Computer Assisted Language Learning

This article was downloaded by: [134.117.10.
200]
On: 29 November 2014, At: 10:02
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted Language Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Enhancing learners’ self-directed use

of technology for language learning:
the effectiveness of an online training
platform
a a b
Chun Lai , Mark Shum & Yan Tian
a
Faculty of Education, Chinese Language & Literature Division,
The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
b
The Institute of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiaotong
University, Shanghai, P.R. China
Published online: 14 Mar 2014.
To cite this article: Chun Lai, Mark Shum & Yan Tian (2014): Enhancing learners’ self-directed use
of technology for language learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.889714
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889714
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [134.117.10.200] at 10:02 29 November 2014
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889714
Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language

learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform
Chun Laia*, Mark Shuma and Yan Tianb
a
Faculty of Education, Chinese Language & Literature Division, The University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong; bThe Institute of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai,
P.R. China
Enhancing self-directed use of technology for language learning is essential for

maximizing the potential of technology for language learning. Understanding how to

construct learner training to promote this critical competency is of great significance.
This study examined the effectiveness of an online training platform aimed at
enhancing the willingness and necessary knowledge and skill set of learners to engage
in self-directed use of technology for language learning through equipping them with
the pedagogical rationales for self-directed technology use for learning, the strategic
base for matching technology selection with learning goals and processes, and the
tactics for using technological resources and tools effectively for language learning. A
group of undergraduate students participated in the 12-week training. Analyses of
students’ survey responses prior to and after the training indicated that the training
program was effective in inducing a greater frequency of self-directed use of
technology for language learning and in promoting a greater willingness and stronger
knowledge and skill base in support of such learning behaviors.
Keywords: self-directed technology use; learner training
Introduction
Learners’ active engagement in self-initiated, self-constructed, and self-monitored learn-
ing experiences has long been held to be essential to human development, including lan-
guage learning (Benson & Reinders, 2011; Kormos & Csizer, 2013). The current
educational landscape, characterized by convenient access to expanded resources, venues,
and learning spaces, means that more than ever learners are expected to take the initiative
in their learning (Teo et al., 2010). As technology provides important learning spaces and
venues in the ecology of language learning and enables self-initiated construction of
learning experience (Benson, 2006; Lai & Gu, 2011; Reinders & White, 2011), it is essen-
tial that language learners possess the necessary competence to engage in self-directed
use of technology for learning (Benson, 2011; Lai, 2013; Reinders & Darasawang, 2012).
Research on students’ self-initiated use of technology for language learning has pro-
duced mixed findings. On the one hand, learners do actively use technology to enrich and
expand their language learning experience beyond the classroom (Inozu, Sahinkarakas, &
Yumru, 2010; Lai & Gu, 2011; Murray, 2008). On the other hand, active engagement
with technology does not necessarily guarantee sophisticated and effective use of technol-
ogy for language learning (Lai & Gu, 2011; Winke & Goertler, 2008; Winke, Goertler, &
Amuzie, 2010). Research has found that the types of technologies learners use are limited
and rather conventional (Lai & Gu, 2011; Winke & Goertler, 2008), and that learners’
*Corresponding author. Email: laichun@hku.hk
Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis

2 C. Lai et al.
use of available technologies does not reflect a good understanding of their effective use
(Kennedy & Miceli, 2010; Oxford, 2009). Thus, more and more scholars are arguing for
the need for learners to develop the relevant competencies in the active and effective use
of technology for language learning (Cohen & White, 2008; Hubbard, 2005; Hubbard &
Romeo, 2012; Levy, 2009).
Research evidence is starting to build up in support of the efficacy of learner training in
enhancing the effective use of technology for language learning. Barrette (2001) found that
technical training sessions prior to computer assisted language learning (CALL) activities
not only enhanced students’ computer literacy but also helped them to feel more confident
with the CALL activities and to enjoy such activities more. Recent learner training studies
have expanded training from the technical aspects to the pedagogical and strategy aspects
of technology use. For instance, O’Bryan (2008) found that pedagogical training sessions
on the rationale and pedagogical implications of glossing prior to online reading led to
more favorable perception and greater use of glossing. Researchers also found that training
on the user norms and communication conventions of Facebook interaction, culturally

appropriate use of Facebook for socialization and strategies for using Facebook for lan-
guage learning enhanced greater use of Facebook and heightened awareness of its language
learning potentials (Prichard, 2013; Reinhardt & Zander, 2011). In addition to enhanced use
of technology, training sessions have also been found to boost language learning outcomes.
For instance, Zenotz (2012) found that training on metacognitive reading strategies for
online reading led to improved Internet reading comprehension. Ranalli (2013) found that
training on web-based dictionary skills led to greater vocabulary gains.
Research studies have also explored training programs that targeted autonomous lan-
guage learning with technology. Romeo and Hubbard (2010) introduced a 10-week learner
training program into an English as a second language (ESL) listening class and the train-
ing components included training and collaborative debriefing on how to use general and
specific applications on the computer for listening skill development, and what strategies to
use to support certain learning objectives and the rationales. They found that students’ abil-
ity to engage in autonomous listening practices increased: they started to transform listen-
ing for entertainment into listening for learning. Smith and Craig (2013) conducted a
training program at a Japanese university to raise their English as a foreign language (EFL)
students’ awareness and skills in autonomous language learning. A set of study skills and
relevant CALL resources were introduced, and several tools, such as e-learning portfolio
and self-reflection diaries, were provided to give systematic ongoing support for students’
autonomous language learning. Anecdotal evidence from the study indicated that the train-
ing increased some students’ positive perceptions of autonomous learning, and that some
students started to incorporate more CALL resources into their study plans.
The above research studies on the efficacy of training on individual technological
applications and platforms laid the foundation for understanding learner training in the
enhancement of self-directed use of technology for language learning, which is an impor-
tant, yet less explored, research issue. The present study aimed to contribute further to
our understanding of this issue through constructing a learner training program and exam-
ining its efficacy.
Theoretical background
Current literature has defined self-directed learning as both a process and a product.
Knowles (1975) defined self-directed learning as “a process in which individuals take the
initiative, with or without the help from others, in diagnosing their learning needs,
Computer Assisted Language Learning 3
formulating goals, identifying human and material resources, choosing and implementing
appropriate learning strategies and evaluating learning outcomes” (p. 18). Long (1989) fur-
ther introduced psychological dimension to self-directed learning, asserting that self-
directed learning involves a process of self-generating activities to accomplish educational
goals, and that this process not only is predicted by the psychological situations of the
learner but also contributes to the further development of psychological situations. Candy
(1991) developed the concept further and proposed four interconnected dimensions of self-
directed learning: (1) self-directed learning as a personal attribute (i.e., personal autonomy),
(2) self-directed learning as learners’ willingness and abilities to manage their learning pro-
cess (i.e., self-management), (3) self-directed learning as individuals’ autodidactical pursuit
of learning opportunities outside formal educational settings (i.e., the independent pursuit
of learning), and (4) self-directed learning as a mode of organizing instruction in formal
settings (i.e., learner control of instruction). According to him, dimensions (1) and (2) refer
to the goal or personal quality aspect of learning, and dimensions (3) and (4) refer to the
process or method aspect of learning. The present study focused on the self-management
competencies in the autodidactical aspect of self-directed learning.
What to target in training?

