Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:49:22.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending digital literacies: Proposing an agentive literacy to tackle the problems of distractive technologies in language learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2020

Liam Murray Open the ORCID record for Liam Murray [Opens in a new window] ,
Marta Giralt Open the ORCID record for Marta Giralt [Opens in a new window]  and
Silvia Benini Open the ORCID record for Silvia Benini [Opens in a new window]
Liam Murray
Affiliation:
University of Limerick, Ireland (liam.murray@ul.ie)
Marta Giralt
Affiliation:
University of Limerick, Ireland (marta.giralt@ul.ie)
Silvia Benini
Affiliation:
University of Limerick, Ireland (silvia.benini@ul.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a poll (ReImagineEdu, 2016) looking at the digital profile of nearly 1,000 learners, it was reported that 78% of students worry about digital technologies distracting them from study. In attempting to contribute to this emerging debate (Aaron & Lipton, 2018), this article investigates the experiences, perceptions and awareness of undergraduate language learners (n = 215, over a 3-year period) of the distractive nature of technology and the discerned impact upon their own student language learning and performance. The study is based on data gathered from university language students engaged in a specific language technology module. The module, interalia, sought to develop awareness of the time spent online by participants while using a number of resources. A mixed-methods approach was employed to conduct this research where qualitative and quantitative data emerged respectively from individual student blogs, reflective reports of their blogging experiences, group interviews and questionnaires. Our outcomes reveal a severe lack of student awareness on the final amount of time they spent online, this being due to a number of factors. However, there is some awareness and perception on their part of how heavily disruptive technology can be for their language learning. Our final conclusions include several recommendations and propose a deictic critical digital literacy for dealing with such distractions – we are calling this a strategic agentive literacy.

Keywords

agentive literacystudent distractioncritical digital literacies
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 2020 , pp. 250 - 271
Check for updates
Copyright
© European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2020

