||Effects of YouTube-Integrated Language Learning in the EFL Speaking Classes: A Case Study on Taiwanese College Students
||Department of English
|| 英語口說訓練一直是英語教學領域裡的核心議題，尤其在台灣的英語教學環境下更是如此，因為相較於其他教育地區，台灣缺乏貼近真實英語的口說練習環境。為了改善這樣的環境限制，已有許多研究致力於探討更有效的英語教學或學習方法。然而，鮮少研究專注於正在快速發展的「Web 2.0」教學法對台灣英語口說教學的潛在影響力，例如：YouTube的應用。
|| Speaking training is always a core issue in the field of English learning. Many studies have thus been devoted to exploring prospective, efficient pedagogical treatments for EFL teachers to teach and students to learn speaking. However, rare research has focused on the potential effects of the rapid-developing Web.2.0-based approach (e.g., the use of YouTube) in English speaking classes, especially in the context of Taiwan. This thesis, therefore, aims at investigating the effectiveness of YouTube assisted language learning in Taiwan’s EFL speaking classroom by conducting a 17-week experiment where 92 non-English majored freshmen were involved. The participants’ speaking proficiency and learning attitudes (i.e., self-efficacy and motivation) before and after the experiment were investigated, using both quantitative and qualitative inquiries. The quantitative results show that the participants made significant progress in their speaking ability via YouTube use. Also, their learning attitudes were elevated after the experiment. Qualitatively, although students had different perceptions of YouTube use, generally the results still support Youtube’s affordance as an effective pedagogical tool in EFL speaking classes in Taiwan.
||TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT III
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
LIST OF TABLES IX
LIST OF FIGURES X
LIST OF APPENDICES XI
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 6
1.3 Significance of the Study 6
1.4 Research Questions 8
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Background 9
2.2.1 CMC 10
2.2.2 Web 2.0 12
2.3 YouTube and English learning 13
2.4 Self-efficacy 14
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 17
3.1 Introduction 17
3.2 Research Design 17
3.3 Participants 18
3.4 Treatment 20
3.4.1 Individual English video tasks 20
3.4.2 Group English video tasks 20
3.4.3 Moodle 21
3.4.4 YouTube 23
3.5 Data Collection 25
3.5.1 Pre-tests 26
3.5.2 Post-tests 30
3.5.3 Speaking rubric 31
3.5.4 The raters 32
3.6 Data Analysis 34
3.6.1 Quantitative analysis 34
3.6.2 Qualitative analysis 35
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS & DISCUSSION 38
4.1 Introduction 38
4.2 Results of the SSMQ of the pre-test and post-test 39
4.3 Results of the speaking proficiency in the pre- and post-tests 40
4.4 Qualitative results of interviews 42
4.4.1 Thematic Portrayals 42
4.5 Discussion 47
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 52
5.1 Introduction 52
5.2 Conclusion 52
5.3 Suggestion for future study 53
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 The overall EFA results of the questionnaire 29
Table 3.2 Pearson’s r of the scores on pre- and post-tests between the raters 34
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistical results of the SSMQ 39
Table 4.2 Paired sample t tests for the scores of the pre- and post-test in the SSMQ 40
Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics for the mean scores awarded by Raters 1 & 2 in Pre-and Post-tests 41
Table 4.4 Paired sample t test for the mean scores of participants’ speaking proficiency in Pre- and Post-test 1 & 2 41
Table 4.5 Descriptive statistics for the mean scores of the PRE- and POST-TESTs 42
Table 4.6 Paired sample t test for the mean scores of participants’ speaking proficiency in PRE- and POST-TESTs 42
Table 3.3 Report summary of item analysis on the SSMQ 77
Table 3.4 Reliability statistics on the SSMQ 78
Table 3.5 The factor analysis: KMO and Bartlett’s Test 79
Table 3.6 The Factor Analysis: report summary of the SSMQ 80
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 The research flow diagram design: 19
Figure 2 The Moodle’s homepage 22
Figure 3 YouTube’s homepage 23
Figure 4 A screenshot of YouTube’s video playing frame 24
Figure 5 A screenshot of YouTube’s upload frame 24
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Syllabus for Lab Class ..........................................................................69
Appendix B Speaking self-efficacy and motivation questionnaire (SSMQ) ............73
Appendix C Speaking self-efficacy and motivation questionnaire (Chinese
Appendix D Item and factor analyses of the SSMQ .................................................76
||Abrams, Zs. (2001). Computer-mediated communication and group journals: Expanding the repertoire of participant roles. System, 29, 489-503.
