Shifting Identities of the 21st Century Language Learner: The application and

integration of digital technologies has changed how students self-identify and

the way they learn.
Technology users are finding their way through a new phase in language learning; a
paradigm shift is occurring. Prensky states Because of twenty-first century technology,
education no longer means the same thing as it did in the past. (Prensky 2007:1). Thus
learner no longer means the same thing, a new identity has been established. Ushioda
(2011) outlines the potential of digital technologies in representing this identity or self.
In the last decade digital technologies and the affordances they provide have made their
way into the classroom, changing the role of learners and opening the door to a new era of
classroom practice and acquisition of knowledge. The identity of the learner is changing
and new technologies are a major driver in this change.
What is evident is that a shift towards adoption of these resources for educational ends has
already occurred. A report from the British Educational Suppliers Association forecasts that
1.8 million tablets alone will be in use in United Kingdom maintained schools and
academies by the end of 2020 (BESA 2013). A report from the National Center for
Education Statistics in the US states that In 2009 internet access was available for 93
percent of the computers located in the classroom every day (Gray et al 2010: 5). Not
everyone has this level of access, but the L2 learner in this essay will be the one outlined
above, mainly learning in a blended environment.
Digital technologies can enhance, or at least change, the way data is accessed, stored,
processed, published and displayed. Learners must negotiate their way through an unstable
learning landscape, altering the way they see and represent themselves depending on the
context. Learners no longer have a fixed identity but one that is in constant review and flux
and though some identities may be relatively stable, others are likely to be constantly
constructed, negotiated and reconstructed (Ushioda 2011: 203).
1

Ushioda (2011) explored how different selves affect motivation of the learner. Gardner and
Lamberts concept of integrativeness (1972, quoted in Ushioda 2011:200) where a learner
wishes to assimilate as far as possible into the culture of the L2 is no longer the primary
motivation of 21st century language learners. For learners studying English, its elevated
presence on the internet makes it even harder to definitively pinpoint who and where the
community of speakers is. Rather than joining communities, people blog, write, make videos
and use other methods of self-expression in the L2 not to integrate into a community but to
communicate who they are to it. When boundaries between languages, cultures and
audiences are transcended through the internet, the focus of language acquisition changes
from integration to the L2 community to self-representation within it. (Ushioda 2011).
This essay will identify and explore four aspects of who this self is: learner and teacher,
consumer and creator, global and local, online and offline. It will investigate how web based
tools and applications express and shape these multiple identities. The categories
represent four combinations of identities which L2 learners may be inhabiting at any one
time. They are not intended to be a definitive list or separate from one another, but for the
purposes of investigating how they affect who the L2 learner is, it is useful to divide them in
this way.

Identity 1: Student as learner and teacher

Roles and identities are frequently expressed in binary terms. Digital natives and
immigrants, sages and guides and here, as learners and teachers. It is therefore necessary
to emphasise that in the context of this essay the student often inhabits neither identity
completely, but occupies a sliding scale between multiple identities depending on context
and environment.
For many years the idea that a student is an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge by the
teacher has been questioned yet remains the status quo in many educational
institutions. Plutarch stated: ...the mind is not a vessel that needs filling, but wood that
needs igniting no more and then it motivates one towards originality and instils the
desire for truth (Plutarch, Moralia). This calls to mind Kings 1993 paper proposing that the
2

