THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
91
IMPROVEMENTOFPRESENT
SUBJUNCTIVEORALPRODUCTIONIN
GRADEDVOICETHREADTASKS
BeatrizG.Glick
PennsylvaniaStateUniversity-Hazelton
AbstractThepurposeofthisactionresearchwastoassessthepedagogicalvalueofthesoftwareprogram
VoiceThread(VT)ascomparedtoclassroomdiscussionsindevelopingandenhancingstudentproductionof
thePresentSubjunctiveattheIntermediatelevelofSpanishlanguagecourses.Thecontrolgroupwas
exposedtotasksinclassroomdiscussionswhiletheexperimentalgrouprecordedthosetasksonVoiceThread.
Anothervariableinthisstudyconsistedinacomparisonofgradedandnon-gradedassignments.Thecontrol
groupdiscussedtopicsinclassinaninformalmanner,whereas,intheexperimentalgroup,eachVoiceThread
recordingwasgradedandinstructorfeedbackwasprovided.TheseVoiceThreadrecordingswerea
permanentrecordthatstudentscoulduseasreferencewhenpreparingfortheFinalOralExam.Thestudy
lastedonesemester.TheresultsindicatethebeneficialaspectsofGradedVoiceThreadassignmentsover
InformalClassDiscussion.VTallowedstudentstoproduce,recordandpracticetargetstructures,whichlead
toself-awarenessbymeansofcontinuousfeedbackasproposedbyKolb’sExperientialLearningTheory.
Whenbothgroupswerecompared,theInformalClassDiscussions’groupperformedonaveragefifteen
percentagepointslowerthantheGradedVoiceThreadgrouponthefinaloralexamattheendofthe
semester.However,becauseofthetwovariablespresentinthestudy,itwasdifficulttodeterminewhether
thesuccesswasduetotheuseofVoiceThreadortothenatureofgradedassignments.
Keywords:VoiceThread,Subjunctive,Experientiallearning
Introduction
AccordingtoKolb’sexperientiallearningtheory(1976),studentslearnbybeingexposedto
concreteexperiences,whichleadtoabstractconceptualizations,whicharereassessedwhen
thestudentisexposedtomoreexperiences.Kolb’scycleoflearningemphasizesthe
importanceofrepeatedexposuretothetargetlanguagestructures.Thisemphasison
exposuretonewexperiencescanbeachievedinclassroomdiscussionsandthroughtheuse
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
92
oftechnologyprogramssuchasVoiceThread.Inthisstudy,theinstructorwasinterestedin
evaluatingtheuseoftechnologyandgradedassignmentsinoppositiontoungraded
classroomdiscussionsinthefinalproductionofthepresentsubjunctiveinthefinaloral
exam.
OneofthemostdifficultsubjectstoacquirewhenlearningtheSpanishlanguageistheuse
ofthesubjunctivemood.Thesubjunctivemoodisused5%inoralcommunication(Moreno
deAlba,1978)anditisanimportantconceptthatisroutinelytaughtattheSpanish
intermediatelevel.Thesubjunctivemoodisdefinedasapointofviewofthespeakerwho
wishestoexpresssubjectivityandhypotheses.Becauseitisapointofviewofthespeaker,
studentshavetobegivenclearrulestounderstandatabasiclevelwhenitisusedinthe
Spanishlanguage.Therefore,thisconceptisintroducedbyexplainingtherearecertain
verbswhichshowa)uncertaintysuchas“dudar”/todoubtb)wish“pedir”/toaskfor,c)
volitionsuchas“insistir”/toinsistd)andsuggestion“recomendar”/torecommend,to
nameafewofthetypesofverbswhichrequireasubjunctivemood.Theseconddifficulty
forthestudentsinthesubjunctivemoodisfoundinsubordinatesentences.Sounless
studentshavepracticedusing“que”/thatasalinkbetweentwosentencesandto
recognizetwoverbs,amainone,andasubordinateone,itisverydifficultforstudentsto
understandtherelationbetweenamainclauseverbwhichisexpressedasafactinthe
indicativemoodandasubordinateclauseverbwhichrequiresswitchingpointsofview,the
subjunctivemood.Thesesubordinatesentencescanbenoun,adjectiveoradverbial
clauses,whichfurtherconfusestheissueforstudentswhodon’trecognizetypesof
subordination,ingeneral.Thethirdcomplexaspectofthepresentsubjunctiveisthe
phoneticaspectoftheform.Togeneratethepresentsubjunctive,thereisachangein
vowelintheverbending.Thisisveryconfusingforstudentswhohavelearnedthepresent
indicativewith“a”“e”endingsandwhonowhavetoswitchthesevowelstoconstructthe
presentsubjunctive.Finally,thefourthobstacleisthelackofuseofthesubjunctivemood
inconversationalEnglish.InEnglish,thesubjunctivemoodisusedinarchaicexpressions
like“GodsavetheQueen”andinphraseswiththeverb“tobe”like‘IwishIwere...”“IfI
werearichperson...”althoughmanystudentsareunfamiliarwiththeseexpressionsand
useincorrectly“IwishIwas...”
