Learner Factor in CALL

It is important to consider the language learner factor or the knowledge held by the learner in the implementation of CALL. This includes factors such as language learners’ personal features, technological literacy level and attitudes towards CALL (Chateau & Zumbihl, 2012; Levy, 2014; Naimie, Siraj, Ahmed Abuzaid & Shagholi; 2010). As alleged by Levy and Stockwell (2006), similar to exercising various learning strategies, students have different preferences towards the use of technology for language learning because of the bewildering variety of new available technological tools in recent years.

Lee, Yeung and Ip, (2017), for instance, investigated the relationship between language learners’ personal factors, such as age and gender, and their computer technology use. In consideration of student’s age, the results indicated that older students demonstrated more desire for self-directed learning by CALL, although they reported experiencing higher levels of anxiety compared to the younger students. They also suggested that promoting students’ desire for learning could enhance their technology use for language learning too (Lee, Yeung & Ip, 2017).

57

Lamy and Hampel (2007), as shown in Table 2.3, reported research findings in relation to learners’ experiences in language learning in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environment.

Table 2. 3 Learner experiences in CMC (retrieved from Lamy & Hampel, 2007; p.77)

Positive aspects

1 Equality of participation (written conferencing).

2 More turns (synchronous written environments vs. face-to-face classrooms). 3 Learner empowerment and autonomy; control of discourse by learners. 4 Time to reflect (asynchronous fora).

5 Less anxiety thanks to anonymity (written conferencing). 6 Greater opportunities for collaboration.

7 Authentic exchanges. 8 Creativity.

Negative aspects

1 Inequality of participation (written conferencing). 2 Lengthy monologues, flaming.

3 Limitation of learner empowerment and autonomy through greater control by tutor/institution. 4 Pressure to respond (e.g., prescribed number of contributions in asynchronous fora).

5 Increased performance anxiety (i.e., when speaking in synchronous audio environments). 6 Solitariness of collaborating at a distance.

7 Lack of paralinguistic cues and contextual deprivation can lead to misunderstandings, especially in written conferencing.

8 Information overload and techno-stress (multimodal conferencing).

From the information in Table 2.3 (Lamy & Hampel, 2007), it may be inferred that language learning experience through CMC could be both facilitative and inhibitory for the learners. For instance, while anonymity could reduce language learners’ anxiety, speaking in synchronous audio environments could, in contrast, heighten one’s anxiety. Hedayati and Foomani (2015), likewise, investigated language learners’ performance in synchronous CMC according to their learning styles. The results showed that visual learners outperformed verbal learners in terms of the lexicon (i.e., lexical density and diversity) and syntax (i.e., Syntactic complexity and accuracy). In the same study, reflective learners outperformed active learners by producing longer sentences and greater mean percentage of error-free c-units. These

58

results strongly indicate that language learners’ learning styles are a determining factor in their performance in the online environment.

It is argued that intrinsic motivation for language learners to participate in online learning environment might be less than a face-to-face classroom, as they could easily stay in the background and suffice to observe others’ performance (Lamy & Hampel, 2007). In asynchronous communications, in particular, time gaps between student response and teacher feedback could reduce learners’ motivation for participation and interaction (Lamy &

Hampel, 2007). It is suggested that students with varying proficiency level demonstrate different degrees of motivation for engaging in communication with native speakers of the target language via video-web communication (Jauregi, Graaff, Bergh & Kriz, 2012).

Warschauer (2003) identified four different types of digital literacy as essential literacies for language learners in CALL: computer literacy, information literacy, multimedia literacy and computer-mediated communication literacy. In relation to the first aspect, while Warschauer did not perceive fluency with hardware, software, and operating systems as the ultimate goal, he considers these qualities essential for achieving broader language learning goals. Nowadays, however, this may not be a major challenge, as the new generation of the students, who are referred to as digital natives (Prensky, 2001), have regular interactions with computers and other digital devices from an earlier age. By refereeing to them as digital immigrants, Prensky (2001) believes that older generations also find it indispensable to learn new digital literacies to cope with the technologies that have surrounded them.

Information literacy concerns having relevant knowledge and skills to navigate through the ever-expanding information in today’s world. As Lamy & Hampel (2007) highlighted, information overload could negatively impact language learners’ performance., Warschauer (2003), therefore, suggest that for successful identification, evaluation and use of information, the following skills are necessary:

59

• Develop good research questions

• Determine the most likely places to seek relevant information • Select the most appropriate search tool

• Formulate appropriate search queries

• Rapidly evaluate the result of a search query, including the reliability, authorship, and currency of a source

• Save and archive located information

• Cite or refer to located information (Warschauer, 2003; p. 113)

Information literacies not only demand to have relevant technological knowledge and skills (e.g., web browsing) but also includes critical analysis and evaluation skills for

interpreting the validity and value of the presented information (Warschauer, 2003). The current version of search tools, such as Google, provide users with various options to specify, limit and filter their search results to save time and locate the valid resources. While everyone may know how to search on Google, these small techniques may not be known to all.