There is general agreement in the current literature that educational interventions aimed at
enhancing self-directed learning should adopt multifaceted models that focus on fostering
both learners’ willingness and relevant knowledge and skills to engage in self-directed
learning (Garrison, 1997; Holec, 2009).
According to Garrison (1997), the willingness to engage in self-directed learning is
determined by both the entering motivation and the maintenance of intention. Learners’
entering motivation for self-directed learning behaviors is determined by learners’ interest
in particular learning goals (i.e., whether the learning goal meets personal needs and per-
sonal preferences) and their evaluation of whether the goals are achievable (i.e., whether
they perceive themselves as possessing the relevant knowledge and ability and whether
they perceive there exist institutional, ideological, and socioeconomic resources or barriers).
In the case of self-directed use of technology for language learning, the entering motivation
is also subject to the influence of the presence or absence of a flexible mind-set to deal
with the uncertainties and complexity in interaction with technology (Kop & Fournier,
2011), a proactive approach to actively seek opportunities to learn and use the language
(Kormos & Csizer, 2013), and a mind-set to pursue open-ended learning activities out of
personal interests instead of restricting informal learning activities to school assignments
(Wong & Looi, 2012). Lai (2013) examined specific factors that affected language learners’
self-directed use of technology for learning and found that intended learning effort, per-
ceived usefulness of technology for language learning, and perceived educational compati-
bility of technology with language learning needs and preferences were the three major
attitudinal factors that drove the participants’ willingness to use technology for language
learning. The study further identified that perceived usefulness and educational compatibil-
ity were shaped by learners’ constructive views of language learning that value experiential
learning and out-of-class language use opportunities and by the perceived expectations and
support from teachers and peers in using technology for learning.
With respect to the maintenance of intention, Garrison (1997) posited that it is very
much influenced by learners’ intrinsic motivation to assume the responsibility for learning
and could be boosted by helping students to understand the whys behind the objective
and learning task selection. Similarly, Hubbard (2004) highlighted the importance of
4 C. Lai et al.
“giv(ing) learners teacher training”, in which learners can be equipped with the pedagogi-
cal content knowledge to make informed decision on language learning technology and
strategy selection.
Garrison (1997) also conceptualized that the knowledge and skill base for self-
directed learning involves the ability to enact learning goals and manage learning resour-
ces, and the competencies to monitor learning strategies and processes. Lai (2013)
explored self-directed use of technology for language learning in particular and identified
self-regulation skills and the skills of selecting and effectively using technology for lan-
guage learning as the two major components of the knowledge and skill base. Lai also
found that learners’ perceptions of the availability of support from teachers and peers in
technology use positively influenced their knowledge and skill base.
In view of all this, what does the effective use of technology for language learning
entail? Educational technology scholars stress that the effective use of technology for
learning entails the ability to critically evaluate and navigate the technological landscape
(Kop & Fournier, 2011) and a critical awareness of digital choices and actions (Selwyn,
2011). TESOL Technology Standards further define what this competency means in the
context of technology-enhanced language learning: (1) the basic functional skills in using
technological applications, (2) the ability to use technology in socially and culturally
appropriate ways, and (3) the ability to critically evaluate and select various technology-
based tools for skill-building, communication, and collaboration and production purposes
and to use them in pedagogically sound ways to aid language production and comprehen-
sion and enhance language learning competence (Healey et al., 2011). Hubbard and
Romeo (2012) proposed a three-part training model to target this competency, and this
training model emphasizes technical, strategic, and pedagogical training. Technical train-
ing involves training to enhance not only general operational skills but also awareness of
options and controls in particular applications that are useful for language learning. Strat-
egy training includes both the strategies that are generic to any learning environments
and those that are specific to CALL environments. Pedagogical training introduces rele-
vant SLA concepts and rationales behind various CALL activities and helps students
make informed decisions concerning resource selection.
Thus, to enhance learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning, a
training program needs to include components that address both motivational and skill
development aspects. The three-part training model proposed by Hubbard and his col-
league can serve as a good framework, with pedagogical and strategy training expanded
to include some general content such as the rationales for technology-enhanced language
learning outside the classroom, the learning opportunities outside the language classroom,
and the strategies that could be utilized to facilitate the autodidactical learning process.
How to structure training?

Self-directed learning shares commonalities with self-regulated learning in centralizing the
goal-directed learning process and associated metacognitive skills. The socio-cognitive
model of self-regulation emphasizes learners’ development of self-regulated learning skills
through first observing and imitating social models and then internalizing these skills via
self-judgment and reaction. Schunk and Zimmerman (1997) and Zimmerman (2000) pro-
posed a four-level developmental model of the development of self-regulatory skills. The
first stage is the observation level, where the learners induce a skill through observation;
the second stage is the emulation level, where the learners perform the skill with social
assistance; the third stage is the self-control level, where learners practice the skill without
assistance; and the fourth stage is the self-regulated level, where learners make adjustments
to the skill based on the outcome. Zimmerman (2000) further proposed a three-phase cycli-
cal model that covers the four developmental stages: (1) the forethought phase targets the
observation level of self-regulatory competence, where learners become cognitively and
motivationally prepared for the activities and set the goals and plan strategies for the activi-
ties; (2) the performance control phase targets the emulative level and self-control level,
where the learners perform the activities, and self-instruct, self-observe, and self-monitor
the progress; and (3) the self-reflection phase targets the self-regulation level, where the
learners evaluate their performance against the goal, react, and adapt.
In the CALL learner training field, Hubbard’s (2004) framework consisting of five
practice-based principles is the most influential. This framework basically aligns with
Zimmerman’s three-phase cyclical model. Prior to learners practicing the CALL activi-
ties, Hubbard highlights the importance of trainers taking a learner perspective and pre-
paring learners cognitively and attitudinally through giving them pedagogical training
and guiding them to plan the CALL activities based on the enhanced pedagogical knowl-
edge. When learners are practicing the CALL activities, he emphasizes a progressive,
cyclical approach with small junctures of training content each time, and with each train-
ing session starting with students’ experiencing the CALL activities first before directing
their attention to strategic use of the activity for language learning purposes. After learn-
ers have practiced the CALL activities, Hubbard proposes collaborative debriefings to
help monitor and reinforce the training effects and create social learning opportunities
and follow-up activities to guide learners to exploit the CALL experience further for addi-
tional language learning opportunities.
These two models have been found to be effective in promoting self-regulation of
learning (Cleary & Zimmerman, 2004; Winters, Greene, & Costich, 2008) and in enhanc-
ing the effective use of technology for language learning (O’Bryan, 2008; Romeo &
Hubbard, 2010).
The study
This study constructed an intervention program that adopted Hubbard’s three-part train-
ing framework to target the two major components of self-directed use of technology for
language learning – willingness and the knowledge and skill base – and was structured
around Zimmerman’s three-phase socio-cognitive model of self-regulation. Specifically,
it focused on enhancing learners’ perceptions of the need for and value of self-directed
use of technology for language learning and their technical, strategic, and pedagogical
knowledge of effective technology use for language learning. The intervention program
was conducted with a group of undergraduate EFL learners to examine whether the train-
ing would lead to attitudinal and behavioral changes towards self-directed use of technol-
ogy for language learning. In particular, this study attempted to answer the following
research question: what are the effects of learner training on learners’ self-directed use of
technology for language learning?
Method
Participants
Eighty undergraduate first-year EFL learners at a large prestigious research university in
China were invited to participate in the study. The third author announced the study in
6 C. Lai et al.
the two classes she taught and recruited participants on behalf of the first and second
authors. After discarding the responses that were incomplete or did not have identifiers to
allow the matching of the pre-survey and post-survey, 64 participants’ responses were
included in this study. Of the 64 participants, 52 were male and 12 were female. Their
average age at the beginning of the semester was 18. The participants were engineering
majors in the second semester of their first year of study at the university.
The training program

