Advertisement

The Trends of English Learning-Related Use of Technology: The Role of Technology

  • Shuang Zeng
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter exposes what the sample students are actually doing with the Internet for English learning-related purposes, as well as delineating their perspectives of these digital experiences. These insights will shed some light on the first research questions posed in Chap.  4—‘Are Internet tools used by most of the participants for English learning-related purposes outside the classroom? If so, how are Internet tools mainly used?’. The data reported in this chapter are generated from two main sources. The first is the guided survey, involving 1485 Chinese undergraduates from various academic backgrounds. Using the data from the survey, the first part of this chapter describes the trends of WELL use. As defined in Chap.  1, the term WELL indicates the L2 activities that involve the use of online technology. The survey results reported here inform us of whether the participants in this inquiry are committed to the use of online technology for their English learning, while providing an overview of the research question posed. Where appropriate, the patterns of WELL use are scrutinized in comparison with the students’ general web use, so as to gain a fuller understanding of their behaviours surrounding technology. The second source of data draws on the semi-structured interviews with 49 students who were strategically selected from the questionnaire respondents. Thus, the second source involves qualitative data obtained from 26 heavy and frequent users (active), and 23 light and non-users (less active) of WELL from different academic departments and different years of study (for details, see Appendix H). As such, the picture that emerged from the interviewees should be more optimistic than normally expected from the questionnaire respondents, as most questionnaire respondents are found to be less active users of WELL in this study (see Sect. 5.1.1). Data from the two non-users are included in the reporting of qualitative data, essentially because they noted certain WELL activity during the interviews, although claiming themselves as non-users in the questionnaire. Notably, the active and less active users of WELL will not be discussed separately, essentially because this chapter does not aim to define different groups of users, but to explore the commonalities and varieties of usage patterns among the interviewees. Such exploration will help to further illustrate and expand the patterns of WELL use identified in the survey phase, and thus provide useful insights into the research question proposed. These in-depth descriptions uncover how online technologies assist or influence, if at all, the interviewees’ approach to English learning, and enhance our understanding of the contextually situated phenomenon of WELL.

References

  1. Brabazon, T. (2007). The University of Google. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Buckingham, D. (1998). Children of the electronic age? European Journal of Communication, 13(4), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, J., Howard, S., Vetere, F., Peck, J., & Murphy, J. (2002). Just what do the youth of today want? Technology appropriation by young people. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on January 2002 [Online]. Available at: http://www.hicss.hawaii.edu/HICSS_35/HICSSpapers/PDFdocuments/ETMIRO2.pdf. Last accessed August 11, 2014.
  4. Chen, X. B. (2013). Tablets for informal language learning: Student usage and attitudes [Online]. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 20–36. Available at: http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2013/chenxb.pdf.
  5. Crook, C. (2012). The ‘digital native’ in context: Tensions associated with importing Web 2.0 practices into the school setting. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duque, G., Fung, S., Mallet, L., Posel, N., & Fleiszer, D. (2008). Learning while having fun: the use of video gaming to teach geriatric house calls to medical students. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 56(7), 1328–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning [Online]. System, 33(2), 209–224. Available at: http://www.finchpark.com/courses/grad-dissert/articles/methodology/instructed-language-learning.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fearn, H. (2008). Grappling with the digital divide. Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 August, pp. 37–40.Google Scholar
  9. Green, H., & Hannon, C. (2007). Their space: Education for a digital generation. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  10. Guerin, E. M. C., Cigognini, M. E., & Pettenati, M. C. (2010). Learner 2.0. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century (Vol. 1). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Kaya, T. (2013). Does ICT teacher training bring benefits to the language classroom? In Proceedings of WorldCALL. Glasgow, 10–13 July 2013 [Online]. Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251232220_Effects_of_online_gaming_experience_on_English_achievement_in_an_MMORPG_learning_environment/file/3deec51ef324086829.pdf#page=138. Last accessed August 11, 2014.
  12. Keen, A. (2008). The cult of the amateur: How today’s internet is killing our culture and assaulting the economy. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K. L. (2008). First year students’ experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16-year-old students. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era [Online]. In ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning. Proceedings of Ascilite Singapore 2007 (pp. 664–675). Available at: http://www.dlc-ubc.ca/wordpress_dlc_mu/educ500/files/2011/07/mcloughlin.pdf. Last accessed July 31, 2014.
  17. Pedró, F. (2008). New millennium learners: A project in progress [Online]. Available at: http://www.indire.it/db/docsrv/acqua/NML.pdf. Last accessed August 10, 2014.
  18. Prensky, M. (2005). Computer games and learning: Digital game-based learning. In J. H. Goldstein & J. Raessens (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Research Database of Higher Education in China. (2007). The freshmen survey (The Institute of Education, Xiamen University) [Online]. Available at: http://www.hedb.xmu.edu.cn/english/das.asp. Last accessed August 20, 2013.
  20. Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2004). ‘Well done and well liked: online information literacy skills and learner impressions of the web as a resource for foreign language learning’ [Online]. ReCALL, 16(01), 210–224. Available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/5422/1/ReCALL2004_ORO.pdf.
  21. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sockett, G., & Toffoli, D. (2012). Beyond learner autonomy: A dynamic systems view of the informal learning of English in virtual online communities [Online]. ReCALL, 24(02), 138–151. Available at: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/93/11/04/PDF/Sockett_Toffoli_Recall2012.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toffoli, D., & Sockett, G. (2010). How non-specialist students of English practice informal learning using web 2.0 tools [Online]. ASp. la revue du GERAS, (58), 125–144. Available at: http://ww.w.asp.revues.org/1851.
  24. Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). ‘Did we forget someone? Students’ computer access and literacy for CALL’ [Online]. Calico Journal, 25(3), 482–509. Available at: http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/download/792/653.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Shanghai for Science and TechnologyShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations