Technology For French Learning: A Mismatch Between Expectations And Reality

Authors

  • Aliye Karabulut
  • Kimberly LeVelle
  • Jinrong Li
  • Ruslan Suvorov

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.2.341-366

Keywords:

Technology, language learning, French

Abstract

Technology use in language learning has been one of the primary foci of research in CALL (Chapelle, 2001). While most studies concentrated on the role and effectiveness of specific tools for language learning, few examined technology from a broader perspective considering learners' and teachers' expectations, perceptions of technology, and rationales for using it.  This gap in research, therefore, necessitates a more holistic approach to the study of technology for language learning (Basharina, 2007; Thorne, 2003) to investigate the relationships among different elements within a learning environment.

The qualitative study reported in this article explored the use of technology for language learning in a third-year French class at a public university in the Midwest of the USA. Specifically, following an Activity Theory framework, this multiple-case study examined the relationships between students' reasons for using different types of technology and the instructor's rationale for using technology in the French class. The analysis of interviews conducted with the participants throughout a semester revealed a mismatch between the students' and teacher's rationales for using technology for French learning. The findings suggest that to make technology-enhanced language learning more effective, instructors should assess students' use of technology, their preferences and needs, and structure class activities and assignments accordingly.

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richards, C. (2005). The design of effective ICT-supported learning activities: Exemplary models, changing requirements, and new possibilities. Language Learning and Technology, 9(1), p. 6079. Available at http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/richards/default.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Downloads

Published

2013-01-14

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Karabulut, A., LeVelle, K., Li, J., & Suvorov, R. (2013). Technology For French Learning: A Mismatch Between Expectations And Reality. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 341-366. https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.2.341-366