Technology
The pandemic has led to the commercialization of language teaching-learning with investments in tools and applications (apps) for language learning (Williamson, Eynon & Potter, 2020). The growing availability of these mobile technologies has contributed to an increase in mobile-assisted language learning in which learners can autonomously study a second language (L2) anytime or anywhere (Kukulska-Hulme, Lee & Norris, 2017; Reinders & Benson, 2017). Research shows the effectiveness of Adaptive AI powered systems in Language learning particularly for grammar (Li & Hegelheimer, 2013), reading comprehension (Chen & Hsu, 2008; Wu et al. 2011; Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004a), vocabulary learning (Motallebzadeh et al; Saran et al. 2012), receptive and expressive language (Liu, 2009; Papadima-Sophocleous et al. 2012; Robertson, 2009, pp. 1–48). Yet, for all the celebration around large-scale commercial L2 learning apps, such as Duolingo research is limited.
Pedagogy
The concept of gamification refers to the extension of the principles and mechanics of game play into game contexts. (Deterding et al. (2011). Advocates for Gamification prominently declare that its use in model learning is “the future of education” or education for the 21st century (Deardorff 2015; Frith 2017). In Loewen et al. (year) case study, for instance gamification is certainly the area where Duolingo succeeded unequivocally. In adding game mechanics to the commercial App, Duolingo encourages intrinsic motivation in users. As Loewen et al. (year) note: "Being able to see the progress of their fellow classmates (and instructor) served as a motivational tool for many to continue". However, the research does not speak of the gamification aspects that have benefited the learning outcomes. This is an issue that Faradanesh et al. (2019) have noted in their review of gamification in English as a Second language.
Adaptive Learning
Adaptive learning is a pedagogy (AL) that involves using computing algorithms in order to articulate an interactive learning experience and to adapt the content to the needs of
each learner. Therefore, adaptive learning is one articulation of personalized education. Duolingo claims to use adaptive learning pedagogy when adjusting the learning objectives based on individual differences and performance. In a review on Adaptive intelligent learning, Herder et al. (2017) found that adaptive intelligent learning increases the speed of learning, knowledge retention, motivation, and knowledge transfer.In this case study, the relevance of adaptive learning pedagogy is questioned in a feature called Tiny Cards presented in the form of lessons. With Tiny Cards, decks of users access digital flashcards that can be organized into lessons. These lesson can remain private or be made available to other users. Users complete a lesson in Tinycards but they do not need to translate sentences, unlike Duolingo's regular lessons. After reviewing the digital flashcards, they are given matching exercises (matching the correct word to the picture) or asked to type in the correct word for the image. Here the gamification aspect is reduced as users or lesson creators do not receive badges when using Tinycards. Adaptive learning in this case is about the user accessing correct and personalised information. With Tiny Cards, it is highly questionable whether the lessons produced by users rather than teachers will be of educational value.
Language Acquisition
On the surface, Duolingo champions language acquisition. It offers an enjoyable alternative to top-down pedagogy associated with educational inequalities particularly for students from multilingual and minority backgrounds (Gipps 1994; Valdés and Figueroa 1994). However, from all the potential highlighted in Duolingo marketing, neither pedagogy or language learning theories are truly understood. Linguists understand that we acquire language incidentally or as Stephen Krashen (2014) and others argue "subconsciously". In Duolingo, the learner is invited to engage in a sequence of tasks based on translation. This process is exactly the opposite as it relies on "conscious learning and explicit knowledge" such as speaking (33%) and listening (37%) and high score in explicit knowledge such as reading (57%) and writing (55%), which involves greater use of explicit knowledge. Linguistic Studies have shown that conscious learning does not produce true language competence. In fact, many more studies demonstrate that subconscious language acquisition is far more effective than traditional methods on communicative tests, and more or just as effective on grammar tests (Krashen, 1982, 2003).
Other studies have shown when comparing when comparing to skill-based methods, the acquisition-oriented methods were more effective (Mason, 2005; Mason et al. 2009). In their study, Loewen et al. (2019) demonstrated that Duolingo learners showed moderate improvement. Moderate improvement on a very small student sample limits however generalization. Additionally, the research imposes a specific language onto students. This is likely to affect both learning and motivation as in most settings users have the choice between at least two languages; this choice matters to them culturally, emotionally or intellectually. Duolingo fails to address the cultural aspects of languages. And it also fails to encourage the creative use of languages. Honorato's (2018) analysis of the Duolingo app highlights an instrumental approach to languages and false promises, explaining: "The reinforcement through awards achieved in the app can give a false sensation of learning thus contributing to the semiformation of the L2".
If it's free, you are the product
Roppel (2017) analysed Duolingo from the students' perspective. According to them, Duolingo provides exercises with simple resolutions, as well as being a means of entertainment and that practicing a second language (L2) can be done anywhere and anytime. Students lack the understanding that Duolingo provides an instrumental method of learning a foreign language. Like Jordao (2005), prior to COVID, I believed the critical teaching-learning use of L2 could contribute to the development of new meanings that go beyond those produced in the native language (and culture). The pandemic has transformed language teaching-learning into a commercial activity with investments into tools and applications (Williamson, Eynon & Potter, 2020). As demonstrated with this case study, the marketization of tech tools and educational products are not in line with research and theories It is as if Gamification and AI powered Adaptive technology applied to L2 teaching and learning does not always promote interactive learning and critical L2 usage, thus contributing to what Finardi, Viera & Leo (2019) refer to as the semi-formation of L2 leaners.
