advanced learners of German
Christine
Leahy
This article
reports on questionnaire results related to motivational factors and student
attitudes towards an international bilingual email project between law and
business students in England and Germany. Both groups discussed subject-specific
content. At the beginning and the end of the project, students filled in a
questionnaire answering questions which were designed to elicit information
about their motivation for studying a language in conjunction with their main
degree courses in business and law. The term motivation and its use in recent
publications is examined and particular emphasis is placed on motivational
factors which might be connected to the use of information technology. The
study focuses on the results gained from the English groups.
1.1 Background information: The
international email project
1.2 The subjects
The
group studied consisted of British business and law students (level two)
studying their degree course combined with German. Overall 58 students filled
in the pre-project-questionnaire, 13 studying business and 13 studying law at
the Nottingham Trent University (NTU) as well as 18 German business students
(Universität-Gesamthochschule Paderborn) and 14 German law students (Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg). A compulsory element of the course requires the British
students spend the third year of study abroad. Email partners at the respective
partner universities in Germany with the same or similar main degree course
took part as tandem partners.
1.3 The study in
context
It is
generally accepted that motivation can have a very positive effect on learning.
The term is often referred to in a loose and undefined way. Gardner (1985:10)
describes it in the following way:
[T]he term ‘motivation’ has very distinct characteristics
and a clear link with the language learning process. Motivation in the present
context refers to the combination of effort
plus desire to achieve the goal of
learning the language plus favourable
attitudes toward learning the language. That is, motivation to learn a
second language is seen as referring to the extend to which the individual
works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the
satisfaction experienced in this activity. (my italics, CL)
According
to Gardner’s understanding of the term motivation in the context of language
acquisition, as expressed in the quote above, motivation includes at least
three elements: effort to learn the language, a positive attitude towards
learning it and the desire to achieve the goal. These factors interplay with
each other and outside forces e.g., the framework for learning may have an
enhancing or a diminishing effect on motivation in general.
1.4 The role of
computers and motivation
Many
studies of the use of computers (in the widest sense) in language learning and
teaching report a positive effect on student motivation. Evidence of this
positive effect was found at schools and colleges as well as at university
level (e.g., Austin & Mendlick 1993; Beauvois 1998; Fischer 1998; Jaeglin
1998; St. John & Cash 1995; Underwood 1997; Warschauer 1999). Other studies
also point out difficulties and indeed a possible de-motivating effect,
especially in asynchronous email exchanges, where frustration was caused by
considerable delay in partners’ responses even up to the extreme of many weeks
delay (Vilmi 1995; Fischer 1998) or caused by too tight a framework, which did
not allow for enough student initiative and freedom and may have caused
students’ resistance (case study Miller College, Warschauer 1999).
As
computers become mainstream within many societies the novelty effect will
decrease. British primary schools are increasingly using computers, which is
followed on through secondary school education. Any novelty
character attributed to computers will in many industrialised countries only
have a short-lived effect, if any at all.
Whether
or not the computer can have a novelty effect depends also on the
socio-cultural background of students. Warschauer & Ortega (1997) report
that when applying for a job in Cambodia the applicant is generally expected to
speak English and to be computer-literate. In that situation, computer literacy
becomes an essential necessity for career advancement.
Studies
of computer-assisted classroom discussions by Beauvois (1998), Chun (1998),
Jaeglin (1998) Sullivan (1998), and Warschauer (1999) point to the liberating
and empowering effect computers may have on shy students who would normally
contribute very little or not at all in the traditional oral classroom.
Referring to the US, Jaeglin’s study (1998:132) concluded that the “use of
computers and computer networks does not seem to pose concerns for college
students today. Instructors, as might be anticipated, seem to feel more concerned
about technical difficulties. Moreover, they tended to prefer fewer computer
sessions than did their students.”
1.5 Initial
assumptions and questions
This
study focuses on subjects who are already advanced learners of German[5]
and therefore have already been successful in second language acquisition to an
advanced degree. Without analysing their individual backgrounds or
administering aptitude tests, the focus here is on motivational factors which
might contribute to learning. The assumptions are:
·
These
students are motivated to learn the language.
·
The
students are influenced by instrumental orientation.
·
Some
students might be influenced by integrative orientation.
·
The
students enjoy working with the computer.
·
The
students already have some experience using the computer.
Further
questions of interest are:
·
Are
the students successful learners because of their former success in language
learning?
·
How
much previous experience do students have using computers?
·
Do
computers enhance motivation and prolong concentration periods?
·
What
are the beneficial elements of an email project as perceived by students?
1.6 Rationale of the
questionnaire
The
following describes a systematic approach to looking at generally accepted main
categories of motivation, focussing on the individual and to a lesser degree on
situational created aspects, e.g. as described by Dörnyei (1997) regarding
cooperative learning.
The
questionnaire developed partly out of the results of a previous study (Leahy
1995) conducted among advanced learners at the Nottingham Trent University.
That study included several open-ended questions regarding student attitudes
towards the modules and language studied.[6]
The
questionnaire[7] is divided
into five sections: (1) personal information, (2) student background
information regarding his/her experience with computers, (3) aims for
participation, (4) the student’s perception of how the project might be of use
to him/her, (5) the student’s attitudes to the L2 country and the L2 community.
This section also attempts to identify some general stereotypes and prejudices
which may be held by participants.
In
the latter part of the questionnaire, questions similar to those in Gardner’s
‘Attitude and Motivation Test Battery’ (1985) are used, though not in order to
predict language proficiency, but rather in order to gain insights into the
students’ attitudes towards the L2 country and the L2 community. The questions
are placed into different clusters in order to minimise the effects of
carelessly ticked answers. Once consistency within one questionnaire is
achieved, this can be seen as a truer profile of that particular student.
