool. The results suggested that computer games are feasible, entertaining, and an economic alternative to introducing other technology into the classroom. Another study by deHaan (2005) examined how much video game interactivity would help or hinder the noticing and recall of second language vocabulary in Japanese university undergraduates. The participants were divided into 40 pairs, in which one played the game and the other watched an identical video signal of the partner’s game. The individual’s ability to recall vocabulary in the games was compared and the results revealed that the players recalled significantly less vocabulary than the watchers. The researcher suggests that this seems to be a result of the extraneous cognitive load induced by the interactivity of the game. In the study, the researcher evaluated several video game genres and argued that sports, virtual pet, and simulation games are beneficial for language acquisition while role-playing and action/adventure games are not because the later group of games requires more attention and reaction from the players. Ang and Zaphiris (2008) examined the educational potential of video games in language learning. They discovered that the research of computer game-based language learning focused on two perspectives: the first one studied computer games as a virtual environment that supported language learning on its own (player-game interaction), and the second one studied computer games as a tool or medium to facilitate collaborative learning (player-player interaction). The research of the first type, which aimed to design a better game for teaching languages, found that game interfaces were advantageous for challenging the learners to interact quickly and provided clear feedback for self-assessment. The research of the second type aimed to study the broader social context of games, especially massively multiplayer online games (MMOGS) in which players around the world can communicate. Digital Game-Based Learning for Autonomous Learning Many educators, such as Yumuk (2002), state that Internet information search based programs can encourage learners to take more responsibility for their own learning. This matches the increased popularity of games and the characteristics of the learners in the Net Generation, also known as “Net Gen’ers,” who were “digital natives” familiar with the use of 137

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 computers and the Internet (Van Eck, 2006). Barnes, Marateo, and Ferris (2007) state that the learning styles of these Net Gen’ers tend to be independent and autonomous and these styles come from the habit of seeking and retrieving information from the Internet. They comment that modern class activities are also increasingly moving from traditional lecture to discussion-based classes that allow more individual expression. Since informative websites such as Wikipedia and other multimedia resources or digital storytelling such as YouTube are popular among Net Gen’ers, they recommend that educators can use technology and multimedia in appropriate ways to incorporate autonomous learning activities to foster information literacy and critical thinking skills. Learning theorists suggest that play is one of the most important venues for learning and games are useful education tools. The effectiveness of computer games as learning tools has also been investigated by several scholars. Certain characteristics of games appeal to players: rules; goals and objectives; outcome and feedback; conflict; competition; challenge; opposition; and interaction and representation, or story (Prensky, 2001). O’Neil and Chen (2005) show that the participants' problem-solving improves; i.e., their content understanding and problem-solving strategies are significantly increased after the game-playing. Four studies applying self-determination theory show that perception in game autonomy and competence are associated with game enjoyment, preferences, and changes in well-being between pre- and post-play (Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski, 2006). Three factors supporting the widespread public interest in games as learning tools are the ongoing research on the power of digital game-based learning (DGBL). Van Eck (2006) strongly encourages institutions to provide IT support to develop and implement DGBL as a learning revolution for a new generation of learners. Other studies by Chuang and Chen (2007) and Su (2008) show that when compared with traditional CAI, computer-based video games facilitate children's cognitive learning more effectively. Their results correspond with O’Neil and Chen’s results that computer-based video game-playing effectively facilitated a student's ability in problem-solving. This practice positively supports the students’ skills for autonomous learning. Gender and Types of Games Some studies suggest that males and females prefer different types of games. Kinzie and Joseph (2008) surveyed game activity preferences of middle school-aged children concerning their preferences and attitudes about play activity modes, game characters, 138

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 setting, and forms of help. They classify game activities into 6 play modes as follows: Explorative, Problem-Solving, Strategic, Social, Active, and Creative. They find gender differences in childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preferences and attitudes for several types of games such as Active, Strategic, and Creative play modes. They show that the Explorative mode of play appeals to all children especially girls and also recommend for game design to appeal to both boys and girls to build engagement which leads to learning. As for video game characters, the portrayal of women as sex objects is found by 28% of the 33 most popular Nintendo and Sega Genesis video games (Dietz, 1998). Males are more likely to be heroes and main characters, use more weapons, have more abilities and be more muscular and powerful. Female video game characters are more often supplemental, helpless, and more attractive and sexually provocative than male characters and are less likely to be strong and aggressive (Miller and Summers, 2007). The researchers say that understanding these video game messages is important to understand the effects games and magazines may have on behavior and attitudes. Social computer games such as The Sims are assumed to influence their players to take gender-specific roles in the games; especially, female-targeted games encourage roles and activities such as shopping and flirting. The study by Fantone (2009) argues that there are contradictory ways to consider the influence of socialization games upon genders because these games offer creative possibilities to players of both genders, even though in practice participation is often reduced to female consumers. In order to make games for students appealing, the gender factor should be considered. Computer Games and Language Learning Games in Thailand Computer games which are imported into Thailand from abroad are very popular mostly because they provide positive experiences to players such as enjoyment when playing and fulfill personal needs such as conquering, interest, curiosity, self-esteem, and selffulfillment (Facer, 2006; Van Eck, 2006). Many of the games are quite addictive to their target players, both children and adults, such as The Sims, Defense of the Ancient (DotA), and PangYa. On the other hand, as is the case elsewhere in the world, computer games for language learning tend to achieve much less success in attracting players to play (Van Eck, 2006). One reason may be the fact that learning games are usually limited to specific target groups. In Thailand, most commercial learning games are designed for teaching English to young children at primary level. These games frequently focus on teaching basic vocabulary, 139

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 such as matching vocabulary with pictures, crossword puzzles, and hangman. Only a few of these games respond to the demand of players such as college or university students whose language levels are more advanced. The other reason may be that these language learning games are not as interesting and challenging as popular games. The researcher expects that the materials implementing learning games that are as interesting as popular games would motivate the learner to pay more attention in learning than the material without games. On this basis, this paper reports on a study that investigated popular computer games in Thailand as rated by King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT) students. The features of these computer games were analyzed for motivating characteristics as a guideline to develop good learning games to encourage the students’ self-access language learning. Aims of the Study This study surveyed the opinions of undergraduate students who liked to play computer games. The aims of the study are as follows: •

To survey and analyze common characteristics of popular games

•

To compare them with characteristics of several language learning games

•

To investigate recommended characteristics of computer games for teaching English Methodology

The subjects in this study were one hundred undergraduate students at KMUTT in the first semester of the academic year 2010. All students were studying in the first and second years at the three biggest faculties: Engineering, Science, and Industrial Education Technology. These students, who declared that they liked playing computer games, were chosen as representatives of their groups, using stratified random sampling. The instrument used in the study was a set of questionnaires on the students’ opinion of the characteristics of their favorite computer games. The questionnaires consisted of openended questions and questions with Likert scale answers. There were 3 parts as follows: In the first part, the questions were open-ended. The subjects listed the 5 most popular computer games in their opinion from the fact that they personally like to play. In the second part, the subjects rated their favorites in the Likert rating scale from the most (5) to the least (1) out of the language games that were listed from the common classroom games. Examples 140

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 of these games are Hang Man, Puzzle Words, Snakes and Ladders, and Matching Game. The last part included questions where subjects rated their recommendations for characteristics of computer games for teaching English with the Likert rating scale from the most (5) to the least (1). Several characteristics were listed, such as animation, sound effects, action, and reward gathering. These characteristics were previously surveyed by Intratat (2009b) as the most desirable functions in CALL materials as rated by the students. The data obtained from the questionnaires were computed by case summary test, frequency test, t-test and ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffe test. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. The results of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; opinions were interpreted, applying the ranking by Best (1981) as follows: 1.00 - 1.70

= the least

1.80 - 2.50

= less

2.60 - 3.30

= moderate

3.40 - 4.10

= much

4.20 - 5.00

= the most Results of the study

The subjects listed the 5 most popular computer games in their opinion. The scores of the games were computed for frequency. All together, the subjects listed 99 computer games. The top ten computer games rated by the subjects were shown with percentages as follows: 1Facebook games (31%), 2- The Sims (26%), 3- DotA (22%), 4- Super Mario (18%), 5Audition (11%), 6- PangYa (9%), 7- Barking (8%), 8- PES 2010 (6%), 9- Plants vs. Zombies (5%), and 10- FIFA Online (5%). Descriptions of these games are listed in Appendix 1.

141

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 Table 1. Top Ten Popular Computer Games Computer games (frequency) Facebook games (31%)

characteristics of games*

occupational, casual, virtual role-play, competitive, communicative, full of variety, interactive, MMOGS The Sims occupational, virtual role(26%) play, interactive DotA imaginative role-play, (22%) interactive, collaborative, MMOGS Super Mario imaginative, interactive, (18%) Adventurous Audition virtual role-play as singers, (11%) competitive, interactive, MMOGS PangYa virtual role-play as golf (9%) players, competitive, interactive, MMOGS Barking casual, full of variety, (8%) interactive PES 2010 virtual role-play as football (6%) players, collaborative, competitive, interactive Plants vs. Zombies imaginative, competitive, (5%) interactive FIFA Online virtual role-play as football (5%) players, collaborative, competitive, interactive MMOGS * See Appendix 2 for a description of these characteristics.

Activity play modes explorative, strategic, problem-solving, social, active, creative strategic, problem-solving, social, active, creative strategic, problem-solving, active, creative explorative, problemsolving, active active, creative problem-solving, active, creative problem-solving, active problem-solving, active problem-solving, active, creative problem-solving, active

The subjects rated their preferences from the most (5) to the least (1) for in-house computer-based and paper-based language games that were listed. The rated scores of the games were computed for means and S.D. The language games were ranked according to their popularity as follows. The game that was rated as most popular was Detective game (! = 3.46, S.D. = 1.424). The games that were rated as moderately popular were Hangman (! = 3.37, S.D. = 1.488); Matching pictures with vocabulary (! = 3.19, S.D. = 1.426); Guessing vocabulary from hints (! = 3.08, S.D. = 1.300); Crossword puzzle (! = 3.03, S.D. = 1.306); Scrabble (! = 2.94, S.D. = 1.476); Ten Questions (! = 2.88, S.D. = 1.281); Snakes and Ladders (! = 2.81, S.D. = 1.405) and Odd one Out (! = 2.70, S.D. = 1.210).

142

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 Table 2. Most Popular Language Games Language games Detective

Means

characteristics of games*

Activity mode

3.46

problem-solving

Hangman

3.37

Matching Guessing Crossword

3.19 3.08 3.03

Scrabble

2.94

10 Questions Snakes & Ladders Odd one Out

2.88

full of variety, searching objects, glossary of words full of variety, casual, interactive, glossary of words glossary of words glossary of words glossary of words, collaborative/competitive glossary of words, competitive casual

2.81

casual, competitive

problem-solving

2.70

casual, glossary of words

problem-solving

problem-solving, active problem-solving problem-solving problem-solving problem-solving problem-solving

The subjects rated their recommendation for the listed characteristics of computerbased and paper-based language games with the Likert rating scale from the most (5) to the least (1). The rated scores were computed for means and S.D. The characteristics that were recommended by the subjects were as follows. The characteristics that were rated as much recommended were animation (! = 3.91, S.D. = 1.364); variety at each play (! = 3.66, S.D. = 1.334); virtual scenario (! = 3.63, S.D. = 1.323); challenge or action (! = 3.60, S.D. = 1.449); planning strategies (! = 3.59, S.D. = 1.334); music or sound effect (! = 3.57, S.D. = 1.312); interactive with player (! = 3.51, S.D. = 1.322); collecting points or rewards (! = 3.51, S.D. = 1.411); and conversation (! = 3.51, S.D. = 1.367). The characteristic that was rated as moderately recommended was time limit (! = 3.16, S.D. = 1.339). Gender Variations In developing language games for both male and female students, it is essential to consider the gender factor and game types. As surveyed by Kinzie and Joseph (2008) about the gender variations in preference of computer games in children, it is interesting to study about this variation in undergraduate students. The participants in the study composed of 58% 143

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 male students and 42% female students. There was a statistically significant difference at 0.05 levels between genders in only one popular game that is PES 2010. As computed by ttest, the means of female students who chose PES 2010 were higher than the means of male students. The details of this comparison are in Table 3 as follows: Table 3. Comparison of Computer Games Between Genders Computer games PES 2010

Gender

Means

S.D.

p-value

Male Female

5.5517 6.0000

1.36591 .00000

2.499

.015*

*p < .05 Discussion From the study, ten popular computer games as rated by the subjects included several common characteristics as follows: •

Animation: all of them are totally animated with elaborate graphic design and distinctive characters.

•

Challenge, competition or fighting: they provide a variety of challenge, whether in speedy action, fighting, racing, or problem-solving.

•

Sound effect and/or music: there usually are typical melodies that correspond to the players’ every action.

•

Rewards for successful action: they are in several forms such as marks to get more power in fighting, extra lives, upgrading levels, and treasure such as gold coins to buy more accessories,

•

Interaction with players: the immediate interface with players is the heart of an appealing game as well as clear feedback to the players’ task. Moreover, most casual games emphasize their interaction with sound effects.

•

Freedom in choosing characters and path: most games offer the players freedom in choosing the level of difficulty. Some games let the players choose their own hero and customize it independently.

•

MMOGS: 50% of the most popular games rated by the subjects are massively multiplayer online games (MMOGS), which can be played together by many players around the world via the Internet. These games allow communication among players and create more fun and fulfill the players’ desire of sociality.

144

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 â&#x20AC;˘

Time restriction: most games have no limit on playing time. The players can play them as long as they want to. Especially, if they lose the game, they can always restart and play once again.

â&#x20AC;˘

Most of the popular games were preferred by both genders without significant difference, except PES 2010. This game was chosen by more female subjects than male subjects. This result is in parallel with the study by Fantone (2009), which hints that certain games may not appeal only to their target players. In this study, PES 2010 which was the contemporary sports game at the time of the survey also appealed to the female subjects. One reason for this phenomenon may be that the female students, who are minorities in the fields of science and technology, are influenced by their male peers. Considering that these common characteristics make computer games attractive to

players, it is reasonable to say that the more appealing characteristics the games possess, the more they become popular. The results from the ratings of top ten popular games correspond with this opinion because the more popular games possess more attractive characteristics than the less popular. The most popular game, Facebook games, and the second most popular game, The Sims, include several occupation games with virtual scenario, which are full of strategic, problem-solving, social, active, and creative play modes for children and adults of both genders. In particular, Facebook games are casual and communicative which encourage online sociality. The challenge of the games requires agility, problem-solving skills and planning strategies. The outputs are in a wide range of marks, rewards, upgrading levels, treasure or extra accessories. From the fact that these two games were rated the first and second most popular among all subjects in the study regardless of gender, year of study and faculty, this clearly supports the impact of appealing characteristics in popular games. The third most popular game, Defense of the Ancient or DotA, is another MMOGS game with a huge number of members on the Internet. While the first two games are virtual role-playing and occupation games, DotA is an imaginative role-playing game. It is the saga of the kingdoms with distinctive characters that the players can choose as their personal hero and customize it with capacity and skills of fighting, ranks or social status which identify magic power or weapons, occupation, etc. The challenge of the game requires agility, fighting skills and planning strategies. The outputs are rewards in upgrading levels or status

145

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 and extra weapons. On the other hand, the less popular games such as PES 2010 and FIFA Online focus on single content and scenario, i.e. football matches. From the study, several computer-based and paper-based language games that were rated as very popular and moderately popular include some common characteristics that can be compared with those of computer games as follows: •

Communicative: all the five language games are the types of game that can be played in pairs or in groups. This encourages players to consult with each other and also fulfill their desire for socialization. However, they are not accessed by a huge number of members as popular MMOGS.

•

Challenge of thinking skills: the players practice their skills as well as acquiring language but they rarely use other skills such as explorative, active, creative or planning strategy. This clearly contradicts the previous result on characteristics of popular games. The distinctive example of thinking skill for problem-solving is found in the most popular of all language games listed, Detective game in which the players looked for objects hidden in the picture using vocabulary clues. Other language games that partly include this feature are Guessing vocabulary from hints and Crossword puzzle which are less popular.

•

Competition in speed of thinking and/or speaking: this requires quick reaction in class and adds a lively activity. All popular games challenge players with as many varieties as possible, but language games seldom do. The game which includes this feature is Hangman which is played within a time limit and Matching pictures with vocabulary that can be played in class and monitored by the teacher.

•

Sound effect and/or music: Some language games provide this additional feature such as sound effects to provide feedback in response to the players’ action, for example Hangman. When the player fills the right letter in the space, there is an appropriate interjection as a feedback to his/ her answer.

•

Reward in marks for successful action: though all of the language games listed provide rewards to motivate players, this feature in educational game is in fewer varieties than in popular games. From the above findings of the study, it is applicable for self-access centers to provide

language games which apply some characteristics of popular computer games so they can be more appealing to learners. In order to serve the goal of designers and developers of

146

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 computer-based language games for teaching English, here are four summarized suggestions from this study: •

As it was rated the most recommended characteristic, animation should be the most distinctive feature that attracts learners’ interest at first glance. This implies that graphic design of characters and virtual scenario is also important.

•

In order to maintain the players’ attention, the language games should include varied activity play modes, and many kinds and types of challenge, competition, sound effect and/or music as suggested by Prensky (2001).

•

The primary purpose of language games is for learning, while entertaining and interesting characteristics are supporting factors. As deHaan (2005) suggests, sports, virtual pet and simulation games are beneficial for second language vocabulary acquisition, language game designers should be aware about the genre of the games. Another remark is that the weak learners should be provided with some hints to help them overcome problems, and answer keys should be available to confirm students’ guesses. This kind of help is designed to reinforce students’ learning achievement. The technique from popular computer games such as adding some helping characters with conversation, for example a talking bird, a shop-keeper or a traveler, is applicable and useful. Restarting or extra lives is another important feature that strengthens the learners’ confidence.

•

A variety of rewards in marks and other tokens of achievement will stimulate the learners’ eagerness as can be seen in popular computer games. Furthermore, the popularity of MMGOS shows how players worldwide enjoy socializing as well as playing games. This can be applied to playing language games in groups since working in groups is beneficial for weak students. This is because shy learners get emotional support from the group so they have more confidence and have more fun when they work together with companions (Intratat, 2009a). This practice eventually enhances their skill development and promotes the player’s autonomous learning.