Conclusion
While organisation keep on promoting neoliberal learning agendas, Gamification comes into play offering new ways to control and monitor student while portraying learning as progressive, flexible, and enjoyable. In this way, Duolingo is another exemplar of contemporary neoliberal education paradigms (Tulloch et al. 2018), focused on using adaptive learning and Gamification as a marketing tool for promoting its products. Marketing claims massive potential and benefits for students, particularly those with diverse needs. Yet, Duolingo in the classrooms could limit the full potential of a good teacher and good strategies involved in personalised learning. While Duolingo applies some pedagogies and learning theories, it does so loosely. Some research such as, the theory of language acquisition used in this App is simply outdated. For this reason, Duolingo should not be mistaken for education. Language learning requires incidental and meaningful, cultural learning and interactions. This process is deeper and more challenging than using Duolingo and lesson plans, created by its users. Whether online or on-site, adaptive learning is not a product that can be bought. It is more like a strategy based on pedagogy and learning theories. Without a good teacher and good strategies to implement both, adaptive learning as proposed in Duolingo's has very limited value for citizens. In fact, by facilitating a mode of learning where students are encouraged to compete, be self-directed, and see themselves as voluntarily surveilled consumers (data mining) Duolingo exemplified contemporary neoliberal education paradigms (Tulloch et al. 2018). As Tulloch et al. (2018) says it: "In the end, the real power of Gamification may not lie in its ability to engage a generation of students better but in the more subtle ways it applies and reinforces a neoliberal educational policy agenda".
For more information on Tulloch's et al. (2018) argument click here:
To book your seat for the next AI conference held in Melbourne, check details below:
Reference list
Beckman, K., Apps, T., Bennett, S. & Lockyer, L. 2018. Conceptualising technology practice in education using Bourdieu’s sociology. Learning, Media and Technology, 43(2).
Chen, C., Hsu, h. ( 2008)Personalized intelligent mobile learning system for supportive effective English learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3).
Deterding, S., et al. (2011). Gamification: Toward a Definition. C. Gamification Workshop Proceedings, Vancouver, BC, 7-12 May 2011, 1-4.
Hartley, D. (1997). The new managerialism in education: a mission impossible? Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 47-57.
Hartley, D. (2003). New economy, new pedagogy? Oxford Review of Education, 29(1), 81-94.
Hartley, D. (2006). Excellence and enjoyment: the logic of a "contradiction". British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 3-14.
Hartley, D. (2007a). Education policy and the "inter"-regnum. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 695-708.
Hartley, D. (2007b). Organizational epistemology, education and social theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2).
Hartley, D. (2007c). Personalisation: the emerging "revised" code of education? Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 629-642.
Hartley, D. (2008). Education, markets and the pedagogy of personalisation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4), 365-381.
Hartley, D. (2009a). Education policy, distributed leadership and socio-cultural theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 139-150.
Hartley, D. (2009b). Personalisation: the nostalgic revival of child-centred education? Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 423-434.
Hartley, D. (2010). Rhetorics of regulation in education after the global economic crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 25(6), 785-791.
Hartley, D. (1997). The new managerialism in education: a mission impossible? Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 47-57.
Hartley, D. (2003). New economy, new pedagogy? Oxford Review of Education, 29(1), 81-94.
Hartley, D. (2006). Excellence and enjoyment: the logic of a "contradiction". British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 3-14.
Hartley, D. (2007a). Education policy and the "inter"-regnum. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 695-708.
Hartley, D. (2007b). Organizational epistemology, education and social theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2).
Hartley, D. (2007c). Personalisation: the emerging "revised" code of education? Oxford Review of Education, 33(5).
Hartley, D. (2008). Education, markets and the pedagogy of personalisation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4), 365-381.
Hartley, D. (2009a). Education policy, distributed leadership and socio-cultural theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 139-150.
Hartley, D. (2009b). Personalisation: the nostalgic revival of child-centred education? Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 423-434.
Hartley, D. (2010). Rhetorics of regulation in education after the global economic crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 25(6), 785-791.
Hartley, D. (1997). The new managerialism in education: a mission impossible? Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 47-57.
Hartley, D. (2003). New economy, new pedagogy? Oxford Review of Education, 29(1), 81-94.
Hartley, D. (2006). Excellence and enjoyment: the logic of a "contradiction". British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 3-14.
Hartley, D. (2009a). Education policy, distributed leadership and socio-cultural theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 139-150.
Hartley, D. (2007a). Education policy and the "inter"-regnum. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6).
Hartley, D. (2007b). Organizational epistemology, education and social theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2).
Hartley, D. (2007c). Personalisation: the emerging "revised" code of education? Oxford Review of Education, 33(5), 629-642.
Hartley, D. (2008). Education, markets and the pedagogy of personalisation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4).
Hartley, D. (2009a). Education policy, distributed leadership and socio-cultural theory. Educational Review, 61(2), 139-150.
Hartley, D. (2009b). Personalisation: the nostalgic revival of child-centred education? Journal of Education Policy, 24(4).
Hartley, D. (2010). Rhetorics of regulation in education after the global economic crisis. Journal of Education Policy, 25(6).
Honorato, A. (2018). Duolingo noeisno-aprendizagem de ingles com foco no vocabulario: potencialidades e limitacoes. Dissertacao. Programa de Pos-Graducao em Ensino e Porcessos Formativos, do Instituto de Biociencias. Exatas Da Universidate Esadual Paulista, Jose de Rio Preto.
Kapp, K. (2019). The Gamification of Learning and Instruction Field Book. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 2014. Does Duolingo "trump" university-level language learning? International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 9(1).
Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self-editing in L2 writing. Language, Learning and Technology, 17 (3).
Liu, T.Y (2009). A context‐aware ubiquitous learning environment for language listening and speaking. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (6) (2009).
Loewen, S., Crowther, D.R; Kim, i., J. Maloney, Z.F. Miller, H. (2019). Mobile-assisted language learning: A Duolingo case study ReCALL, 31(3).
Comments
Post a Comment