The training program was hosted online. The first module involved general pedagogical
training and discussed approaches to language learning, effective learning strategies and
habits of good language learners, rationales and tips related to self-directed language
learning, and the relationship between technologies and language learning. The module
aimed to enhance learners’ willingness to engage in self-directed language learning with
technology by helping them to perceive the value of and mentally prepare themselves for
this learning behavior.
The other four modules focused on specific language skills. Each skill module con-
sisted of four topics that targeted relevant strategies or processes related to the acquisition
of the skill. For instance, the writing module included four topics: (1) having fun planning
the writing, (2) writing for fun, (3) having fun writing and revising with others, and (4)
editing the writing with ease. Each topic consisted of three stages: (A) pedagogical and
strategy training to motivate learners for the targeted CALL behaviors and help them to
set appropriate goals and plan learning processes in the light of the pedagogical and strat-
egy discussion, (B) technical and strategic training to enhance learners’ abilities to map
appropriate CALL activities with relevant skill development strategies and abilities to
engage in the CALL activities in a more effective manner, and (C) reflection and
extended activities to guide students to self-monitor and adapt their performance.
(A) In the pedagogical and strategy training stage, learners were guided through ped-
agogical discussions on the concepts and theories behind different aspects of the
acquisition of the skill and the related strategies. For instance, in the “having fun
planning the writing” topic, students were guided to identify their current prob-
lems with writing and discuss strategies on how to plan their writing, and then
were introduced to the steps in planning ideas, structure, and language. The peda-
gogical and strategy training were structured in an interactive manner.
(B) In the technical and strategic training stage, relevant technological applications
and resources that could facilitate the implementation of the discussed strategies
were introduced. For instance, in the “having fun planning the writing” topic, stu-
dents were introduced to relevant technological tools and resources such as the
mind mapping tools that they could utilize to plan the ideas, and genre model
banks and interactive text organizers that they could utilize to plan the structure
and language. For each technological application, graphic technical tutorials
were provided to facilitate learners’ exploration with the application. After the
exploration, learners could click on the tips to understand how the specific appli-
cation could be used in a more effective manner to maximize its language learn-
ing potential.
(C) In the reflection and extended activity stage, learners were engaged in an
extended language learning activity that involved the use of some of the afore-
recommended technological applications or resources. For instance, in the
“having fun planning the writing” topic, students were given a writing topic and
asked to use the relevant tools to go through the planning and writing stages. The
extended language learning activities were aligned with the weekly topics cov-
ered in their English classes.
After the learners had finished the four topics of each skill module, they were led to a
fifth topic where they were guided to review the main points in the module through an
interactive quiz and to reflect on their learning experience and share useful resources
related to the module in an online discussion forum.
The online training program was introduced to the participants by the third author.
Each week she assigned two or three topics as ungraded homework for the students to
study on their own outside school. The purpose of assigning the training materials as
ungraded homework was to encourage the participants to study the training material so
that we could examine the training effects. She also led five-minute debriefing sessions in
class at the end of each module to provide an opportunity for peer learning and trouble-
shooting (see Figure 1 for the training procedure and content).
Research instruments and procedure

The participants filled out a pre-training questionnaire at the beginning of the semester.
The intervention program was then introduced to the participants. The training, in the
form of self-study of the online training program as weekly assignments and in-class
teacher-led collaborative debriefing, lasted 12 weeks. An equivalent post-training ques-
tionnaire was administered at the end of the semester. The questionnaires were written in
the participants’ native language.
The questionnaires elicited the participants’ demographic data, their perceptions and
actual use of self-directed language learning with technology, and various factors that are
associated with the willingness to engage in, or the knowledge and skill base necessary
Figure 1. The training program.

8 C. Lai et al.
for, self-directed use of technology for language learning (Lai, 2013). The questionnaire
instrument measured the following main constructs:
Frequency of technology use for English learning (9 items)

The participants were asked to report how many hours per week they spent on using
technology to support various metacognitive, social, resource, and attitudinal needs of
English learning. A written definition of what we mean by technology was provided at
the beginning of the survey: “Technology refers to various information and communica-
tion technologies, including online communities, games, online video and audio, online
chatting tools, blogging sites, podcasts, online social tools such as wikis, mini-blogging,
and so forth, multimedia software, and mobile technologies such as mobile phones,
MP3 players, and iPads, etc.” A Likert scale of 1–6 was used (1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ less than
1 hour, 3 ¼ 1–3 hours, 4 ¼ 3–7 hours, 5 ¼ 7–14 hours, and 6 ¼ more than 14 hours).
There were nine items, for example: in the past few months, how many hours per week,
on the average, have you used technology on your own to increase opportunities for
English learning?
Perceived usefulness of technology for English learning (10 items)

The participants were asked to rate on a Likert scale of 1–6 (1 ¼ not useful at all; 6 ¼ very
useful) the usefulness of technology for the various metacognitive, social, resource, and
attitudinal aspects of English learning. There were 10 items, for example: “How useful
do you think technology is in making English learning more interesting?”
Attitude to technology use for English learning (3 items)