Summary This study investigated the popular computer games and language games as rated by undergraduate 1st and 2nd year students at KMUTT. It applied the same method of first person perspective to study computer games in order to support language learning as analyzed by Ang and Zaphiris (2008). The results of the study revealed that top ten computer games such as Facebook games, The Sims, and DotA have some common characteristics which are 147

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 appealing to players. These characteristics are, for example, animation, variety in each play, beautiful scenarios, challenge or action, planning strategies, and collecting points or rewards. These findings about recommended characteristics of computer language games correspond with the study of both Ang and Zaphiris (2008) and Prensky (2001) in the essential feature of interfaces or interactive feedback. The findings are also in parallel with Prensky’s key criteria that appeal to players such as outcome, and conflict/competition/challenge. Four recommended characteristics of computer language games are finally suggested for designers and developers of computer games for teaching language, especially English. The researcher hopes that language learning games will become useful alternatives to support and encourage the learners’ self-access learning. About the contributor Charatdao Intratat is an associate professor at the Department of Language, School of Liberal Arts, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Thailand. Her fields of interest include syntax, semantics and self-access materials for teaching English. Her CALL materials for KMUTT undergraduate students are on the web site <http://etsrc.lib.kmutt.ac.th/cai/chap_eng.html>

References Ang, C.S., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Computer games and Language Learning. In T. Kidd and H. Song (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Instructional Systems and Technology. Hershey, PA: I.G.I. Global. Best, J. W. (1981). Research in Education. (4th Ed). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Barnes, K., Marateo, R., & Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate, 3(4). Retrieved from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=382 (accessed April 1, 2007). Chuang, T.Y., & Chen, W.F. (2007). Effect of computer-based video games on children: An experimental study. Proceedings of The First IEEE International Workshop on Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning, Jhongli, Taiwan (114-118). deHaan, J. (2005). Learning language through video games: A Theoretical Framework, an Evaluation of Game Genres and questions for Future Research. In S. P. Schaffer & 148

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 M.L. Price (Eds) (pp. 229-239). Interactive Convergence: Critical Issues in Multimedia Volume 10. Facer, K. (2006). Computer games and learning. Retrieved from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/discussion_papers/Computer_Ga mes_and_Learning_discpaper.pdf Fantone, L. (2009). Female players from margin to centre: female sociality, digital consumer citizenship and reterritorialisations. Digital Creativity, 20 (4) (pp. 211-224). Intratat, C. (2006). Investigation on advantages and disadvantages in using English CALL! according to the opinions of Thai university students and lecturers. KMUTT Research and Development Journal, 30(1), 3-19. Intratat, C. (2009a). Thai style of social interaction: A case study of collaborative English learning at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. Proceedings of International Conference on Language, Society, and Culture in Asian Contexts (pp. 198-205). Intratat, C. (2009b). Development of self-access computer assisted language learning to improve English writing skills for undergraduate students at King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. KMUTT Research and Development Journal, 32(4), 424-434. Kinzie, M., & Joseph, D. (2008). Gender differences in game activity preferences of middle school children: implications for educational game design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56(5/6), 643-663. Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=119&sid=decb4294-5295 Miller, M.K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearance, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57(9-10) 733-742. Retrieved from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/j7173455721414x3/ O’Neil, H., & Chen, H.H. (2005). A formative evaluation of the training effectiveness of a computer game. Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of Southern California. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., Lopez, X., Lopez, V., Rodriguez, P., & Salinas, M. (2003). Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students. Computers & Education, 40(1), 71-94. Ryan, R., Rigby, C., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self determation theory approach. Motivation & Emotion 30(4) 344-360. Su, YC. (2008). Effects of computer game-based instruction on programming achievement of adult students in Taiwan. Riverside, CA, USA: La Sierra University.

149

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 Van Eck, R. (2006) Digital game-based learning: Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not just the digital natives who are restless. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2). Yumuk, A. (2002) Letting go of control to the learners: the role of the Internet in promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation course. Educational Research, 44(2), 141-156. List of Game Websites: Audition. Retrieved from: http://audition.playpark.com/ Barking games. Retrieved from: http://www.arcadeupload.com/ DotA. Retrieved from: http://www.playdota.com/ Facebook games. Retrieved from: http://www.gamesfacebook.net/ FIFA Online. Retrieved from: http://fifaonline2.iahgames.com/site/index.aspx PangYa. Retrieved from: http://pangya.ntreev.net/ PES 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.oz-game.com/board/index.php?topic=7414.0 Plants VS Zombies. Retrieved from: http://www.popcap.com/games/plants-vs-zombies/pc Super Mario. Retrieved from: http://www.supermario.com/ The Sims. Retrieved from: http://thesims.ea.com/ Appendix 1 Characteristics of video game Action game: It emphasizes physical challenges, including handâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;eye coordination and reaction-time. It includes diverse subgenres such as fighting games, shooting games, and racing games. Arcade game: It is originated from the coin-operated machines such as pin balls, racing or shooting games. Arcade games often have very short levels, simple and intuitive control schemes, and rapidly increasing difficulty such as Pac-Man and Donkey Kong. Casual game: It has simple rules in playing, and requires less commitment, skills and time than other complex games. It can be played with one-button mouse or cell phone keypad and the player can finish the game within a short time, for example Tetris, Solitaire, and Bejeweled. MMOG: It is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. Therefore, they are played on the Internet which can enable players to cooperate and compete with each other on a large scale, and sometimes to interact meaningfully with people around the world. Occupational game: video game that imitates the real life that the characters are at work such as running a pet shop, a farm, a coffee shop, a hospital, and etc. Players solve problems, manage the economy and accomplish the occupational tasks in order to win the goal of success

150

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 Role-Playing video game (RPG): video game that relies on a highly developed story and setting that can be virtual or imaginative such as in fantasy or science fiction universe. In role-playing game, players control one or several characters with customized capacity to accomplish a number of quests. Players will walk through, talking to non-player characters, picking up objects, and avoiding traps. The plot of the game is often developed after the decision of the players or the location of the setting scenery. The game is finished when the characters reach their goal of success. Virtual role-playing games imitate real life such as The Sims, Audition, FIFA online. Imaginative role-playing games develop their plots in fantasy world such as DotA, Age of Empire and Ragnarok. Strategy video game is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. Most strategy games involve warfare or competition to win the opponents with tactical and strategic considerations. They also often challenge the player's ability to explore, or manage an economy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/)

Appendix 2 Brief description of top ten popular games Audition: a downloadable multiplayer online casual rhythm game. Players can collect points to buy goods/ reward. It is also known as X-BEAT in Japan. The Asian and North American versions remain the most popular, with millions of members registered. Barking: multiplatform for casual video games such as card games, puzzle, shooting and arcade games. Defense of the Ancients (DotA): real-time strategy video game with custom scenario from Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and its expansion. The players try to destroy the opponentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Ancients, heavily guarded structures at opposing corners of the map based on the "Aeon of Strife" map for StarCraft. As in role-playing games, players level up their heroes and use gold to buy equipment during the mission. Facebook games: platform of miscellaneous casual games such as occupation, action, arcade, puzzle, racing, shooting, sports and strategy games by social network service. In most games, players collect points to upgrade level. FIFA online: Play Station 3 / online football game. It is currently one of the most successful football games on the internet. After starting the game players make a manager, choose their league team and improve it by earning in game currency in different modes and using it in the Game Store. Also, after each 10 matches players will be rewarded randomly with a player contract item which allows a player to be signed for a certain amount of money, or a stats boost that can be equipped on players. Players also have manager levels which increase with the XP gained after every match.

151

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 136-152 PangYa: an online multiplayer casual golf simulation game designed by a Korean development company. The full game is free to download, although certain special items for the game (such as clothes for characters, new equipment, and decorations) can only be purchased with real money. The game awards players with Pang, a currency that can be used to upgrade a character, or items to gain the upper hand during a course. Plants VS Zombies: strategy game that players plant several kind of trees and collect points to fortify their defense against the zombies. Pro Evolution Soccer 2010 (Pes2010): Play Station 3 / online football game. It contains visuals, animations and moves, including live player expressions and movements that will change according to conditions on the field. The players can choose characters and role-play them. Super Mario: adventure of a hero. Players control the hero Mario (and in a two-player game, a second player acts as Mario's brother Luigi) as he travels through the Mushroom Kingdom in order to rescue Princess Toadstool from the antagonist Bowser. While exploring the scenario, the players collect points or gold to gain more lives, weapons or upgrade levels. The Sims: imitating life and role-playing game. Players choose characters and are given the tasks to interact with other characters while maintaining the happiness of the characters and their social relationship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/)

152

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Enhancing Learner Autonomy in an On-line Editing Programme Hebe Wong, City University Hong Kong Abstract Little (1999) argues that in formal educational contexts, “the basis of learner autonomy is acceptance of responsibility for one’s own learning” (p.11). An autonomous learner takes responsibility for various aspects of learning (Benson & Voller, 1997; Holec, 1981). This study examines how learner autonomy opportunities were provided at various stages of writing in an on-line editing programme for a group of electronic engineering students and how the students took charge of their language learning when receiving feedback on their technical writing. The impact on their own learning effectiveness of the decisions students made is also discussed. Keywords: online feedback, WAC (writing-across-the curriculum), comment bank In recent years, attention has been drawn to the fact that many undergraduates are not communicating as well in their academic majors as they are expected to (Bruffee, 2008; Shapiro, 1991). In Hong Kong, where considerable resources are devoted to tertiary level language foundation programmes, this trend may suggest that the general English language input students receive may not be able to meet their discipline-specific needs in communicating in the technical discourse communities in which they aspire to be members of. While some writing teachers believe that there are features of academic prose which are common across disciplines and that learning the common core of academic writing should be enough to enable students to communicate technical content, others argue that there are great differences in writing practices in different disciplines and students who are familiar with “classroom genres” may find it difficult to move into an academic or professional discourse community (Johns, 1995). For second language learners at tertiary level, therefore, academic writing in their subject major discipline can be a very frustrating experience (Harvey & Chickie-Wolfe, 2007). It is thus important for students to master the conventions of the specific fields they are studying. The emergence of writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programmes in the US in the 1970s (Thaiss, 1998) was one response to concerns such as these. WAC programmes were built on the

153

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 belief that second language learners can learn English more effectively through content (Mohan, 1986). In the City University of Hong Kong (CityUHK), Electronic Engineering (EE) students are asked to write project proposals, lab reports, progress reports, and final reports, which many of them have not been trained to write. The traditional language training that students have received in their secondary schools has not prepared them to meet the challenges of technical discourse production. EE faculty members are concerned that their students acquire the ability to effectively express the many good EE-specific ideas that they have to the EE technical community. In CityUHK, all EE students are required to attend at least one credit-bearing language course which can range from 24 to 39 contact hours and is designed to help students write up general technical reports. However faculty members have been concerned as to how to ensure that language input is timely enough to help students build up the language competence they need to function in their technical profession, and how, in the long term, to help them take charge of their own learning. To respond to the concerns of the EE faculty, a writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programme, the Language Companion Course (LCC), was integrated into the syllabus of one of the EE academic subjects. The aim was to empower students to learn to write and write to learn (Thaiss, 1998). The programme has two objectives: (i) to help students to improve their English writing ability within their own subject discipline, and (ii) to help students to develop autonomy in learning the conventions of written English. Programme Design The LCC provides an online platform for students to collect feedback on their written work from language specialists. Autonomy opportunities are embedded at different stages of the writing process. Participation in the programme is voluntary for subject teachers, thus attracting only those teachers who are enthusiastic and dedicated to helping students to improve their English writing abilities in the discipline. Since its inception in 2007, the LCC has provided online editing advice to 15 academic programmes. In some programmes, a language mark, weighted at a maximum of 10% of the total marks of the essay, was given to encourage students to take part in the project. In

154

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 others, no language mark was given. Student participation is completely voluntary and they can join in or drop out at any stage of the project. Before Writing: At the beginning of the programme, subject teachers who agree to take part in the project, work with a language specialist to discuss the language requirements of the written assignments and the input that should be provided for the students. Then a onehour writing workshop which highlights the rhetorical focuses and discourse moves of the assignments is advertised on the course Blackboard site to prepare students for writing the course assignment. The workshop is conducted in the normal class time, but the materials are posted on-line to give students an alternative learning option. Students can refer to their learning needs and then decide the learning methods they will adopt to address them. Workshop attendance is not counted as class contact time; it is again optional for students to come to the workshop or to study the handouts at home. The participation of individual academic faculties and programmes varies. The LCC has helped students in some academic programmes with one written assignment while other programmes have invited LCC input for two. When students need to send in two essays for language advice, two workshops will be given. In addition to explaining the rhetorical requirements of each essay type, some common problems observed in the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; writing of the first essay will be mentioned in the second workshop to help students to avoid making the same mistakes again in the second essay. A group of high-calibre teachers were recruited to work part-time to provide feedback on a maximum of two drafts that students were entitled to send in. All of these on-line tutors had at least 5 years of experience in teaching English in tertiary institutions and most of them were actually part-time tutors for language courses in the same university where the students were studying. Besides willingness to become an autonomous learner, students should possess both the knowledge and skills to act independently (Littlewood, 1997). A folder containing guidelines for both students and tutors is posted on-line to explain the project objectives and its design and to advise participants on the computer skills they need for the programme.

155

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Table 1 outlines the opportunities provided to students to take charge of their learning before taking part in the online writing programme. ! Table 1. Learner Autonomy Opportunities Provided Before Writing ! "#$%&#%!$'()&)*+! /0$*,1#.! ),,)%('&-(-#.! $2 3#!$4$%#!)5!(6#-%!1#$%&-&7! • %#9)7&-:#!)&#;.!.(%#&7(6.<!4#$=&#..#.!$&8! &##8.! &##8.!5)%!-*,%)>#*#&(!-&!(#96&-9$1!4%-(-&7! 32 3#!-&>)1>#8!-&!.#((-&7!(6#-%! • ),(!()!?)-&!(6#!4%-(-&7!,%)?#9(!#>#&!(6)'76! )4&!1$&7'$7#!1#$%&-&7!7)$1.! (6#%#!*$+!&)(!3#!$&+!1$&7'$7#!*$%=.! $4$%8#8!5)%!,$%(-9-,$(-)&! 92 3#!$31#!()!.#1#9(!(6#-%!)4&! • !8#9-8#!-5!(6#+!,%#5#%!()!$((#&8!(6#!4%-(-&7! 1#$%&-&7!*$(#%-$1.!$&8! 4)%=.6),.!)%!.('8+!)&@1-&#!)%!8)!(6#!3)(6! *#(6)8.! ! During Writing: Students taking part in the LCC are entitled to submit a total of two drafts for language advice before they send in a final version to the language tutors for a language mark and the same version to their subject teacher for a content mark. When students are writing the first draft, they can make reference to on-line resources, such as an on-line dictionary and collocation check, recommended to them and hyper-linked to their course Blackboard site. When they are writing the second and subsequent drafts, they can refer to the language advice given on their previous drafts. This will be explained in the next section in more detail. After Writing: A variety of feedback, including computer–generated comments, marginal notes, overall comments and a checklist of the accomplishments in terms of Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO) (Biggs & Tang, 2007) is given on all the drafts submitted. More opportunities are given to students to take charge of their learning when language use is the focus. When a language error is identified, a comment from the 78-item Comment Bank is pasted at the point in the text where the problem occurs. The idea of the Comment Bank originated from David Wible of Tankang University, Taiwan, and was further

156

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 developed into a list of comments at four levels: WORD, CLAUSE, PARAGRAPH and STYLE by a group of CityUHK language teachers. !

! Figure 1. The interface of the Comment Bank on the blog. ! A number code is pasted next to the language error identified and students can legitimately respond to these spotted errors in different ways. Students who are confident of their own ability to correct their problems edit the error immediately and move on to read the next feedback. Others who need more help can click on the number code to find more information about the problem. As the language problems were highlighted but not corrected, students should feel obliged to find out the correct answers for themselvesA!

157

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169

! Figure 2. Examples of highlighted and number-coded language problems on studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; drafts. ! ! Once the number code has been clicked on, an explanation page pops up. This page states what the language problem is, explains what should be done and gives examples of the correct and incorrect uses of the language point in a discipline-specific context to illustrate its appropriate use.! !

Word Level Comment

Article missing

Explanation

A singular countable noun MUST have an article ( a/an or the ) or a similar modifier (this, that, my, his etc) Fungus often grows on a host plant.

Examples of Wrong Use

Host plant loses some of its nutrients. Please open window for me. I canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t reach it. A fungus often grows on a host plant

Correct Use

The host plant loses some of its nutrients. Please open the window for me. I can't reach it.

External Links

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/ http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm#articles http://www.sussex.ac.uk/languages/1-6-8-7-4.html

! Figure 3. The explanation notes of the comment. !! ! When students believe they have learned enough about their language problem, they can go back to their text and edit their work. However if students want to study more about the language problem, they can click on the links to external grammar learning websites for more explanations, exercises, and even tests. Thus in the revising processes,

158

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 students can always choose the materials and activities to help develop their English ability with reference to their interests, learning needs, and the amount of input they want to put into improving their language use. It is not uncommon for students to make mistakes when revising. Hence it is advisable for students to send in more than one draft to improve their written work before it is finalized (Ferris, 1998). Working on the revised drafts can give students opportunities to take responsibility for their own learning, as they have to explore the identified problems in greater depth making use of the online resources. Table 2 shows the learner autonomy opportunities provided at this stage. ! Table 2. The Learner Autonomy Opportunities Provided After Writing "#$%&#%!$'()&)*+!),,)%('&-(-#.! /0$*,1#.! $2 B#!$31#!()!*)8-5+!(6#-%!)4&! • C#9-8#!-5!(6#+!.6)'18!1))=!5'%(6#%!-&()! 1#$%&-&7!7)$1.!$&8!*#(6)8.!)5! 9#%($-&!(),-9.!)5!1$&7'$7#!'.#! 1#$%&-&7!$.!$!%#.'1(!)5!96$&7#.!-&! #.,#9-$11+!46#&!(6#-%!%#>-.-)&.!$%#!&)(! 7)$1.! 7))8!#&)'76!! ! ! Research Questions Two research questions have been formulated to guide the project: 1) How do students respond to the opportunities open to them at various stages of writing to take charge of their language learning? 2) To what extent are these opportunities useful in enhancing students’ writing abilities? Data Collection Methods ! To examine students’ responses to the opportunities provided for learning autonomy, participation rates were reported. This rate includes the number of times students (i) submitted their written work to seek language advice, and (ii) viewed the external grammar links. To investigate how students benefited from these learning opportunities, the numbers of errors identified in the students’ written work were compared and examined.

159

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 The data were collected by an independent institute, the CityUHK Education Development Office, over four semesters. The number of participants over each piloting semester is listed in Table 3. In the early days of the project, due to funding and personnel limitations, some data were not collected from both groups of subjects and different aspects of data from the same group of students were not collected at the same time. ! Table 3. Number of Participants in the Four Piloting Semesters D#*#.(#%.! G! M! P!! K!

E$%(-9-,$(-&7!8#,$%(*#&(.! B-)1)7+! $&8! H6#*-.(%+! IBHJ2! /1#9(%)&-9!/&7-&##%-&7!I//2! /1#9(%)&-9!/&7-&##%-&7!I//2! /1#9(%)&-9!/&7-&##%-&7!I//2!