teacher should be the guide on the side as opposed to the sage on the stage (King
1993). With the advent of digital technologies has come the potential for greater power and
autonomy of the learner. The role of a passive vessel is supplanted by a more complex,
dynamic and shifting range of identities, including that of teacher. Little (1995) explains the
compelling reasons for autonomy to be nurtured in L2 learners: increased internet access
allows learners to go beyond autonomy when it comes to their own learning and become the
teacher or expert.
Ushioda explores how teacher-student roles and identities may become reversedas far as
the use of technology is concerned (2011:207). The assuming of the teacher identity by
students is observable not just in use of technology, but expanded into other domains by
technology. Gray (1998) investigated the advantages of learners of English in a language
centre giving feedback to their teachers via a journal. The students were able to shape the
content of the lessons through this voice. School-age students do not generally have this
option available and they may threaten the teachers face if they attempt to infringe on their
role. The internet can be an outlet for this desire to shape learning, allowing students to
design and complement their own learning through web based applications. Learners do
not only teach themselves, but may become teachers for others via the web. One popular
way of sharing expertise is through a YouTube channel. As an example, Easy Languages has
nearly 100,000 subscribers, more than any physical teacher could reach. Indeed many
students have more Instagram and twitter followers and YouTube subscribers than teachers
have pupils in their career. The internet provides an audience and a critical community
previously unattainable for target language input and output. In these communities the role
of the expert is diminished and peer to peer communities are maximised In terms of the
second language learners, students are able to seek and share their knowledge on forums,
as well as error correct and provide real world translations via sites and applications such as
Duolingo, Verbling and Livemocha.
Students contribute as active producers of knowledge, not passive consumers (Klamma et
al 2007, quoted in McLoughlin & Lee 2008). The trend rather than the tool is key:
successful applications blur and blend traditional teacher and learner roles. Learners do
not have to rely on particular web based applications to make this happen. Asynchronous
3

and synchronous computer mediated communication provides opportunities to maintain a

dual identity. Kung (from Philp et al 2013) notes that during synchronous computer
mediated communication (SCMC) activities:
Students were also found to take on many of the roles usually played by the
teacher in face-to-face interactions. They refocused the discussion after a
digression, they explained difficult parts of the text, they offered examples,
and they related ideas in the readings to their own lives. (Kung 2004: 269)
This further supports the idea of redefinition of the role of the language learner. Students
can be the teacher and the learner simultaneously. Sotillo (2005) found that where two
non-native speakers were paired together in a SCMC activity more correction took place
than in native and non-native dyads. In the aggregate data, 70% of the ECEs [error
correction episodes] were found in NNS-NNS dyads and 30% in NS-NNS dyads. (Sotillo
2005: 483, from Philp et al 2013). Digital technology can empower the language learner to
inhabit the role of instructor without being an expert, the status of learner is maximised.
Students in CMC peer correction activities have found the dual role of teacher and learner to
be a motivating factor in learning the L2 (Dehkhinet et al 2008). The internet opens up
many opportunities for students to learn from and teach their peers. Classroom instruction
is showing signs of change to acknowledge this autonomy of learners. Flipped classroom
techniques and open ended investigations are gaining momentum. If a student is given the
option to be perceived as having something of value to offer (their language skills in this
instance) and can simultaneously learn and teach, there is a lot to be gained. Not solely
linguistically but in terms of increased motivation. McLoughlin & Lee( 2010:32) propose
that value should be placed on student created products as a primary content source. It is
feasible to exploit the potential of the learners L1 and also their proficiency in an L2. If the
role of the native speaker is becoming less relevant (Ryan 2009: 30) then L2 speakers can
assume the identity of teacher.
For students who participate in these communities, a dual identity leads to additional
complexity in their role. To successfully manage this duality, students must have a
heightened metalinguistic awareness. If they are receiving peer feedback they may receive
4

false error correction. When giving feedback they must be confident of the validity of their
observations. With languages this is by no means straightforward as even native speakers
can make errors or find it hard to explain certain irregularities. The L2 learner can
strengthen connections with their own language and the L2 by reflecting on it in this way.
The meaning of scaffolding is no longer confined to its original association of
expertise provided by a knowledgeable other, but has expanded to include
learner selected assistance, peer interactions, or could be embedded in
technology (McLoughlin & Lee 2010).
When needed, the learner can seek clarification from other sources, a physically present
teacher or web based communities but they must know how to find trustworthy sources as
well as how to become one themselves.