Inordertoencouragestudentunderstandingofthisdifficultverbmood,studentsengagein
tasksduringclass.Atraditionalformatistheuseofin-classdiscussions,butinthisstudy,
theauthoralsousedthesoftwareprogramVoiceThread(VT)topromotethesetasks.
VoiceThreadisanasynchronousmediumthatallowsrecorded,visual,andtextmaterialto
beuploadedbyusers.Itisopentoallstudentsinagroup,soeveryonecanread,see,listen
toeachotherandtotheinstructor’scomments,aswellasgivebothwrittenandoral
comments(Crane2009)asseeninFigure1.
Figure1:AnexampleofaVoiceThreadSlideThreadTaskTitled“NuestroMuseo”/Our
Museum
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
93
Therewereseveralpurposesofthisstudy.Thefirstonewastoassessstudentproductionof
thetargetstructurebyreplacingin-classdiscussionswithatechnologycomponent,
VoiceThread.Thesecondgoalwastocomparestudentproductionofthepresent
subjunctiveinthefinaloralexambetweenthetraditionalclassroomdiscussionsincontrast
totherecordedtasksonVoiceThread.
Theinstructorhypothesizedthefollowing:
Hypothesis1:TheVoiceThreadassignments’gradesshouldreflectthefinaloralexam
grade.
Hypothesis2:ThestudentsexposedtoVoiceThreadtasksshouldperformbetteronthefinal
oralexamthanstudentsexposedtoinformalclassroomdiscussions.
Hypothesis3:Thestudents’perceptionsoftheirprogressinVoiceThreadtasksshould
increasewithtime.
LiteratureReview
Awiderangeofmethodshasbeenanalyzedintheliteraturetoaidteachersintheir
pedagogicalefforts.Inthisstudy,twomethodswereusedtoimplementtasks.Inorderto
teachthesubjunctivemood,oneofthemostproductiveandtestedwaysisbymeansof
processingInstructionasexplainedinCollentine(1998),andFarley(2001)whoconducted
experimentstotestthedifferencesbetweenstudentswhoweretaughtthesubjunctivevia
processinginstructionandmeaningbasedoutput.Althoughbothmethodsyieldedpositive
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
94
results,processinginstructionincreasednotonlystudentoutput,butalsobetter
comprehensionoftheproductionofthesubjunctive.Thisstudyusedprocessinginstruction
asdefinedbyLeeandVanPatten(2003)asfocusedpracticethatemphasizesthe
importanceofformandmeaningtounderstandthetargetstructureofthesubjunctive.The
instructorrefinedthefocusedpracticebyusing“Corralling”asdefinedbyMeskilland
Anthony(2010).Corrallingisaway“toorchestratepracticewiththetargetlanguagethatis
narrowlyfocusedontheirinstructionalobjectivesatthemoment”(p.56).Thecorralling
tasksusedincludednarratingexperiencesinvisitingadoctor’soffice,makingroom
reservations,observingpaintingstodescribeemotions,andportrayingtheiridealpartner.