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

Aaron, L. S. & Lipton, T. (2018) Digital distraction: Shedding light on the 21st-century college classroom. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 46(3): 363–378https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239517736876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, B., Adams Becker, S. & Cummins, M. (2016) Digital literacy: An NMC Horizon Project Strategic Brief (Vol. 3.3). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-horizon-strategic-brief-digital-literacy.pdfGoogle Scholar
All Aboard. (2017) Map of a range of digital literacies. https://www.allaboardhe.ieGoogle Scholar
Amidon, T. (2016) (dis)Owning tech: Ensuring value and agency at the moment of interface. Hybrid Pedagogy. http://hybridpedagogy.org/disowning-tech-ensuring-value-agency-moment-interface/Google Scholar
Armstrong, P. (2017) Disruptive technologies: Understand, evaluate, respond. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
Badri, M., Al Nuaimi, A., Guang, Y. & Al Rashedi, A. (2017) School performance, social networking effects, and learning of school children: Evidence of reciprocal relationships in Abu Dhabi. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8): 1433–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.06.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banquil, K., Chua, N. A., Leano, G. A., Rivero, M. A., Burce, C. A., Dianalan, S. A. & Timog, N. U. (2009) Social networking sites affect one’s academic performance adversely. Manila: UST College of Nursing, 1–42.Google Scholar
Benini, S., Giralt, M. & Murray, L. (2017) Is attractive the new distractive? Distractive technologies and student performance: An investigation of language learners’ experiences, perceptions and awareness. EUROCALL 2017. CALL in a climate of change. University of Southampton, 23–26 August.Google Scholar
Biocca, F. & Levy, M. R. (eds.) (2013) Communication in the age of virtual reality. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. (2008) Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1): 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856507084416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. (2017) Exploring the underbelly of digital literacies. OEB Insights. https://oeb-insights.com/exploring-the-underbelly-of-digital-literacies/Google Scholar
Carr, N. (2011) The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1): 21–39. https://doi.org/10125/25030Google Scholar
Chen, Q. & Yan, Z. (2016) Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 54: 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2011) Research methods in education (7th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crawford, M. B. (2015) The world beyond your head: On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
DigiLanguages. (2017) Language learning resource portal. https://www.digilanguages.ieGoogle Scholar
Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2016). Literacies, technology and language teaching. In Farr, F. & Murray, L. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology. Abingdon: Routledge, 115–126.Google Scholar
Dudeney, G., Hockly, N. & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital literacies: Research and resources in language teaching. Harlow: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enjalbert, C. (2017) Droit à la déconnexion: vers un nouvel équilibre entre le travail et le loisir? Philosophie Magazine. http://www.philomag.com/lactu/breves/droit-a-la-deconnexion-vers-un-nouvel-equilibre-entre-le-travail-et-le-loisir-20200Google Scholar
Flick, U. (2018) An introduction to qualitative research (6th ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2004) The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional settings. In Connor, U. & Upton, T. A. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.16.02floCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzaley, A. & Rosen, L. D. (2016) The distracted mind: Ancient brains in a high-tech world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2004) Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In Rogers, R. (ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New York: Routledge, 49–80.Google Scholar
Gray, D. E. (2013) Doing research in the real world (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2007) Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203944769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (2010 ) Cognition and student-centered, web-based learning: Issues and implications for research and theory. In Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Isaías, P., Kinshuk, & Sampson, D. (eds.), Learning and instruction in the digital age. Boston: Springer, 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1551-1_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauck, M. (2018) Critical digital literacy through virtual exchange. Telecollaboration and virtual exchange across disciplines: In service of social inclusion and global citizenship. Pedagogical University, Krakow, Poland, 25–27 April.Google Scholar
Judd, T. (2013) Making sense of multitasking: Key behaviours. Computers & Education, 63: 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamy, M.-N., & Zourou, K. (eds.) (2013) Social networking for language education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, L. L. (1972) Are high response rates essential to valid surveys? Social Science Research, 1(3): 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(72)90080-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leu, D. J. Jr. (1997) Exploring literacy on the Internet: Caity’s question: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 51(1): 62–67.Google Scholar
Murray, L. & Barnes, A. (1998) Beyond the “wow” factor—Evaluating multimedia language learning software from a pedagogical viewpoint. System, 26(2): 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00008-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NathanielZhu. (2011) Do you find studying on the computer much harder than on paper? http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/78717Google Scholar
Ndaku, A. J. (2013) Impact of social media on students’ academic performance (A study of students of University of Abuja). Caritas University, unpublished Bachelor of Science dissertation.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, G. S., Clarke-Pearson, K. & Council on Communications and Media. (2011) The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics, 127(4): 800–804. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parkin, S. (2018, March 4) Has dopamine got us hooked on tech? The Guardian. https://tinyurl.com/y6vhxmgrGoogle Scholar
Peeters, W. (2018) Applying the networking power of Web 2.0 to the foreign language classroom: A taxonomy of the online peer interaction process. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8): 905–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I. & Petersen, S. E. (1990) The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13: 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ReImagineEdu. (2016) Survey of learners. http://www.reimagine-education.com/Google Scholar
Rheingold, H. (2012) Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rose, E. (2010) Continuous partial attention: Reconsidering the role of online learning in the age of interruption. Educational Technology, 50(4): 41–46.Google Scholar
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M. & Cheever, N. A. (2013) Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3): 948–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouis, S., Limayem, M. & Salehi-Sangari, E. (2011) Impact of Facebook usage on students’ academic achievement: Role of self-regulation and trust. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3): 961–994. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v9i25.1465Google Scholar
Selwyn, N. (2016) Digital downsides: Exploring university students’ negative engagements with digital technology. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(8): 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1213229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, M. (2014) Developing digital literacies. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/developing-digital-literaciesGoogle Scholar
Stone, L. (2006) Continuous partial attention. https://lindastone.net/qa/continuous-partial-attention/Google Scholar
Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002) Weaving the literacy Web: Changes in reading from page to screen. The Reading Teacher, 55(7): 662–669.Google Scholar
Theng, Y. L. & Thimbleby, H. (1998) Addressing design and usability issues in hypertext and on the World Wide Web by re-examining the “lost in hyperspace” problem. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 4(11): 839–855.Google Scholar
Tuân, N. P. & Tu, N. T. (2013) The impact of online social networking on students’ study (VNU University of Economics and Business). VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 29(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Vaughan, E. & Clancy, B. (2013) Small corpora and pragmatics. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013: New domains and methodologies. Dordrecht: Springer, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6250-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Z. (2015) Media distraction in college students. University of Michigan, unpublished PhD. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/113320Google Scholar
Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D. & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1): 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim, C. & Correia, A.-P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49: 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Murray et al. supplementary material

Murray et al. supplementary material

Download Murray et al. supplementary material(File)
File 28.4 KB