Identity 2: Consumer and Creator

A language learner aims to communicate. The more avenues and options available for selfexpression, the more chance all learners finding a way to be engaged. At first, new
platforms for communication that technology provides seem to be a wonderful opportunity
for the L2 learner. As a consumer, the language learner can find an immediate connection
with authentic material and tools to access it. Authentic material and connection with
culture are no longer the preserve of those who have the financial means to travel. Mishan
(2004) details the many advantages to using authentic texts. The internet is a great leveller
in terms of access to such resources. Beginners can use tools such as lingro to create a
personalised corpus linguistics style approach to learning the L2. The internet provides
access to the texts but also gives them a higher level of interactivity. Lingro makes all the
words on page clickable, facilitating reading. It then stores the words the user has looked
up and allows the learner to play games with these words. Lingua.ly provides further
authentic texts based on the looked-up vocabulary. This level of personalised learning is
impossible for the teacher to provide and adds a greater ownership and interactivity to a
more passive skill. King states that When students are engaged in actively processing
information in such new and personally meaning ways, they are far more likely to remember
it and apply it in new situations (King 1993: 30). Of course, written material is not the only
5

source of contact with the target language. Learners can download audiobooks and songs,
stream films, watch the news and other programs. The other facet of consuming content is
accessing the multitude of resources, games and sites which have been designed to help L2
learners progress. This elevated access to consumable resources affects the creator
identity of learners.
Gardner and Davis (2013) explore the concept of creativity, or in his preferred term
imagination in the context of the 21st century learner, or in Gardner and Davis words, the
App Generation. The proliferation of apps available to learners enables their imagination in
some ways and restricts it in others. Whilst this is a concern, other artistic mediums have
strict parameters which must be respected to showcase the authors skill. Creating haikus
and writing in the iambic pentameter are restrictive yet these rules can cause creativity to
flourish rather than curtail it. Apps and sites that learners use have been classified
according to Blooms taxonomy, in a bid to demonstrate that they can support higher order
thinking skills.

(Schrock, n.d.)
Playing with language can be done within prescribed limits. The internet offers such a large
array of choice it can even be helpful to have some sort of limits and boundaries within an
app. McLoughlin & Lee (2008) posit that higher education students struggle to manage the
6

wealth of information that they can access online. Younger students will find this task yet
more difficult. If you can have everything, then it can also seem to be nothing without
guidance and context. To illustrate, Storybird is an app that allows students to write an
online book. The pictures and format available are limited (uploading your own picture is
possible). However, even stories using the same pictures will vary to a large extent from
student to student. The web then provides a sense of audience for self-published materials.
The language learner is no longer writing an essay for the teacher, but for an inestimable
potential audience.
The role of emptiness, boredom or reflective contemplation as a source of inspiration is
being eroded by new technologies. A long wait for a train can now be spent dealing with
emails, reading a downloaded book or article, listening to music or podcasts, or to harness
the old fashioned potential of a mobile telephone, calling someone. When looking for
creative inspiration, the reflex is to look for external stimuli, often via a google search, rather
than to look inward to ones own imagination (see screenshot below1). One teacher said of
their students ..they cant come up with an idea They go to their laptop first. (Gardner and
Davis 2013: 139).

(Hanoi Grapevine, 2013)

TheOnioncellarisamusicpromotionagentwhoorganisedtheconcert.Theanswerbelowiscopiedandpasted
fromWikipedia.

Learners may look to the online world when searching for ideas but there is a long tradition
of synergy in creative communities. Buuel and Dal, Lennon and McCartney are known and
revered for their co-creations. The internet allows students to seek out others to get the
creative process started and refine their product with feedback. Mass collaboration and
access to a wider field of inspiration and influence is changing the way our learners create.
Teachers often bemoan lack of originality and it is true that plagiarism is a concern amongst
the copy-paste generation (Gardner and Davis 2013). Generating original ideas is more
challenging when in the virtual company of millions, rather than the limited environment of a
class or school. However, repurposing and reediting existing content is a form of creation
and originality. The generation gap could be a factor in activities such as vidding and writing
fanfiction (both potential L2 activities) being deemed as unoriginal. To employ Prenskys
(2001) terms, digital immigrants are evaluating the creativity of digital natives.
Students use digital technologies to co-create in social or peer to peer contexts, shaping the
role of the learner into something more complex and collaborative. Crowd-sourcing of
content and ideas minimises the role of the individual, especially when attributing
intellectual copyright and it is often difficult to convince students of the importance of
individual work (Correa 2014: 2). A multiplicity of roles including both consumer and author
of information can lead to a lack of clarity when it comes to academic honesty. High profile
sites such as Wikipedia do not acknowledge authorship in the traditional fashion (Correa
2014), providing a differing model of academic integrity for students. Its impact can be
noted in many ways when it comes to the second language learner. Many language students
are tempted by online translators and know how to access them. However the use of a
translator requires the student to know what language they could realistically produce and
to avoid literal translation of idiomatic expressions. This engenders a paradoxical situation
where language students can simultaneously know everything and nothing. Frustration on
the part of teacher and student can be the result:
...the teacher is frustrated and baffled by a nonsensical composition, and the
student is angry at not getting an A on work which he or she erroneously