For
the language tutor and indeed the syllabus designer the concern lies with
the creation for the learner of a positive and meaningful framework in which
learning can take place. Insights into the existence of integrative orientation
[8]
, as well as other types, can help with the choice of teaching
material, task or the learning mode, i.e. an email project with native speakers
of the target language. To be able to either create learner motivation or
tap into existing motivational orientation, can be helpful to enhance learning.
The
following section deals first with the pre-questionnaire results[9],
followed by post-project-findings.
2.1 Pre-project
results
2.1.1 Personal
information
The
average age of the participants was 19 years in GB and 22.5 years of age in
Germany, ranging from 19 to 28.[10]
The male/female ratio for the business courses was 3 to 10 (GB) and 11 to 7
(Germany). The ratio for participating law students was 7 males to 6 females
(GB), and 6 males to 8 females (Germany). All the British students were native
speakers of English; all the German participants were native speakers of
German. In each country one bilingual participant (English/Gujarati and
German/Russian) took part.
All
students had already previous experience using the computer, 80% for three to
five years and 20% for one to two years. Real computer novices with less than
one year of experience were not present in this group. 50% of the students had
never used a computer for language study purposes while 36% had used it
occasionally for this purpose. Some students (10%) had spent 1–2 hours per week
on language study with the computer. The work had been done in their private
time and not as part of classroom activities. The British students had received
a module booklet at the beginning of the semester which specified some language
learning software and recommended practice as part of their independent
learning.
Computer
use for language study purposes could be specified by students and was interpreted
in a wide sense and differed considerably (Table 1). A striking difference
appeared not only between the different nationalities, but also between the
different disciplines:
Business Studies |
Law Studies |
|||
|
GB (13) |
Germ. (18) |
GB (13) |
Germ. (14) |
grammar training |
0 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
dictionary |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
language trainer |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
internet |
5 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
word processing |
5 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
Excel |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Microsoft publisher |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
desktop publisher |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
PowerPoint |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table
1: Previous computer use for language study purposes (multiple entry possible;
not all students answered the question)
The German students hardly used the
computer for language study purposes. Among the British students Business
Studies seems to have integrated the computer as a tool to a much greater
extent than the Law School.
Two students had never used the internet and 19% used it
occasionally. 43% spent 1–2 hours per week and 26% spent 2–4 hours/week on it.
Students used the internet for a variety of quite different purposes (Table 2).
To a lesser degree, a difference can be established between the countries as
well as between the various degree courses.
|
Business Studies |
Law Studies |
||
|
GB |
Germany |
GB |
Germany |
browsing |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
chat lines |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
email |
2 |
10 |
9 |
5 |
1 |
8 |
4 |
8 |
|
lecture notes/
module information |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
news |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
subject
specific |
12 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
Table 2: Internet used for … (multiple entry possible; not
all students answered the question)
According to the students’ answers the internet was mainly
used for email and research purposes for subject specific material and material
of general interest. Only 2 students named ‘browsing’ as an activity they
pursued when using the internet.
Email
54%
spent 1 hour per day and 44% spent 1–2 hours per day using the computer. Some
of this time was taken up by using email. When asking for the pattern of email
use, it was expected that some students would perhaps receive more messages
than they wrote. Unconnected with this email project, some module communication
took place via email, and an infrequent or novice user might read the messages,
but not necessarily answer. It was expected that students less fond of the
medium would therefore appear as readers, with fewer appearing as senders of
messages. It was also expected that some students might be reader-only
participants of mailing lists and therefore receive more messages then they
write. None of these assumptions were confirmed.
49%
of the students were readers of 4–8 and more messages per week, while 25% never
or only occasionally read email. 55% sent over 4 messages per week and 17% sent
messages only occasionally or never.
Email
was used for private purposes, writing to friends and receiving messages from
them. Three students answered that they never read messages.
Interestingly,
48% enjoyed using the computer for entertainment like computer games or browsing.
But 90% of the students enjoyed using email, and 71% enjoyed using the computer
for study purposes. This 19% difference between the perceived positive experience
of using email and using the computer for study purposes could indicate a
success for email projects for language learning purposes, especially when
taking into account that computer use for other entertainment purposes is
rated comparatively low (see below).
74%
considered themselves confident users of the medium email
[11]
. In comparison, 69% perceived themselves as confident users
of the computer
[12]
. Obviously students appreciate that confidence in computer
use implies many more applications than just word processing and email.
Columns
read from left to right correspond with the legend read from top to bottom.
48% would like to study languages more through
computer work, 29% felt neutral about that proposition, while 22% were against
it (Graph 3).
Through anecdotal evidence it was expected that students might feel that computers can enhance their concentration period and have a quality which absorbs their attention (Graph 4). In fact 43% felt that their concentration period was longer, 47% thought they got totally absorbed in the task while using the computer. In other words, for approximately 43%-47% of the study group computer use served to enhance their concentration time as well as their ability to focus on the task.
In
vocational language classes an instrumental orientation can be expected. In
order to determine indicators for instrumental motivation, students were asked
which skills for which purpose and which areas of knowledge they hoped to
improve.
a)
Skills
For
the majority of students, indicators for instrumental motivation can be found.
Students hoped to improve their foreign language in general, in particular
writing and reading skills, as well as improving their understanding of subject
related issues concerning the other country (Table 3).
