Developing EFL Students Spoken Language - Literature review Example

Table of Contents 1.0.Background information 2 2.0.Literature Review 3 2.1.Students’ Conceptualization of Technology in EFL class 3 2.2.Teachers’ Conceptualization of Technology 5 2.3.EFL and Technology 7 3.0.Alternative Research Perspectives 8 The Influence of Technology in Developing EFL Students’ Spoken Language 1.0. Background information English language education and technology are related to each other. In the last few centuries there were English teaching laboratory equipped with technologies aimed at enhancing teaching and acquisition of English as a foreign language (EFL). These laboratories consisted of microphone, cassette desk and headphones that influenced the development of EFL students’ language acquisition and spoken language. Yang (2007) notes that the process involved cases where teachers were monitoring verbal behaviors of learners when subjected to different technologies. Based on the assessment of these technologies teacher would be able to understand verbal behaviors quickly therefore influencing the rate at which these students acquire and speak the English as a foreign language. However, scholars have argued that in as much as these technologies were effective in ensuring that student acquire language and they provided a good linkage between technologies, they were actually boring for learners (Jarvis 2005; Hussein 2011; Chen 2005). Twenty first century has however, seen the invention of different technologies that have been able to provide a linkage between language education and technology. Taking a case of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL), debates have been rife on whether the technology has been able to influence students’ spoken language (Payne & Whitney 2013). Central argument is that the position structure arrangement of any two languages (for instance Arabic and English) are so different that the conformity becomes a challenge especially when dealing with Arabic learners who have not been exposed to English before. This approach has made it difficult to ascertain the actual influence of CALL on the development of EFL students’ spoken language. Background information to the problem or rather, thesis statement show that use of technology to influence development of EFL students’ spoken language has been tested and the result are varied. There are however, a number of improvements that have been seen regarding the direction the problem is taking. One aspect that has been clear though is that currently, there are a number of software applications and hardware gadgets available for grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation programmes, electronic workbooks, spelling check utilities, different learning packages and reading and writing programmes. These programmes and software have been designed to influence the development of EFL students’ spoken language (Yeh & Lehman 2001). Currently, educators and researchers have come to believe that integration of technology in language learning classroom have influences on students’ performance. Along with the development of Internet technology and advanced computing, there is need to assess how learning and teaching EFL are making difference. As a matter of fact, the tendency has grown to an extent that utilization of technology in English classroom has become the norm rather than the exception. Based on the background information, the problem for investigation is the influence of technology in developing EFL students’ spoken language. 2.0. Literature Review 2.1. Students’ Conceptualization of Technology in EFL class Students and technology are almost becoming inseparable. As a matter of fact, teachers are dealing with a technological era where learners are technologically savvy when compared to the last few decades. Baleghizadeh & Oladrostam (2010) describe these students as ‘Net Generation’ who may not be able to grasp concepts without relating such concepts to the available technological tools. The argument by Baleghizadeh & Oladrostam (2010) is that contemporary students prefer learning with technology rather than the teacher. There is however, a challenge in what Baleghizadeh & Oladrostam (2010) believe in. First, researches support the fact that there is no need to be aligned to linguistic imperialism (Yang 2007; Lee 2000). By linguistic imperialism they mean that teaching of English as a foreign language needs multi-faceted approaches and strategies and it is impractical that technology will contribute immensely in the students’ spoken language even if some approaches and strategies are ignored. Salaberry (2001) who explored the constituent fallacies that underlie the English learning processes through technology found that the approach does not contribute to the English linguistic hegemony. That is, technology in the EFL acquisition is misunderstood by some linguistic fallacies to extend that theoretical and fundamental issues are ignored in the process. In a nutshell, what these scholars are against is that technology in language acquisition ignores one aspect; that the process of language acquisition is a process of whole student learning rather than in isolation, thus exploring content and developing skills across several domains simultaneously will be helpful rather than assuming that much of learning will remotely take place provided learners are given the necessary technologies and tools. This view is consistent with what Su (2005) found. His research concluded that when students are exposed to technology to help them acquire the relevant language skills then there are some cases where not all students are ready to learn from the technology. Contrariwise, Chang & Lehman (2013) research study on 63 undergraduate students found that ‘students find technologies or any other software associated with learning as a program that complement their language learning processes in classroom’ (p. 281). However, they pointed out that for beginners, use of technology was not the appropriate tools for EFL learners. The research concluded that the challenge for students who prefer technology for EFL learning process is that they tend to have a mental block. That is, they will not always find what teachers say to be relevant or meaningful unless they confirm from the technologies or tools. The research added that for beginners, use of technologies such as recordings were a challenge since EFL learners always complained that it was difficult to comprehend what was recorded by native speakers. Based on Chang & Lehman (2013) view, there are two possible influences that can be drawn; first, too much exposure to technology in language acquisition process may lead to self-mental block. Secondly, there could be limited background knowledge on how to use the technology. The challenge with this research is that it did not factor in some learning approaches such as teacher-centred or learner-centred. The research ought to have assessed the influence of teacher-centred or learner-centred when students are exposed to different technologies and how these approaches could affect students’ approaches to efficiency towards deep, significant learning. Otherwise the study as it is may not be able to inform significant facets as well as perspectives concerning the use of technology in teaching English as second language. 