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(3), 29-38.
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education, JISC Report. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf
Aregu, B. B. (2013). Enhancing self-regulated learning in teaching spoken communication: Does it affect speaking efficacy and performance. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(1), 96-109.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efﬁcacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scale. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2006). Reflections on Pedagogy: Reframing Practice to Foster Informal Learning with Social Software. Retrieved from http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/tt/docs/Anne20Bartlett-Bragg.pdf
Bearer, K. (2010). YouTube in the Classrooms!. Retrieved from http://esl.about.com/od/listeninglessonplans/a/youtube.htm
Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link?. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17-34). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Pearson Longman.
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for Windows. London: Routledge.
Caldwell, W. (2007). Taking Spanish outside the box: A model for integrating service learning into foreign language study. Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 463-471.
Cennamo, K. S., Ross, J. D., & Ertmer, P. A. (2014). Technology Integration for Meaningful Classroom Use: A standards-Based Approach. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chularut, P. & DeBacker, T. K. (2003). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 248-263.
Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22, 17-31.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language learning, 41(4), 469-512.
Cunningham, D. (1998). 25 Years of Technology in Language Teaching: A personal experience. Babel: Journal of the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teacher’s Associations, 33(1), 4-7.
Darhower, M. (2000). Synchronous CMC in the intermediate Spanish class: A case study. Paper Presented at the CALICO Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Dieu, B., Campbell, A. P. & Ammann, R. (2006). P2P and learning ecologies in EFL/ESL. The Journal of Teaching English with Technology, 6(3).
Dodds, J. (2011). The correlation between self-efficacy beliefs, language performance and integration amongst Chinese immigrant newcomers. Master’s Thesis. Retrieved from School of Education Student Capstones and Dissertations.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.
Duffy, P. (2008a). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. The Electronic journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 119-130.
Duffy, P. (2008b). Using YouTube: Strategies for Using New Media in Teaching and Learning. In R. Kwan, R. Fox, F. T. Chan, & P. Tsang (Eds.), Enhancing Learning through Technology (pp.31-44). Hackensack, N.J.: World Scientific.
Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Teachers construct constructivism: The center for constructivist teaching/teacher preparation project. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 205-216. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Gillmor, D. (2007). We the Media - 2. The Read-Write Web. Retrieved from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/ch02.pdf
Godwin-Jones, R. (2007). Digital video update: YouTube, flash, high-definition. Language Learning and Technology, 11(1), 16-21.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Grim, F. (2010). Giving authentic opportunities to second language learners: A look at a French service-learning project. Foreign Language Annals, 43(4), 605-623.
Guth, S., & Helm, F. (2010). Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, literacies and intercultural learning in the 21st century. Bern: Peter Lang.
Hazzard, D. (2006). Motivating ESL/EFL students to use English through movie making. The Internet TESL Journal, 7, 12.
Hines, R. A., & Pearl, C. E. (2004). Increasing interaction in web-based instruction: Using synchronous chats and asynchronous discussions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 33.
Ho, Y. K. (2003). Audiotaped dialogues journals: An alternative form of speaking practice. ELT Journal, 57(3), 269-277.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Eugene, OR: The Society.
Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools, 28(1), 75-85.
Kaufman, D. (2004). Constructivist issues in language learning and teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 303-319.
Kelsen, B. (2009). Teaching EFL to the iGeneration: A survey of using YouTube as supplementary material with college EFL students in Taiwan. CALL-EJ On-line. Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/10-2/kelsen.html
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kessler, G. (2010). Fluency and anxiety in self-access speaking tasks: The influence of environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(4), 361-375.
Lam, Y. (2000). Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(3), 389-420.
