Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:03:15.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blending technology and face-to-face: Advanced students’ choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2015

Ruth Trinder
Ruth Trinder*
Affiliation:
Vienna University of Economics and Business (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been suggested that current research in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) should seek to understand the conditions and circumstances that govern students’ use of technology (Steel & Levy, 2013). This paper attempts to identify critical factors accounting for student choices, first, by investigating advanced learners’ reported use as well as their views on the potential of specific technological resources for language learning, and, second, by widening the perspective and surveying students’ ideal learning environments. Learners’ reasons for preferring teacher-fronted classes, blended learning, immersion or technology-mediated settings yield useful information on how students perceive the strengths and weaknesses of interaction/engagement with material (i.e. technological) as well as social (i.e. human) resources, and how the roles of teachers/classes can be conceptualised today.

Data was collected via a survey of 175 Austrian university students which included Likert-type ratings and free text responses to open questions. Findings indicate that though the cohort routinely use a wide range of technology tools in their everyday lives and show awareness of the potential of ICT for language learning, a number of barriers exist based on learner beliefs/conceptions and learning aims. Thus the notion that enhancement of communicative competence is intrinsically tied to personal interaction with native speakers means that the potential of communication technologies such as Skype is not fully appreciated. It was further established that though many students are well versed in blending different technological resources in line with the criteria identified, thus displaying the hallmarks of autonomous learners, there was a clear preference for real-life compared to virtual environments.

Keywords

CALL technologieslanguage learning environmentsmaterial and social resourceslearner contributions
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 83 - 102
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bax, S. (2003) CALL – Past, present and future. System, 31: 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bax, S. (2011) “Normalisation Revisited: The effective use of technology in language education”. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning and Teaching, 1(2): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, M. ed. (2001) Learner contributions to language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Carver, D. (1983) Some propositions about ESP. The ESP Journal, 2(2): 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. (2003) The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(4): 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conole, G. (2008) Listening to the learner voice: The ever-changing landscape of technology use for language students. ReCALL, 20(2): 124–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conole, G. and Azelou, P. (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. York, UK: HEA Academy https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/literature-review-use-web-20-tools-higher-education.Google Scholar
Diaz, V. and Brown, M. (2010) Blended learning: A report on the ELI focus session. Educause Learning Initiative. https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3023.pdf.Google Scholar
EACEA. (2009) Study on the Impact of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and New Media on Language Learning: Final Report. Brussels: European Commission http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/studies/study_impact_ict_new_media_language_learning_en.php.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., Akasha, O., Huff, L. and Lee, H. (2011) Moving forward: Anecdotes and evidence guiding the next generation of CALL. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groman, D. and Schnitzer, H. (Forthcoming) Empirical study on dictionary use in foreign-language learning: Where do business students turn for help?Google Scholar
Hampel, R. (2014) Enhancing interaction and communication in distance language learning by using new technologies. Distance Education in China (In Press).Google Scholar
Horwitz, E. (1988) The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students, Modern Language Journal, 72(3): 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2014) Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 98: 296–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R. (2014) Technology as Pharmakon: The promise and perils of the internet for foreign language education. The Modern Language Journal, 98: 340–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, R., Ware, P. and Warschauer, M. (2004) Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24: 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leduning, D. and Wah, L. K. (2013) Focus on students: A blended business English writing class in Sabah. Jurnal Teknologi, 65(2): 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M. (2009) Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93: 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, M. (2012) Technology in the classroom. In: Burns, A. and Richards, J. C. (eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lew, R. (2012) How can we make electronic dictionaries more effective? In: Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), Electronic lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 343–361.Google Scholar
Macaro, E. (2008) The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy. In: Lamb, T. and Reinders, H. (eds.) Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and response. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owston, R., York, D. and Murtha, S. (2013) Student perceptions and achievement in a university blended learning strategic initiative. Internet and Higher Education, 18: 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfreyman, D. (2006) Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34(3): 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, M. M., Peters, E. and Desmet, P. (2014) Is less more? Effectiveness and perceived usefulness of keyword and full captioned video for L2 listening comprehension. ReCALL, 26(1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M., Weinberg, A. and Sarma, N. (2008) To like or not to like! Student perceptions of technological activities for learning French as a second language at five Canadian universities. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(5): 869–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M., Weinberg, A., Sarma, N. and Frankoff, M. (2011) From the mouths of Canadian university students: Web-based information-seeking activities for language learning. CALICO Journal, 28(3): 621–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prenksy, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5): 1–6.Google Scholar
Riley, P. (1997) The guru and the conjurer: Aspects of counselling for self-access. In: Benson, P.and Voller, P. (eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman, 114–131.Google Scholar
Stanley, G. (2013) Language Learning with Technology: Ideas for Integrating Technology in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steel, C. H. and Levy, M. (2013) Language students and their technologies: Charting the evolution 2006–2011. ReCALL, 25(3): 306–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trinder, R. (2013) Business students’ beliefs about language learning in a university context. English for Specific Purposes, 32(1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trinder, R. and Herles, M. (2013) Students’ and teachers’ ideals of effective business English teaching. ELT Journal, 67(2): 220–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, D. (1994) Inauthentic authenticity or authentic inauthenticity? TESL-EJ, 1(2): http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume1/ej02/ej02a1/.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. (2011) Learning in the Cloud. How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
Wenden, A. (1999) An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27(4): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. (2006) Distance learning of foreign languages. Language Teaching, 39(4): 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, N. D. (1999) The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27(4): 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, J. C. and Chang, P. (2014) Captions and reduced forms instruction: The impact on EFL students’ listening comprehension. ReCALL, 26(1): 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zourou, K. (2012) On the attractiveness of social media for language learning: A look at the state of the art. Alsic, 15(1): http://alsic.revues.org/2436.Google Scholar