Error Diagnosis and Error Correction in CALL

TRUDE HEIFT
Simon Fraser University
MATHIAS SCHULZE
University of Waterloo

This special issue of the CALICO Journal concentrates on an important aspect of learner language—linguistic errors. Recently, issues like error description and classification as well as error correction and feedback have received increased attention in a number of academic disciplines, for example, second language acquisition theories and Corpus Linguistics. Recent conferences in CALL have also seen a number of papers which address these problems. This issue of the CALICO Journal aims to provide an overview of current relevant research. It contains nine articles that deal with a variety of questions focusing on one common theme: learner errors in CALL.

It is noteworthy that the majority of CALL systems described here implement natural language processing (NLP) with the common goal of (a) processing learner errors more effectively and/or (b) developing CALL materials that focus on learners' attested difficulties. The advent of the world wide web and, to some extent, of CD-ROMs has resulted in an overwhelming amount of technologically innovative, multimedia CALL materials. At the same time, it appears that this development has also led to a reduced emphasis on pedagogical issues, one of which is learner feedback. We hope that this special issue is evidence that there is not only interest in applying and developing CALL materials that provide meaningful feedback to the leaner but that there are also some promising results made with NLP.

Our special issue begins with an article by Schulze who discusses learner feedback from a theoretical point of view. In order to draw conclusions for CALL system design, he considers terms such as feedback, reinforcement, dialog and their entailments in three disciplines: learning psychology, second language acquisition theory, and human-computer interaction. Examples are taken from his parser-based CALL system Textana for English-speaking learners of German.

Cowan, Choi, and Kim address four questions relevant to error diagnosis and correction in CALL. The questions relate to the diagnosis of persistent L2 learner grammar errors: whether they can be corrected, what types of feedback from the computer are most efficient for focusing the students' attention on this

433

task, and the assessment of CALL programs designed to correct errors. A large corpus of L2 learner errors is shown to be highly beneficial for identifying persistent L1 transfer errors. By way of example, the application of concordancing programs for this purpose is demonstrated with Korean learners of English.

Granger also discusses the benefits of learner corpora as a new resource for second language acquisition and foreign language teaching specialists. She describes the FRIDA corpus, an error-tagged corpus for French as a second language that is used to extract detailed error statistics and to carry out concordance-based analyses of specific error types. The results were used to focus CALL exercises on learners' attested difficulties and to improve the error diagnosis system integrated into the CALL program which is described by L'haire and Vandeventer Faltin. They present an overview of the research conducted within the FreeText project in order to build an automatic error diagnosis system for learners of French as a foreign language. After a brief review of the main features of the project, the paper focuses on the error diagnosis system itself.

A different error recognition module of an interactive ICALL system is discussed by Reuer who focusses on the underlying grammar theory. He argues that the theory of lexical functional grammar (LFG) is well suited to be used in the parsing and error recognition module of the system as well as to provide intelligent feedback to learners. He asserts that the concepts and structures used in LFG closely resemble the descriptive knowledge of language learners about a language.

Delmonte's systems also rely mainly on LFG. He presents four NLP-based exercise sets where error correction and feedback are produced by means of a rich database. He shows that a parser can be put to use in a variety of pedagogical settings for different languages and for language learners and students of Linguistics alike.

Aspects of another NLP-based system—The German Tutor—are at the center of attention in Heift's contribution to this volume. She discusses the obstacles of multiple learner errors. Motivated by pedagogical and linguistic design decisions, her web-based ICALL system for German ranks student errors by way of a flexible Error Priority Queue: the grammar constraints can be reordered to reflect the desired emphasis of a particular exercise. In addition, a language instructor might choose not to report some errors. Heift presents a study that supports the need for a CALL system that addresses multiple errors by considering language teaching pedagogy.

Tschichold, who takes a more critical look at NLP in CALL, describes the obstacles parser-based error detection faces in its attempts to provide intelligent feedback in CALL. To overcome some of these obstacles, she proposes a shift in focus to lexical items, both simple words and multiword units of various types. Single and multiword lexemes should not only be explicitly taught in CALL, but could also provide the key to more effective feedback on the language production by learners.

434

The final paper of this special issue is by Chen and Tokuda, who discuss a new template-template scheme to simplify and streamline the labor-intensive input of possible answers. They argue that their approach, which employs both traditional pattern matching through answer templates and NLP, solves a bottleneck problem of authoring a finite state automaton-based ICALL system capable of automatically correcting free-format English sentences produced by Japanes learners.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank the authors for their contribution to this edition who made our work interesting. We are also very grateful to the reviewers—L. Borin, J. Burston, T. Chanier, P. Gupta, B. Harriehausen, V. Hegelheimer, G. Holmes, W. Menzel, N. Nagata, A. Ramsay, A. Sanders, and R. Sanders—who made our task an easier one. Last but not least, we thank the CALICO Editorial Board who made this special issue possible.

EDITORS' BIODATA

Trude Heift is an Assistant Professor in the Linguistics Department and the Director of the Language Learning Centre at Simon Fraser University. Her research areas are in CALL, Computational Linguistics, and Applied Linguistics. Her main interests are in ICALL, human-computer interaction, feedback, student modeling, and error analysis. Currently, she is working on learner feedback and exploring different help options in ICALL systems.

Mathias Schulze's research focus is the application of linguistic theory to CALL. He received his Ph.D. in Language Engineering (CALL and German Linguistics) at UMIST in Manchester/England. He has published on language technology in CALL and the acquisition of grammar through CALL. Currently, he is working on the computational implementation of German grammar, computerized adaptive language testing, and the online teaching and learning of German. He is an Assistant Professor of German in the Dpartment of Germanic and Slavic Studies at the University of Waterloo.

Computer-assisted language learning (CALL)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(May 2010)
Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is a form of computer-based learning which carries two important features: individualized learning and bidirectional learning. It is not a method. CALL materials are materials for learning. The focus of CALL is learning, and not teaching. CALL materials are used in teaching to facilitate the language learning process. It is a a form of student-centered learning materials, which promote self-paced accelerated learning. CALL is not a software application, but rather courseware that is designed specifically for language learning for a specific group of learners.
CALL originates from CAI and was invented in 1960s. Computer-Assisted Instruction was first viewed as an aid for teachers. The philosophy of CALL puts a strong emphasis on student-centered lessons that allow the learners to learn on their own using structured and/or unstructured interactive lessons. These lessons carry 2 important features: bidirectional (interactive) learning and individualized learning. It is a tool that helps teachers to facilitate language learning process. CALL can be used to reinforce what has been learned in the classrooms. It can also be used as remedial to help learners with limited language proficiency.
The design of CALL lessons generally takes into consideration principles of language pedagogy, which may be derived from learning theories (behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist) and second language learning such as Krashen's Monitor Theory.
Others may see CALL as an approach to teaching and learning foreign languages whereby the computer and computer-based resources such as the Internet are used to present, reinforce and assess material to be learned. CALL can be made independent of the Internet. It can stand alone for example in a CDROM format. Depending on its design and objectives, it may include a substantial interactive element especially when CALL is integrated in web-based format.It is in the area of industrialization of teaching that is reigning now. The traditional face-to-face teaching which is based on interpersonal communication between the teacher and student is gone. However, the industrialized teaching is able to offer teachers with the opportunity of sourcing from the computer internet rather than being faced with the problem of materials. It may include the search for and the investigation of applications in language teaching and learning. [1] Except for self-study software, CALL is meant to supplement face-to-face language instruction, not replace it.[2]
Computers have been used for language teaching ever since the 1960s. This 40-year period can be divided into three main stages: behaviorist CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and certain pedagogical theories. The reasons for using Computer-assisted Language Learning include: (a) experiential learning, (b) motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) authentic materials for study, (e) greater interaction, (f) individualization, (g) independence from a single source of information, and (h) global understanding. The barriers inhibiting the practice of Computer-assisted Language Learning can be classified in the following common categories: (a) financial barriers, (b) availability of computer hardware and software, (c) technical and theoretical knowledge, and (d) acceptance of the technology

The History of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)

History
CALL’s origins and development trace back to the 1960s (Delcloque 2000). Since the early days CALL has developed into a symbiotic relationship between the development of technology and pedagogy.
He divided the development of CALL into three phases: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL and Integrative CALL (Multimedia and the Internet).[1] Bax (2003) perceived the three phases as Restricted, Open and Integrated - and there have been several other attempts to categorize the history of CALL: see the ICT4LT website (Section 3 of Module 1.4)].
Because repeated exposure to material was considered to be beneficial or even essential, computers were considered ideal for this aspect of learning as the machines did not get bored or impatient with learners and the computer could present material to the student as his/her own pace and even adapt the drills to the level of the student. Hence, CALL programs of this era presented a stimulus to which the learner provided a response. At first, both could be done only through text. The computer would analyze errors and give feedback. More sophisticated programs would react to students’ mistakes by branching to help screens and remedial activities. While such programs and their underlying pedagogy still exist today, to a large part behavioristic approaches to language learning have been rejected and the increasing sophistication of computer technology has lead CALL to other possibilities.
Communicative CALL is based on the communicative approach that became prominent in the late 1970s and 1980’s. In the communicative approach, the focus is on using the language rather than analysis of the language, teaching grammar implicitly. It also allowed for originality and flexibility in student output of language. It also correlates with the arrival of the PC, making computing much widely available resulting in a boom in the development of software for language learning. The first CALL software in this phase still provided skill practice but not in a drill format, for example, paced reading, text reconstruction and language games but computer remained the tutor. In this phase, however, computers provided context for students to use the language, such as asking for directions to a place. It also allowed for programs not designed for language learning, such as Sim City, Sleuth and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? to be used for language learning. However, criticisms of this approach include using the computer in an ad hoc and disconnected manner for more marginal rather than the central aims of language teaching. It usually taught skills such as reading and listening in a compartmentalized way, even if not in a drill fashion.
Integrative/explorative CALL, starting from the 1990s, tries to address these criticisms by integrating the teaching of language skills into tasks or projects to provide direction and coherence. It also coincides with the development of multimedia technology (providing text, graphics, sound and animation) as well as computer-mediated communication. CALL in this period saw a definitive shift of use of computer for drill and tutorial purposes (computer as a finite authoritative base for a specific task) to a medium for extending education beyond the classroom and reorganizing instruction. Multimedia CALL started with interactive laser videodiscs such as “Montevidisco” (Schneider & Bennion 1984) and “A la rencontre de Philippe” (Fuerstenberg 1993), all of which were simulations of situations where the learner played a key role. These programs later were transferred to CD-ROMs, and new RPGs such as Who is Oscar Lake? made their appearance in a range of different languages.
In multimedia programs, listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Students also control the pace and the path of the interaction. Interaction is in the foreground but many CALL programs also provide links to explanations simultaneously. An example of this is Dustin’s simulation of a foreign student’s arrival in the USA. Programs like this led also to what is called explorative CALL.
More recent research in CALL has favored a learner-centered explorative approach, where students are encouraged to try different possible solutions to a problem, for example the use of concordance programs. This approach is also described as data-driven learning (DDL), a term coined by Tim Johns. See Module 2.4 at the ICT4LT site, Using concordance programs in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom.
Current and Past Language Educational Programs

* Rosetta Stone (software) is a family of language software consisting of over 29 languages. They also provide support for the creation of custom software for "orphaned" or "threatened" languages.
* Rocket Languages (software) is a family of softwares consisting of 9 languages, including sign language.

