Voice Over The Internet: User Perspectives On Voice Tools in Language Learning.

Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning.
by
Teresa MacKinnon
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Post-Compulsory Education (Higher Education)
University of Warwick Learning and Development Centre September 2009
-1-
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009.
Table of contents:
1. Introduction. ................................................................................... 6
1.1 Background to the study. ............................................................................. 6 1.2 Research questions. .................................................................................... 7 1.3 Research hypothesis. .................................................................................. 8
2 Contextual background and literature survey. ................................ 13

2.1 The place of listening and speaking skills in language teaching. ............... 13 2.2 The changing context for interaction.......................................................... 17 2.3 Conclusions. .............................................................................................. 19
3. The contribution of technology to language teaching. .................. 20

3.1 Engagement in technology use in language teaching. .............................. 20 3.2 The relationship between theory and practice. .......................................... 23 3.3 Tutor role in language teaching. ................................................................ 25 3.4 Error correction. ......................................................................................... 29 3.5 The opportunities and challenges. ............................................................. 31
3.5.1 Limitations of the technologies. ..................................................................... 31 3.5.2 Lack of engagement. .................................................................................... 32 3.5.3 Difficulty of listening. ..................................................................................... 33 3.5.4 Affective factors. ........................................................................................... 34
4. Methodology. ................................................................................. 38
4.1 Research approach. .................................................................................. 38 4.2 The sample. ............................................................................................... 39 4.3 Data collection. .......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 The tutor questionnaire. ................................................................................ 41 4.3.2 Interviews. .................................................................................................... 41
4.4 Limitations of the study. ............................................................................. 43
5. Results. .......................................................................................... 44
5.1 Tutor questionnaires. ................................................................................. 44 5.2 Tutor interviews and walk-throughs. .......................................................... 46 5.3 Quantitative data from the voice tools software. ........................................ 49 5.4 Student data. ............................................................................................. 50
6. Discussion of factors arising from data. ........................................ 52

6.1 Technology anxiety.................................................................................... 52
6.1.1 Affective barriers. .......................................................................................... 52 6.1.2 Management issues. ..................................................................................... 53
6.2 Pedagogical matters. ................................................................................. 54

6.2.1 Error correction. ............................................................................................ 54 6.2.2 Tutor role. ..................................................................................................... 57
6.3 The practice gap. ....................................................................................... 58
7. Conclusions. .................................................................................. 60
Table of figures. Figure 2.1 ............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3.5.4.i ....................................................................................................... 36 Figure 5.1.i .......................................................................................................... 44 Figure 5.1.ii ......................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5.1.iii ........................................................................................................ 46 Figure 5.2.i .......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 5.2.ii ......................................................................................................... 48 Figure 5.3.i .......................................................................................................... 49 Appendices:
Appendix 1 .......................................................................................................... 77 Appendix 2: ......................................................................................................... 90 Appendix 3 .......................................................................................................... 93 Appendix 4.i ........................................................................................................ 94 Appendix 4.ii Question 7 ..................................................................................... 95 Appendix 4.iii Question 8 .................................................................................... 96
Acknowledgements.
Thanks go to my colleagues for their contributions to this study, also to my family for their support.
Declaration.
I declare that this dissertation is all my own work and has not been submitted for degree at any other institution.
Abstract:
As communication technologies continue to evolve, connecting individuals worldwide, they bring new opportunities for interaction that transcend the traditional face to face barriers of time and place. This study collects together the experiences of a small group of language teachers using software known as Voice Tools to add further speaking and listening opportunities over the internet to their students. Qualitative data gathered from their experiences is examined in the light of existing findings in research from computer assisted language learning (CALL) and e-learning, particularly with respect to the influence of affective factors and tutor role. Quantitative data gathered from the software also shows an increase in the usage of the tools once their potentials are explored. The study points to the importance of reflection and cooperation for practitioners and the need for further investigation into the challenges posed by computer mediated communication in second language teaching.
1.
Introduction.
1.1 Background to the study.

As a language teacher with 25 years experience, a change of role moving from the Secondary sector to Higher Education offered an opportunity to re-evaluate my teaching in the light of challenges arising from a new teaching context.
The first of these challenges was presented by the exciting developments in web based technologies which were being explored at my institution. Throughout my career I had evaluated and deployed the many new teaching tools that had come along, moving from reel to reel tapes to cassettes, from chalk to overhead projectors and interactive whiteboards, from analogue to digital media. If the new tools proved themselves in the classroom, improving learning experiences for my students, I would adopt and embed them in my teaching, increasing my arsenal. The opportunities presented by the advent of the internet were self evident for a language teacher. Here at last was a way of bringing French language and culture into my home, facilitating what is an otherwise difficult task for a working parent, keeping in touch with social and linguistic changes in a distant country. I decided to extend my understanding of the evolving e-learning tools for language teaching and undertook career development, completing an e-learning award at M level.
Secondly, the nature of my new students in Higher Education also helped me to reframe my teaching experiences and techniques. Having worked extensively with many young people I had learned how to support a wide range of learning styles and abilities, gearing my teaching to cope with a variety of levels of motivation. I had uncovered how I needed to adapt my approach and adopt techniques to ensure that these young people made the best progress possible. I had regularly experienced the satisfaction of knowing that their language learning experience was a positive one, one which they would feel able to extend or return to in the future. In Higher Education my students were more sophisticated. Young adults and mature learners brought their own expectations and insights from prior learning. They were able to analyse and articulate their
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. learning needs. Many intended to apply their language skills by undertaking demanding study periods abroad at the end of my course. Most understood that there was an immediacy and a relevance to the acquisition of practical language skills for them.
The academic courses I was teaching at the time were weighted towards reading and written skills. Developing these to a level required by the existing accreditation framework meant that time for speaking and listening skills was scarce. This was unsatisfactory both from a student and teaching perspective as it is widely accepted that exposure to language through listening and speaking is both desirable and supportive to second language acquisition. Feyten (1991) for example found statistically significant relationships between listening ability and foreign language competence. However, this area is often problematic, many students who excel on paper find the oral exam very stressful. The sucessful management of useful oral/aural interaction in the foreign language classroom requires skill. I decided to experiment with some online voice technologies (voice tools) to see if they could offer a means of extending exposure to tailored speaking and listening practice for my groups. Having familiarised myself with the technical aspects of the use of such tools (i.e. voice boards, voice emails, podcasts), I found software that met my criteria for ease of use, accessibility and pedagogic value. Having used these with my students I collected their feedback to inform my teaching. Many of the students agreed that they had found the voice tools to be of value to their learning.
1.2 Research questions.

Encouraged by the positive student feedback I was nevertheless aware that such use of technology was not widespread in language teaching and therefore required greater investigation. For this study, I wanted to find out whether other language tutors would share my interest in voice technologies for teaching and so, with the help of some of my colleagues who had expressed an interest in my work, I set about an empirical study to collect their experiences of using the voice tools with their groups. I wanted to know which tools they would deploy, if any. It was also
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. relevant to discover how they felt about the chosen technologies and whether there were any issues specific to technology enabling voice over the internet that they had encountered. My research questions therefore were:
How can the use of computer mediated communication tools (voice tools) by language teachers support their delivery of second language teaching?
What factors affect their experiences of this endeavour?
The project, which took place over a year, was to provide some interesting insights that centre around tutor perception of our role in the learning process.
1.3 Research hypothesis.

My research hypothesis arose from my experiences both as a teacher and as a manager of language teaching in different UK institutions. Many learners had expressed to me that they felt it difficult to capture the language heard in their classroom situation for long enough to support their ability to assimilate and reproduce it. Teachers too would comment that greater exposure to spoken language was required for many learners. In an ideal language learning situation the learner would be exposed to many meaningful interactions on a regular basis, honing their skills by listening to and interacting in the language regularly. Teaching usually offers opportunities for two forms of listening skill development: one-way listening and listening as part of interaction.
Comprehensible input is crucial to language acquisition and the quality of that input can be enhanced by interaction in the foreign language as input becomes more finely tuned through negotiation of meaning with other foreign language speakers. (Klapper, 2006: p295)
The notion of comprehensible output (Swain, 1985), the production of spoken language by the learner, is claimed to lead to more appropriate and accurate language use. Therefore it is to be
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. expected that teachers would offer opportunities for both comprehensible input and output in their interventions.
However a typical teaching scenario has several limiting factors that impact upon the creation of ideal conditions within a language classroom and these should be examined:
Firstly, class time may be limited. A typical teaching programme may only allow two hours of contact time a week.
Secondly, the number of learners within a group may mean that opportunities for one to one interactions are limited. A teaching group of 24 learners will possibly have only minutes of exposure to speaking with the tutor. These realities may impact on the amount of time spent listening and speaking the target language.
Thirdly, there is evidence that affective factors, psychological stresses, impact upon the individual in a situation where he or she may be required to speak in front of others in a class. All institutional learning takes place in a social context, the effects of which should always be taken into account. (Vygotsky,1978)
Language tutors generally address these limitations with energy and creativity. The modern language classroom is home to group and pair work, communication gap activities and extensive use of presentation technologies such as audio and video players and language laboratories where available. Teachers aim to maximise the time available for developing essential language skills. Nonetheless, learners frequently feel the need for further practice opportunities (a phenomenon referred to in this study as a practice gap) and may feel anxious about the demands of oral examinations when they have limited exposure to real conversation. It would appear to be desirable to facilitate further opportunities beyond the classroom if at all possible. Sometimes this is done by arranging exchange visits, pen friends or tandem learning opportunities which unite learners who wish to share their skills and learn each others languages.
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. With the development of new software it is possible to facilitate such opportunities over the internet.
Our Language Centre had been using a technology for asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) known as Voice Tools for a few years prior to this study in a limited way. Voice Tools are a software suite from Horizon Wimba (we used voice boards, voice email and podcasts, see Appendix 1.) which allow the easy recording and distribution of sound over the internet using a java-based interface. All recordings can be retrieved for reflective review. Any headset can be used to listen or record. The method of distribution means that the sound is clear and does not need to buffer, which would break the flow of the recording. The tools archive all interaction and allow for the resultant files to be downloaded in a variety of formats, making them flexible so that the files can be edited or re-used. The tools could not be embedded within our existing web editor tools but were hosted on the internet and any of the above listed resources created could then be linked from web pages used for teaching.
Whilst tutors are able to provide multimedia examples of a wide range of interactions taken from live and recorded media, facilitating spoken interaction beyond the classroom situation can prove problematic for technical reasons. Commercial tools such as instant messaging, internet telephony and sound recording may facilitate some forms of direct communication but they focus on conveying the message, not retrieving it for considered reflection or improvement. Communications cannot easily be reviewed by the tutor and the delivery systems may require users purchasing specific hardware. Several other important technical factors influenced the software choice: the interface was user friendly and instinctive to those tutors who have used tape recorders for much of their career. the range of tools allowed for a variety of synchronous or asynchronous interaction (podcasting, voice boards, voice email) the clarity of sound delivery was good even over restricted bandwidth the resultant recordings are reusable and can be exported in a variety of formats
10
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. It was decided to make these voice tools more widely available to interested tutors to enable them to extend further opportunities for speaking and listening beyond the classroom, addressing a perceived practice gap, a need for additional opportunities to hear and use the language which is being studied. Learners could listen to recordings over the internet and, if they wished to, engage with them, recording their own responses for review by peers and/or their tutor. These listening and speaking activities took place in an independent setting at a time and place of the students choosing. During the period of the study use of the voice tools was facilitated for all interested tutors. The focus of the study was the tutor experience and their reflections upon the voice tools. Qualitative data were collected from tutors as they reflected upon their experience, both the positive and negative aspects thereof. Student reflections were also captured in order to take account of their experiences. Quantitative data were collected from the software in order to monitor usage of the tools during the study period. It seems reasonable to assume that, should a practitioner find such tools of value they would increase their usage. Recent applications of voice over the internet are beginning to show real advantages for students. A larger study carried out (Ice, P. et al, 2008) into the use of audio feedback surveyed 312 students whose tutors had made voice recordings as feedback on their work. They were overwhelmingly positive about tutors recording spoken comments, with 70% of students stating that they were better able to understand the nuances of the feedback and 51% expressing feelings of increased involvement in their course. This research reveals many interesting findings pertaining to community building and immediacy behaviours that reveal a learner perspective on the use of voice over the internet. One learner with experience of distance learning felt that audio had connected her to her tutor: you were reaching in there and touching me. I know thats probably kind of silly, but just your voice alone made me feel like it was a real class. I was interested to learn whether our students, facing communication using languages other than their mother tongue, would experience a connection to their tutor and/or their peers that may point to a pedagogic value in the use of CMC in language teaching. Would the use of the voice tools bridge a practice gap?
11
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Tutor views are known to be divided on two issues that are central to this study: the place of listening and speaking in language teaching and learning the contribution of technology to teaching and learning languages
It would therefore be important to understand existing literature pertaining to these areas in order better to understand why tutors engage in the use of such tools at all, prior to exploring how they are used.
12
2 Contextual background and literature survey.