To improve/gain confidence in … |
slightly to strongly agree in % |
Neutral in % |
slightly to strongly disagree in % |
98 |
2 |
0 |
|
L2 writing |
93 |
3 |
4 |
L2 reading |
83 |
14 |
4 |
email use |
47 |
40 |
14 |
computer use |
41 |
41 |
17 |
subj. related underst. |
79 |
12 |
9 |
Table 3: Areas in which
student hoped to improve their skills
Furthermore,
the anticipated usefulness of the project was seen in gaining career related
proficiency (83%), with 48% seeing the foreign language as useful only in the context of future work. 90%
of the students believed that their knowledge of the foreign language would
help them to find a good job, but only 53% expressed the wish to work in the L2
country. These figures confirm the influence of instrumental motivation on the
part of the majority of the participating students.
It is to be expected that all students hope to improve their language skills. When relating the above figures to one another though, they clearly indicate a tendency towards instrumental motivation.
70%
saw improving their knowledge about the L2 country and the email partner’s
university town as a high priority. 71% expressed the same opinion about the L2
community. The desire to know more about the partner’s university (71%) was
equally high.
Less
than half of the respondents (47%) considered improving their knowledge of
politics[13] in the L2
country as important. 38% felt altogether neutral about the topic. Improving
knowledge of the L2 culture featured as a high priority with 66%.
An
open-ended question allowed students to specify any other area in which they
would like to improve their knowledge or skills. Only 10 students (17%) took
the opportunity to answer. Students specified the wish to learn more about
issues relating to their year abroad, subject-related interests and an interest
in getting to know other people.
86% acknowledged the
importance of studying the foreign language in order to understand the L2
culture and people. The wish to gain a better understanding of the other culture
was expressed by 84% (Graph 5, column 2) and to gain understanding of the
people and the way of life by an equal number of participants. The desire
to actually live in the L2 country was expressed by 40% (column 4).
Even though
less then half of the students wanted to live in the L2 country, a strong
interest in culture and people was expressed. The necessity to improve L2
proficiency in order to gain better understanding was recognised. Taken
together, the answers above show that integrative motivation is also evident.
2.2. Post-project results
By the
end of the project 69% of the replying students had access to a computer at
home.
GB |
Germany |
||
Business study |
Law study |
Business study |
Law study |
64% |
50% |
75% |
100% |
Table
4: Access to a computer at home (at the end of the study)
At
the end of the project the two different groups, business and law students,
rated the personal benefit from this project differently. A discrepancy between
the two can be observed (Table 5).
|
slightly to strongly agree
in % |
|
Improved/gained confidence in … |
Business study |
Law study |
L2 generally |
||
L2 writing |
83 |
53 |
L2 reading |
83 |
41 |
email use |
43* |
28 |
computer use |
35* |
28 |
subj. related underst. |
26 |
44 |
The
business students already had advanced IT skills at the beginning of the
project. The sense of not having improved a lot from there (scores marked with
*) does not come as a surprise. The project was mainly based on straightforward
email, later an optional conference facility was also introduced, but not taken
up by all participants.
During
the project some participants of the British law group developed a resistance
towards the study mode which found expression in the answers shown in table
5. Some reasons for the obvious difference in perceived benefits between the
law and business groups are given below.
3.1 Reasons for and the effect of
resistance against the framework
All
participating students were equally supported during the project, i.e.
individual help (technical or otherwise) and feedback was offered, and general
feedback and suggestions were sent several times[14].
It is
necessary to distinguish between the two vocational groups, since the attitude
among the law students changed considerably once the project had started. Some
resistance built up among a few students, who seemed to have a strong influence
on the group. Initial discussions revolved around clarification regarding
accreditation until a minute breakdown into elements was negotiated. Secondly,
the conditions for accreditation of the actual exchanges were questioned and re-negotiated.
When the email project was originally introduced to the groups, all students
were in favour of it. In order to enhance the sense of commitment, a contract
was signed between students and tutor in which the students committed
themselves to writing to their partner at least once per week. Some later
regretted this agreement and the intended incentive (accreditation) was
interpreted to being ‘forced’ to participate. Furthermore, some students looked
for ways of delaying starting the project since the assessment point seemed
months away. When reminded about the importance of building up a personal
relationship with the partner in order to strengthen the commitment to the
project by the partner (who after all did not receive any accreditation), some
participants started working well, but others still looked for justifications
for delay. At first, dubious technical problems were mentioned (having lost
mail, ‘unreliable technology’), later on, close to the end of the semester,
some students complained that the computer rooms were often busy since all
university students had to finish their assignments.
Some
students explained that they work better under the pressure of deadlines and
since these were still a few weeks ahead, they perceived no immediate pressure
to start working seriously. A shortcoming of the project was that it was not
integrated into class work, but took place during directed learning time.
Therefore, each time students had to make decisions whether to work on a long
term project with a distant partner or rather on directed learning tasks which
needed handing in earlier. Had the project been integrated into class-time
students would not have perceived this conflict. Through the tutor’s planning
of the course of study in class, time-management would not have been such an
issue in the project. Students would have worked continuously on the task, at
least during whole class sessions. Transferring the complex project into
directed learning time requires well-developed self-discipline which might have
been asking too much of some students.
It is
interesting to note that the German groups did not complain at all, yet they
devoted considerable time and effort to the project. Occasionally email
messages of one page and longer were sent. This phenomenon could possibly
indicate that the German students, who were on average 3.5 years older than
their British partners, had reached a maturity which helped them to manage
their time more effectively.
It
also seems that other reasons were responsible for the build-up of the
resistance in some law students. One factor which came up numerous times was
the complaint that the project was more IT based than rooted in traditional
language study. BrL 1[15]
who rejected IT the most, could not be convinced of the advantages of learning
through the help of a native speaker and learning computing skills at the same
time. Even when the prospect of better employability in the future through
additional computing skills was highlighted, this attitude did not change. In the
post-questionnaire, BrL 1 agreed that he had improved in the foreign language
generally and had gained confidence in the foreign language, in reading and
writing German, in understanding German law issues, and in understanding the
people, even making a new friend. He also slightly agreed that he had gained
confidence in using email, but still his overall comment[16]
at the end of the project was:
[…] I
feel that I have not particularly benifited from this project. This is
especially disappointing considering the time-consuming nature of the task and
I personally believe that this german module should have concentrated less on
computing skills and more on german language as a whole.