In the past, a vast amount of new information was produced and circulated in text format. Therefore, literacy was defined as the ability to read and write (Warschauer, 2003). By the advent of multimedia, as Warschauer highlights, there is the need for developing multimedia literacies to produce and consume information in the form of text, graphic, audio and video (Lotherington, & Jenson, 2011). Multimedia literacy level depends on students’ computer and information literacies as for creating a PowerPoint, for instance, students need skills for “navigating a range of Web sites, critically evaluating and selecting information, deciphering complex vocabulary and syntax, and deciding how to paraphrase and present key information” (Ware, 2008; p.43).

Furthermore, Warschauer (2003) highlights the need for developing Computer- Mediated Communication (CMC) Literacy. He described it as writing and comprehension

60

skills required for effective communication through online media, which are categorised into three levels. At the basic level students need to be aware of the netiquette of appropriate online communication; at an upper level, students need to be pragmatically competent users of different media tools; and the highest level includes establishing and planning CMCs for achieving group goals (Warschauer, 2003). This model demonstrates how online

communication via CMC could be a challenging task which necessitates acquiring certain literacies to engage in meaningful negotiation of meaning with others. It has been argued that “with the proliferation of “social media”, or digital media employed for content production and connection among individuals, electronically-mediated communication (EMC) is finding increasing use and recognition in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL)”

(Averianova, 2012; p. 15).

Four types of literacies proposed by Warschauer (2003) properly explains the essential literacies that language learners need to acquire prior to engaging in CALL practices. Similarly, TESOL technology standards framework (Healey, Hegelheimer, Hubbard, Ioannou-Georgiou, Kessler, & Ware, 2008) provides a more in-detail set of technology standards for language learners. These standards are presented under three main goals:

• Language learners demonstrate foundational knowledge and skills in technology for a multilingual world. For example, language learners demonstrate basic operational skills in using various technology tools and internet browsers.

• Language learners use technology in socially and culturally appropriate, legal, and ethical ways. For example, language learners understand that communication conventions differ across cultures, communities, and contexts.

• Language learners effectively use and critically evaluate technology-based tools as aids in the development of their language learning competence as part of formal

61

instruction and for further learning. For example, language learners appropriately use and evaluate available technology-based tools for communication and collaboration. (Healey et al. 2008; p. 20-25)

In addition to the knowledge and skills that language learners need to acquire for the integration of technology, another thread of research has focused on learner training in CALL. Romeo and Hubbard (2011) argue that even students with high skills in using digital technology may find it difficult to exploit the resources available to them for language learning, which means students need to undertake training that addresses this gap. With a focus on listening skills, Romeo and Hubbard have extensively worked on learner training courses, and they proposed a framework containing the following domains:

• Technical training: how to use the options and controls of both general and specific applications on the computer for language learning purposes. An example is how to control subtitles in various applications.

• Strategic training: what to do to support certain learning objectives, including how to link sequences of strategies (or techniques) into learning procedures.

• Pedagogical training: determining specific learning objectives and understanding why to use certain techniques and procedures to achieve those objectives. This is parallel to the preceding principle “Give learners teacher training.” For example, students are not only introduced to “pre-listening” as a strategy, but they are also told about how research in schema activation and top-down processing support this strategy, and why appropriate pre-listening activities can improve both comprehension and retention of new material.

(Romeo and Hubbard, 2011; p. 217)

The above principles indicate the need for providing students with in-depth training that enables them to critically analyse and compare the available resources and implement the

62

best learning strategies, respectively. This training becomes even more crucial when some argue that in technology-enhanced language learning, students now have more

responsibilities, compared to teacher-led face-to-face classes (Lee, Yeung & Ip, 2017; Tammelin, Peltonen & Puranen, 2011). Raby (2006), referring to a vignette from her class, explains that in CALL environments students do not necessarily follow the strategies planned by the teachers, because they tend to discover new possibilities that closely match their learning habits. Accordingly, Bax (2003) highlights the need for teachers to empower language learners to critically look for language learning potentialities of the technological tools, rather than narrowing their learning to a specific aspect of technology. This leads our discussion to the next important factor in CALL, teacher factor.