assumed would automatically be better than whatever he or she could have

done without computerized help. (Luton 2003: 769)
It is worth remembering that this type of shortcutting or over-confidence in technology as
outlined in Blakes myths (2008) is not restricted to students alone, indeed those in roles of
responsibility can also fall foul of it. The notorious Welsh road sign mistranslation is a
notable example.

(News.bbc.co.uk, 2008).
21st century learners must learn to use these tools to enhance, not to replace their own
language production and comprehension. The learners role has become more both easier
and harder to manage.

Identity 3: Global and Local learner

Richards (2006) concept of transportable identities as a motivational factor in language
learning explains the teacher by relating with students as nature lover or supporter of the
English cricket team, for example and encouraging students to do the same may have the
power to transform the sort of interaction that takes place in the classroom. (Richards
2006:30 from Ushioda 2011). As Richards mentions, many teachers may feel
uncomfortable or unable to do this. As the firing of teacher Shelley Evans-Marshall

2illustrates

(Williams, 2012) teachers are not always allowed the right to free speech and

this will be a barrier to forming any kind of transportable identity bond with learners. With
such restrictions, learners may look outside of the classroom in order to form connections
with L2 speakers as holistic entities.
McLoughlin & Lee highlight how individual learner empowerment through designs that
focus on collaborative, networked interaction (McLoughlin & Lee 2008) ties in with the
connectivist model of learning and with the concept of student as teacher. Social
networking for language learners has made seeking native speaker communities possible
and self-expression has become more accessible. They days of waiting for letters from pen
pals are largely over, replaced with a more instant feedback loop.
In the second language classroom, the teacher was formerly the only contact that the
student had with a native or near native speaker and with the target language culture. The
21st century language learner has many additional resources at their disposal which utilise
new media and digital technologies, potentially increasing autonomy and reducing the role
of the teacher as the primary source of information. In addition to a building a people
oriented network, the learner can reach beyond the teacher by drawing on a range of tools
and applications without the need for a physically present teacher (Drexler 2010). Some of
these tools may not be provided by digital technologies but many are. Students may reach
out through social networking sites such as twitter, tuenti and Instagram. Free web-based
applications such as Duolingo provide a structured resource in the personal learning
environment. The advantage of these tools being their ability to adapt the content of the
lesson to the individual performance and interests of the student, something a human
cannot do as efficiently. Duolingo is even able to measure how many tears its owl mascot
must cry for maximum effect when a life is lost (Uncova, 2015). There are also many
podcasts, tutorials and self-correcting exercises using web technologies. The learner is
required to curate their own Personal Learning Environment (PLE) thus replacing the former
vertical and hierarchical system. This rhizomatic system of learning (Cormier 2008) applies

ShellyEvansMarshall,ahighschoolteacherinArizonawasfiredafteraskingherstudentstowriteanessayabout
censorshipofbooksinUSschools.Herfiringwasupheldbythesixthcircuitcourtastheyruledthatthe
educationalinstitutionhasarighttofreespeech,nottheindividualteacher.

10

for the L2 learner. Knowledge is disseminated, allowing learners to form their own
PLEs. A stronger fabric of learning is created where distribution of knowledge is more
evenly spread.
A positive outcome of a PLE may not be the result for all learners. Some students would
prefer less autonomy, relying more on the traditional teacher, student, textbook dynamic
and construction of a personal learning environment does not necessarily facilitate deep
understanding (Drexler 2010: 374). Students must manage and engage with multiple
nodes of their PLE and many have abandoned accounts on different sites. This process of
selection and retention or abandonment of nodes is required as the internet is not a static
resource. Useful PLEs must reflect this. The learner must be an effective curator and
selector of nodes.