His
partner did not share this opinion. Her comment was: ”Was really good, I would
do it again.”
Another
British student replied that once employed as a solicitor, he would have
secretaries to deal with computer related work. Even though this probably was a
tongue-in-cheek comment, there were considerable attempts on the part of some
very vocal students to make the running of the project difficult. At the end of
the project, four negative comments were volunteered by law students.
In
BrL 2, another law student, a major shift in attitude towards the project can
be observed. At first, she seemed positive, but was slow starting the project,
worked independently, gathering information on a topic of her choice. This was not negotiated with her partner, as was
specifically stated in the project brief.[17]
Once she suggested the topic to him, he expressed the wish to choose one of the
other topics. This provided an ideal opportunity to discuss the choices and to
negotiate an outcome. Instead, BrL 2 did not reply to him but wrote the
following message to me (15/4/99):
Dear …
I have just received an email from my partner and he has
just informed me that he would rather prefer to do something on data
protection.
This is unaceptable because I decided a long time ago that I
would rather prefer to do something to do with privacy laws. I have already put
a greate deal of work and effort into this and I am in the middle of writing a
very long letter to GL2[18]
about my findings.
I also feel that as I am assessed on this piece of work
through the emails, a hand out and an oral, I really feel I should be allowed
to keep my choice.
I would be grateful if you could pass on this message on to
GL2 ASAP, as I do not wish to waste anymore time than I have. Please e-mail me
of you have anything more to say on the matter.
Best Wishes
…..
I
replied to BrL 2 that she would have to negotiate the topic with her partner.
She successfully convinced him to discuss her choice of topic and a very
fruitful and regular exchange of messages developed. At the end of the project
she wrote the following comment:
I really do think that the
e-mail prohas helped me not only in relation to my german work, but also as i
am really really confident with using the computer now. not only in relation to
the e-mail but also on the internet. So it has definitly helped me, also
because I looked forward to the e-mail communication with my partner, it made
me work a lot mor and spend a lot more time sending e-mails and doing the
reseach on the project. So it improved two areas of my academic life!
BrL 2
had made extensive use of office hours and often wrote email messages to me.
During the course of the project her perception shifted: Initially, she was
demanding and complained about the unusual learning set-up. She expressed a
preference for acquiring knowledge through books, the usual mode for law students,
but grew to look forward to the email exchanges. This shift is significant
since it marks the difference between a potentially successful and an
unsuccessful learning outcome. The two law students who persistently rejected
the project denied themselves the possibility of gaining from it.
When
filling in the post-project-questionnaire, the law students voiced their
disapproval (Table 5 above). It would be interesting to know how students
taught in traditional oral classrooms view the improvement of their skills
after similar (time-consuming) project work, whether the self-perception would
differ.
At university level, other motivational factors
come into play as well, namely the pragmatic and careful balance of effort by
students in relation to expected reward, i.e. accreditation (which gives rise
to the expression ‘assessment-driven students’). How many credit points can be
expected for a certain activity, how much effort is needed in one subject in
relation to another in order to achieve the same number of credits? Seen in
this context, the different emerging attitudes towards the email project
related through the questionnaire can be explained. The student performance
differed considerably between the business and law students. Business students
carried out their tasks and all but one completed them without any difficulty
worth mentioning.
On the other hand, some of the British law students
compared the effort and time involvement directly with the accreditation and
perceived an unfavourable imbalance. The additional advantages of communicating
with a native speaker at the partner university could not outweigh the
perceived imbalance.
Some of the law students developed considerable resistance towards
their project and initially spent more time arguing about percentage points for
accreditation and the importance of computer skills as part of the project.
Four negative comments were received from British law students at the end of
the project. Overall that represents 9.5% of the returned questionnaires. Two
of these students (4.8%) continually rejected the project in a vocal manner and
had an undeniably negative effect on the performance of the whole British law
group. This was the most unexpected outcome.
Even though these negative comments represent only a small
minority of the participants overall, they do give an insight into important
factors which can influence the outcome of projects as described here. These
seemingly negative results, i.e. a decisive swing in motivation with regard to
a study mode, can be informative for future computer-mediated communication
projects, and therefore this minority has been given disproportionate emphasis
here.
Looking at the groups’ results rather than individual ones, the initial
assumptions could be validated: The students were motivated to learn the language, even
though not all agreed with the learning mode. The students were influenced by
instrumental motivation, the anticipated usefulness of the project points
clearly to vocational use. The majority of the students were also influenced by
integrative motivation.
The
students’ attitudes towards the L2 country and the L2 community were generally
positive.
Only
20% of the participants had 1–2 years experience using the computer, while 80%
had 3–5 years. The extent of computer literacy varied. With very few
exceptions, the students enjoyed working with this medium. The most favoured
use of the computer is for email (90%), followed with 71% for study purposes.
Over
40% even acknowledged an increase in concentration and focus when working with
it. Computer-inherent motivation seems therefore to
play a role, but is not viewed by the majority as a very important factor.
Furthermore,
approximately 31% of the students felt motivated by their former success in
language learning.
4.1. British students
Individual
comments volunteered by British participants about the project were mainly
positive. Some examples are:
I feel my
language skills have improved and it was a very useful way to learn more about
life in Germany and particularly about studying there. I am more confident now
in my written German and also in speaking it as I know I will be understood.