The literature that contributes to a better understanding of my research area is diverse and necessitates a broad, inter-disciplinary approach. Literature on language teaching can be drawn from publications into second language acquisition and English language teaching. Clearly both areas have many synergies and yet for historical and economic reasons they have not progressed at the same pace. English language teaching has benefited from a general international acceptance of the importance of English to trade and mobility. Many Asian governments and societies have invested in the delivery of English language teaching in order to access Western education and expertise to support their developing economies. This investment has created a fertile testing ground for language teaching ideas and the creation of distance learning innovations. Differences can also be seen in the literature of second language teaching (L2) in the UK and second language acquisition (SLA) in the US. The variations between these areas are not significant to this study, rather it is interesting to draw together what each could bring to the central issue of facilitating communication as part of language learning. Literature regarding the use of technology in teaching and learning, and more specifically in language teaching, is still evolving as greater use is being made of existing and emerging technologies. My aim in surveying these areas was to draw out the themes most relevant to my study, particularly those relating to the central tutor issues already defined.
2.1 The place of listening and speaking skills in language teaching.

The emphasis placed upon listening and speaking in language teaching by any one tutor will be dependant upon their belief in the importance of these skills to language acquisition. Historically these skills have taken different roles in language teaching which result from the dominant contemporary theories of how we acquire language. An understanding of these theories would be vital to inform insight into tutor positions on the existence of a practice gap.
13
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Given the fact that the publications on second language acquisition and English language teaching are often distinct, is important to explain some key terminology employed in this study. A language teaching approach is generally built upon a theory of how we learn a second language. The term approach is described by Richards and Rogers (2001) as a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language teaching and learning. (p15) A language teacher holding a certain approach to their teaching will employ certain methodologies. For the purposes of this study I am employing Longs definition of language teaching methodologies as instructional strategies and learning processes employed by the tutor and the learner. New methodologies are influenced by the beliefs or approaches held in respect to theories of second language acquisition.
The teaching and learning of a second language has a long history and its evolution has can be seen through a wide range of teaching methodologies. A full yet concise history has been published in the work of Richards and Rogers (2001).The historical legacy of such approaches still has influence today and some would say that recent developments in our understanding of language acquisition mean that we should re-examine some teaching methodologies.
Grammar translation approaches relegated speaking and listening to the mere vocalisation of written rules, the learner required such skills to demonstrate their mastery of formal grammar . Immersion approaches such as direct method used by Berlitz, favoured target language use, ignoring adult learners existing understanding of their own language and delaying writing as long as possible. The underlying assumption being that the learner would eventually make sense of what they heard. Behaviourist approaches (Skinner, 1957) influenced audiolingualism, where drilling and repetition emphasised oral and aural skills to form error-free language habits in a stimulus-response-reward paradigm. Structural analysis of language use was influential in the UK. (Palmer, 1917) For Behaviourists the teaching of listening and speaking skills preceded those of reading and writing.
14
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. These approaches and methodologies had their successes but none suited all learners. Many learners found it difficult to transfer what they had learned into active, real life production. Since the 1960s a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach has been the default position, influenced by the work of eminent linguist Noam Chomsky. Chomsky argued (1957) that structural theories of language such as those described by behaviourists did not account for the creativity and uniqueness of natural language use, and that language should be viewed first and foremost as a means of communication.
Hymes (1971) developed the concept of communicative competence as the goal of language teaching, returning the focus to the learners need for language production. Tutors use techniques to engage learners in their presentation of language use, encouraging practice activities, followed by production in order to consolidate learning. Sessions typically include a range of activities such as games, group and pair work using a wide variety of authentic realia, but there is room for individual tutors to create and design their course materials. Effective communication is encouraged and learners are actively involved in interactions from an early stage. Errors are accepted as a normal part of language learning and the tutor observes and redirects the teaching in order to improve accuracy. This humanistic approach centres upon context and the purpose to which users would put their language.
This form of communicative language teaching referred to by Klapper as the weak version of CLT (p113) is widespread, combining instruction of functional language with communication using the taught language. According to Macaro (2003) this is the most enduring form of instruction.
Developments in psychological research have also influenced learning theories and therefore impacted upon teaching approaches and methodologies. For example, Millers work on short term memory (Miller, 1956) encouraged the practitioner to consider how information is processed in the brain and therefore how we may facilitate transference to long term memory. Recent
15
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. developments in research have been influential in returning the thoughts of language teachers to their methodologies. Chomskys theory of universal grammar , where all humans are said to possess an innate and defined framework for language acquisition, has been central to our communicative language teaching approach.
Breakthroughs in brain science including the use of CAT scans (computed axial tomography) have brought new ways of looking at how the brain works which may in turn increase our understanding of how best to help learners acquire a new language. Studies in evolutionary biology and psychology are contributing to the language acquisition debate, and Chomskys ideas will no doubt be questioned, re-evaluated and perhaps evolve as noted by Pinker ( who says of Chomsky):
Though I happen to agree with many of his arguments, I think that a conclusion about the mind is convincing only if many kinds of evidence converge on it (1994, p24)
Macaro (2003) uses the four way stretch diagram (Fig. 2.1) to represent the polarisation of theories of language acquisition:
Figure 2.1 The horizontal axis represents the polarisation between theories of language input. Implicit input arises from natural exposure and sub-conscious processing, explicit from teaching and conscious processing. The vertical axis represents the concept of how language input is processed. Nativist
16
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. implies that language learning is an innate skill, interactionist that language is a specialised form of knowledge that is acquired through interaction with the environment. He adds this observation:
Of course polarizations are never absolute and theories as well as individuals place themselves on various stages along the continuum of these axes. (p22)
Language tutors find themselves at a historical point in time where a re-evaluation of theories of language acquisition may be necessary, calling into question our existing methodologies and demanding a critical review of our approach.
2.2 The changing context for interaction.

In our increasingly networked society much of our interaction with each other takes place online or over the telephone. This is likely to continue to increase as concerns about our carbon footprint affect business decisions about face to face meetings. Adults spend between 40-50% of their communication time listening (Gilman and Moody, 1984). It is perhaps therefore surprising to find that listening and speaking are only relatively recent additions to the second language teaching research agenda. (Oxford, 1993; Bygate 1987).
Language learning is unusual as a discipline in that the content studied is also often the medium for the communication of the content. This means that the process of language learning is often as important as the product. Spoken language, although theoretically considered central to language learning, has largely taken the form of vocalised written language in the past. Seen as transient, it has been considered by researchers to be only partially accessible to study (Bygate, 2003). More recently the requirement to assess oral competence in language, driven in part by increasing global mobility, has engendered a focus upon the necessary interventions to develop and hone speaking skills (Bygate,1987). As our society changes and opportunities for interactions with speakers of other languages increase, the desire to be able to understand and produce spoken language appropriately increases. With global working becoming more extensive, such
17
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. skills are highly prized in the corporate recruitment market. Crystal (2001) offers us a glimpse of a possible social revolution to come:
Whereas at the moment, face to face communication ranks as primary, in any account of the linguistic potentialities of humankind, in the future it may not be so. In a statistical sense, we may one day communicate with each other far more via computer mediation than in direct interaction. (p241)
It would appear important, if he is correct, to include this dimension in our teaching and to increase our understanding of the challenges it presents. This background of shifting modes of communication may well impact upon language teaching. If the social setting of interaction is moving to an online setting we must consider the social aspects of this setting. In his article Hudson (1981) states that one of the issues that linguists can agree on is that: We learn our language from other individuals, so language is a property both of the individual and of the community from which he learns it. Consequently, both social and psychological approaches to its study are necessary. In an interesting article, Schwarzer (2009, p28) states: As language instructors, we can build a setting in which adult learners can learn and practice communication strategies and tools in order to become successful language users.
As language teachers we have the experience of creating a suitable environment for the development of such communication in the classroom, helping learners feel at ease as they try out their new skills. Many of our colleagues working in other disciplines do not have the benefit of such experience. However, locating the best technologies for extending this beyond the classroom has proven problematic for the reasons outlined earlier.
18
2.3 Conclusions.
It would seem that the approach adopted towards the role of speaking and listening in language learning would be influenced by the tutors position on Macaros model. The belief that the learner can benefit from additional tutor-led exposure to listening and speaking opportunities to address a practice gap would naturally influence tutor commitment to engage in such provision. The types of provision chosen would also be likely to reflect the tutors approach. Dialogue and conversation would fit a nativist/implicit approach whereas demonstration and repetition would be favoured by an explicit/interactionist approach. How the tools were used would therefore reflect the tutors understanding of their approach. However I suspected that matters would not be so clear cut particularly as we were using technological tools to deliver these opportunities.
It is helpful therefore to look into the impact of technological developments in language teaching, in order to clarify the implications of their use.
19
3. The contribution of technology to language teaching.

Not all language tutors would accept that technology can add value to the language learning experience. In the early days of CALL there was pessimism particularly about the contribution that could be made to the development of speaking skills in particular. Past attempts to promote speaking using CALL in the classroom had been disappointing (James, 1996). The resultant use of language had been formulaic and machine oriented. (Piper, 1986, Mohan, 1992) However, James points out that the conversational teachers bag of tricks (1996, p19) is the most useful reference point when using computers to stimulate speaking skills; if an idea doesnt work without a computer it is all the more likely to fail when the added complication of the machine is introduced. It would appear therefore that the successful use of technology to facilitate listening and speaking development would be linked to existing tutor expertise in the classroom as well as familiarity with our changing context for interaction.
3.1 Engagement in technology use in language teaching.

The teaching of foreign languages in the UK is changing as a result of advances in communications and information technologies. Multimedia CD-ROMs, digital language laboratories and the internet have all contributed to the inclusion of lively, up to date resources which bring the reality of the culture and language studied within easy reach of the learner. Virtual learning environments present opportunities for learners to explore a wide range of stimuli selected by their tutor for access beyond the classroom and may also offer possibilities for interaction. At the same time the internet has facilitated autonomous learner exploration, making distant countries and their media more accessible. We are seeing increasing internationalisation of these technologies as they develop and their sphere of influence increases. New versions of operating systems facilitate input in a wide range of scripts, browsers support their display and domain names proliferate to accommodate international expansion of the internet. According to VeriSigns domain name industry brief for December 2008, there are now 174 million domain
20
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. names (a unique name that identifies an internet site) registered in the world, a 19% increase in the last year alone, 54 million more than in 2006. New technologies bring new challenges, new skills for both teachers and learners, a new literacy. The definition of literacy is widely discussed at the moment. Dictionary definitions centre around mastery of written language but a wider, more inclusive definition would take account of cultural differences (Langer,1991) and disabilities.(Foley, 1994) It is widely agreed that to be literate involves a range of skills, knowledge and abilities that enable an individual to interpret and communicate ideas with a degree of mastery. Electronic literacy is required as a facet of broader literacy skills: Literacy is a shifting target and we have to prepare students for their future rather than our past. (Warschauer, 2000) If teachers are to be able to support the development of electronic literacy so that students can master language as it appears in this context, they also need to be familiar with language use in these situations:
The language and literacies of the new technologies form a subset of the literacies that learners will need to be empowered in their personal and work and community lives. (McPherson and Murray, 2003 p5)
It is therefore important for language teachers to understand the issues raised by interaction and communication in computer mediated settings. The growth of internet use and its existence in mainstream education as a tool could not have been foreseen. Its impact is still a huge area for research and will doubtless change the face of teaching and learning: The internet in particular has become a new medium of communication that is shaping both the process and the products of communication. (Long and Richards, 2000). Language teaching is one of many areas to be affected. According to Crystal: The use of the Internet in foreign-language teaching may be in its infancy, but it is plainly here to stay. (2001, p236)
Research into Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) refers to a body of project work dating from the 1950s. Since that period the rate of change in technological development has
21
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. been remarkable. The internet offers new affordances, opportunities which did not exist or were difficult to provide prior to the technological developments. Amongst these affordances is a means to facilitate interaction beyond the boundaries of physical location and time. Such interactions can take place asynchronously as well as synchronously. The internet provides a network for interaction. NBLT (Network-Based Language Teaching): represents a new and different side of CALL, where human to human communication is the focus. (Warschauer and Kern, 2000).
Research into computer mediated communication (CMC) is proliferating. Many disciplines are employing the technologies to connect their learning communities and their experiences are very pertinent. According to a leading voice in e-learning, Gilly Salmon:
Combining new ideas about computer-mediated technologies and well-loved theories of learning results in fantastic possibilities but they need a little human time and energy to make them work. (2002, p4)
It is unsurprising that language tutors, faced with the richness of possibilities to support their teaching are including new technological tools in order to meet the expectations of their learners. My former colleagues (Barnes and Murray, 1998) had exposed the wow factor presented by such new opportunities (at the time by CD-ROMs) and emphasised the importance of practitioners going beyond this to arrive at a position whereby one can evaluate such opportunities objectively.
Interactivity and social interaction forms one of the main themes of contemporary e-learning research. (Conole and Oliver, 2007). It is concluded that successful interaction in an e-learning environment can impact significantly on learner motivation and learning outcomes although engaging learners in such interaction is problematic. Salmon acknowledges the existence of a new form of interaction that exists online, called netspeak by Crystal (2001). Netspeak
22
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. describes the way in which language is used when interacting through the internet: its vocabulary has spilled over into our daily lives (i.e. words such as download, spam), its rhythm is affected by the technical properties of the medium, its rule-breaking use of non-standard language is challenging. Netspeak is identical to neither speech nor writing, but selectively and adaptively displays properties of both (p47) Salmon believes that those engaging in interaction on the internet in a language that is not their mother tongue may have a particularly sharp learning curve, coping not only with communicating in another language but also with a particular usage of that language. It would appear therefore that interaction over the internet as part of second language teaching would present particular challenges to tutors. Success would be dependant upon the transfer of their classroom expertise to this new context as well as their mastery of the skills required by the technology.
This emphasis on critical evaluative skills is even more vital when faced with such a wealth of technologies and resources on the world wide web. With respect to listening opportunities, Field (2008) states: The issue becomes not how to obtain the material, but how to select from what is available (p274)
In surveying the literature it would be necessary to: understand the pedagogical rationale for facilitating listening and speaking in this context and identify factors that would need to be taken into consideration in order to deploy such technologies effectively.
3.2 The relationship between theory and practice.
Three important learning theories have dominated education in the Western world: Behaviourism, Cognitivism and Constructivism (Carlisle and Jordan, 2005). Teaching approaches are based, consciously or otherwise, upon our theoretical beliefs. In order to better understand my
23
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. experiences as a teacher it was necessary to explore and analyse my teaching approach in order to undertake this study, particularly as I could recognise methodologies currently used in language teaching which would appear to belong to each of these theories. Rote learning, drilling and repetition clearly are part of a Behaviourist tradition, the teaching of learning strategies part of a Cognitivist theory. I recognised my own teaching best in the Constructivist model, as exemplified in the Implications of Constructivism for Practice (Carlile et al. 2004 in Carlile and Jourdan, 2005 p21). This theory places me towards the student-centred learning end of the continuum presented by ONeill and McMahon, p29 (2005).
In Higher Education, language tutors use methodologies that suit their teaching style, their beliefs and their experience. Individual language learner profiles vary and it falls to the tutor to make informed decisions as to the most useful course design and procedure to suit the needs and context of their learners. Our learners are in a post-compulsory phase of education; in many cases they have experienced language learning in the past, even if they are beginners in the language they study with us. They come from a range of international backgrounds, experiences and language teaching traditions. They are adult learners and therefore they share the following features elaborated by Knowles (1980) requiring Androgogy rather than Pedagogy. Adult learners:
Decide for themselves what is important Use experience to validate information Expect what they learn to be immediately useful Have much experience Have significant ability to act as resource to group
In a paper describing an andragogical approach to language teaching, Graham Bishop (2006) highlights positive feedback from adult learners who have significantly greater input into the
24
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. course design and activities they undertake. However there are major challenges for tutors engaged in this approach: careful management of affective factors is required to empower learners it could be considered time consuming for tutors as they have to be familiar with a wide variety of materials selected by learners
Over the years, changes in language teaching have often been driven by the external need for the rapid training of proficient language users in business and the military. In modern times value for money is often cited as an important driver for educational developments. There is a political will to locate best practice in order to ensure that resources are used to greatest effect. However it is widely accepted that external drivers for change are not always the most effective. Individuals adopt innovation depending on the degree to which it is perceived as holding advantage over the idea it supersedes. (Rogers, 2003) If language teaching is to change further, perhaps influenced by the use of new technologies, it is likely to be because teachers appreciate the relative advantages of change.
It was clear that the principal focus of my study needed to be the tutors. Their approach to teaching, whether explicit or otherwise, would be a determining factor in how or even if they used voice tools. From my reading, two factors were clearly worthy of further investigation. Firstly that the tutors perception of their role in the teaching and learning process. Secondly, closely connected to the first factor, the tutors attitude towards error correction.
3.3 Tutor role in language teaching.

