The role of video conferencing in foreign language learning among young students
Abstract
With advancements of technology and the rise of the Internet, an increasing number of educational organisations deliver courses online (Klibanov, et al., 2018). Even before the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, almost 20% of US students have taken one or more of their undergraduate modules remotely (National Center for Educational statistics, 2018). Along with wikis and blogs, video conferencing is a popular and well-established method for online education, as it has been around for more than 50 years (Roth, Pierce and Brewer, 2020). Then 2020 came, when remote education with video conferencing became “the basic global mode of course delivery”. So, “the quality of this delivery is essential” (Fatani, 2020, p. 1).
This sharp shift provoked a personal interest in the impact that technology-assisted tutoring has and will increasingly have on young learners. Are they “digital natives” who embrace and prefer web-conferencing tools, or they would still opt for the traditional classroom? The research puzzle involves multiple educational and psychological aspects. When comparing video conferencing with traditional tutoring, there are inevitable differences in student’s attitudes, satisfaction, learning strategies and outcomes. It is personally intriguing to trace these effects, and reflect on the impact of technology on our personal and professional lives.
From the perspective of foreign language professionals, understanding the effects that video conferencing has on youngsters is pivotal. It is the tutor’s role to facilitate the best possible learning outcomes by interacting with distant audiences, engaging and motivating them. During the COVID-19 pandemic most professionals had to move away from face-to-face teaching. However, teachers, just like everyone else, are reluctant to change. The majority reported resistance to web conferencing instruction, and only 9% of academics actually prefer teaching online (Educause, 2017). Much of these negative attitudes come from lack of knowledge and understanding. Therefore, for practitioners is of utmost importance to take a closer look at video conferencing tutoring, how it works and how it impacts young language learners.
References
Amin, F. M., & Sundari, H. (2020). EFL students’ preferences on digital platforms during emergency remote teaching: Video Conference, LMS, or Messenger Application?. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 362-378.
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual review of applied linguistics, 31(1), 19-35.
Blyth, C. (2018). Immersive technologies and language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 225-232.
Candarli, D., & Yuksel, H. G. (2012). Students’ perceptions of video-conferencing in the classrooms in higher education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 357-361.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332.
Ciekanski, M., & Chanier, T. (2008). Developing online multimodal verbal communication to enhance the writing process in an audio-graphic conferencing environment. ReCALL, 20(2), 162-182.
Doggett, D., & Mark, A. (2008). The videoconferencing classroom: What do students think?. Architectural and Manufacturing Sciences Faculty Publications, 3.
Educause (2017). ECAR Study of Faculty and Information Technology, 2017. Available from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2017/10/facultyitstudy2017.pdf
Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2006). Conceptual and socio-cognitive support for collaborative learning in videoconferencing environments. Computers & Education, 47(3), 298-315.
Fatani, T. H. (2020). Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 1-8.
Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2012). The use of videoconferencing to support multimodal interaction in an online language classroom. ReCALL, 24(2), 116-137.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Jauregi, K., de Graaff, R., van den Bergh, H., & Kriz, M. (2012). Native-non- native speaker interactions through video-web communication: a clue for enhancing motivation?. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(1), 1- 19.
Judd, T. (2018). The rise and fall (?) of the digital natives. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5).
Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan, H. (2012). Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials: Perspectives of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education, 58(3), 953-963.
Klibanov, O. M., Dolder, C., Anderson, K., Kehr, H. A., & Woods, J. A. (2018). Impact of distance education via interactive videoconferencing on students’ course performance and satisfaction. Advances in physiology education, 42(1), 21-25.
Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J. & Cullum-Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: a literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19 (3), 295-314.
Lim, B. J., & Pyun, D. O. (2019). Korean foreign language learning: Videoconferencing with native speakers. In Computer-Assisted language learning: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1123-1146). IGI Global.
McCombs, B. (2015). Learner‐centered online instruction. New Directions for teaching and learning, 2015(144), 57-71.
Nakatsuhara, F., Inoue, C., Berry, V., & Galaczi, E. (2017). Exploring the use of video- conferencing technology in the assessment of spoken language: A mixed-methods study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 14(1), 1-18.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Fast facts: Distance learning. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Fishman, L. C. D. I. B., & O'Connor-Divelbiss, S. (2013, April). Exploring a structured definition for learner-centered design. In Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 256-263). Chicago
Rehn, N., Maor, D., & McConney, A. (2016). Investigating teacher presence in courses using synchronous videoconferencing. Distance Education, 37(3), 302-316.
Roth, J. J., Pierce, M., & Brewer, S. (2020). Performance and satisfaction of resident and distance students in videoconference courses. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31(2), 296-310.
The European Students’ Union (ESU) (2010). Student-centred learning. Toolkit for students, staff and higher education institutions. Available from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539501.pdf
Unger, S., & Meiran, W. R. (2020). Student attitudes towards online education during the COVID-19 viral outbreak of 2020: Distance learning in a time of social distance. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science (IJTES), 4(4), 256-266.
Vurdien, R. (2019). Videoconferencing: Developing students’ communicative competence. Journal of Foreign Language Education and Technology, 4(2), 269-298.
Wang, Y. (2004). Supporting synchronous distance language learning with desktop videoconferencing. Language Learning & Technology, 8(3), 90-121.
Warni, S., Aziz, T. A., & Febriawan, D. (2018). The use of technology in English as a foreign language learning outside the classroom: An insight into learner autonomy. LLT Journal, 21(2), 148-56.
Whyte, S. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms. ReCALL: the Journal of EUROCALL, 23(3), 271.
Yamada, M. (2009). The role of social presence in learner‐centered communicative language learning using synchronous computer‐mediated communication: Experimental study. Computers and Education, 52, 820–833.
Yamada, M., & Akahori, K. (2007). An analysis of the relationship between presence, consciousness and performance in learner-centered communicative learning using SCMC. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 4(4), 59–91.
Yap, W. L., Neo, M. and Neo, T. K. (2016). Learner-Centred Teaching Contributes in Promising Results in Improving Learner Understanding and Motivation: A Case Study at Malaysia Tertiary Education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(4), 266-281
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