Using email as a learning tool is a good idea. […] Overall, it was very
enjoyable and I feel I benefited a lot.
I really
enjoyed taking part in this project and feel that it is a novel way of
undertaking coursework. […] Through this project I know now how to email live[19],
which is great fun!! […] Overall I really enjoyed this project and feel that I
learned a lot from it.
I enjoyed
doing this project because I am interested in marketing and liked the
opportunity to compare both English and German culture/business through a supermarket
which I had at least heard of before. The vocabulary will be useful on
placement next year.
4.2. German students
The German participants provided a different insight since they
did not receive any accreditation for the whole project and devoted time and
effort out of interest in the project. Evaluative comments volunteered by
German participants were generally very positive.
Several German students expressed an interest in participating in
another email project of this kind.
The
questionnaire which was filled in at the beginning of the project can serve as
a cautious indicator for future projects. Motivational aspects as defined by
Gardner, namely “effort plus desire to achieve the
goal of learning the language plus favourable attitudes toward learning the
language” (Gardner 1985:10) appear as trends, even though they were not
tested against the outcome here.
The
results can therefore be seen as motivational orientation among advanced
vocational second language learners. Motivational orientation is not a synonym
for motivation. Motivation has a stronger quality than motivational
orientation. In the words of Oxford & Shearin (1994:14) the “distinction
between motivational orientation and motivation might explain the difference
between registering to take a language course and then actually working hard to
learn the L2 when in the course”. This explains the performance of the less
successful law students. Once resentment had built up against the email
project, all attempts to assist towards successful completion were ignored.
Gardner
(1985:11) also distinguishes between orientation and motivation, but
differently. In his definition, “motivation is seen to include three
components, effort, desire and affect. [...] it is [also] seen to be goal
directed, and the goal is to learn the language. But one might ask why
individuals have this goal. Worded another way, what is their orientation? As used here, orientation is a concept
distinct from motivation”.
Equally,
real motivation in Gardner’s sense (1985:10) will manifest itself in the
“extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because
of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity”.
Warschauer (1999) calls a similar concept to have a sense of real, and one
might add relevant, purpose. A good example of full commitment to learning the
language through the use of IT is described in Warschauer (1999, chapter 4) in
the context of language revitalisation. Students of native Hawaiian background
were studying the language through integrated computer-mediated communication
(not exclusively) and developed their assignment for publication on the web.
The integration of IT enabled not only computer-mediated class discussions and
email contact to Hawaiian language students at another college, but also led to
internet publications which were experienced as a means of expression of an
identity of an underprivileged ethnic group, and led to a real sense of purpose
and empowerment, as well as pride in the results.
Depending on many more complex factors like students’ perception
of the purpose of the class, i.e. pure language learning in the traditional
sense (which most likely is influenced by their school experience and therefore
by the prevailing teaching fashion and philosophy they have been subjected to),
or incorporation of other skills, e.g., as associated with IT, may influence
student motivation. Occasional student criticism of too much emphasis on
technology-related skills rather than language skills has to be seen in this
context. Furthermore, wariness of the medium, which in individual cases might
develop into technophobia, will certainly be experienced as de-motivating. If,
on the other hand, the introduction of IT into language learning is accepted or
at least not rejected outright, it can lead to a real feeling of purpose and
empowerment. The purpose of the activity needs to be clear in the student’s
mind and be accepted by her/him in order to lead to successful motivation.
Learning
environments and modes may have a significant impact on student motivation and
the potential learning outcome. If education is seen as a transfer of knowledge
from the teacher to the student, the introduction of new learning methods may
create learning obstacles, rather than overcoming them. Katz and Lesgold
(1993:313) therefore refer to a “new view of education” which needs to be
developed:
But the primary changes required for building collaborative
learning environments are not in the realm of educational technology or, more broadly,
computer science. Rather they involve a new view of education. Education is not
the dispensing of knowledge, nor are teachers the sole source of knowledge.
Law
students often follow traditional and conservative learning modes, in which
individual study through books plays an important role. A lot of the learning
required is acquisition of facts and cases. A project with a collaborative
task, the internet as primary source of information and negotiation with a
stranger through email, might prove too much of a change. One of the
influential law students, BrL 3, who continually criticised the project,
offered the following opinion about it: “The
University would do itself an injustice if it continued with e-mail projects
for future years, especially law students. Law students do not have time to
waste on silly projects like this, they must focus their attentions on more
important things.”
Learners can be quite conservative in their outlook towards
teaching and learning methods, and this needs to be taken into consideration
when planning such a project. Otherwise
the result may be a general rejection of the whole project.
Students
need to become more aware of their responsibility in the learning process and a
changing emphasis in the understanding of education processes as described by
Katz and Lesgold (1993:313):
Rather, education
should be seen as the engineering of environments in which students can learn.
To a significant degree, the responsibility for learning is the student’s, not
the teacher’s. However, the teacher does have the obligation to remove
obstacles to learning, to develop paths that students might – alone or in
groups – follow toward learning, and to provide guidance to students when they
encounter uncertainties and difficulties in following those paths.
The email project was not integrated into class time and I did not
teach the British groups during the semester. This made it more difficult to
help individual students, since difficulties were only observed once they
manifested themselves in email messages (or a lack of them) or were expressed
by forthcoming students who either used office hours for contact or approached
me by email.
Similar projects which introduce a multitude of new learning tasks
and modes should be integrated into class work and not ‘add-on features’. In
retrospect it appears to have been a disadvantage from the point of view of
motivation to place the project into directed/independent learning time rather
than integrating it into class work.