The common feature of the influential methodologies widely used in language education is that they all, to a greater or lesser degree, require a central role for the language tutor. The tutor selects and presents the learning resources, creates the rules that govern interaction, generates an ambiance for participation and corrects learner utterances. The learner consequently has a
25
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. reactive role, interacting as and when instructed with limited choices about the content and focus of their learning.
A common criticism of communicative language teaching methodology is that the learner is restricted within a set of predefined language chunks made available by the tutor (Klapper, 2006, p114.) This may restrict the learners ability to generate his/her own language as it lacks a framework for independent use. Ironically, learners communications are not always connected with their real desire for communication but they are rather an artificial construct. There is little space for real negotiation with the learners as to content nor are they able to lead the practice phase according to their own interests. When using technology for teaching the tutor role is one of the first aspects of teaching and learning that is called into question. According to Rchoff and Ritter (2001):
it is becoming more and more apparent that the available offline and online software tools offer exciting opportunities for the language classroom that cannot be adequately attended to without calling the paradigm of instruction into question.
The tutors role in language learning in a networked environment is described in Communicating on the Net (ed. Murray, 2003) as that of guide on the side rather than sage on the stage (p3). However the tutor is still central to the success or failure of the learning process. Technology does not substitute for the key roles of mediation, inspiration, annotation and provocation (Heppell and Ramondt, 1998 cited in Ryan et al., 2000). Wright (1987) postulated that all language teachers could be located somewhere on a continuum between:
transmission
interpretation
26
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. based upon their assumptions of the nature of language learning. At the transmission end of this continuum tutors would have positivist views that learning is achieved through the transmission of objective reality. They would see mastery and internalisation of language structure and form to be the learners goal. At the interpretation end, the tutor is concerned to train the learner to become autonomous in language acquisition, more in tune with a constructivist approach, a theory of which argues that knowledge and meaning are constructed from each individuals human experience. The use of technology in learning can facilitate a constructivist approach. The individual actively interprets their perceptions, constructing their own representation of knowledge in the light of their experience. In a social learning context the constructivist perspective emphasizes collaboration between peers and teachers within supportive frameworks (Duffy and Cunningham, 1996).
The seven hypotheses for constructivist language learning (v. list), articulated by Chapelle (1998) in her consensus model of second language acquisition, reveal learners taking a greater responsibility for their learning, actively noticing and modifying their errors.
The seven hypotheses for constructivist language learning (Chapelle, 1998) : The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output Learners need to notice errors in their own input Learners need to correct their linguistic output Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximise opportunities for good interaction
27
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. The tutor ensures the provision of opportunities for helpful interactions to take place, establishing rules for interaction that protect and support the learner. In this model the tutor is involved with the process of learning rather than focusing only on the product.
Such assumptions have an impact upon the role that the tutor perceives they have in the learning process and therefore the role occupied by the learner. Moving along the continuum from left to right is an implicit transference of power from tutor to learner. Interpretation teachers are: more of a resource person or consultant than an authority; a facilitator rather than an arbiter. (Tumposky,1982, p5) This relocation of the locus of control brings benefits. According to Vandergrift: intrinsically motivated learners or self-regulated learners are more effective learners because the locus of control is internalised. (2008, p90) Such teachers see the learning process as a dynamic one rather than the mechanical digestion of a body of knowledge. They are more likely to encourage learners to develop good learning strategies, promoting a degree of learner autonomy. However there may be a danger of marginalising the language teacher who then surrounds learners with a wide range of choices of appropriate learning resources, becoming a tour guide. (Benson and Voller, 1997) Voller identifies 3 assumptions (p113) necessary to empower language teachers: language learning is an interpretive process, requiring a transfer of control to the learner. teaching practices should be based on negotiation with learners. teachers should self-monitor and reflect upon their practices.
Transferring control to the student could be problematic, particularly for those tutors whose underlying approach is essentially behaviourist. Some tutors may not be willing to allow the student the freedom to explore and make mistakes for themselves, particularly in a digital environment where all interaction will have a footprint, leaving behind a recoding of what has been said. The resultant proliferation of and exposure to error may be too challenging. There will
28
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. be tensions between the need for error correction and the need to offer opportunities to make mistakes. Such tensions strike at the very heart of the tutors perception of their role. Benson proposes three versions of learner autonomy: technical, psychological and political. The acquisition of language learning techniques and skills (technical) the capacity to take responsibility for ones learning (psychological) and the control over the processes and content (political). All have a part to play in the development of the language learner. He says: The changing patterns of language education that support this tendency [to learner autonomy] are essentially a continuation of those which supported the mainstreaming of Communicative Language Teaching : the ever increasing quantity of language education and the growing importance of media and information technologies. To increase learner autonomy is to acknowledge that learners have their own preferred styles, capacities and needs (Skehan 1989) and is in tune with Nunans learner centered curriculum.
3.4 Error correction.

Tutor attitude to error correction is largely determined by the tutors chosen approach to language acquisition. There are many publications which include advice on error correction in modern language teaching, and input and output theories such as Krashen (1985) and Long (1981) remain a focus for debate which continues to try to elaborate how learners acquire a second language. According to Lewis (2002):
error is intrinsic to learning, and any strategy of error avoidance will be counterproductive. Anyone who learns a foreign language to a reasonable degree of proficiency will inevitably make thousands of mistakes on the way. Correcting every one of them is an impossibility. Fortunately it is also highly undesirable. (p173)
Recasting, the process of the tutor correcting a spoken learner error, has been proven to be ineffective in achieving learner change, although it is the most frequently used technique. Macaro
29
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. (2003) also casts doubt on the importance of correction adding: I would argue that we should focus on forms in order to generate more learner errors, more inaccuracy.
Some language teaching approaches exist which are more in tune with the challenges of networked language learning and netspeak. The Natural approach to second language acquisition (Krashen and Terrell 1983) is so called in reference to first language acquisition in young children. Krashens Monitor Theory hypothesises that adults have two systems for developing their language competence. One is subconscious (acquisition) and the other conscious (learning). If this is the case then exposure to comprehensible language by the tutor is only meeting the requirements of one aspect of the learners input, learning alone cannot lead to competence. He maintains that the most important of the two systems is the subconscious. Error correction and explicit teaching of rules are not relevant (Krashen, 2002 p1). The cognitive learning system performs monitoring of the language that has been acquired, allowing the learner to self correct. Language acquisition occurs according to a natural order of progression which is parallel to that seen in first language acquisition. The learners emotional state is also central to his/her ability to acquire language according to Krashens Affective filter hypothesis. The learner who has low self-confidence and high anxiety is less likely to be receptive. On the other hand those with high motivation, self-confidence and low anxiety levels will be more effective learners. The methodology elaborated from this approach is broadly a continuation of communicative teaching methods but with greater emphasis on the tutor creating an ambiance that fosters the learners natural ability to process comprehensible input. Task based instruction has its roots firmly in communicative language teaching, but with greater focus on problem solving. Learners negotiate the language required to address a real life task generating what is known as pushed output. These developments are as yet experimental and frameworks for their delivery such as that devised by Willis (1996) are as yet unproven.
30
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. According to Warshauer (2000): networked multimedia environments provide opportunities for asynchronous and synchronous dialogue in which meaning can be negotiated in modes other than written or printed text. The interactions between and among learners enhance the learning as knowledge process (p161).
As student social communications are taking place in an online context we may need to reevaluate our own role in order to moderate and influence interaction. The communicative model for language learning, presentation-practice-production may need to be replaced by one of 'observe-hypothesise-experiment' (Lewis, 1993) if we are to embrace the challenges facing language teaching in this technological age.
3.5 The opportunities and challenges.

Communication and collaboration are affordances of the networked environment. Four important factors emerge from the literature that must be addressed. Firstly, the technologies have limitations. Secondly, engagement with the technologies can be problematic. Thirdly, the perceived difficulty of listening to a foreign language. Finally, the importance of affective factors. Each of these themes is likely to impact upon a tutor trying to incorporate voice technologies.
3.5.1 Limitations of the technologies.

A good example of the limitations of voice technologies is provided by Pachler (2002). He reviews Aurologs TeLL me More speech software which makes impressive claims and achieved considerable commercial success when first released. The article succinctly highlights the many pitfalls of this technical solution approach, clarifying the importance of human involvement in the language learning process. Distributed widely by the French government, secondary schools in Andaluca and large corporate companies such as Air France and Mercedes-Benz adopted the product as a solution to language training needs. The product included speech recognition software to analyse learner input. However there are many drawbacks to such technologies and
31
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. they are currently not sufficiently sophisticated to cope with the many potential utterances of the language learner. For a learner it can be very disheartening to produce language which may well have been understandable to a sympathetic native speaker who could also negotiate meaning with the learner but is not recognised by speech recognition software. Pachler refers to the mirage of interactivity, an artificial recreation of interaction which is inferior to real person to person exchanges. The use of technology in this way presents a poor substitute for real communication.
The missing factor of course is the human element. Voice tools connect real people and therefore address such limitations. Voice tools technology provide the opportunity to engage in dialogue beyond the traditional face to face situation. On the face of it, voice tools would appear to offer a technical solution to the constraints widely experienced by language teachers. The case for increasing use of opportunities for real interaction through computer mediated communication (CMC) is growing, with many learners already looking to technology for solutions. According to Ryan Utilized effectively, this ability to interact using CMC canenhance good practice in current educational practice. (Ryan et al, 2000, p101).Using technology does of course have implications for resource allocation, both at an individual and a management level. In his concluding remarks on information and communications technology, John Klapper (2006) points out that in order to implement elements of on-line learning: considerable time and resource will need to be devoted to tutor training, the development, revision and updating of suitable materials and staff on-line availability. (p199) Such investment would require a reasonable, measurable return, enhancing the learning and teaching experience.
3.5.2 Lack of engagement.

