Making a Case for Learner Training in Technology Enhanced Language Learning Environments

Authors

  • Philip Hubbard Stanford University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.30.2.163-178

Keywords:

learner training, autonomy, technical training, pedagogical training

Abstract

In recent years, the range and complexity of both language learning technology and the environments in which learners utilize it have become more central factors in language education. Given the already stunning—and growing—number of technological options for language learning, teachers working with both established and emerging applications for learning tasks and activities face the problem of how their students can use them most effectively. While acknowledging that appropriately designed technology and tasks are important, this paper examines five strands of evidence to support the contention that learner training offers a complementary direction for addressing this problem. These strands include research on the gap between language learner needs and their technological proficiencies, development and implementation of a learner training framework, insights from language teachers in the role of language learners using technology, a review of research studies acknowledging the potential value of learner training in their discussion sections, and examples of research and practice that involve learner training, including  recent technology standards. Collectively, these strands converge on the conclusion that learner training for efficient and effective technology use should become a more central theme in research, development, practice, and teacher education.

Author Biography

Philip Hubbard, Stanford University

Philip Hubbard is Senior Lecturer in Linguistics and Director of English for Foreign Students at Stanford University's Language Center. A CALL professional for the past 30 years, he has published across a range of CALL areas, including software development and evaluation, research, theory, standards, teacher education, and learner training. He is associate editor of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Language Learning & Technology and serves on the editorial boards of the CALICO Journal and ReCALL. His current interests center on using technology in developing listening proficiency, curation of digital content, and expanding CALL as an independent field of theory and practice. 

References

Barrette, C. (2001). Students' preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 5-36.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present, and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. doi: 10.1016/S0346251X(02)00071-4

Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 1-15. doi: 10.4018/ijcallt.2011040101

Beller-Kenner, S. (1999). CALL issues: Introducing students to computers. In J. Egbert and E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues, (pp. 363385). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Boling, E., & Soo, K. (1999). CALL issues: Designing CALL software. In J. Egbert and E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 442-458). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Bower, J., & Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English etandem. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 41-71.

Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-access center. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12-27.

Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 111-125.

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A., & Macaro, E. (Eds.) (2007). Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cross, J. (2011). Comprehending news videotexts: The influence of the visual content. Language Learning & Technology, 15(2), 44-68.

Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting in the language classroom: Inherently mobile or not? In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 111-125). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Fischer, R. (2007). How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(5), 409-442. doi: 10.1080/ 09588220701746013

Fischer, R. (2012). Diversity in learner usage patterns. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 14-32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Flowerdew, L. (2012). Exploiting a corpus of business letters from a phraseological, functional perspective. ReCALL, 24(7), 152-168. doi: 10.1017/S0958344012000043

Fuchs, C. (2009). Digital natives and their self-rated electronic literacy skills: Empirical findings from a survey study in German secondary schools. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 31-51). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Goertler, S. (2009). Hybridizing the curriculum: Needs, benefits, challenges, and attitudes. In R. Oxford and J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 53-64). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Goertler, S., Bollen, M., & Gaff, J. (2012). Students’ readiness for and attitudes toward hybrid FL instruction. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 297-320.

Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative email exchange for teaching secondary ESL: A case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 46-70.

Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011). TESOL Technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), Perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45-68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(5), 351-368. doi: 10.1080/09588220500442632

Hubbard, P. (2006, July). A review of subject and treatment characteristics in CMC research. Paper presented at the Pacific Second Language Research Forum, Brisbane, Australia. PowerPoint presentation available at http//www.stanford.edu/~efs/pacslrf06.

Hubbard, P., Kolaitis, M., Meng, L., & Stavitsky, E. (2006, March). Experiencing CALL from the learner’s perspective. Paper presented at the annual TESOL convention, Tampa, FL.

Hubbard, P., & Romeo, K. (2012). Diversity in learner training. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computerassisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 33-48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Karabulut, A., Levelle, K., Li, J., & Suvurov, R. (2012). Technology for French learning: A mismatch between expectations and reality. CALICO Journal, 29(2), 341-366.

Karlström, P., Cerratto-Pargman, T., Lindström, H., & Knutsson, O. (2007). Tool mediation in focuson-form activities: Case studies in a grammar exploring environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 39-56. doi: 10.1017/S0958344007000419

Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-based creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 28-44.

Kol, S., & Schcolnik, M. (2000). Enhancing screen reading strategies. CALICO Journal, 18(1), 67-80.

Kolaitis, M., Mahoney, M., Pomann, H., & Hubbard, P. (2006). Training ourselves to train our students for CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 317-334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260-276.

Levy M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liang, M. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45-64.

Niño, A. (2009). Internet and language teaching/learning: Reflections on online emerging technologies and their impact on foreign language instruction. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 23-30). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

O’Bryan, A. (2008). Providing pedagogical learner training in CALL: Impact on student use of language learning strategies and glosses. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 142-159.

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587. Retrieved November 26, 2012, from http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15583.full.pdf.

Oxford, R. (2009). The influence of technology on second language writing. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 85-100). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Oxford, R., & Oxford, J. (Eds.) (2009). Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation. Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20-%20digital%20 natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf.

Romeo, K., & Hubbard, P. (2010). Pervasive CALL learner training for improving listening proficiency. In M. Levy, F. Blin, C. Siskin & O. Takeuchi (Eds.), WorldCALL: International perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. New York: Routledge.

Rosetta Stone. Available at http://www.rosettastone.com.

Salaway, G., & Caruso, J. with Nelson, M. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Boulder: Educause Center for Applied Research. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ers0808/rs/ers0808w.pdf.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Sinclair, B. (2006). Learner training part II. IATEFL Learner Autonomy SIG. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from http://learnerautonomy.org/learnertrainingarticle1.html.

Soboleva, O., & Tronenko, N. (2002). A Russian multimedia learning package for classroom use and self-study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 483-499. doi: 10.1076/ call.15.5.483.13470

TESOL. (2008). TESOL Technology Standards Framework. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Retrieved January 2, 2013, from http://www.tesol.org/docs/books/bk_technologystandards_framework_721.pdf

van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, R. (2009). (Re)situating the role(s) of new technologies in world language teaching and learning. In R. Oxford & J. Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 9-21). Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Vinagre, M., & Muñoz, B. (2011). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and language accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 72-103.

Warschauer, M. (2011). Learning in the cloud: How (and why) to transform schools with digital media. New York: Teachers College Press.

Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students’ computer access and literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482-509.

Winke, P., Goertler, S., & Amuzie, G. L. (2010). Commonly-taught and less-commonly-taught language learners: Are they equally prepared for CALL and online language learning? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 199-219. doi: 10.1080/ 09588221.2010.486576

Published

2013-05-29

How to Cite

Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a Case for Learner Training in Technology Enhanced Language Learning Environments. Fieldwork in Religion, 30(2), 163-178. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.30.2.163-178

Issue

Section

Articles