Business students in both countries and the German law students did
not build up any resistance and the project worked smoothly for them. Most
likely this is linked to the fact that (a) business students are more used
to collaborative tasks as well as (b) IT in general. The German students were
older than their British partners, a fact which might have contributed to
the responsibility they exhibited to their own learning. They participated
on a voluntary basis and seemed to enjoy the task as well as the learning
mode. At the end of the project considerably more German than British students
had access to a computer at home which most likely had a positive effect on
their attitudes.
THE
NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (CL, 1)
FOR
STUDENTS STUDYING GERMAN
(1999)
You
are about to embark on an email project with a partner in Germany. Your partner
is studying the same discipline as you and will also spend 1 year abroad like
you. You should therefore have a lot in common. Please fill in this
questionnaire right at the beginning of the email project. All questions
referring to the internet and email- or computer use do not refer to this email project itself, but the experience you have had up to now using the above technologies.
Your
name:
Your
age:
Your
mother tongue:
Your
email address:
[Your
name, age and email address will be treated confidentially and will be replaced
by a code. Knowledge about your age is important in relation to your experience
with computer use. Named entries will help us to avoid multiple and therefore
invalid entries. Thank you for your co-operation.]
Please
fill in this questionnaire without spending too much time replying to individual
statements. There are no right or
wrong answers as such. You are asked
to indicate your immediate reactions and to express your opinions, which could
help shaping future language courses.
How many years experience do you have using a
computer?
0 1 2 3 4 5
How many months experience do you have using the
computer?
0 1 2 3 4 5
As part of my language study I have used the
computer. (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
Never
Occasionally
1-2 hours/week 2-4 hours/week
Please specify programme(s):
...............................
I use the internet. (Please
circle the appropriate answer.)
Never
Occasionally
1-2 hours/week 2-4 hours/week 4-6
hours/week
more than 6 hours/week
I mainly use the internet for (please specify): ..............................................................………
When I do use the computer, I spend on average
... (Please circle the appropriate answer.)
1 hour/day 1-2 hours/day 2-3
hours/day on it.
I use email as a reader only. (Please
circle the appropriate answer.)
Never
Occasionally
1-3 messages/week 4-8 messages/week more than 8 messages/week
I use email as a sender of messages. (Please
circle the appropriate answer.)
Never
Occasionally
1-3 messages/week 4-8 messages/week more than 8 messages/week
For
the following statements please place your answers into a scale. You have a
band of choices to express your opinion, reaching from agreeing strongly to
disagreeing strongly.[20]
Please try to express your opinion as truly as possible, but do not spend too
long replying to the individual statements.
I enjoy using the computer for entertainment, i.e.
computer games.
I consider myself as a confident user of email.
I enjoy using email.
I consider myself as a confident user of the
computer.
I enjoy using the computer for my studies.
I wish as part of our language module we were
involved in more computer work.
I can keep my concentration for a longer period of
time when I am working/playing on the computer.
Once I am using the computer I become totally
absorbed in the task.
Aims for participating in the email project.
Which
skills do you wish to improve during the project? In which areas do you wish to
improve your knowledge?[21]
Writing: general
essays/reports
informal letter writing
Reading: general
subject related material
Vocabulary: general
subject specific
Register
Grammar
Subject specific knowledge
Knowledge about Germany
(general)
people
politics
culture
email
partner’s university
email
partner’s university town
other
(please specify): .................
How can this project be of use to you?
Please indicate what you hope to gain from the email project. Please try to
take a realistic approach to what you believe will be achievable
for you. Please try to answer honestly, but do not spend too much time
replying to individual statements.
[22]
to have fun
to improve the foreign language generally
to gain confidence in myself
to gain confidence in the foreign language
to be able to express myself better in the foreign
language
to gain confidence in writing in the foreign
language
to gain confidence in reading in the foreign
language
to gain confidence in speaking in the foreign
language
to gain confidence in using email
to gain confidence in computer use generally
to gain understanding of politics of the other
country
to gain understanding of business/law issues of the
other country
to gain understanding of the other culture
to gain understanding of the other country
to gain understanding of the people, the way of life
to gain career related language proficiency
to be better prepared for the social integration
abroad (generally)
to be better prepared for the university life abroad
to make new friends
Please
indicate how you feel about the following statements.[23]
I like Germany.
Studying German can only be important for me in the
context of my future work.
Studying German can be important for me because it
will help me to get a good job.
I want to work in Germany.
Studying German is important to me because it will
help me to communicate with any Germans I might meet.
Studying German is important to me because it will
help me to understand German culture and people.
I don’t like the Germans.
I want to live in a German speaking country.
The best thing about Germany is its beer.
It embarrasses me to volunteer answers in our German
class.
I like German because I am good at it.
I always feel that the other students speak much
better German than I do.
I feel most confident in German, when I can express
myself in writing.
Do you wish to make any other comment?
Space
to enter free comments.
Thank
you for completing this questionnaire.
Appendix 2: Email Task - British Law group
Nottingham Trent University
Department of Modern Languages
EMAIL TANDEM Projekt
(1999)
Eine Partnerschaft
zwischen Studenten der Nottingham Trent University und der
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg
You
and your partner in Germany are both preparing a lecture for your students. You
both want to explain a legal situation and the way it is dealt with in England
and in Germany. You want to point out the principle situation, the similarities
as well as differences between the 2 countries. You also want to make some
critical comments about the phenomenon discussed. Your partner knows the German
situation better and you the British one. You will use your and your partner’s
expertise to discuss the issues.
This
project will help you to prepare your handout for the lecture which should be
approx. 800-1200 word long (for details look under ‘assessment’ towards the end
of this document).
