Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:59:49.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2016

Natasha Levak  and
Jeong-Bae Son
Natasha Levak
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia (email: natasha.levak@ruzium.com)
Jeong-Bae Son
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, Australia (email: jeong-bae.son@usq.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Learning how to comprehend while listening to a second language is often considered by learners to be a difficult process that can lead to anxiety when trying to communicate (Graham, 2006; Graham & Macaro, 2008). Computer-mediated communication (CMC) can be used to assist in increasing access to native speakers and opportunities to listen. This study investigates the effectiveness of the use of Second Life and Skype as part of facilitation techniques and the affordances of these online tools for developing listening comprehension. Participants in the study were learning either English or Croatian and were located in Sydney and Brisbane in Australia, Split in Croatia, and Mostar in Bosnia and Hercegovina. A mixed-methods approach was utilised incorporating pre-tests and post-tests (quantitative data) to gain information on the effectiveness of the techniques for developing listening comprehension and in-depth interviews (qualitative data) to gain the participants’ views on the perceived effectiveness of the techniques and the affordances of Second Life or Skype. The results of the study indicate that both techniques resulted in positive gains in the development of listening comprehension. Based on the analysis of the interview data, a more in-depth perspective on the affordances of each online tool was developed, which informed the creation of a new facilitation technique utilising both tools. The study demonstrates how online tools can be used to facilitate interaction between learners and illustrates the need for the selection of online tools for language learning to be based on pedagogy. It is recommended that the selection of tools should be carefully considered in alignment with task aims and the affordances of online tools.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communicationsecond language learningvirtual wordsvideo conferencinglistening comprehension
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , May 2017 , pp. 200 - 218
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alenezi, A. M. and Shahi, K. K. (2014) Interactive e-learning through Second Life with Blackboard technology. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 176: 891–897.Google Scholar
Antonacci, D. M. and Modaress, N. (2008) Envisioning the educational possibilities of user created virtual worlds. AACE Journal, 16(2): 115–126.Google Scholar
Bueno Alastuey, M. C. (2011) Perceived benefits and drawbacks of synchronous voice-based computer-mediated communication in the foreign language classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5): 419–432. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.574639 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burbles, N. C. (2006) Rethinking the virtual. In Weiss, J. (eds.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments. Netherlands: Springer, 1–33.Google Scholar
Chang, W.-W. (2009) Schema adjustment in cross-cultural encounters: A study of expatriate aid service workers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33: 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A. (2001) Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, N. (2008) Achieving communication though multi-modal language exchange. CALL-EJ Online, 10(1). http://callej.org/journal/10-1/carney.html.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. and Brown, K. L. (2011) The effects of authentic audience on English as a second language writers: A task-based, computer-mediated approach. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(5): 435–454. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.606224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, I.-J. and Chang, C.-C. (2011) Content presentation modes in mobile language listening tasks: English proficiency as a moderator. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5): 451–470. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2011.577749 Google Scholar
Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2008) New directions in CALL: An objective introduction to Second Life. CALICO Journal, 25(3): 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L. and Hanson, W. E. (2003) Advanced mixed methods research designs. In Tashakkori, A. and Teddies, C. (eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. London: SAGE Publications, 209–240.Google Scholar
Cziko, G. A. (2004) Electronic tandem language learning (eTandem): A third approach to second language learning for the 21st century. CALICO Journal, 22(1): 25–39.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L. and Molka-Danielsen, J. (2009) Designing oral participation in Second Life: A comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21(2): 206–226.Google Scholar
Dieterle, E. and Clarke, J. (2008) Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In Pagani, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Multimedia Technology and Networking. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 1033–1041.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2005) Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2): 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eroz-Tuga, B. and Sadler, R. (2009) Comparing six video chat tools: A critical evaluation by language teachers. Computers & Education, 53: 787–798.Google Scholar
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Haake, J. M. and Mandl, H. (2007) Perspectives on collaboration scripts. In Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Mandl, H. and Haake, J. M. (eds.) (2007) Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives. Berlin: Springer, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flick, U. (2007) Managing quality in qualitative data. Singapore: SAGE.Google Scholar
Flood, J. (2003) Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd edn.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fulcher, G. (2000) The “communicative” legacy in language testing. System, 28: 483–497.Google Scholar
Goh, C. C. M. (2000) A cognitive perspective on language learners’ listening comprehension problem. System, 28: 55–75.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (2006) Listening comprehension: The learners’ perspective. System, 34(2): 165–182.Google Scholar
Graham, S. and Macaro, E. (2008) Strategy instruction in listening for lower-intermediate learners of French. Language Learning, 58: 747–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M. and Youngs, B. L. (2008) Telecollaboration in multimodal environments: The impact on task design and learner interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(2): 87–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedge, T. (2002) Teaching and learning in the language classroom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Helgesen, M. (2003) Listening. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill, 26–35.Google Scholar
Henderson, M., Huang, H., Grant, S. and Henderson, L. (2009) Language acquisition is Second Life: Improving self-efficacy beliefs. Proceedings of ascilite Auckland 2009. http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/auckland09/procs/henderson.pdf.Google Scholar
Hernández-Serrano, M. J., González-Sánchez, M. and Muñoz-Rodríguez, J. (2009) Designing learning environments improving social interactions: Essential variables for a virtual training space. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1: 2411–2415.Google Scholar
