Learning Online Literacy Studies in L1: Affordance in Literacy Practices

Many researchers reported on learners’ attitudes and preferences of mobile devices in learning (Banister, 2010; Comas-Quinn et al., 2009; Craig et al, 2007; Dashti & Aldashti, 2015; Eppard et al., 2016; Merchant, 2012) while other researchers argued the significant trend of

mLearning in many fields. In this section, research studies related to online literacy in L1 are presented.

Studies on online literacy of L1 and eLearning presented digital tools and how educators and students use these resources in their literacy practices and social practices. Literature reviews on L1 studies offered 1) the research focused on new forms of literacy practices from traditional classroom environments (Dennen, 2008), or 2) advantages and disadvantages of the digital tools and online courses (Bourelle et al., 2016; Thibaut, 2015). Thibaut (2015) conducted a case study with 30 students in year six (11 and 12 years old) and 4 teachers. She investigated how primary school teachers and students use a social network site for learning purposes in everyday school practices using in-depth interviews, observations, and participants’ logs. Her findings indicated that students’ new literacy practices, dialogue formations, peer teachings, and a sense of

authoring were observed through a social media tool. She argued that this study provided significant implications for teachers in searching what types of learning and literacy practices can be supported by social media tools in a school classroom. Also, the findings indicated that such technologies can be used as assistance to certain competencies.

Similar to Thibaut (2015) who presented online tools as affordances of learning and teaching, Bourelle et al. (2016) reported advantages of online courses. They conducted a mixed method study on the efficacy of online environments for teaching and learning of multimodal literacies in the first-year composition class. They used a quantitative method for students’ e- portfolios grading and a qualitative method for researching in the form of quotes from students’ projects. The following research questions were investigated for this study: What are the

differences in student learning of multimodal literacies in both face-to-face and online

increased best practices of multimodal composition? Participants were students who registered in two composition classes, online and face-to-face, and in the case of the online class, trained instructors provided feedbacks on their writing projects using the online writing studio software. Students were asked to interact with instructors while they received comments. Researchers compared students’ writing products at the end of the semester and compared two groups of 21 students’ products. The findings suggested that students’ learning experiences were presented differently within online and face-to-face multimodal courses. Students in the face-to-face class referenced multimodality in their final project in some capacity; however, students in the online class generally seemed to present richer and more advanced multimodal projects. Students’ comments and numeric results showed that students in the online class considered more about how multimodal components fit into their work by learning from operating in multiple modes.

Kirkland, in his work in 2009, re-theorized the two current literacy fields of ‘in school context’ and ‘out of school context’ to introduce the third, a hybrid space of digital places. He argued that despite complexities surrounding social networking, it cannot be denied that there is an impact from the digital dimension on pedagogical space. Kirkland (2009) also argued that researchers need to reshape literacy in the online space to enhance and update researching and teaching.

On the other hand, researchers like Dennen (2008) showed students’ social practices in online space and why students presented certain behaviors. Dennen (2008) reported findings from two studies on two university hybrid online courses. This quantitative study tested 32 participants in two courses based on the survey questionnaires at the end of the semester. The primary research question of the study was why learners engage in lurking behavior such as observing, reading, but not posting to a discussion board. The focus of the study was to know

whether learners considered their lurking behavior as a part of their learning process or if it was related to better performance in a course. The results showed that about half of students reported that they learned through online discussion experience whether they posted or read. Students who participated solely in meeting a course requirement, however, tended to post discussion more than read a message and had fewer positive impressions of the discussion activity’s impact on their learning.

While most of the research studies on L1 e-learning and online literacy presented affordances and social practices of literacy, research on mLearning provided more detailed information on the tool itself and the advantages and disadvantages it might have over e- learnings.

MLearning and Online Literacy Studies in L1: mLearning vs. e-learning

Bruns et al. (2007) argued that current interactive users who are deeply intertwined with new advanced mobile technologies such as iPods, tablet PCs, and smartphones, show

significantly different producing skills from what has been expected of the students in the past. They indicated that the role of mobile and wireless technologies should be closely examined to represent this generation of students and considered as new learning tools to support students in the current era. In addition to this, Crow et al. (2010) examined mobile technologies in electronic teaching to explore challenges, opportunities, constraints, and affordances of using mobile devices in e-learning which is previously depending on computers alone. Their qualitative research that included semi-structured interviews with three participants indicated that all participants viewed mLearing optimistically with enough technological and pedagogical supports.

