Technology in Second Language Learning
Slat2002 Blog Alex Bowler 42664822

As a modern language student who grew up in the Web 2.0 world, computer-assisted language learning technology is a large part of the way that I learn my second language. The use of computerised language learning technology is undoubtedly one of the greatest changes to the way in which languages can be taught and learned. However, these technologies are still in their infancy. New programs are released every week that feature novel techniques and the way in which these technologies can be fully utilised is still highly unknown. By examining my own experiences, alongside the use of academic research into second language acquisition theories, learning strategies and technology, I will examine how to best utilise language learning technology.

Is second language technology a double-edged sword?

As a Generation-Y language student, I utilise computer technologies extensively in my second language learning experience. In my use of these technologies I have discovered that not all technologies are created equal, and that the use of technology is a double-edged sword. One technology, Duolingo, epitomises the potential for language learning technologies to have mixed success.

Duolingo is a website of two parts, one half serves as a language learning website focusing almost entirely on grammar-translation exercises, translating text from a user's native language to their target language and vice-versa, whilst the other half of the program is a crowd-sourced commercial translation business that utilises the data from the language learner's grammar-translation exercises for the commercial enterprise. I have used Duolingo extensively in both my personal use and in my research into second language technologies and through this use I have found that the core of Duolingo's teacher method showcases many mistakes that language learning technologies can fall prey to. The grammar-translation method that Duolingo uses has fallen out of favour with language teachers and been replaced with a range of approaches. Aside from the fact that the core of Duolingo's teaching strategy is widely considered an outdated learning method (Lightbrown & Spada 2006, p. 34), there are other problems that derive from the nature of the program.  

Authentic and accurate content is an important factor that must be considered in the evaluation of language technology (Murray & Barnes 1989). The semi-automated content generation of Duolingo's lessons lacks important contextual elements necessary for accurate and authentic content.  In many instances of my use of Duolingo I was faced with sentences that either didn't make sense contextually or featured phrases which do not exist in the target language (eg. “Mon nom est...” as opposed to the correct “Je m'appelle....” when stating one's name in French). In addition to this the program would ask users to transcribe the audio of  phrases which are phonetically identical eg. “Il mange” and “ils mangent”. Without context there was no way to determine the correct phrase, reducing any attempt at an answer to guesswork. This suggests that the design of the program has not  been designed with the needs of students in mind. Duolingo takes a brute-force approach to language teaching through mass automation and application of grammar translation method. Day and Lloyd (2007) noted language learning technology should not be driven by the development of technology but by the needs of the user. I believe that Duolingo's faults can be directly attributed to the former design mentality.

Duolingo allows users to map their knowledge of
vocabulary down to the individual verb conjugations.

That's not to say that Duolingo does not succeed in other areas. There are many areas in which Duolingo pioneers advancement in CALL, however these exist around the periphery of the program. Addition of game-like elements, where success is rewarded with “skill points”, progress bars and streaks encourage users to return to the program and acts to support affective language learning. Duolingo is also an example of the ways in which social integration can be used to great effect. Facebook integration, being able to compete with friends and share language learning victories are prime examples of how to use technology to bolster social learning strategies. Finally, the ability to track a user's problem areas, down to the successful memorisation of individual words, acts as a powerful computer-assistant meta-cognitive tool.

I believe the future of CALL technologies exists not in the core of Duolingo's program but in it's periphery. Unlike the core grammar translation exercises, these tools are not only exceedingly potent, but also difficult to replicate outside of computer-assisted learning environments.

A recent example of language technology playing to its strengths is found in Lang-8.

Lang-8 is a social-blogging tool where users write a journal in their target language. Native speakers of the language can then provide corrections for the post alongside help and suggestions to improve the user's knowledge of the language. As opposed to Duolingo, which uses crowd-sourcing for commercial ends, Lang-8 utilizes crowd-sourcing social media to provide a tool aimed at improving learner outcomes. I believe the future lies in the development of technologies that successfully locate and ameliorate a user need, even if means that the technology deals with a discrete area of language learning

Teachers and Language Technology

As not only a language student but also as an aspiring language teacher, I have always found a significant interest in the role of the teacher in modern language classrooms. By examining the theoretical underpinnings of language learning pedagogies, one can best craft a lens to view the relationship between teacher, student and technology. According to the theoretical framework of Lev Vygotski, teachers create what he refers to as a zone of proximal development, in which students can develop their language knowledge through interaction with a more knowledgeable peer (Lantolf & Pavlenko 1995, p.120).  Teachers provide structure and support for students in order to learn more than a student would have been capable of independently (Lightbrown & Spada 2006, p.47). 

From this framework the role of teachers is to facilitate learning through interaction and negotiation of meaning with students in the target language, alongside monitoring and guiding the learner's progress and assisting in collaboration between students. Through this lens, the role of the teacher is central to learning outcomes through providing meaningful communication. However that’s not to say that language technology is irrelevant in the classroom, far from it. There are practical constraints that limit the effectiveness of teachers that can be mitigated by technology inside and outside the classroom.

In my own experience, language classroom instruction often lacks sufficient classroom contact hours in order to make sufficient progress. This is where I believe technology can serve to most improve language classrooms. Extending the reach of the teacher beyond the limits of classroom contact hours, and increasing the efficiency of the language classroom serve as areas in which language technologies can improve the classroom.

The affordances of a technology such as Anki, a flashcard program for computer and mobile devices, change when viewed in this context. Anki is a relatively simply flashcard application that allows users to upload and share flashcard decks. Simple though this may be, Anki has been used to great effect in improving the efficiency of the classroom and ensuring teacher-constructed outside-of-classroom activities that can be tailored to student need. 

Flashcards can be as modified by the creator of the deck to suit different
 purposes from basic single-word translations to rich audio and visual 
experiences. 

By reinforcing the memorisation strategies, the techniques wherein students remember elements of the target language through making mental associations (Oxford & Burry-Stock 1995, p. 9), outside of the classroom, there is no need to focus on things like vocabulary memorisation inside the classroom, freeing class time for other activities that benefit greater from in-person contact. Anki does not replace teacher-driven language instruction nor does it feature an overarching language teaching pedagogy. Rather it acts to augment the traditional teacher role through the maximization of classroom efficiency. Indeed I have had first-hand experience with Anki in this way in my intermediate French language class, Anki decks are included alongside each work unit so that vocabulary and revision of specific elements can be completed outside of class time.

The way that Anki interacts with classroom environments is an example of how language technology can coexist with current language learning classrooms through filling a niche role in the learning process. 

What does this all mean?

So after all of this, the question remains as to how these trends in technologies affects the users of these technologies. Specifically, what recommendations can be made to language teachers and learners as how they can utilize the CALL technology efficiently. Firstly, it must be known that CALL is not a panacea for language learning woes, CALL technology cannot currently serve as a complete language learning regimen. This may change in the future as CALL technologies mature, however for the time being this appears to remain an unachieved goal. Language learners should view CALL technology as supplementary to a wider language learning regimen. Language teachers should also attempt to use technologies which complement the teaching environment as opposed to trying to rewrite it. Integration, rather than outright replacement is the key to improved learner outcomes.

Reflections

While I have always been a big believer and early-adopter of technology in language learning, my experiences in SLAT2002 have helped me discover a critical eye for the ways these technologies function and the potential they have for the future. By being able to pinpoint the pedagogies and techniques that these technologies use I am now able to critically assess how these technologies function, a tool-set to discover how they succeed and why they may fail to improve language learning outcomes. Moreover it helps me understand and articulate my perspective on the context these programs have in regards to language learning in teaching as a field. 

References

Day, D., & Lloyd, M. (2007). Affordances of online technologies: More than the properties of the technology. Australian Educational Computing. 22(2). 17-21.

Garcia., I. (2012). Learning a Language and Translating the Web: Does duolingo work?. The Conversation. Available online: http://theconversation.com/learning-a-language-and-translating-the-web-does-duolingo-work-10687

Lantolf, J. P., Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 15. 108-124.

Lee, C. K. (2010). An overview of language learning strategies. ARECLS. 7. 132-152.

Lightbown, P., Spada, N. M. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Murray, L. Barnes, A. (1989). Beyond the “wow” factor - Evaluating multimedia language learning software from a pedagogical viewpoint. System. 26(2). 249-259.

Oxford, R. L., & Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the strategy inventory for language learning (SILL). System, 23(1), 1-23. 

Hello World!

Test post please ignore.