TOPIC TWO: Language student perceptions of the usefulness of technology
TASK TWO: Read the following article: Ayres, Robert. “Learner Attitudes Towards the Use of Call.” Computer Assisted Language Learning. 15.3 (2002): 241-249. Print.
Based upon results of a survey of language students about the use of computers for language learning, the authors of the article conclude that … “learners appreciate and value the learning that they do using the computers.” (p. 247).
However the authors continue that … “without exception, the classroom is favoured as being more motivating, more useful in all skill areas, more adaptable and more relevant [than computer-based language learning]” (p. 249).
A. Discuss how these two seemingly contradictory statements can both be true at the same time. Use information from the article as well as your own examples to support your answers. Use 200 words in your response.
The study presented by Ayres (2002) intends to show the attitudes of language students towards the use of technology in the classroom. The apparently contradictory conclusions are produced by the fact that two sets of students’ perceptions about CALL were collected with different instruments.
The first statement is related to three items listed under the category “General Perceptions of CALL”, namely, 1) “relevant to needs”, 2) “computers give good info”, and 3) “should be used more” (p. 247). Items 1 and 2 obtained the highest percentage of agreement among the study population: 80% and 77%, respectively. Though the third item obtained the lowest percentage of agreement, 58%; it is considered an impressive majority. Those percentages support the quotation.
The second statement is mainly related to the results of another category of items studied in this research, the one that asked the students to identify their “Preferred Mode of Learning”. If the conclusions seem confusing that is also because the study mixed items that should have been seen separately. Ayres claims that “the project did not attempt to empirically measure whether an improvement in language competency had resulted from using CALL (p.242-43)”, but undoubtedly some of the students’ perceptions about their “Preferred Mode of Learning” are influenced by their own language learning performance; such is the case of the skills and competencies. Students can derive their perceptions about the usefulness of classroom instruction or CALL from the evaluation of their language skills improvement. There is a referent for that. Other items in the list of perceptions about modes of learning are entirely subjective. How can you measure how interesting and motivating something is? Statements about qualities such as how interesting or motivating a mode of learning is could be better examined or reported with a scale of agreement.
B. The article discusses the costs involved in the use of technology in the language classroom. Given the conclusions of the authors about student preference of classroom instruction over computer-based instruction, do you feel the expenditures on technology are justified? Support your answer with specific information from the article. Use 200 words in your response.
Somehow the question that underlies Ayres’s study is if CALL can replace the language teacher. He mentions previous discussions about that topic in stating that “the number of (CALL) users has expanded as well as the number of applications that are available (Healy, 1999), such that language teachers need to realistically assess the implications of using computers as another tool for language learning, and to consider the changing role of the ‘teacher’ to that of the ‘mentor and consultant’ (Carballo-Calero, 2001) (p. 242)”.
Clearly, Ayres’s position –based in part on this research, is that ‘classroom-based instruction’ is the dominant scenario for the language learning process.
The scope of the study excludes explanations about this, as the information collected is oriented to explore students’ attitudes toward CALL. The data suggest that for language learners classroom-based instruction is enhanced by CALL, but it is not to be substituted by it. Ayres’s last words are “CALL needs to be carefully and judiciously and must be tightly integrated into the learning curriculum in order for learners to obtain maximum benefit from its use” (p. 249). Such seems to be the case at UNITEC, during the term in which the study took place. Seven out of the eleven classes that participated in the study worked in the computer labs two hours a week, the other four classes, one hour a week (p. 243). Ayres reports that the computer labs were available for ‘drop-in’ sessions too.
If technology is used this consistently as a tool of instruction, that shows the acceptance of CALL by the teachers, and the study shows the acceptance of CALL by the students. In consequence it is justifiable to assign a budget for the tools that benefit students learning.