2.2. Teachers’ Conceptualization of Technology The process of using technology to enhance acquisition of English will only be beneficial if teachers are able use the technology effectively. Researchers have explored whether technology can influence developing EFL students’ spoken language if the teacher is technologically savvy (Al-Jarf 2005; Wang 2005). Studies have shown that language teachers began adopting technological tools that could enhance their teaching a few decades ago (Bernat & Lloyd 2007). However, what is important is not the knowledge about these tools but how teachers integrate their knowledge with the specific needs and expectations of students. For the technology to influence development of EFL students’ spoken language, a choice on a certain tool should be based on the specific purpose it intends to serve. The central point of argument is that technology can only be influential if the teacher understands it and if the tool has specific purpose in the process of EFL acquisition. In a recent study on the influence of technology on English acquisition by Arabic speakers, Ismail et al. (2010) noted that the development of EFL students’ spoken language is not based on the software or hardware but humanware. What the study means by this is the ability of the teacher as humanware to understand the intention of the technology, plan with it, design its outcome and find the best strategies of implementation during the teaching and learning processes. What Ismail et al. (2010) found integrates well with this research because essentially, the learning environments for individual classrooms contain complex mutual actions between a variety of elements, including students’ and teachers’ perceptions, learning needs, instructional practices, and prescribed curricula. Additionally, Nim-Park & Son (2009) note that the teaching and learning process description often applies a continuum varying from teacher centred to student centred. These descriptions do not indicate a dichotomy, but they are accepted as such. When teachers are aware of the technology and can recommend one based on the purpose s/he deems fit then they start to imagine the continuum as a dichotomy which heightens students’ understanding of the learning process. In as much, teachers’ conceptualization of technology is two-fold. According to Almekhlafi (2006), it is not practical to argue that teachers should always be ahead of students’ technological scope for the technology to have positive influence on learners’ spoken language. He argues that teachers’ basic role is observed as offering knowledge that is defined and arranged from the expert’s or teacher’s perspective to the learners. Typically, what the teacher needs to ensure is more teaching and questions and less talking and fewer questions from the students, more group instructions, dependence on textbooks with other supportive sources such as videos, and information recall. Learners will then perform the same tasks simultaneously, adopting different technologies, pursuing explicit guidelines offered by the teacher, where the teacher decides what is needed for the student by defining the attributes of guidelines, management and curriculum evaluation. The challenge with this research is that it is not inclusive. That is, it can only be used by a certain level of learners such as college or university students who have greater assimilative power. 2.3. EFL and Technology Studies have continued to show that EFL technology tools have had positive influence on students’ language acquisition and proficiency. For instance, Hayati & Mohmedi (2011) indicated a major difference between achievements of EFL students who used CALL and those did not. The study took a sample of 90 students from elementary-preparatory schools who participated in United Arabs Emirates. The conclusion made by the study indicated that those who were subjected to CALL showed a trend where learning became faster as CALL promoted their perception and performance. Their research further showed that when CALL was introduced students could search answer to the questions and learn how to find the answers instead of the teacher availing them. Differently, Chang & Lehman (2013) showed that students who were exposed to technology were able to perform well in their Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC). The study was conducted in Taiwan and the conclusion made was that technology was essential for EFL learners. The researches by Chang & Lehman (2013) and Hayati & Mohmedi (2011) bring one concern however, that is, CALL sometimes come with features such as word+sound+Arabic/English translation as well as repeated appearance of the words targeted. Basically, these features may limit retention of vocabulary if EFL leaners are not guided properly. Hussein (2011) showed that there is tendency where English classrooms are having more than the needed number of learners that a teacher can interact with effectively. This makes it difficult for English learners to practice the skills acquired or rather engage in their convectional skills. Therefore EFL becomes part of technology and technology such as Wiki, iPad, iPod, digital storytelling, Computer-Based Reading Program, and WetPaint become part of EFL since it is the only channel through which learners will have meaningful interaction or interview with the students. However, when this method is used there is need to consider programmed learning. 