PL EN


2018 | 18 | 3 | 69-85
Article title

NONLINEAR DYNAMIC MOTIVATION-ORIENTED TELECOLLABORATIVE MODEL OF LANGUAGE LEARNING VIA FORMULAIC SEQUENCES TO FOSTER LEARNER AUTONOMY

Authors
Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Exploring the ways to develop a comprehensive learner-friendly telecollaborative model of learning led to the introduction of nonlinear dynamic motivation-oriented model. To foster self-regulated learner autonomy, the model aims at recruiting the potential behind formulaic sequences for L2 comprehension-production in response to immediate processing demands as well as nonlinearity and dynamicity of motivational factors at individual level. Drawing on different theories and findings (e.g. complex dynamic systems, input processing model, motivational task processing model, etc.), the model presents a dynamic conceptualization of language learning to develop language skills in CALL context. To test the model and the validity of the suggested strategies, a mixed methods approach via questionnaire, interview and learner-self report was conducted in a term-long study among 47 EFL learners. The measures of performance taken before and after the intervention indicated improvement and confirmed the effectiveness of NDM-oriented telecollaborative model’s strategies at three levels of sociolinguistic, ethnolinguistic, and psycholinguistic. The interview data reflected participants’ positive attitude towards their perceived improvement over the duration of the intervention. The effectiveness of the model at recruiting formulaic sequences with respect to nonlinearity and dynamicity of motivational factors at individual level is the main implication of the study for CALL pedagogy.
Year
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
69-85
Physical description
Contributors
author
References
  • Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a Sociocognitive Approach to Second Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525-545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00159
  • Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory perspective on student-reported contradictions in international telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 82-103. Retrieved July 21, 2018 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/basharina/
  • Belz, J. A., & Müller-Hartmann, A. (2003). Teachers as intercultural learners: Negotiating German-American telecollaboration along the institutional fault line. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00179
  • Candlin, C. (2000). Introduction. In B. Norton (Ed.), Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity and Educational Change (pp. xiii-xxi). New York: Longman. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2001.10162792
  • Carter, B., & Sealey, A. (2000). Language, structure, and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00100
  • Chen, T.-H., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Review of a psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 27-31.
  • Chiu, L. L., & Liu, G. Z. (2013). Effects of printed, pocket electronic, and online dictionaries on high school students’ English vocabulary retention. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1-16. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0065-1
  • Clifford, R., & Granoien, N. (2008). Application of technology to language acquisition processes: What can work and why. In M. V. Holland & F. P. Fisher (Eds.), The Path of Speech Technologies in Computer Assisted Language Learning: From Research to Practice (pp. 25-43). London: Routledge Language Learning.
  • Dooly, M., & Sadler, R. (2013). Filling in the gaps: Linking theory and practice through telecollaboration in teacher education. ReCALL, 25(1), 4-29. DOI: 10.1017/S0958344012000237
  • Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. New York: Routledge.
  • Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28. http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
  • Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House. Retrieved July 21, 2018 from https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/30148352
  • Ellis, R. (2005). Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fuchs, C. (2016). Are you able to access this website at all? – team negotiations and macro-level challenges in telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(7), 1152-1168. DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2016.1167091
  • Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. doi:10.4324/9780203874783.ch13
  • Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 90-121. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.1.90
  • Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2012). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 1-36.
  • Guth, S., & Helm, F. (eds.) (2010) Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • House, J. (2010). Impoliteness in Germany: Intercultural encounters in everyday and institutional talk. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 561-595. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.026
  • Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172-192. DOI: 10.1598/RRQ.34.2.3
  • Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 133-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005
  • Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2011). The effect of Korean secondary school students’ perceptual learning styles and ideal L2 self on motivated L2 behavior and English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11, 21-42. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.11.1.201103.21
  • Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00071
  • Lam, W. S. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457-482. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587739
  • Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p165
  • Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81-97. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/lee.pdf
  • Lewis, T., Chanier, T., & Youngs, B. (2011). Special issue commentary. Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 3-9.Retrieved July 20, 2018 from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2011/commentary.pdf
  • Liaw, M-L. (2006). E-learning and the development of intercultural competence. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 49-64. Retrieved July 20, 2018 from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/liaw/
  • Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ma, G. (2005). The effects of motivation and effort on foreign language achievement. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 28(4), 37-41.
  • McQuillan, J. (1997). Effects of incentives on reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 111-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19388079709558232
  • Mercer, S. (2015). Learner agency and engagement: Believing you can, wanting to, and knowing how to. Humanizing Language Teaching, 17(4). Retrieved July 20, 2018 from www.hltmag.co.uk/aug15/mart01.rtf.
  • Murray, D. (2000). Protean communication: The language of Computer-Mediated Communication. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 397-421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587737
  • Myles, F., & Cordier, C. (2016). Formulaic sequence (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 39(1), 3-28. doi:10.1017/S027226311600036X
  • Nakatani, Y., & Goh, C. (2007). A review of oral communication strategies: Focus on interactionist and psycholinguistic perspectives. In A. Cohen (ed.), Language Learner Strategies: Thirty Years of Research and Practice (pp. 207- 227). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • O'Dowd, R., & Ritter, M. (2006). Understanding and working with "Failed Communication" in telecollaborative exchanges. CALICO Journal, 61(2), 623-642.
  • O’Dowd, R., & Ware, P. (2009). Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(2), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220902778369
  • Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 167+180). New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Oxford, R. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self-Regulation in Context (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12216
  • Pegrum, M. (2009). From Blogs to Bombs: The Future of Digital Technologies in Education. Crawley, WA: UWA Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2012.670026
  • Saito, K. (2015). Experience effects on the development of late second language learners’ oral proficiency. Language Learning, 65, 563-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12120
  • Smith, K., & Craig, H. (2013). Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model in EFL. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 252-278. DOI: 10.11139/cj.30.2.252-278
  • Thorne, S. L. (2010). The intercultural turn and language learning in the crucible of new media. In S. Guth and F. Helm (eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century (pp. 139-65). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Titone, D., Columbus, G., Whitford, V., Mercier, J., & Libben, M. (2015). Contrasting bilingual and monolingual idiom processing. In R. R. Heredia & A. B. Cieślicka (eds.), Bilingual Figurative Language Processing (pp. 171-207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569-613. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622
  • Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 190-205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00274.x
  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
  • Wood, D. (2015). Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury. DOI: 10.6018/ijes/2017/1/280781
  • Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013X
  • Yu, M. (2011). Learning how to read situations and know what is the right thing to say or do in an L2: A study of socio-cultural competence and language transfer. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1127-1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.025
  • Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553-586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-b426824e-ca55-4707-8acf-6cc17eb4448e
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.