Commonly taught and less commonly taught language learners: are they equally prepared for CALL and online language learning?

In this study, we present the analyses stemming from a survey administered to 2149 foreign language learners at Michigan State University. We had three goals. First, we aimed to compile a profile of language learners' technological acumen, access to and ownership of technology, and the current uses of technology across a wide range of languages being studied. Second, we wanted to investigate whether learners, when grouped by language of study (commonly taught or less-commonly taught), differed in their knowledge, ownership, or uses of technology. Third, we wanted to relate these data to the learners' receptiveness to a proposed increase in the amount of technology used for language instruction. Significant differences in the variables were found in terms of level of academic study and the classification of the language being learned (commonly taught versus less-commonly taught and Roman alphabet versus non-Roman alphabet). These differences reflect the recent discussions on the preparedness of students for increases in computer-assisted language learning and hybrid and distance language classes.

[1]  C. Polio,et al.  Incidental Focus on Form in University Spanish Literature Courses. , 2008 .

[2]  Mike Levy.  Effective use of CALL technologies: Finding the right balance , 2006 .

[3]  Kimmaree Murday,et al.  Learners' and teachers' perspectives on language online 1 , 2008 .

[4]  Liu Wanyi,et al.  Computer Assisted Language Learning , 2011, 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE).

[5]  Charles M. Browne,et al.  New Perspectives on CALL for Second Language Classrooms , 2013 .

[6]  Randall P. Donaldson,et al.  Changing Language Education Through CALL , 2006 .

[7]  J. Howard.  Enrollments in Foreign-Language Courses Continue to Rise, MLA Survey Finds. , 2007 .

[8]  Natalia Lusin,et al.  Enrollments in Languages other than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006 , 2007 .

[9]  M. Donnellan,et al.  Do Today's Young People Really Think They Are So Extraordinary? , 2008, Psychological science.

[10]  Anne O'Bryan.  Providing Pedagogical Learner Training in CALL: Impact on Student Use of Language-Learning Strategies and Glosses , 2008 .

[11]  Senta Goertler,et al.  Opening doors through distance language education : principles, perspectives, and practices , 2008 .

[12]  M. Warschauer.  Comparing Face-To-Face and Electronic Discussion in the Second Language Classroom , 2013, CALICO Journal.

[13]  Melinda Messineo,et al.  Are We Assuming Too Much?: Exploring Students' Perceptions Of Their Computer Competence , 2005 .

[14]  Carole A. Barone,et al.  Technology-enhanced teaching and learning : leading and supporting the transformation on your campus , 2001 .

[15]  Antonella Strambi,et al.  Flexibility and Interaction at a Distance: A Mixed-Mode Environment for Language Learning , 2003 .

[16]  A. Feingold,et al.  Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Philip L. Hubbard,et al.  A review of subject characteristics in CALL research , 2005 .

[18]  Cristina Pardo-Ballester,et al.  Measuring Oral Proficiency in Distance, Face-to-Face, and Blended Classrooms , 2008 .

[19]  Lisa M. Volle,et al.  Analyzing Oral Skills in Voice E-Mail and Online Interviews. , 2005 .

[20]  Robert F. Sanders.  Redesigning Introductory Spanish: Increased Enrollment, Online Management, Cost Reduction, and Effects on Student Learning , 2005 .