3.0. Alternative Research Perspectives Based on the research problem identified, there have been relative advantages and limitations of alternative research perspectives on the influence of technology in developing EFL students’ spoken language. If assessed, these studies have offered strategies of improving EFL learning process. On the other hand, these strategies compared to the research question identified, have pedagogical challenges. Alternative possible approach of developing EFL students’ spoken language has been to teach using native language. Scholars such as Payne & Whitney (2013) have argued that the best approach of teaching English as a second language is to use native language. Research conducted by Hussein (2011) showed that using first language (native language) in teaching English makes it easy for learners to understand some concepts as they appear in the targeted language (English). This is a case where first language is considered as a pedagogical device for clarification. However, recent researches have raised concerns over the benefits of using this approach. For instance, Hayati & Mohmedi (2011) argued that instances of first language in English classroom is indeed not an essential pedagogical tool because it needs to be applied in a collaborative way such that first language does not hinder English acquisition or vice versa. Seemingly, unless further research is conducted and well-structured questions developed, this approach has not presented the needed evidence that can challenge other approaches that have been suggested. Another approach suggested is the effect of a multi-method approach to teaching language acquisition within the framework of theories of second-language acquisition. This strategy has been proposed by scholars such as Lee (2000) who argued that the most effective strategy is the integration of learner-centred and teacher-centred approaches. One of the benefits of this approach is that language acquisition is an interactive process therefore it provides a framework for incorporating and developing the components of novel designs for instances where mode of teaching stress the reflective and active learning. Additionally, strong research evidence bolsters the implementation of the student-centred approach since it contains executive control and strategic processing, which enhances the ability of the teacher to reflect on and regulate students’ thoughts and behavior. Contrariwise, this approach has had a number of challenges. For instance, Almekhlafi (2006) notes that the approach does not engage the learner and is considered to be very passive in nature; students are on the receiving end and are given little or no chance to interact. Reference List Al-Jarf, R. 2005, ‘The effects of online grammar instruction on low proficiency EFL college students’ achievement’. Asian EFL Journal, vol. 7 no. p.p 166-190. Almekhlafi, A. 2006, ‘The effect of computer assisted language learning (CALL) on United Arab Emirates English as a foreign language (EFL) school students’ achievement and attitude.’ Journal of Interactive Learning Research, vol. 17 no. 2 pp. 121-142. Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. 2010, ‘The effect of mobile assisted language learning (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL students.’ MEXTESOL Journal, vol. 34 no. 2 pp. 1-10. Bernat, E., & Lloyd, R. 2007, ‘Exploring the gender effect on EFL learners’ beliefs about language learning. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, vol. 7 no.1, pp. 79-91. Chang, M. & Lehman, J. 2013, ‘Learning foreign language through an interactive multimedia program’ An experimental study on the effects of the relevance component of the ARCS model. CALICO journal, vol. 20 no. 1 pp. 81-98. Chen, L. 2005, ‘Examining the role of computers in EFL instruction.’ Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, vol. 4 no. 1 pp. 30-63. Hayati, A. & Mohmedi, F. 2011, ‘The effect of films with and without subtitles on listening comprehension of EFL learners.’ British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 42 no. 1, pp. 181-192. Hussein, G. 2011, ‘The attitudes of undergraduate students towards motivation and technology in a foreign language classroom.’ International Journal of Learning and Teaching, vol. 2 no. 2, pp. 14-24. Ismail, S., Almekhlafi, A., & Al-Mekhlafy, H. 2010, ‘Teachers’ perceptions of the use of technology in teaching languages in United Arab Emirates’ schools’. International Journal for Research in Education, vol. 21 no. 1, pp. 37-56. Jarvis, H. 2005, ‘Technology and change in English language teaching (ELT).’ Asian EFL journal, vol. 7 no. 4, pp. 213-227. Lee, K. 2000, ‘English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer-assisted language learning.’ The Internet TESL Journal, vol. 6 no. 12, pp. 1-8. Nim Park, C. & Son, J. 2009, ‘Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the EFL classroom’ Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 80-101. Payne, J., & Whitney, P. 2013, ‘Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC’: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. Calico Journal, vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 7-32. Salaberry, M. 2001, ‘The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective.’ The Modern Language Journal, vol. 85 no. 1, pp. 39-56. Skinner, B., & Austin, R. 1999, ‘Computer conferencing—does it motivate EFL students?’. ELT Journal, vol. 53 no. 4, pp. 270-279. Su, M. 2005, ‘A study of EFL technological and vocational college students' language learning strategies and their self-perceived English proficiency.’ Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, vol. 2 no. 1, pp. 44-56. Wang, L. 2005, ‘The advantages of using technology in second language education’ Technology integration in foreign language teaching demonstrates the shift from a behavioral to a constructivist learning approach. THE Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), vol. 32 no. 10, pp. 38. Yang, M. 2007, ‘Language learning strategies for junior college students in Taiwan’: Investigating ethnicity and proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, vol. 9 no. 2, pp. 35-57. Yeh, S. & Lehman, J. 2001, ‘Effects of learner control and learning strategies on English as a foreign language (EFL) learning from interactive hypermedia lessons.’ Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, vol. 10 no. 2, pp. 141-159. Read More