SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

The use of synchronous and asynchronous technological tools for socio-constructivist language learning

Dennis EMMERSON
Pages
1–6
Publication Date
2019-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The benefits of using synchronous and asynchronous tools, in particular, to facilitate language learning in social and collaborative ways will also be explained in a detailed discussion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Language Learning has undergone significant changes in terms of its underlying theoretical foundation and the practical implications of instructional techniques.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Although the significant contributions of behavioral and cognitive theorists cannot be overstated, the relatively new constructivist ideology seems to be particularly promising in this field.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The benefits of using synchronous and asynchronous tools, in particular, to facilitate language learning in social and collaborative ways will also be explained in a detailed discussion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:edtech · technology · EFL

Abstract

Language Learning has undergone significant changes in terms of its underlying theoretical foundation and the practical implications of instructional techniques. Although the significant contributions of behavioral and cognitive theorists cannot be overstated, the relatively new constructivist ideology seems to be particularly promising in this field. This paper will examine socio-constructivist theory as it relates to language learning and explore the recent technological advancements which learners and educators can exploit in a sociocultural way to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of language acquisition. The benefits of using synchronous and asynchronous tools, in particular, to facilitate language learning in social and collaborative ways will also be explained in a detailed discussion.

🔖

Cite This Article

EMMERSON, D. (2019). The use of synchronous and asynchronous technological tools for socio-constructivist language learning. The Journal of Language Learning and Teaching, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 1–6. https://ajindex.com/articles/137662

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abdelraheem, A. Y. (2012). Interactions quality in Moodle as perceived by learners and its relation with some variables. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13 (3), 375-389.
  2. Back, M. (2013). "La Orquesta": Symbolic performance in a multilingual community of practice. Modern Language Journal, 97( 2), 383-396. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.2013.12009.x Chun, D. M. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22 (1), 17-31.
  3. Gokool-Ramdoo, S. (2008). Beyond the Theoretical Impasse: Extending the applications of Transactional Distance Education Theory. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 9 (3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/541/1151
  4. Kim, T. (2011). Sociocultural dynamics of ESL learning (de)motivation: An activity theory analysis of two adult Korean immigrants. C anadian Modern Language Review, 6 7( 1), 91-122.
  5. Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. F oreign Language Annals, 25 (5), 441-454.
  6. Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 7 9( 4), 457-476.
  7. Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9 (3). Retrieved fromh ttp://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2002). Legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice. Supporting lifelong learning, 1, 111-126.
  8. Murugaiah, P., & Thang, S. (2010). Development of interactive and reflective learning among Malaysian online distance learners: An ESL instructor's experience. International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 1 1 (3), 21-41.
  9. Nolan, R. E. (2001). The power of theory in the administration of ESL programs. Adult Basic Education, 11 (1), 3-16.
  10. Parks, S., & Maguire, M. H. (1999). Coping with on-the-job writing in ESL: A constructivist- semiotic perspective. Language Learning, 4 9( 1), 143-75.
  11. Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. Calico Journal, 20( 1), 7-32.
  12. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. MIT press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psyc