Beliefs About Web 2.0 Tools in

Language Learning: A Global Perspective

Gillian Lord (University of Florida)Lara Lomicka (University of South Carolina)

2

• Researchers and educators alike have long recognized the potential benefits of incorporating various tools and technology based activities into our language curricula: – 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– Etc.

• But many of these claims are based on anecdotal evidence or small-scale studies that are difficult to generalize.

3

• Session Overview:– Background– Survey development and administration– Results and discussion– Conclusion: challenges & implications, future

research

4

BACKGROUND

5

Web 2.0 definition

• Tools that …– Provide a level of user interaction that is dynamic

and interconnected– Facilitate the creation of "online communities" – Make it easy to share information on the Web

– e.g., wikis, blogs, social networking, etc.

6

What we know

• Surveys regarding tech use have…

– Assessed faculty experiences and their awareness of the potential of technology (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008; Lomicka & Williams, 2011)

– Examined student and teacher views on technology (Li, 2007)

7

What we know

• Technology incorporation can help with:– Enhanced opportunities for target language input and

output (de la 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 learner styles

(Chen, 2003; McAndrew, 2013)– Increased motivation (Warschauer, 1996; Pu, 2009; Binnur, 2009;

Wehner, Gump, & Downey, 2011 )– Student achievement (Malhiwsky, 2010)

8

What we want to find out

• What web 2.0 tools do our language students use in their daily lives?

• What do language students think about web 2.0 tools in education?

• Do language students think that web 2.0 tools have a role in language education?

9

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

10

Survey designers• Survey designers

– Graduate students enrolled in Technology in Foreign Language Education courses at University of Florida and University of South Carolina• 13 from UF, 16 from SC

– Collaboratively researched the role of technology in language teaching

– Collaboratively developed a survey tool – Administered the survey to the language classes

they were currently teaching

11

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 different

learner styles• WHITE

– Web 2.0 technologies and increased motivation

12

Survey developmentClass period #1

• Discuss surveys• Explore

components of good surveys

• Discuss topics for our survey

• Form groups to work on specific topics, questions

Class period #2• Local groups share

and consolidate results of homework

• Chat with virtual groups to establish questions for group’s area of the survey

• Compose survey document (collaboratively)

HOMEWORK• Search for CALL

articles related to assigned group topic

• Note what previous research says about these areas

• Brainstorm questions for your area of the survey

13

Group wiki

14

Instrument

• Addressed student perspectives on using technology in language learning

• 49 items (approx 20 min)• Varied question types:

– Likert scale– Short answer– Open-ended

• Administered via Qualtrics

15

RESULTS

16

Response rate• Our graduate students taught approximately 600

students in various language classes during the semester– (Not counting students who worked in K-12 institutions,

where survey was not administered)• All language students were given the opportunity to

take the survey either in class (on laptop or mobile device) or as homework assignment.

• TOTAL RESPONSES = 425 (approx. 80%)(although most questions have 416 responses)

17

General demographics

Age 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%

18

Racial/ethnic backgroundBackground Number of responses Percentage

Caucasian/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

Language course enrollmentLanguage Number of responses Percentage

Spanish 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 Percentage

Beginner/Introductory 216 51.9%

Intermediate 141 33.9%

Advanced/Content 59 14.2%

20

Motivations for studying language

“21st century= everyone should. Americans are the only people who think its okay to speak just 1 language.”

Reason Number of responses PercentageSchool requirement 270 64.9%

Personal enjoyment 217 51.9%

Better job opportunities 196 46.4%

Study abroad 133 31.9%

Speak to friend or S.O. 87 20.4%

21

Web 2.0 use in general

• 73% of students are daily users of web 2.0 technologies outside of the classroom

• 48% spend 1-3 hours on personal use

22

Use of different devices

not at all occasionally often very frequently

smartphone 38 35 73 267

desktop computer

213 130 33 37

laptop computer

14 32 88 279

mobile tablet 227 80 55 51

other 352 30 15 16

23

Tools students use for personal experiences

social networking

sites

texting blogs wikis other

interacting with others 372 381 45 11 28planning/organizing 281 284 29 29 87gathering information 179 138 95 201 62entertainment 330 226 165 66 117