Lamy, M. N., & Goodfellow, R. (2010). Telecollaboration and learning 2.0. In S. Guth & F. Helm (Eds.), Telecollaboration 2.0: Language, Literacies and Intercultural Learning in the 21st Century (pp. 107-138). Bern: Peter Lang.
Leel, H. C. (2011). In Defense of concordancing: An application of data-driven learning in Taiwan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science, 12, 399-408.
Lin, M. H. (2012). Blog assisted language learning in the EFL writing classroom: An experimental study. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Lin, M. H. (2015). Learner-centered blogging: A preliminary investigation of EFL student writers’ experience. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 446-458.
Liu, M., Moore, Z., Graham, L., & Lee. S. (2002). A look at the research on computer-based technology use in second language learning: review of literature from 1990-2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 250-273.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991). Language Anxiety: Its Relationship to Other Anxieties and to Processing in Native and Second Languages. Language learning, 41(4), 513-534.
Magnan, S. S. (2008). Mediating discourse online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Malhiwsky, D. R. (2010). Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: A mixed methods study. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/58/
Mason, R. (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121-133.
Mayora, C. A. (2009). Using YouTube to encourage authentic writing in EFL classrooms. TESL Reporter, 42(1), 1-12.
McNeill, B. R. (2006). A comparative statistical assessment of different types of EFL writing by Japanese college students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2010). Teaching languages online. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Morris, F. (2001). Serving the community and learning a foreign language: Evaluating a service learning programme. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 14(3), 244-255.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
O’Donoghue, J. (2009). Technology-supported environments for personalized learning: Methods and case studies. Hershey, PA: Information Science.
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
O'Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & strategies, 65(1), 17.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language journal, 78(1), 12-28.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-587.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds). Advances in motivation and achievement (pp.1- 49). Retrieved from https://www.dynaread.com/current-directions-in-self-efficacy-research
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
Pettenati, M. C., Cigognini, E., Mangione, J., & Guerin, E. (2007). Using social software for personal knowledge management in formal online learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 52-65.
Pong, K. H. (2010). Learners’ anxieties on posting their own speeches on YouTube.com: Facilitative or debilitative. College English: Issues and Trends, 3, 73-100.
Price, K. (2006). Web 2.0 and education: What it means for us all. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian Computers in Education Conference, Cairns, Australia.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and other powerful tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rollett, H., Lux, M., Strohmaier, M., Dosinger, G., & Tochtermann, K. (2007). The Web 2.0 way of learning with technologies. International Journal of Learning Technology, 3(1), 87-107.
Rosa, K. D., & Eskenazi, M. (2011). Self-assessment of motivation: explicit and implicit indicators in L2 vocabulary learning. Artificial Intelligence in Education, 6738, 296-303.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Shang, H. (2005). Email dialogue journaling: attitudes and impact on L2 reading performance. Educational Studies, 31(2). 197-212.
Shell, D. F., Murphy, C. C., & Bruning, R. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy mechanisms in reading and writing achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 91.
Simina, V., & Hamel, M. J. (2005). CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 217-228.
Slavin, R. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501.
Sun, Y. C. (2009). Voice blog: An exploratory study of language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 13(2), 88-103.
Sun, Y. C., & Chang, Y. J. (2012). Blogging to learn: Becoming EFL academic writers through collaborative dialogues. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 43-61.
Sun, Y. C., & Yang, F. Y. (2015). I help, therefore, I learn: service learning on Web 2.0 in an EFL speaking class. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(3), 202-219.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505-518.
van Kaam, A. (1959). Phenomenal analysis: Exemplified by a study of the experience of “really feeling understood.” Journal of Individual Psychology, 15(1), 66-72.
van Kaam, A. (1966). Application of the phenomenological method. In A. van Kaam (Ed), Existential foundations of psychology. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Vygotsky, L. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-Mediated Collaborative Learning: theory and practice. Modern Language journal, 81(4), 470-481.
Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kerns (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2007). Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of Web 2.0. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 1-23.
Wilson, B. G. (1996). Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.
Wu, M. L., & Tu, C. T. (2009). SPSS & the Application and Analysis of Statistics. Taipei: Wu Nan.