Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T06:21:41.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing oral proficiency with VoiceThread: Learners’ strategic uses and views

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2016

Vera A. Dugartsyrenova  and
Veronica G. Sardegna
Vera A. Dugartsyrenova
Affiliation:
National Research University Higher School of Economics, Department of Foreign Language Education, Moscow, Russia (delvein2@gmail.com)
Veronica G. Sardegna
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Department of Instruction and Learning, USA (vsardegna@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study explored Russian as a foreign language (RFL) learners’ self-reported strategic uses of VoiceThread (VT)—a multimodal asynchronous computer-mediated communication tool—in order to gain insights into learner perceived effectiveness of VT for second language (L2) oral skills development and to determine the factors that contributed to those perceptions. The participants were eight undergraduate students who attended six weekly tutoring sessions that combined face-to-face (F2F) RFL instruction with VT activities. VT allowed them to access text-based, graphic, video, and aural linguistic input; record and store audio/video-recorded output; listen and comment on peers’ recordings; and receive individualized teacher feedback on oral performance. Data from activity logs and researcher field notes were triangulated with participants’ responses to two surveys and a semi-structured oral interview. Findings indicated that participants believed that VT supported their oral proficiency development through the provision of additional time and resources for independent planning, rehearsal, and controlled production of L2 forms. Most participants also agreed that VT’s playback and record features were the most beneficial for developing language skills, enhancing the reflection process, and facilitating self-assessment and creativity in the L2. Yet, despite VT’s multimodal affordances and the availability of communicative tasks via VT, participants did not perceive VT as a social environment that could promote peer-to-peer interaction or replace F2F communication. A thematic data analysis suggested that participants’ preferences for language learning tasks influenced their strategic uses of VT’s features, which ultimately affected their perceptions of VT’s value for promoting meaningful language learning interactions. Pedagogical considerations are discussed.

Keywords

VoiceThreadRussian learners’ viewslanguage learning and teachingcomputer-mediated communicationoral skills
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 59 - 79
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

Abrams, Z. (2003) The effect of synchronous and asynchronous CMC on oral performance in German. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2): 157–167.Google Scholar
Alameen, G. (2011) Learner digital stories in a Web 2.0 age. TESOL Journal, 2: 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (2012) The ACTFL proficiency guidelines for speaking. http://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012/english/speaking Google Scholar
Archambault, L. and Carlson, D. (2011) Poetry in motion: using VoiceThread to prepare 21st century English teachers. In: Koehler, M. and Mishra, P. (eds.), Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Nashville, Tennessee, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
Barron, A. and Black, E. (2015) Constructing small talk in learner-native speaker voice-based telecollaboration: a focus on topic management and backchanneling. System, 48: 112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, A. (2005) The use of asynchronous discussion: creating a text of talk. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Bonk, C. J. and Cunningham, D. J. (1998) Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational tools. In: Bonk, C. J. and King, K. S. (eds.), Electronic collaborators: learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, & discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Borup, J., Graham, C. and Velasquez, A. (2010) The use of asynchronous video communication to improve instructor immediacy and social presence in an online course. In: Gibson, D. and Dodge, B. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Brunvand, S. and Bird, S. (2011) Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4): 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, L. (2009) Viva VoiceThread: integrating a web 2.0 tool in the additional language classroom. In: Crawford, C., Carlsen, R., Gibson, I., McFerrin, K. and Willis, D. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Chen, J. and Yildiz, M. (2010) Preparing English language learners for academic success in the 21st century: teaching multiple literacies. In: D. Gibson and B. Dodge (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Churcher, K. M. A., Downs, E. and Tewksbury, D. (2014) “Friending” Vygotsky: a social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Coiro, J. and Kajder, S. (2011) Conversation currents: digital footprints. Published interview and podcast. Language Arts, 89(2): 148–153.Google Scholar
Deutschmann, M., Panichi, L. and Molka-Danielsson, J. (2009) Designing oral participation in Second Life: a comparative study of two language proficiency courses. ReCALL, 21: 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eslami, Z., Mirzaei, A. and Dini, S. (2015) The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication in the instruction and development of EFL learners’ pragmatic competence. System, 48: 99–111.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005) E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: the need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1): 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, C., Hauck, M. and Müller-Hartmann, A. (2012) Promoting learner autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional exchanges. Language Learning & Technology, 16(3): 82–102.Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P. (2011) The practice of qualitative research (2nd edn.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Hung, S.-T. (2011) Pedagogical applications of Vlogs: an investigation into ESP learners’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5): 736–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, J. and Beaudry, J. (2013) Understanding students’ online communication preferences and the affordances of VoiceThread for formative assessment in online teaching. In: McBride, R. and Searson, M. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013. Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
Lee, M., McLoughlin, C. and Chan, A. (2008) Talk the talk: learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39: 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luoma, S. (2004) Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (1995) Designing qualitative research (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
McNeil, L. (2014) Ecological affordance and anxiety in an oral asynchronous computer-mediated environment. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1): 142–159.Google Scholar
Meskill, C. and Anthony, N. (2007) Form-focused communicative practice via CMC: what language learners say. CALICO Journal, 25(1): 69–90.Google Scholar
Nakatsukasa, K. (2009) The efficacy and students’ perceptions of collaborative blogging in an ESL classroom. In: Chapelle, C. A., Jun, H. G. and Katz, I. (eds.), Developing and evaluating language learning materials. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Pallos, H. and Pallos, L. (2011) Evaluation of Voicethread technology to improve Japanese graduate students’ presentation skills in English in a blended learning environment. In: Barton, S., Hedberg, J. and Suzuki, K. (eds.), Proceedings of Global Learn Asia Pacific 2011. AACE.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2011) Towards a research agenda for the use of three-dimensional virtual worlds in language learning. CALICO Journal, 29(1): 67–80.Google Scholar
Pop, A., Tomoletiu, E. and David, D. (2011) EFL speaking communication with asynchronous voice tools for adult students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences , 15: 1190–1203.Google Scholar
Sardegna, V. G. and Dugartsyrenova, V. A. (2014) Pre-service foreign language teachers’ perspectives on learning with technology. Foreign Language Annals, 47: 147–167.Google Scholar
Sun, Y. C. (2009) Voice blog: an exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 13(2): 88–103.Google Scholar
Sun, Y., Yu, J. and Gao, F. (2013) Shared video media: A new environment to support peer feedback in second language learning. In: McBride, R. and Searson, M. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2013. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Stake, R. (1995) The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sykes, J. (2005) Synchronous CMC and pragmatic development: effects of oral and written chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3): 399–431.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. and Huang, H. W. (2011) Student engagement in online multimedia communication. In: Koehler, M. and Mishra, P. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2011. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. R. (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27: 237–246.Google Scholar
Woo, Y. and Reeves, T. C. (2007) Meaningful interaction in web-based learning: a social constructivist interpretation. The Internet and Higher Education, 10: 15–25.Google Scholar
Yamada, M. (2009) The role of social presence in learner-centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated communication: experimental study. Computers & Education, 52(4): 820–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaneske, E. and Oates, B. (2010) Using Voice Boards: pedagogical design, technological implementation, evaluation and reflections. Research in Learning Technology, 18(3): 233–250.Google Scholar
Yang, Y.-T., Gamble, J. and Tang, S.-Y. (2011) Voice over instant messaging as a tool for enhancing the oral proficiency and motivation of English-as-a-foreign-language learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3): 448–464.Google Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2014) Case study research: design and methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar