1. Language Learner Perceptions of Technology-Based Tasks Using Wimba Voice: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, and L2 Selves Jesse Gleason and Ruslan Suvorov Iowa State University Antwerp CALL 2010: Motivation and beyond August 19, 2010

2. Agenda Introduction Literature Review Research Questions Methodology Results and Discussion Conclusion 2Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

3. Introduction New technologies and new challenges CMC and L2 oral proficiency Wimba Voice (WV) Motivation and L2 selves (Dörnyei, 2005) 3Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

4. Wimba Voice Board 4Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

5. Wimba Voice Presentation 5Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

6. Literature Review Pioneer work on motivation and L2 learning: socio- educational model (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, 1972): Integrative orientation Instrumental orientation + six variables Current perspective on L2 motivation: L2 self system (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009): Ideal L2 self Ought-to L2 self 6Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

7. Literature Review Linking motivation, CMC, and L2 oral skills: CMC and L2 oral proficiency in CALL Benefits of asynchronous CMC Research on WV and oral performance: Dearth of theory-driven research (e.g., Charle Poza, 2005; Rosen, 2009; Tognozzi & Truong, 2009) No studies on WV and L2 motivation 7Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

8. Research Questions 1.What are students' perceptions of WV’s effectiveness as a tool for the development of their L2 oral proficiency? 2.To what extent does the use of WV for language learning tasks affect students’ perceptions of their future L2 selves and motivation to use their English speaking skills in the future? 8Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

9. Methodology: Participants Ten international teaching assistants Eight Chinese and two Koreans Enrolled in English communication skills class Age M=25, number of years studying English M=11 Variety of majors 9Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

10. Methodology: Context Conducted at a large public university in the USA Graduate-level English class SPEAK/TEACH test WVB and WVP in Moodle 10Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

11. Methodology: Materials Pre- and post-surveys: Five sections (three used in this study) Likert-scale items and open-ended questions Focus on ideal, ought-to L2 selves, and motivation Adapted from other surveys Semi-structured interviews: Perceptions of WV Future L2 selves 11Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

12. Methodology: Procedure Informed consent forms and pre-survey (Week 11) Post-survey and interviews (Week 15) 12Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

13. Methodology: Analysis Quantitative: Descriptive statistics (M, SD, Cohen’s d) of Likert-scale items from pre- and post-surveys Qualitative: Analysis of interview transcripts Analysis of responses to open-ended questions from the post-survey 13Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

14. Example Survey Questions 14Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

15. Results and Discussion RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency Pre- and post-survey results 15 Pre MPre SDPost MPost SDM diff.Cohen’s d 4.1480.5503.8520.345-0.296-0.645 Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

16. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ1: Students’ perceptions of WV's effectiveness for improving L2 oral proficiency Interview results Positive perceptions: Convenience and user-friendliness Facilitation of self-noticing and error diagnosis Interactivity and exchange of ideas Negative perceptions: Technical problems Similarity to other recording software (lack of uniqueness) Absence of real-time interaction, thus, negotiation of meaning 16Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

17. Results and Discussion (cont.) Positive perceptions: WVB is "very good for recording... and the most important thing that I think is it can give us a chance to exchange our ideas, to know what my classmates think of my speaking” (P3). "I saw sometimes I pronounced some words correctly, but when I listen to myself, it's actually not that correct” (P6). Negative perceptions: “I can't record from the middle of a recording. If I'm satisfied with the first half of my recording but want to do the second part again and join them together, I'm not be able to do that in wimba. Instead I have to record the whole thing again” (P8). "[I] just feel, cause you speak with a computer, not with the human, that's a negative feeling” (P10). 17Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

18. Example Survey Question 18Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

19. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves Pre- and post-survey results 19 Survey section Pre MPre SDPost MPost SDM diff.Cohen’s d Ideal L2 self 3.4440.8013.5970.8470.1530.186 Ought-to L2 self 3.0401.1223.1921.0020.1520.143 Future L2 self 3.2111.0313.3630.9680.152 Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

20. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves “[M]y future plan is (…) that I will…focus on research and teaching, then maybe I will still stay here or some place else and maybe I will, after, during this speak research and teaching time…use English …I will use English almost all the time. And the second choice is that I will…go in the industry and find a job. And in that case I …think that speaking English is the best choice for me in the future career” (P3). "I don't know," "I am not sure," "I don't think so," "I don't have many confidence on my English” (P5). 20Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

21. Results and Discussion (cont.) RQ2: Effect of WV-based tasks on students’ motivation and L2 selves "Um, in my opinion, the only way that I can improve my confidence is to speak and practice more English, so... so in this sense Wimba kind of has helped me improve my confidence” (P4). 21Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

22. Conclusion 1.Students have an array of perceptions regarding the efficacy of WV for developing L2 speaking -> individual differences. 2.L2 learners have mixed opinions concerning the role of WV tasks in facilitating the vision of their future L2 selves and motivation -> clear vision = higher motivation (Al-Shehri, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009). 22Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

23. Limitations Timing issues Small sample size Only self-reported data 23Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

24. Ideas for Future Research Longitudinal studies Effect of WV-based tasks on L2 learners’ performance Relationship between L2 confidence and motivation Potential of WV for facilitating collaboration in online/hybrid and distance L2 courses 24Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University

25. Questions? Suggestions? Thank you! Jesse Gleason jgleas@iastate.edujgleas@iastate.edu Ruslan Suvorov rsuvorov@iastate.edursuvorov@iastate.edu 25Language Learner Perceptions of WV tasks: L2 Oral Proficiency, Motivation, L2 Selves | Gleason & Suvorov | Iowa State University