This construct was measured by three items that tapped into the participant’s enjoyment
in using technology for English learning, for example: “I enjoy using technology to sup-
port my English learning.” The participants rated the three items on a Likert scale of 1–6
(1 ¼ strongly disagree and 6 ¼ strongly agree).
Educational compatibility of technology use with English learning (5 items)

This construct measured the participants’ perceptions of the compatibility of technology
use with their language learning preference and needs by asking participants to indicate
the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like: “Using technology is
compatible with my preferred language learning activities.”
Situated interpretation of the demand for technology use (3 items)

The participants rated their perceptions of the institutional demand for the use of technol-
ogy by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like: “It is
absolutely necessary to use technology if I want to gain good scores in English classes.”
Social influence on technology use (4 items)

This construct measured the participants’ perceptions of the perceived expectations con-
cerning the use of technology for language learning. The participants indicated the degree
to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like: “People who influence my study
behavior think I should use technology to support English learning.”
Enjoyment of English learning (3 items)

The participants rated their enjoyment of English learning by indicating the degree to
which they agreed or disagreed with statements like: “I like learning English very much.”
Self-regulation of language learning (8 items)

The participants evaluated their self-regulation of language learning by indicating the
degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like: “I constantly reflect on my
English learning process and make adjustments to my learning plans.”
Self-efficacy in technology use for English learning (4 items)

The participants rated their perceptions of their abilities to use technology for English
learning by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with statements like:
“I know how to use technological resources effectively to enhance my English skills.”
Facilitating conditions of technology use (5 items)

The participants reported their perceptions of the availability of support from their teach-
ers and classmates/friends by indicating the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with statements like: “I have classmates/friends who can give me suggestions on how to
use technology effectively for English learning.”
In the post-questionnaire, the participants were also asked to report their frequency of
accessing the training site and the recommended technological resources, their evaluation
of the training materials, and the changes the training had brought to their learning
behavior.
Frequency of training
The participants were asked to rate their frequency of visiting the training site and their
frequency of visiting the recommended technological resources on a scale of 1–3 (1 ¼
never, 2 ¼ a few times, and 3 ¼ frequently). Participants reporting 3 for both were coded
as frequent users.
Evaluation of the training materials

The participants evaluated their perceptions of the value of the training, their perceptions
of the effects of the training and their perceptions of the changes in their attitudes towards
and use of technology induced by the training. Evaluation of the perceived value of the
training was estimated by five items that examined the importance of training to their
English learning, for example, “The knowledge and skills taught in the training materials
are very important.” Evaluation of the effects of training on English learning was esti-
mated by six items that targeted the effects of training on their interest and confidence in
English learning and on their English learning approaches, strategies, and process, for
example, “After studying the training materials, my English learning approaches and
10 C. Lai et al.
venues changed.” Evaluation of the perceived changes in attitudes towards technology

and in technology use was estimated by four items that examined the changes in percep-
tions of and self-efficacy in technology use for language learning, for example, “I have
more confidence in using technology to support English learning after studying the train-
ing materials.” All the items were rated on a Likert scale of 1–6 (1 ¼ strongly disagree
and 6 ¼ strongly agree). The participants were also asked to rate their perceptions of the
usefulness of different training components on a scale of 1–4, with 1 being not useful at
all and 4 being very useful.
Learning behavior changes

The participants were asked to indicate whether the training had led to any changes in
their English study behavior. Specific behavior changes were elicited via two open-ended
questions, one tapping into the change in their English learning behaviors and the other
tapping into the change in their technology use for language learning.
Data analysis
A paired t-test was used to compare the participants’ pre-survey and post-survey
responses to see whether there were any positive training effects in general. In-depth
comparative analysis of the frequent user and infrequent user of the training site and the
recommended technological resources was also conducted through an independent t-test
to identify whether frequency of accessing the training materials led to different effects.
In addition, a chi-square test was conducted to examine whether there was an association
between the frequency of training and reported changes of learning behavior.
Results
Effects of the training
A comparison of the participants’ responses in the pre- and post-surveys revealed that
the participants reported a significantly greater frequency of self-directed use of tech-
nology in the post-survey: an average of 1–3 hours per week reported in the post-
survey compared to less than 1 hour in the pre-survey. They also reported significantly
greater confidence in their knowledge and skills related to self-directed technology
use: in the post-survey, they rated their abilities to use technology effectively for lan-
guage learning and their self-regulation of English language learning positively and
with less variation, whereas in the pre-survey, the ratings for both were negative and
with greater variation. They also perceived significantly greater availability of support
from teachers, classmates/friends, and other sources in the post-survey than in the pre-
survey (see Table 1).
Among the factors associated with the learners’ willingness to engage in self-directed
use of technology, learners reported significantly more positive attitudes towards technol-
ogy use, more positive perceptions of the compatibility of technology use with their learn-
ing needs and preferences, and more positive perceptions of other people’s expectations
of technology use for English learning in the post-survey than in the pre-survey.
Although the comparison of the participants’ post-survey and pre-survey responses
suggests an overall enhancement of self-directed use of technology for English learning
and associated factors, it is hard to make a firm claim without the presence of a control
Table 1. Comparing participants’ pre- and post-survey responses (n ¼ 64).
Construct Item Range a Mean SD T Sig.
Self-directed use of Frequency of technology 9 1–6 Pre .86 2.21 0.69 2.55 .01
technology use Post .90 2.50 0.72
Factors that influence Factors related to learners’ Perceived usefulness 10 1–6 Pre .81 4.59 0.67 0.50 .62
technology use willingness to use technology Post .89 4.64 0.69
Attitude 3 1–6 Pre .93 4.10 1.15 2.37 .02
Post .89 4.42 0.86
Educational compatibility 5 1–6 Pre .95 3.98 1.14 3.12 .003
Post .91 4.38 0.81
Enjoyment of learning 3 1–6 Pre .90 4.24 0.83 0.95 .35
Post .87 4.15 0.75
Situated interpretation 3 1–6 Pre .78 4.05 1.04 1.76 .08
Post .76 4.30 0.81
Social influence 4 1–6 Pre .84 3.70 1.11 3.53 .001
Post .84 4.23 0.92
Factors related to knowledge and Technology self-efficacy 4 1–6 Pre .76 3.82 0.98 2.60 .01
skill base to technology use Post .83 4.12 0.72
Self-regulation 8 1–6 Pre .85 3.58 1.02 3.46 .001
Post .92 4.00 0.81
Facilitation conditions 5 1–6 Pre .87 4.03 0.79 3.11 .003
Post .85 4.38 0.81
Note: p < .05; p < .01.
11
12 C. Lai et al.
group. To validate this finding, we examined the development of self-directed technology

use and associated factors among the frequent users of the training program compared to
that of the infrequent users. Table 2 shows the differences between these two groups both
in the pre-survey responses and in the post-survey responses.
Both groups demonstrated increases in the measures related to self-directed use of
technology for language learning. Although there were no significant differences in all
the measures in the pre-survey responses between the two groups at the beginning of the
program, the frequent users reported significantly greater values on all measures than did
the infrequent users in the post-survey responses, with the only exception being perceived
usefulness and situated interpretation. The findings were in line with what was found
when comparing participants’ post- and pre-surveys in general, and suggests that the
training did make a positive difference in the participants’ self-directed use of technology
for language learning, at least for those who actively used the training program.
Furthermore, 37 out of the 64 participants (58%) reported changing their English
learning behaviors. The chi-square test between self-reported frequency of training and
self-reported change in English learning behaviors was significant (x2 ¼ 71.12,
p ¼ .000), indicating that the frequency of accessing the training website and the recom-
mended technological resources was significantly associated with the change in English
learning behaviors. A closer examination of the data showed that the majority of the fre-
quent users (78%) reported changing their English learning behaviors after the training.
This finding confirms that the training did have a positive effect on the participants’
English learning behaviors, especially among the participants who frequented the training
website and the recommended resources.
An examination of the open-ended responses concerning the specific changes in
English learning after the training revealed that the participants reported behavioral
changes that reflected shifts in their beliefs about language learning and technology
use. Some participants reported changing their approaches to learning after training:
“I changed from doing a lot of drill and practices in the past to doing extensive listening
and reading in the present,” “I engage in more independent learning,” “I used to rely
solely on textbooks and teachers; now I also learn through the web,” and “I now use tech-
nology to support learning much more, and I basically abandoned traditional approaches.”
Thirty-three out of the 37 participants who reported changes in learning behavior explic-
itly mentioned changes in the use of technology to support their English language learn-
ing. These changes were reflected in the increased frequency of technology use. For
example, participants reported: “increased reliance on computer and mobile devices and
decreased use of paper materials,” and “more frequent use of the Internet and a greater
amount of time spent on the Internet.” The changes were also reflected in the nature of
technology use: “I rarely used the Internet for learning in the past. I only used it occasion-
ally to download listening materials. Now I use the Internet for a greater variety of pur-
poses. I have even written essays on the Internet,” and “I am starting to listen to more
difficult listening materials. I now watch English drama to learn English.”
Perceptions of the training

The participants also positively evaluated the effectiveness of the training in enhancing
their English learning, their confidence and interest in English learning, and their percep-
tions of and competency in using technology for language learning, and in changing their
English learning approaches, strategies, and processes. Their average ratings for these
items were all above 4 (see Table 3). When asked to indicate the degree to which they
Table 2. Comparing the pre- and post-survey responses by self-reported frequency of access to the training (nfrequent_user ¼ 22; ninfrequent_user ¼ 42).
Construct Pre-survey Post-survey
M SD T Sig. M SD T Sig.
Self-directed use of Frequency of technology Infrequent users 2.24 0.68 0.27 .79 2.34 0.52 2.74 .008
technology use Frequent users 2.19 0.70 2.84 0.93
Factors the influence Factors related to Perceived usefulness Infrequent users 4.56 0.77 0.59 .56 4.63 0.74 0.44 .66
technology use willingness to Frequent users 4.66 0.43 4.71 0.59
technology use Attitude Infrequent users 3.93 1.16 1.72 .09 4.21 0.89 2.74 .008
Frequent users 4.44 1.07 4.80 0.66
Educational compatibility Infrequent users 3.82 1.08 1.54 .13 4.19 0.86 2.68 .009
Frequent users 4.28 1.22 4.74 0.57
Enjoyment of learning Infrequent users 4.17 0.77 1.0 .32 4.03 0.72 2.07 .04
Frequent users 4.39 0.91 4.43 0.75
Situated interpretation Infrequent users 3.98 1.02 0.66 .51 4.23 0.77 0.39 .70
Frequent users 4.17 1.08 4.32 1.02
Social influence Infrequent users 3.64 1.01 0.40 .69 3.83 0.77 2.08 .04
Frequent users 3.76 1.29 4.34 0.77
Factors related to Technology self-efficacy Infrequent users 3.67 0.98 1.74 .09 3.98 0.67 2.51 .02
knowledge and skill Frequent users 4.12 0.92 4.44 0.73
base to technology use Self-regulation Infrequent users 3.49 1.01 0.87 .39 3.83 0.77 2.53 .01
Frequent users 3.73 1.04 4.34 0.77
Facilitation conditions Infrequent users 4.00 0.80 0.50 .62 4.21 0.84 2.37 .02
Frequent users 4.10 0.79 4.70 0.65
Note: p < .05; p < .01.
13
14 C. Lai et al.
Table 3. Learner evaluation of the training.
Comparing frequent users against infrequent users
Construct Item Range a Mean Mean SD T Sig.
Value of the training 5 1–6 0.90 4.19 Infrequent user 4.13 0.88 0.76 .45
Frequent user 4.30 0.85
Effect of the training 6 1–6 0.90 4.19 Infrequent user 4.09 0.76 1.34 .19
on learning Frequent user 4.37 0.74
Change in 4 1–6 0.91 4.16 Infrequent user 3.94 0.93 2.53 .01
technological
knowledge and skill Frequent user 4.56 0.84

Note: p < .05.
agreed or disagreed with the statement “I will recommend this training site to my
friends,” the participants rated it positively (M ¼ 4.22, SD ¼ 1.17). The study also found
that the frequent users’ ratings for the effects of the training on their competence in the
use of technology for language learning (M ¼ 4.56, SD ¼ 0.84) were significantly higher
than those of the infrequent users (M ¼ 3.94, SD ¼ 0.93).
When asked specifically what changes the training had brought to their use of technol-
ogy for English learning, of the 40 participants who responded to this open-ended ques-
tion, only 3 felt that the training was not helpful at all. The rest of the participants
reported various changes brought about by the training. Some talked about changes in
perception: “I started to use some new technologies to support English learning and I
developed new understanding about English learning,” “I feel very optimistic about the
effectiveness of technology-enhanced English learning in enhancing my English
proficiency,” and “The training broadened my horizons. I came to embrace more learning
approaches. English learning is more interesting.” Some reported greater initiative in
technology-enhanced language learning: “I feel more interested in English learning, and I
take the initiative more in using different types of websites to learn English,” “I’ll actively
seek the support of technology,” and “I’ll create more opportunities to use technology.
It’ll be very helpful in enhancing my English learning.” Some reported behavioral
changes resulting from the training: “I added several English learning websites that I fre-
quently visit to My Favorites,” and “I started to read China Daily and watch English
drama.” Others reported an increase in their ability to use technology effectively for lan-
guage learning: “I picked up some techniques in using technology to support my learning
and found the way,” “(I developed) greater and more appropriate use of the Internet
resources,” “I learned how to use technology more proficiently, and I’m getting more pas-
sionate about using technology to support my English learning,” and “I have become
more proficient in using technology to support my English learning.” Thus, the partic-
ipants’ evaluation of the effects of the training suggests that the training brought about
varying levels of changes related to self-directed use of technology for language learning:
some at the perception and behavioral levels and some at the understanding and compe-
tence levels.
To understand the participants’ perceptions of the various components of the training
content, the participants were asked to rate the usefulness of different components, from
“not useful at all” to “extremely useful” on a Likert scale of 1–4. The participants rated
all the components – the general pedagogical training, the pedagogical training relevant
to specific skills, the introduction of the technological tools and resources, and tips on
Table 4. Participants’ perception of different training content.
Percentage of participants
rated “quite useful or
Training component Mean SD extremely useful”
General pedagogical training 2.40 0.79 40%