A second important factor emerging from the literature is the lack of engagement with technology once it has been put into place by tutors, often at considerable expense and significant investment of time. Lack of engagement with technology is a familiar theme in e-learning literature. Barriers to use include access issues such as lack of suitable hardware and technical
32
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. support. Affective factors such as those described by Oatley and Nundy (1996: p285) play an important part in the prevention of the adoption and use of new technologies. Tutors and learners can be discouraged by: affective barriers such as perceptions about the technology, anxieties about using it and bad emotional experiences. (Jones and Issroff, 2005) In Levys CALL survey (1997) he identified that: teacher-related factors were the most important in determining the success of CALL materials development.
Kessler (2007) found that ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher confidence was lowest when using technology to develop oral and aural (listening) skills. This is understandable given the wide range of expertise necessary as already identified. In an article on teacher confidence (2008) he found that an important source of support for teachers using technology was their Community of Practice (CoP). Tutors sharing their experience and supporting each other impacted positively on tutor view of the technology. Others (e.g. Hanson-Smith, 2006) also reflect this.
3.5.3 Difficulty of listening.

Language learners often experience considerable difficulties acquiring speaking and listening skills and there is much recent literature on how to support and develop these important competences. According to Lund (1991) listening is more complex than reading, we have to perceive the sounds then decode and process them in order to elicit meaning, therefore the cognitive load is greater. However listening can be supported by simultaneous text use such as the provision of subtitles, this is seen by Macaro (2003, p180) as an excellent resource. This subtitle approach is recognised by Macaro and others to be of use in supporting listening comprehension.
According to Vandegrift strategies for effective listening can help L2 [second language] learners capitalise on the language input they receive (2008: p84) Vandegrifts study (2007) using a process approach and a control group of university students saw weaker learners make the
33
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. biggest gains; Mareschal (2007 cited in Hurd, S. 2008) also saw improvements when using listening strategies. Such strategies involve elements of metacognition that raise awareness of the listening process.
Opportunities for narrow listening(Krashen, 1996) which allow students to listen many times to a short passage are considered helpful. When tested by Duppey (1990) students reported improvements in their listening comprehension. Macaro, whilst acknowledging that this is not a scientific measure of gain, suggests that the technique may be useful for improving learner autonomy.
Rost (2007) presents three useful frameworks for listening interventions based upon the sub skills of decoding, comprehension and interpretation. These support learners as they develop listening skills. He says:
One of the very exciting aspects of teaching listening is that so many aspects of instruction can be enhanced by technology. We are now better able to offer our learners the most suitable kinds of input and provide effective forms of presentation and scaffolding. We can isolate, slow down and manipulate listening processes in order to provide specific interactions that will actually help our learners become better more motivated and more curiouslisteners.
There remains much to be done in providing solid data on listening but according to Vandergrift further research is likely to refine both conceptual models and teaching methodologies for L2 listening (2008, p98)
3.5.4 Affective factors.

Whilst reading the research in second language acquisition and in e-learning pedagogy I became aware of a significant intersection. It is widely accepted that affective factors play a role both in
34
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. language acquisition and in adoption of e-learning, presenting perhaps a double hit for the use of CMC in language teaching. It is therefore important to explore this area.
How we feel when we encounter and experience learning is now widely considered to have a bearing upon our learning experience. emotions are the very centre of human life [they] link what is important for us to the world of people, things and happenings (Oatley and Jenkins,1996 p122).
Krashen hypothesised about the existence of an affective filter, a psychological block that is produced by negative emotions and prevents the learner processing input thus interfering with second language acquisition. Stevick (1996) found a close link between memory and emotion. Access to both short and long term memory is crucial to the comprehension and production of language. It would appear that affective factors therefore are of particular significance in second language acquisition.
The biological system used to communicate feeling to the brain as a result of stimuli is called the appraisal system. Positive appraisals occur in any of five dimensions: novelty/familiarity pleasantness goal significance coping potential self/social image
Providing opportunities for comprehension and communication in a foreign language will necessarily impact on several of these dimensions as language use is a transactional process. A good deal of tutor skill is required to ensure that interactions are positive enough to gradually, over time, move learners out of their comfort zone, with success bringing greater confidence. According to Heron there are few disciplines in the curriculum which lay themselves open to anxiety production more than foreign or second language acquisition. (1989, p33).
35
Language tutors require a significant emotional intelligence in order to connect with their learners and have a transformative affect upon them. (Griggs 1996, p232) Language learners take significant risks when speaking in a second language. Heyde (1979) found positive correlation between self esteem and oral production in French. The Poker chip theory (Canfield and Wells 1994, p6) found that a depleted self concept lowers the currency available to risk further failure. Such information provides language tutors with clear direction when it comes to listening and speaking task design. Tasks must be intrinsically motivating, achievable, have clear goals and provide immediate feedback if they are to engage the learner. Extensive research exists that shows the importance of motivation to successful language learning.
In the virtual environment affective factors are also acknowledged as contributing to engagement. Gilly Salmons model of online development (fig.3.5.4.i, Salmon 2001) defines 5 stages to interactivity online.
Figure 3.5.4.i These address not only the technical aspects of access but also the development of socialisation and interaction in the online environment. Note the significance of the role of the tutor (called an e-moderator) who plays as important a role as that of the technologist in supporting the
36
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. development of successful online interaction. Salmon acknowledges that although the environment offers the opportunity for interaction it does not follow that interaction will occur. Creating a successful climate for interaction requires sensitive and appropriate design and intervening support. She focuses upon the development of skilled e-moderators who gain experience in online interaction with each other in order to support interaction with and between learners. Such skills would develop the tutors ability to empathise with their learners and provide the necessary emotional intelligence described by Krashen and others.
This voice tools study offers the opportunity for a small group of practitioners to trial the possibilities of the technology and reflect upon their experiences and those of their students in order to contribute to our understanding. It is not the intention of the study to establish best practice in the use of voice tools, although it may reveal some helpful observations. The focus of the study is not technical support but rather tutor experiences. Would the use of voice tools allow learner and tutor to address a perceived practice gap increasing the interaction or exposure to the language? Or would the challenges involved both in using the technology and transferring classroom expertise lead to a lack of engagement and dialogue?
Satisfied that the voice tools available, if used sensitively by experienced, reflective practitioners could be a useful way of addressing the practice gap , the scene was set for the study.
37
4. Methodology.
In the light of the context described, we extended the availability of voice tools to our tutors and collected their user experiences. In order to discover how tutors used the tools in was necessary to investigate their personal perspective and usage statistics generated by the software itself. The aim of the study was threefold: to identify which of the voice tools tutors would deploy to support their teaching. to make explicit tutor experiences of using the tools. to identify factors which influenced engagement with the tools.
4.1 Research approach.

In describing the user perceptions of the voice tools I am looking to identify teacher-related factors in their deployment. These were identified in the CALL study as being: the most important in determining the success of CALL materials development. (Levy, 1997 p231) It was vital therefore to ensure that my involvement did not in any way influence the data in order to collect a true picture of user experiences.
I have adopted an interpretive paradigm, collecting qualitative data from the tutors and their students using questionnaires and interviews. I have triangulated my data by using quantitative usage data from the software. I accept Weber's assertion (1986) that all research is to some extent influenced by the values of the researcher. My close involvement with the development of the voice tools makes the positivist role of objective observer untenable therefore I chose to adopt an approach described by Steiner Kvale as a traveler metaphor (1996, p4).This approach was vital to maintaining a consistent role as a researcher on a formative journey or Bildungsreise, conversing with those who are experiencing the study and then relating and interpreting their accounts. These are then validated through their impact upon listeners when recounted. The researcher will reflect and possibly change as a result of the journey as the process is essentially
38
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. constructivist, leading to the creation of new knowledge or the modification of existing understanding. This approach was chosen in order to preclude the possibility of tutors feeling obliged to use the tools in any particular way. They were aware that I used the tools in my teaching but my role in this study was that of fellow practitioner, looking to collect experiences, both positive and negative, without prejudice. In order to ensure that this approach was communicated I made a change to my initial research methods plans, replacing a briefing meeting, which could have implied an official expectation to participate, with more informal personal conversations. All communications with tutors were on a face to face basis. Where there were queries or conversations related to the project, I met with the tutor concerned at a location of their choosing. I avoided comments that may be interpreted as either positive or negative about the technology and answered technical queries with factual detail.
The area of study for the use of computers in language learning is known as CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning). To define this study with respect to Levys contexts for CALL, the point of departure is bottom up, that is to say it is employing the technology to address a particular classroom problem, namely the practice gap. The study is practitioner-led and centres upon the experiences of the practitioners and learners concerned. Such a small scale study cannot claim to produce any results that are representative of contexts elsewhere, but the issues emerging may have resonance with others working in the field, using computers to mediate interactions (CMC). The tutors concerned are nonetheless representative of a target population of language tutors working within Higher Education language teaching.
4.2 The sample.

The tutors involved in this study, all experienced language tutors, were a self-selecting purposive sample and it is reasonable to suggest that they approached the use of voice tools with positive expectations that the technology may assist their learners. There were twelve of them in total. They had expressed an interest in deploying the tools in their teaching and were invited to take
39
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. part in the study. Having agreed to participate they were given access to the tools. A guide booklet (Appendix 2) gave support on their use and the necessary hardware (a headset) was supplied connected to their pc. No direction with respect to teaching methodology was given, nor was there any requirement on their part to use the tools in their teaching. The model presented by Richards and Rogers (2001:p28) is a good representation of my assumptions of the framework employed by the tutors participating in this study. That is to say that they will all hold their own approach to language teaching based upon their understanding of a theory of the nature of language and language learning. As a consequence of this they will have deployed the voice tools within their concept of a suitable design for teaching and their reflections will be based upon the procedure that resulted. They may or may not have considered whether the use of this new technology would also require modifications to their usual teaching. They may have reviewed their course design and procedure with this in mind. This aspect of the tool deployment was not investigated.
Students using the voice technologies were selected by their tutors according to the tutor perception of need for the deployment of the technology to deliver a chosen activity. The nature of all Language Centre teaching groups is mixed: students come from various departments, cohorts and nationalities and are only united on the basis that they need a particular level of language study. Student experiences were gathered using anonymous online questionnaires which contributed feedback to inform the data analysis. It was vital to have their perspective but time constraints again meant that the data had to be collected in the most practical way. These were collected using a simple online questionnaire sent as a link by the tutor to their students when they had used voice tools. It was important that the invitation came from the tutor concerned so that students made the connection with the learning experience that they had had. All students have access to the internet and email and the questionnaire was brief. The questionnaire had been informed by an earlier pilot questionnaire and was designed to obtain detail about their IT use and reflections upon their experiences of using the voice tools. The anonymous survey had some open questions to allow students to express their opinions
40
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. freely and the software exported into microsoft excel for analysis. Appendix 4 figures 2 and 3 provide all the free responses given to the open questions in the survey.
4.3 Data collection.

The data was collected for this study using interviews and questionnaires. Full details of these are contained in the annexes.
4.3.1 The tutor questionnaire.
Not all the tutors in the study were comfortable with using technology in teaching and a brief anonymous questionnaire (Appendix 3) was used to help give a snapshot of their IT skills prior to starting the study. This was based upon can do statements selected from the ICT can do lists for teachers of Modern Foreign Languages (Davies, 2004) and adapted to fit those skills which were most relevant to the use of voice tools technologies. As tutor skill levels have a bearing on technology adoption (Hampell et al, 2005) it was important to identify whether this had a bearing upon this study. The questionnaire also looked to identify tutor perceptions of the relative importance of speaking and listening skills for language learners and this was done using a few statements about these skills and a Likert scale. This was indicative of their teaching approach. The questionnaires were coded so that it was possible for me to identify the tutor concerned if necessary for the purposes of the subsequent interviews.
4.3.2 Interviews.
At the end of the study follow up interviews and walkthroughs (structured interviews) took place with a small selection of participating tutors. Both of these techniques were designed as brief informal professional conversations between colleagues at a time and place agreed through informal conversation and chosen by the interviewee. The purpose of the interviews (carried out with 6 tutors) was to collect additional reflections, both positive and negative about the experiences of the tutors using the voice tools. Time constraints and the need to ensure that colleagues felt at ease meant that these interactions were not recorded. Following my reading I
41
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. felt that it would be too intrusive and could be counter productive to the atmosphere of a normal professional interaction between colleagues. Rather, with the consent of the colleague, I took brief notes, dividing comments made into negative and positive reflections on the use of the technology.
Those tutors (2 of the 12) who had identified themselves on the IT skills questionnaire as having lower IT confidence levels or a more narrow range of IT skills were offered a walk-through interview, again at a time and place of their choosing. This think aloud technique (Garfinkel,1967) was designed to help identify the presence of affective factors in accessing the voice tools which may prove to be challenges to adoption or use. The flowchart was annotated as the tutor followed the stages with brief notes of their comments and actions. There was no encouragement on the part of the interviewer for the interviewee to complete all the stages. If this technique was to be successful it had to be handled with great sensitivity so that the interviewee would feel sufficiently at ease to vocalise their true feelings at each stage of access to the voice tools. Again negative and positive reflections were collected at each stage.
As my largely interpretative approach could be considered subjective, I decided to collect quantitative data from the software that would show usage during the period of the study, provding a picture of how the tools were being used. This additional method was used to triangulate the data. The data collected was not used to identify usage by any particular tutor but rather to show the number and type of resources created over the study period. In order to prevent influencing the uptake or deployment of voice tools by tutors, they were not expressly made aware that this would be done although their access to the voice tools system as administrators enabled them to see the data for themselves. This teleological position was ethically justifiable in my context. This data gave an objective picture of the usage of the tools. A baseline of the number and nature of resources existing was taken at the beginning of the study. Two further counts were taken to monitor usage. I was mindful of the Hawthorne effect
42
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. (Mayo,1949) which, if it is valid, suggests that behaviour during the course of an intervention can be altered by a subject's awareness of participating in an experiment.
4.4 Limitations of the study.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. The interview techniques used were essentially professional conversations between colleagues which were not transcribed in full in order to sustain a natural conversation. Some detail may have been lost in the collection process, but, where possible, notes were taken of the exact phrases used by the tutors themselves. The trust between colleagues and the researcher was fundamental to eliciting the tutor experiences and every effort was made by the researcher to record the positive or negative comments as they were communicated without undue influence. If it was unclear whether a comment was positive or negative the tutor was asked to clarify.
The voice tools are process materials, they provide the framework for the learners use of communication. The computer is a neutral tool in this situation, made available to facilitate a new learning environment which may or may not be suitable for supporting language learning.
This study touches on areas of research in many different disciplines. My literature review has included works from education, psychology, linguistics and the newer fields of e-learning technology and CALL. The danger of carrying out this study in such an interdisciplinary area is always that there are many points of overlap and it is impossible to fully do justice to each of the contributing areas within the limitations of this dissertation. This leaves one open to accusations of superficiality. Nonetheless there is value in drawing these many findings together.
43
5. Results.
The following presents a summary of the qualitative and quantitative data arising from the study.
5.1 Tutor questionnaires.

The initial three language teaching questions in the questionnaire saw all united in agreement. Everyone concerned, as one would expect, stated that they valued listening and speaking skills highly. (Fig 5.1.i)
Language Teaching
No. of responses
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
strongly agree
strongly agree
strongly agree strongly agree
Listening and Language learners Language learners speaking skills are should regularly should regularly vital components of practise speaking practise listening to language learning in the target the target language language Question
Figure 5.1.i The following questions, regarding the use of voice tools showed more variation in response, indicating the area for study. (Fig 5.1.ii) Broadly however there was support for the use or trial of voice tools.
44
Language teaching: use of voice tools

6 5
Responses
4 3 2 1 0 In my teaching I do I would like to I would like students not have sufficient interact with students to interact with each time to listen to all in the target other in the target my students speak in language using language using the target language voice tools voice tools Question
strongly agree agree neither agree nor disagree disagree strongly disagree
Figure 5.1.ii
The IT skills questionnaire gave the opportunity for tutors to reflect on their expertise in the use of computers. The number of can do statements (0-18) that tutors selected indicated the breadth of their IT comfort zone. It was assumed that a lack of familiarity with the language used (netspeak such as log on, minimise, restore etc.) in the statement implied a lack of understanding of the can do statement. This was not explicit on the form but was clarified when a tutor asked for information. For each statement tutors also indicated the degree of familiarity they had for the can do statement. The selected confidence level (1-3) for each statement gave an indication of their confidence for each statement, ranging from 1 indicating low confidence to 3 indicating high confidence. An average confidence rating for each tutor was generated by dividing the total score by the number of statements selected (Fig 5.1.iii). This average ranged from 2 to 2.93.
45
IT skills questionnaire
20 15
Score
10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Questionnaire number
IT comfort zone /18 confidence indicator
Figure 5.1.iii
5.2 Tutor interviews and walk-throughs.

Those tutors (2) who reported the lowest level of confidence or the smallest comfort zone were asked to participate in a walk through interview. This technique uses a flow chart of the stages to accessing a voiceboard and lists potential IT barriers. The tutor and researcher move through each stage together and the tutor is asked to vocalise their feelings and thoughts at each stage. (Appendix 3). The tutors had not, at the time of the meeting, actively used the tools in their teaching. It was vital that these tutors felt sufficiently at ease to express their real feelings as they accessed the voice tools in the walk-through. Their openness was vital in revealing affective factors in technology engagement.
A small random sample of other respondents (4) was offered a follow-up interview to collect their perspectives on the voice tools technology. Notes taken at the time of the conversations were subsequently encoded as positive and negative reflections and then analysed. The key factors raised in these interviews are recorded as a table (figs. 5.2.i and 5.2.ii)
46
Summary of tutor interviews.
positive comments wonderful tool to practise oral and improve pronunciation After demonstration, some students asked tutor to use voice tools for further help technology was not very hard, pedagogical value is higher technology offers possibility of communication between colleagues it is easier to speak a message than type it could contribute to development of listening skills those students who had listened to messages gave positive feedback use could be further developed and rewarded to encourage participation the tools were a good idea, tutor and student could communicate and check pronunciation interface simple and straightforward
negative comments expected student buy in but they were not that willing needs to be introduced as part of induction for students students may feel exposed, can feel isolated online without facial expression of listener fear of being checked when you record your language tutor needs to be familiar with technology and feel comfortable students may have difficulty understanding messages error correction could increase workload dangers of negative language models important to feel at ease when recording technical issues with sound quality when importing files from other sources students were embarrassed to have others listen to their recordings disappointed by lack of engagement by students too many technical problems to make it feasible for assessment situation hardware and support issues need to be addressed
theme T.A.1 P.M. 2 T.A.2 P.M.2 T.A.1 P.M.2 T.A.1 P.M.1 T.A 1 T.A.2 T.A.1 P.M.2 P.M.1 P.M.1 P.M.2 T.A.1 T.A.2 T.A. 2
need additional listening material for LLL classes more convenient to prepare listening at home internet based so saves time as it can be accessed from home will continue to pilot use with another group next year to provide fun activities and help for exams
Figure 5.2.i
T.A.1 P.M.2 T.A.1 P.M.2 T.A.2
T.A.2
47
Notes from tutor walk-throughs:
Flow chart for walkthrough sessions. Accessing voiceboard via URL
positive comments/feelings
negative comments/feelings
theme
going faster now, good!
Enter board to play message Listen to message
there are some titles of interest
very slow T.A.1 (error message from opening T.A.2 URL in outlook) what do I do? What is screen name? Do I have to remember it? There are 2 parts to form, not clear. an example would be helpful T.A.2
this is easy, controls are perfect can be a useful source of information to imitate
Compose reply to message
ability to re-record and change a message helps to overcome fear
Replay and edit message

Figure 5.2.ii
What is processing list message? The series of items means nothing. Dont understand the reading pane/list pane. What is the point? Prefer to talk to a person rather than a machine. No visual stimulus to encourage interaction, no immediate feedback cf. the telephone The topics are too vague. I would not have time to do this. no desire to record a message
T.A.1 P.M.2
T.A.1 T.A.2
T.A.1 P.M. 2
48
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Once recorded in this way I started to analyse the negative comments in more detail. It was clear that two main factors emerged from the negative comments. These were encoded as :
technology anxiety (T.A.) which grouped all the reflections that showed emotional responses to the technology, and
pedagogical matters (P.M.) for all those concerns related to teaching and learning.
The way a reflection was delivered sometimes clearly conveyed frustration or some negative feeling and therefore it was categorised as part of technology anxiety. Pedagogical matters tended to be tutor reflection on how the use of the tool fitted with their teaching approach.
5.3 Quantitative data from the voice tools software.

The following table (fig.5.3.i) shows the number of resources created by tutors at 3 points of the study, February, August and October. A single instance of the voice email resource creates a generator which can be used for creating and sending multiple voice emails. Other voice tools are unique to a specific purpose such as a voiceboard dedicated to a language module or to a theme for discussion.
Voice tools created

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
voiceboards voice email oral assessments podcaster
number
b08
pr -0 8
n08
8 ug -0
date
Fe
Figure 5.3.i
O ct
Ju
-0 8
49
5.4 Student data.

The focus of this study was clearly the tutor experiences. However I am briefly summarising the student feedback at this point in order to illustrate their perceptions of the experiences facilitated by their tutors. These opinions could have a bearing on tutor engagement as tutors generally want positive feedback from their students.
All those students who responded to an online questionnaire admitted they were comfortable with using technology. To this extent they are a self selecting group and perhaps not representative of the entire student cohort. All had access to the necessary hardware and in most cases (11 out of 14 respondents) did not experience technical problems. A significant proportion (9/14) reported experiencing affective factors and 4/14 admitted that they found listening and speaking particularly challenging in second language learning.
Considering that this was an e-mailed survey with no compulsion to complete, I find it is interesting that this group did supply quite detailed free responses. (see Appendix 4 figs.1, 2 and 3). In question 7 many of them had considered how the use of voice tools could best enhance their learning and wished to express their opinions. They made suggestions as to the sort of recordings they would like (for oral preparation, to hear native speakers) and were all positive about the availability of the tool. In Question 8 again they made suggestions for deployment, with several students wanting to use a voice board as a place for language speakers to interact without tutor involvement. It would appear that students are expressing a desire to own the tools for their own interactions. In so doing they are claiming control and responsibility for their learning. One student did point out a desire for privacy in the use of the tool between tutor and student, a situation that would be facilitated when using voice email, a more appropriate tool for private interaction.
50
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. During analysis of the data collected it became clear that some of the student questions would need to be reframed in order to answer more fully some of the issues surrounding voice tools use. This was not possible in the time allowed and should be part of a future investigation.
51
6. Discussion of factors arising from data.

I will discuss my findings in three main areas: Technology anxiety. Pedagogical matters. The practice gap hypothesis.
6.1 Technology anxiety.

In many of the conversations with tutors some of the factors that were raised are related unsurprisingly to the use of the technology rather than pedagogy. I grouped these concerns together as aspects of technology anxiety (T.A.) and subdivided into affective barriers (T.A.1) and management issues (T.A.2). Here I am using the term management to refer to the management of technology in teaching. Responses encoded as T.A. 2 could perhaps be avoided with good technical support whereas T.A.1 is more difficult to manage as it is very personal to the individual. I also grouped those tutor reflections which showed concern for student feelings in this category.
6.1.1 Affective barriers.

Technology anxiety was more marked unsurprisingly amongst tutors who had acknowledged lower levels of IT competence in their IT skills questionnaire. These tutors, when participating in the walk-through, requested frequent reassurance and asked many questions, some of which were obviously tied to the netspeak used (e.g. processing list message). They frequently double-clicked needlessly as they progressed through the screens and were easily downcast when they encountered unexpected messages or response delays. Although in their questionnaire responses they identified listening and speaking skills as very important to the language learning experience, they did not actively engage with the voice technologies during the period of study. Interestingly, during the walk-through they reflected positively on the interface and functionality of the technologies and one tutor spontaneously came up with many ideas for
52
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. integration of the tools once reassured of correctly understanding the technology. This tutor commented with insight into the necessity for appropriate task design.
Only one tutor expressed no desire to interact through a machine yet did acknowledge that it could provide a useful source of sound to imitate for the learner. This is the same tutor who had the most narrow comfort zone according to responses on the IT skills section of the questionnaire. It was clear from my conversations with these tutors that they felt a deeper, more challenging barrier to use of technology than simply the mechanics of following the steps on the flowchart. I felt that they were experiencing anxiety about the process. Such feelings and concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. The software (voice tools) and the hardware (PC and headset) are just tools, the critical factor for success is external to them and internal to the tutor. This resonates with my reading. Interestingly, 64% of responding students also reported experiencing affective factors when using these technologies. All described themselves as either confident (58%) reasonably confident (22%) or interested (20%) users of technology. 85% reported listening to the recordings available to them and a lesser 46% made their own recording. One must assume that their concerns inhibited their desire to record themselves. Affective barriers clearly exist when using voice tools, even for those familiar with the online context.
6.1.2 Management issues.

A more common form of anxiety expressed about using the voice tools could be united under the heading management issues. These are issues for self management as well as issues that should be considered by those in management roles. It would appear that these factors could be addressed with additional technical support and interaction with other users of the technology.
Both tutors and learners alike commented favourably upon the way the technology facilitated spoken interaction beyond the classroom. It was convenient for tutors to access responses from home and for students to have sound delivered to their inbox. However, tutors did feel a
53
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. responsibility towards their students should they experience technical difficulties. They were also concerned that such interactions should not impact negatively on group dynamics. Would students be supportive of each other in this environment or would they ridicule the contributions of others? Tutors need to take into account problems that can be created by negative emotions, they need to create positive feelings in order to facilitate learning. The choice of tool and the manner in which it is deployed can address this.
An expressed concern with the amount of time required to implement use of voice tools, also seen as the number one block to successful development in the CALL survey, could perhaps be reframed as time investment in exploring a means of meeting an agreed need to develop speaking and listening skills.
It is clear therefore that any deployment has to include detailed preparation, reflection and access to appropriate technical support. These concerns should encourage a reality check when considering the deployment of any technological resource.
6.2 Pedagogical matters.