F'*3#%!)5!.('8#&(.! KL! NO! GOL! NQ!

! Findings: Student Responses to Learner Autonomy Opportunities Viewing rate of grammar links: ! When students are viewing the page of explanatory notes and the feedback from the Comment Bank, they can visit the grammar links for further information. In semester 1, Grammar links were linked to the five most common errors the BCH students had made in a previous pilot study. These problems were, in the order of highest frequency of error, the uses of countable and uncountable nouns, articles, prepositions, spelling and collocation. Table 4 shows the viewing rate of these language problems. For instance, 22 students had received advice on collocation problems and all of them had logged on to the recommended grammar links for more information. However, only about half of the students who had been advised on their use of plurals had checked on the grammar links. !

160

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Table 4. Viewing Rate of Grammar Links ! "#$%%$#!&'()*!

7'26'(8!#$/2!

H)11)9$(-)&!

+,-! ,.! */012(/*! +,-!,.!4'26*! #232'421! /52! $14'32! MM! MM!

E%#,).-(-)&!

MK!

GL!

QPR!

H)'&($31#!!S! !'&9)'&($31#!&)'&.!

MT!

GL!

LQR!

U%(-91#.!

ML!

GG!

KKR!

D,#11-&7!

GM!

PPR!

GOOR!

One student who had frequently visited the Collocation grammar link had the following comment: â&#x20AC;&#x153;The collocation website is the most useful one for me because it teaches me how to use partner words which I have never learned before.â&#x20AC;? Students who visited the grammar links demonstrated high levels of learner autonomy when they showed awareness of their own weaknesses, decided to study the problem further, and chose certain materials to work on. Likewise, less effort was put into dealing with problems that could be fixed in a relatively straightforward manner, such as spelling. ! Submission Rate: In semesters 3 and 4, the Electronic Engineering students were asked to write two reports, namely a Progress Report and a Final Report, for a product they had designed in each semester. Students were first asked to write a Progress Report to describe the problems encountered and changes made during the production process, and, at the end of the semester, a Final Report to discuss the underlying theories, the algorithms, the approach, and the significance of the production. Two products, namely a rechargeable USB and a test jig, were designed and four reports were sent in. Students were asked to write about 1,000 words for the Progress report and 1,200 words for the Final Report. !

161

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Table 5. Submission Rates of Four Technical Reports 92%2*/2#! :2;,#/*!

+,-!,.! 9/012(/*! '(!/52! 3&$**!

P! K! K!

E%)7%#..! %#,)%(! IVDB2! X-&$1! %#,)%(! IVDB2! E%)7%#..! %#,)%(! I(#.(!?-72! X-&$1! %#,)%(! IY#.(!?-72!

GOL!

+,-!,.! */012(/*! 65,!1'1! (,/! *0<%'/! =$>! PG!

+,-!,.! */012(/*! 65,! *0<%'//21! ,(32!! =<>! ML!

+,-!,.! ?$#/'3';$/',(! */012(/*! #$/2! 65,! *0<%'//21! /6'32!! =3!>! KW! TOR!

GOL!

QT!

GM!

MQ!

PQR!

NQ!

ML!

PK!

MT!

TGR!

NQ!

LQ!

MM!

PLR!

! As shown in Table 5, the class size went down in semester 4 as some students had joined an internship programme. However, the majority of students stayed. First it was found that the participation rate, which shows the number of students who submitted their drafts for advice at least once, for writing Progress Reports, is greater than that for Final Reports in two piloting semesters. For instance, seventy-four (i.e., 25 + 49) students sent in their first Progress Reports at least once while only thirty-eight (i.e., 12 + 26) sent in their Final Reports. Sixty-one (i.e., 34 + 27) students sent in their Progress Reports at least once in semester 4 while thirty (i.e., 22 + 8) sent in their second Final Reports. Students were asked to write the Progress Reports before the Final Reports and the time lag between these reports was about three weeks. It is likely that after receiving a lot of help from the tutorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feedback or from the recommended external grammar links in the first assignmentâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the Progress Report, students may have become more aware in selfchecking and more knowledgeable about language learning resources. Thus they might have been less dependent on the on-line feedback on their drafts as they were for the Progress Reports. They sent in fewer drafts and some might even have sent in their final draft straightaway.

162

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Second, the participation, which reduced for the first Final Report, went up again for the second Progress Report. This varied participation illustrated that students did not work equally hard for the different drafts. It is likely that students recognising the usefulness of the online language advice in helping them to write re-joined the programme to refresh what they had learned in writing reports in the previous semester. This once again illustrates that students regulate the effort they put into language learning according to the evaluation and decisions made about their learning needs at different stages of their writing process.! Effectiveness of self-access opportunities: The impact of providing the self- access opportunities for students on their writing of technical reports was illustrated quantitatively. As the complete draft of each report sent to the language tutors was marked with the help of the Comment Bank, and each comment was given a code, an error rate, that is the number of language errors identified per 100 words, was established to show the number of language problems identified in the full script. ! Table 6. Error Rates Found in Four Electronic Engineering Course Assignments ! :2;,#/*!

E%)7%#..! %#,)%(! IVDB2! X-&$1! %#,)%(! IVDB2! E%)7%#..! %#,)%(! I(#.(!?-72! X-&$1! %#,)%(! IY#.(!?-72!

+,-! ,.! 9/012(/*! '(! /52! 3&$**!

+,-! ,.! */012(/*! 65,! *0<%'//21! ,(32!

@##,#! #$/2! ,.! */012(/*!65,! *0<%'//21! ,(32!

+,-! ,.! */012(/*! 65,! *0<%'//21! /6'32!

GOL!

ML!

PAMN!

KW!

@##,#! #$/2! ,.! */012(/*! 65,! *0<%'//21! /6'32! C%$5(! C%$5(! G! M! PAWP! MAOO!

GOL!

GM!

GALQ!

MQ!

MAQM!

OATK!

NQ!

PK!

MAOL!

MT!

MANW!

GAOW!

NQ!

MM!

GAMN!

MAOT!

OAQW!

163

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 ! As shown in Table 6, there were 25, 12, 34, and 22 students who had submitted one draft only for the 4 reports in the two semesters, and the numbers of students who had submitted twice in these four reports were 49, 26, 27, and 8 respectively. Students who submitted twice demonstrated their autonomy in learning by being aware of their needs, finding resources to enhance their learning effectiveness, and taking appropriate measures to deal with their writing problems (Benson & Voller, 1997). When compared to their peers who had submitted once, the two-submission group had a higher error rate in their first drafts. However the error rate dropped in their revised drafts. For instance, in the first Progress Report, students who submitted once only had 3.28 language errors out of 100 words. Those who submitted twice had 3.93 errors in 100 words. This group of students took the language advice, submitted another draft, and made on average 2 errors in 100 words in their second draft. This drop is to be expected as students could refer to the language teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; feedback to improve their written work. However the drop also illustrates the autonomy demonstrated by this group of students in having assessed their own needs and realised that they need more help. They decided to use the on-line advice to cater for their own needs before they sent in their final drafts to the subject teacher. The provision of self-access opportunities can be seen as effective in helping students with their writing when the error rates in writing the same kind of report the first and second time were compared. The two-submission group made fewer mistakes in both drafts 1 and 2 when they wrote the report the second time. For instance, the error rate in drafts 1 in writing Progress Reports dropped from 3.93 to 2.89 in drafts 1, and from 2 to 1.09 in drafts 2 from the first to the second time. Similar findings emerged from the two drafts of the Final Reports. There was a time lag of about 3 months between writing the same reports in the two semesters. It is likely that students retained what they had learned from the many opportunities, such as the workshops and the tutorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s feedback, offered to them at different stages of writing the first report in the previous semester, and wrote better in the next semester.

164

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169

Conclusion This study aimed to look into how students can benefit from opportunities provided for them to take charge of their own studies in technical writing at different stages of writing. It is a pilot project for embedding self-access language learning opportunities into the syllabus of an academic programme. Due to the limitation in resources, data were not collected from all the participating departments and there was no control group in the study design. Nevertheless, results showed that students were ready to take responsibility for their studies. They showed awareness of their learning needs, chose learning methods and materials, and revised their learning activities according to their own needs. Results also showed that students who took more of these opportunities by submitting the second drafts made greater improvement in their writing. This evidence of success in a WAC programme suggests that learner autonomy can be fostered in subjects other than language courses to maximize the power of selfdirected improvement and learning opportunities in nurturing a community of autonomous learners. Littlewood (1997) suggests that autonomous learners are active and self-directed and that they apply these characteristics not only to language, but also in other learning activities, both in and out of the classroom. It is these self-initiated, selfresponsible, self-monitored, and self-evaluating strategies that can carry learner autonomy across the boundaries of academic disciplines and represent the greatest strength of autonomous learning. Notes on the contributor Hebe Wong has been teaching degree and sub-degree English enhancement courses for more than 18 years. She has been co-ordinating writing-across-the curriculum programmes for more than 10 academic programmes since 2007. Her research interests include reading strategies, peer feedback on writing and ESP.

165

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169

References Benson, P. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. In Phil Benson & Peter Voller (Eds.), Autonomy & independence in language learning (pp.1-12). London: Longman. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (3rd ed). Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill. Bruffee, K. A. (2008). Peer Tutoring and the “Conversation of mankind”. In R.W. Barnett & J.S. Blumner (Eds.), The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice (pp. 206-218). NY: Pearson Education, Inc. Ferris, D. R (2998). Feedback: Issues and options. In P. Friedrich (Ed.), Teaching academic writing (pp. 93- 124). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Harvey, V. S., & Chickie-Wolfe, L. (2007). Fostering independent learning: Practical strategies to promote student success. New York: The Gulfford Press. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Johns, A. M. (1995). Teaching classroom and authentic genres: Initiating students into academic cultures and discourses. In D. Belcher & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy (pp. 277-293). Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Littlewood, W. (1997). Self-access: why do we want it and what can it do? In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy & independence in Language Learning (pp. 79- 92). London: Longman. Little, D. (1999). Learner autonomy is more than a western cultural construct. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 11-18). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Mohan, B. A. (1986). Language and content. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Shapiro, A. (1991). WAC and engineering, or why engineers can’t write. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (Boston MA, March 21-23, 1991).

166

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169

Thaiss, C. (1998). The Harcourt Brace guide to writing across the curriculum. Florida: Harcourt Brace & Co.

167

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 Appendix I --Check-list for writing Progress Reports: Subject-specific language use criteria

(!) If you have done so

I) Organisation A. Are different sections of the report complete? 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13)

Title page with studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; names and numbers, group ID, title of project, tutor's name and submission date Scope Objectives Overview Tasks accomplished Tasks in progress (optional) Tasks to accomplish Problems encountered and solutions Changes made Consequences of changes in relation to the project objectives Summary of tasks completed summary of major changes Professional opinion of the project development

B) Is each section adequately developed? C) Are different sections coherently organized? II) Language A.Use Past Simple Tense mostly except the followings: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Use Simple Future Tense when writing the overview Use Present Continuous Tense when writing Tasks in Progress Use Present Simple Tense when commenting on the development of the project Use Present Simple Tense to present the results illustrated in Tables and Figures

B. Avoid personal pronouns C. Avoid contractions III) Style A. Adopt proper academic style 1)

Use proper referencing style, table and diagram format

168

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 153-169 A;;2(1'B!CC!! Check-list for writing Final Reports: Subject-specific language use criteria

! if your answer is YES

I) Structure B. Are different sections of the report complete? 1) Title page with studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; names and numbers, group ID, title of project, tutor's name and submission date 2) Introduction: a) What is the project about b) Scope 3) Motivation: a) The problem b) Project requirements c) Literature Review 4) Approach (from general to specific) 5) Theory & Algorithms a) Theories b) Analysis 6) Measurement results a) Findings b) Tables & figures 7) Discussion a) Significance of findings b) Relationship between findings and project goals 8) Conclusion a) Concluding signal b) Re-state the project achievements c) Any knowledge emerges from the project d) Recommendations & Application B) Is each section adequately developed? C) Are different sections coherently organized? II) Language D. Use Present Simple Tense in 1) Writing the Scope (Simple Future Tense is also acceptable here) 2) Referring to the scientific truth In Theory section 3) Explaining the significance of the findings 4) Presenting the results illustrated in Tables and Figures E. Use Past Simple Tense in 1) Stating the project requirements (Passive construction is also acceptable) 2) Citing the past studies 3) Reporting what you did in the project (Approach / Measurement results / Analysis) F. Avoid personal pronouns, idioms, or any informal expressions G. Avoid contractions III) Style -use proper citation format and numbering system

169

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181

A Two Year Cross-Section of Student Use of Self-Access eLearning Richard S. Pinner, Engnet Education Abstract Over a two year period of using a Moodle based self-access resource, student logins were measured against student numbers in schools in order to evaluate the percentage of students’ usage. Peaks in student use seemed to correspond with teacher training initiatives. This paper outlines these initiatives and the relationship between student use of self-access ICT resources and teacher training. It also details the types of training and incentives offered to both teachers and students to improve the usage figures of self-access. Keywords: self-access; training, computer-aided language learning, CALL, Moodle Many institutions are offering additional resources to learners in the form of eLearning content hosted on virtual learning environments (VLEs), thus providing enhanced opportunities for collaboration and access to a rich variety of multimedia materials. However, these resources are often underused and neglected by both students and teaching staff. The UK’s official body for inspecting schools, Ofsted, found in a survey of VLE usage that “the use of VLEs to enhance learning was not widespread and that the exploitation of VLEs at curriculum level resembled more of a cottage industry than a national technological revolution” (Halies, 2009, p. 1). There could be many reasons behind this lack of VLE usage, one of which might be the lack of proper teacher training. The present paper will examine some of the initiatives implemented in a chain of private language schools in the UK and Ireland which observed trends in student usage in relation to teacher training sessions. This study documents the design, implementation and development of a program of self-access with teacher-guided study. In particular, a VLE was used to host a wide range of online self-access materials. The program was implemented in a large chain of private language schools in the UK and Ireland. Throughout the implementation of the program, student use of the online self-access centre (OSAC) was measured and plotted into a graph. It was found that student use increased after teacher training and development sessions, which suggests teacher training and institutional support is an important factor in increasing the use of OSAC resources. This paper outlines the types of initiatives used to encourage teachers and how these possibly filtered back to students in order to promote increased use of the OSAC 170

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 facilities. In particular, training emphasised practical ideas for implementing the VLE in class, as well as ideas for blended learning. Another focus of the training was general use of technology and Computer-Aided Language Learning (CALL) in class and ways of reducing the administrative strain placed on teachers by the VLE. Few teachers had used the VLE system previously and as those teachers who were responsible for the OSAC in their schools also had a lot of other duties including teaching, it was felt that spending a lot of time marking students work and running reports from Moodle might seem impractical without the proper training. The study attempts to illustrate that students are more likely to use OSAC resources if the teachers have been trained and given ideas about how to incorporate them into class. It also highlights the connection between teacher training and student OSAC uptake. !"#$%&#'%$()$*"$+( Computer-based resources and learner autonomy have a close relationship. CALL can be utilised to provide increased access to a wide range of rich resources. For example, Benson (2001) cites the huge variety of media which allow students authentic and rich linguistic input. Computers feature heavily in many peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lives, and as such language learners are likely to look to computers and the internet for resources. Figura & Jarvis (2007) talk about the long perceived relationship between CALL and autonomy, in their study they reported that students viewed computers as a useful part of their autonomous learning, with 62% if the subjects using the computer for between 1 and 2 hours per day for language practise. Self-access centres have featured heavily in language programs for several decades (Sturtridge, 1997) and OSACs are a logical development in that they enable greater access to a wider range of rich multimedia resources. As they are online they can also be tracked, monitored and edited by both students and teachers. However, the administration and navigation of VLEs are not always easy tasks, and training can all too often be inadequate for both teaching staff and students. This may be due to time constraints or inadequate follow-up training. These problems of teacher and student OSAC usage are additional to the task of encouraging students to be more autonomous. Autonomy is not the same as working completely without a teacher. A student who completes a pedagogic grammar course book without reflection or

171

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 analysis is not working autonomously. Little (1991) equates total detachment to severe autism rather than autonomy. He states that “because we are social beings our independence is always balanced by dependence; our essential condition is one of interdependence” (Little, 1991, p. 5). For advocates, autonomy is a “precondition for effective learning” (Benson, 2001, p. 1). Autonomy is what we wish to encourage across schools because it empowers learners and enables them to embark upon life-long learning, thus meaning the likelihood of becoming successful in terms of communicative competence will be higher. Issues arising around the concept of autonomy are often voiced in terms of its cultural compatibility (Pennycook, 1997, see Palfreyman & Smith, 2003 for a collected volume), and some of the initial scepticism around autonomy arose over the perception of it being used to justify having less contact time between student and teacher, (McDevitt, 1997) or simply as an economical way of getting students to do more work without the need to pay the teachers. Surprisingly, despite agreement amongst practitioners and empirical evidence to support the fact that autonomy is of great benefit to learners, ways of fostering autonomy and encouraging self-access remain conspicuously absent from teacher education and training programs (Reinders & Balcikanli, 2011). From my experience as both a teacher trainer and consultant, I have observed that many schools and institutions have been guilty of simply opening a self-access centre and assuming that students are now autonomous. Simply leaving students alone surrounded by books and study materials does not make them autonomous. With the added flexibility and all-hours access provided by an OSAC these issues become even more prevalent. If students are working in an OSAC from their homes or outside school hours, how can they be supported and how can their activities be tracked? In order to provide the necessary support for this ‘all hours’ type of self-access learning teachers need to play an active role in the virtual learning environment as Minshull (2004) notes in the following quotation: It is now recognised that the teacher’s role in terms of constructing, monitoring and facilitating the learning process [in e-learning] is vital; for example, just setting up a discussion board and hoping students will engage with it doesn’t work. (Minshull, 2004, p. 5)

172

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 For this reason, the present study attempts to examine any potential link between the support structures in place for teachers and students; in other words teacher training initiatives aimed at allowing teachers to support their learners’ selfaccess opportunities. ,&-./%0'12(#0(#3$(4#'25( A program of self-access with teacher-guidance was implemented as part of an initiative by Kaplan International Colleges to provide better support and autonomy to students who were studying in private sector language schools located in target language (English) speaking countries. The program featured a Moodle based OSAC with over twenty different quiz type activities per week over a ten week course with different levels of difficulty for Elementary, Pre-Intermediate, Intermediate, UpperIntermediate and Advanced level students. All students were tested using an in-house test and placed into levels, once they began at the schools they were given access to the OSAC and shown how to login and navigate to the activities. There were also weekly written and spoken assignments which were based on the language content being practised that week in the OSAC. Each week had a theme, such as “The World of Work” or “Future Plans” and these themes formed the basis of any language work. The OSAC content did not relate directly to the work students were doing in class, so the OSAC work was to be treated as entirely supplementary study. In addition to the 10 weeks of activities on the OSAC, each school had a dedicated library of self-access resources ranging from graded readers to DVDs, with grammar books and other selfstudy materials. Each of these ‘study centres’ was managed by a study centre manager who was available to answer students’ questions and support them with their selfaccess learning. These study centre managers also provided any immediate technical support for the OSAC and were responsible for marking the online written and spoken assignments. The schools that participated in this study were located in the UK and Ireland. There were eleven participating institutions in total. The number of students who used the OSAC over the course of the two years (May 2008 – May 2010) in which data were collected numbered over 20,000. Data were compiled using reports which came directly from the Moodle VLE as well as student numbers from the student management system.