Thus,bypreparingstudentsinclassusingProcessingInstructionandbyaskingstudentsto
performcertaintasksusing“Corralling”ofthepresentsubjunctivewasexplored.
Finally,theactofrepeatingtasks,whichwerefocusedandwhichinvitedstudentsto
producethemwithinthematicboundaries,reinforcedtheprocessofself-monitoringand
self-correctiontoproduceamoreaccuratelinguisticrepresentationofrulesregardingthe
presentsubjunctive.Thisfocused,guided,andrepetitivemodelfollowedKolb’sexperiential
learningtheory(1976)where1)aconcreteexperiencesuchasatasktoproducethepresent
subjunctiveleadsto2)reflectiveobservationeitherbecauseoftheproductionofthe
writtenslide,oralfeedbackfromtheInstructor,orwrittenandoralcommentsfromother
classmateswhichresultsinarearrangementoftherulesofformationofthesubjunctiveand
to3)abstractconceptualization,leadingstudentstotrythenewrulesinanotherpertinent
taskor4)testinginnewsituations.
Taskswerepresentedtostudentseitherinaclassroomdiscussionorthroughassignments
onthecomputer.ThesoftwareprogramVoiceThreadwaschosenbecauseithadbeen
evaluatedbystudentsinalanguageclassasausefuldevice,easytouse,andsupportedby
thetechnicaldepartmentattheuniversity(Glick,2012).Previousstudiesalsoshowedthat
VoiceThreadmotivatedandminimizedanxiety(McKeeman,2012)andHoustonetal.
(2008)highlightedthattheonlydrawbackwastheabsenceofalivechatwithstudents.
However,thatisnotreallyadisadvantagesinceitallowsfortimetoreflectbefore
submittinginformation.Ithadbeenshownthatcomputermediatedcommunication
increasedquantity/qualityandequalizedtheconversationbygivingeachstudentatimeto
speak.Itimprovedlinguisticcompetenceaslongastherewasnegotiationofmeaningdone
priortotheproductionoftheassignment(Chun,2008).Furthermore,VanDeusen-Scholl
(2008)onalongitudinalstudyofcomputer-mediatedforeignlanguagelearningconcluded,
amongotherideas,thatstudentsproducedmorelanguagewhenusingCMCapproaches.
However,notallstudiesshowedincreasedproductionintargetlanguagewhenusing
technology.Forexample,DucateandLomicka’sstudy(2009)onusingpodcaststoenhance
students’pronunciationshowedthatstudents’pronunciationdidnotsignificantlyimprove
regardingcomprehensibilityafterrecordingfivepodcasts.Itwasnotclearwhetherornot
thesepodcastswerepartofthestudents’gradesandwhethertheycountedtowardafinal
oralexam.
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
95
OtheradvantagesofusingVoiceThreadincludedthatastudentfoundavoiceanda“social
presence.”Astudentfeltpartofa“community,”andunderstoodwhatthecommunitywas
sayingbyreadingaboutit,listeningtoeveryone’svoicesorlookingforvisualcluesonthe
publishedslide(Orlando,2010).Finally,otherstudiesthatindicateatleastapositive
perceptionofusingVoiceThreadincollegelevelcoursesincludeChanandPallapu(2012)
whoshowedthat64%ofparticipantswantedtouseVoiceThreadinabusinesspolicycourse
atCaliforniaStateUniversityandGlick(2012),whodeterminedthat62%ofstudents
enrolledinaSpanishuniversitycoursewouldrecommendusingVoiceThread.Another
reasontouseVoiceThreadiscitedinTu(2011)whoreportedtheincreaseduseof
VoiceThreadaccordingtoUSNewsandWorldReportEducationGlobalrankings,claiming
that“Overtwomillionpeopleinover150countriesandover25%ofthetop100US
universitiesandcolleges”(p.1)wereusingVoiceThreadforconnectionandcollaboration.