Pedagogical training relevant to 2.48 0.70 46%
specific skills
Introduction of the technological tools 2.48 0.95 53%
and resources
Tips on how to use the technological 2.51 0.86 57%
tools effectively for language
learning
Note: The items were rated on a scale of 1–4, 1 ¼ not useful at all, 2 ¼ slightly useful, 3 ¼ quite useful, 4 ¼
extremely useful.
how to use the technological tools effectively for language learning – positively and
somewhere in between “slightly useful” and “quite useful” (see Table 4).
They perceived the tips on how to use the technological tools effectively for language
learning more positively than the other three components. More than 50% of the partici-
pants perceived the introduction of the technological tools and the tips on the effective
use of these tools as quite useful or extremely useful to their English learning.
Discussion
This study examined the effectiveness of a training program in enhancing learners’ self-
directed use of technology for language learning, and the findings were mixed.
The training was not very successful in eliciting active engagement with the training
content as reported by the participants. Quite a few participants reported that they had vis-
ited the training website or used the recommended resources only several times, and three
participants reported that they had never visited the training website. Only one-third of
the participants reported that they had frequently visited the training site and the recom-
mended technological tools and resources. Although the study tried to enhance partic-
ipants’ involvement by making the training interactive, by involving instructor
intervention (assigning the content as ungraded weekly assignments and carrying out in-
class debriefing sessions) and by aligning the training activities with the topics in the
English curriculum, the study failed to induce voluntary intensive involvement with the
training content. This finding might be due to the particular training interface design,
the voluntary nature of the training without institutional incentives and the program’s
peripheral connection with in-class learning. Previous research has found that trainee
involvement in voluntary online training is lower than mandatory online training (Kaspri-
sin, Single, Single, & Muller, 2003), and that voluntary training sessions are often associ-
ated with “the rich get richer” phenomenon (Kulik, Pepper, Roberson, & Parker, 2007).
Studies have shown that, due to the voluntary nature of such training programs, engage-
ment with the training content depends largely on various motivational, perceptual, and
cognitive variables. These include such factors as participants’ self-positioning of English
in their academic lives and intended learning effort, their ultimate goal of English
learning, their perceived relevance of the training to their English learning goals, their
16 C. Lai et al.
pre-training perceptions of and interest in technology-supported language learning, their

beliefs about language learning, and their proficiency level (Bouchard, 2009; Hubbard &
Romeo, 2012). In the Chinese higher education context, the majority of non-English
majors, unless they are planning to pursue postgraduate studies, usually study English for
the first two years with the sole aim of passing the nationwide English proficiency tests.
Thus, the participants in this study, who were engineering majors, may have a relatively
lower incentive to broaden their English resources other than preparing for the proficiency
tests. Future research is needed to examine the effects of different types of training – man-
datory, voluntary, or different combinations of the two – on different types of students’
involvement with the training program content.
What is promising is that the training program was successful in enhancing self-
directed technology use. The participants in general reported a significant increase in the
frequency of their self-directed use of technology for language learning and more positive
attitudes and perceptions after the training. It is possible that this was a product of natural
maturation, and that it had nothing to do with the training content but rather reflected a
natural change due to one semester’s English study at the university. However, the partic-
ipants who reported active engagement with the training content demonstrated signifi-
cantly greater use of self-directed technology and more positive attitudes and perceptions
after the training despite there being no significant differences between them and the less
frequent users prior to the training. This suggests that the phenomenon cannot be attrib-
uted solely to natural maturation, and that the training content did make a difference.
Thus, the training was successful, as intended, in inducing a greater use of technology
and in enhancing key factors related to the two major components of self-directed tech-
nology use for language learning: willingness and the knowledge and skill base.
The training program followed Hubbard’s three-part training framework (Hubbard &
Romeo, 2012; Romeo & Hubbard, 2010) that targeted the pedagogical, strategy, and
technical components of training with both skill-specific pedagogical training and general
pedagogical training. The participants reported positive perceptions of both the pedagogi-
cal training in the rationale behind the use of technology to support the language learning
process in general and the strategy thereof, and pedagogical training in the rationale for,
using specific technological tools for specific skill development purposes. This general
and skill-specific pedagogical training helped foster positive attitudes towards the use of
technology for language learning and improved student perceptions of the compatibility
of technology use with learning needs and preferences. One participant’s account is par-
ticularly telling. He reported that he did not consider the training web site and the recom-
mended resources particularly useful for English learning, but he did “use technology to
facilitate English learning more often” after the training. Thus the pedagogical training
did induce some perceptual changes among the learners, even for those who did not
report active engagement with the recommended resources and strategies. Participants
gave positive ratings for the technical training, the strategy training for matching particu-
lar technologies with particular strategic moves in skill development, and the strategy
training involving specific guidance for using particular technologies effectively for lan-
guage learning purposes. They repeatedly reported that the training helped to enhance
their confidence in their ability to select and use technologies appropriately and effec-
tively for language learning. Thus, Hubbard’s framework was effective in addressing the
willingness and knowledge and skill aspects of self-directed use of technology for lan-
guage learning.
The training program was structured around Zimmerman’s (2000) three-phase cycle
developmental approach for self-regulation with extension learning activities and
collaborative debriefing sessions (Hubbard, 2004). The guided self-assessment of the