Some tutor reflections were clearly related to teaching and learning. Would students expect the tutor to correct every recorded student utterance? As with the design of any teaching materials, the successful deployment of these tools requires the tutor to be familiar with their limitations and possibilities. A clear methodological framework for the choice of tool is vital to success. Comments on this issue were divided into two main points: error correction and tutor role. These themes arose from the literature survey.
6.2.1 Error correction.

Some tutors were particularly concerned that recordings should not contain incorrect language use. They felt that if exposed to incorrect spoken language from their peers, faults would multiply and perhaps it would be difficult for the tutor to correct. However the literature on error correction in second language teaching does not support this concern. According to Porter in Richards and
54
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Rogers (2001): data contradicts the notion that other learners are not good conversational partners because they cant provide accurate input when it is solicited.
Communication gap activities and peer to peer interactions are a long established feature of the language learning classroom. Tutors would not usually intervene and correct every utterance during face to face pair or group work. It is generally the case that correct usage will be modelled by the tutor and imitated, often incorrectly, by the learner as part of the learning experience. A concern about error is insufficient in itself to avoid facilitating interaction. Rather it is indicative of the necessary thought required by the tutor about the methodological framework of the intervention and the critical selection of the most suitable tool.
Some tutors felt that learners found listening particularly difficult. This is borne out by the writing in this area. Concern about understanding led one tutor to decide not use voice email to send an important message to students in case they may not understand. Relaying this message using voice email would make it possible to include the text of the message with her recording, enabling students to be exposed to both written and spoken versions of the message, similar to a subtitle effect referred to by Macaro (2003, p180).
Furthermore, lack of comprehension could be a real learning opportunity for students, particularly if they had been encouraged to respond in order to help them clarify meaning. Such interactive use of listening and speaking mirrors real language use. Negotiation of meaning, a dialogue that helps to render the message comprehensible (Pica, 1994) would lead to modified interaction (Long, 1981). This is in keeping with Grices principles of co-operation in discourse (1975).
Moreover, use of the tools can offer an opportunity to discuss listening strategies with students. Listening strategies such as those listed by Rost (1990) may empower students to respond to recordings with further utterances of their own.
55
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. The most valued contribution to the teaching and learning process according to both tutors and learners was the possibility to use the tools to provide tailored additional activities and facilitate dialogue with the tutor. Those tutors who were most comfortable with the technology quickly employed it to establish resources for their students, giving them access to additional listening materials that were relevant to their needs. One student reported: Its useful to hear the language spoken slowly and to have resources tailored to the class. and another reflected on the recording possibilities: it is great that you can hear how you sound in a foreign language. Yet another suggested it: would be good to post read passages (either from French sources or presentation prepared for orals etc.) and get feedback on pronunciation and intonation.
Clearly students valued the recording of what is otherwise a rather ephemeral experience, that of listening to and producing language, especially language that is tailored to their study. Using voice boards it is certainly easy to prepare suitable listening material for narrow listening.
Conclusions as to whether such motivational factors result in identifiable improvement in language acquisition are beyond the scope of this research. It is acknowledged that measuring impact on learning (Oliver and Harvey, 2002) or skills development is problematic (Barnett, 1994). More work needs to be done in tracking the continued progress of learners and identifying effective techniques in the use of computer mediated communication in language learning. This aspect of use of voice tools reminds us of the importance of a considered approach towards the role of the tool in contributing to the tutors desired learning outcomes. Voiceboards were the most popular tool with the tutors, offering the opportunity to communicate asynchronously and to reflect upon and improve listening and speaking skills. Selecting the most appropriate tool for the desired outcome is important if we are to realise the potential contribution. Issues raised were a clear reminder of the importance of tutor awareness of research.
56
6.2.2 Tutor role.

Much of the tutor feedback pivoted upon one central concept, that of the tutors role in the learning process. Salmon (2005) tells us that the use of technology in learning: cannot be successful without appropriate, well-supported and focused human intervention, good learning design
The increased availability of audio-visual media over the internet empowers our students to search a plethora of input according to their interests, the tutor is no longer the central arbiter of suitable listening or viewing material for their learners. Networked learners share the materials that inspire or amuse them, commenting and engaging with others. The tutor who wants to progressively expose students to careful examples of language may find this way of working overlooked by technology-savvy students who prefer to browse at will and select from a wide range of interesting and varied input. In a post-communicative era the challenge for the language tutor is to re-evaluate their role within the learning process.
It would appear that the tutors who adopted the technology most readily were those who were both comfortable with technology and found greatest relative advantage in adoption. This was particularly the case for our Chinese and Japanese tutors who wish to supply additional listening and speaking opportunities tailored to their students needs.
If language teachers are to address the challenges of computer-mediated interaction they must keep abreast of research in these areas. Pachler (2003) makes a case for what he describes as Evidence Informed Practice. In such a scenario the tutor has an important responsibility to be aware of current research debates, developing their educational research literacy in order to critically evaluate their practice in the light of sound evidence. Such a practitioner is reflective and pluralist because the study of different approaches focuses our attention on how theory and practice are integrated and is thus fundamental to the process of reflective continuing professional development (Klapper, 2006 p123)
57
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. We are witnessing the evolution of a greater understanding of the workings of the brain and it is clearly important for the practitioner to be aware that the evolution of our collective understanding could impact upon teaching developments. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider in any depth the new insights arising from research in the many fields, including psychology, applied linguistics and neuroscience that investigate language. There is still so much to learn, it is at the same time the most trivial and the most complex of phenomena. Trivial because we acquire our own language with so little effort and it permeates our every moment, yet more complex than we ever imagine. According to Pinker: To a scientist, the fundamental fact of human language is its sheer improbability. (1994, p371). Establishing the role of the tutor at a period of rapid technological change and scientific advances will be particularly important for language teaching.
6.3 The practice gap.