173

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 The overall usage spanning the two-year period was plotted into a graph (Figure 1) using an equation to measure unique student logins to the OSAC against student numbers in the schools. The graph, which shows holistic uptake throughout all schools, shows peaks in site use around dates in which teacher training was carried out. A more detailed discussion of the findings will follow the presentation of the results. 6$#302070/5( The data for this study were collected using a range of applications which were combined in a spreadsheet to produce a graph which gave an approximate figure for the number of students who were using the site. Reports on the number of unique logins to the site were used, rather than total logins. Therefore, a user who logs in three times in one day counts as one unique login, and a user who logs in only once in a day also counts as one unique login. This gives a better idea of the actual number of students who access the OSAC resource. Unfortunately, time spent on the OSAC was not measured by the Moodle system and activity reports can only be viewed one student at a time, making it impractical to examine what the students were doing while they were logged in as part of a holistic report on site usage due to the large number of users involved. In this way the data is one-sided and tells us little about how the OSAC was actually being used, however we do know that the written and speaking assignments were hardly used at all. Some weeks, the speaking resource received no submissions at all from eleven institutions and usually only between five and ten submissions even during busy periods when potentially between two and three thousand students were eligible to submit assignments. In other words, students were not logging in to the OSAC in order to do academic writing assignments. Looking at separate activity reports from Moodle, it is clear that the most popular OSAC resources were activities which had listening practise and also flash based game activities. At this stage it would be useful to have some more qualitative data about the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; use of the OSAC, but despite this lack of data, having an idea of the percentage of students who actually log into the system is useful in allowing us to calculate a usage percentage. The number of eligible students (students with OSAC access) in the schools overall was collected through the central student management system database, and the number of unique logins was collected from a Moodle

174

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 report. These two systemsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; results were then plotted into a spreadsheet, and uptake was calculated by dividing the number of unique logins (UL) by the number of students (N) to create a percentage:

A graph was plotted from the results, which shows the student uptake of the OSAC and spans a two-year period with almost 20,000 students. The average uptake of the OSAC was 26.91% of the eligible student body, ie. those students who could have accessed the OSAC if they had wanted to. Subjects The subjects were students from a large number of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The ages of the students varied from sixteen to sixty, with the majority of students in their mid-twenties. Every student had different start dates and different course lengths, as the schools operate a weekly enrolment schedule and course lengths can be anywhere from four weeks to a year long. The disadvantages of having such a large variety of subjects and different enrolment periods will be discussed in more detail in the discussion section of this paper. Procedure The two types of training sessions which were conducted with the teachers can be broadly categorised as either general technology and OSAC class implementation training or specific OSAC administration training. The specific OSAC training was given initially to study centre managers whose role incorporated responsibility for the SAC and marking work on the OSAC, as well as student orientation and training to use both the SAC and OSAC. These study centre managers had a reduced teaching load and were scheduled to be in the SAC so that students could come and consult with them face to face if they needed any help or guidance. They were also responsible for running study clubs and workshops. A large part of these teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; jobs was connected with the SAC and its resources and events. Although the study centre managers had less engagement with the OSAC except for conducting weekly

175

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 marking of online assignments, they were the only teachers in each school who would come into contact with the OSAC as a formal part of their job description. Training, which was specifically designed for study centre mangers, involved showing them how to run reports within Moodle so that they could view the amount of usage from students in their school. Unfortunately, this was problematic as the version of Moodle used did not support site-wide groups so a special hack had been implemented which was not always reliable. For this reason the training also featured an element of how to get around this limitation and how to gain more useful information specific to the school, making the training very focussed on technology and reports. Another important aspect of this training was that it attempted to justify why running these reports could benefit both the students and teachers. To illustrate this, the specific example used was that of students who ask to be moved up to a higher level class after a certain period of time. The schools all conduct summative level tests every five weeks to decide if students are ready to move up, but often when students fail the test they request to move up despite their results. It was suggested that studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; level of commitment and usage of the SAC and OSAC be a deciding factor in whether these students be allowed to move up to a higher class. Also, if the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; requests to move up were denied, it was suggested that the students be encouraged to utilise the SAC and OSAC more to improve their language level in order to move to a higher level. Incorporating this directly into the training made the administrative aspect of the site more relevant to the study centre managerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role. The second type of training focused on general CALL usage and was targeted at all teachers in the schools, even those with no dealings with the SAC or OSAC. The training was not specific to the OSAC although there were continual references to encouraging OSAC usage outside of class and also ideas about how to use the integrative features of the OSAC (such as the forums and blogs) as part of a class. Previous to these training sessions, most of the teachers had never had any contact with Moodle nor had they been fully informed about the features of the OSAC available to the students. Many were unclear in general about the self-access resources, and this was also incorporated into the training. In this way, the training featured heavily in both technology usage, SAC and OSAC resources and ways to encourage students to use these resources and to attempt to foster more autonomy with their classes by promoting the self-access resources.

176

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181

8&#&(91&75:":( !"#$%&#' Figure 1 is the graph which was produced from the spreadsheet to show the percentage of student uptake of the OSAC. Training dates are indicated by thick arrows for centralised OSAC specific training and thin arrows for Technology training at individual schools.

Figure 1. Percentage of student body using the OSAC

177

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181

Training dates There was a high concentration of the second type of training sessions between August and October 2009 because the training session was very popular with teachers and other schools started specifically requesting the training. Table 1 shows the training dates from 2009 to 2010. Table 1. Training sessions 2009-2010 Specific OSAC Training for self-access manager at each school 03-Sep-08 11-Mar-09

Technology and autonomy training for a single school 06-Aug-08 14-Aug-09 03-Sep-09 22-Sep-09 25-Sep-09 23-Oct-09 18-Feb-10

The average level of OSAC uptake was 26.9% of the eligible student body (Table 2). This means that throughout the two-year period, roughly 27% of students with OSAC access were logging into the site to practise and make use of the learning materials on a daily basis. Table 2. Total uptake over a two-year period Average

High

Median

Low

26.91

44.11

26.7

2.13

Average Deviation 5.91

However, this figure is based only on unique logins and does not account for the time spent in the OSAC or the number of activities being attempted. In other words, we only know that students logged in, we do not know how much they used the resources. This would hopefully be incorporated into future studies providing improved reporting facilities in Moodle and better data collection methods could be used. The highest period of uptake was in September 2008, which was three weeks after the first OSAC specific training session in which all schools took part. Part of the training given at this session involved changing the way students were inducted on 178

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 the first day so that they were given an OSAC orientation whereas previously they had only been informed about it. The lowest period of uptake occurred during the winter holidays, during which many students returned to their home countries and the schools were closed for two weeks. It is important to note here that because the study was conducted in private language schools, summer is the busiest period and there are no school closures in summer. Results over the two-year period (May 2008 – May 2010) are shown in Table 1. To represent the difference teacher training made to student OSAC usage visually, a twelve-week period was selected in which no training was conducted and plotted against another twelve week period in which five separate types of training were given across the different institutions (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Teacher training and student OSAC use over a twelve-week period

8":-'::"01(&12(!";"#&#"01:( From these results it seems that students use the OSAC resources more if the teachers have been given training on the use of these resources, the types of activity available and the way the students can utilise them for self-study. One of the limitations of this study is the lack of qualitative data into the students’ and teachers’

179

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 perceptions of the OSAC resources, and this will have to be addressed with further research. Because of the large data set in this study, it is only possible to make very preliminary assumptions which would need the backing of more detailed empirical evidence to make more definitive observations. The main finding behind this study was that teacher training led to increased student OSAC usage. However, in order to test the link between teacher training and OSAC uptake more directly, qualitative data would contribute further insights into these findings. Also, using a smaller group with the same students throughout the study would make it possible to conduct statistical reliability tests to ensure there was a significant difference. Because every week each school had a new intake, it is not possible to statistically check the results from this study using ordinary tests for statistical significance. Therefore, for future studies it would be recommended to use a smaller scale data set and feature more qualitative data for information relating to student motivation and autonomy. Another limitation is the range of subjects. It would have been very interesting to be able to see whether students on shorter courses used the OSAC more than students on longer courses, or to measure peaks in longer term studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; OSAC usage. This is one of the main limitations of this study, as most of the data were collected after the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s courses had finished and the study was put together retrospectively based on observed trends in a graph. Further studies could address this limitation by conducting interviews with participants and using a smaller sample so as to be more manageable and trends in students with similar length courses could be observed.

<01-7':"01( Although this study is limited in that it only shows rough quantitative data relating to the number of OSAC logins, there does seem to be an indication that the more teachers know about OSACs and how to incorporate them into class and to make recommendations to the students for self-study, the more likely they are to encourage their students to use them. It also shows that the students are more likely to study using self-access resources if they are informed about them by their teachers. Continued teacher training and support would seem to be highly important to student self-access usage.

180

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 170-181 Notes on the contributor Richard Pinner is a part-time teacher at Sophia University and an eLearning consultant for engnet-education.

!"#"$"%&"'( Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning London: Longman. Figura, K., & Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based materials: A study of learner autonomy and strategies. System 35, 448â&#x20AC;&#x201C;468 Hailes, N. (2009). Ofsted roundup in Further Education News. Retrieved 5th August 2011 from http://www.fenews.co.uk/ofsted/ofsted-round-up-this-week-vlescome-under-the-eye-of-inspectors Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy. 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. McDevitt, B. (1997). Learner autonomy and the need for learner training. Language Learning Journal 16, 34-39 Minshull, G. (2004). VLEs: Beyond the fringe and into the mainstream: Guidance on the mainstreaming of Virtual Learning Environments, drawn from the proceedings of the 2004 online conference from Becta's Ferl serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Retreived 5th August 2011 from http://ferl.becta.org.uk Palfreyman, D., & Smith, R.C. (Eds.) (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. New York: Palgrave MacMillan Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P.Voller, (Eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 35-53). London: Longman Reinders, H., & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: The role of teacher education materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 1525. 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

181

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194

Pre-university experience of ICT and Self-Access Learning in Japan Thomas Lockley, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Abstract Information and Communications Technology (ICT) can play a key role in self-access learning and the organization of self-access centres (SACs) (Reinders & Lázaro, 2007). The generation of young people currently at university has been labeled “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001), yet it would seem that many of these “natives” in Japan seem to lack the necessary ICT skills to use in the university context (Castellano, Mynard & Rubesch, 2011; Williams, 2011). This paper assesses the current situation of Japanese young people’s pre-university ICT experience and its implications for self-access learning. Do they actually lack the necessary skills to engage with self-access in an ICT context? Or does the reality in fact show that this perception is wrong and if so why? This paper will answer the questions through original research (N=105) and reference to the literature, globally and in Japan. It finds that students have more competence than previously believed and ventures some reasons for this previous misperception. Keywords: ICT competencies; self-access and ICT; digital natives; Japanese students and ICT

As Information and Communications Technology (ICT) can play such a key role in self-access language learning, self-access centre (SAC) educators in Japan need to know what experience their students have had with technology and its implications for the self-access sphere. This will aid in curriculum planning, construction of web based learning platforms, student communications, publicity, and capital purchases, thus facilitating a more efficient, accessible and beneficial selfaccess environment. The students currently attending Japanese universities are very much what Prensky (2001) would call “digital natives”, a generation of young people surrounded by and dependent on ICT. Many educators in Japan would question the term “digital natives” here however. There seems to be a wide-spread belief that young people lack ICT knowhow (Castellano, Mynard and Rubesch, 2011; Williams, 2011). Without delving deeper in to the situation, one might be forgiven for agreeing. For example, an informal survey prior to this research revealed most students believed they didn’t

182

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 know how to use seemingly common programs such as Microsoft Word and PowerPoint; some appeared to struggle to access the internet. This is in fact in line with current international research which shows that until recently, there has been little empirical evidence to support the “digital natives” theory (see for example Bennett, Maton & Kervin, 2008; Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010), and many of Prensky’s (2001) claims have been attacked as misleading, simple assumptions or crude generalizations. Some researchers have even called the term offensive, an “attempt to force western norms, beliefs, attitudes, and cultural values” (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010, p. 359) on the rest of the world. However, “digital natives” or simply people who have grown up in the first years of this increasingly web-based century, young people coming through Japanese tertiary institutions are certainly no strangers to technology. All of them own and use mobile phones and I-pods on a daily basis (Takahashi, 2011), and there is little doubt that today’s young people “have been exposed to technologies never before seen” (Nasah, DaCosta, Kinsell & Seok, 2010, p. 550). Bennett and Maton (2010, p. 329) write “it will continue to be important to measure access and activity through […] surveys [to provide] a more sophisticated, rational debate that can enable us to provide the education that young people deserve” and we “must consider data-driven evidence showing who these students are in total when developing ICT policy” (Nasah et al., 2010, p. 550). The research presented here will provide a snapshot of how 105 first year Japanese university students have interacted with technology in their pre-university lives with the aim of enabling educators, in particular SAC staff, to make decisions about purchasing, ICT developments and how best to use the information presented in this paper pedagogically. The research questions are: 1) What pre-university experience of ICT is present in Japanese students? 2) Why might this experience not be manifesting itself in the classroom?

Literature Review “Digital natives” in Japan.

183

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 The “digital native” debate has not escaped Japan. Takahashi (2011), reports on a whole youth society and culture, oyayubibunka, or ‘thumb culture’, based upon mobile phones with 3G capability. The term “digital native” itself has even been modified to “kei-tai (mobile) natives” (p.9) to suit the particular Japanese context, thus making the point that ICT experience of Japanese youth is primarily mobile phone focused . “80% of elementary school users and almost 100% of […] high school mobile users have access to the internet via their mobile phones” (p. 12) and use it incessantly. Takahashi describes a typical teenage “kei-tai native” girl’s day. The phone is never off, even whilst sleeping and in school (where they are supposedly banned). She uses her mobile for email, social networking, music, Youtube (largely replacing television) and even does her homework on Skype with friends (Takahashi, 2011). Supporting this picture of online socialization, Akimoto, (2011) writes that 20% of the Japanese population is on Twitter and Japanese language tweets account for 14% globally. For Takahashi, this constantly connected life creates a personal space for teenagers outside the constraints of school and home, and a close community, with rules and hierarchy, almost harking back to rural village life. The Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), states that the purpose of ICT in schools “is to promote computer literacy in students in order to develop their abilities to participate in a society that is information oriented” (MEXT, 2006). In 2002/3 a new Course of Study (non-binding but recommended government guidelines for schools) was promulgated, introducing a new curriculum area called “Information Studies”. In senior high school information studies has three strands, A, B and C (MEXT, 2006) and schools should offer at least one of them. Information Studies A concentrates on basic ICT skills such as word processing, spreadsheets and PowerPoint. B involves the scientific side of computing, including hard and software, operating systems and network functioning. C deals with social issues and computing, including ICT’s role in business, government and the social services. MEXT aimed to have high speed internet connections in 100% of classrooms by March 2011 (MEXT, 2006). Maybe this curriculum is paying off, as a recent OECD study found that Japanese first year senior high school students are now ranked fourth globally, after South Korea, New-Zealand and Australia, for ICT competence (Kyodo, 2011).

184

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 Seemingly contradicting Takahashi (2011), who believes that Japanese youth have some of the highest levels of digital literacy in the world, others find that this supposed literacy does not transfer to the digital sphere at university well. Williams (2011) writes that initially students had a lot of issues such as not knowing how to turn on hardware, change volume, save to USB and use more than the simplest Microsoft Word functions. She conversely found that most claimed they were “comfortable” with using a PC and Word. Indeed 100% used computers at home, 60% surfed the Internet and 20% used PCs for homework. These findings are in line with those in other parts of the world such as (Nasah et al., 2010) who also reported high levels of social and online skills, but lower academically transferable ones. ICT and Self-Access Learning The pedagogical potential of ICT in SACs is clear. Given the potentially nonfixed-space nature of self-access and autonomous learning, “discussion groups and lists [now often replaced by Web 2.0 applications] can potentially perform a very useful function in creating a sense of continuity and in bringing students together” (Reinders & Lázaro, 2007, p. 128). SACs that are “largely commensurate with principles of flexible learning and chat facilities could be used to make learning opportunities and support more widely accessible” (Reinders & Lázaro, 2007, p. 128). On the practical side, resources placed in a virtual learning environment such as ‘Blackboard’ or ‘Moodle’ allow students to access material from any location and at any time. This also reduces the potential for materials to be misplaced or damaged (Chia, 2005). However, participants in Castellano et al.’s (2011) research tended to use computers in the SAC for social networking, Internet surfing (especially news), and software-based language learning. For some students the SAC was a primarily social space, and they felt that they did not need computers to socialize with other users. Reinders and Lázaro (2007, p. 129) conclude that the main challenge for SACs “seems to be a pedagogical one of finding meaningful uses for technology, not as a new tool for old tasks but as a means to implement new pedagogies”. They found however that in fact technology use for pedagogic functions in SACs around the world was subject to a lot of variation, with only a few facilitating online materials delivery of the sort that they and Chia (2005) advocate. Even the top ten of the 45 institutions surveyed by Reinders and Lázaro (2007) were limited in their range of 185

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 technology usage, and only one offered a large variety of options. Most of the 45 centres surveyed used technology for communication and administrative purposes only. Few centres made full use of the clear potential that technology offers for learner autonomy. Castellano et al. (2011) found that while the SAC they studied lent over 300 items per day including books, magazines, music CDs and DVDs, students borrowed only 65 pieces of software in a whole semester. Methodology and Instruments This study employed a mixed method data collection online survey with Likert and open-ended supporting questions. The two types of questions were designed to provide complementary information to acquire “in-depth insights into the basis for […] access and activity and what they mean in the lives of individuals” (Bennett & Maton, 2010, p. 329). The survey was based on Langdon’s (2011) findings and his research into learner attitudes to the use of technology in EFL classrooms. Langdon based his interviews on initial research into the student (N=52) use of and attitudes to vocabulary learning software. This was followed by a study of the individual interactions with technology of 6 students over the course of one week. The students kept a log of all their interactions with technology and were then interviewed by the researcher. The data were collected from 105 first year students at a foreign language university in Chiba City. Exactly 2/3rd (n=70) were female. The questionnaire comprised 20 questions, 8 of which have been used as data for this paper. Questions five and seven use a continuous data scale to provide measurable categories and restrict the data to analyzable portions. Questions six and nine collect nominal data to establish clear percentages. It was administered on SurveyMonkey.com and questions were in English and Japanese and students could respond in either language. To create the tables below, responses were converted into percentages, and rounded to the nearest whole number. This provides a clear picture and enables comparison of the figures in a straightforward manner. The qualitative comments were classified using thematic content analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

186

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 Findings

Other

DVD

MP3

I-pod

I- phone

phone

Mobile

Computer

Table 1. Responses to the question “What types of technology do you use at home?”

