A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 100-122

  Lai, Chun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

Out of class technology use; Structural equation modelling; Student use of technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878503677     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10943501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.). The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds), Springer Series in Social Psychology (pp. 11-39). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
3. Artino, A. R., & Stephens, J. M. (2009). Academic motivation and self-regulation: A comparative analysis of undergraduate and graduate students learning online. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 146-151.
4. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
5. Barrs, K. (2010). What factors encourage high levels of student participation in a self-access centre? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1,10-16.
6. Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40.
7. Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A. C., & Byrenes, J. P. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments: An opportunity-propensity analysis. In G. Dettori & D. Persico (Eds.), Fostering Self-regulated Learning through ICT (pp. 1-26). doi:10.4018/978-1-61692-901-5
8. Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-access center. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12-27. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2011/actionresearch.pdf
9. Chang, S., & Tung, F. (2008). An empirical investigation of students' behavioral intentions to use the online learning course wLLAsites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71-83.
10. Chapelle, C. (2010). Evaluating computer technology for language learning. TESL-Ontario, 36(2), 56-67.
11. Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning acceptance. Computers & Education, 57, 1501-1511.
12. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T. M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.011.
13. Christison, M. A. (2003). Learning styles and strategies. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
14. Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond WLLA 2.0: Mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 56-69.
15. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.
16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
17. Deepwell, F., & Malik, S. (2008). On campus, but out of class: an investigation into students' experiences of learning technologies in their self-directed study. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 16(1), 5-14.
18. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change. How knowledge, beliefs and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 221-251.
19. Ferede, T. (2010). Major hindrances to the development of autonomy among Grade Nine students in learning English: Baso General secondary school in DLLArLLAerhan in focus. Ethiopian Journal of Education & Society, 6(2), 1-28.
20. Gray, K., Chang, S., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Use of social wLLA technologies by international and domestic undergraduate students: implications for internationalising learning and teaching in Australian universities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 31-46.
21. Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2008). University students' approaches to learning: Rethinking the place of technology. Distance Education, 29(2), 141-152.
22. Greenhow, C., Robelia, E., & Hughes, J. (2009). WLLA 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researchers, 38(4), 246-259.
23. Hadwin, A. F., Oshige, M., Gress, C. L. Z., & Winne, P. H. (2010). Measurement and assessment in computer supported collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 806-814.
24. Haerle, F. C., & Bendixen, L. D. (2008). Personal epistemology in elementary classrooms: A conceptual comparison of Germany and the United States in a guide for future cross-cultural research. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp.151-176). New York, NY: Springer.
25. Hartshorne, R., & Ajjan, H. (2009). Examining student decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: theory and empirical tests. Journal of Computers in Higher Education, 21, 183-198.
26. Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgious, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011). TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
27. Holec, H. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: A single pedagogical paradigm or two? In F. Kjisik, P. Voller, N. Aoki & Y. Nakata (Eds.), Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities (pp. 21-47). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.
28. Hsu, M. K., Wang, S. W., & Chiu, K. K. (2009). Computer attitude, statistics anxiety and self-efficacy on statistical software adoption behavior: An empirical study of online MBA learners. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 412-420.
29. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
30. Huang, Y. M., Huang, Y. M., Huang, S. H., & Lin, Y. T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: Evidence of active/passive attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use. Computers & Education, 58, 273-282.
31. Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training as effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualizing out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202.
33. Inozu, J., Sahinkarakas, S., & Yumru, H. (2010). The nature of language learning experiences beyond the classroom and its learning outcomes. US-China Foreign Language, 8, 14-21.
34. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Methodology in the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
35. Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY: Association Press.
36. Lai, C., & Gu, M. Y. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 317-335.
37. Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students' use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education, 59, 569-579.
38. Lai, C., & Lin, X. L. (2012). Strategy training in a task-based language classroom. Language Learning Journal, 40, 1-21.
39. Lee, Y. H., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12, Article 50.
40. Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93, 769-782.
41. Macaro, E. (2006). Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 90, 320-337.
42. Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approach and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865-1883.
43. Margaryan, A., & Littlejohn, A. (2008). Repositories and communities at cross-purposes: Issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 333-347.
44. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. L. (2010). Personalized and self-regulated learning in the WLLA 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28-43.
45. Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427-436.
46. Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: A literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79, 576-600.
47. Murray, G. (2008). Pop culture and language learning: Learners' stories informing EFL. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 1-16.
48. Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers' acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 568-575.
49. Rao, Z. H. (1996). Reconciling communicative approaches to the teaching of English with traditional Chinese methods. Research in the Teaching of English, 30, 458-471.
50. Rahimi, M., & Katal, M. (2012). The role of metacognitive listening strategies awareness and podcast-use readiness in using podcasting for learning English as a foreign language. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1153-1161.
51. Shi, L. J. (2006). The successors of Confucianism or a new generation? A questionnaire study on Chinese students' culture of learning English. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 19, 122-147.
52. Slyke, C. V., Dick, G., Case, T., & Ilie, V. (2010). The importance of compatibility and pressure on intentions to engage in distance learning. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, 395-414.
53. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79, 625-649.
54. Šumak, B., Polancic, G., & Hericko, M. (2010). An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption using UTAUT. Second International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid and Online Learning Conference Proceeding, pp. 17-22.
55. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
56. Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers' attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65-79.
57. Tsai, C. C., & Chuang, S. C. (2005). The correlation between epistemological beliefs and preferences toward Internet-based learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 97-100.
58. Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852.
59. Venkatesh, V., Davis, G. B., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 267-286.
60. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
61. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
62. Weinstein, C. E., Woodruff, T., & Awalt, C. (2007). Becoming a strategic learner: LASSI instructional modules. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing.
63. Winke, P. & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students' computer access and literacy for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482-509.
64. Winnie, P., & Hadwin, A. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 227-304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modeling in Management, 2(3), 251-280.
66. Zhang, G. M. (2010). Technology uses in creating second language learning environments: When learners are creators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
67. Zhao, Y., & Lai, C. (2007). Technology and second language learning: Promises and problems. In L. L. Parker (Ed.), Technology-mediated learning environments for young English learners: Connections in and out of school (pp. 167-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerma & D. H. Schunk (eds.) Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 49-64). New York, NY: Routledge.