(St George's International, 2015)

11

The picture above is a graphic presentation of the perfect language learner, according to
one language school. On reading the tips, it can be seen how web based applications can
enhance and even redefine all these elements of language learning even though technology
is classed as a separate category. All these elements can form part of the learners PLE.
Connection to this self-curated network is prevalent. Devices are becoming smaller,
ubiquitous and a digital extension of the self. Bax defines this ubiquity and integration of
personal devices as normalisation in the context of the language classroom.
Technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice and hence
normalised. To take some commonplace examples, a wristwatch, a pen,
shoes, writingthese are all technologies which have become normalised to
the extent that we hardly even recognise them as technologies. (Bax 2003:
23).
A normalisation phase is hard to maintain in the dynamic arena of web based tools and
applications. A few tools may become normalised but many more will not stand the test of
time and technology tends to accelerate the speed of change. Todays leaners must instead
become adept at adapting their PLE to reflect this changing landscape.

Identity 4: Online and Offline persona

Online and offline self are increasingly connected. The digital social currency of a facebook
profile might be needed to convince another site such as airbnb that you are a real person
(The Guardian, 2014). Pop (2010: 1186) outlines how there is now a blurring of physical
and virtual worlds. Indeed many virtual world games have real life tasks and challenges
further removing the distinction between online and offline identities (McNeill 2012).
However it can be to the advantage of L2 learners to maintain a distinct virtual identity.
Users construct their identities through avatars (Taylor 2002). The avatar allows users a
way of interacting and playing with their own identity, an appealing idea to the 21st century
learner who has multiple, shifting identities. The mental representation of the self can be
altered by the media it is presented in (Biocca 1997, quoted in Taylor 2002). Avatars
12

therefore allow a way to embody aspects of the self that may be under-represented in other
domains. A slight disengagement with the avatar (Taylor 2002) is appealing to L2 learners
in a number of ways. The identities which they inhabit mentioned in previous sections of
this essay are open to public scrutiny. An audience for creative output or language ability
can be critical, often more so than in face to face interactions. A teacher will evaluate work.
A speaking partner will make value judgments on language production. If the self that is
taking these risks isnt really me then the potential loss of face will be minimised. The
physical representation of the avatar can enhance this separation of bodily self from mental
self. Gender, physical appearance and personality can be adapted. The learner may feel
the inner me is more adequately represented by an avatar that is distinct from their
physical self in appearance but the idea of risk taking and engaging in different behaviours
remains amplified. Virtual worlds present a ludic aspect to learning as they provide 3D
experiences and consequences not possible in the real world. Gamification of learning can
be a powerful motivator. These parts of the game such as caring for pets and plants, or
completing online tasks could also prove to be a distraction for learners. However, if these
tasks are done in the L2 they could provide reinforcement of vocabulary and add to the
realness of the experience even though they do not entail active language production.
Not all online disinhibition (Suler 2004) takes place in virtual reality. Online seminars,
distance learning, chatrooms and even activities where students are communicating in the
same room via a computer are all arenas for this type of communication. The potential for
exploiting this lack of inhibition is an advantage for L2 learners to put themselves in high
risk-high gain situations without some of the associated anxiety. Not all language anxiety is
related to speaking in front of others but is it one of the most important factors (Hurd
2007: 495) Hurds investigation did not definitively provide an answer to whether or not
distance learning may increase anxiety but some evidence did point that way. The student
who learns a language must often manage an online and offline identity in a blended
learning environment. The effect of Sulers six factors of online disinhibition are
categorised as benign or toxic (2004: 321) and are illustrated in Roeds 2003 investigation
into the behaviour of students online and offline. Whilst some quieter face to face students
flourish and have benign online behaviours, the more dominant member of the face to face
class exhibits toxic behaviours online. In China, the 250 million users of the microblogs
13