My research hypothesised about the existence of practice gap, a label that I had applied to the feeling that students or tutors sometimes expressed as a need for additional listening and speaking time to consolidate their classroom language learning experience. This study did not set out to prove the existence of such a gap . However, it would appear that those who engaged in using the voice tools did have positive learning experiences which may have addressed a perceived need. All the student respondents agreed (with differing qualifying comments) that the voice tools facility could contribute positively to their language learning. Their tutors found ways of exploiting the tools to support the progress of their students. Tutors reported having conversations with individual students about their experiences that led them to reflect upon how best to deploy the tools for teaching. These experiences imply that a gap is being bridged by the tutors use of voice tools.
One tutor who disagreed with the statement: In my teaching I do not have sufficient time to listen to all my students speak in the target language of the language teaching (Figure 5.1.ii) did not engage with the voice tools. This would imply that there was no perceived practice gap and
58
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. therefore no problem to solve using this technology. Presumably this tutor felt that the constraints described relating to classroom exposure to language were not problematic. If the tutor does not perceive relative advantage in the deployment of the tools they are unlikely to adopt. However, Field (2008) argues that the listening skill is still overlooked despite being most important for enabling progress is language use: Aspiring L2 users quickly become defeatist if they are unable to understand a native speaker in conversationThey do not simply give up as listeners, they give up as language learners too (p335) This assertion certainly resonates with my experiences as a teacher in UK schools. Students looking to acquire practical language skills are now more easily able to access possible opportunities made available over the internet, with or without the guidance of their tutor. It is in our interest to ensure that they have positive experiences. Further investigation into the practice gap hypothesis is also necessary.
59
7. Conclusions.
Returning to my original research questions, my conclusions are as follows. Firstly I asked the question: How can the use of computer mediated communication tools (voice tools) by language teachers support their delivery of second language teaching? It would appear from this study that experienced practitioners who have understood the affordances of CMC, thought about the role of the voice tools within their teaching approach and dealt with the key issues involved are able to harness these tools to deliver additional speaking and listening opportunities which are well received by their students. Indeed simply by engaging in this development they have reflected upon matters at the very heart of their profession. The tutors who put voice tools to good use : identified an area in their delivery which they felt could be addressed, supporting a practice gap consciously or otherwise. made the right tools available in the right way in order to minimise affective factors which may reduce engagement. reviewed and reflected upon their endeavour within a community of practice which may have simply been themselves and their own students.
I believe it is vital to take into consideration the views of students in order to uncover whether they experienced any identifiable benefit in the use of voice tools. Student feedback resonates with the findings of the JISC study into student expectations of ICT provision. Students are natural users of technology, embracing it when there are clear academic or social benefits. They also consider interaction with peers and teaching staff essential. The study did not explore in detail the factors that may have affected student engagement with voice tools but, had there been time, this could have been done through follow up interviews. The voice tools deployed by tutors were those which best fitted their chosen approach. We experienced few technical support issues. I believe this is because the tools had been evaluated
60
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. before their adoption by an experienced language tutor and were particularly suitable to the needs of language teachers. The interface was user-friendly and familiar, access issues had been facilitated, relevant hardware supplied, and a simple booklet answered most questions. The need to support non-western scripts and characters required for international language use had been covered. The software therefore had a shallow learning curve for tutors and students. The voiceboard, a flexible tool suiting different teaching approaches was the most popular choice. It is in line with a core requirement for language teaching, enabling a focus on the process of language acquisition, not just the product. The threaded nature of the postings enable review of interaction. The manner of posting a recording encourages to learners to listen to themselves and re-record as many times as necessary before posting. Such factors explain the positive student comments and are instrumental to establishing relative advantage for practitioners. A board created to facilitate conversation (nativist/implicit) is as valid as one created for demonstration and pronunciation practice (explicit/interactionist).
From this study it would appear that there is potential benefit in establishing a Community of Practice (Wenger, 2000) where our tutors using voice tools could share their experiences with each other. This social framework may help to provide reassurance for those experiencing technology anxiety. Tutors already have a shared repertoire as language teachers and would be united in a joint enterprise and mutuality, the three main components of a Community of Practice. As in Salmons model for developing e-moderators (Salmon, 2000) the tutors could experience Computer Mediated Communication between themselves in order to gain an insight into the affective factors that can be experienced by their learners.
What factors affect their experiences of this endeavour?
Factors associated with both technical and pedagogical expertise affected tutor use of voice tools. Tutor experiences illustrated how integrating technological tools in language teaching raises many challenges as explained. Through a series of professional conversations and extensive reading the various strands of difficulty became clearer. Levels of IT skills do have a
61
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. bearing on tutor take up (Hampel and Sticker, 2005) but more significant still are the affective factors surrounding computer mediated communication. The expectations of technological developments need to be managed in order to avoid disappointing users. Management issues concerning the time involved to create and support good use of technology must be factored into the planning. Affective factors, both in computer-mediated communication and in language production do indeed impact upon adoption of voice tools. For those tutors who are insecure in their use of technology such factors are a real barrier to adoption. Such barriers could only be overcome with sensitive support from colleagues. However, careful management of the introduction of such tools would address many issues.
However, upon analysis of the technology anxiety responses it is clear that many of them, although they have arisen whilst using the technology, are fundamentally arising from pedagogy. Concerns about error correction are rooted in a particular conception of the role of the tutor in the language learning process. Concerns about negative language models are not supported by research into language teaching methodology. I believe that these concerns were erroneously attached to the use of the tools. In fact they were an expression of tutor reflection requiring a reevaluation of tutor role. They go to the very heart of our teaching approach. Those tutors who are located nearer the transmission end of Wrights continuum (1987) are probably more likely to express such concerns.
The use of voice tools software in language teaching in our Centre has surprisingly overcome the double hit of affective factors involved in Computer Mediated Communication for language teaching. There are many positive features of this technology that make it a valuable addition to a language teaching toolkit. This trial study has shown that some students were not only interested in engaging, but wanted to get involved in dialogue about how the tools could support their learning experience. The rate of adoption showed that, once the right tool had been identified for their teaching need, it was widely used, consciously or otherwise, to address the practice gap. If learner motivation and engagement are considered to be crucial to positive learning outcomes
62
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. then there are signs from the study that voice over the internet, when used well, can contribute to increased tutor-learner dialogue. Such a dialogue is necessary to empower learners to negotiate their learning experience. The quantitative data on voice tools use shows that the tutors involved are willing to continue and increase their use of the tools, implying that they perceive a value in doing so. We must remember however that: high quality interaction, full participation and reflection do not happen simply by providing the technology (Tommie and Boyle in Salmon, 2002).
Fundamentally the voice tools will also encourage a re-focusing for tutors upon their language teaching approach. The voice tools are a catalyst for professional reflection which could bring about grass roots change in the language teaching community. It is in our interest to give careful consideration as tutors to our course design, reducing barriers and enhancing the potential of the technology. As tutors (or e-moderators) we must acknowledge Salmons observation that: Feelings about being unable to take part successfully are more significant than precise technical skills. (2002, p12) Furthermore we may also need to rethink what is really important about our subject matter. (p9). Becoming more reflective as a practitioner is to be desired. We can change our everyday practice by having reflective conversations with ourselves and other people. (Scion, 1983). We should re-evaluate our position in an unashamed theoretical way. (Lewis,1993)
It is clear that I could have answered my initial question in more depth by focusing upon the most active voice tools users more closely and looking at their activities and their approach in more detail. This would be possible within a community of practice where users share openly their experiences and learn from each other and the ever growing research available. Collaborate examination of the resources created against Chapelles 7 hypotheses would inform the development of guidelines to use. If voice tools are to be deployed in language learning settings, we need to understand how best to embed them. As Levy points out: the critical issue is how exactly these tools should be used to support the process. (p194)
63
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. This small scale study draws together what has been learned in a range of areas. In so doing, it is possible to view our perceptions in the light of research from the relatively new field of elearning and the long standing tradition of language learning. The experiences of our voice tools users may be specific to our context. However, the perceptions elicited do have resonance with wider research. Further explorations in this intersection between e-learning research and second language acquisition could bring greater understanding of the areas for development. It is interesting to note at this point the mule analogy (2002) used by Derby to describe networked learning: The mule is a hybrid creature that can only be produced through the union of two different species, but from this union comes a vigor that exceeds that of either parent. (p5)
This study clarified for me that the deployment of such technologies requires serious reflection on the part of the language tutor, particularly in examining their perception of their role in the learning process. Language tutors have a wealth of experience in encouraging and facilitating interaction face to face which they could bring to e-learning. In modern society more interaction is taking place in virtual environments and we need to understand how best to use our skills to ensure that our learners are equipped to interact in these new situations. Where there are affective barriers for ourselves and for our learners, how will we address these? Will we be prepared take up the many challenges that we face in keeping pace with rapidly changing technologies? Our student feedback shows a real curiosity about the affordances of voice tools, one that extends in some cases to expressing a desire to adopt the tools for further interaction with their peers. This level of interest, even if only from an element of the student cohort, could be reason enough to make them available. In so doing we could harness this interaction, capturing the ephemeral, to encourage reflection and develop learning opportunities for both learner and tutor.
64
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. References:
Arnold, J. ed., 1999. Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Barnett, R., 1994. The Limits of Competence: Knowledge, Higher Education and Society, Buckinghamshire: OU Press.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. eds., 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning London: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Bishop, G. 2006. True independent learning an androgogical approach: giving control to the learner over choice of material and design of the study session. In Language Learning Journal no. 33 p40-46.
Brumfit, C., 1984. Communicative methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: OUP.
Bygate, M. 2003. Spoken Language. Good Practice guide. Downloaded from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1446 [Last accessed June 2009]
Canfield, J. and Wells, H.C., 1994. One Hundred Ways to Enhance Self-Concept in the Classroom. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Carlile, O. and Jordan, A., 2005. It works in practice but will it work in theory? The theoretical underpinnings of pedagogy. In Emerging Issues in the Practice of University Learning and Teaching. ONeill et al., Dubline:Aishe, 2005.
65
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Carlile, O., et al., 2004. Learning by Design: Learning Theory for the Designer of Multimedia Educational Materials. Waterford: WIT/BBC online.
Chapelle, C., 1998. 'Multimedia CALL: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA.' Language Learning and Technology Vol.2, No. I, pp. 22 34.
Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N., 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Conole, G. and Oliver, M. eds., 2007. Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research. Oxen: Routledge.
Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: CUP.
Darby, J., 2002. Networked learning in higher education: the mule in the barn. In Networked Learning: Perspectives and issues, eds. C. Steepels and C. Jones, London: Springer-Verlag.
Duffy,T.M. and Cunningham, D.J., 1996. Constructivism: implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. ed. D.H. Jonassen. New York: Macmillan.
Duppey, B.C., 1999. Narrow listening: an alternative way to develop and enhance listening comprehension in students of French as a foreign language. System, 27, pp351-61.
Feyten, C., The Power of Listening Ability. In The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 75, no. 2 pp 1753-180.
66
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Field, J. 2008. Listening in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: CUP.
Foley, B. E. 1994. The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor impairments. In K. G. Butler (Ed.), Severe communication disorders: Intervention strategies (pp. 183-199). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Gilman, R. A. and Moody, L. M., What practitioners say about listening: Research Implications for the Classroom. In Foreign Language Annals, 17:331-34.
Grice, J.E., 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academy press.
Hampel, R. and Stickler, U. 2005. New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages. In Computer Assisted Language Learning,18:4,311 326.
Hanson-Smith, E., 2006. Communities of practice for pre- and in-service teacher education. In M. Levy & P. Hubbard, eds., Teacher education in CALL (pp. 301315). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Heron, J., 1989. The facilitators handbook. London:Kogan Page.
Heyde, A., 1979. The relationship between self esteem and the oral production of a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Hurd, S and Lewis, T., eds., 2008. Language Learning in Independent Settings. Bristol:Multilingual Matters.
Hudson, R., 1981. 83 things linguists can agree about. In Journal of Linguistics, 17:179.
67
Ice, P et al., 2008. Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students sense of community. In Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks [online] Downloaded from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v11n2/pdf/v11n2_ice.pdf [last accessed 18 November 2008]
James, R. 1996. CALL and the speaking skill. In System, vol. 24, no. 1 pp15-21.
JISC. 2007. Student Expectations Study. Downloaded from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/studentexpectations.pdf [last accessed: 03 December 2008].
Jones, A and Issroff, K., 2007. Learning technologies: Affective and social issues. In G. Conole and M. Oliver, eds., Contemporary Perspectives in E-learning Research. Oxen: Routledge.
Kessler, G. and Pakans, L., 2008. Does teacher confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? In Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol. 21, No. 3, July, 269282.
Klapper, J. 2006. Understanding and developing good practice. Language teaching in Higher Education. London:CILT.
Knowles, M., 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2nd Edition) Chicago: Follett.
Krashen, S., 1981. Second language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon press.
Krashen, S., 1985. The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.
68
Langer, J. A. 1991. Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 9-27). New York: Teachers College Press.
Levy, M., 1997. Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
Lewis, M., 1993. The Lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Little, D, et al., 2003. Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom. Dublin: Authentik.
Long, M.,1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379:259-78.
Macaro, E., 2003. Teaching and Learning a Second Language. London: Continuum.
Mayo, E. 1949. Hawthorne and the Western Electric Company, The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation, New York: Routledge.
McPherson, P. and Murray, D., ed., 2003. Communicating on the Net. Sydney: Macquarie.
Mohan, B. 1992. Models of the role of the computer in second language development. In Pennington, M. C. and Stevens, V. (eds), Computers in Applied Linguistics, pp. 110-126. Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Murray, L. and Barnes, A. , 1998. Beyond the wow factor evaluating multimedia language learning software from a pedagogical viewpoint. In System, no. 26 pp249-259.
69
Nunan, D., 1988. The Learner-Centred Curriculum: A study in second language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Oatley, K .and Jenkins, J., 1996. Understanding emotions. Cambridge: CUP.
Oatley, K .and Nundy, S., 1996. Rethinking the role of emotions in education. In D. Olsen and N. Torrance, eds., The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling. Cambridge: M.A. Blackwell.
Oliver, M. and Harvey, J., 2002. What does impact mean in the evaluation of learning technologies. In Educational Technology and Society, 5 (3).
Oxford, R. 1993. Research update on L2 listening. In System no. 21 pp205-211.
Pachler, N., 2002. Speech technologies and foreign language teaching and learning. In Language Learning Journal Winter, no. 26 pp.54-61.
Pachler, N., 2003. Foreign Language teaching as an evidence based profession? In Language Learning Journal, 27 (1) pp1-14.
Pica, T., 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? In Language Learning 44, 3, 493-527.
Pinker, S., 1994. The Language Instinct. London: Penguin.
70
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Piper, A. 1986. Conversation and the computer: A study of the conversational spin-off generated among learners of English as a foreign language working in groups. In System vol. 14 no. 2 pp 187-198.
Richards, J., 1990. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J. and Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rost, M., 1990. Listening in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Rost, M., 2007. Commentary: Im only trying to help. In Language Learning and Technology, Vol.11, No.1, pp102-108.
Rschoff, B and Ritter, M., 2001. Technology-Enhanced Language Learning: Construction of knowledge and template-based learning in the foreign language classroom. In Computer Assisted Language Learning 14:3,219-232.
Ryan, S. et al., 2000. The Virtual University. London: Kogan Page.
Salmon, G., 2000. E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Salmon, G., 2002. E-tivities: The Key to Active Online Learning, London: Kogan Page.
Salmon, G., 2005. Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in Higher Education Institutions. In ALT-J, 13:3,201-218.
71
Schn, D., 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London: Basic books.
Schwarzer, D. (2009) Best Practices for Teaching the Whole Adult ESL Learner. In New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education No. 121 pp25-33 [accessed online Published online www.interscience.wiley.com DOI: 10.1002/ace.322]
Skehan, P., 1989. Individual Differences in Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Swain, M., 1985. Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M.Gass, and C.G. Madden, eds., Input in Second Language Acquisition.
Tumposky, N., 1982. The learner on his own. In M. Geddes and G. Sturtridge, eds., Individualisation. London: Modern English Publications, pp 4-7.
Vandergrift, L., 2007. Teaching students how to listen: Effects on listening achievement. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Association of Applied Linguistics. Abstract available online at http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/eng/sshrc.html [accessed 9 December 2008].
Vandergrift, L., 2008. Learning strategies for listening comprehension. In S. Hurd and T. Lewis eds., Language Learning in Independent Settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Verisign.com., 2008. The domain name industry brief [online] Vol.5, issue 5 downloaded from http://www.verisign.com/static/044349.pdf [last accessed Dec. 6 2008].
th
72
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. and Kern, R., eds. 2000. Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.
Weber,S.J., 1986. The nature of interviewing. In Phenomemology and Pedagogy, 4(2), 65-72.
Wenger, E., 2000. Communities of Practice and social learning systems. In Organization, 7 (2), pp225-246.
Wright, T., 1987. Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: OUP.
73
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Bibliography:
Abrams, Z., 2003. The Effect of Synchronous and Asynchronous CMC on Oral Performance in German. In The Modern Language Journal, 87, (2), pp 157167.
Berdal-Massuy, F. et al., 2004. Apprendre seul, son rythme et encadr. In Revue de didactologie des langues-cultures, 2 pp 173-190. [online at: http://www.cairn.info/article.php?ID_REVUE=ELA&ID_NUMPUBLIE=ELA_134&ID_ARTICLE=EL A_134_0173 last accessed: 25 November 2008]
Blake, R. et al., 2008. Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face to face and blended classrooms. In Language Learning and Technology, vol. 12 (3) pp 114-127.
Chamot, A., 2005. Language Learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25 pp112-130.
Cohen, L et al., 2007. Research Methods in Education (6th edition) London, New York: Routledge
Conole, G and Warburton, B., 2005. A review of computer assisted assessment. In ALT-J, 13, (1), pp17-31.
Davies, G. et al 2005. Setting up effective digital language laboratories and multimedia ICT suites for MFL [online] Downloaded from www.languages-ict.org.uk [last accessed 18 November 2008]
Downing, K. et al., 2007. Creating interaction in online learning: a case study. In ALT-J, 15 (3) pp201-215.
74
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Dron, J., 2007. Control and Constraint in E-Learning: Choosing when to choose. London: Idea Group Inc.
Ellis, R. et al., 2007. The University student experience of face to face and online discussions: coherence, reflection and meaning. In ALT-J 15 (1) pp83-97.
Fisher, L. et al., 2004. Computer mediated communication. In Language Learning Journal, Winter, 930) pp50-58.
Goodwin-Jones, B., 2003. Emerging Technologies. In Language Learning and Technology, Vol.7, 2, pp12-16.
Jones, S., 1992. Where was the Hawthorne effect? In The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 98, (3) pp451-468.
Kessler, G and Plakans, L., 2008. Does teachers confidence with CALL equal innovative and integrated use? In Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, (3) pp269-282.
Laurillard, D., 1993. Rethinking University teaching. London: Routledge.
Mendelsohn, D.J. and Rubin, J., 1995. A Guide for the teaching of Second Language Listening. San Diego: Dominic Press.
Murray, D., 2005. Technologies for second language literacy. In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 188201.
Nunan, D., 1992. Research methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
75
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Oliver, M. 2000. An introduction to the evaluation of Learning technology. In Educational Technology and Society 3, (4).
Oliver, M. and Harvey, J., 2002. What does impact mean in the evaluation of leaning technology? In Educational Technology and Society, 5 (3).
Oliver, M. 2008. Better late than never. In ALT-J, 16, (2), p59-60.
Rost, M., Teaching and researching listening. London: Longman.
Vandergrift, L., 2003. Orchestrated strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled second language learner. In Language Learning, 53 (3) pp 463-496.
Volle, L., 2005. Analyzing oral skills in voice e-mail and online interviews. In Language Learning and technology, vol. 9, 3, pp 146-163.
Wigglesworth, G., 2005. Current approaches to researching second language learner processes. In Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, pp98-111.
76
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 1
Wimba voice tools guide The Language Centre Contents: 1. 2. 3. 4. What can I do with wimba voice tools? How do I create my own tools? How do I allow students to access the voiceboard? Troubleshooting
77
What can I do with wimba voice tools? Wimba voice tools allow for the delivery and integration of good quality recorded sound between students and tutors. There are a range of tools which each facilitate different forms of speaking and listening interaction.
Requirements: Computer with sound card connected to the internet Headset The desire to speak and listen The tools:
Voice boards: These enable threaded asynchronous conversation. Very useful for collecting examples of language progression, providing further speaking practice outside the classroom, connecting people in diverse locations so they can discuss or debate.
+ sign indicates replies to this message
78
+ sign indicates replies to this message
Recording controls are like those of a tape recorder:
Unique advantages: Sound files can be exported and used elsewhere. The technology is simple to use, java based Very quick to learn User-friendly interface
79
Podcasting: Our tool enables you to create a podcast over the internet with the voiceboard interface. It is quick and easy to manage:
This enables us to respond quickly to a specific language need, building a bank of useful resources for learners. Unique advantages: Quick and easy to produce Available immediately Portable language on demand Can be created and added to over the internet Multiple contributors can be used
Voice email: By setting up a voice email generator you can facilitate spoken messages between tutor and learner. Use both text and voice. The sound files can be downloaded. The message appears in your normal email inbox with links to reply. No more misunderstood emails, your tone of voice says it all!
80
Can be merged with university address book
Here is the e mail as it appears when you open it in your inbox:
Follow links to hear and reply
Unique advantages: Easily mastered User friendly Quick More personal than just using text
81
Suggestions for voice tools use. The voiceboard. Preparation for oral exam: record a selection of questions, each on a new thread. Students can listen and rehearse/record their responses. You may choose to offer advice individually or as a summary after a period of time. Modelling good pronunciation: record a short passage or a set or phrases that can be copied or recorded with minor alterations i.e. you record I like to. And students record their version adding their interests Student conversation /planning tool: for more advanced students you could create a board for them to collaborate, discussing and preparing a topic to present in class. Tracking language development: use the same voiceboard creating a new thread periodically for students to reply to. At the end of the year they will be able to hear their contributions and how their language has increased in complexity/accuracy over time.
Voice email: Individual encouragement: send a spoken message or spoken feedback based on work submitted Link a voice email generator: within your module page you can set up a link so that students can communicate with you/each other by voice email. Save short extracts of language: mail a message/example of good idiom for students to keep
Podcast: A joint effort: several tutors can collaborate on this, each submitting a recording to build a collection on a topic (current events/interests/a theme). Students subscribe and then they can download the content as it becomes available and listen to it on their mp3 players.
Voice presentation: Input your website and record your comments as you navigate. Students can also comment and give their reviews of the activities on the site/s
82
Oral assessment builder: A tool for creating a bank of oral questions. These can be emailed and set as assignments to your students. Their responses are then returned to your wimba manager for marking.
Try out the tools at our wimba area in the Language Centre website:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/languagecentre/business/training/development/voice _over_the_internet/
(inserted comment for dissertation: link correct at time of publication, has since been moved to: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/languagecentre/staffintranet/voicetools)
(sign in using your IT services user code)
(back to contents)
83
How do I create my own tools? Setting up your wimba manager. If you request a wimba account, you will get an e mail giving you the access details. Please activate your account and bookmark the wimba manager address. You can change your password to something more memorable here under edit my profile:
Your name here
Choose your tool here and select new 84
Give the tool a name and a description. These will display when you publish the tool.
Here you can adjust the settings. If you want easy access for anyone to use your tool then select any user under basic rights. Users will then only need to give a screen name to access
(Back to contents)
85
How do I allow students to access the voiceboard? To give access to your wimba tool. If you create a voiceboard, email generator or podcast these will be published to a URL (web site address) You can find it in the publish section of the settings. If you wish to give access to it in sitebuilder, place the cursor on the URL and use the following key combinations: Ctrl + A to select Ctrl + C to copy Ctrl + V to paste into the link box in the editor of sitebuilder
The URL
86
Paste URL here in link dialogue box in sitebuilder editor
OR: You could just email the URL to your students if you prefer.
87
Troubleshooting:
Sound not working: Is your microphone/headset working correctly? Check leads are correctly connected. To test, open sound recorder (programmes>accessories>sound recorder) press the red button and speak. If you see no sound wave, check the sound, speech and audio device properties in your PCs control panel (under start button)
88
Cannot access the voiceboard/tool: The most common reason for this is that you have pop up blockers enabled. As a quick fix hold down the control key (Ctrl) and press enter. If your browser has a Google or yahoo tool bar at the top, find the pop up symbol, right click and tell it to always allow pop ups from this site I need help! For personal feedback and support, join the wimba users forum: http://forums.warwick.ac.uk/departments/language-centre/wimba-users/ Post a short message describing your issue and we can help each other. We are also members of Wimbas global support group HUG: http://www.wimba.com/community/usergroup.php To access use the user ID: warwick and the password: resource
(back to contents)
89
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 2:
Voice tools research: Questionnaire for tutors:
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research. I would be grateful if you would complete both sections of the questionnaire and return it to me at your convenience. Section 1: Language teaching: For each of the following statements, circle the number on the scale that best describes your opinion: Statement Listening and speaking skills are vital components of language learning Language learners should regularly practise speaking in the target language Language learners should regularly practise listening to the target language In my teaching I do not have sufficient time to listen to all my students speak in the target language I would like to interact with students in the target language using voice tools I would like students to interact with each other in the target language using voice tools Strongly Agree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 Strongly disagree 5 5 5 5 5 5
90
Section 2: IT: CAN DO statements. Read each statement. Insert one of the following numbers that best describes your experience into the box: 1 = sometimes/with help 2 = usually/with some direction 3 = always/alone Using Windows Operating System I can log on to University network and find programme I can locate saved files I can edit and save files to suitable directory I can minimise, restore and navigate multiple windows Presenting learning materials: I can upload or link to an activity using sitebuilder I can use powerpoint or word to present visual information I can select appropriate visual/audio visual material I can prepare appropriate listening material for my students Using communication technologies I can send and reply to e-mail using Outlook I can attach a file to an e-mail I can submit a message to a voiceboard I can reply to a voiceboard message I can contribute to a Warwick forum Using the internet: I can switch off a pop up blocker to allow a website to be viewed I understand the function of a URL I know what a hosting service is I can download and install an update such as java runtime environment I can troubleshoot issues with sound playback or recording on my computer
91
Ref: Davies G. (2007) ICT4LT Homepage. In Davies G. (ed.) Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT), Slough, Thames Valley University [Online]. Available from: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_home.htm [Last accessed 04/02/08].
92
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 3
Flow chart for walk-through sessions Accessing voice board via URL
Enter board to play message
Listen to message
Compose reply to message
Replay and edit message
Potential barriers: Accessing URL through email in Outlook Unfamiliarity with multiple windows Pop up blockers Java not installed No headset Sound card not correctly configured Microphone not correctly activated
93
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 4.i Student survey responses: questions 1-6: 1. Please select the statement that best describes your familiarity with digital sound technologies on a computer e.g. mp3 files, playback using windows media player/real player. I am a confident user of technology I am reasonably confident, will try out new technologies I am interested as long as it works easily I prefer older sound technologies such as cassette recorders I am not interested in sound on the computer 2. Do you have easy access to the following (select all that apply) a broadband internet connection a computer which can play back sound a headset or microphone an mp3 player 3. Which of the available wimba tools did you experience? voiceboard voice email podcast 4. Did you listen to the recording (voice email/voiceboard posting)over the internet? Yes No 5. Did you record using the voice technologies? Yes No 6. Which of the following factors affected your experience of the voice technologies? (select all that apply) technical issues availability of hardware such as headset feeling inhibited about recording own voice unfamiliarity with sound technologies over the computer find listening/speaking skills particularly challenging
Count 8 3 3 0 0
Percentage 57.14% 21.43% 21.43% 0.00% 0.00%
13 12 11 12
27.08% 25% 22.92% 25%
10 2 0
83.33% 16.67% 0.00%
12 2 6 7
85.71% 14.29% 46.15% 53.85%
2 1 9 1 4
11.76% 5.88% 52.94% 5.88% 23.53%
94
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 4.ii Question 7 Do you feel that the possibility of listening to/recording voice over the internet could contribute to your language learning? very much so, so long as other people were not able to here me speak. (only the teacher) Yes, would be good to post read passages (either from french sources or presentation prepared for orals etc) and get feedback on pronunciation and intonation. Yes Yes, it is great that you can hear how you sound in a foreign language It would be a useful tool for hearing recordings from native speakers from their own countries Definitely, it really makes a positive difference I little bit howevever, I think practising conversation is much more useful. yes YES Possibly. Although students may feel embarrassed about recording their voices if they know others can listen to the recordings. It's useful to hear the language spoken slowly and to have resources tailored to the class. yes Yes, it was very useful. Yes, but it depends very much on the teacher. We had a good teacher. But then, a poor teacher probably would not be using Wimba. Also, this technology definitely needs a broadband connection. For this reason I could only use Wimba at College, not at home.
95
Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning. Teresa MacKinnon. September 2009. Appendix 4.iii Question 8 Do you have any thoughts about how language teachers should facilitate listening and speaking opportunities for their students outside the classroom? Would be really really good if the teacher organised a for their students to meet in small groups for, say, an hour each week, and do some set tasks (oral homeworks if you like ~ often half the problem is knowing what to say or do when practising oral skills, e.g. practising a grammar point like si clauses or a tense) Teacher could nominate someone to lead their group each week. (Teacher doesn't attend!) Use of native language speakers perhaps For listening opportunities: Lots of foreign media have small and often funny clips on the internet which everyone can access. They not only help with your listening skills, but also provide you with an insight into the given countrys culture (i found canalplus.fr particularly good for French). Groups to practice speaking the language are helpful, and another idea would be to link up students studying the language with native speakers at the university. Promotion of using voiceboards etc. on an interactive web page as we did, and links to foreign language news-sites or other such web pages, where students can gain familiarity with other languages and improve their listening skills Teachers could organise relaxed social events which are conducted in the relevant language. Perhaps to a returanunt or something similar. It seems to be more appropriate that the recording can be listened by the teacher only but not everyone who has internet. It is much more convenient to be able to listen at home at any time. I'd prefer to speak to other students in person though. maybe providing a means for students to meet and interact with people who speak a language as their primary language. I'm sure this isn't a new idea though !! so no useful thoughts ... First of all, a teacher MUST be enthusiastic about Wimba, otherwise there is no benefit. Even if she/he is an otherwise good teacher in every other way, if they are not enthusiastic about this particular method there is no point. I can only see a use for this technology in terms of Listening Practice. The teacher must be aware of the speed that their students can handle. If the speech is too fast in the classroom, the students can make their difficulty known. But if speech is too fast on Wimba, the only option is the Stop Button!
96

