Language Labs

in England
Summarised findings

201 5

Caroline Stockman

Language Labs
in England
Summarised Findings

2015

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International

License. Please visit the Creative Commons website for more information. Icons in this document by
Freepik from flaticon.com, CC Attribution.

Table of Contents

1.
Introduction 1
2.
A brief history 2
3.
Labs today 4

3.1
What is a Lab 4

3.2
Whats in a Lab 4
3.3
What you do in a Lab 6

4.
Views on Labs 7
5.
Other Technologies in MFL 8
5.1
Types and Tools 8
5.2
Whats useful 9

6.
Implications 9
6.1
For education 9
6.2
For industry 10

1 Introduction
This document summarises the findings of a Ph.D. study. It aims to represent the data and conclusions in a
very practical (and brief) way without the preceding theoretical and methodological reflections, which are
central to the academic effort. The purpose of this open document is to share some of the data and implications with educators and industry makers.
The case study of this Ph.D. was language labs. Academic literature on language labs peaked between
1974 and 1979, after which research interests steadily dwindled. Though that hype seems to have passed,
schools still spend significant amounts of their budget on a lab. In a time of budget cuts and performance
pressures, it is vitally important to get the most out of such an investment.
The specific setting for the empirical research was secondary schools and colleges in England.
When this study took place (Oct. 2011 - June 2015), a series of high-impact changes were
implemented by then Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove. These included fast-paced
academy conversions, budget cuts, much debated exam reforms, and the introduction of performancerelated pay. This provided an interesting, and to the author also personal, context.
In view of the technology, the participant group naturally was MFL teachers (Modern Foreign Language
teachers). The perspective of students or other stakeholders was not investigated in this study. Though
their views would undoubtedly be interesting as well, the decision to focus on teachers was both
academically motivated as well as personal. My personal interests originate in my own background as
professionally trained language teacher, and also as teacher trainer, in the use of language labs.
The methodological background of this study is the increasingly popular paradigm of mixed-methods
research. Research has typically divided in two approaches: quantitative (doing surveys, statistical analysis,
measuring,...) or qualitative (in-depth observations, interviews, narratives or discourse analysis, ...). Mixing
methods is now treated as a third paradigm.
For the Ph.D., the research proceeded as follows. Firstly, in-depth interviews were held with teachers from
three different schools. These schools were selected in view of maximum variation sampling, which means
selecting a participant group which are so different from each other that they will adequately represent
a spectrum of contexts or people. Thematic analysis through coding proceeded, and the insights from
this analysis were processed into a questionnaire. This was sent out directly to teachers in schools across
England. In total, 435 completed questionnaires were used for the statistical analysis. The results were
discussed with a focus group of six people relevant to the choice of setting and technology, yet with very
different individual backgrounds.
The theoretical background of this study is interdisciplinary. It revisits technology acceptance studies from
a new perspective offered by Cultural Studies theory. This explains the original title of this work, A Cultural
Studies Contribution to Technology Acceptance in Education - supervised by Prof. Dr. Fred Truyen and
Prof. Dr. Piet Desmet. I owe them my thanks for guiding this endeavour to a successful finish, and also the
other members of the Ph.D. viva; Prof. Dr. Jan Baetens, Prof. Dr. Lieven Demarez, and Dr. Christine Sinclair.

For more information, training or consultancy services,

please contact the author via LinkedIn or email: cs@carolinestockman.com

2 A brief history

A language lab in 1975 (Source: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)

Language labs boomed in the early 1970s with the advances of the tape recorder, which supposedly
matched prevailing beliefs in the pedagogical merits of behaviourist learning (Davies, 2005:4). Because
they have been around for decades now, many people have an intuitive understanding of a language lab,
or a mental image of the one they were exposed to at some point in time.
However, technology has evolved since then, blurring the lines of a clear definition in both technical as
well as pedagogical terms.
Today, labs are mostly digital in the UK (though the occasional set-up with tape recorders can still be
found). In hardware terms, desktop computers have taken their place in the lab, with mobile devices also
an option. Students may be working on devices fixed in a room, handed to them from laptop trolleys, or
in a personal Bring Your Own Device set-up. The labs purpose is still very similar to the original idea, with
speaking, listening and recording speech at its core functionality.
However, there is now also the possibility of video streaming and recording, text editing, online access,
greater storage options, group chat, subtitling, ...
After their peak popularity, labs seem to fall out of favour because of reliability issues and associations with
a newly outdated model of behaviourism (Davies, 2005:4). Yet not everyone would agree that they could
not fit constructivist learning (McDonough, 2001). Digital technology has indeed opened doors to more
modern pedagogy, creativity, new levels of interaction, more user-friendly controls and self-access.
Next to these technical developments and related educational options, other distinctions can be made in
the installation of a lab. For example, some can be software-only, where computers connect via a standard
network cable. Alternatively, they can be set up with, for example, additional graphics cards to enhance
audio and video quality.

In other words, the technological fluidity allows for a variety of practical arrangements both in the
practicalities of the installation as in its educational use, which certainly makes a clear-cut definition of
a language lab less straightforward.
The author was extremely aware of potential biases occuring with regards to a specific lab set-up, a
provider, or a software. Various mechanisms were built in the research to oppose this. Most importantly,
the participants were at all times encouraged to convey their own sense of a lab. They come from
different regions in England, types of schools, personal backgrounds,... Also, the labs they use are not
limited to one software or one provider. Therefore, the results are representative for a broader landscape.
Today, labs are still integrated in many schools around the UK, and this is no mean feat as these rooms
can take a rather significant portion of the school budgets initially and then require plenty of ongoing
resource investment after installation: maintenance staff, insurance, hardware replacements, teacher
training, software updates,...
Despite all the technological potential, language lab use is still described as marginal at best (Vanderplank, 2010). As budget cuts and performance pressures mount simultaneously, it is important to understand the context of their use to ensure a good investment, and good education. Teacher perspectives on
using the lab (or not) is one aspect of that understanding.

Further reading
Davies, G., P. Bangs, R. Frisby & E. Walton (2005) Setting up effective digital language laboratories and multimedia ICT
suites for MFL, via www.languages-ict.org.uk.
McDonough, S. (2001) Way behond drill and practice: Foreign language lab activities in support of constructivist
learning International Journal of Instructional Media 28:1, pp. 75-82.
Vanderplank, R. (2010) Dj vu? A decade of research on language laboratories, television and video in language
learning. Language Teaching 43:1, pp.1-37.

A language lab in 2012 (Source: By Author, CC BY-NC 4.0)

3

3 Labs today
What is a lab?
We had a language lab, but it was really unreliable and eventually had it replaced by a computer
room. Although we have lost some of the features of a real language lab - such as the possibility of
interaction, sending files to the screens etc, it does now work!

(John, teacher of Spanish in a South West state school).

Johns situation is not one-of-a-kind. Many teachers today face the decision to stick with the lab or not
(which was the case for 68% of participants). Many schools indeed have lost their lab already.
Unreliability issues are at the top of reasons for discontinued use. Teachers would rather have something
less fancy which works, then unreliable state-of-the-art ICT.
Regardless of lab removal decisions, a definition of a real lab
comes forward here. A regular computer classroom, (even) with
technology specific for language learning, is not considered a real
language lab. Only 22% of teachers who have worked in a lab, or
still do, would say that this was a regular computer room used as a
language lab. Yet 44% would say that the lab they used was also
used as a regular computer room, or even a regular classroom.

Regular computer rooms

are not labs, but labs
can be used as regular
computer rooms.

In other words, about half the time when a lab is installed in a

school, it will continue to be used as a dedicated room. Rarely will teachers believe that they are teaching
in a language lab, when it is only a computer room with specific software or hardware of language
learning.
Yet teachers say you can be in the lab, but not using the lab. This implies a disconnect between the room
designated as the lab, which has certain material components in it, and certain functionalities in relation
to these components. These two things are discussed further below.