(Weibos) are finding out what it feels like to lose anonymity. Although users can have an
online nickname, they are required to register using their real name. Online behaviour will
have real world consequences. It is likely to have an impact on how their identity is
displayed (Wines, 2012).
Learners may seek to improve their reception in online native speaker communities by
flagging up their identity as a learner and interest in the target culture, but they may also
stress that they can offer expertise in their L1 (Pasfield Neofitou 2011). Learners choose
which identity to emphasise in order to reach their goals. In Pasfield Neofitous study the
learners still acutely felt their foreignness at times, especially as they tried to interact in
areas of the web populated mainly by native speakers. In fact the reception they got from a
vocal minority was overtly hostile. In light of Sulers factors of online disinhibition, it is
interesting to note that the hostile comments were made anonymously, and without an
avatar attached. To prevent anxiety learners might still need teacher guidance to help them
find a suitable community to participate in.

Conclusion
Kachrus 1992 model of English language learning depicts the transmission of knowledge
as an outward flow from the inner circle, from the centre to the periphery and as
unidirectional (Ryan 2009:30). As 21st century L2 learners develop complex and shifting
identities this model of instruction no longer applies and is being replaced by a rhizomatic
model of learning. The terrain learners are in is shifting and digital expression is nearly
always editable. When books are published in paper format, the writer can no longer
change their ideas. Digital expression is less permanent in this sense. Blogs, facebook
statuses, profiles and avatars can be updated, modified and erased at will to express new
ideas and viewpoints, a dynamic self. The identities explored in this essay are not the only
ones a student may inhabit, nor are the boundaries between them concrete. One identity
merges and overlaps with others. These identities are amplified and at times made possible
by the increasing presence and pervasiveness of digital technologies.
L2 students inhabit a world where travel, mixed nationality families, the tendency of people
to move away from home and the access to a global society provided by the internet is
redefining who they are and how they learn. What a learner is has evolved alongside the
14

technologies that facilitate new possibilities. A learner can belong to many communities
online but what it means to be part of these communities and therefore use of the L2 has
changed. While strong social bonds remain online and offline, the how and why of learning
an L2 has altered. If we accept that self-representation, not assimilation is the motivator,
then it is useful to look at this self and what it means for the L2 learner. Impermanence is
a key theme. The use of virtual worlds and avatars in increasing user comfort in the L2 has
been explored above. Perhaps in the unstable world that learners occupy the avatar has
another role: it creates and confirms to the user that they are, in fact, there (Taylor 2002:
42).
Since mass production and ownership of the radio, through to television and DVDs we have
been in an era of consumption of content. Digital tools mean we are now entering an era of
repurposing and creation. It has even been argued the web tools are enabling a new age of
folkloric and vernacular expression (Blank 2012). For the L2 learner this has a significant
effect on identity and motivation of learning the L2. As mentioned briefly earlier in this
essay, models of teaching and learning are starting to evolve to accommodate the new
learner. While it is unlikely that the teacher will become defunct due to the benefits of
interpersonal qualities (Crowhurst 2013),guidance in learning and learner preferences, the
identity of the teacher is changing too. If we are to accept that the learner and education
have changed, we must also accept that the teacher has changed, or must change. The L2
learner is more complex than before the integration or introduction of technology into homes
and schools. Prenskys digital wisdom (2009) can be acquired by teachers and students
and should inform the construction of a rhizomatic model of L2 acquisition.