Every Day

58%

95%

46%

76%

27%

10%

Several times a week

38%

10%

13%

18%

23%

Once a week

29%

30%

Once a month

36%

20%

Never

91%

44%

56%

15%

17%

94%

Out of school use Table 1 shows that nearly all students have computers at home, use mobile phones and posses some kind of music storage/ listening device. These are all used at least several times a week by 96%, 96%, 89% and (combining figures for I-pod and MP3 players) 95% respectively. These devices are virtually universal. DVDs and CDs are used infrequently but at least once a month by the majority of students; 85%, 83% and 66% respectively. Televisions are still regularly used by most participants. The 16 qualitative responses were too few to classify easily, but this was a typical one: “[I use] computer for homework and listening to music, television for enjoyment, mobile phone to contact home and CDs for study and entertainment”

187

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 School use Table 2. Responses to the question “Did you use technology at school before coming to university? Elementary School (ages 6-12)

68%

Junior High School (ages 12-15)

86%

Senior High School (ages 15-18)

89%

Table 2 indicates high usage levels in school prior to university. Predictably the figures increase for the later stages. This is due to the level of schooling as well as the increased proliferation of ICT in schools (the participants in this research would have started elementary school in 1998 and left in 2004 before the new Course of Study was underway). The 51 comments added give more detail. They were again not easily classifiable due to their variety, but two broad strands were identified and the comments below were chosen as typical. “When I was in elementary school, I learn about typing, how to […] send e-mail. In junior high school, I leaned about how to presentation and how to use word” “I learned powerpoint but now I can't use it” Quotation one indicates where programs were taught, simple typing and email at elementary school followed by more complicated applications, PowerPoint and Word, in junior high school, broadly equating to MEXT guidelines. The second quote indicates, that teaching doesn’t always equate to information retention or full understanding.

188

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 Table 3. What type of technology did you use at school before coming to university?

Other

Recorder

Voice

Organizer

Personal

DVD

MP3

I- Pod

Mobile phone

Computer

(e.g. in class, preparation for class, homework)

Every Day

25%

81%

36%

65%

25%

17%

00%

Several times a week

41%

14%

10%

24%

26%

Once a week

23%

22%

26%

Once a month

29%

14%

Never

13%

51%

12%

57%

21%

17%

92%

88%

96%

Table 3 shows, as the literature reported, that Japanese schools use technology extensively. 89% reported using computers at least once a week, 83% televisions and 69% both DVDs and CDs. There were 17 qualitative responses to this question and around three-quarters of them described ways that they had used technology in school. These three quotes are representative: “[for] homework and restudy what I learned in school and look for something I don't know and I can't find answer in book” “I often watched TV when I was junior high school student” “I used PC for my report in the school” Technology then, as maintained by MEXT, is used as a key component of Japanese schools’ teaching. Students themselves are using ICT outside of school to back up their learning. The 81% who responded they used mobile phones in class on a daily basis was unanticipated, but probably doesn’t reflect educational use as Takahashi (2011) also found. Discussion It is clear that Japanese households are full of technological appliances, including ICT, and the survey data shows that virtually all the respondents to the 189

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 survey are both familiar with and possess many different technological tools and are also online outside university. They are furthermore surrounded by technology in other locations such as school. This is not just being used for entertainment, but also for study and has been for many students since they were young children. The proliferation of 3G mobile phones and Twitter accounts is a major point which SAC staff could tap in to when designing web content and making resources available online. Why then the common educator concern about knowledge of and familiarity with ICT? Is the problem in schools? The survey data backs up the literature in showing that technologies of various sorts are used extensively and on a daily basis in schools. The most commonly used technology was computers, with 89% using these at least once a week. The survey data did suggest that students had learnt about programs such as PowerPoint, Excel and Word, but that some had forgotten how to use them. As the literature shows, ICT use for social purposes does not equal ICT use for task accomplishment. As noted by Bennett & Maton (2010, p. 325), “norms and values may not transfer from everyday situations to academic tasks”. In fact Bennett et al. (2008) found that only a minority of these supposedly “digital native” students were using their Internet skills actively (to create media), and “a significant proportion of students had lower level skills that might be expected” (p. 778). They believe the whole argument about “digital natives” has skewed the debate and conditioned educators to expect more ICT competency than is reasonable, focusing on the technically adept students and neglecting others through assuming they are also as adept. “There is as much variation within the digital native generation as between the generations” (p. 77), something which Williams’ (2011) Japanese study also found. While Nasah et al. (2010, p. 533) write that we quite clearly need to be “more cautious in our views of students and ICT”. Students will clearly not be dispensing with their mobile phones however. Rather, as Takahashi (2011) points out, these tools are central to young people’s lives. Furthermore, Williams (2011) found that although her participants were using computers, they were mainly using them for the same purposes as they would normally use their mobile phone. Only 20% indicated using them for homework. This means that online resources like Twitter and other social networking sites such as Mixi and Facebook (in the Japanese language, not English) will continue to be used 190

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 widely while more formal ICT applications and skills such as typing or PowerPoint knowledge may be lost. There could be a space here for universities to exploit. Could not the social networking and micro-blogging skills, through careful student training and exploitation of their pedagogical functions, act as a bridge back to ICT skills with more educational and (in the future) professional applications? This would seem especially relevant to SACs and is similar to the findings of Castellano at al. (2011), who recommend, tailoring the materials and ICT facilities in a SAC as close as possible to student needs and abilities. Socio-cultural factors Among this population, there are also socio-cultural and linguistic factors at play. Firstly, the transition between educational institutions can be a traumatic time, and, in the making of new friends, many students may not want to stand out or look too ‘clever’. This may especially be the case in the Japanese context; Aspinall (2006, p. 263) writes that, “in the early stages of learning a subject or skill [students] are also encouraged to be aware of what they do not know” and “it is considered immature and bad manners for the learner to ‘show off ’ something they have learned, or be ostentatious in any way”. It is likely that the participants in this research were willing to reveal more in the context of an individual questionnaire than they wished to show in public. This would account largely for the mismatch in educator perceptions and students’ responses found in this paper and in Williams (2011). Secondly, despite the fact that students are enrolled on EFL courses, it may be their first encounter with English language computers. Although there is no direct evidence in this paper to support this, it seems likely and highly understandable that Japanese schools and households will be operating their computers in Japanese. A Japanese desktop looks very different from an English language one. On first encountering a computer in a different language, anybody, competent or not, “digital/kei-tai native” or not is likely to find it difficult to get their bearings. Furthermore misunderstanding of educator’s instructions due to unfamiliarity with spoken accent, language or teaching style could also be a factor. Thirdly, it is possible that previous schooling may not have equipped these students well enough. Perhaps having engaged with these programs at high school, they did not have the opportunity to actually use them in a real life application, for 191

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 example as a learning tool in another (non-ICT) subject area. Whether this is the case or not will differ depending on the student and the school they attended and so cannot be more than a hypothesis. Finally, and something that can be attested to with a high degree of certainty due to the fact that any Japanese high school student desiring to go to university must necessarily do this, much of a third year senior high school student’s life is taken up with self-study and revision for university entrance exams rather than taught classes. Because of this it may be that students are able to retain their “kei-tai native” status and general digital competence while forgetting what they have been taught about computer programs such as Microsoft Word or PowerPoint. The fact that students engage in so much self-study may itself have considerable implications for self-access learning in Japan as it may indicate a high degree of familiarity with autonomy, selfdiscipline and maturity on the part of students which is not generally recognized and students are unwilling to assertively reveal knowledge of. Limitations This research was carried out in a private foreign language university in the Kanto area, and as such the results may not be generalizable for the whole population of university freshman students in Japan. No socio-economic data or information on which Information Studies course was followed at senior high school (A, B or C) was collected. This data should be collected in any future survey. A further factor that could be looked at in more detail is ICT use across the curriculum rather than just in Information Studies lessons. Conclusion The implications of this paper are that although there is a seeming lack of practical ICT knowledge and familiarity among Japanese university intakes, this does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation. “Digital natives, “kei-tai natives” or not, all students should have had at least basic ICT lessons in school, and virtually all have computers at home though most probably have more experience accessing the internet and using online applications via mobile phones. SAC staff should not shy away from using ICT; they should also not be overly concerned if students appear

192

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 apprehensive at first as this seeming lack of confidence probably has socio-cultural and linguistic factors at its roots. . SAC educators and universities want to give their students the best possible education and self-access options. ICT is a key component of this, and large amounts of money are expended on technology of all sorts to facilitate its implementation. This research shows that learning advisors and educators in general should not hesitate to use technology in language learning or to help access SAC resources; rather they should embrace it to further student autonomy, self-confidence and the effectiveness of self-access language education. This research was originally published in a different format and with a different focus in the JALT CALL Journal, April 2011 and can be found at http://www.jaltcall.org/journal/index.html.

Notes on the contributor Thomas Lockley lectures in international communication at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba Japan. He has worked in Japanese education for five years and also taught French, German and Japanese for four years in UK secondary and primary schools. His research and teaching interests include secondary education, motivation and self-perception. References Akimoto, A. (2011, May 18). Japan the Twitter nation. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nc20110518aa.html Aspinall, R. (2006). Using the paradigm of ‘small cultures’ to explain policy failure in the case of foreign language education in Japan. Japan Forum, 18(2), 255-274. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students' technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 231-331.

193

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 182-194 Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, J. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 357–369. Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Technology use in a self-access centre. Language Learning and Technology, 15(3), 12-27. Chia, C. (2005). Promoting independent learning through language learning and the use of IT. Educational Media International, 42(4), 317–332. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Kyodo. (2011, June 29). Japan fourth in digital literacy test. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110629b5.html Langdon, C. (2011). Good technology does not necessarily equal good pedagogy – an investigation into the educational efficacy of technology in EFL. Research Institute of Language Studies and Language Education, 21, 21-37. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). (2006). 学

校における情報教育の実態調査の結果 (The results of a survey on the current situation of ICT in schools). Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b menu/houdou/18/07/06072407.htm Nasah, A., DaCosta, B., Kinsell, C., & Seok, S. (2010). The digital literacy debate: An investigation of digital propensity, information and communication technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(5), 531-555. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Reinders, H., & Lázaro, N. (2007). Innovation in Language Support: The provision of technology in self-access. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 117– 130. Takahashi, T. (2011). Japanese Youth and Mobile Media. M. Thomas (Ed.). Deconstructing Digital Natives. NY and London: Routledge. Williams, V. (2011). Digital divide among “Digital Natives”. Studies in Humanities and Cultures, 14, 78-91.

194

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99!

! Web 2.0 sites for Collaborative Self-Access: The Learning Advisor vs. Google® !

Craig D. Howard, Indiana University Bloomington ! Abstract! ! While Web 2.0 technologies provide motivated, self-access learners with unprecedented opportunities for language learning, Web 2.0 designs are not of universally equal value for learning. This article reports on research carried out at Indiana University Bloomington using an empirical method to select websites for self-access language learning. Two questions related to Web 2.0 recommendations were asked: (1) How do recommended Web 2.0 sites rank in terms of interactivity features? (2) How likely is a learner to find highly interactive sites on their own? A list of 20 sites used for supplemental and self-access activities in language programs at five universities was compiled and provided the initial data set. Purposive sampling criteria revealed 10 sites truly represented Web 2.0 design. To address the first question, a feature analysis was applied (Herring, The international handbook of internet research. Berlin: Springer, 2008). An interactivity framework was developed from previous research to identify Web 2.0 design features, and sites were ranked according to feature quantity. The method used to address the second question was an interconnectivity analysis that measured direct and indirect interconnectivity within Google results. Highly interactive Web 2.0 sites were not prominent in Google search results, nor were they often linked via third party sites. It was determined that, using typical keywords or searching via blogs and recommendation sites, self-access learners were highly unlikely to find the most promising Web 2.0 sites for language learning. A discussion of the role of the learning advisor in guiding Web 2.0 collaborative self-access, as well as some strategic short cuts to quick analysis, conclude the article. ! Keywords: Self-access, Web 2.0, Interactivity, CALL, Free Websites, collaborative self-study

The motivated self-access learner has countless options available via Web 2.0 sites for

“rich exposure to the [target] language in use” (Tomlinson, 2010, p. 72). The problem facing such a learner is which Web 2.0 collaborative language learning site to choose, or how to find the most promising site for learning. Web 2.0 sites are characterized by collaboration and collective intelligence (O'Reilly, 2005), but no search engine function presently exists to find them automatically. Empirically determining which sites will prove most beneficial for learners’ time investment is a task which must be done by teachers, or learning advisors, through careful ! 9:;!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! observation. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web, has pointed out that none of the so-called new technologies in Web 2.0 are defined by the software the web uses; “Web 2.0 is a piece of jargon -- nobody really knows what it means” (Laningham, 2006, audio-n.p.). For self-access learners and their learning advisors, the web for language learning remains an interconnected quagmire of unorganized opportunities. Google retrieved 35 million hits for the search term “online learning” when the recommendation list used in this study was first compiled in 2008. Since that time, this number has risen to 94 million hits in September of 2011. Guidance is sorely needed if learners or their teachers are considering investing valuable time on the web. In the context of a large university, the problem of selecting the most advantageous sites for self-access language learning is inter-disciplinary. If a website for self-access learning is suggested, recommended or assigned, it is the responsibility of the institution to vet the selected site. If a learner is set out on their own, the school would be wise to understand just what that decision entails. These decisions may be approached from a number of different perspectives. This study brings an information science perspective to decisions made about Web 2.0 site recommendations for language education. At Indiana University, an inter-disciplinary research group was formed to address problems and opportunities associated with Web 2.0 technologies for language learning. This research group consisted of ten graduate students, four visiting researchers, and one faculty member. The departments of Second Language Studies, Linguistics, Instructional Systems Technology, Learning Science, and Language Education were represented. Four universities and six countries were represented in the research group. Members were from Korea, Japan, Thailand, Greece, Mexico and the United States. The group assembled a list of 24 Web 2.0 sites that had been used, or were being used, in language programs at Indiana University or cooperating universities as self-access, supplemental curricula (see appendix). None of these self-access initiatives were stand-alone courses of study, and none were mandatory components of university required curricula; thus, these sites were being used as supplemental curricula where the learners complete the tasks on their own, outside of class. The language programs represented in the research group were not limited to English as the target language. I used this list provided by the research group to answer two research questions:

! 9:=!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! â&#x20AC;˘

Which Web 2.0 recommended sites show the highest potential for self-access learning opportunities in terms of interactivity design features?

â&#x20AC;˘

How likely would it be for a self-access learner to find the most interactive recommended Web 2.0 sites on their own? Previous Studies and Rationale ! In internet-mediated environments for language learners, inter-language communication

strategies have been shown to relate to the mode of CMC (Kitade, 2000; Levy & Stockwell, 2006; Negretti, 1999). In other words, learners are cognizant that different communications skills are at play in different modes. For example, synchronous and asynchronous opportunities hold different, and possibly complimentary, affordances for the language learner. This suggests that more design features mean more opportunities for learning. Stockwell (2007) argued that technology is inherently linked to pedagogical goals in computer-mediated learning designs. Felix (2002) surveyed student perceptions of language learning made with web-based technologies and concluded that some features within web technologies afford access to learning experiences not available in traditional face-to-face classrooms. If different modes, and configurations within modes, impact the potential for learning-- the more features the better. Collaborative self-access language learning is not new and has appeared under various names since the inception of the web including: internet-mediated language learning, collaborative exchanges, long distance CMC, and as a branch of Computer Assisted Language Learning or CALL (Appel & Mullen, 2000; Chapelle, 2005; Howard, 2011; Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Nunan, 1994; Warschauer, 2000; Zhao, 1996; Zhao, 2003). A constant among all these studies is that language learning opportunity has a direct relationship to the design of the supporting medium. The Web 2.0 generation of websites for language learning is challenged with providing a range of opportunities via multiple design features that address all the demands of collaborative self-study. The quantity of design features of the Web 2.0 site determines access to language learning opportunity. The advantages of having multiple channels of internet-mediated personto-person communication are well documented in studies of language learning support media and CALL (Kitade, 2000; Stockwell, 2007; Zhao, 2003). Web 2.0 introduces another demand, access to language authority. Because the instructor is removed, most instances of learner-to-learner ! 9:>!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! interaction must be automated by the website and the language authority accessed is the more proficient speaker. Thus an important aspect of Web 2.0 sites for self-access is the presence of what Vygotsky (1978) terms the informed other. A diverse range of participating members involved in peer-tutoring is a crucial aspect of Web 2.0 learning. Therefore, the design of these sites must both facilitate learning and provide language authorities. This requires that a high number of design features contain not only content access, but interaction possibilities. The quantity of design features which link learners, language authorities, and content are the keys to unlocking language learning opportunities in Web 2.0. Taxonomies have been used to evaluate the design of websites for learning. Moore (2006) and Moore and Kearsley (1996) put forth a paradigm of three types of interactions in distance education: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner. They point out that learner-learner interaction is often the weakest part of at-a-distance designs. Other research had identified a fourth dimension, learner-interface (Hillman, Willis & Gunawardena, 1994). Chou (2003) combined these four categories for a study which investigated the designs of websites for self-study, and asked designers to rank the features by importance. She found that designers identified more than half of the features as “must have,” further supporting the notion that, when it comes to interactivity features in self-study websites, the more features the greater the opportunity for learning. Chou’s (2003) taxonomy is the most comprehensive taxonomy developed before this study. Methods Data selection Three criteria were applied to determine which of the 24 sites recommended by the interdisciplinary research group were actually representative of Web 2.0. All the recommended sites had been created between 2005 and 2008, had been fully completed, and had a minimum critical mass of web traffic. I define minimum critical mass as a minimum of 100 learner contributions in the previous week from when the website was reviewed.

•

Sites included in this study must be free and open to the public. This ensures the widest range of users. Barriers limit access and are not characteristic of Web 2.0.

•

Sites must offer multiple languages. Collective knowledge of the user base is the driving force behind the concept of Web 2.0. Therefore, the sites included in this study must offer ! 9:?!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! at least some access to users from different native languages, or at least advanced language users of different languages. Peer-tutors in single language sites does not present a plausible Web 2.0 dynamic. In such cases, the most advanced would have no incentive to participate. Learners must participate as instructors in order to develop a language learning community; thus, sites designed to cater to a single language cannot represent a Web 2.0 design. •

Sites which offered no language content were excluded. Those which focused exclusively on learner-learner interaction without any type of pedagogical support were considered social network sites, and not language learning sites. Any static content, (video, audio or textual/visual) qualified a site as a language learning site. In clarifying these criteria it is important to recognize why certain websites were omitted.

Since the fundamental aspects of Web 2.0 are collaboration and collective intelligence (O'Reilly, 2005) learners are not always authorities of the language their interlocutor wants to learn. In order to allow for optimal collaboration, websites must provide for multiple configurations of language groupings-- learners helping those who in turn help someone else. A Web 2.0 user does not expect the person they tutor to tutor them back, but they do expect to find that help from somewhere within the community. I therefore excluded sites where language exchange is exclusively one-to-one because those sites are by definition not Web 2.0. Penpal, keypal and intercambio sites are therefore not representative of Web 2.0.

Development of the codebook! As Chou’s (2003) theoretical framework for interactivity on the web is adapted from Moore & Kearsley’s (1996) model, the framework used in this study is adapted from Chou’s. Chou (2003) grouped features into four main areas, and these remained in this study. However, using grounded methods, individual features were added to reflect Web 2.0 affordances. Feature analysis is a type of content analysis common to studies of websites (Bates & Lu, 1997; Herring, 2008; Schneider & Foot, 2004). The unit of analysis was the website. Features added to Chou’s (2003) taxonomy are listed in Table 1. !

! 9::!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! Table 1. Additional features added to Chou’s (2003) taxonomy for the analysis of Web 2.0 sites Category 1. Learner-interface 2. Learner-interface

Feature Name 1. Interface language option 2. Advertisements

3. Learner-interface

3. User guidance system

4. Learner-content 5. Learner-content

4. Text to speech capability 5. Upload picture

6. Learner-content

6. Upload profile

7. Learner-content

7. English

8. Learner-content 9. Learner-content 10. Learner-content

8. Vocabulary Content 9. Grammar Content 10. Number of languages in which content is offered 11. Video conferencing 12. Telephony with instructor 13.Find instructor capability 14. Presence indicator– for instructor 15. Video conferencing 16. Telephony 17. Profile search 18. Presence indicator- for learner

11. Learner-instructor 12. Learner-instructor 13. Learner-instructor 14. Learner-instructor 15. Learner-learner 16. Learner-learner 17. Learner-learner 18. Learner-learner

Rational for inclusion 1. Needed for navigation by users with different native languages 2. Not content, targets user as potential client/customer, a part of the interface 3. Guides the user to next task 4. Interacts between content and user, not users/interface. 5. Interactivity with content, not users or interface 6. Interactivity with content, not users or interface 7. English facilitates interaction between multiple target languages, needs to be noted as a feature of content 8. Content specific to language learning sites 9. Content specific to language learning sites 10. Relates to the likelihood Web 2.0 –type collective knowledge can be build 11. Learner-instructor video communication 12. Learner-instructor audio communication 13. Necessary to identify a potential instructor 14. Necessary for learner-instructor synchronous communication 15. Necessary for learner-learner video 16. Necessary for learner-learner audio 17. Necessary to locate other learners 18. Necessary to synchronously interact with other learners

! To address the operationalization of both the new and the Chou (2003) codes, five of the ten sites were coded together by myself and another member of the interdisciplinary research group. Chou’s (2003) taxonomy contained 36 separate features which were combined with 18 new features unique to websites after Web 2.0. In total, 54 total features comprised the final taxonomy. A separate coding of the second five sites resulted in an inter-rater agreement of 96%. The two coders met again to decide on the correct code for each result on which they differed. There were no codes which were left in disagreement between the two coders.

! /88!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! Interconnectedness On the web, interconnectedness is everything (Berners-Lee & Fischetti, 1999; Schneider & Foote, 2004). To answer the second research question, methods were applied to determine two types of interconnectedness - direct and indirect interconnectedness. To determine direct connectedness, likely search terms were entered in Google and the first 200 returns were scanned for websites which had been recommended and had qualified as Web 2.0 language learning websites. Direct connectedness is far more powerful than indirect connectedness because the learner does not need to navigate through another website to access the Web 2.0 site for the first time. Indirect connectedness is determined by the quantity of inbound links a website supports. Google recognizes and reports all inbound links and these are shown through reverse search engines or back-link checkers. Back-link checkers identify not only the quantity of inbound links to a site, but also their originating URL. Qualifying websites’ front page URLs were entered into a free and open source back-link checker, linkpopularity.com. A negative Boolean search was used to remove intra-site links, i.e.: links to the front page which originated from within the site itself. The resulting links as reported by Google were tallied. Indirect connectedness is defined here as a measure of how likely a learner is in finding a recommended site from another site on the web, e.g.: a language learning recommendation blog, a university homepage, or a teacher’s blog. Connectedness measures were not aggregated because of the qualitatively different nature of the two measures. Results ! Ten websites from the recommendation list qualified for analysis: babbel, babelnation, ephisto, italki, kantalk, livemocha, linq, palabea, polyglot-learn-language, and vocabulix. Recurring parts of the URLs (e.g.: “http://” or “.com”) are deleted from this article. Polyglotlearn-language is shortened to polyglot in this article. RQ1: Which Web 2.0 recommended sites show the highest potential for self-access learning opportunities in terms of interactivity design features? While it was expected that no website would have all the features, italki contained the most features, 34 (63%) of the codebook’s possible features. In contrast, babelnation contained ! /89!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! the least, only 15 of the 54 features, or 28%. The three sites with the greatest number of features, italki, ephisto and palabea, each had more than double the number of features than the site with the fewest, babelnation. The median was 26 features, and only two sites had the same number of features, 32. The average number of features per site was 25.5. A comparison of the total number of features in each site can be seen in Figure 1. ! !

@#A()3!9B!2"3!4-)*(56(/1!738'(#3'!)/9!#"3!#,#)*!/-:83.!,5!(/#3.);#(<(#6!53)#-.3'!7(#"(/!3);"0!! ! ! Across all the sites, the most common interactivity group was learner-content, and this category appeared to the greatest extent in the palabea site, where 13 different content interactivity features could be found. No discernable pattern to the designs was evident in the analysis for learner-content interactivity features; higher ranked websites overall did not necessarily contain large numbers of learner-content features, nor any single type of learnercontent feature. In the learner-content category, three sites offered only 9 features (babelnation, lingq, and polyglot). It may be worth noting here that these three offered upgrades of some kind where one could pay for more access to content, either through the site itself or through another product. The smallest range of features within one category was found in the learner-interface manifestations across the sites. In this case, the fewest number of features was 4 and the greatest was 6. In essence, Web 2.0 sites do not vary greatly in terms of learner-interface features. The ! /8/!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! websites babbel and ephisto contained this highest number of learner-interface features (6), and babelnation the fewest, 4. All others ranked in between with 5. The interactivity category which produced the widest range of features was the learnerinstructor category: italki contained 10 features for learners to contact native speakers or instructors, and babelnation only offered a bulletin board system where learners could post questions and hope that a more proficient speaker would respond via that bulletin board. The feature group with the fewest number of possible features was the learner-learner interactivity grouping. Similar to the results of studies by Moore and Kearsley (1996) and Chou (2003), this is the main area where websites consistently failed to support learners with a wide range of options. Both babelnation and lingq contained only one feature in this group, where each provided only a bulletin board system for learners to have contact with each other. Because the learner-learner category had the smallest number of possible features, design performance was easiest to identify in this category. The average number of appearances of any learner-learner feature over the ten sites was 5.4. No one site contained all the learner-learner features; however, three common interactivity features appeared on seven of the ten sites. The common features were: (1) to asynchronously message another learner, (2) search learner profiles, and (3) identify if another learner was online using some kind of presence indicator. Because these are the most common learner-learner interactivity features, it can be expected that a well designed Web 2.0 site for language learning will have these three features. Synchronous interactivity features, however, only appeared on sites with high rankings in design features across the board. While six of the ten recommended sites offered bulletin board systems, the second most common learner-learner interactivity feature, only three of ten offered synchronous chat, telephony, or video conferencing. Learner-learner synchronous features co-occurred with design performance, always appearing on sites in addition to asynchronous features. RQ2: How likely would a self-access language learner be in finding the most beneficial recommended Web 2.0 sites on their own? Direct connectivity measures The interdisciplinary research group provided a number of search terms learners had used, or learners had said they had used. The terms were collected and discussed in the research group.

! /82!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! The list was narrowed via consensus about which terms or phrases learners were likely to use on their own. Table 2 presents these phrases on the left with the number of total results to the right of each phrase. The two columns on the right in the table show the frequencies of qualifying websites appearing in Google search results for these search phrases. For each search, I scanned the first 200 results with one member of the research group. Thus, in the end, two researchers scanned the 1000 search results for the five search phrases. Quotes around the phrases were used to narrow results, and avoid unrelated websites. “Learn English online” was included because English was reasoned to be a lingua franca in Web 2.0 websites, even though it may not have been the target language for many of the learners. Four of the nine websites that appeared in the first 200 results ranked in the top 3 in terms of interactivity features. Italki, the number one ranking website, appeared twice, as did Starbuck’s Coffee’s web initiative, livemocha. Thus the learner who brings no discrimination (random clicking on search results) has a less than 1% chance of actually visiting a Web 2.0 site, and a 0.4% chance of selecting one of the top three Web 2.0 recommended sites. Table 2. Search terms and the qualifying websites which appeared in the first 200 results in Google; interactivity rank appears following each website name. "19:7>$-1:?$

@=-94$:12.4-2$

=,/*(/3!*)/1-)13!*3)./(/1=! =*3)./!E/1*('"!,/*(/3=! =*)/1-)13!*3)./(/1!;,::-/(#6=!

>?>@???! FGC@???! HA@???!

A.9405B03;$20-12C$ 5:1D.137B$ A! ?! G!

A@LM?@???! F?@H??!

A! ?!

=*)/1-)13!3K;")/13=! =;,/<3.')#(,/!$).#/3.=!

A.9405B03;$E1F20-12C$39?12$G$ 519-.:1$:93H$ *(<3:,;")!BCD@!3$"('#,!BAD! /,/3! (#)*I(!B>D@!*(<3:,;")!BCD@!*(/14! BJD@!8)883*!BGD@!$)*)83)!BAD! $,*61*,#!BFD@!(#)*I(!B>D! /,/3!

! Indirect connectivity measures Results from the back-link checker for front page URL’s (minus inbound links) showed a wide range, from 14, 146 (livemocha #4) to 235, (ephisto #2). The highest indirect connectivity site contained more than 60 times the number of inbound links than the lowest ranked indirect connectivity ranked site. The average number of links into the 10 qualifying Web 2.0 language learning sites was 4,498, and the median number of inbound links was 2,515. Internet-wide, there was a total of 44,983 links into the 10 qualifying Web 2.0 language learning sites, and

! /8C!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! 11,502 into the top three sites in terms of design features. The number of inbound links from other domain names is shown for each front page of each site in Figure 2.

>C@>CM!

J@G?>! L@C?L! H@FM?!

A@GJJ!

A@CH>!

A@HJ?!

>@FCG!

GMJ!

AHG!

Figure 2. Number of inbound links (excluding links originating from within the domain) found on linkpopularity.com for each recommended and qualifying Web 2.0 site. Discussion & Implications RQ1: Which Web 2.0 recommended sites show the highest potential for self-access learning opportunities in terms of interactivity design features? The two highest ranks in terms of design features were occupied by three websites: Italki, ephisto and palabea. In terms of design features resulting in learning opportunities, the highest probability for learning gains are on those three sites. This method of analysis was laborious; however, it also uncovered a curious indicator of design investment which could potentially save planning time for self-access learning advisors. Learner-learner interactivity features, the traditionally weakest area of self-study design, continues to be the greatest indicator of overall effort in creating the self-study environment. The highest ranking Web 2.0 sites overall also contained the most uncommon learner-learner interactivity features, but varied in their ensemble of other features.

! /8;!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! This suggests learning advisors (or learners themselves) could look directly to levels of learner-learner support to identify the highest quality Web 2.0 sites for language learning. The learner-learner interactivity category is the area that separates poorly designed websites from websites with wider ranges of features that learners can use. The top three sites overall, italki, ephisto and palabea each offered not only asynchronous media such as bulletin boards, but at least one form of synchronous learner-learner interactivity: chat, telephony, or video conferencing. The lower ranking sites also showed this relationship as they lacked the more sophisticated learner-learner design features. These relationships could be used as a quick litmus test for Web 2.0 sites. By simply counting the learner-learner opportunities, a learning advisor could quickly determine the potential that a site would waste learner time on unanswered interactions. The top three Web 2.0 sites had seven or eight distinct forms of learner-learner interaction. Less robust designs had fewer than seven, and the three lowest ranked websites had only two or three learner-learner interactivity features. For example, had a learner invested time in babelnation, with only one form of learner-learner interaction via a BBS discussion board, it is highly unlikely their effort would be rewarded with a Web 2.0 learning experience. There is no indication that a question a learner posed on a bulletin board will be answered, and no indication that learners going to babelnation will encounter an interlocutor. However, if a learner were in a chat room on palabea, and another learner suggested a live telephony conversation, the learners would undoubtedly experience at least 2 forms of uncommon Web 2.0 learning- the textual chat, and the verbal chat. The power of Web 2.0 designs can be surmised simply from learner-learner interactivity features. RQ2: How likely would a self-access language learner be in finding the most beneficial recommended Web 2.0 sites on their own? Self-access learners are very unlikely to find higher quality Web 2.0 sites on their own. Using Google, and assuming learners may not recognize advertisements disguised as Web 2.0 language learning sites, these data suggested a 0.9% chance that a learner will find one of the recommended sites, and a 0.4% chance that they will encounter one with a high number of design features. Of course, there is always the possibility of new Web 2.0 language learning sites in development, but high quality websites require significant investments of time, expertise, and financial support. Highly sophisticated, free sites which compete for the open market of learners

! /8=!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! on the web are unlikely to appear without a significant technological disruption. Disruptions do come regularly, but they are not predictable events. Mobile computing is an example of a technological disruption which has come, but has not impacted Web 2.0 design. Other well designed sites which were not identified by the research group could very well be available since the completion of this study. The indirect interconnectivity data also suggests a rather bleak forecast for the learner who tries to find the higher quality Web 2.0 sites via blogs or written recommendations on the web. The highest ranking back-linked website, livemocha (#4 in terms of design features), drew approximately twice the number of links as the highest ranking Web 2.0 site in terms of design features. It is little consolation that the site with the fewest learning opportunities, babelnation site ranks 2nd lowest on the indirect measure of connectivity and does not appear on direct measures of connectivity at all. Even aggregating all the inbound links of the top three designed sites does not match the highest web-presence site, livemocha, a public relations initiative created by the coffee manufacturer, Starbucks.

Conclusion ! This study suggests that, using measures of feature analysis and interconnectivity, one can empirically state that the self-access learner is unlikely to find a well designed Web 2.0 language learning site via a search engine without the help of an advisor. The sample of websites used in this study was not meant to be exhaustive, nor was it meant to be timeless. Some might view websites created between 2005 and 2008 as already outdated, but this was the time when Web 2.0 had reached its pinnacle and designers were both versed in its features and still interested in creating quality designs within the genre. 2010 provided a good vantage point to study Web 2.0 because the sites used in this study are representative of the genre in its maturity, and were still regularly attended when they were studied. New web sites will be developed, but the genre itself will persist as it incorporates features from new approaches to interaction. While the sites themselves are not timeless, the measures appear to be. Societies add technologies more often than they replace them (Gleick, 2011). The next wave of design innovation has come in the form of semantic design features rather than interactivity features (Collins & Quillian, 1969). More recent designs have changed focus from interconnectivity to mining for automated interactions, following the breakthroughs in XML, ! /8>!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! smart agents, and semantically organized content. Web 3.0 sites will not have a fixed set of features, a critical mass of users, nor a reliable set of evaluative measures until sometime after the genre has reached maturity. By the mid 1990s the web had already developed web-quests and collaborative email exchanges; many of these activities are still in use today and evaluated by the measures developed right after those designs became popular (Howard, 2011). There is little indication that the age of the sites here have any impact on the validity of ranking them in this manner, nor is there any indication that the ranking measures I have used here are any less valid now than they will be years from now. If anything, the present trajectory of the web suggests that more studies of design features and how they relate to interconnectivity are sure to come. Lucy Cooker (2010) made the case that self-access learning should be truly self-access (i.e. not homework disguised as self-access learning) and should be fun. I have made the case here that despite the accolades afforded to Web 2.0 designs for learning, language learning for the unassisted learner on Web 2.0 would not only be frustrating instead of fun, but would likely not amount to much access to learning opportunities. Each self-access center must strategize an approach to recommending websites for self-access collaborative study. This article has presented one possible method of making that decision, but the individual contexts of students and the value systems of each center will, of course, be the final determiner. The approach I have taken uses methods more common to studies in information science than linguistics or education; barrowed methods can provide unique insights to problems closer to home. Simply counting interactivity design features allowed us to make a decision based on evidence in a context where comparative evidence is difficult to create. Acknowledgements ! I am indebted to Miguel Lara of the Instructional Systems Technology Department at Indiana University for suffering with me through the coding of 54 features over the 10 websites, and scanning hundreds of search results for Web 2.0 sites. I am further indebted to Curt Bonkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Research Group for Online Language Learning who provided the initial list and search terms, and to Susan C. Herring for teaching me these methods and giving me feedback on an earlier version of this paper.

! /8?!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! Notes on the contributor Craig D. Howard is the Assistant Editor of the International Journal of Designs for Learning and a PhD Candidate at Indiana University in Instructional Systems Technology. He holds an MA from Teachers College Columbia University and has taught at the City University of New York and Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. His research focuses on online communication and developing online pedagogy. References Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers & Education, 34(3-4), 291-308. Bates, M. J., & Lu, S. (1997). An exploratory profile of personal home pages: Content, design, metaphors. Online and CDROM Review, 21(6), 331-340. Berners-Lee, T., & Fischetti, M. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. San Francisco: Harper. Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Computer-assisted language learning. Cambridge University Press. Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 265-279. Collins, A.M., & Quillian, M.R. (1969).!N3#.(3<)*!#(:3!5.,:!'3:)/#(;!:3:,.60!&'()*+,!'D!E3)7+,! ,3+)*#*A!+*F!E3)7+,!73G+E#')!?!BAD%!AC?OACL0!9,(%>?0>?>M&P??AAQGHL>BMJDF??MJQ>. Cooker, L. (2010). Some self-access principles. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 59. Felix, U. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCALL 14, 2-15. Gleick, J. (2011). The information: A history, a theory, a flood. Pantheon Books. Herring, S. C. (2008). Web content analysis: Expanding the paradigm, in J. Hunsinger, M. Allen, and L. Klastrup (Eds.), The international handbook of internet research. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

! /8:!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36. Howard, C. D. (2011). An instructional paradigm for the teaching of computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 39(6), n.p. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-11011-1918711250. Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching, in M. Warschauer and R. Kern, (eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners' discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166. Laningham, S. (2006). "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". City: IBM, pp. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html. Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer-assisted language learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Moore, M. G. (2006). The handbook of distance education. New Jersey: Lawrence Ehrbaum Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology 3(1), 75-87. Nunan, D. (1994). Introduction in D. Gardner & L. Miller (Eds.), Directions in self-access language learning. Hong Kong University Press. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. retrieved from: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web20.html. Schneider, S. M., & Foot, K. A. (2004). The web as an object of study. New Media & Society, 6(1), 114-122. Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCall, 19, 105-120. Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles and procedures for self-access materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(2), 72-86.

! /98!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!"3453673)!/8990!9:;</99! Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, M. (2000). The death of cyberspace and the rebirth of CALL. English Teachers' Journal, 53, 61-67. Zhao, Y. (1996). Language Learning on the World Wide Web: Toward a framework of network based CALL. CALICO, 14(1). Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO, 21(1), 7-27. Appendix: Websites provided by the Indiana University Research Group for Online Language Learning. * indicates sites selected for analysis in this study.

Recommended Website List 1. http://www.babbel.com/*

11. http://www.livemocha.com/*

2. http://www.ephisto.com/*

12. http://www.palabea.net/*

3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/

13. http://www.friendsabroad.com/

4. http://www.italki.com/*

14. http://www.polyglot-learn-language.com/*

5. http://www.lingq.com*

15. http://www.vocabulix.com/*

6. http://www.language-

16. http://www.kantalk.com/*

exchanges.org/

17. http://www.ecpod.com/

7. http://www.chinswing.com/

18. http://soziety.com/

8. http://www.about.com/education/

19. http://chinesepod.com/

9. http://www.elllo.org/

20. http://spanishpod.com/

10. http://www.mangolanguages.com/

21. http://www.englishpod.com/ 22. http://www.notesinspanish.com/spanishaudio/ 23. http://www.radiolinguamedia.com/cbs/www/ guide/index.html 24. http://www.babelnation.com*

! /99!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218

Retooling Perspectives on Technologyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Role in Language Education Randall Davis, University of Utah, USA For years, educators, parents, and the rest of the general public have often been bombarded (or for a better word, lulled) into believing that technology can be the end-all solution to educating children in the classroom or in self-access learning environments. Broad assumptions are commonly made on how technology, including anything from computers, whiteboards, and iPads, can transform and revolutionize teaching, independent learning, assessment, and other educational initiatives. Furthermore, changes in school programs are at times instituted at break-neck speeds with little understanding of the effects that technology can have on the actual learning process. Unfortunately, simple catch phrases and anecdotal accounts on how students appear to be more motivated to learn in and out of the classroom only serve to cloud the already murky debate, and much has been written on the potential benefits and limitations of technology on student achievement and learning (Cordes, & Miller, 2000; Cuban, 1986; Farenga & Joyce, 2001; Openheimer, 2003). In fact, measurable and quantifiable data demonstrating the real impact of technology on learning is somewhat spotty and open to much debate, findings often relying solely on interviews and observations (Cuban, 2010; Trucano, 2005). Of course, much can be said about the value in qualitative research and even anecdotal evidence, but this should be combined with other well-defined research methods that give a more comprehensive understanding of how technology aids learning. With such diverging views, educators may be in somewhat of a quandary as to how to proceed in their attempts to blend pedagogically-sound instruction with the latest technologies available in self-assess centers. This is nothing new. Success with technology has been a mixed bag in language learning and instruction, in part because of the multiplicity and conflicting agendas coming from political, educational, and business arenas. In response to this conundrum, I would like to share several experiences I have had in providing teacher training in different parts of the world and discuss three contributing factors that can lead to better application and integration of technology in the language classroom and in independent learning situations.

212

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 Determining Teacher and Student Needs Over the years, investments in technology have been driven by many competing interests, including the desire to look high tech without a clear picture of what is needed. In fact, Trucano (2005, p. 5) states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;one of the enduring difficulties of technology use in education is that educational planners and technology advocates think of the technology first and then investigate the educational applications of this technology only later.â&#x20AC;? One classic illustration of this perspective became evident when I was invited to visit the language department of a major institution and give a number of lectures on instructional technology. Before arriving, I had been informed that the department was concerned about their teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceived reticence on using technology in their classrooms, particularly in the institutions new high-tech multimedia lab. The group to whom I was speaking was made up of classroom educators and administrators from different parts of that country, and as my lectures proceeded, I sensed a deep-rooted anxiety on the part of teachers that their needs had not been considered. After further discussions, I discovered that many of the purchases of technology, including the computer lab, were decisions made by upper administration based on an apparent urgency to appear high tech in the name of better instruction and learning, with little or no input on what teachers or students really needed. Furthermore, there was no specific plan on how the lab could be used to enhance autonomous learning during after-school hours. As a result of the disparity in perspectives between administrators and teachers, the whole discussion ended up in a quagmire of debate and little progress was made. On another occasion, I received a long-distance phone call from a school administrator seeking advice and recommendations on how to spend a sizeable budget designated for educational technology, specifically on computers and software for a self-access lab in a public school. The immediate concern was that if the money was not spent in the next three days, the funds would be lost, and there was not sufficient time to meet with teachers to discuss these decisions. (I did not ask him why a thorough needs analysis had not been conducted earlier, and the person did not volunteer an explanation.) Not having done a needs analysis and with no concrete plan on how the computers would be used to achieve curriculum goals, technology would have probably gone underused because teachers were never involved in the needs assessment process. 213

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 These stories typify the common of practice of circumventing the very steps that ensure successful technological integration, that is, teacher and student involvement in the initial stages of planning and needs assessment to determine what technologies would actually benefit instruction and independent learning. Assessing a program’s technical needs from the beginning through questionnaires and planning meetings will save administrators and teachers the heartache of relegating new fancy gizmos and gadgets to the unused electronic heap once they realize, in hindsight, that they never really needed the technologies in the first place. Maintaining Realistic Expectations In addition to conducting a careful analysis of teacher and program needs, educators should fully understand and consider the limitations and even the possible shortcomings of technology in self-access centers. If the goal in such learning environments is to encourage learner autonomy leading to better language proficiency, then teachers and students need to understand what can be realistically accomplished with the technology at their disposal. To illustrate this point, a common learning task assigned to students might be to visit a specific website after school to practice their listening skills; however, with undefined learning goals, tasks, and self-assessment rubric or tools, it will be very difficult for a student to measure specific learning outcomes. With these issues in mind, educational institutions need to evaluate what technologies can produce realistic results in the development of language skills in self-access learning environments before investing in new products and technologies, and in the end, what educators often discover is that “less is more” in accomplishing learning objectives. In other words, rather than purchasing computer equipment and software that most learners may never need, selfaccess administrators may find that a judicious selection of a few items can be a more productive effective use of funding. For instance, instead of purchasing high-end, multi-track digital voice recorders for the simple task of recording and assessing students’ speech samples, other much simpler devices such as a student's cell phone with free voice mail services could accomplish the same task. Simply investing in expensive tools does not always translate into better learning outcomes.

214

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 In the same way, technologies dressed as educational tools will not deliver magnificent results without effective teacher intervention. Indeed, what I have seen most in the classroom over the years would not be considered cutting edge, innovative, or thought provoking. At times, students are simply asked to look up information as part of a writing assignment without having been given instruction on how to evaluate the authority, relevance, credibility, and timeliness of online sources. This also could be said in the overuse of PowerPoint for presentations in which students sometimes spend the majority of their time in developing the slides with elaborate animations and graphic embellishments, and very little time on the linguistic competencies needed to convey their ideas in front of an audience. In this case, a simple poster board would be a more useful presentation tool. In the end, teachers need to realize that if you invest in new technologies with the hope of great learning outcomes coming forth on their own, you may be sorely disappointed. In fact, one observation made years ago by Warschauer (1996, p. 11) is still very relevant today: Those who expect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensive and elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computer technology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly find ways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunities of their students. Investing in Training, Not Devices The final point I would like to make deals with teacher training. Over the years, I have visited institutions in which I often encountered one similarity: abandoned, discarded, or underused pieces of technology. As I have mentioned before, this can occur due to inadequate assessment of students' needs or over-realistic expectations on what technology can do to enhance learning. What is actually true with technology is that even with the best tools, little can be accomplished without significant investment in ongoing, in-service training. For years, technology has been viewed as a method, rather than a tool to facilitate and support teaching, and not the other way around, and it is sometimes assumed that if computers are placed in the hands of teachers, these devices will transform teaching. Unfortunately, a great deal of teacher training is based on this premise and fails to acknowledge that teachers often do 215

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 not implement or follow through with the ideas that they learn in training workshops. This can be due to a number of reasons including a top-down administrative approach that attempts to mandate use of technology without considering student and teacher needs. Even when inservice training is provide, it often takes the form of shotgun instruction in which teachers are overwhelmed with information in one gigantic burst without additional follow-up sessions for review and hands-on application. An additional misdirection in the purchase of any technology is that when institutions determine budgets, program administrators often focus on the tangibles because these items can be easily measured (e.g., number of computers, software licenses, headphones, etc.). Unfortunately, training and teacher development takes a backseat to other items, and such training finds itself at the bottom of the budgetary ladder. Two points on successful training practices brought up by Kessler (2006) worth mentioning include having a CALL specialist as a part of any language program and keeping training sessions extremely relevant to current needs. At the English Language Institute at the University of Utah, I have worked as the Computer Lab Coordinator of the Intensive English program, and a number of our full-time staff provide on-going assistance to part-time teachers and students when carrying out learning tasks in our computer lab. One example that illustrates the three points made in this paper is the development of speaking assessments in our program. A number of teachers at the English Language Institute determined that assessing students' productive use of grammar in conversation was an essential part of grammar classes instead of simply relying on written assignments and tests. Part of the impetus for creating speaking assessments was the result of discussions with other university administration and professors who had indicated that some international students in classes lacked the communicative ability to engage in class discussion and other speaking tasks. Once this needs assessment was made, we determined that that a combination of computer software, cell phones, and a Web-based voice mail service could serve our purposes of recording student speech samples. Finally, students were provided detailed instruction on how to use the devices and software outside of the classroom, and in some cases, screencast video tutorials can be created with services such as Screencast-o-Matic (www.screencast-o-matic.com) to guide on how to self-assess their speech samples through the use of concrete and very measurable rubric. Preliminary research on the use of this speaking assessment approach has shown that students 216

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 are able to learn how to apply the grammar structures in oral communication over time with repeated and focused practice, part of which includes activities in which they listen and evaluate their own speech samples. Students have also expressed positive feedback with this method of assessment especially when the tasks used reflect real-life situations which they will encounter in future academic environments and careers. Summary Without a doubt, technology will continue to permeate in the language classroom and self-learning environments, and the debate as to its efficacy in enhancing learning will rage on on both sides of the issue. Nevertheless, the fact that remains at the core of the issue is how to integrate technology in sound-pedagogical ways, and Sparrgrove (2009, p. 11) summarized these observations when he stated that in the end, â&#x20AC;&#x153;it is pedagogical innovation that will define technology integration effectiveness.â&#x20AC;? No number of bells and whistles that technology produces can compensate for, or take the place of, poor instructional approaches. However, educational institutions can enhance the blending of pedagogyby realigning their perspectives to include a needs assessment, realistic expectations, and the right type and amount of teacher training in their programs. Notes on the Contributor Randall Davis is the Instructor Coordinator at the English Language Institute at the University of Utah, USA. He also has developed Web-based multimedia Web sites for language learners since 1998, including Randallâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ESL Cyber Listening Lab (www.esl-lab.com).

References Cordes, C. & Miller, E. (Eds). (2000). Fool's gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College Park, MD, USA, Alliance for Childhood. Retrieved from http://drupal6.allianceforchildhood.org/fools_gold. 217

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2011, 212-218 Cuban, L. (2010, July 11). Why districts buy new technologies, part 2: Political and psychological explanations. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/why-districts-buy-new-technologies-part-2political-and-psychological-explanations/. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology. New York: Teachers College Press. Farenga, S.J., & Joyce, B.A. (2001). Hardware versus brainware: Where are technology dollars being invested? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 313-319. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Kessler, G. (2006). Assessing CALL teacher training: What are we doing and what could we do better? In P. Hubbard, & M. Levy (eds.). Teacher education in CALL. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Oppenheimier, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology in the classroom. New York: Random House. Sparrgrove, B. (2010, June 14). Technology integration to enhance teaching and learning. Unpublished manuscript, Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School. Trucano, M. (2005). Knowledge maps: ICTs in education. Washington, DC: infoDev / World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/en/Publication.8.html. Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.). Multimedia Language Teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo, Japan: Logos International. Retrieved from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm.

218

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Cell Phones + Self-Access: A Summer Campaign Kirsten Mashinter, Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University, Japan

Introduction In the fall of 2009, I came to a women’s university in Hiroshima, Japan from a university in Kosovo as an instructor in the English Communication Center (ECC). Into this new and decidedly different context, I brought my personal interest in photography and my history of using this interest in EFL environments (see Mashinter, 2007 and Mashinter, 2009). My experiences using student-generated photography in the classroom up to this point had led me to wholly agree with Gallo (2001) that photography can help emerging language learners communicate in a more articulate manner and that by taking and sharing photographs, students have control over their narratives and can engage with their stories. After being introduced to the ECC’s Self Access Center (SAC), I started considering ways in which I might apply my past successes with EFL photography projects to my new surroundings. I quickly discovered that the SAC was constantly looking for ways to encourage more students to utilize its resources. In addition, the SAC could provide an appropriate platform for playing with the idea that teachers are artists and this creativity can be realized not just in classroom contexts but within the construct of a self-access center as well (Candlin, personal communication, October 5, 2009). Because the SAC maintained an open-door policy of accepting ideas from instructors and will often pursue these suggestions, I wanted to create a SAC activity for students that blended my interest in photography with the SAC’s main objective of providing an environment in which students can extend their language experiences beyond the classroom. At the time of my arrival, I was also considering ways in which I could bring microblogging activities into the classroom as a way to explore the educational shift from CALL to SMALL (social media assisted language learning) (Stevens, Cozens, & Buckingham, 2010). Educause (2009) defines microblogging as “the practice of posting small pieces of digital content-which could be text, pictures, links, short videos, or other media-on the Internet” (p. 1)

219

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

and I wanted to use it with my students to increase communicative and cultural competencies (see Boreau, Ullrich, Feng, & Shen, 2009). The idea for developing a summer project with the SAC came about after a series of discussions I had with the SAC Director. It had been noted that SAC usage dramatically dropped during the summer months, due mostly to the fact that most students left campus at this time. A strong link between the SAC and the English curriculum had already been purposefully established (Thompson & Atkinson, 2010), and students were using the SAC during the semester to supplement classroom activities. My interest was not in motivating students to access the SAC to obtain further help with their studies. Rather, I wanted to encourage creative linkages between the SAC and students’ personal time, exploring Perifanou’s (2009) suggestion of creating a project in which students could use their English skills while in a relaxing situation. In an attempt to bring all these strands together, I developed a summer vacation contest for the SAC in which students could participate regardless of their physical distance from the facility. This contest would center on cell phones, photography, and writing and it would be platformed online. The Project The Keitai1 Photo Contest launched at the beginning of the university’s summer vacation period on August 1, 2010. In its simplest form, participating students took a summer-related photo with their cell phone and emailed it along with a title and short descriptive text to the contest address. These entries were then posted online to a blog (see Appendix A). At the end of the contest, which terminated on September 30, winners were chosen and selected photographs and text pairings were put on display in the SAC during the school festival in October. Requirements Administrative In order to conduct the contest, it was essential to have the following: a computer with an Internet connection; an email account; and a blogging platform. For this project, a Gmail account was created specifically for the contest and a free Wordpress account was used to host the blog.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1

“Keitai” is the Japanese word for cell phone. 220

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Prior to the opening of the contest, students who wanted to participate were required to pre-register. By the end of the two-week registration period, 89 students had signed up. Contest protocols were developed, translated into Japanese, and emailed to participants (see Appendix B). As students emailed in submissions, the entries were posted to the contest blog after being reviewed to ensure there was no inappropriate content. Cost for the contest was minimal. The web hosting and email account were free. The SAC already had the paper, printer, and ink needed to print out the photographs for the end-ofcontest display. The primary cost was 9000 yen spent on gift cards, which were given out as prizes to winners of the contest. Participants At a minimum, participants needed a camera-enabled cell phone and cell phone service. These two items allowed students to take photographs, prepare the submission, and email their postings to be uploaded to the blog. For students who wanted to view the entries, they either needed access to a computer with an Internet connection or a cell phone and data plan that allowed Internet pages to be viewed. Students also needed to know how to use their cell phones to take photos, to send emails, and how to access the Roman alphabet keypad. No training was given to students on how to do any of these actions with their phones. It was assumed that participants understood how to use their phone to participate in this project because this technology is so ubiquitous in Japan. Considerations Photo quality All photos submitted were of suitable resolution for viewing online. However, some photos were of too low resolution to print out on A4 paper for the end-of-contest display. These photos could not be included in the exhibition because the printouts were too pixilated or blurry. To minimize this occurrence, the protocols should have requested students to take photos using the highest resolution setting on their phone cameras.