CALL and computational linguistics
CALL and computational linguistics are separate but somewhat interdependent fields of study. The basic goal of computational linguistics is to “teach” computers to generate and comprehend grammatically-acceptable sentences… for purposes of translation and direct communication with computers where the computer understands and generates natural language. Computational linguistics takes the principles of
A very simple example of computers understanding natural language in relation to second language learning is vocabulary drill exercises. The computer prompts the learner with a word on either the L1 or target language and the student responds with the corresponding word.
On a superficial level, the core issue for humans and computers using language is the same; finding the best match between a given speech sound and its corresponding word string, then generating the correct and appropriate response. However, humans and machines process speech in fundamentally different ways. Humans use complex cognitive processes, taking into account variables such as social situations and rules while speech for a computer is simply a series of digital values to generate and parse language.[2] For this reason, those involved in CALL from a computational linguistics perspective tend to be more optimistic about a computer’s ability to do error analysis and other pedagogical tasks than those who come into CALL via language teaching.[3]
The term Human Language Technologies is often used to describe some aspects of computational linguistics, having replaced the former term Language Engineering. There has been an upsurge of work in this area in recent years, especially with regard to machine translation and speech synthesis and speech analysis. The professional associations EUROCALL (Europe) and CALICO (USA) have special interest groups (SIGs), respectively devoted to Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Intelligent CALL (ICALL). See Module 3.5 at the ICT4LT website for further information.
Theoretical basis for CALL instruction design
Computers have become so widespread in schools and homes and their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of language teachers now think about the implications. Technology can bring about changes in the teaching methodologies of foreign language beyond simply automating fill-in-the-gap exercises.[4] The use of the computer in and of itself does not constitute a teaching method, but rather the computer forces pedagogy to develop in new ways that exploit the computer's benefits and that work around its limitations.[1] To exploit the computers’ potential, we need language teaching specialists who can promote a complementary relationship between computer technology and appropriate pedagogic programs.[4]
A number of pedagogical approaches have developed in the computer age, including the communicative and integrative/experimentative approaches outlined above in the History of CALL. Others include constructivism, whole language theory and sociocultural theory although they are not exclusively theories of language learning. With constructivism, students are active participants in a task in which they “construct” new knowledge based on experience in order to incorporate new ideas into their already-established schema of knowledge. Whole language theory postulates that language learning (either native or second language) moves from the whole to the part; rather than building sub-skills like grammar to lead toward higher abilities like reading comprehension, whole language insists the opposite is the way we really learn to use language. Students learn grammar and other sub-skills by making intelligent guesses bases on the input they have experienced. It also promotes that the four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) are interrelated.[5] Sociocultural theory states that learning is a process of becoming part of a desired community and learning that community's rules of behavior.[6]
What most of these approaches have in common is taking the central focus away from the teacher as a conveyor of knowledge to giving students learning experiences that are as realistic as possible, and where they play a central role. Also, these approaches tend to emphasize fluency over accuracy to allow students to take risks in using more student-centered activities, and to cooperate, rather than compete.[4] The computer provides opportunity for students to be less dependent on a teacher and have more freedom to experiment on their own with natural language in natural or semi-natural settings.
Role changing in teachers and students
Teachers
Although the integration of CALL into a foreign language program can lead to great anxiety among language teachers,[7] researchers consistently claim that CALL changes, sometimes radically, the role of the teacher but does not eliminate the need for a teacher altogether. Instead of handing down knowledge to students and being the center of students’ attention, teachers become guides as they construct the activities students are to do and help them as students complete the assigned tasks. In other words, instead of being directly involved in students’ construction of the language, the teacher interacts with students primarily to facilitate difficulties in using the target language (grammar, vocabulary, etc.) that arise when interacting with the computer and/or other people.[4][5]
Elimination of a strong teacher presence has been shown to lead to larger quantity and better quality of communication such as more fluidity, more use of complex sentences and more sharing of students’ personal selves.[5] However, teacher presence is still very important to students when doing CALL activities. Teachers should be familiar enough with the resources to be used to anticipate technical problems and limitations.[4] Students need the reassuring and motivating presence of a teacher in CALL environments. Not only are they needed during the initial learning curve, they are needed to conduct review sessions to reinforce what was learned. Encouraging students to participate and offering praise are deemed important by students. Most students report preferring to do work in a lab with a teacher’s or tutor’s presence rather than completely on their own..[5] The student too are able to enjoy various opportunities which are not enjoyed before invention of computer, there are opportunities for slow learners to still learn what is not clear to him in the school lesson if the computer based system is applied.
Students
Students, too, need to adjust their expectations, of their participation in the class in order to use CALL effectively. Rather than passively absorbing information, learners must negotiate meaning and assimilate new information through interaction and collaboration with someone other than the teacher, be that person a classmate or someone outside of the classroom entirely. Learners must also learn to interpret new information and experiences on their own terms. However, because the use of technology redistributes teachers’ and classmates’ attentions, less-able students can become more active participants in the class because class interaction is not limited to that directed by the teacher.[5] Moreover more shy students can feel free in their own students'-centered environment. This will raise their self-esteem and their knowledge will be improving. If students are performing collaborative project they will do their best to perform it within set time limits.

Use of CALL for the four skills
A number of studies have been done concerning how the use of CALL affects the development of language learners’ four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Most report significant gains in reading and listening and most CALL programs are geared toward these receptive skills because of the current state of computer technology. However, most reading and listening software is based on drills.[4] Gains in writing skills have not been as impressive as computers cannot assess this well.[5]
However, using current CALL technology, even with its current limitations, for the development of speaking abilities has gained much attention. There has been some success in using CALL, in particular computer-mediated communication, to help speaking skills closely linked to “communicative competence” (ability to engage in meaningful conversation in the target language) and provide controlled interactive speaking practice outside the classroom.[8] Using chat has been shown to help students routinize certain often-used expressions to promote the development of automatic structure that help develop speaking skills. This is true even if the chat is purely textual. The use of videoconferencing give not only immediacy when communicating with a real person but also visual cues, such as facial expressions, making such communication more authentic.[5]
However, when it comes to using the computer not as a medium of communication (with other people) but as something to interact with verbally in a direct manner, the current computer technology’s limitations are at their clearest. Right now, there are two fairly successful applications of automatic speech recognition (ASR) (or speech processing technology) where the computer “understands” the spoken words of the learner. The first is pronunciation training. Learners read sentences on the screen and the computer gives feedback as to the accuracy of the utterance, usually in the form of visual sound waves.[8] The second is software where the learner speaks commands for the computer to do. However, speakers in these programs are limited to predetermined texts so that the computer will “understand” them.[4]
Multimedia language centers
During the 1960s, language laboratories with cassette players and headphones were introduced into educational institutions. The use of this kind of center grew rapidly in the late 1960s and 1970s, but then went rapidly out of fashion."[9] Later, “digital language labs” were introduced, still following the traditional language format, such as teacher monitoring. What made them new was that they incorporated new technologies such as video. The term multimedia was originally used to describe sets of learning materials which included a book, audiocassettes and/or videocassettes. However, with the advent of computer-based materials, such packages tend to be called multiple media or mixed media - although there is not absolute consensus on this point. Nowadays multimedia refers to computer-based materials that can perform more varied tasks then the purely-audio mixed-media. Not only can such play pre-recorded audio and video material, it can create new audio and video recordings. It also has the capability of integrating the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as well as giving immediate, if limited, feedback to the student. However, like its predecessors, multimedia centers run the risk of being underutilized due to poor management.[10]
While multimedia computer-based materials can be used directly in the classroom, because of costs, such resources are usually found in a multimedia language center, fulfilling the role of the previous cassette-based and digital language laboratories. However, managing such a center requires knowledge of a wide range of equipment and the increasing expectations of such equipment from administrators, language teachers and students. Administrators often have the mistaken belief that buying hardware by itself will meet the needs of the center (often devoting 90% of a center’s budget to such and ignoring software and training needs) and will cut down on the number of teaching staff needed.[11]
While multimedia offers many opportunities for language learning with the availability of text, images, sound and video as well as interactive activities, the problem is that these opportunities have not been taken advantage of well. Most multimedia computer programs tend to be strong on presentation but weak as far as pedagogy and even interaction. One of the main promises of CALL is the ability to individualize learning, but like with past language laboratories, use of the facilities in many cases have devolved into rows of students all doing the same drills. The only advantage to the multimedia in these cases has been better sound and color images. Most modern language learning theories stress the importance of teacher guidance rather than control, giving students control over what they do, how fast they do it and even the ability to find and correct their own mistakes.[11]
Managing a multimedia language center properly requires not only knowledge of foreign languages and language teaching methodology, it also requires a certain amount of technical know-how and budget management ability as well as the ability to combine all these into creative ways of taking advantage of what the technology can offer. Often a center manager needs assistants for technical problems, for managing resources and even the tutoring of students. Multimedia centers lend themselves to self-study, and potentially self-directed learning, but such is often misunderstood. The simple existence of computers in a laboratory does not automatically lead to students learning independently. Significant investment of time is essential for materials development and creating an atmosphere conducive to such.
Self access language learning centers or independent learning centres have emerged partially independently, and partially in response to these issues. In self-access learning, the focus is on developing learner autonomy through varying degrees of self-directed learning, as opposed to (or as a complement to) classroom learning. In most centres, learners access materials and manage their learning independently, but have access to staff for help. Many self-access centres are heavy users of technology and an increasing number of them are now offering online self-access learning opportunities. Some centres have developed novel ways of supporting language learning outside the context of the language classroom (also called 'language support') by developing software to monitor students' self-directed learning and by offering online support from teachers (cf.[12])
Center managers and support staff need to have new roles defined for them to support students’ efforts at self-directed learning. In fact, a new job description has emerged recently, that of a “language advisor”.[13]

References

1. ^ a b c d e f "Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction". Warschauer Mark. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/warschauer.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-11.
2. ^ Language Learning and Technology. 2. pp. 45–60.
3. ^ "CALL (computer assisted language learning) Guide to Good Practice 3". Davies Graham. http://www.yarasystem.ir/index.html?www.llas.ac.uk&resources&goodpracticeaspx&resourceid=61. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Computer-assisted language learning: Increase of freedom of submission to machines?" (Domingo Noemi). http://www.terra.es/personal/nostat. Retrieved 2007-12-10.
5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Stepp-Greany, Jonita (January 2002). "Students perceptions on language learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium". Language Learning and Technology.
6. ^ Mitchell, R; F. Myles (1998). Second Language Learning Theories. London: Arnold.
7. ^ a b c Thelmadatter, Leigh (July/Sept 2007). "The Computers Are Coming … Are Here!". TESOL Greece Newsletter 95.
8. ^ a b c d e Ehsani, Farzad; Eva Knodt (July 1998). "Speech technology in computer-aided language learning: Strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm". Language Learning and Technology 2 (1): 45–60.
9. ^ "ICT4LT Module 1.1". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
10. ^ "Introduction to multimedia CALL". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
11. ^ a b "Managing a multimedia language centre". http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
12. ^ Reinders, Hayo (July 2007). "Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system". System 35 (1): 93–111. doi:10.1016/j.system.2006.10.009. http://www.innovationinteaching.org.
13. ^ [1]
14. ^ a b Traynor, Patrick (July 2003). "Effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners". Journal of Instructional Psychology.
15. ^ a b Ravichandran, T (2000). Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the perspective of the interactive approach: Advantages and apprehensions.
16. ^ a b Bollin, G.G. (Mar/Apr 2003). "The Realities of Middle School for Mexican Children". The Clearing House 76 (4): 198. doi:10.1080/00098650309602002



from: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technology in the Classroom: Teaching the Process of Editing

Stephen A. Dall
Haverford School
Abstract:
Adapting the use of writing stations to the Latin classroom makes the process of reading and editing an integral part of the process of language instruction and learning. Whether used in the foreign language classroom or the English classroom, the use of writing stations makes the process of editing and rewriting less tedious and less isolated.
KEYWORDS
Editing, Writing Station, Latin, English
INTRODUCTION
Most students are nonreaders. Familiarity with a variety of prose styles is absent, and writing, therefore, becomes an exacting and possibly the most challenging aspect of mastering a language. Consequently, for so many of our high school students who appear to be fluent in English, true mastery is a goal not readily attainable. In addition, the process of analyzing one's own ideas and possibly editing them is equally alien, a seemingly meaningless exercise.
Lewis Lapham (1997), in his book Waiting for the Barbarians, addresses the dilemma of teaching the nonreader
Three years ago at Yale I taught a course of English composition and found only four of twelve students in the class capable of writing a well-arranged paragraph—not because they weren't intelligent but because they never had acquired the habit of reading. Familiar with a vast archive of visual images, they easily could recall scenes and fragments of scenes from Star Wars, Melrose Place, Late Night with David Letterman, Pulp Fiction, Masterpiece
Theatre, and Twin Peaks, but books were grim tasks instead of pleasant diversions: foreign objects, unfamiliar and vaguely ominous, meant to be studied as if they were cancer cells multiplying under the lens of a microscope or a jigsaw puzzle constructed from the bones of triceratops.
While teaching Latin, English, Spanish and German, I have come to realize that comments on papers appear to go unread, and rewrites often reflect the original mistakes. Even in the course of an individual conference, there is no immediate, demonstrable way of measuring the student's understanding. I therefore decided to apply the concept of the writing station to my Latin classes with the specific goal of teaching students to be better editors and, in the process, potential scholars.
THE PROCEDURE
The procedure is as follows: Before class, I move the computer monitor, which sits on a cart in the room, to the center of the class and connect my laptop. Every student is now able to follow what is being typed on the laptop keyboard. After launching a word processing program and setting the font size to 48 or 72, we are ready to analyze the assigned translations of a number of sentences from Latin to English as well as English to Latin. A volunteer sits at the keyboard and is the one who calls on other students to give their version of the translation in question. Answers are typed exactly as they are encoded, and the student in charge is then given the responsibility of analyzing the sentence as it appears on the monitor.
After the student in charge has had this initial opportunity for analysis, the process of editing is opened up to the rest of the class. It is important to mention that in this collective editing process no one is allowed to prompt. While the ideas are being edited, the class follows each emendation until the answer is proofed and a consensus reached. The oral/aural component, the message of "how does it sound to you," underscores the importance of verbalizing, instead of just seeing the written word, to communicate with precision.
This procedure helps the class reach the following objectives:
1. to maintain a demonstrable focus, both individual and collective, on the importance of editing;
2. to reinforce the efficiency of editing by means of emphasizing hands-on learning; and
3. to reinforce the verbal and aural components of editing by the visual.
CONCLUSION
English teachers with 120 or more students spend a great deal of time reading original essays of varying lengths as well as an indeterminate number of rewrites. Writing stations were created to facilitate rewrites, but, for students, the process of editing is often isolated and tedious. By bringing the technology of the writing station and the editing process to the classroom, the English teacher can use student essays on disks to illustrate points of grammar and to facilitate learning. The students in the class are asked to read first the preselected paragraph followed by the teacher's comments (all on monitor). They are then directed to offer suggestions, which are typed by the class leader. Again, the process of editing becomes less isolated, less tedious, and more of an integral part of communication.
In short, incorporating the concept of a writing station into the language classroom demonstrates that editing is not just a solitary struggle. Within the context of a "collective awareness," the individual writer may realize the presence of an audience beyond that of a teacher with a red pen.
REFERENCE
Lapham, L. (1997). Waiting for the Barbarians. London: Verso.
AUTHOR'S BIODATA
Stephen A. Dall graduated from Princeton in 1965 with a BA degree, majoring in Classics, and received his MA in Classics from Villanova in 1976. For the past 32 years, he has been teaching Latin as well as Spanish and German at the Haverford School in Haverford, PA (haverford.org). In 1994-95, he taught Latin and English at the Otto Hahn Gymnasium in Göttingen, Germany on a Fulbright program. He is also an Advanced Placement Latin reader.
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
Stephen A. Dall
The Haverford School
450 Lancaster Ave.
Haverford, PA 19041
Phone: 610/642-3020, ext. 408
E-mail: magisterdall@aol.com