Whats in a lab?

Desktop computers and headsets, with microphones, are always involved.
In 90% of cases, both students and teachers use the devices which are fixed in
the room. In only a small number of cases, laptops and tablet devices can be
used alongside.
The room also tends to be equipped with an interactive whiteboard (60%) and/or a regular whiteboard
(49%), and a computer screen projector (56%). Audio players and recording devices are (much) more common than their equivalents for video playing or recording.

Schools with language labs tend to have only one, though a little over 20% have two or more. Around 60%
of the time, teachers say the lab is used by the whole department. Most of the teachers claim to use the
lab frequently, which in their view means not daily, but a few times a week. Only one teacher said she does
use the lab every lesson, and it appears she is also timetabled in the lab every lesson.
About half the teachers are timetabled in the room, and the other half books the lab in advance. The number of times they are timetabled mostly varies from a few times a month to a few times a week.
Being in the lab doesnt necessarily mean using the functionalities of the software of the lab; students may
be browsing independently, or even performing activities unrelated to the ICT in the room. On the next
page, a list of common uses for the lab are detailed further.

About half the labs are

open to students for
independent use.

In about half the cases, students are allowed to used the lab outside
of normal lesson time. In this case, a minority of labs (18%) will have
an open-door policy all day long, or otherwise specified access on
different times during school hours - varying equally from once a
day to multiple times a day.

As labs still used fixed devices more often than not, lay-out is important. With regards to classroom lay-out,
the students positions are most often organised in rows throughout the room, or rows lined along the
walls. Much fewer cases indicated they use an island lay-out, or alternatives such as rows along the walls
with another island or table in the middle which could stimulate blended learning or carrousel activities.
This paints a picture of a fairly traditional language lab, such as pictured on the previous pages.

Yet despite the fairly traditional lay-out, about a third of language labs present in schools have been
installed in the last five years. Another third in the last ten years. The remainder pre-date this decade.

Most labs are organised in rows throughout the room, or rows along the walls.
5

In the lab...

What teachers do

What students do

73%

asking students to go
to a specific website

#1

accessing language learning

websites

70%

walking around to talk

to students

#2

listening to (educational)
audio files

#3

browsing the web

asking students to listen

to specific audio/watch video

60%

What teachers also do:

sending a listening file to the students
sending a Word document to the students
monitoring the students screens

50%
pairing students to talk or work together

40%
20%

reading a text
recording themselves

recording a conversation (audio only)

listening to students via the headsets
speaking to the students via the headset

giving a presentation
assessing each others work
writing an essay
listening to a peers recording
sharing files with other students

recording a conversation (with video)

subtitling

10%

As the table above shows, the most common activity is to ask students to go to a particular
website (an option which 73% of participants chose). Unsurprisingly, the most common
activity for the students is to access language learning websites. Teachers monitor the
students via the headsets less than expected (38%), but they tend to favour walking around
the classroom to interact with students (70%).
However, teachers do monitor the students screens often (55%).
This suggests students spend more time on listening and reading in the lab, or browsing,
rather than speaking or writing. In this case, it would make sense for teachers to monitor
screens rather than listen to the students via the headsets.
Overall, it seems the lab is used more often for receptive skills than productive skills.