In the same sense, Haag’s (2011) study also showed significant trend shifting from e- learning to mLearning. In order to effectively compare an e-learning course to mLearning course, Haag (2011) conducted a study in military mandatory online courses for about a month with 40 participants. The two versions of mandatory courses, desktop and mobile, were provided to learners and surveyed questionnaires about learner’s performance, beneficial features of mobile course delivery, and taking the mobile course over desktop versions were asked. Participants were heavily weighted toward younger ages of 18-22 and 23-27 who had been exposed to mobile devices in their everyday life. In his study of investigating whether or not smartphones would provide a suitable substitute for the mandatory online content, 85 percent of the participants said they would complete their annual mandatory training on mobile devices if their alternative option was provided. The main reason for this answer was its accessibility.

As it is discussed in these studies (Bruns et al., 2007, Crow et al., 2010, Haag, 2011), researchers in mLearning argued its advantages in the features that mobile devices have, accessibility and mobility, over eLearning.

While researchers observed beneficial aspects of mLearning over e-learning in learner’s access, preference, and mobility of learning practices occur, other researchers like Godwin-Jones (2011) and Petrova and Li (2009) provided information about understanding mLearning and its current situation in the language-learning field. Godwin-Jones (2011) explained the changing mobile environment and how it developed from e-learning or computer-based learning and became necessary. He addressed mobile applications and how they would be utilized in language learning by giving some information about applications out there. As mLearning became more interesting to many researchers, more and more studies are focused on pedagogical and

In the report of Korucu and Alkan (2011), they argued that mLearning is explained and expanded in a precise way. Their report indicated that the features of the mobile devices allowed teachers to share information with to contact students without limitations of time and location with the usage of the mobile device in education. In addition, the unique feature of the mobile device that it is small and portable provided the more educational atmosphere to the individuals as learners can always carry it and access whenever Wi-Fi is on.

To find out beneficial features of mobile devices in language learning, Conway and Amberson (2011) examined 31 schools with 840 students involved in the Laptops Initiative which they use mobile devices including laptops for a reading practice of students. A total of 180 students were tested and 24 of them were assessed with dyslexia. Four school case studies with focus group interviews with 24 students who have learning difficulties, teachers’ interviews, classroom observation, and survey were conducted to understand the effectiveness of mobile technology in supporting students with literacy difficulties. Findings revealed that technology- enhanced literacy pedagogy was accepted very positively by both teachers and students. Researchers argued the need of increasing appeal of mLearning to support literacy and how schools mediate access to laptops and associated literacy learning.

Even though mLearning is promising in educational fields, some researchers express concerns and problems with mLearning. Cobcroft (2007) discussed current issues and problems of the mLearning environment and wrote that the key tenant to successful mLearning is to find a suitable curriculum. As Keegan (2002) also observed, not all teaching is appropriate for

mLearning. They both argued that mLearning is more suitable for short and theory-based courses rather than complicated composition or project creating courses. Due to its accessibility and mobility, the mLearning, especially using a smartphone can be limited to its in-depth engaging to

the contexts as students tend to use their smartphones for a quick, short, not complicated learning activity with more graphics, sounds, and videos provided. In addition, Cobcroft (2007) argued that compared to e-learning or online learning where already software and materials were developed to, mLearning takes more time and expenses for the setting to use in secondary or higher education. For teachers, she argued that a flexible and collaborative, yet pragmatic approach developing contents using mobile devices is required for successful mLearning. Moreover, both Cobcroft (2007) and Keegan (2002) suggested that sufficient training for both learners and teachers is needed. An adaptation of mLearning in the university context will be influenced by various factors such as intra-interpersonal and socio-cultural factors.

Summary

With the introduction of mobile devices such as smartphones, iPods, and portable tablets, the attention placed on online communities moved to mobile communities, spaces where people can access learning through mobile devices (Goodwin-Jones, 2011). For many years, online spaces such as wikis, blogs and social media such as Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook have been studied for students’ language learning purposes and for their social presences and interactions, which can affect their language learning (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009; Goodwin- Jones, 2011). However, the computer as a platform for these social networking studies has now changed to a mobile device (Godwin-Jones, 2011) and with this change, the attention which had been on computer online social interactions of learners has now moved to mobile learning settings (Ally et al., 2007; Cobcroft, 2007; Petrova & Li, 2009). Researchers in the review argued the advantages of mLearning over e-learning, as well as, the biggest advantages and the most distinct feature of a mobile device compared to a computer-based learning are its mobility (Kukulska-Hulmes & Shield, 2007). Based on reviews of relative studies in L1, it is important to

be aware of the significance of such technologies, mobile devices and the learning space for language learners and their literacy activities.