Web-based Foreign Language Reading: Affective and Productive Outcomes*

Kerstin Lück
University of California, Davis
Abstract:
This study aimed to investigate whether pedagogically guided web-based reading can improve skimming and scanning significantly (i.e., increased productive outcomes) and whether it can enhance student participation and motivation (i.e., increased affective outcomes). Forty-six students enrolled in two German 3 classes at the high school level were selected. The participants read texts about German culture and politics. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicated that the students in the treatment group (Group A) increased their skimming and scanning performance significantly compared to the students in the control group (Group B). Furthermore, the students in Group A were able to foster their reading skills in such a way that they were able to use it with linear materials as well. Besides skimming and scanning, the students also increased their participation and motivation. Although the participants in Group B made some progress in the following research period, their achievement remained significantly lower than that of the participants in the treatment group. These findings not only make clear that pedagogically guided web-based instruction has a positive impact on foreign language reading skills, participation, and motivation, but they also support the argument that a variety of methods and approaches should be used and that traditional approaches alone should not dominate in foreign language instruction.
KEYWORDS
German, Web-based Reading, Skimming and Scanning, Student Participation and Motivation
INTRODUCTION
Most L2 expert educators and researchers agree that computer-assisted language learning (CALL) can enhance the acquisition of foreign language skills. The use of the web for pedagogically guided authentic foreign language reading is especially widely accepted (Levine, Ferenz, & Reves, 2000; Brandl, 2002). Khan (1997), Hancock (1999), and Gambrell (2005) argue that the web is revolutionizing the acquisition of L2 by giving learners access to an unlimited database of authentic materials. Current documents, papers, virtual books, and even new discoveries from around the world can be accessed. All this corresponds well to the ideal of a foreign language student as researcher and self-directed learner (Lemke, 1998; Calderon-Young, 1999; Kramsch, A'Ness, & Lam, 2000; Bussière, 2004).
In order to take advantage of these sources of authentic materials, databases, and ideas from the foreign culture, students have to use effective reading strategies, such as skimming and scanning, to comprehend L2 texts, or, as Kramsch (1993) points out, everyday texts of information require readers to adopt the communicative reading strategies of native speakers: Skim and scan for desired information, capitalize on the natural redundancy of a text and get clues from its context, recognize authorial intention and act upon it. (pp. 177-178)
However, educational practice shows that L2 students often approach paper-based linear texts with ineffective reading strategies, despite their theoretical knowledge about valuable techniques such as skimming and scanning. On the other hand, the nature of nonlinear texts and effective web-based instruction encourages skimming and scanning (Nielsen, 2000). Therefore, it is the aim of this study to investigate whether pedagogically guided web-based reading can improve skimming and scanning significantly and whether it can enhance student participation and motivation.
Web-based Reading
Hypertext pioneers like Vannevar Bush (1945, 1967) have already predicted that the usage of information technology would soon redefine the nature of text and reading. In an article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1945, Bush prognosticated that electronic text would make it possible to escape the monotonous linear approach of traditional reading. Those electronic texts would allow readers to explore a universe of discourse. Other scholars referred to an electronic hypertext that would interconnect all of the world's literature, so that researchers, teachers, and students could have immediate access to any of the world's stored texts in different languages. These thoughts and ideas are becoming commonplace. In most developed countries, the majority of reading on politics, economy, education, and social life takes place on the computer (Castells 1996, 1998; Castells & Catterall, 2001). Although reading on the computer has not replaced books or readers, it is crucial to point out that the computer has already joined them as a major form of literary activity (Warschauer, 1999; Sutherland-Smith, 2002; Blanchard, McLain, & Bartshe, 2005).
However, educators of information technology still have divergent opinions as to whether reading on the screen should be promoted or rejected (Warschauer, 1999). Scholars such as Davis and Lyman-Hager (1997), Sutherland-Smith (2002), Horning (2002), McNabb, Hassel, and Steiner (2002), and Martin (2003) support web-based reading. They argue that electronic texts incorporate broader and more flexible ways to present and access information. Furthermore, Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson (1995) found that cross-linked hypertext can promote a degree of cognitive flexibility in a field that would otherwise take many years of traditional reading to acquire. In the view of its academic proponents, web-based instruction also facilitates dynamic approaches to reading and fosters critical thinking as well as problem-solving skills (Levine, Ferenz, & Reves, 2002; Horning, 2002; Thompson, Martin, Richards, & Branson, 2003). Students do not just have access to well structured knowledge, but they also encounter content on the web that is ill structured and complex where they have to abstract to higher levels of thinking or may discover multiple ways of evaluating a text. Students further acquire rich semantic networks of information and the ability to structure and restructure new and prior knowledge in activities designed to anticipate the demands of variable and changing situations encountered in the online environment.
Other experts, for instance Talbott (1995) and Campbell (1998), see web-based reading as a major disadvantage in language education, with readers surfing through appealing but often irrelevant materials, never pausing long enough to study specific topics intensively. Campbell (1998) argues that web-based reading might encourage 'hyperthinking.' Whereas rational thinkers approach texts in a logical and systematic way, hyperactive thinkers are only "devoted to stimuli that are novel and eye-catching rather than thought-provoking" (p. 24); they have poor productive and receptive communication skills, a lack of metacognitive abilities and they are unable to handle multiple sources of information.
Although some ideas brought forth by Campbell are too single sided and to a certain extent even inconsistent, it should be taken into account that some of the arguments concerning the use of web-based reading in the classroom as an alternative to traditional instruction are similar to those discussed by other experts. Birkerts (1994), for example, argues that the web could destroy a learner's ability for deep, reflective reading.
There are also some other problems associated with reading activities on the web. One of the major points of criticism of the use of the web for reading and research purposes lies in the fact that some of the materials on the web are superficial or unreliable (Cerf, 2003; Ricketts & Zakrzewski, 2005). Therefore, Cerf argues that "[w]e truly must think about what we see and hear. We must evaluate and select. We must choose our guides" (p. 7). Spiro et al. (1995) also point out that it is crucial not "to connect everything with everything else" (p. 96) and we have to provide guidance to the students (see also Burke, 2000; Sutherland-Smith, 2002; Forbes, 2004; Krymes, 2005).
Web-based reading differs substantially from traditional classroom instruction. In the traditional classroom, teacher activities often exceed student participation. The teacher largely determines the use of the class time and typically focuses almost all student attention on the textbook (Relan & Gilliani, 1997; Brandl, 2002). In contrast, activities on the web can require a tremendous amount of student activity, and the teacher often just guides students in their efforts, offers feedback to them, and helps them to find solutions. Group projects in which students work in research teams are encouraged. Thus, web-based reading encourages collaboration and serves as a platform for the expression and contribution of cognitive meanings and understandings (Trollope, 1995; Osuna & Meskill, 1998; Kramsch et al., 2000). Thus, the web promotes student-centered interaction. Finnemann (1996) and Brandl (2002) refer to this student-centered nature of the web but also discuss its teacher-centered use in the L2 classroom. Students can appreciate the open-ended system inherent in the web, its virtual cultures, and its nondiscriminatory environment (Finnemann, 1996; Khan, 1997; Owston, 1997; Owston & Wideman, 2001). In addition, instructors can take advantage of the vast library of available materials and information on the web for use for the L2 classroom (Finnemann, 1996; Brandl, 2002). How to take advantage of those materials and how to integrate them into teaching is well explained in Warschauer�s (1997a) guidelines for web-based learning activities. The goals of web-based reading activities should be carefully considered, and online reading activities should be integrated into the course rather than adding them on top of other classroom activities in a disconnected fashion. Furthermore, instructors should not underestimate the complexity of web-based reading and should provide necessary support (Warschauer, 1997a).
Skimming and Scanning
Skimming involves searching for main ideas in the foreign language by reading, for example, the first and last paragraphs and noting summaries, conclusions, and suggestions by the author. It is important to teach beginning L2 students this reading technique because otherwise they react by shifting their reading speeds to a very low level, processing material word by word. To master a text in a foreign language, students must thoroughly understand the major ideas and concepts presented.
Scanning is a very effective technique to locate specific information in a text.
Scanning involves running 'one's eyes down the page,' looking for important facts or key aspects. Scanning can also be an aid in locating new terms introduced in a text on a webpage. Unless the students understand new vocabulary and structures, it is impossible to follow the author's reasoning.
Some scholars such as Nielsen (2000) and Morkes (1997) argue that skimming and scanning are most natural to the web, and webpages are often designed accordingly. However, it can be also argued that this is not always the case because skimming and scanning has more to do with the genre of a text and with the reading tasks and aims than the medium in which the text is presented. There is little point in skimming and scanning Goethe's Faust, even if it is placed on the web. However, when it is a question of specific texts on culture, politics, or economic affairs, which are usually packed with many facts and also unimportant details, the use of skimming and scanning becomes crucial.
Nevertheless, Nielsen's (2000) findings shed some light on the issue of the naturalness of skimming and scanning on the web. First, it should be noted that we rarely find dramas and entire novels on the web, but the web does contain a lot of information on German culture, politics, and so forth. Thus, there is a much better selection on the web than in the textbooks or other books available for use in the classroom when it comes to materials that lend themselves to the development of scanning and skimming skills. Second, it is easier to find materials related to a given topic on the web (e.g., by means of links or search engines), allowing users to read a webpage written in a simpler version of the target language before working on a more challenging webpage. Third, a lot of young people spend more of their leisure time reading materials on the web than reading books. Working on reading techniques in an environment that is similar to that of their leisure time activities can be an advantage. In addition, the availability of authentic materials and choice of texts make learning activities more interesting (Burke, 2001; Blanchard, McLain, & Bartshe, 2005).
The Role of Motivation and Participation
Many researchers argue that there is a need to reexamine the relationship of motivation and web-based reading (Davis & Lyman-Hager, 1997; Kramarski & Feldman, 2000) because most of the previous studies are outdated or they are too general (Song, 2000; Chen & McGrath, 2003). Furthermore, it is also evident that the importance of affective factors with respect to computer-assisted reading has been underestimated in the past (Keller, 1999; Rosalia, 2002). However, web-based foreign language learning involves a variety of psychological, social, and cognitive factors which have a significant impact on student learning and achievement (Warschauer, 1996). Accordingly, there is a need to examine "specific aspects of computer-assisted language learning and student motivation" (Warschauer 1996, p. 29) and their interrelationships. It is one of the goals of this study to extend previous research and investigate the nature of participation and motivation in connection to skimming and scanning through correlational and experimental approaches.
Statement of the Problem
The major research question of whether web-based reading promotes effective strategies such as skimming and scanning has not been previously investigated. In this study, all students read linear (i.e., paper-based) texts in the course textbook and a reader, and the participants in the treatment group also read some web-based texts. In addition, all students received instruction in the use of reading strategies. Even though the students received reading strategy
308
instruction, the majority of them continued to try to translate the linear (paper-based) texts word by word. They often forgot what they had read in the beginning and did not have time to finish even half of the assignment. Therefore, the level of reading comprehension was low, concepts and general meaning were not always understood, and detailed questions were not answered in many cases.
It is the aim of this study to investigate the effect of web-based reading combined with an effective instruction on students' skimming and scanning skills. It is hypothesized that foreign language students who work with linear (paper-based texts) and nonlinear texts (web-based texts) will score significantly higher on measures of skimming and scanning than those who work with linear texts only. It is further hypothesized that there will be significant positive relationships among skimming, scanning, participation, and motivation for beginning foreign language students who work with linear and nonlinear texts and those who work with linear texts only.
1. How do students who work with both linear and nonlinear texts react to the nonlinearity of texts on the web?
2. a) Do students focus more on general meaning or unnecessary details when reading nonlinear or linear texts?
b) Do they use skimming and scanning more often in nonlinear or in linear texts?
c) What is their opinion about the level of difficulty of German materials on the web?
3. What influences does web-based reading have on students' participation and motivation, especially their motivation to read German materials during leisure time?
4. Is there a significant difference in skimming and scanning between the students who work with both linear and nonlinear texts and those who work with linear texts only in the research-in-progress and end-of-research period?
5. Are there correlations between: (a) skimming and participation, (b) skimming and motivation, (c) scanning and participation, and (d) scanning and motivation in students who work with nonlinear and linear texts and those who work with linear texts only at the end-of-research period?
PARTICIPANTS, METHODS, AND PROCEDURES
In connection with the qualitative and quantitative orientation of this semester long project, a variety of research methods was used to collect data. The major focus of these data collections was the observation and study of the participants who read both linear and nonlinear texts (Group A) and those who read linear texts only (Group B) with a focus on skimming and scanning.
The participants in this study were 46 students enrolled in two German 3 classes at the high school level. The students in one class were assigned to Group A, and the students in the other class were assigned to Group B. Prerequisite to this German 3 class was German 2 or an equivalent German language background. All participants had at least basic computer skills, hich were measured prior to this study (see background questionnaire in Appendix A). The participants read German fairy tales and texts about German culture and politics. They had a choice of several texts in these three genres.
The students in Group A worked with nonlinear and linear texts. They used their textbook, Komm mit, and websites such as Logo-Kindernachrichten, Spiegel-Online with the rubrics Politik, Kultur, and Wissenschaft (related to culture, politics, and human relations only) (http://www.spiegel.de), Das Politische System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~europe/polshyp/run.htm), and Regionalpolitikseite der Europäischen Kommission file://localhost/(http/::ec.europa.eu:regional_policy:index_de.htm).
The students in Group B read linear texts only. They used their textbook, Komm mit, and a reader. The students in each group always worked in pairs. Both classes had the same instructor. Finally, all students had a similar achievement level in German, and there were no significant differences between the groups prior to this study.
In the preresearch period, background information was collected on the participants' basic language skills, reading performance, computer experience, and level of motivation via a paper-based questionnaire. The background questionnaire was distributed to all participants who were requested to complete and return it prior to taking part in the research project. In addition, the participants' latest L2 reading achievement in skimming and scanning and their level of motivation and participation during the performance of the reading task were measured and analyzed. The students' reading performance and participation was graded by the teacher and measured in scores from 100 to 0 (i.e., 100 to 90 = A, 89 to 80 = B, etc.). Student motivation was rated by the participants themselves and also measured in scores from 100 to 0 (i.e., 100 to 90 = very high, 89 to 80 = high, etc.).
Data on student reading performance and participation were also obtained through direct observation and classroom recording (all students were recorded during each session), several interviews, questionnaires, and reading tests regarding their ability to skim and scan texts during the research-in-progress and the end-of-research period. The students were recorded (audio and video) while reading linear texts in the textbook or reader. Attention was paid to their reading performance and affective outcomes. All participants worked in pairs and used the "pair-talk-aloud" strategy (one group consisted of three participants). The pair talk-aloud protocol differs from the think-aloud protocol (Krymes, 2005) because "it is derived from a discussion rather than from the subjects being asked to verbalize their thoughts" (Trollope, 1995, p. 15). In addition to the video recording of the reading approaches (i.e., skimming and scanning), a microphone with video sound mixing was used to facilitate simultaneous recording of the participants' talk onto the videotape. Altogether, the recording procedures allowed the researcher to collect substantial amounts of data from the talk-aloud protocols that reflected the students' reactions.
While the students in Group A were engaged in the reading of nonlinear texts on the web, the researcher used video-capturing software to record the texts they were reading. It was therefore possible to observe what the participants had displayed on their computer screens and to take note of their reaction to the texts in a hypertext environment. The videotaped pairs of participants were asked to use the "pair-talk-aloud" strategy to describe what they were doing at the particular moment and what their overall task was.
Student interviews and a questionnaire were used at the end of the project to collect supplementary data. The interview questions and questionnaire items focused on the following aspects:
1. self-evaluation (i.e., level of participation, motivation, skimming, and scanning);
2. students' focus on general meaning of texts or on unnecessary details in the texts; and
3. (Group A only) students' skimming and scanning of German texts on the web versus their approach to linear texts in the textbook/reader, their opinion on the level of difficulty of German texts on the web versus those in the textbook/reader linear texts, their preference for linear or nonlinear texts.
During the research-in-progress and the end-of-research period L2 reading performance was tested again. Participation and motivation data were also analyzed. In addition to introspective data, posttask data were also collected in order to implement additional features. Mertens (2005) argues that posttask retrospection is very important because it serves as a means of further investigating and clarifying crucial findings. The posttask research was completed after finishing the research project (i.e., during the last week of the semester).
DATA ANALYSIS
All interviews, observation notes, talk-aloud protocols, and recordings were transcribed and analyzed through discourse analysis. The questionnaire data were used to supplement the qualitative findings obtained during the classroom observations in all research periods. Qualitative and quantitative data were always evaluated according to the next higher attainment levels. This means that an increase in the use of a particular reading technique reflects not merely progress with respect to previous results but also an increase with respect to higher academic demands set for the research-in-progress and end-of-research periods.
Information from the questionnaire items and interviews (all research periods) was analyzed in a descriptive way. The pretask, research-in-progress, and end-of-research data regarding the participants' achievement were analyzed by Chi-square and Fisher's Exact Test. Both tests were used to compare the achievement levels between the groups in order to explore any differences between Group A and B.
The end-of-research period data concerning the relationship of the variables skimming-motivation, skimming-participation, scanning-motivation, and so on within each research group were computed through correlation and regression analysis.
FINDINGS
Prior to this research study, the participants in both groups tended to focus more on unnecessary details than on the general meaning of given texts. There were no significant differences between these groups (Fisher's two-sided test =.722; see Appendix B). The majority of the students had difficulties in acquiring the overall gist and context of their assignments. However, in the research-in-progress period the students in Group A already started to focus more on the general meaning when reading materials on the web. Classroom observations and tests supported this fact. During the research-in-progress period 15 out of 23 students in Group A were able to comprehend the general meaning of texts compared to 9 out of 23 students in Group B. However, there still was no significant difference between the groups (Chi-square = 3.14, p = .076, Fisher's two-sided test = .139; see Appendix B). However, during the end-of-research period, Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference in the performance between the groups (Chi-square = 5.25, p = .022). Fisher's Exact Test showed that the students in Group A outperformed those in Group B (i.e., left-sided Pr <= F = .996; right-sided Pr >= = F .024 with a Table Probability P = .020).
The semester long observation of Group A revealed that, when reading web-based materials, they tended to focus more on general meaning (skimming) than on unnecessary details and on finding particular information (scanning). Throughout this study the results of this group with regards to skimming and scanning increased to a higher degree than those of the students in Group B. In the end-of-research period there was a significant difference between the groups: Chi-square = 11.82 (p = .037) for skimming and Chi-square = 12.13 (p = .033) for scanning (see Appendix C). Seventeen students in Group A and 9 students in Group B achieved excellent, very good, and good results in skimming. The only students with poor results were those in Group B. With respect to scanning, 19 students in group A achieved excellent, very good, and good results compared to 11 students in group B. Furthermore, 7 students in Group B had scanning scores slightly below average or even very poor results, but no one in Group A had a scanning performance below average.
The positive test results in Group A were also supported by interviews with the participants. When asked about reading materials on the web during the research-in-progress period, 15 students in Group A indicated that they were using skimming and scanning more effectively and to a larger extent. Only 3 students stated that they used skimming and scanning more often in linear texts, and 5 students noted no difference at all (see chart in Appendix D). Expressions coded as "skimming and scanning" included processes such as getting the gist, figuring out the overall meaning, getting the general idea, and finding particular information.
Interviews with participants in Group A lend credence to these findings.
Student 1: I definitely use skimming and scanning more often ... . I also ... mm ... focus more on general meaning than on details and on finding particular information that is relevant to a question.
Student 2: When I ..., for example, ... read something about the Green Party in German, there were always a lot of things I didn't understand but ... I got the gist of it on the web because of statistics and visuals on the internet ... and helpful links ... .
Student 3: I am kind of used to it ... I often skim and scan ... on the internet.
These sample statements show that students indeed skim and scan more often for information in nonlinear texts. Most of the students in Group A also indicated that they always approached web assignments with a higher level of encouragement than other assignments. They found web exercises as an addition to other, more traditional exercises more motivating, and they developed a very open attitude towards German as a foreign language.
It was also interesting to find out that the students in Group A generally preferred to do their skimming tasks first (see transcript extract below). They affirmed that it was very important to them to understand the gist of a text at first and then seek specific details and key phrases by scanning.
Working on their skimming task, 20 out of 23 students in Group A did not focus on single words or phrases only, in contrast to the bottom-up reading strategies used by almost half of the students in Group B. It would seem that those who used bottom-up strategies felt no responsibility for processing a text other than that of extracting word level information from the text, without understanding the context of the text. Group A predominantly used top-down strategies, characterized by recognition, initiation, and comprehension. With regard to scanning, the majority of the students in Group A used top-down and bottom-up strategies in an interactive way. This interactive approach allowed for a broad and differential use of information sources under different circumstances. Furthermore, interactive processing was also compensatory such that when students encountered a failure in the use of one strategy, they used the other strategy to continue processing the text. The extract below illustrates how students followed an interactive approach.