4 Views on Labs
Opinions on labs today have been developed from a range of views which originate in the seventies.
There is, on the one hand, the view that the language laboratory is nothing more than a technological
tool (Mendoza-Harrell, 1976:92). Its meaningfulness or usefulness therefore depends on its actual use.
On the other hand, there is the view that case after case, the language laboratory has not lived up to its
promise. It is hard to find empirical evidence that students learn languages any better with this system.
(JR Allen, 1974). This suggests there is something inherently good or bad about the lab, regardless of its
use. This kind of empirical evidence is still hard to find, and certainly for the more recently developed systems which have far greater modern classroom potential. However, most teachers hold the view that the
lab is an asset to the department.
The growing threat for their survival is not their perceived intrinsic value, but the great range of other tools
which perform the same functionalities to play authentic speech, record students, discuss in pairs, etc.
Often, these tools are low-cost, easily accessible and easy to use - contrary to the lab which is a more comprehensive system requiring more investment.
Teachers who use the lab feel quite competent in what they do. However, only a
quarter have shown colleagues how to do certain things in the lab. Next to this,
only 30% would call themselves innovators in the lab (which can be said to be in
line with the data on the previous page, showing common uses of the lab).
Next to this, 80% would disagree with conducting all communication via the headsets, and prefers to walk around in the class to talk to students.
In view of the cultural context, two motivators have been found to most influence the use of language labs:
time and performance pressures.
Spending time on technology is a big investment for a teacher, who has a million things on their to-do list anyway. There is a clear consensus that technology can be a big waste of time if it doesnt work, if it takes too long to learn how
to use it, or to set it up, and so on. Time really is of the essence in education.
Most MFL teachers would say that the lab is not a waste of time if it works
well. However, a lack of time, certainly during school hours, is often quoted as
the reason for not using it to its full potential.
As for the second motivator, performance: Using technology gets a higher observation grade, but
using the lab doesnt as the students are not interacting and are static and it is boring
for the observer (Saskia, French teacher in an East Anglian Sixth form). Saskia is not the only one to
think this way. Teachers are very 50-50 on whether observers would like lab lessons, but it is significant that
nobody would choose to teach in the lab during an Ofsted inspection visit.
For all MFL teachers, it is important to maintain a personal, human touch to teaching. Technology is
great when it supports routine tasks effectively, but it becomes a problem if it gets in the way of a moral or
emotional connection between teacher and learner. The emphasis on pastoral care has been noted before
for UK education in academic research.
The following factors did not in any way influence views on language labs: gender, age, type of school,
employment status, having children at home, language taught, or nationality.
(The governments school workforce statistics show that 73% of secondaryMFL teachers are female, and of those, 82% are employed fulltime. Of all hours spent on MFL teaching in KS3, 4 and 5, nearly half will be French lessons.)

5 Other Technologies in MFL

MFL teachers generally feel positive towards using technology in their lessons, and 80% even said they
couldnt do without it. Nearly all teachers said they love to try new things, but also express a reluctance to
continue trying if it starts wasting time in any way (because it doesnt work, takes too long to set up
during a lesson, to learn how to use it,...)
The landscape of technology for MFL teaching and learning is hugely varied, with some emphasis on
particular kinds of software and hardware. When asked which kinds of ICT teachers use in their general
practice, language learning websites such as linguascope.com always occur at the top of the list.
Also, MS Powerpoint is a well-integrated software for nearly all teachers.
Many other options are mentioned; creating a long tail of possibility : great variety in smaller groups.
For example, of the participating MFL teachers; a VLE such as Frog, Blackboard or Moodle is never used
by 42%; tools for multimedia creation never by 43.6%; publishers platforms such as Kerboodle never by
33.5%,... Yet all the options are almost always or always used by 11% of teachers (on average). This included videocameras, mobile MP3 recorders, vocabulary learning tools, exercise generators, websites with
multimedia content,... Whatever the tool, a minority will be using it frequently.
In terms of hardware, the projector is always used by about 60% of teachers. Yet an approximately equal
amount of people never use iPads or tablets, smartphones, or webcams in their classroom.
Tweeting and blogging professionally is never done by over half of the MFL teachers surveyed
(respectively 311 and 315 out of 435 participants said they never do). Yet emailing and making powerpoints is common practice for most. It should, however, be mentioned that there is an active community
of MFL teachers on Twitter, called the MFL twitterati - their endeavours can go a long way in boosting the
use of Twitter.

