Comparison of Results between FG and CG

Further analysis was conducted to determine whether there was any significant difference in the communicative performance between the FG and CG groups. Inspection of the scatterplot showed that the data in the variable communicative performance was not normally distributed, and there were two outliers in the FG group and one in the CG group. Inspection of the data points indicated that these outliers corresponded to unusual values, therefore the researcher decided to keep the outliers and conduct the non-parametric test Mann-Whitney U after checking all assumptions. The distribution of the communicative performance scores for each group were different, as assessed by visual inspection of the population pyramid histogram (Figure 4.4).

Figure 4.4 Distribution of communicative performance in FG and CG

The results of the Mann-Whitney U test indicated that students in the FG group had lower mean ranks (26.29) than students in the CG (26.75) in their communicative performance scores

U = 330, z = -.110, p = .912, which was not a statistically significant difference, using an exact

Table 4.11 Results from the Mann-Whitney U test for difference in communicative performance Scores Mann-Whitney U test Mean rank U p FG CG

Overall communicative performance 26.29 26.75 330 .912

4.3.3 Correlational Results for FG

Additional analysis was conducted within the FG group to determine whether there was any association between the scores that participants obtained in the technology-mediated tasks and their overall communicative performance. The distribution of the technology-mediated task scores showed that approximately fifty percent of students obtained higher scores within the range 9-10 points of the speaking rubric, while one third of students (10) scored between 8 and 9 points, and only ten percent of students (3) scored less than 8 points in the rubric. Figure 4.5 summarizes these distributions.

Figure 4.5 Distribution of scores in the technology-mediated tasks

Inspection of the scatterplot showed two outliers in the technology-mediated tasks scores and one in the communicative performance scores. As these outliers were genuinely unusual

99

scores, the researcher kept the outliers in the analysis. Because the variable communicative performance was not normally distributed and the scatterplot showed the monotonic relationship between the two variables (Figure 4.6), the non-parametric Spearman’s rank-order correlation was computed to assess the relationship between the technology-mediated tasks scores and the communicative performance scores.

Figure 4.6 Monotonic relationship between scores in technology tasks and communicative

performance

The null and alternative hypotheses for this test were formulated as follows: Null hypothesis:

H0: There is no monotonic association between the variables in the study

Alternative hypothesis:

The results of the Spearman’s rank-order correlation indicated that there was a

statistically significant and positive relationship between technology-mediated task scores and the communicative performance scores, rs(26) = .389, p = .041 (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12 Results from the Spearman’s rank-order correlation for communicative performance

Scores Spearman’s rho

Technology-mediated task

Overall communicative performance .389*

Note. * = statistically significant at p < .05 level.

This statistically significant results led to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis. The results suggested that while the scores that participants obtained in the technology-mediated tasks increased, so did the scores of their communicative performance. However, this association is relatively weak. The coefficient of determination (r2 _{= .15) indicates} that only 15% of the variance in the overall communicative performance can be explained by the variance in the scores of the technology-mediated tasks.

4.4 Research Question 3: Spanish learners’ perceptions of their experience in the technology-mediated tasks

To answer the third research question “what are Spanish learners’ perceptions of their communicative performance and experience in the tech-mediated oral communication tasks?”, a content analysis was performed on the qualitative data of the FG group (online reflections, midterm-survey, evaluation of Flipgrid, focus-group interviews with students, and interview with instructor), and descriptive statistics on the digital data gathered in the Flipgrid tool. Similarly, thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative data of the CG group in order to aid in triangulating the findings.