24

Tools students have used for (non-language) educational

experiencesTool Number of responses Percentagediscussion boards 243 58.84%

wikis 238 57.63%

social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

201 48.67%

blogs 110 26.63%

chat 100 24.21%

none 38 9.20%

other 32 7.75%

25

Online tools used in language class

Tool Number of responses

Percentage

none 152 36.80%

wikis 100 24.21%

social networking (e.g., Facebook/MySpace)

67 16.22%

other 42 10.17%

blogs 25 6.05%

collaborative storytelling 14 3.39%

microblogging (e.g., Twitter) 9 2.18%

Pinterest 4 0.97%

26

Tools students would like to use in language classroom

Tool Number of responses

Percentage

social 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%

27

Likert type responses

What 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)

28

Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:

1. Completing work with technology gives students a greater sense of accomplishment (41% N)2. Technology improves student achievement in class (37% N)

3. Technology impacts student motivation toward learning (41% N)

4. Working online helps students produce longer responses (34% N)

5. The use of technology increases level of participation during class time (46% A)

6. Students (would) participate more in class when technology is involved (46% N)

7. Students would contribute more to an online collaborative project than to a face-to-face collaboration (30% N / 25% D)8. Students’ level of motivation to learn a foreign language increases when they can use web 2.0 technologies (44% N)

29

Likert type responsesWhat the survey told us:

1. Using web 2.0 technologies in or outside of language class could help students improve language skills (51% A)2. Reading texts online in the target language has/could improve skills (54% A)

3. Video chat has/could improve listening skills (42% A)

4. Instructor use of technology in my language classes makes me/would make me feel more engaged (44% A)

30

Discussion

• Social networking (30%)• Texting (27%)

What students use for fun

•Nothing (38%)•Wikis (24%)

What students use in classes

• Nothing (25%)• Social networking (24%)

What students want to use in

language classes

31

Question 1

• What web 2.0 tools do our language students use in their daily lives?

32

Question 2

• What do language students really think about web 2.0 tools in education?– They are indifferent to their use in education– If anything, they would like to use social

networking tools

33

Question 3

• Do language students think that web 2.0 tools have a role in language education?– They could help improve language skills and

engagement• BUT…• “None have a place in the classroom.” • “I don't like online tools or websites so I don't think any are useful in helping

me learn a foreign language. Besides google for looking up all the words in Spanish I don't know.”

• “None. Technology used in class makes me zone out.“• “Personally, I prefer face-to-face interaction learning.”

34

Implications

• Language classroom technology use tends to be “traditional” (e.g., wikis, blogs, etc.), if at all

• Overall, language teachers tend not to use more innovative tools (e.g., Pinterest, Facebook, etc.) that our students use in their daily lives

• Students recognize that technology could help them learn but still think it has no role in language learning. – Why??

35

Challenges for educators

• Ask ourselves:– Why are we using technology?– How are we using technology? – How are students using tools for fun?

• Try to use the tools that students use, rather than imposing our tools on them.

• Think about ways that technology can be used creatively (in and?) outside of the classroom.

• Work with students as we develop new ideas for integrating technology in our classes

36

THANK YOU.

glord@ufl.edu lomicka@sc.edu

37

Works cited• Adair-Hauck,B., Willingham-McLain, L., Youngs, B. (2000). “Evaluating the integration of technology and second language

learning.” CALICO Journal 17(2), 269-306.• Chen, P-C. (2003). “EFL student learning style preferences and attitudes toward technology-integrated instruction.” UMI

Dissertations 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-mediated

interaction 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 in

Education 39(4), 377-397.• Lomicka, L. & Williams, L. (2011). "The use of new technologies in the French curriculum: A national survey". The French

Review 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 technology

affordances 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" CALL 21(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 Hawai'i Symposium. (Technical Report #2), pp. 29-46. Honolulu, Hawai'i: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

• Wehner, A. K., Gump, A. W., & Downey, S. (2011). “The effects of second life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 24(3), 277-289.