Your
task initially is to describe / analyse / discuss (as appropriate) one of the
following topics:
I. Gemeinsamkeiten
und Unterschiede zwischen England und Deutschland bezogen auf Eingriffe in das
Persönlichkeitsrecht
·
Verletzung des
Persönlichkeitrechts (Presse beachtet nicht das Recht auf Privatsphäre):
Beispiele: Diana, Princess of Wales; Caroline von Monaco (hierzu gibt es ein
BVerfG Urteil)
·
die englischen Studenten
behandeln einen englischen Fall, die deutschen einen Fall aus der deutschen
Rechtsgeschichte.
·
Lassen sich
Schadensersatzforderungen ableiten?
·
Diskutieren Sie, wie weit
die Presse im Umgang mit VIPs gehen darf.
·
Halten Sie die britische
oder die deutsche oder keine der beiden Regelungen für besser? Begründen Sie
Ihre Meinung.
or
Schriftliche Diskussion gemeinsam gelesener Aufsätze im
Internet.
Topic 1:
Datenschutz or
Topic 2:
deutsche Rechtschreibreform or
Topic
3: nach Vereinbarung mit mir (only after negotiation with me)
·
What are the main issues?
·
How are they dealt with in the article?
·
What is the situation in Germany?
·
What is the situation in GB?
·
How do you feel about the main issues
raised in the article? Why?
·
Evaluate
·
Make suggestions for improvements, etc.
·
Compare notes with your partner about the
situation in England and Germany.
You
will exchange information and thoughts on the topic. On a weekly basis
reflect on the progress you have made and ask your partner for feedback.
Remember to write approx. 50% in German and 50% in English and to correct each
other’s foreign language.
If
you encounter difficulties, do not hesitate to contact me.
Time Management
Since
this is an international project, time management is extremely important. Your
partner does not follow the same semester times as you and may not always be
available. Equally you may go home during a break and might not have access to
email. Exam periods (with their related additional stress factors) may also be
different. It is therefore extremely
important to clarify points for discussion as early as possible and to work out
a project plan / strategy with your partner. Mutual understanding and
sensitivity is vital.
Points to clarify
immediately:
·
Negotiate times between now and the
summer for collaborative work. Semester
teaching times: Erlangen? Nottingham? Easter break dates? Exam dates (if
known)?
·
Use time when your partner is not
available to research on your own and to write summaries etc.
·
Try to arrange 1 hour per week when you
are both working simultaneously with email, e.g. Fridays between 10 and 11.00
(11 and 12.00 in Germany). You could clarify problems immediately which could
be extremely helpful for both of you. [Please note: German time is 1 hour ahead
of British time.]
View
this project as a simulation of an authentic situation: An international
collaboration between companies has also got to deal with the problem of time
differences between their countries and competition between different
commitments, between their projects / work for their respective companies and
the international collaborative task. That means for you that you should
negotiate time between your main course modules with their exam deadlines and this
collaborative task. Please do not put the work off for later, do as much as you
can immediately and continue regularly.
Your
partner may not be available immediately, since the second semester teaching
time has not yet started in Germany. Many students are at university though
since they have to complete CW (Seminararbeiten) during the non-teaching time.
If you do not receive a reply immediately, use the time to research the topic
via the internet or other sources.
If
in doubt how to go about it, please get in touch with me (via email:
christine.leahy@ntu.ac.uk ).
You
will improve your German in a subject specific context through an international
collaborative task and the use of email. You will (hopefully) also gain a
deeper understanding of the topic area you discussed and some similarities and
differences between Germany and England.
This
written report / handout for students will be handed to your tutor and a week
later you will answer specific questions based on your report. The purpose of
the oral is to show how well you can use the subject specific language you
acquired through the project.
Assessment
1.
Is based on your language work as documented in your emails which you regularly
exchanged (cc to CL).
2.
You will write a short report / lecture handout.
You
will write approx. 800-1200 words (word processed). You will hand in your
report (FAO Christine Leahy) to the language lab. Newton by Thursday, 12.00
(week 12).
3.
You will have a short oral (to be taped, week 13) in which you will answer
questions on your report. During the oral you will not be allowed to use any
notes.
Keep in mind that the primary objective is to
acquire subject specific language and to be able to use the language for your
own purposes.
Viel
Spass!!!!
Austin, R.;
Mendlick, F. (1993) E-mail in modern language development, ReCall 9, 19-23.
Beauvois, M.
(1998) E-talk: computer-assisted classroom discussion – attitudes and
motivation. In: Swaffar, J. et al. (eds.), 99-120.
Chun, D., 1998. Using computer-assisted class discussion to facilitate
the acquisition of interactive competence. In: Swaffar, J. et
al. (eds.), 57-80.
Dörnyei, Z.
(1997) Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics
and motivation. Modern Language Journal 81, 482-493.
Fischer, G.
(1998) Email in foreign language teaching. Toward the creation of virtual
classrooms, Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Gardner, R.
(1985) Social psychology and second language learning. The role of attitudes
and motivation, London: Edward Arnold.
Jaeglin,
C. (1998) Learners’ and instructors’ attitudes towards computer-assisted class
discussion. In: Swaffar, J. et al. (eds.), 121-138.
Katz, S.,
Lesgold, A. (1993) The role of the tutor in computer-based collaborative
learning situations. In: Lajoie, P.; Derry, S. (eds.) Computers as cognitive
tools. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 289-317.
Leahy, C. (1995)
Teaching higher levels: Motivation, language and content. 5th Institution wide
language programme conference, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, 91-116.
Leahy,
C. (2001) Bilingual
negotiation via email. An international project. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, in press.
Oxford,
R.; Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical
framework, Modern Language Journal 78/1, 12-28.
St. John, E.;
Cash, D. (1995) German language learning via email: A case study, ReCall 7/2, 47-51.