problems that the participants were facing and the reorientation of learning goals and
learning processes and strategies in the light of the pedagogical discussions in the fore-
thought phase, together with the introduction of tools and resources that they could use to
apply the strategies at the performance stage, brought about not only enhanced technol-
ogy self-efficacy but also enhanced self-regulation of language learning. The teacher-led
collaborative debriefing sessions, the introduction of the training content as weekly
assignments and the online open access of the training program seem to have brought
about enhanced perceptions of the social expectations concerning the use of technology
for language learning and more positive perceptions of the availability of support in rela-
tion to self-directed use of technology for language learning. The experiential learning
component in the training also led to significantly greater enjoyment and motivation for
English learning. Words like “more interested” and “fun” occurred repeatedly in the par-
ticipants’ comments about the effects of the training. As one participant commented, “I
started to try some resources and had seen some initial effects, which reinvigorated my
interest in English learning. I’ll engage in it more in the future.” However, the training
program was weak in the reflection component. Although it was originally designed to be
supported mainly through an online discussion forum, the participants did not use the dis-
cussion forum much. It would be interesting to see whether employing more systematic
approaches to planning and reflection in support of autonomous language learning (King,
2011; Smith & Craig, 2013) would lead to more effective training.
The training failed to bring about a significant increase in perceived usefulness and
situated interpretation. Since the training was a stand-alone program that had only periph-
eral connections with in-class instruction and was voluntary, it is understandable that the
participants’ situated interpretation remained unchanged. It would be interesting to
explore whether a training program together with increased teacher use of technology in
language classes could lead to greater situated interpretation of the use of technology for
language learning. The insignificant increase in perceived usefulness is a little puzzling
given that a lot of the pedagogical training was aimed at enhancing the participants’ per-
ceptions of the necessity and usefulness of technology for language learning. Lee, Yan,
and Joshi (2011) have found that the change rate of perceived usefulness is determined
by the change rate of self-efficacy in technology use. Given that the training did induce a
significant increase in technology self-efficacy, it is possible that the effect on perceived
usefulness might be a delayed effect and could have shown up if we had measured this
construct later, after the participants had had more experience with technology-enhanced
language learning. This suggests that a temporal dynamic approach to examining training
effects might be more revealing (Lee et al., 2011).
Conclusion
This study examined the effects of an online training program aimed at equipping lan-
guage learners with the pedagogical rationale for self-directed technology use for learn-
ing, the strategic base for matching the technology selection with learning goals and
processes, and the tactics for using technological resources and tools effectively for lan-
guage learning. The study found that this online training program was successful in induc-
ing a greater frequency of self-directed use of technology for language learning, a greater
willingness to use technology and a stronger knowledge and skill base in support of such
learning behaviors. The findings confirmed that Hubbard’s three-part training framework
of pedagogical, strategic, and technical aspects of training (Hubbard & Romeo, 2012) is a
18 C. Lai et al.
viable framework in constructing effective training programs to promote self-directed use

