Cover not available
Part of
Language-Learner Computer Interactions: Theory, methodology and CALL applications
Edited by Catherine Caws and Marie-Josée Hamel
[Language Studies, Science and Engineering 2] 2016
► pp. 117–136

Learner personas and the effects of instructional scaffolding on working behaviour and linguistic performance

| Simon Fraser University, Canada

This chapter examines data-driven learner personas and instructional scaffolding in the form of preemptive feedback in an ICALL environment. Ninety-three beginner learners of L2 German participated in a study by performing a sentence completion task as part of their regular course assignments throughout a semester. On the basis of their access to help throughout the study, participants were classified into three distinctive learner profiles, or personas: No Help, Sporadic Help, and Frequent Help personas. The study then investigated the effects of access to different amounts of help on the learners’ working behaviour and linguistic performance. Study results indicate that the three learner personas showed significant differences in their working behaviour and linguistic performance, but by investigating the effects of the instructional scaffolding the CALL system provided, results suggest that two learner personas are sufficient to capture learners’ differences. With the ultimate goal of understanding learner personas and instructional scaffolding as it relates to learning outcomes, satisfaction and success in CALL, this paper provides possible explanations of these study results and suggests areas for future research and development.

Keywords: German as a second language, help options, learner-computer interactions, scaffolding
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 14 June 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lsse.2.06hei
References
Bertin, J.C. and Gravé, J.P
(2010) In favor of a model of didactic ergonomics. In J.C. Bertin, P. Gravé and J.P. Narcy-Combes (Eds.), Second language distance learning and teaching: theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics (pp. 1-36). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J
(1983) Child’s talk. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
Calabria, T
(2004) An introduction to personas and how to create them. KM Column. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Caws, C
(2013) Evaluating a web-based video corpus through an analysis of user interactions. ReCALL, 25(1), 85–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caws, C., & Hamel, M.-J
(2013) From analysis to training: Recycling interaction data into learning processes. OLBI Working Papers, 5, 25–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, W., & Sun, Y
(2009) Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 283–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colpaert, J
(2004)  Design of online interactive language courseware: Conceptualization, specification and prototyping. Research into the impact of linguistic-didactic functionality on software architecture (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Netherlands.
Cooper, A
(1999) The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Donato, R., Clyde, M.D., & Vansant, J
(2008) Deutsch: Na klar! An introductory German course. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ellis, R
(1993) The structural syllabus and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 91-113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S
(2001) Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farrokhi, F., Ansarin, A., & Mohammadnia, Z
(2008) Preemptive focus on form: Teachers’ practices across proficiencies. The Linguistics Journal, 3(2), 7-30.Google Scholar
Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L
(2001) Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ge, X., Chen, C.H., & Davis, K.A
(2005) Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guzdial, M
(1994) Software-realized scaffolding to facilitate programming for science learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 4, 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamel, M.-J
(2012) Testing aspects of the usability of an online learner dictionary prototype: Process and product oriented analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(4), 339–365.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heift, T
(2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Modeling learner variability in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(4), 305–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Developing an intelligent language tutor. CALICO, 27(3), 443–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Preemptive feedback in CALL. InA. Mackey & K. McDonough(Eds.), Interaction in diverse educational settings (pp. 189–207). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heift, T., & Rimrott, A
(2012) Task-related variation in computer assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 525–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, P
(2011) Evaluation of courseware and websites. InL. Ducate & N. Arnold(Eds.), Present and future perspectives of CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 407–440). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L
(2006) Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. InB. van Patten & J. Williams. (Eds.), Explaining second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G
(2006) CALL dimensions: Options and issues in computer assisted language learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lilley, M., Pyper, A., & Attwood, S
(2012) Understanding the student experience through the use of personas. Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Science, 11(1), 4–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H
(1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. InK. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch(Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M., & Robinson, P
(1998) Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. InC. Doughty & J. Williams(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15–63). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L
(2013) Personas – User focused design. London, United Kingdom: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., … Soloway, E
(2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raby, F
(2005) A user-centered ergonomic approach to CALL research. InJ.L. Egbert & G.M. Petrie(Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 179–190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R
(1994) Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.Google Scholar
Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Kirschner, P.A., & Kester, L
(2003) Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 5–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar