Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Lord&lomicka calico2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Lord&lomicka calico2013

126
views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
126
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 1
  • UF = 366 = 88%SC = 28 = 7%Santa Fe = 22 = 5%
  • Mention disconnectReasons?
  • Social networking + texting
  • Students are comfortable users outside of class and in but do not see potential in the classroom
  • Teachers stay within their comfort zoneMore technology outside of the classroom
  • Transcript

    • 1. Beliefs AboutWeb 2.0 Tools inLanguage Learning:A Global PerspectiveGillian Lord (University of Florida)Lara Lomicka (University of South Carolina)
    • 2. 2• Researchers and educators alike have longrecognized the potential benefits of incorporatingvarious tools and technology based activities into ourlanguage curricula.• Generally speaking, cited benefits include:– enhanced opportunities for target language input and output– cultural awareness– maximized student participation– the ability to meet the needs of different learner styles– increased motivation– and many others.• Unfortunately, though, many of these claims arisefrom anecdotal evidence rather than empirical data.
    • 3. 3• Session Overview:– Background– Survey development and administration– Results– Discussion– Conclusion: challenges, implications, futureresearch
    • 4. BACKGROUND4
    • 5. What we know• Surveys have…– Assessed faculty awareness of the potential oftechnology and their experience (Ajjan &Hartshorne, 2008; Lomicka & Williams, 2011)– Examined student and teacher views ontechnology (Li, 2007)5
    • 6. Web 2.0 definition• wikis, blogs, social networking and webapplications• tools that provide a level of user interactionthat is dynamic and interconnected• tools that produce "online communities"• tools that make it easy to share informationon the Web6
    • 7. Benefits of incorporating technology• Enhanced opportunities for target language inputand output (Fuente, 2003; Ranalli, 2008)• Cultural awareness (Adair-Hauck, Willingham-McLain, Youngs, 2000)• Maximized student participation (McLoughlin &Lee, 2007)• The ability to meet the needs of different learnerstyles (Chen, 2003; McAndrew, 2013)• Increased motivation (Warschauer, 1996; Pu, 2009;Binnur, 2009; Wehner, Gump, & Downey, 2011 )• Student achievement (Malhiwsky, 2010)7
    • 8. What we need to find out• What web 2.0 tools do our language studentsuse in their daily lives?• What do language students really think aboutweb 2.0 tools in education?• Do language students think that web 2.0 toolshave a role in language education?8
    • 9. SURVEY DEVELOPMENT9
    • 10. Overview• Participants in two graduate seminars ontechnology…– collaboratively researched the role of technologyin language teaching– collaboratively developed a survey tool– collaboratively administered the survey to thelanguage classes they were currently teaching10
    • 11. Survey designers• Survey designers– Graduate students enrolled in Technology inForeign Language Education courses at Universityof Florida and University of South Carolina.• N = 13 from UF• N = 16 from SC– Grouped into seven cross-institutional groups (color coded)– Also worked locally with members of their color-codedgroup11
    • 12. Survey areas and groups• RED– Learner characteristics/individual differences (motivation, anxiety, etc.);and attitudes towards web 2.0 technologies• ORANGE– Experience with web 2.0 technologies for personal use• YELLOW– Experience with web 2.0 technologies for academic use• GREEN– Web 2.0 technologies and target language input and output• BLUE– Web 2.0 technologies and maximized student participation• PURPLE– Web 2.0 technologies and the ability to meet the needs of differentlearner styles• WHITE– Web 2.0 technologies and increased motivation12
    • 13. Survey developmentClass period #1• Discuss surveys• Explorecomponents ofgood surveys• Discuss topicsfor our survey• Form groups towork on specifictopics, questionsClass period #2• Local groups shareand consolidateresults ofhomework• Chat with virtualgroups to establishquestions forgroup’s area of thesurvey• Compose surveydocument(collaboratively)13HOMEWORK• Search for CALLarticles related toassigned grouptopic• Note whatprevious researchsays about theseareas• Brainstormquestions for yourarea of the survey
    • 14. Group wiki14
    • 15. Instrument• Addressed student perspectives on usingtechnology in language learning• 49 items (approx 20 min)• Varied question types:– Likert scale– Short answer– Open-ended– Close-ended15
    • 16. RESULTS16
    • 17. Response rate• Our graduate students taught approximately 600students in various language classes during thesemester– (Not counting students who worked in K-12 institutions,where survey was not administered)• All language students were given the opportunity totake the survey either in class (on mobile device) oras homework assignment.• TOTAL RESPONSES = 425 (approx. 80%)(although most questions have 416 responses)17
    • 18. General demographics18Age Number of responses Percentage17 or under 6 1.4%18-19 174 41.8%20-21 159 38.2%22-23 29 9.4%Over 23 38 9.1%Gender Number of Responses PercentageFemale 254 63%Male 152 37%
    • 19. Racial/ethnic backgroundBackground Number of responses PercentageCaucasian/white 263 63.20%Hispanic 55 13.20%African American 38 9.10%Asian 29 6.97%Bi-racial 12 2.90%Middle Eastern 7 1.70%Arabic 3 0.70%Black Caribbean 1 0.20%European American 1 0.20%European American 1 0.20%Guyanese 1 0.20%Haitian American 1 0.20%Lebanese American 1 0.20%Native American 1 0.20%19
    • 20. Language course enrollment20Language Number of responses PercentageSpanish 278 66.8%Italian 74 17.8%French 37 8.9%English 22 5.3%Vietnamese 1 0.5%Arabic 1 0.5%Other 5 2.3%Level Number of responses PercentageBeginner/Introductory 216 51.9%Intermediate 141 33.9%Advanced/Content 59 14.2%
    • 21. Motivations for studying language• “21st century= everyone should. Americans are theonly people who think its okay to speak just 1language.”Reason Number of responses PercentageSchool requirement 270 64.9%Better job opportunities 196 46.4%Study abroad 133 31.9%Personal enjoyment 217 51.9%Speak to friend or S.O. 87 20.4%21
    • 22. General Observations• 73% of students are dailyusers of web 2.0technologies outside ofthe classroom• 48% spend 1-3 hours onpersonal use22
    • 23. Use of different devices23not at all occasionally often veryfrequentlysmartphone 38 35 73 267desktopcomputer213 130 33 37laptopcomputer14 32 88 279mobile tablet 227 80 55 51other 352 30 15 16
    • 24. Tools students use forpersonal experiences24socialnetworkingsitestexting blogs wikis otherinteracting with others 372 381 45 11 28planning/organizing 281 284 29 29 87gathering information 179 138 95 201 62entertainment 330 226 165 66 117
    • 25. Tools students have used for(non-language) educationalexperiences25Tool Number of responses Percentageblogs 110 26.63%wikis 238 57.63%discussion boards 243 58.84%social media (e.g.,Facebook, Twitter, etc.)201 48.67%chat 100 24.21%other 32 7.75%none 38 9.20%
    • 26. Where students access tools26Tool Number of responses Percentagehome desktop computer 69 16.71%mobile tablet 75 18.16%smartphone 194 46.97%laptop computer 381 92.25%public or school library 166 40.19%school language lab 50 12.11%other 1 0.24%not applicable 6 1.45%
    • 27. Online tools usedin language class27Tool Number of responses Percentagesocial networking(e.g., Facebook/MySpace)67 16.22%microblogging (e.g., Twitter) 9 2.18%Pinterest 4 0.97%blogs 25 6.05%wikis 100 24.21%collaborative storytelling 14 3.39%other 42 10.17%none 152 36.80%
    • 28. Tools students would like to use inlanguage classroom28Tool Number ofresponsesPercentagesocial networking(e.g., Facebook/MySpace)97 23.49%microblogging (e.g., Twitter) 20 4.84%Pinterest 28 6.78%blogs 51 12.35%wikis 52 12.59%collaborative storytelling 40 9.69%other 20 4.84%none 105 25.42%
    • 29. Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:1. Students are comfortable using technology (60% SA)2. Students want to learn more about technology (42% A)3. Students enjoy using Web 2.0 tools (49% A)4. Students can manage to use technology independently (48% A)29
    • 30. Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:1. Completing work with technology gives students a greater sense of accomplishment(41% N)2. Technology improves my achievement in class (37% N)3. Technology impacts my motivation toward learning (41% N)4. Working online helps students produce longer responses (34% N)5. The use of technology increases students’ level of participation during class time(42%)6. The use of technology increases my level of participation during class time (46% A)7. Students (would) participate more in class when technology is involved (46% N)8. I would contribute more to an online collaborative project than I would to a face-to-face collaboration (30% N / 25% D)9. Students’ level of motivation to learn a foreign language increases when they canuse web 2.0 technologies (44% N)30
    • 31. Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:1. Using web 2.0 technologies in or outside of my language class could help studentsimprove language skills (51% A)2. Reading texts online in the target language has improved skills (54% A)3. Video chat has/could improve listening skills (42% A)4. Students frequently use an online dictionary while reading (51% A)5. Instructor use of technology in my language classes makes me/ would make me feelmore engaged (44% A)31
    • 32. Discussion32• Social networking (30%)• Texting (27%)What studentsuse for fun•Nothing (38%)•Wikis (24%)What studentsuse in classes• Nothing (25%)• Social networking (24%)What studentswant to use inlanguage classes
    • 33. Question 1• What web 2.0 tools do our language studentsuse in their daily lives?33
    • 34. Question 2• What do language students really think aboutweb 2.0 tools in education?– They are indifferent to their use in education– If anything, they would like to use socialnetworking tools34
    • 35. Question 3• Do language students think that web 2.0 toolshave a role in language education?– They could help improve language skills andengagement• BUT…35• “None have a place in the classroom.”• “I dont like online tools or websites so I dont think any are useful in helping me learna foreign language. Besides google for looking up all the words in Spanish I dontknow.”• “None. Technology used in class makes me zone out.“• “Personally, I prefer face-to-face interaction learning.”
    • 36. Challenges and Implications• Why are we using technology?• How are we using technology?• How are students using tools for fun?36
    • 37. Challenges and Implications• Language classroom technology use tends tobe traditional (wikis, blogs, etc.)– Rather than innovative (pinterest,facebook, etc.)• Educators should think about ways thattechnology can be used creatively outside ofthe classroom.• We should try to use the tools that studentsuse, rather than imposing our (older?) toolson them.37
    • 38. Future Directions• Lots more data to analyze!• Track case study responses• Compare student and teacher data• Work with students as we develop new ideasfor integrating technology in our classes.38
    • 39. THANK YOU.glord@ufl.edulomicka@sc.edu39
    • 40. Works cited• Adair-Hauck,B., Willingham-McLain, L., Youngs, B. (2000). “Evaluating the integration of technology and second languagelearning.” CALICO Journal 17(2), 269-306.• Chen, P-C. (2003). “EFL student learning style preferences and attitudes toward technology-integrated instruction.” UMIDissertations Publishing: University of South Dakota, ProQuest.• de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). "Is SLA Interactionist Theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediatedinteraction in L2 vocabulary acquisition." CALL 16(1), 47-81.• Haya A., Hartshorne, R. (2008). “Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests.”Internet and Higher Education 11, 71–80.• Li, Q (2007). “Student and teacher views about technology: A tale of two cities?” Journal of Research on Technology inEducation 39(4), 377-397.• Lomicka, L. & Williams, L. (2011). "The use of new technologies in the French curriculum: A national survey". The FrenchReview 84(4), 764-781.• Malhiwsky, D. R. (2010). "Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: A mixed methods study."DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska – Lincoln. http://goo.gl/gS7FR• McAndrew, A (2009). "Learning styles and Web 2.0: Is there any connection?" ASSETT RSS. University of Colorado Boulder,10 Aug. 2009.• McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technologyaffordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning.http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf• Ranalli, J. (2008). "Learning English with the Sims: Exploiting authentic computer simulation games for L2 learning" CALL21(5), 441-455.• Warschauer, M (1996). “Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication.” In M. Warshauer (Ed.),Telecollabortaion in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawaii Symposium. (Technical Report #2), pp. 29-46.Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.• Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). “The effects of second life on the motivation of undergraduate studentslearning a foreign language.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(3), 277-289.40

    ×