4988 words
15

References
Bax S. (2003) CALLpast, present and future. System 31, 1, 13-28
News.bbc.co.uk, (2008). BBC News - E-mail error ends up on road sign. [Online] Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7702913.stm [Accessed 19 Jan. 2015].
Biocca, F. (1997). The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual Environments
[1].Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2),Quoted in: Taylor, T, L. (2002)Living
Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In Schroeder (Ed) The Social Life of Avatars:
Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments. London:Springer-Verlag, (chapter
3)
Blake, RJ 2008, Brave New Digital Classroom : Technology and Foreign Language Learning,
Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [21
January 2015].
Blank, TJ (ed.) 2012, Folk Culture in the Digital Age : The Emergent Dynamics of Human
Interaction, Utah State University Press, Logan, UT, USA. Available from: ProQuest ebrary.
[21 January 2015].
British Educational Suppliers Association.( 2013). Tablets and Apps in Schools 2013.
[Online] Available at http://www.besa.org.uk/sites/default/files/tab2013_0.pdf [Accessed
22 December 2014].
Cormier, D. 2008. Rhizomatic education : Community as curriculum. Innovate 4 (5).
Correa, M. (2014). Leaving the peer out of peer-editing: Online translators as a
pedagogical tool in the Spanish as a second language classroom Traductores en lnea como
herramienta pedaggica en la clase de ELE: Individualizando la revisin por pares, Latin
American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, [Online]. 7, 1-20. Available
at: http://laclil.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/LACLIL/article/view/3568/pdf [Accessed 23
December 2014].
Crowhurst, P. (2013) Finding the value of X: re-exploring the influence of teachers
interpersonal qualities on learning. International Schools Journal
Dekhinet, R. et al. 2008. Let me Learn with my Peers Online! Foreign Language Learning
through Reciprocal Peer Tutoring. Innovate 4:3.
Gardner, H. & Davis, K. (2013). App generation : how today's youth navigate identity,
intimacy, and imagination in a digital world. New Haven, CT : Yale Un Pr., 2013.
Gardner, R. and Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers. In Ushioda, E. (2011) Language learning

16

motivation, self and identity: current theoretical perspectives, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 24:3, 199-210
Gray, J (1998) The language learner as teacher: the use of interactive diaries in teacher
training. ELT J 52 (1): 29-37 doi:10.1093/elt/52.1.29
Gray, L., Thomas, N., and Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers Use of Educational Technology in U.S.
Public Schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). [Online]. Available at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2014].
The Guardian, (2014). I didnt have enough Facebook friends to prove to Airbnb I was real.
[online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2014/nov/14/airbnb-wontlet-book-room-facebook-friends [Accessed 22 Jan. 2015].
Hurd, S. (2007) Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The
distance factor as a modifying influence. System 35, 487-508.
Karelia Kondor. (2014). Karelia Kondor: Language Learning In Second Life An
Introduction. [Online Video]. 21 November. Available
at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9ks7jOdJ88. [Accessed: 10 December 2014].
Kachru, B. (1992). The Other tongue. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Klamma, R., Y. Cao and M. Spaniol. (2007) watching the blogosphere: Knowledge sharing in
Web 2.0. In Proceedings of the international Conference on Weblogs and Social. Quoted in:
McLoughlin, C & Lee, M (2008) Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy
through Social Software. Innovate, 4, 5.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning [Online].
Available at: https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409#toc_0 [Accessed 16 January
2015].
Luton, L. (2003). If the Computer Did My Homework, How Come I Didn't Get an "A"?. French
Review, 76(4), 766 [Online]. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3133085 [Accessed
22 Dec. 2014].
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. (2008) Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy
through Social Software. Innovate, 4, 5.
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W. (2010)
Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of
innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
26(1), 28-43. Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet26/mcloughlin.html
McNeill, L. (2012 Real Virtuality: Enhancing Locality by Enacting the Small World Theory. In:
Blank, TJ (ed.) 2012, Folk Culture in the Digital Age : The Emergent Dynamics of Human
Interaction, Utah State University Press, Logan, UT, USA., pp.85-96.
17

