language learner perceptions of technology-based tasks using wimba voice: l2 oral proficiency,...
TRANSCRIPT
Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using Wimba Voice:
L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Selves
Jesse Gleason and Ruslan SuvorovIowa State University
Antwerp CALL 2010: Motivation and beyondAugust 19, 2010
2
Agenda
• Introduction• Literature Review• Research Questions• Methodology• Results and Discussion• Conclusion
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
3
Introduction
• New technologies and new challenges• CMC and L2 oral proficiency• Wimba Voice (WV)• Motivation and L2 selves (Dörnyei, 2005)
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
4
Wimba Voice Board
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
5
Wimba Voice Presentation
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
6
Literature Review
• Pioneer work on motivation and L2 learning: socio-educational model (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972):
• Integrative orientation• Instrumental orientation• + six variables
• Current perspective on L2 motivation: L2 self system (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009):
• Ideal L2 self• Ought-to L2 self
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
7
Literature Review
• Linking motivation, CMC, and L2 oral skills:• CMC and L2 oral proficiency in CALL• Benefits of asynchronous CMC
• Research on WV and oral performance:• Dearth of theory-driven research (e.g., Charle Poza,
2005; Rosen, 2009; Tognozzi & Truong, 2009)• No studies on WV and L2 motivation
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
8
Research Questions
1. What are students' perceptions of WV’s effectiveness as a tool for the development of their L2 oral proficiency?
2. To what extent does the use of WV for language learning tasks affect students’ perceptions of their future L2 selves and motivation to use their English speaking skills in the future?
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
9
Methodology: Participants
• Ten international teaching assistants• Eight Chinese and two Koreans • Enrolled in English communication skills class• Age M=25, number of years studying English
M=11• Variety of majors
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
10
Methodology: Context
• Conducted at a large public university in the USA• Graduate-level English class• SPEAK/TEACH test• WVB and WVP in Moodle
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
11
Methodology: Materials
• Pre- and post-surveys:• Five sections (three used in this study)• Likert-scale items and open-ended questions• Focus on ideal, ought-to L2 selves, and motivation• Adapted from other surveys
• Semi-structured interviews:• Perceptions of WV• Future L2 selves
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
12
Methodology: Procedure
• Informed consent forms and pre-survey (Week 11)• Post-survey and interviews (Week 15)
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
13
Methodology: Analysis
• Quantitative:• Descriptive statistics (M, SD, Cohen’s d) of Likert-scale
items from pre- and post-surveys
• Qualitative:• Analysis of interview transcripts• Analysis of responses to open-ended questions from
the post-survey
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
14
Example Survey Questions
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
15
Results and Discussion
RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency
Pre- and post-survey results
Pre M Pre SD Post M Post SD M diff. Cohen’s d4.148 0.550 3.852 0.345 -0.296 -0.645
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
16
Results and Discussion (cont.)
RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency
Interview resultsPositive perceptions:
• Convenience and user-friendliness• Facilitation of self-noticing and error diagnosis• Interactivity and exchange of ideas
Negative perceptions:• Technical problems• Similarity to other recording software (lack of uniqueness)• Absence of real-time interaction, thus, negotiation of meaning
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
17
Results and Discussion (cont.)
Positive perceptions: WVB is "very good for recording... and the most important thing that I
think is it can give us a chance to exchange our ideas, to know what my classmates think of my speaking” (P3).
"I saw sometimes I pronounced some words correctly, but when I listen to myself, it's actually not that correct” (P6).
Negative perceptions:“I can't record from the middle of a recording. If I'm satisfied with the
first half of my recording but want to do the second part again and join them together, I'm not be able to do that in wimba. Instead I have to record the whole thing again” (P8).
"[I] just feel, cause you speak with a computer, not with the human, that's a negative feeling” (P10).
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
18
Example Survey Question
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
19
Results and Discussion (cont.)
RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves
Pre- and post-survey resultsSurvey section
Pre M Pre SD Post M Post SD M diff. Cohen’s d
Ideal L2 self 3.444 0.801 3.597 0.847 0.153 0.186
Ought-toL2 self 3.040 1.122 3.192 1.002 0.152 0.143
Future L2 self 3.211 1.031 3.363 0.968 0.152 0.152
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
20
Results and Discussion (cont.)
RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves
“[M]y future plan is (…) that I will…focus on research and teaching, then maybe I will still stay here or some place else and maybe I will, after, during this speak research and teaching time…use English …I will use English almost all the time. And the second choice is that I will…go in the industry and find a job. And in that case I …think that speaking English is the best choice for me in the future career” (P3).
"I don't know," "I am not sure," "I don't think so," "I don't have many confidence on my English” (P5).
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
21
Results and Discussion (cont.)
RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves
"Um, in my opinion, the only way that I can improve my confidence is to speak and practice more English, so... so in this sense Wimba kind of has helped me improve my confidence” (P4).
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
22
Conclusion
1. Students have an array of perceptions regarding the efficacy of WV for developing L2 speaking -> individual differences.
2. L2 learners have mixed opinions concerning the role of WV tasks in facilitating the vision of their future L2 selves and motivation -> clear vision = higher motivation (Al-Shehri, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009).
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
23
Limitations
• Timing issues• Small sample size• Only self-reported data
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
24
Ideas for Future Research
• Longitudinal studies• Effect of WV-based tasks on L2 learners’
performance• Relationship between L2 confidence and
motivation• Potential of WV for facilitating collaboration in
online/hybrid and distance L2 courses
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University
25
Questions? Suggestions?
Thank you!Jesse Gleason [email protected]
Ruslan Suvorov [email protected]
Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University