Sullivan, N., 1998. Developing critical reading and writing skills:
Empowering minority students in a networked computer classroom. In: Swaffar,
J. et al. (eds.), 41-55.
Swaffar, J.; Romano, S.;
Markley, P.; Arens, K. (1998) Language Learning Online. Theory and Practice
in the ESL and L2 Computer Classroom. Austin, Texas: Labyrinth Publication
Underwood, J. (1997) Integrated
learning systems. Potential into practice. Oxford: Heinemann.
Vilmi,
R. (1995) Helsinki University of Technology E-mail writing project, In: Gimeno,
A. (ed.), EuroCall 95 Proceedings, Valencia: Universidad Politecnica de
Valencia, 469-486.
Warschauer, M.
(1996) Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In: Warschauer, M.
(ed.) Telecollaboration
in foreign language learning. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, 29-46.
Warschauer, M.;
Ortega, L. (1997) CALL research – investigating network-based language
teaching. Conference paper held at TESOL ‘97, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Warschauer, M.
(1999) Electronic literacies. Language, culture and power in online
education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Information about the project described
can be found at the website: http://dml.ntu.ac.uk/~cl/Clemail.htm
Re. Bundesverfassungsgericht http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/glaw/indxbv95.html
Re.
Pressemeldungen / Pressefreiheit / Deutscher Journalistenverband
http://www.djv.de/presse/indexarchiv.html
http://www.djv.de/presse/pma19981103c.html
http://www.djv.de/archiv/pm980304.html
Leitseite für die Rechtschreibreform http://www.ids-mannheim.de/reform/
Datenschutz
http://www.index.recht.de/kategorien.phtml?predecessor=7&kat=7
Christine
Leahy, former DAAD Lektorin in GB, now Senior Lecturer in German at the
Nottingham Trent University, is the author of several CALL programmes. She
teaches German, including an introduction to German legal language and business
German. Her research interest is computer-assisted language learning, which
has developed from closed programmes to computer-mediated communication,
with particular interest in related motivational factors and output theory.
[1] The email project is described in some detail in Leahy (2001).
[2] The tasks, outline for assessments, questionnaires, and other
student information on email exchanges can be found at http://dml.ntu.ac.uk/~cl/Clemail.htm.
As an example, the subject-specific task for the law group can be found in
appendix 2.
[3] The German group was not assessed formally since the German
university regulations did not allow for this kind of alternative assessment
method.
[4] The module carried 10 credit points and was divided into two
assessment elements: 30% examination and 70% coursework.
[5] A good A Level result in German (usually A–C) is a pre-requisite
to study the course.
[6] In the 1995 study, one student expressed very strong instrumental
motivation by saying that she was studying Business with German because she
realised that the German economy was strong and influential and she therefore
felt the necessity to study the subject. Furthermore she volunteered the
comment that she strongly disliked Germans per se and had no wish to
communicate beyond the business related context. Even though this is most
likely based on individual experiences and the then current media coverage
(reports about neo-nazi attacks), it nevertheless seemed to have an influence
on her personal motivation, as she was reluctant to participate in oral
classroom activities. This experience found expression in one of the statements
in the pre-questionnaire ‘I don’t like the (British) Germans’. Some of the
other recurring student statements from the previous study were also
incorporated into this questionnaire.
[7] The pre-project questionnaire can be found in appendix 1. Both
pre- and post questionnaire may be accessed through the title page of the
project at http://dml.ntu.ac.uk/~cl/Clemail.htm.
[8] Gardner (1988:105-6).
[9] Percentage fractions were rounded to the next full percentage
point. The pre-questionnaire was answered by 58 students, the
post-questionnaire by only 42. Not all students who answered the
post-questionnaire had also answered the first one. A direct comparison is
therefore not possible.
[10] University courses in Germany follow different, often less
restricted pathways than in Great Britain. In many subjects, students enjoy
relative freedom to follow their own chosen paths of study within a given
framework. Furthermore, depending on the actual degree course, it is not
uncommon for students to study 6 to 7 years before reaching graduation. This
explains the age differences between the British and German students.
[11] The insecure users belonged to the British law group (23% of their
group), the German law group (21%) and the German business group (17%). 100% of
the British business group felt confident in using email.
[12] Again, the British business study group felt 100% confident using
the computer. Insecure users belonged to the German business group (39% of
their group), the British law group ( 38%) and the German law group (29%).
[13] 16% (= 9 students) considered improving their knowledge of politics
in the L2 country as a low to very low priority. The distribution among the
groups was as follows: LLB (NTU) 4; Law (Germ.) 1; BAEB (NTU) 1; Business
(Germ.) 3.
[14] General information about the rational of the project was sent to
all students during the course of the project. This information can be accessed
through the project’s web pages.
[15] The students’ names have been replaced by a code in order to protect
their identity. BrL = British Law student and a number.
[16] Quoted email messages and comments were not corrected, but copied
verbatim. Omissions are indicated by square brackets […].
[17] As an example, the brief for the British law group can be found in
the appendix. A link to all tasks can be found on the project home page http://dml.ntu.ac.uk/~cl/Clemail.htm.
[18] GL = German law student + number.
[19] This is a reference to the optional conference facility on the
webboard.
[20] The following band of choices applies to all statements, if not
indicated otherwise:
strongly agree – moderately agree –
slightly agree – neutral – slightly disagree – moderately disagree – strongly
disagree.
[21] Very high priority – high priority – neutral – low priority – very
low priority.
[22] The following range of answers is available for all statements,
unless otherwise indicated:
strongly agree – moderately agree –
slightly agree – neutral – slightly disagree – moderately disagree – strongly
disagree.