During the end-of-research period, most participants in Group A were able to use their skimming and scanning skills with linear texts as well. Compared to Group B, however, they did not use the dictionary as often and would work with a higher quality and quantity of foreign language and L2 reading skills. They also took advantage of the web glossary and hints on the webpage in order to understand the gist of a text. Although the students engaged in some code switching when they encountered difficult words or phrases, they consistently performed skimming and scanning tasks in German. Within this process, they appreciated the interactive, student-centered, and collaborative approaches that informed their reading (see also Schmar-Dobler, 2003; Leino, Linnakylä, & Malin, 2004).
Group A generally felt more relaxed when reading German materials with a higher level of difficulty on the internet than in a book, as indicated in the following interview excerpt:
Student: Um, ... I really felt more relaxed when reading German texts from the world wide web. When I was looking at the websites, it was like ..."Wow, there are plenty of pages in German," and ... I was never nervous and scared and did not always think: ... "Well, am I going to understand the German materials?" Mm, to some degree I felt like a researcher and this made everything more exciting ... Umm, I have definitely learned a lot, without asking for the meaning of every single word.
The students were very interested in authentic L2 materials on the web, and they were even encouraged enough to do extra readings (see also Trend, 2001). Approaching and understanding L2 reading materials on the web seemed to be easier because they were highly motivated and significantly increased their level of participation. Indeed, the majority of the students in Group A stood in contrast to the number of students in Group B who were motivated to read German materials in their leisure time. After the first 3 months of the study, 19 participants in Group A reported a high or even very high motivation to read German texts at home. This was the case in only 4 participants in Group B. In the latter group, 10 students hardly read anything in the target language and 4 students were not at all motivated to read in German. They declared that they used their textbook at school all the time and that there was no point in going over those texts again at home. The other 4 students who read German materials in their free time used the web as well. There was a significant difference in motivation between the groups (Chi-square = 24.03, p < .0001; see Appendix E).
The participants in Group A stated that the following aspects had a positive impact on their overall motivation and willingness to do even extra work in German:
1. The student as researcher and investigator
The students were always curious to find something out about German culture and politics and were able to conduct research on these topics. The participants also appreciated the opportunity to share their findings afterwards in the classroom.
2. Responsibility and independence while making decisions about the reading topic
The students were able to select what to read from a variety of cultural and political materials. In a textbook this option is often not given.
3. Positive attitude towards modern technology
The interest in new technology, the ease of use of the web and the advantages for foreign language learning through various computer-assisted techniques that do not just concentrate on abstract-logical approaches but also on concrete visual aspects enhanced the students' motivation and willingness to read German materials on the web in their free time.
4. Access to texts in the target language
Authentic German texts were easily accessed. In addition, the participants were able to consult experts in Germany when they had further questions.
5. Multiple resources
While engaged in reading L2 texts, the participants did not have to rely on only the advice and help of the instructor. The students had an unlimited access to online resources, for example, new research and developments in German politics. This enhanced the L2 learning process and general education. It also set wider perspectives in the area of academic reading.
6. Authenticity
Access to contemporary authentic materials engaged the students in reading about topics of interest to them, thus making them even more motivated to engage in other L2 reading projects.
7. Learning beyond a linearly structured educational setting
Because web-based reading extended the boundaries of learning beyond a particular educational setting, the participants were highly motivated to explore German culture and politics on their own through various computer-assisted approaches even outside the classroom.
8. Enhanced feedback
The students received L2 expert educator feedback by contacting the author/coauthors or publishers and asking them for explanations on their articles about culture and politics. This was very easy in the online-environment because texts in journals; for example, Spiegel-Online (http://www.spiegel.de) not only provides information on the author(s) but also invites readers to ask questions and provide feedback. Even though the students in Group B also received feedback from experts, options were often very limited; most of them did not think about contacting authors, or it simply was not possible to reach them because their contact information was not available.
9. Individual interests addressed in specific German texts
In linear texts attention is often focused on certain cultural texts (often traditional and not very current) and German literature. However, many students were also interested in scientific, political, and other texts in German on the web (e.g., research articles). New research articles or reports gave wider perspectives for reading for information in German. This was a tremendous advantage.
The quantitative research results also revealed a direct positive interrelationship among motivation, participation, skimming, and scanning. An increase in the level of one variable was accompanied by an increase in the value of the other variables, and a low value of one variable was accompanied by a low value in the other variables. Correlation coefficients between .846 and .994 for motivation, participation, skimming, and scanning in Group A and between.754 and .995 for these variables in Group B indicated strong positive interrelationships among all the variables. Thus, there was a direct positive relationship between productive and affective outcomes.
The interrelationship between affective and productive variables indicated that the nonlinear environment of the web was not the only factor contributing to an increase in reading skills. Rather it is important to recognize the specific impact of motivation, participation, and age-related factors. Analysis of the data from the background questionnaire, which was given to all participants prior to taking part in this study, revealed that the students used the internet much more for reading purposes than books. The participants spent 24 to 28 hours per week reading texts on the internet in their native language but only 14-16 hours reading books. They enjoyed reading on the web in their native language, and they also argued that it is more exciting to have a wide variety of texts available to them on the web. The participants further referred to the high relevance of selected web-based material and its authenticity. Thus, it was an advantage to use a medium that appealed to the students and, in addition, to allow for different teaching techniques. Indeed, web-based reading was very natural to them and likely had a substantial impact on their level of motivation in the study. Motivation is involved in the performance of all learned processes; that is, a learned skill will not be used unless it is energized. This was the case when it came to reading linear texts in the beginning of the study. As pointed out above, the students knew the reading techniques, but most of them were not able to use them efficiently and appropriately when reading linear texts. However, in the nonlinear environment they showed a higher level of participation and motivation. These affective factors in turn had a positive impact on skimming and scanning results (see Verhoeven & Snow, 2001; Alderman, 2004; Radden & Panther, 2004; Elliott, 2005).
Age-related factors (i.e., students as members of an internet generation) and students' interests also figured into the context of the study. Participants in another age group or with different interests would likely lead to different outcomes. It is possible that a linear approach to reading is more useful in those settings, at least in the beginning. For example, even in the study described here, a few students in Group A stated that they preferred reading exercises in their textbooks. The students learned in different ways and used different modalities to apply reading skills and take in information from texts. In order to meet these needs, the teacher had to use a variety of strategies and methods. The participants had to learn to apply their knowledge in different ways--on the web and in the textbook--because both are of importance in their academic and social life.
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed that pedagogically guided web-based reading instruction had a significant impact on the increase of the participants' L2 reading performance with respect to skimming and scanning.
Qualitative findings indicated that glossaries, links, graphs, charts, search engines, and so on in nonlinear texts supported the students' skimming and scanning skills. Most students focused on general meaning when reading materials on the web and tended to focus on details when reading materials in textbook and reader. Through the acquisition and effective usage of skimming in the nonlinear environment, the students in Group A were also able to make use of these reading skills with linear materials as well.
Features such as access to texts in the target language, authenticity, multiple resources, enhanced feedback, learning beyond a linearly structured educational setting, interdependence and responsibility, working as a researcher, a positive attitude to modern technology, and the wide variety of texts available in fields that reflected students' interests influenced their reading skills in a positive way and also their participation and motivation.
Qualitative results were supported by quantitative results. Group comparisons indicated a significant improvement in skimming and scanning skills by students in Group A (reading both linear and nonlinear texts) compared to those in Group B (reading linear texts only). This finding shows not only that web-based reading has a positive impact on L2 reading skills but also that a variety of different methods and approaches can be profitably used in the L2 classroom and offers significant advantages over traditional approaches alone.
A very important finding is the interrelationships among L2 reading skills, participation, and motivation. The increase of one (e.g., skimming) was accompanied by an increase in another variable (e.g., participation) and vice versa. Skimming, scanning, motivation, and participation can be significantly influenced through appropriate reading techniques. However, when choosing teaching methods and reading materials, the instructor should be also aware of differences among students and their different learning preferences.
RFERENCES
Alderman, K. (2004). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies: The fate of reading in an electronic age. Boston: Faber & Faber.
Blanchard, J., McLain, J., & Bartshe, P. (2005). The web and Reading Instruction. Computers in the Schools, 21 (3-4), 5-14.
Brandl, K. (2002). Integrating internet-based reading materials into the foreign language curriculum: From teacher- to student-centered approaches. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (3), 87-107. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/brandl
Bruce, B. (2003). (Ed.). Literacy in the information age: Inquiries into meaning making with new technologies. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Burke, J. (2000). Caught in the web: Reading the internet. Voices from the Middle, 7 (3), 12-23.
Burke, J. (2001). Illuminating texts: How to teach students to read the world. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bush, V. (1945, July). As we may think. Atlantic Monthly, 176, 101-108.
Bush, V. (1967). Memex revisited. Science is not enough. New York: William Monow.
Bush, M., & Terry, R. (Eds.). (1997). Technology-enhanced language learning. Lincolnwood, IL: National Text Company.
Bussière, P. (2004). The impact of computer use on reading achievement of 15-year-olds: Final report. Gatineau, Québec: Learning Policy Directorate.
Calderon-Young, E. (1999). Technology for teaching foreign languages among community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23 (2), 161-169.
Campbell, R. (1998, January-February). HyperMinds for hyperTimes. The demise of rational, logical thought? Educational Technology, Volume number?, 24-31.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1998). End of millenium. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, M., & Catterall, B. (2001). The making of the network society. London: Institute of Contemporary Arts.
Cerf, V. (2003). The internet under surveillance. Paris: RSF.
Chen, P., & McGrath, D. (2003). Moments of joy: Student engagement and conceptual learning in the design of hypermedia documents. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35 (3), 402-421.
Cobb, T. (2000, February). Is the computer following the language lab into the dustbin of ed tech history? Keynote address given at the Concordia Ed Tech Symposium 2000, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from 123.208.224.131/keynote.htm
Crossman, D. (1997). The evolution of the world wide web as an emerging instructional technological tool. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 19-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication, Inc.
Davis, J., & Lyman-Hager, M. A. (1997). Computers and L2 reading: Student performance, student attitudes. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (1), 58-72.
Elliot, J. (Ed.). (2005). Motivation, engagement and educational performance: International perspectives on the context for learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Finnemann, M. (1996). The world wide web and foreign language teaching. ERIC CCL News Bulletin, 20, 1-7.
Forbes, L. (2004). Using web-based bookmarks in K-8 settings: Linking the internet to instruction. Reading Teacher, 58 (2), 148-153.
Gambrell, L. (2005). Reading literature, reading text, reading the internet: The times they are changing. Reading Teacher, 58 (6), 588-591.
Hancock, J. (Ed.). (1999). Teaching literacy using information technology: A collection of articles from the Australian Literacy Educator's Association. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Herren, D. (1996). Guided reading: A hypermedia shell. Middleburg, VT: Green Mountain Mac.
Horning, A. (2002). Reading the world wide web: Critical literacy for the new century. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 2, 2.
Karchmer, R. (2004). Creating connections: Using the internet to support struggling readers' background knowledge. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20 (3), 331-335.
Keller, J. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1 (1), 7-30.
Khan, B. (1997). Web-based instruction (WBI): What is it and why is it? In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 5-18). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Kramarski, B., & Feldman, Y. (2000). Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37 (3), 49-55.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C., A'Ness, F., & Lam, E. (2000). Authenticity and authorship in computer-mediated acquisition of L2 literacy. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (2), 78-104. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num2/kramsch/default.html
Krymes, A. (2005). Teaching online comprehension strategies using think-alouds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48 (6), 492-500.
Leino, K., Linnakylä, P., & Malin, A. (2004). Finnish students' multiliteracy profiles. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48 (3), 251-270.
Lemke, J. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meaning and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. 288-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levine, A., Ferenz, O., & Reves, T. (2000). EFL academic reading and modern technology: How can we turn our students into independent critical readers? TESL-EJ, 4 (4), 1-9. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej16/a1.html
Martin, L. (2003). Web reading: Linking text and technology. Reading Teacher, 56 (8), 735-737.
Morkes, J., & Nielsen, J. (1997). Concise, SCANNABLE, and objective: How to write for the web. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://www.useit.com/papers/webwriting
McNabb, M., Hassel, B., & Steiner, L. (2002). Literacy learning on the net: An exploratory study. Reading Online, 5, 10.
Mertens, D. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nelson, T. (1974, rev. 1987). Computer lib/dream machines. Redmond, WA: Tempus Books; Microsoft Press.
Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.
Osuna, M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the world wide web to integrate Spanish language and culture: A pilot study. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 66-87. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article4/default.html
Owston, R. (1997). The world wide web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 26 (1), 27-33.
Owston, R., & Wideman, H. (2001). Computer access and student achievement in early school years. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17 (4), 433-444.
Radden, G., & Panther, K.-U. (Eds.). (2004). Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Relan, A., & Gilliani, B. (1995). Web-based information and the traditional classroom: Similarities and differences. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 41-46). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication, Inc.
Ricketts, C., & Zakrzewski, S. (2005). A risk-analysis approach to implementing web-based assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (6), 603-620.
Rosalia, S. (2002). Looking for lizard music: The internet as a reading motivation tool. Voice of Youth Advocates, 25 (3), 169-171.
Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the internet. The link between literacy and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47 (1), 80-85.
Siegle, D. (2004). The merging of literacy and technology in the 21st century. A bonus for gifted education. Gifted Children Today, 27 (2), 32-35.
Song, S. H. (2000). Research issues of motivation in web-based instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1 (3), 225-229.
Spiro, R., & Jehng, J.-C. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education, and multimedia (pp. 163-205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R. (1995). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access for instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 85-107). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. Reading Teacher, 55 (7), 662-669.
Talbott, S. (1995). The future does not compute: Transcending the machines in our midst. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly & Associates.
Thompson, S. D., Martin, L., Richards, L., & Branson, D. (2003). Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a web-based curriculum for students. The Internet and Higher Education, 6 (2), 185-191.
Trend, D. (2001). Reading digital culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Trollope, J. (1995). A comparison of reading strategies in a computerised reading situation and in a non-computerised reading situation. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press.
Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. (Eds.). (2001). Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