MFL teachers use a great variety of technology in the classroom, but nearly
everyone uses Powerpoint, the projector, and the interactive whiteboard.
Language learning websites such as Linguascope.com are also very popular.
8

Usefulness is...
Technology in education can be useful for many different reasons.
Some things teachers said, in no particular order:
Makes lessons
more creative
Makes it more
relevant to the
students
Improves their
results
Saves time

Makes it more
fun

Triggers the
memory

Just generally
motivates them
more

Looks good for

observations
Students can
use it on their
Good for
own
differentiation
Gives me more
Creates more
control over
variety in
the students
activities

Increases their
concentration
Makes it more
visual

Just delivers
more than a
textbook can

6 Implications
6.1

For education

Throughout the research, the influence of various elements of current UK education policies were very
present. This includes empirical evidence for the effects of a culture of observation and accountability
through current exam structures, inspection visits and other measures. They create the need for schools,
students, and teachers to be constantly achieving high-performing scores. Of course, this stems from a
concern for educational quality, but it has very clear implications on classroom level - which are not always
didactically beneficial. For example, if technology is felt to be boring and static to the observer, it might be
avoided even though it has clear pedagogical value. The opposite is also true.
Similarly, the culture necessitates great time efficiency. However, the linearity of education and constant
pressures create a perceived lack of time. To support adequate use of technology in the classroom, it is vital
to allow enough time for teachers to learn how to use it first, so precious time during a lesson might be
used more effectively. Secondly, quick ICT support during lessons is vital.
Even with successful implementation of these two things, technology remains an added factor of management for the teacher. Like students, there is an element of unpredictability to computers. In addition, the
machines are part of a vast and complex school network. Considering this, the precise organisation of a
school day may not actually be helpful to make the best use of technology.
In terms of language labs, they are still regarded and organised as a somewhat traditional technology.
However, technological advances in labs have created far greater potential. If the investment in a lab is
made, it is worth reflecting on the innovative possibilities of the software, and adjust the installation, layout and further organisation for its use accordingly. It would be incorrect to associate language labs with a
purely behaviourist model of teaching.

6.2 For industry

What matters to teachers, is essentially not the technology itself. Its what the technology can do, for
example in terms of time efficiency and performance results. This means technology, as advanced or useful
as it may be, must be instantly easy to use, and extremely reliable. The stakes are too high in education to
be wasting time on ICT that doesnt work.
In terms of labs, the investment has not gone completely, but there is evidence of a declining pattern which
is mostly related to its lingering old-fashioned connotations. These influence installation choices, classroom lay-out and teaching practices very clearly. That means that they still have a target market in more
traditional forms of schooling.
Education is known as a very rooted environment, but its developments are of course not unrelated to the
rest of society, which has readily adopted mobile devices, and anytime/anywhere connectivity. Dedicated
rooms need to be flexible, embracing a great variety of small and relatively low-cost software and hardware options. There is a case for technical infrastructure which is versatile, not as time and space dependent as language labs are (perceived to be). However, whatever form it takes, it must be reliable at all
times.
Marketing technology should focus on what the technology does. The teacher has enough to do already.
Next to this, the focus in ICT for education should be on the people. A high technical performance which
minimises audio/video delay between the teachers computer and students devices is perhaps not so
relevant as a marketing tool as one may think. Teachers actually prefer to walk around the classroom to
talk to students, rather than communicate via the headsets.
This is further evidenced by the clever marketing campaign by Skype in 2010. Taglines of this campaign
included: Skype can help us all share our hearts, voices, gestures and expressions
(In this, you see the two principles: 1- Focus on the people, not the technology. 2- Focus on what the
technology can do for you.)
Promoting deeper use of technology may not be the best way to ensure continued sales, though that
may seem contradictory. Teachers clearly perceive a limit to integrating technology. That limit occurs when
it starts overshadowing that human touch of teaching. To requote the 2010 Skype campaign: When did
LOL replace the sound of laughter?

Theres so much more to share with you!

cs@carolinestockman.com