Technology-Mediated Language Training: Developing and Assessing a Module for a Blended Curriculum for Newcomers

Abstract

Newcomers to Canada with low proficiency in English or French often face challenges in the workforce (Kustec, 2012). While language classes provide workplace language training, not all newcomers are able to attend face-to-face classes (Shaffir & Satzewich 2010), suggesting a need for outside the classroom, occupation-specific language training. The use of technology has been shown to be advantageous for second language (L2) learning (Stockwell, 2007), especially when used outside the classroom (i.e., mobile-assisted language learning), as mobile technology affords learners greater control and flexibility over their own learning (Yang, 2013). This paper reports on a study investigating the development of a blended curriculum for L2 learners employed in customer service. A technology-mediated module was designed and developed within a task-based language teaching framework to provide workplace-linguistic support on mobile devices, enabling learners to access the language instruction they needed, when they needed it. The module contents and usability were assessed by high-beginner English proficiency newcomers employed in customer service (n=4) and their volunteer teachers (n=4). Results confirm the overall benefits of using language learning technology in providing instruction that meets participant language needs, ensuring opportunities for individualized training. Implications for designing, implementing, and researching technology-mediated modules are discussed.

Systematic Review of Mobile-Assisted Task-Based Learning Based on WoS (2013-2022)

“…Limited research is conducted among participants with other educational backgrounds. Specifically, 2 (12.5%) papers are on secondary or middle school students (Kang & Kim, 2021;Morgana & Shrestha, 2018), and another 2 (12.5%) in other institutions, i.e., the institute of culture and workplace language support (Gasparini, 2018;McLellan et al, 2021), and 1 (6.3%) paper on elementary school students (Pellerin, 2014).…”

“…In terms of learning contexts, as presented in Table 2, around 50% of the studies were conducted in both formal and informal contexts. Three studies Jiang & Li, 2018;McLellan et al, 2021) were conducted in only informal contexts, and four studies (de la Fuente, 2014; Fang et al, 2021;Lan & Lin, 2016;Pellerin, 2014) were conducted in formal contexts. Two studies (Lim & Lee, 2015;Park & Slater, 2015) did not specify the learning contexts: one paper (Park & Slater, 2015) discussed the needs analysis for task types in mobile learning, and the other (Lim & Lee, 2015) examined the effects of tasks on learners' interactions.…”

“…Pellerin (2014) on the other hand analyzed learners' preferences for different pedagogical approaches (instructional approach vs. task-based learner-centered approach). The other research foci are evaluation, including evaluation of a task typology (Park & Slater, 2015), learning module (McLellan et al, 2021), and influencing factors on the quality of tasks (Kang & Kim., 2021), need analysis, and learning behavior. Need analysis included task-based need analysis (Park & Slater, 2015), as well as linguistic and technology need analysis (McLellan et al, 2021).…”

“…The other research foci are evaluation, including evaluation of a task typology (Park & Slater, 2015), learning module (McLellan et al, 2021), and influencing factors on the quality of tasks (Kang & Kim., 2021), need analysis, and learning behavior. Need analysis included task-based need analysis (Park & Slater, 2015), as well as linguistic and technology need analysis (McLellan et al, 2021). Learning behavior (student engagement, participation, spontaneous communication, and interaction) (Tragant et al, 2021) was explored to examine its connection with language proficiency.…”

“…With regards to sample size, except for one paper (Tong et al, 2020) that did not specify the sample size, the sample size in the remaining 15 papers ranged from below 20 (n=6), 20 to 50 (n=7), to more than 50 (n=2). It ought to be pointed out that four papers (McLellan et al, 2021;Morgana & Shrestha, 2018;Park & Slater, 2015;Tong et al, 2020) included both teacher and student participants, and 11 papers included only student participants, compared to one paper (Pellerin, 2014) that involved only teacher participants. With a relative sample size, the limitation of the studies is apparent, and therefore the findings cannot be generalized.…”