Jauregi, K., Canto, S., Graaff, R. D., Koenraad, T. and Moonen, M. (2011) Verbal interaction in Second Life: Towards a pedagogic framework for task design. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(1): 77–101.Google Scholar
Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H. and Kriz, M. (2012) Native/non-native speaker interactions through video-web communication: A clue for enhancing motivation? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, L. and Erben, T. (2007) Intercultural learning via instant messenger interaction. CALICO journal, 24(2): 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. C. (2008) Listening comprehension technology: Building the bridge from analog to digital. CALICO Journal, 23: 400–419.Google Scholar
Jones, L. C. and Plass, J. (2002) Supporting listening comprehension with multimedia andannotations. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4): 546–561.Google Scholar
Karpova, E., Correia, A. and Baran, E. (2009) Learn to use and use to learn: Technology in virtual collaboration experience. Internet and Higher Education, 12: 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, J. and Lingstone, D. (2006) Putting a Second Life ‘Metaverse’ skin on learning management systems. In Livingstone, D. and Kemp, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Second Life Education Workshop: 2006 Second Life Community Convention. San Francisco: Fort Mason Centre, 13–18.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2010) Fluency and anxiety in self-access speaking tasks: The influence of environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4): 361–375.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1995) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Phoenix ELT.Google Scholar
Kuriscak, L. M. and Luke, C. L. (2009) Language learner attitudes toward virtual worlds: An investigation of Second Life. In Lomicka, L. and Lord, G. (eds.), The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, 115–144.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2007) Fostering second language oral communication through constructivist interaction in desktop videoconferencing. Foreign Language Annals, 40(4): 635–649.Google Scholar
Lems., K., Miller, D. and Soro, M. T. M. (2010) Teaching reading to English language learners: Insights from linguistics. New York: Gilford Press.Google Scholar
Liaw, M.-L. and Master, S. B. (2010) Understanding telecollaboration through an analysis of intercultural discourse. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1): 21–40.Google Scholar
Lin, T-J., Wang, S-Y., Grant, S., Chein, C-L. and Lan, Y-J. (2014) Task-based teaching approach of Chinese as a foreign language in Second Life through teachers’ perspectives. Procedia Technology, 13: 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liou, H.-S. (2011) The roles of Second Life in a college computer-assisted language learning (CALL) course in Taiwan, ROC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4): 365–382. doi: 10.1080/095882211.2011.597766 Google Scholar
Moyer, Alene (2006) Language contact and confidence in second language listening comprehension: A pilot study of advanced learners of German. Foreign language annals, 39(2): 255–275.Google Scholar
Nishida, H. (1999) A cognitive approach to intercultural communication based on schema theory. International journal of intercultural relations, 23(5): 753–777.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2002) Listening in language learning. In Richards, J. C. and Renandya, W. A. (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, 238–241.Google Scholar
Nunan, D. (2004) Task-based language learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Omale, N., Hung, W. C., Luetkehans, L. and Cooke-Plagwitz, J. (2009) Learning in 3-D multi-user virtual environments: Exploring the use of unique 3-D attributes for online problem-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3): 480–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, M. and Chamot, A. (1990) Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellas, N. and Kazanidis, I. (2014) Online and hybrid university-level courses with the utilisation of Second Life: Investigating the factors that predict student choice in Second Life supported online and hybrid university-level courses. Computers in Human Behaviour, 40: 31–43.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006) Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1): 79–103.Google Scholar
Richards, L. and Morse, J. M. (2007) Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rost, M. (2002) Teaching and researching listening. London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Sarandi, H. (2010) Content related support and listening comprehension: Some limitations. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2: 5605–5611.Google Scholar
Schroeders, U., Wilhelm, O. and Bucholtz, N. (2010) Reading, listening and viewing comprehension in English as a foreign language: One or more constructs? Intelligence, 38: 562–573.Google Scholar
Schwarts, D., Lin, X. and Holmes, J. (2003) Technologies for learning from intercultural reflections. Intercultural Education, 14(3): 291–306.Google Scholar
Schwienhorst, K. (2002) Why virtual, why environments? Implementing virtual reality concepts in computer-assisted language learning. Simulation & Gaming, 33(2): 196–209.Google Scholar
Son, J.-B. (2011) Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57int/ Google Scholar
Stevens, V. (2006) Second Life in education and language learning. TESL-EJ, 10(3). http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume10/ej39/ej39int/ Google Scholar
Stockwell, G. (2007) A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2): 105–120.Google Scholar
Sykes., J. M. (2005) Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: Effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22: 399–431.Google Scholar
Szedmina, L. and Pinter, R. (2010 Experiences from using Skype in language teaching. Paper presented at the IEEE 8th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics, Subotica, Serbia.Google Scholar
Taillefer, L. and Munroz-Luna, R. (2014) Developing oral skills through Skype: A language project analysis. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Services, 141: 260–264.Google Scholar
Tian, J. and Wang, Y. (2010) Taking language learning outside the classroom: Learners’ perspectives of eTandem learning via Skype. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(3): 181–197.Google Scholar
Turner, P. (2005) Affordance as context. Interacting with Computers, 17(6): 787–800.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (2007) Teaching listening comprehension. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2006) Second language listening: Listening ability or language proficiency? The Modern Language Journal, 90(1): 6–18.Google Scholar
Warburton, S. (2009) Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Education Technology, 40: 414–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warschauer, M. and Grimes, D. (2007) Audience, authorship, and artefact: The emergent semiotics of web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehner, K., Gump, A. W. and Downey, S. (2011) The effects of Second Life on the motivation of undergraduate students learning a foreign language. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3): 277–289.Google Scholar
Yanagawa, K. and Green, A. (2008) To show or not to show: The effects of item stems and answer options on performance on a multiple-choice listening comprehension test. System, 36(1): 107–122.Google Scholar