221

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Plagiarism One student submitted a photograph that she had plagiarized from another source. It was not until she requested the photograph be rescinded that it became apparent that she had not taken it. No mechanism was in place to detect submissions plagiarized from online sources, but an eventual Google Images search did find the source photograph. Because the student retracted the photograph, no action was taken against her. Privacy The institution where the contest took place is a womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s university and student privacy was a priority throughout this process. Insofar as was feasible, concerns such as being able to identify participants as being students at our institution were balanced with ease of blog access (i.e., not requiring a log in process to view the blog). This included not using the university name on the blog and selecting Wordpress settings so that search engines would not find the blog. To control site visibility, under the privacy settings, the â&#x20AC;&#x153;I would like to block search engines, but allow normal visitorsâ&#x20AC;? option was checked. With this setting, if someone conducted an online search for one of the students who submitted a photograph, that search would not pull up the photo contest site. Reminder emails When the project began, no schedule of reminder emails had been set. However, as the contest progressed, it became apparent that in order to keep receiving entries, it was necessary to send reminder emails to the students encouraging submissions. Over the course of the contest, three reminder emails were sent. After each email, there was a spike in the number of entries. Text production No rules were given to students regarding length or quality of descriptive text that should accompany each photo submission. Not only did shorter text entries better fit within the spirit of microblogging, but this was a purposeful decision to allow all students to participate in the contest regardless of ability to write in English. The intent was to ensure that the text portion of the submission was not burdensome in terms of English competence or capacity to type out a longer text on a cell phone keypad. In hindsight, with an average production of only two or three 222

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

sentences, the contest could have better balanced language with photography and required longer accompanying texts. Webhosting platform Wordpress was chosen to host the blog in part because it offers a mobile feature which works with both smart phones (such as the iPhone) and with the Japan-specific mobile web that is accessible by most Japanese cell phones. This meant that across a variety of cell phones and cell phone plans, students could both submit entries and view the blog on their cell phones. Winner Selection Process Of the 84 entries received, 25 finalists were selected based on quality of text, quality of photograph, and how well the submission suited the contest. ECC faculty and SAC staff were shown these entries and asked to individually select their favorite three. The results were compiled and, in total, five entries were singled out as winners: selections were made for first, second, and third place prizes. Two entries were selected as honorable mentions. There was some confusion over the meaning of ‘honorable mention,’ and the students whose photos were selected for this category initially thought they had won a prize. There is no direct translation into Japanese for this idea of ‘honorable mention’ and I would not recommend using this as a category in a Japanese context. Conclusion This contest took place during a two-month summer vacation period, a time when the number of users at the Self Access Center drops dramatically. The Keitai Photo Contest encouraged student participants to present personal moments of importance and relevance with photographs and English text. With the ubiquity of cell phone and Internet technology in Japan, it was relatively easy to create a platform for this SAC summer contest that allowed students an opportunity to use English during their summer holiday in a relaxing manner. Few resources were required and this project is adaptable to teaching and learning contexts across Japan and beyond.

223

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Notes on the contributor Kirsten Mashinter was most recently an instructor at Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University in Japan. She has worked in Japan, Bulgaria, Kosovo, and the United States as an EFL instructor, materials developer, and teacher trainer. She is currently pursuing coursework in graphics communications at Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada. !

References Gallo, M. L. (2001). Immigrant workers’ journey through a new culture: Exploring the transformative learning possibilities of photography. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33(2). 109-117. Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J., & Shen, R. (2009). Microbloggging for language learning: Using Twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. In M. Spaniol, Q. Li, R. Klamma, & R. W. Lau (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. ICWL ‘009 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Web Based Learning (pp. 78-87). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1008/978-3-642-03426-8_10 Educause Learning Initiative. (2009, July). 7 things you should know about…Microblogging. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/eli Mashinter, K. (2007, October 13). “One day in photographs: Bringing mobile phones into the curriculum.” [Presentation]. TESOL Macedonia Thrace 15th Annual Convention. Thessoloniki, Greece. Mashinter, K. (2009, March 28). “The lens of Kosovar youth: A multi-modal EFL project.” [Presentation]. 43rd Annual TESOL Convention and Exhibit. Denver, Colorado. Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: Fun and informal microblogging activities for language learning. In M. D. Lytras, P. O. de Pablos, E. Damiani, D. Avison, A. Naeve, & D. G. Horner (Eds.), Best Practices for the knowledge Society: Knowledge, Learning, Development and Technology for All. Proceedings of the Second World Summit on the Knowledge Society (pp. 1-14). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3642-04757-2

224

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Stevens, V., Cozens, P., & Buckingham, J. (2010, April 10). â&#x20AC;&#x153;Thinking SMALL: Realizing ongoing professional development through grassroots social networking in the UAE.â&#x20AC;? [Presentation]. Abu Dhabi ELT Conference. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Thompson, G. & Atkinson, L. (2010). Integrating self-access into the curriculum: Our experience. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 47-58. !

225

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Appendix A Blog Screen Shots http://salcsummer.wordpress.com

226

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'345''6! !

Appendix B Contest Protocols (English Version) Participation is simple! 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Take a summer photo with your keitai. Give the photo a title. Write a short explanation of your photo in English. Include your first and last name. Send the photo and above information to salcsummer@gmail.com. Check http://salcsummer.wordpress.com to look at all the summer photos!

You can send as few or as many photos as you want to. The more photos you send, the greater your chance of winning a prize. The blog will be updated with new photos regularly. IMPORTANT INFORMATION By entering the competition you agree to the following: a. You will get the permission of any people in your pictures to use them in the competition. b. You will not send any titles, photographs or captions that might be considered offensive or indecent. c. You will allow the use of your photos and writing for research, PR, or public display. All submissions will be moderated and may be edited before being posted on the blog. The contest ends on September 30, 2010. The winner of the contest will be announced on October 5, and selected photos will be displayed at the school festival on October 11.

227

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

Mobility in Learning: The Feasibility of Encouraging Language Learning on Smartphones Keith Barrs, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

Technology can be defined as anything which humans have created to shape their environment, from individual tools used in daily life to the systems and institutions which guide and define our societies. As such, technology is a “social and cultural phenomenon” (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009, p. 158) which “cannot but influence the ways in which people learn” (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007, p. 6). Within language learning contexts, one of the main discussions about technology is in the integration, or normalisation (Chambers & Bax, 2006), of the technology into the language curriculum. This concept of normalisation is when the technology is “as invisible and natural as whiteboards and pens” (p. 466) and it is only with this invisibility that technology will “have found its proper place in language education” (p. 466). With normalised technology in language learning contexts there is an unprecedented opportunity to re-define the nature of learning. Traditional ideas of classroom-based learning are giving way to modern ideas of ‘24/7 anywhere, anytime’ learning which is accessed and managed in part or in whole by the learners themselves, primarily on mobile devices (Kiernan & Aizawa, 2004; Motteram & Sharma, 2009). Indeed, as stated in “The Horizon Report” (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011), which looks at trends in learning technologies, “students’ easy and pervasive access to information outside of formal campus resources continues to encourage educators to take a careful look at the ways we can best serve learners” (p. 3). The potential of smartphone integration into language learning In the second decade of the 21st century, smartphones offer the greatest potential for such invisible integration of technological hardware into language learning. These devices are technologically superior to standard mobile phones, running on advanced operating systems such as iOS (Apple), Android (Google) and Symbian (Nokia) which allow for the use of high-resolution touch-screen interfaces and smartphone-specific applications.

228!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

As a mobile device they have “an affinity with movement between indoors and outdoors, across formal and informal settings, allowing learners to lead at least some of the way” (Kukulska-Hulme, 2009, p. 164), and they are usually owned by the students themselves, at a relatively low-cost (Johnson et al, 2011). These characteristics mean that smartphones have the potential to become important devices not only in language learning in general but particularly in Self Access Language Learning (SALL). SALL is an approach to learning where the focus is on the promotion of learner autonomy by moving students away from dependence on the teacher and towards independence in managing one’s own learning (Gardner & Miller, 1999). Smartphones can greatly assist students in managing their learning by giving them mobile and independent access to materials and resources. The motivation for smartphone research The motivation for the research reported in this short article was the observation in my classrooms that smartphones were becoming more and more common, as a device owned by the students and regularly brought to the classes as a standard item of the students’ possessions. Through my own experience with a smartphone, I had come to recognise their potential language-learning applications such as their usefulness as voice recorders, the ability to photograph and store digital pictures of board work, and the proliferation in specific language learning applications (see Godwin-Jones, 2011), such as Cloudbank (a database of informal English usage), Anki (a flashcard programme) and Sounds (an app to help with pronunciation). It appeared that in my classes, smartphones had the best potential to become a normalised language learning technology, both inside and outside of the classroom, and this normalisation would bring with it opportunities not only for use in class but also for promotion of language learning activities that could be achieved beyond the classroom. The Study The areas of investigation This observation led to the formation of two main research questions: (1) What is the extent of smartphone ownership among the students in my classes? (2) Do students use their smartphones for language learning? Although the research questions and the data which would arise from them are specific to my classes at one university in Japan, it is hoped that such research could encourage other teachers to conduct similar investigations into the feasibility of encouraging language learning with smartphones and to begin to discover

229!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

applications and features of smartphones that could assist students in their language learning activities. Investigating research question 1: The issue of normalisation The concept of normalisation is an important one in discussions of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). Bax (2003) states that normalisation of technology occurs when it “becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice” and when the technology is “hardly even recognised as a technology, taken for granted in everyday life” (p. 3). It is then that the technology will be at its most useful in language learning contexts, because it can be used “without fear and inhibition, and equally without an exaggerated respect for what [it] can do” (p. 3). So if a normalised state of technology in language learning is considered as something which is both achievable and desirable (Bax, 2003, p. 24) then it is necessary to consider what piece of technology has the best potential for becoming normalised, the extent to which the normalisation is in progress and the opportunities afforded by the integration of this technology. A questionnaire given out to my classes (80 students) at the end of the 2010/2011 academic year (January) showed that only 25% owned a smartphone. This showed that the technology was popular, but not yet normalised in wider society or a ‘natural’ part of the make-up of a student’s everyday possessions. The questionnaire will be administered in January 2012 to new classes of students to compare the rate of ownership and to see whether or not this technology is near normalisation. It is important to note that at the time of the questionnaire only 25% of students surveyed owned a smartphone but the other 75% owned a standard ‘non-smart’ mobile phone; data which is echoed in the Horizon Report (Johnson et al., 2011) stating that “virtually 100% of university students worldwide come equipped with mobiles” (p. 13). The proliferation of smartphone hardware (such as the predicted release of the iPhone 5 in late 2011 and the acquisition of the Motorola company by Google in order to focus on mobile technologies), and the ever-increasing number of apps in stores such as iTunes (Apple) and Android Market (Google), suggests that mobile phones will be most likely updated to smartphones when contracts end or phones are lost/broken. That is unless a new technology is released in the intervening period which comes to replace the smartphone. Investigating research question 2: Using a smartphone for language learning According to The Horizon Report (2011), “people expect to be able to work, learn and study whenever and wherever they want” (p. 3). Smartphones can be a useful technology in 230!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

this regard, especially in relation to learning, primarily because of their mobility but also due to the functions and applications available on the device. Smartphones allow anywhere, anytime access to an ever increasing amount of information and resources through functions and applications such as cellular calls, Instant Messaging services (IM), audio/video recording, wireless Internet access, social-networking applications, mobile dictionaries and flashcard programs. However, it is important to acknowledge that ownership of a smartphone does not necessarily mean that they are being used for language learning purposes. It is therefore also important to investigate first of all whether or not students who own smartphones are (1) already using them for language learning or (2) willing to use them for language learning, and then to investigate the particular ways in which they can be used. From the initial questionnaire given to my 2010/2011 classes (80 students), in January 2011, I found that of the 20 students who owned smartphones, 15 had already used their smartphone in a way which they considered to be for language learning. Several of these uses are listed below: 1. The camera was used to photograph board-work written up by the teacher, for example homework assignments and instructions. 2. The built-in voice recorder on the iPhone was used to record a pair-presentation practice session and then this recording was self-reviewed for features that the teacher had said would be assessed, such as fluency and pronunciation. 3. One student had heard about the ability to search in Google by voice with the Google App and wrote that checking to see if the app would respond correctly to her oral search terms was fun pronunciation practice for her. 4. Several students said they used flashcard apps such as Gengo Flashcards which is an integrated app that allows you to create flashcards using your own photographs along with inputted text which can be spoken back to you in a range of languages. 5. Some students mentioned they use English language news apps such as BBC, CNN, Discovery, Time and MTV. Of the 5 students who answered that they felt they hadnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t yet used their smartphone for a specific language learning activity, 4 answered that they would be interested in learning about what functions/apps were good for this purpose. The remaining 1 student answered that 231!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

he/she had no wish to use their smartphone for specific language learning activities because he/she didn’t like using technology in this way. This student said he/she enjoyed using textbooks for language learning and the smartphone was just for calling and simple Internet access in Japanese. The questionnaire will be administered again in January 2012 to find out if and how students are using their smartphones for language learning, and also to find out which functions and applications seem to be most popular among the students over time. Although limited, this data indicates that even if some students already know how to use their smartphones for language learning, a key role for instructors can be to encourage and support all learners in how smartphones can be used for particular language activities. This can be done through classwork and homework which makes use of the devices and with the promotion of free/paid apps that teachers feel would be useful for the learners to use. Such promotion could be done through an ‘app of the week’ style segment of a lesson or in class/institution newsletters. Conclusion From the results of the first administration of the questionnaire, combined with what has been written on learners’ and educators’ blogs and in articles about smartphones in general society and specific learning environments, I predict that this on-going investigation will reveal that the number of students in my classes who own a smartphone will continue to rise, most likely rapidly because of the current popularity and availability of the devices across most mobile networks. I also predict that smartphones will become normalised in Japanese society within 1-2 years and potentially be readily available to all students for use both in and out of the language learning classroom. I anticipate that the research will also help reveal in what ways smartphones are already being used for language learning, which can assist teachers in encouraging and supporting smartphone use by language students. Normalisation of this technology will help to re-define educational practices by giving more opportunities for students to access and manage their own learning, with the guidance and pedagogical support of the teachers. About the Contributor Keith Barrs is an English instructor at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. His primary research interests are in the field of sociolinguistics and World Englishes, with a particular focus on the English-based vocabulary integrated into the Japanese lexicon. He is also interested in the application of technology to classroom practices, particularly the 232!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!''45'**!

opportunities for linking the inside and outside of the classroom through the time-and-space independence offered by digital technologies.

References Bax, S. (2003). CALL-Past, present and future. System, 31, 13-28. Bax, S., & Chambers, A. (2006). Making CALL work: towards normalisation. System, 34, 465-479. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds). (2007). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering e-learning. London: Routledge. Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile apps for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 2-12. Kiernan, P.J., & Aizawa, K. (2004). Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), 71-84. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(2), 157-165. Motteram, G. & Sharma, P. (2009). Blended learning in a web 2.0 world. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 83â&#x20AC;&#x201C;96. Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.

233!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'*45'*6!

Introducing ‘Prepare for Success’, a Web-based Learning Resource to help International Students get Ready for Study in the UK Julie Watson, University of Southampton, UK Background International students starting out on undergraduate or postgraduate degree programmes in the UK often feel challenged by the different academic culture and the new study skills they need to acquire in order to be successful in their field of study. Students report that they searched online for resources to help them before they arrived at their university or college in the UK but were not always able to find what they were looking for on their university or college website. In 2008, a new website of interactive learning resources was launched to help international students prepare for study in the UK. It can also be used by institutions in a variety of ways. Prepare for Success is a free web resource, developed at the University of Southampton with PMI (Prime Minister’s Initiative) funding through UKCISA (the UK Council for international Student Affairs). Since its launch the website has attracted over 375,000 visitors from 212 different countries. It is also being widely used by UK further and higher education to help their international students make the adjustment to British academic culture, and by institutions overseas to help students prepare for a study period spent in the UK. Website Resources The learning content on the Prepare for Success website (www.prepareforsuccess.org.uk) is aimed at international students with an IELTS level between 5.0 and 7.5 or equivalent. It consists of a number of web pages: •

Homepage : a main menu of 23 interactive multimedia learning resources introducing international students to aspects of academic life, study skills, and teaching and learning styles in the UK

•

Study Pathways: interactive study pathways through the learning resources allowing student users to select learning resources by skill or by topic

•

FAQs: an interactive wordle allowing users to browse a bank of simple questions and answers about academic study in the UK

234

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'*45'*6!

•

FAQs for Further Education: an interactive spinning globe allowing users to browse a bank of specific questions and answers; of interest to students planning to study in Further Education colleges in the UK

•

Information for teachers and institutions: suggestions on how to use Prepare for Success with students, and a range of downloadable resources to publicise the website to students In addition to these resources, Prepare for Success has a presence on Facebook and

Twitter. Through these social networking tools, the site aims to highlight other useful websites and resources for international students. Pedagogic Approach The 23 core learning resources are developed in the form of ‘learning objects’ (LOs) and combine multi-media assets with an activity-based approach to learning . These resources can be used by students on a self-access basis or used by teachers and blended with their classroom teaching. The activity-based LOs are based in a particular pedagogic approach found to be particularly suited to online learning. Elanguages , an eLearning research and development group within Modern Languages at the University of Southampton and creators of Prepare for Success, evolved this model for learning object design. Key features of this approach include: •

use of activities which encourage ‘learning by doing’;

•

aiming to engage students actively in reflection;

•

use of activities which allow for practice and production, and build on each other;

•

use of activities which are personalised (learner-centred) where possible;

•

activities which are enhanced with feedback (help, answers with explanations, review sections), helping to support and drive students’ learning. Activities are built around audio and video clips of international students and UK

tutors talking about academic life in the UK and typical linguistic and academic challenges that students face when moving culture for study purposes, as well as personalised quizzes encouraging reflection. This content is designed to allow students to discover and explore useful information, while at the same time providing opportunities for language development e.g. listening comprehension (see Figure 1). Activities are structured and supported by help

235

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'*45'*6!

sections and feedback, including comment and explanation to support activity answers. In this way, the resources aim to be both informative about academic culture and deliver selfpaced language practice. To facilitate this, video and audio transcripts are also included with key sections highlighted to show answers. A final review section offers a summary of the main learning points.

Figure 1: Part of an interactive activity from Prepare for Success

The learning resources, which include items such as ‘Ways of studying on your course’; ‘Your relationship with your tutors’; ‘Critical thinking’ ‘Academic writing at 236

"#"$%!&'()*+,!#$%&!'(!)$&!*(!+,-.,/0,1!'233(!'*45'*6!

university’, can also serve as online course ‘building blocks’ that can be individually linked to from an institutional Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) such as Moodle or Blackboard for international student induction, pre- or post- arrival (see Information for teachers and institutions page). Feedback Both institutional and student users of the Prepare for Success website are encouraged to send feedback using the appropriate website feedback form. Although the four main development phases of Prepare for Success under the PMI scheme are now complete, the website is receiving further funding so that it can continue to expand and respond to the needs of international students preparing for study in the UK. The Prepare for Success website can be found at www.prepareforsuccess.org.uk.

Notes on the contributor Julie Watson is Principal Teaching Fellow in eLearning in Modern Languages at the University of Southampton in the UK. She also manages eLanguages and leads the pedagogic design and development of e-learning materials for independent and blended learning such as the Study Skills Toolkit and the EAP Toolkit, as well as e-tutored online courses. She works on a number of projects developing and/or researching into web-based learning and Web 2.0 technologies in education. Links Elanguages - http://www.elanguages.ac.uk/ Prepare for Success – http://www.prepareforsuccess.org.uk Prime Minister’s Initiative http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dius.gov.uk/dius_international/educat ion/prime_ministers_initiative UKCISA - http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/

237