The Role of Students� Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning in Online Language Courses

EIKO USHIDA
University of California, San Diego
Abstract:
This study investigated the role of students� motivation and attitudes in second language (L2) study within an online language course context (LOL). Students� attitudes and motivation were examined within a socioeducational framework (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993) while learning contexts were examined based on D�rneyi�s (1994) components of foreign language learning motivation. Students� learning behaviors and learning outcomes were used as predictor and criterion variables in a series of quantitative and qualitative analyses. The results showed that students tended to have relatively high anxiety about the LOL course at the beginning of the semester, perhaps due to their lack of familiarity with the specific LOL learning environment. However, students� motivation and attitudes toward L2 study were relatively positive and stable during the course. The findings provided some evidence that motivated students studied regularly and productively to take every opportunity to perfect their language skills. It was also found that each teacher idiosyncratically implemented the LOL course, thereby creating a unique class culture and affecting students� motivation and attitudes toward studying the L2 in the LOL context. The findings reinforced the importance of students� motivation and attitudes in L2 study and, equally important, the continuing critical role of the teacher in technology-enhanced teaching.
KEYWORDS
Motivation, Attitudes, Online Course, Second Language, Teacher's Role
INTRODUCTION
A student's attitude and motivation has frequently been reported to be the most critical factor for success within computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environments (Brandl, 2002; Desmarais, 2002; Doherty, 2002; Gilbert, 2001; Murday & Ushida, 2002; Warschauer, 1996a, 1996b). Motivation, according to Winne and Marx (1989), is both a condition for, and a result of, effective instruction. Based on these claims, it is plausible to speculate that students' motivation plays an important role in successful CALL implementation and that, if used effectively, the CALL environment can enhance students' motivation to learn a second language (L2). This study investigated the role of motivation and attitudes on student L2 learning in an online L2 course context. It also examined how this new L2 learning environment affected students' attitudes and motivation, and how this, in turn, affected students' L2 learning.
The Department of Modern Languages at Carnegie Mellon University has been delivering “Language Online” courses (LOL), elementary and intermediate levels of online French and Spanish courses, since Spring 2000. The LOL courses attempt to avoid the constraints of time and space associated with traditional instruction, making it possible for students whose time is often occupied with laboratory, project, or studio courses to take basic foreign language courses. Each LOL is a “hybrid” course consisting of in-class components and out-of-class components, which is generally believed to be more effective than exclusively online courses since hybrid courses provide more guidance to students and help them stay focused on their learning, rather than depending fully on students' self-motivation.
The study was based on two popular frameworks for L2 motivation. First, Gardner and MacIntyre's (1993) socioeducational model of second language acquisition was used to examine the relationship between students' motivation, attitudes, and L2 achievement. Second, components of Dörnyei's (1994) L2 learning motivation model was used to identify motivational factors that were related to the immediate LOL L2 learning situations.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Focus on Students' Attitudes and Motivation
The study of motivation has been a prominent area for research in psychology and education for many years (Dörnyei, 2001a). This interest may reflect the widespread perception of classroom teachers who tend to regard student motivation as the most important factor in educational success in general (Dörnyei, 2001b).
The literature on L2 motivation has two main streams. One stream consists of a series of studies based on Gardner's socioeducational model in which the role of integrative motivation—comprised of integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, and motivation—was experimentally investigated as a determinant of L2 attainment. The other stream calls for the implementation of a new “agenda” (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991) for L2 motivation research, proposing a number of alternative models with an attempt to gain a more in-depth understanding of L2 learning motivation within mainstream education. While the former studies investigate causal relationships among possible individual-difference variables with various L2 achievement measures, the latter attempts to identify possible variables that could influence learners' motivations within the immediate L2 learning context. Each of these approaches is reviewed in the following sections.
Gardner's Socioeducational Model of SLA
The role of L2 learning motivation has been intensively studied by social psychologists in Canada, where French and English are the two official languages. Gardner (1985) hypothesized that L2 learners with positive attitudes toward the target culture and people will learn the target language more effectively than those who do not have such positive attitudes. In their earlier studies, Gardner and Lambert (1959) found that aptitude and motivation were the two factors most strongly associated with learners' L2 achievement. Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) drew together the findings from many studies over several decades and developed Gardner's “socioeducational model of SLA” (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Representation of Socioeducational Model of SLA (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993)