Mishan, F 2004, Designing Authenticity into Language Learning Materials, Intellect Books,
Bristol, GBR. Available from: ProQuest ebrary. [6 January 2015].
News.bbc.co.uk, (2008). BBC News - E-mail error ends up on road sign. [online] Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7702913.stm [Accessed 19 Jan. 2015].
Philp, Jenefer; Adams, Rebecca; Iwashita, Noriko 2013, Peer Interaction and Second
Language Learning, e-book, accessed 11 January 2015,
<http://Nottingham.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1546761>.
Pop, A (2010) The impact of new technologies in foreign language instruction: our
experience. Procedia Social and Behavioural Science, 2, 1185-1189.
Prensky, M. 2007 Changing Paradigms: from being taught to learning on your own with
guidance [Online] Available at http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/PrenskyChangingParadigms-01-EdTech.pdf [Accessed 22 December 2014].
Prensky M. 2009, H. Sapiens Digital: From Digital Immigrants and Digital Natives to Digital
Wisdom. Innovate Online.
Richards, K. (2006). Being the teacher: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77 [Online] Available at:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3241/1/WRAP_Richards_Being_the_Teacher_FINAL.pdf
[Accessed 15 December 2015].
Roed, J. (2003) Language Learner Behaviour in a Virtual Environment, Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 16:2-3, 155-172 [Online] Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/call.16.2.155.15880
Rubin, J (2012): Technology's Impact on the Creative Potential of Youth, Creativity Research
Journal, 24:2-3, 252-256 [online] Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.677370

Ryan, S (2006) Language Learning Motivation within the Context of Globalisation: An L2 Self
within an Imagined Global Community, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 3:1, 23-45, DOI:
10.1207/s15427595cils0301_2
Schrock, K. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Apps to Support Bloom's Revised Taxonomy. [image] Available at:
http://www.schrockguide.net/bloomin-apps.html [Accessed 10 Jan. 2015].
St George's International, (2015), The Perfect Language Learner [ONLINE]. Available
at:http://www.stgeorges.co.uk/sites/default/files/blog_uploads/2013/09/Free-Englishlessons-in-London_Perfect-Language-Learner-1024x793.jpg [Accessed 10 January 15].

18

Suler, J, 2004. The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, [Online]. 7/3,
321-326. Available at: http://www.samblackman.org/Articles/Suler.pdf [Accessed 10
December 2014].
Taylor, T, L. (2002) Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In Schroeder (Ed) The
Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual
Environments. London:Springer-Verlag, (chapter 3)
Uncova, (2015). Duolingo, the Chart-Topping Language App, Unveils a Platform for Teachers.
[online] Available at: http://uncova.com/duolingo-the-chart-topping-language-app-unveils-aplatform-for-teachers [Accessed 11 Jan. 2015].
Ushioda, E. (2011) Language learning motivation, self and identity: current
theoretical perspectives, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24:3, 199-210
1992, Essays by Plutarch, Translation by Robin Waterfield, On Listening, Penguin Classics,
London and New York.
Williams, P. (2012). Anti-intellectualism is taking over the US. The Guardian. [online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/18/antiintellectualism-us-book-banning [Accessed 18 Dec. 2014].
Wines, M. (2012). China Expands Program Requiring Real-Name Registration Online. New
York Times. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/world/asia/chinaexpands-program-requiring-real-name-registration-online.html?_r=0 [Accessed 22 Jan.
2015].

19

Rationale for format

After trialling podcasting, a blog page and video presentation, I returned to a traditional
essay format for my assignment. This is connected with issues mentioned in the
assignment itself, mainly respecting intellectual copyright. It would have been possible to
include a reference key in other formats but it may have been cumbersome. This would
have been more suitable in a blog page, but the font and spacing is not as reader friendly as
I would like and is not customisable. Recording myself for short periods of time is fine, but I
feel it is easier to re-read a sentence rather than go back and re-listen to it. Both vlogging
and podcasting require a calmness of approach and moderation of pace which can be hard
to maintain over an extended period of time. I wanted to include images which would not be
possible with podcasting. To adequately express my ideas I would have written them down
essay style first anyway, as it is inconvenient to edit a podcast or video. I also feel voice and
image could distract from the content and prevent the viewer or listener from proceeding at
their own pace.
I stick by Puenteduras SAMR model and feel that I am unable to progress past the
substitution phase of the model so am reluctant to change the format, particularly as the
substitution may prove to detract from the purpose of it.
After reading the feedback on my blog, the posts that showed the deepest engagement and
depth were the written ones. Other media did not always allow reflection of the same kind
to be communicated.

Criteria for assessment

Criterion A: With the above rationale in mind, is the format chosen an appropriate one. To

what extent does it effectively aid the delivery of the message.

Criterion B: Ability to engage with the course content and demonstration of independence

and originality of approach in selecting essay theme.

20