Voice Over The Internet: User Perspectives On Voice Tools in Language Learning.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Voice Over The Internet: User Perspectives On Voice Tools in Language Learning.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Voice over the internet: user perspectives on voice tools in language learning.

University of Warwick Learning and Development Centre September 2009

2 Contextual background and literature survey. ................................ 13

3. The contribution of technology to language teaching. .................. 20

4.4 Limitations of the study. ............................................................................. 43

6. Discussion of factors arising from data. ........................................ 52

6.2 Pedagogical matters. ................................................................................. 54

6.3 The practice gap. ....................................................................................... 58

1.1 Background to the study.

1.2 Research questions.

What factors affect their experiences of this endeavour?

1.3 Research hypothesis.

2 Contextual background and literature survey.

2.1 The place of listening and speaking skills in language teaching.

2.2 The changing context for interaction.

3. The contribution of technology to language teaching.

3.1 Engagement in technology use in language teaching.

3.2 The relationship between theory and practice.

3.3 Tutor role in language teaching.

3.4 Error correction.

3.5 The opportunities and challenges.

3.5.1 Limitations of the technologies.

3.5.2 Lack of engagement.

3.5.3 Difficulty of listening.

3.5.4 Affective factors.

4.1 Research approach.

4.2 The sample.

4.3 Data collection.

4.3.1 The tutor questionnaire.

4.4 Limitations of the study.

5.1 Tutor questionnaires.

strongly agree strongly agree

Language teaching: use of voice tools

IT comfort zone /18 confidence indicator

5.2 Tutor interviews and walk-throughs.

Summary of tutor interviews.

T.A.1 P.M.2 T.A.1 P.M.2 T.A.2

Notes from tutor walk-throughs:

Flow chart for walkthrough sessions. Accessing voiceboard via URL

going faster now, good!

Enter board to play message Listen to message

there are some titles of interest

Compose reply to message

ability to re-record and change a message helps to overcome fear

Replay and edit message

5.3 Quantitative data from the voice tools software.

Voice tools created

voiceboards voice email oral assessments podcaster

5.4 Student data.

6. Discussion of factors arising from data.

6.1 Technology anxiety.

6.1.1 Affective barriers.

6.1.2 Management issues.

6.2 Pedagogical matters.

6.2.1 Error correction.

6.2.2 Tutor role.

6.3 The practice gap.

What factors affect their experiences of this endeavour?

Arnold, J. ed., 1999. Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.

Brumfit, C., 1984. Communicative methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: OUP.

Chomsky, N., 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.

Crystal, D. 2001. Language and the internet. Cambridge: CUP.