Proponents of this model of SLA (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1992, 1993) claim that individual-difference variables (e.g., cognitive variables and affective variables), influenced by antecedent factors (i.e., biological factors such as age and experiential factors such as previous language training experience), interact with both formal and informal language acquisition contexts and influence both linguistic and nonlinguistic outcomes (i.e., students' reactions to the learning experience). Gardner and MacIntyre (1993, p. 9) argue that this model shows the importance of what takes place in the learning contexts: “Teachers, instructional aids, curricula, and the like clearly have an effect on what is learned and how students react to the experience.” The model also predicts that students' degree of success (i.e., linguistic outcomes) affects their feelings (i.e., nonlinguistic outcomes) and that both types of outcomes will have an influence on individual-difference variables including language attitudes and motivation.
Motivation in this model is defined as the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to learn the language and the satisfaction experienced in this activity. A “motivated learner” is, therefore, defined as one who is: (a) eager to learn the language, (b) willing to expend effort on the learning activity, and (c) willing to sustain the learning activity (Gardner, 1985, p. 10). Motivation plays a significant role in this model in three ways. First, it mediates any relation between language attitudes and language achievement. Second, it has a causal relationship with language anxiety. Third, it has a direct role in the informal learning context, showing the voluntary nature of the motivated learners' participation in informal L2 learning contexts.
In his current model, Gardner (2000) focuses on motivation and language aptitude as the two most influential determinants of language achievement and shows how integrative motivation affects language achievement (see Figure 2). Moreover, this model predicts that the L2 learning situation could affect learners' attitudes and motivation.
Figure 2
The Role of Aptitude and Motivation in L2 Learning (Gardner, 2000)

Research Supporting Gardner's Model
Gardner's studies of motivation focus on investigating the cause of L2 achievement. Gardner and Smythe (1981) developed a self-report questionnaire called the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) as a tool to measure five attributes associated with L2 learning, four of which are assessed by subtests in the questionnaire:
1. Integrativeness (subtests: Attitudes toward French Canadians, Integrative Orientation, Interest in Foreign Languages),
2. Attitudes Toward the Learning Situation (subtests: Evaluation of the French Teacher, Evaluation of the French Course),
3. Motivation (subtests: Motivational Intensity, Desire to Learn French, Attitudes toward Learning French),
4. Language Anxiety (subtests: French Class Anxiety, French Use Anxiety), and
5. Instrumental orientation (no subtests).
Gardner's studies use the AMTB to measure individual-difference variables. The causal relationship among the variables in collected data are investigated using quantitative analyses such as Factor Analysis or structural equation modeling (Gardner, 2000).
Many studies have subsequently made use of various versions of the AMTB to conduct research into the role of motivation in SLA within Gardner's socioeducational framework in L2 learning contexts outside of Canada. Due to differences in their measurement tools, methods of analysis, and sociocultural contexts, the reported results have varied widely. The following factors have been identified as contributors to L2 proficiency: language aptitude (Gordon, 1980; Lett & O'Mara, 1990); motivation and attitudes (Lett & O'Mara, 1990); self-confidence (Clément, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977, 1980; Clément, Major, Gardner, & Smythe, 1977; Laine, 1977); attitudes toward the language course and classroom anxiety (Muchnick & Wolfe, 1982); and attitudes, motivation and language anxiety (Sison, 1991). However, integrative attitudes were not a significant contributor to motivation among Jewish students who study Arabic or French as a foreign language (FL) in Israel (Kraemer, 1990). Wudthayagorn (2000) adapted the motivation model from Tremblay and Gardner (1995) in the context of a Japanese Foreign Language in Elementary School (FLES) program. She found that their model needed to be modified.
Studies of motivation and attitudes have also shown the connection of the factors listed above to persistence in language study (Bartley, 1970; Clément, Smythe, & Gardner, 1978; Ramage, 1990) and also to learners' behavior in the language classroom (Gliksman, Gardner, & Smythe, 1982). Based on these empirical reports, Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) argue for the importance of the sociocultural context in studies of motivation. As Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) mention, it seems reasonable to conclude that motivation plays a primary role in L2 learning, while other attributes such as the context of L2 acquisition play supporting roles on various levels.
New Research Agenda Movement
A provocative article by Crookes and Schmidt (1991) called for a new research agenda involving L2 learning motivation. They criticized Gardner's socioeducational model for not focusing sufficiently on the L2 instructional context (Dörnyei, 2001a) and for being too limited in two ways:
1. Despite the large sample of subjects with whom Gardner and his associates usually work, their research is always based on one-shot questionnaires (i.e., data collected at one point in time) that are then examined in relation to the final achievement measures.
2. Integrativeness is not equally important for L2 achievement in classroom-based `foreign' language instruction outside Canada.
Crookes and Schmidt claim that motivation is more complex and cannot be measured by a one-shot questionnaire because motivation changes due to a number of environmental factors in addition to integrativeness. Dörnyei (2001a, p. 105) claims that a more “educational orientation in L2 motivation research” is needed. The common belief underlying such an educational movement seems to be a focus on motivational sources closely related to the learner's immediate learning situation rather than their overall attitudes toward the target culture (i.e., integrativeness). In contrast to Gardner's (1985, p.169) claim that “the source of the motivating impetus is relatively unimportant provided that motivation is aroused,” these reformists value the importance of identifying motivational factors within the learning situation to find ways to motivate students (Oxford & Shearin, 1994).
Dörnyei (1994) claims that L2 motivation is an eclectic, multifaceted construct; thus, it needs to include different levels to integrate the various components. Adopting Crookes and Schmidt's approach (1991), Dörnyei found it useful to separate L2 motivation into three motivational components (i.e., motives and motivational conditions): (a) language level, (b) learner level, and (c) learning situation level (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Components of Foreign Language Learning Motivation (Dörnyei, 1994)
Language Level
Integrative Motivational Subsystem
Instrumental Motivational Subsystem
Learner Level
Need for Achievement
Self-Confidence
Language Use Anxiety
Perceived L2 Competence
Causal Attributions
Self-efficacy
Learning Situation Level
Course-specific Motivational Components
Interest
Relevance
Expectancy
Satisfaction
Teacher-specific Motivational Components
Affiliative Motive
Authority Type
Direct Socialization of Motivation
Modeling
Task Presentation
Feedback
Group-specific Motivational Components
Goal Orientedness
Norm and Reward System
Group Cohesion
Classroom Goal Structure