of technology for language learning outside the language classroom.
There are several limitations of this study. First, the study only presented a particular
variant of a training program (i.e., online voluntary training supplemented with minimal
teacher intervention and learner accountability), with particular training contents based
on Hubbard’s three-part training framework (i.e., general pedagogical rationales for self-
directed use of technology for language learning, pedagogical training for individual
skills with associated strategies, the introduction of technological resources that match
the respective strategies, technical training in the form of graphic tutorial, and strategy
training in the effective use of technology for language learning) and with a particular
training process (i.e., Zimmerman’s three-phase cycle of self-regulation of learning) on a
particular group of language learners (i.e., undergraduate freshmen, predominantly male,
in their second semester of university study) in a particular language and cultural context
(i.e., EFL learners in an Asian culture with a traditional reliance on textbook and teach-
ers). Its generalizability is thus rather limited, and its effects may vary in response to dif-
ferent configurations of content, process, form, format, modes, intensity, and timing of
the training program. They may also differ with populations of different demographic
backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, belief systems, technical and language proficiencies,
and so on (Hubbard & Romeo, 2012; McInerney, 2008). Much research is needed to
explore the complexity and diversity of such factors to enhance our understanding of the
effectiveness of learning training programs in promoting self-directed use of technology
for language learning for different populations in different cultural and instructional
contexts.
Second, the post-survey data was collected one month after the training and thus only
captured the immediate effects of the training. Future studies are needed to explore the
long-term effects of training to see whether the observed enhanced behavior and percep-
tions last, whether the potentially delayed effects on perceived usefulness show up, and
more importantly, what supports and scaffolding is needed to sustain the training effects
over time (Davis, 2013).
Third, the research findings of this study were established by comparing the responses
of the frequent users of the training content with those of the infrequent users prior to and
after the training, using the infrequent users as the naturally-formed control group. Using
natural selection for the control group introduces biases since it potentially restricts the
applicability of the findings concerning the effects of the training to those who possess
initial positive attitudes or readiness to engage in the behavior.
Finally, the research findings were based primarily on students’ self-reported data,
which is limited in shedding light on the learners’ actual interactions with the online sys-
tem. This research study used open-ended survey questions to elicit the specific changes
induced by the training, and future studies should include follow-up interviews with both
“frequent users” and “infrequent users” to delve deeper into why and how the training
induces or fails to induce changes among different users.
Promoting self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom
is essential if we want to maximize the potential of technology for language learning
(Benson, 2011; Kormos & Csizer, 2013; Lai & Gu, 2011; Reinders & Darasawang,
2012). This study is an exploratory step towards understanding how to develop this criti-
cal learning disposition and support this critical learning process among language learn-
ers. The complexity of learner training demands more research endeavors in different
training contexts in order to enrich our understanding of this important research issue
(Hubbard & Romeo, 2012; Lai & Morrison, 2013).
Acknowledgements
Thanks are expressed to the participating students and the anonymous reviewers of the journal
Computer Assisted Language Learning.
Funding
This article is based on a project funded by the Research Grants Council of the Government of the
Hong Kong SAR [grant number GRF7461/10H].
Notes on contributors
Chun Lai is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong. Her interests include self-directed language learning beyond the classroom, technology
enhanced language learning, and technology integration. Her most recent projects entail understand-
ing the nature of self-directed language learning with technology beyond the classroom and devel-
oping learner training models to support self-directed use of technology for foreign language
learning.
Mark Shum is an associate professor at the Faculty of Education, the University of Hong Kong,
Hong Kong. His interests include second language reading and writing pedagogies and systemic
functional linguistics and its application to language education.
Yan Tian is a professor at the Institute of Foreign Languages at Shanghai Jiaotong University,
China. Her interests include computer-assisted language learning, online language teaching and
learning, and intelligent online autonomous language learning.
References
Barrette, C. (2001). Students’ preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 5–36.
Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40.
Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the
field. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 7–16). New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bouchard, P. (2009). Pedagogy without a teacher: What are the limits? International Journal of
Self-Directed Learning, 6(2), 13–22.
Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cleary, T.J., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2004). Self-regulation empowerment program: A school-based
program to enhance self-regulated and self-motivated cycles of student learning. Psychology in
the Schools, 41(5), 537–550.
Cohen, A.D., & White, C. (2008). Language learners as informed consumers of language instruc-
tion. In A. Stavans & I. Kupferberg (Eds.), Studies in language and language education: Essays
in honour of Elite Olshtain (pp. 185–205). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Davis, M. (2013). Beyond the classroom: The role of self-guided learning in second language listen-
ing and speaking practice. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(2), 85–95.
Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education
Quarterly, 48, 18–33.
Healey, D., Hanson-Smith, E., Hubbard, P., Ioannou-Georgiou, S., Kessler, G., & Ware, P. (2011).
TESOL technology standards: Description, implementation, integration. Alexandria, VA:
TESOL.
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: Tampere
University Press.
20 C. Lai et al.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.),
Perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 18(5), 351–368.
Hubbard, P., & Romeo, K. (2012). Diversity in learner training. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-
assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice. (pp. 33–48). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
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.
Kasprisin, C.A., Single, P.B., Single, R.M., & Muller, C.B. (2003). Building a better bridge: Testing
e-training to improve e-mentoring programmes in higher education. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 11(1), 67–78.
Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian
learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 28–44.
King, C. (2011). Fostering self-directed learning through guided tasks and learner reflection. Studies
in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 257–267.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York, NY:
Association Press.
Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2011). New dimension of self-directed learning in an open-networked
learning environment. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 7(2), 1–20.
Kormos, J., & Csizer, K. (2013). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and
autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1002/tesq.129
Kulik, C.T., Pepper, M.B., Roberson, L., & Parker, S.K. (2007). The rich get richer: Predicting par-
ticipation in voluntary diversity training. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6), 753–769.
Lai, C. (2013). A framework of developing self-directed technology use for language learning.
Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.
Lai, C., & Gu, M.Y. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 317–335.
Lai, C., & Morrison, B. (2013). Towards an agenda for learner preparation in technology-enhanced
language learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 154–162.
Lee, K., Yan, A., & Joshi, K. (2011). Understanding the dynamics of users’ belief in software appli-
cation adoption. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 160–170.
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93,
769–782.
Long, H.B. (1989). Self-directed learning: Merging theory and practice. In H.B. Long (Ed.), Self-
directed learning: Merging theory and practice (pp. 1–12). Norman, OK: Research Center for
Continuing Professional and Higher Education of the University of Oklahoma.
McInerney, D.M. (2008). The motivational roles of cultural differences and cultural identity in self-
regulated learning. In D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated
learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 369–399). New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Murray, G. (2008). Pop culture and language learning: Learners’ stories informing EFL. Innovation
in Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 1–16.
O’Bryan, A. (2008). Providing pedagogical learner training in CALL: Impact on student use of lan-
guage learning strategies and glosses. CALICO Journal, 26(1), 142–159.
Oxford, R. (2009). The influence of technology on second language writing. In R. Oxford & J.
Oxford (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning in the Net generation (pp. 9–21).
Manoa, HI: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Prichard, C. (2013). Training L2 learners to use Facebook appropriately and effectively. CALICO
Journal, 30(2), 204–225.
Ranalli, J. (2013). Online strategy instruction for integrating dictionary skills and language aware-
ness. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 75–99.
Reinders, H., & Darasawang, P. (2012). Diversity in language support. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Com-
puter-assisted language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 49–70). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environments. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(3), 1–3.
Reinhardt, J., & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: A
language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 326–344.
Romeo, K., & Hubbard, P. (2010). Pervasive CALL learner training for improving listening profi-
ciency. In M. Levy, F. Blin, C. Siskin, & O. Takeuchi (Eds.), WorldCALL: International per-
spectives on computer-assisted language learning. New York: Routledge.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory competence. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 32, 195–208.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. London: Continuum Inter-
national Publishing Group.
Smith, K., & Craig, H. (2013). Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model
in EFL. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 252–278.
Teo, T., Tan, S.C., Lee, C.B., Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., Chen, W.L., & Cheah, H.M. (2010). The self-
directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial development
and validation. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1764–1771.
Winke, P., & Goertler, S. (2008). Did we forget someone? Students’ computer access and literacy
for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482–509.

Winke, P., Goertler, S., & Amuzie, L. (2010). Commonly taught and less commonly taught lan-
guage learners: Are they equally prepared for CALL and online language learning? Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 199–219.
Winters, F.I., Greene, J.A., & Costich, C.M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-
based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–
444.
Wong, L.H., & Looi, C.K. (2012). Enculturing self-directed seamless learners: Towards a facili-
tated seamless learning process framework mediated by mobile technology. Conference pro-
ceeding: Wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technology in education (WMUTE), Takamatsu,
Japan. doi:10.1109/WMUTE.2012.9
Zenotz, V. (2012). Awareness development for online reading. Language Awareness, 21, 85–100.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boe-
kaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Seidner (Eds.), Self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications
(pp. 13–39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [134.117.10.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Enhancing learners’ self-directed use

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889714

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language

Enhancing self-directed use of technology for language learning is essential for

maximizing the potential of technology for language learning. Understanding how to

*Corresponding author. Email: laichun@hku.hk

Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis

on the user norms and communication conventions of Facebook interaction, culturally

What to target in training?

How to structure training?

The training program

Research instruments and procedure

Figure 1. The training program.

Frequency of technology use for English learning (9 items)

Perceived usefulness of technology for English learning (10 items)

Attitude to technology use for English learning (3 items)

Educational compatibility of technology use with English learning (5 items)

Situated interpretation of the demand for technology use (3 items)

Social influence on technology use (4 items)

Enjoyment of English learning (3 items)

Self-regulation of language learning (8 items)

Self-efficacy in technology use for English learning (4 items)

Facilitating conditions of technology use (5 items)

Evaluation of the training materials

venues changed.” Evaluation of the perceived changes in attitudes towards technology

Learning behavior changes

Table 1. Comparing participants’ pre- and post-survey responses (n ¼ 64).

Construct Item Range a Mean SD T Sig.

group. To validate this finding, we examined the development of self-directed technology

Perceptions of the training

Construct Pre-survey Post-survey

Table 3. Learner evaluation of the training.

Comparing frequent users against infrequent users

Construct Item Range a Mean Mean SD T Sig.

Table 4. Participants’ perception of different training content.

General pedagogical training 2.40 0.79 40%

pre-training perceptions of and interest in technology-supported language learning, their

collaborative debriefing sessions (Hubbard, 2004). The guided self-assessment of the

viable framework in constructing effective training programs to promote self-directed use

for CALL. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 482–509.

You might also like