From the analysis in the FG group, the following six broad themes were developed: (1) communicative performance opportunities, (2) language learning experience, (3) feelings and

101

perceptions, (4) language performance barriers, (5) affordances and limitations of the Flipgrid tool, and (6) recommendations for task design and content. These themes and their connection to the subscales in the survey are presented in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Themes of the qualitative results and connection to construct variables

Themes Description Connection to survey scales*

Communicative performance opportunities

§ Understanding flow of conversational style

§ Extending language practice

§ Self-monitoring

§ motivation & frequency of communication

§ motivation & willingness to communicate § communication confidence Language learning experience § Practice-oriented use of language

§ Beneficial for speaking, perspectives & booster confidence

§ international posture &

communication confidence § willingness to communicate, frequency of communication, communication confidence Feelings and perceptions

(Not) Meeting task criteria

§ Satisfaction with scope of responses

§ Confidence in oral skills & language use

§ Maintaining focus on topic § Elaboration in answers

§ communication confidence

§ communication confidence &

willingness to communicate

§ motivation

§ motivation,communication

confidence & willingness to

communicate Language

performance barriers

§ Unfamiliarity with content § Challenges in spoken

performance

§ Anxiety and Nervousness

§ (all) motivation,communication

confidence & willingness to

communicate Experience using

the Flipgrid tool

§ Ease of use § Flexibility

§ Safe environment

§ willingness to communicate

§ communication confidence

§ motivation & communication confidence

Task design and content

§ Broad topics

§ Clarity of instructions

4.4.1 Communicative performance opportunities

This theme relates to participants’ perspectives on the multiple opportunities that the integration of the technology-mediated tasks provided to them to practice speaking in Spanish. This theme includes participants’ understanding of the conversational flow, extended practice, and self-monitoring of speaking performance.

Students perceived that through their participation in the technology-mediated tasks, they were able to practice oral skills and thus infer the conversational style while responding to the task prompts spontaneously. Students took the tasks as strategies to practice language functions, use of grammatical structures, integrate ranges of vocabulary, and rehearse pronunciation, as well as to assess their own speaking performance. In fact, students mentioned that they were faster in creating responses, leading them to speak on the spot and with more apparent fluency. This is illustrated with a comment in one of the online reflections, “it’s good to speak off command and not have much to think about your answer before you say it because it makes me feel more fluent”. While, another student toward the end of the study, wrote, “I spoke

spontaneously with a couple of notes, and I got my message across clearly”. The perceived immersion in a conversational style was also illustrated in the comment, “[Flipgrid task] helped me practice thinking of conversational sentences rather than responses to questions”. During the focus-group interviews, some students mentioned that the tasks facilitated the flow of speaking when ideas seemed to become disconnected,

[Flipgrid task] helps when you’re speaking, and then you say a couple of things and then you’ve said enough where you can’t really, change what you’re going to say in Spanish and you kind of just have to figure out how to finish it.

103

the tasks. This occurred specially at the beginning of the study and decreased toward the end. For example, in the focus-group interview a student mentioned that at the beginning,

I wrote just small notes about things that I could talk about [in Flipgrid], but as I went on, I feel like I gained more confidence and didn’t have to write those notes, and just like read the questions, and then just kind of came up with what I wanted to say and then just said that.

Students perceived that the tasks allowed them the opportunity for extended practice of their speaking skills. A student commented she felt good because she “got in some extra

speaking to help in my learning”. For almost all students in the FG group, these tasks promoted authentic uses of Spanish and the practice of pronunciation. In the online reflections, a student wrote that “[Flipgrid tasks were] a good way to learn Spanish better and practice [Spanish] speaking skills more”, whereas another student shared, that he developed “ways to speak about certain topics on the spot”. The added practice that Flipgrid tasks offered was highlighted by a student’s comment during the focus group interviews, “in class we were asked direct questions where like a sentence would suffice for answering it, but then with the Flipgrid it was more open ended, and you could talk more and take multiple directions with it”.

Also, students mentioned that the Flipgrid tasks afforded performance monitoring. Students were able to identify their own strengths and needs for improvement while recording their answers to the tasks, as it was shared in the reflections that “[Flipgrid tasks] helped me be able to see and hear myself speak and to know what I can do better”. This is supported by a comment during the focus-group interviews, “you could actually record yourself and could see a video so that you can, kind of like, correct yourself when you saw it”.