Language level focuses on orientations and motives related to various aspects of the L2 such as the target culture and the potential usefulness of L2 proficiency. Learner level concerns affects and cognitions underlying the motivational processes. Learning situation level consists of intrinsic and extrinsic motives, plus motivational conditions concerning three areas: (a) course-specific components, (b) teacher-specific components, and (c) group-specific components. This model can be a useful framework not only for researchers and teachers to identify motivational sources but also to develop motivational strategies.
Research Conducted Under Reformists' Motivation Models
Research supporting the reformists' motivation models requires more in-depth investigation of L2 learning situations to explore possible motivational factors. This line of research, therefore, utilizes more longitudinal qualitative methods, in contrast to Gardner's cross-sectional quantitative research method. For example, in her four-year longitudinal study, Oldfather (1995) found that dominance of teacher-centered approaches and fewer opportunities for self-expression were two major factors influencing students' motivation for literacy learning. Ushioda's (1996, 1997) introspective approach to exploring students' L2 motivation, based on qualitative interview data, found that students' motivation had changed over time due to factors both internal and external to the L2-learning context.
Affective Benefits of CALL
Among the various hypothesized benefits of CALL, its positive effects on students' motivation have been most frequently reported. Chun (1994), Kern (1995) and Warschauer (1996a), for example, have investigated the effect of computer-assisted classroom discussion (CACD), as compared to face-to-face class discussion on university-level L2 students' opportunities to participate in discussion, their motivation and anxiety, turn-taking patterns, and so on. These studies found that CACD motivates student-initiated discussion more than teacher-initiated discussion and increased the number of opportunities for students to produce more output regardless of their individual personality differences. In the same vein, Warschauer (1996b) identified empowerment as one of the factors that motivated students in technology-mediated L2 writing classes. He hypothesized that students' perceptions of the possible benefits of Computer-mediated Communication (CMC), such as a sense of achievement and enhancement of learning opportunities, increased their motivation. Beauvois (1994) and Beauvois and Eledge (1996) reported extremely positive attitudes by intermediate French learners who perceived linguistic benefits, affective benefits, and interpersonal benefits from their experiences using CACD.
In a project reported by Jogan, Heredia, and Aguilera (2001), college students of advanced Spanish in the U.S. and college students of English in Chile exchanged email in both languages to learn about the target culture in the target language. These personalized student-driven dialogues appeared to motivate L2 learners to write about and learn about each other's cultures and, more important, to enjoy the interaction/communication. The use of email may also have lowered students' affective filters, allowing them to write what they wanted to in less restrictive ways than in traditional L2 writing assignments.
Web-based assignments are reported to have positive effects on students' attitudes and motivation to learn about the target language and culture (e.g., Lafford & Lafford, 1997; Lee, 1997, 1998; Osuna & Meskill, 1998). Gruber-Miller and Benton (2001) also report on the MOO environment called “Vroma,” a virtual Rome experience for learning Latin, as being successful in creating a program for students to be immersed in Latin language and culture simultaneously. Their students reported that they found the program to be a satisfying, useful, and motivating resource for learning Latin language and culture.
Van Aacken (1999) investigated the role of motivation and attitudes on learning kanji using a CALL program with six college-level learners of Japanese. Her results indicated that (a) the contents of CALL may have affected students' motivation and (b) students' positive attitude toward the CALL program was one of the most influential factors in their mastering kanji effectively. Despite the small sample, Van Aacken's study supports the argument for the importance of students' positive perception on the effectiveness of CALL.
Some L2 teachers have attempted to use various CALL activities to create technology-enhanced language learning (TELL) environments. Adair-Hauck, Willingham-McLain, and Youngs (1999) showed the effectiveness of a TELL learning environment for lowering students' anxiety level so that students could enjoy learning in a more relaxed atmosphere without the pressure of a classroom and peers. The authors argued that the results indicated that the TELL components motivated the students in the treatment group to learn actively on their own and enhanced their collaboration outside the classroom. The authors speculated that this is one of the possible reasons that the TELL group produced better quality writing assignments (i.e., longer and more complex writing) than the control group.
The Importance of Teachers
Teacher-specific motivational components emerged as crucial factors when students evaluated the learning situation in LOL courses, as is often stressed in CALL literature for the effective use of the technology (e.g., Belz, 2003; Glisan, Dudt, & Howe, 1998; Hertz, 1987; Jones, 1986).
The results of the statistical analyses and students' course evaluations suggest that EF students had a less positive language-learning experience than students in the other LOL courses and that the teacher variable may have been the main source of this difference. In fact, the students reported in the course evaluations that the teacher was the center of their satisfaction in the LOL courses (Ushida, 2003). This result is similar to that of Wudthayagorn (2000) who found a positive correlation among students' attitudes toward the teacher, classes, learning, and behavioral attitudes among young learners of Japanese. These results suggest that if students like the teacher, they enjoy the class, are satisfied with their learning experiences, and have positive behavioral attitudes toward the study of the target language regardless of the instructional format (i.e., traditional face-to-face, online, or hybrid).
These results indicate that teachers can be influential in affecting students' motivation and attitudes and in creating a learning community in which students can study a language with less anxiety. Teachers seemed to play the most important role in shaping the culture of the LOL class. It was the teachers who decided how to use or implement the course materials for the class. They had to make a variety of decisions during the course, affecting how and what they did during their once-a-week class and their 20-minute individual meetings, and how they instructed or guided students and LAs to do the required activities. Naturally, teachers' instructions influenced how students studied for this course and how students worked with their classmates and LAs. All of these elements created a culture for each class, and consequently influenced students' attitudes and motivation.
The biggest inherent disadvantage of online courses is reported to be reduced interaction between teachers and students (Trotter, 2002). Thus, the importance of human interaction has been repeatedly emphasized for successful online course delivery regardless of the subject (Gilbert, 2001; Hiss, 2000; Lewis, 2000; White, 2000). Unlike traditional classes where teachers use various teaching strategies to engage their students in learning the subject matter interactively and effectively, online course structures seem to limit the use of such teaching strategies. The results of this study suggest that successful LOL teachers used various teaching strategies to maintain good interaction with students without fully relying on students' self-motivation and responsibility (Ushida, 2003). Teachers' accounts implied that the process of teaching LOL courses was still new, therefore difficult, but that it could also be challenging and profound.
CONCLUSION
This study empirically investigated the role of students' motivation and attitudes on the study of French or Spanish in LOL courses based on two commonly used frameworks for L2 motivation: those of Gardner and MacIntyre (1993) and Dörnyei (1994). Both frameworks were found helpful to interpret the results of the study.
Procrastination has been frequently reported as one of the critical problems for online students (e.g., Gilbert, 2001; Murday & Ushida, 2002). Courses like LOL may make regular study difficult for students who cannot wisely direct their own learning processes. To put it another way, the LOL courses can offer flexibility in terms of pace of learning and how to learn; yet, at the same time, not all students can take advantage of such a learning environment and may find it difficult to manage their own learning. It seems that there is a sort of dynamic tension between the learning materials that students have to work with and how they approach them, which course developers and/or teachers cannot predict.
Motivated students can take advantage of the LOL instruction, and effective LOL instruction can motivate students. Indeed, “good instruction is good instruction, regardless of the delivery system” (Bush, 1997, p. 302). More research is needed to better understand the ways in which technology-based language courses can be most effectively implemented. Additional study of motivation and motivational factors would seem to be clearly warranted to help establish effective online CALL.
NOTES
1 Both questionnaires were developed for the Language Online assessment project (see Chenoweth & Murday, 2003). The GBQ was adapted from an original questionnaire that G. R. Tucker developed with his students in the course called “Social and Cognitive Aspects of Bilingualism” a number of years ago.
REFERENCES
Adair-Hauck, B., Willingham-McLain, L., & Youngs, B. E. (1999). Evaluating the integration of technology and second language learning. CALICO Journal, 17 (2), 269-306.
Bartley, D. E. (1970). The importance of the attitude factor in language dropout: A preliminary investigation of group and sex differences. Foreign Language Annals, 3 (3), 383-393.
Beauvois, M. H. (1994). E-talk: Attitudes and motivation in computer-assisted classroom discussion. Computer and the Humanities, 28, 177-190.
Beauvois, M. H., & Eledge, J. (1996). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (CMC) in the language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2/3), 27-46.
Belz, J. A. (2003). Linguistic perspectives on the development of intercultural competence in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 68-99. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/belz/default.html
Brandl, K. (2002, March). Students' attitudes and perceptions of learning: A comparative study of a classroom-based and web-based language course. Taking language instruction online: Progress or demise? Paper presented at CALICO 2002, Davis, CA.
Bush, M. (1997). Implementing technology for language learning. In M. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning. (pp. 287-349). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Chenoweth, N. A., Jones, C., Murday, K. & Ushida, E. (2003, May). Language online: Research conclusions and lessons learned. Paper presented at CALICO 2003, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Murday, K. (2003). Measuring student learning in an online French course. CALICO Journal, 20 (2), 285-314.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A study of francophones learning English. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9, 123-133.
Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual factors in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 12, 293-302.
Clément, R., Major, L. J., Gardner, R. C. & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Attitudes and motivation in second language acquisition: An investigation of Ontario francophones. Working papers on Bilingualism, 12, 1-20.
Clément, R., Smythe, P. C. & Gardner, R. C. (1978). Persistence in second language study: Motivational considerations. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 688-694.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41 (4), 469-512.
Desmarais, L. (2002, March). Monitoring distance training. Paper presented at CALICO 2002, Davis, CA.
Doherty, K. M. (2002). Students speak out. Education Week, 11 (35), 19-23.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the language foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284.
70
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation and second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 1-24.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13 (4), 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1992). A student's contribution to second language learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211-220.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student's contribution to second language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.
Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1981). On the development of the attitude/motivation test battery. Canadian Modern Language Review, 37, 510-525.
Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A-M. (1997). Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81 (3), 344-362.
Gilbert, S. D. (2001). How to be a successful online student. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gliksman, L., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1982). The role of the integrative motive on students' participation in the French classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 38, 625-647.
Glisan, E. W., Dudt, K. P., & Howe, M. S. (1998). Teaching Spanish through distance education: Implications of a pilot study. Foreign Language Annals, 31 (1), 48-66.
Gordon, M. E. (1980). Attitudes and motivation in second language achievement: A study of primary school students learning English in Belize, Central America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gressard, C. P., & Lloyd, B. H. (1986). Validation studies of a new computer attitude scale. Association for Educational Data Systems Journal, 18, 295-301.
Gruber-Miller, J., & Benton, C. (2001). How do you say “MOO” in Latin? Assessing student learning and motivation in beginning Latin. CALICO Journal, 18 (2), 305-338.
Hertz, R. M. (1987). Computers in the language classroom. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Hiss, A. ( 2000). Talking the talk: Humor and other forms of online communication. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide (pp. 24-36). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hotho, S. (2000). “Same” or “different”? A comparative examination of classroom factors in second language settings. Foreign Language Annals, 33 (3), 320-329.
Jogan, M. K., Heredia, A. H., & Aguilera, G. M. (2001). Cross-cultural e-mail: Providing cultural input for the advanced foreign language student. Foreign Language Annals, 34 (4), 341-346.
Jones, C. (1986). It's not so much the program, more what you do with it: The importance of methodology in CALL, System, 14 (2), 171-178.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computer: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.
Kraemer, R. (1990). Social psychological factors related to the study of Arabic among Israeli Jewish high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning language and culture with internet technologies. In M. Bush (Ed.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 215-262). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Laine, E. (1977). Foreign language learning motivation in Finland 1. Turku: Turku University Press.
Lee, L. (1997). Using internet tools as an enhancement of C2 teaching and learning. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (3), 410-427.
Lee, L. (1998). Going beyond classroom learning: Acquiring cultural knowledge via on-line newspapers and intercultural exchanges via on-line chatrooms. CALICO Journal, 16 (2), 101-118.
Lett, J., & O'Mara, F. E. (1990). Predictors of success in an intensive language learning context: Correlates of language learning at the defense language institute foreign language center. In T. S. Parry & C. W. Stansfield (Eds.), Language aptitude reconsidered (pp. 222-260). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Lewis, C. (2000). Taming the lions and tigers and bears: The WRITE WAY to communicate online. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide (pp. 13-23). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Muchnick, A. G., & Wolfe, D. E. (1982). Attitudes and motivations of American students of Spanish. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 38, 262-281.
Murday, K, & Ushida, E. (2002, March). Student experiences in the language online project. Paper presented at CALICO 2002, Davis, CA.
Oldfather, P. (1995). Commentary: What's needed to maintain and extend motivation for literacy in the middle grades. Journal of Reading, 38 (6), 420-422.
Osuna, M. M., & Meskill, C. (1998). Using the world wide web to integrate Spanish language and culture: A pilot study. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 71-92. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article4/default.html
Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (1), 12-28.
Padilla, A., & Sung, H. (1999). The Stanford foreign language oral skills evaluation matrix (FLOSEM): A rating scale for assessing communicative proficiency. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
Ramage, K. (1990). Motivational factors and persistence in foreign language study. Language Learning, 40 (2), 189-219.
Sison, M. P. A. (1991). The relationship of college student attitudes, motivation, and anxiety to second language achievement: A test of Gardner's model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Taylor, C., Jamieson, J., Eignor, D., & Kirsch, I. (1998). The relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based TOEFL test tasks. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79 (4), 505-520.
Trotter, A. (2002). E-learning goes to school. Education Week, 11 (35), 16-18.
Ushida, E. (2003). The role of students' attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh.
Ushida, E. (2002, December). How to be a successful online language student: Assessing language learning strategies from learner's perspectives. Paper presented at 13th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Singapore.
Ushida, E., & Igarashi, K. (2001, March). Learner's perspective on on-line language courses: A case study. Paper presented at CALICO 2001, Orlando, FL.
Ushioda, E. (1996). Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In T. Hickey & J. Williams (Eds.), Language, education & society in a changing world (pp. 239-245). Dublin: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (1997). The role of motivational thinking in autonomous language learning. In D. Little & B. Voss (Eds.), Language centres: Planning for the new millennium. (pp. 38-50). Plymouth, UK: Cercles.
Van Aacken, S. (1999). What motivates L2 learners in acquisition of kanji using CALL: A case study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (2), 113-136.
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2/3), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i symposium (Technical Report No. 12 pp. 29-46). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
White, K. (2000). Face to face in the online classroom: Keeping it interpersonal and human. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide (pp. 1-12). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Winne, P. H., & Marx, R. W. (1989). A cognitive-processing analysis of motivation within classroom tasks. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3. Goals and cognitions (pp. 223-257). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Wudthayagorn, J. (2000). Attitude and motivation of elementary school students in a Japanese FLES program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.