PlanofActiontoImplementResearch
TheinstructorobservedthattheoralproductionofstudentsintwoIntermediateclassesof
Spanish,asevidencedbyfinaloralexamscores,waslow79%and71%.Fortheinstructor,
thesefinaloralexamscoresrepresentedextremelydisappointingaveragesespeciallysince
throughoutthecourse,therehadbeeninformalclassdiscussions,aswellastwo(2)
ungradedVoiceThread(VT)sessionswherestudentsrecordedtwoexercisesaspreparation
forthefinaloralexam.Theinstructorwasconcernedthattheseinformalclassdiscussions
werenottakenseriouslyandwerenotapermanentrecordthatstudentscoulduseto
reviewforthefinaloralexam.TheinstructordecidedtoimplementVoiceThreadtasksasa
permanentrecordofeffort,whichcouldbeusedbystudentsasareferencewouldbe
graded,incontrasttopreviousInformalin-classDiscussionsandVoiceThreadwhichwere
ungraded(Glick,2012).
Twogroupswerecompared,oneexposedonlytoinformalin-classdiscussionsandtheother
exposedtoVoiceThreadtasks.AspertainingtothegroupexposedtoVoiceThreadtasks,
students’self-perceivedunderstandingoftheirprogresswasevaluatedthroughaselfassessmentquestionnaire(seeAppendixA).Students’gradeswereanalyzedtodetermine
progress(seeAppendixB).Third,productionofthePresentSubjunctiveinthefinaloral
examwascalculatedinaquantitativemannerbytworaters,andinter-raterreliability
determinedaswell.Withregardstoacomparisonbetweenthecontrolgroupwho
discussedthetasksinclassandtheexperimentalgroupwhorecordedonVoiceThread,the
gradesofthefinaloralexamwerecompared.
Methodology
Inthisquasi-experimentalstudylastingonesemester,thereweretwogroupsofstudents:in
thecontrolcourse,studentsproducedsevenin-class,ungradedpracticesessionsofthe
PresentSubjunctivewhereasintheexperimentalgroup,studentsproducedthesameseven
tasks,buttheyusedsevenVoiceThreadandeveryrecordingwasgraded.EachVoiceThread
gradedsessionwasworth1%pointofthefinalgradeandthefinaloralexamwasworth10%
ofthefinalgrade,inbothgroups.Thus,thesecombinedoralexercisesandfinalexam
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
96
representedatotalof17%ofthefinalgradeintheexperimentalgroupbutonly10%inthe
controlgroupbecauseonlythefinalexamwasgraded.
Thesubjectselectionlackedrandomassignmentasstudentselectionwasbasedonthe
needtofulfillalanguagecreditrequirement.Itwasalsoastaticgroupcomparisondesign
becausetherewasjustaposttestevaluation,whichwasthefinaloralexamgrade.Also
therewasagenderimbalanceasseeninTable1betweentheInformalClassDiscussion
groupandthegradedVTgroup,whichwillbeaddressedinthediscussionsection.This
genderimbalanceof68%femaleand32%maleintheInformalClassDiscussiongroup
comparedto42%femaleand58%maleinthegradedVoiceThreadgroupmayhaveaffected
thedifferencesinmeansbetweenfinaloralexamsinbothgroups.
Studentsinbothgroups,controlandexperimental,wereaskedtodiscussseven(7)
assignmentsasfollows:1)Issueformalcommandsatthedoctor’soffice2)Offer
recommendationsbythedoctor3)Describeyouridealperson4)Comparepreferred
characteristicsbetweenanidealmanandanidealwoman5)Describeanidealhotelroom
6)Museum(1)Describeyouremotions,doubts,thoughts,andrecommendationsabouta
Latin-Americanpaintingofyourchoice7)Museum(2)Describeyouremotions,doubts,
thoughts,andrecommendationsaboutpaintingschosenbyclassmates.
StudentsinthegradedVTgroupwereexplainedhowtouseVTinclassbytheinstructorand
recordedonepracticesessiontogether.Anyrelatedtechnicalquestionsweresolvedbythe
InstructionTechnologygroupofadvisorsatthecollegeaswellasbyaskingtheinstructorfor
furtherhelp.Afterlisteningtoeachstudent,feedbackwasgivenandstudents’gradeswere
recorded.
ResultsandDiscussion
Thisactionresearchwasdesignedtoinvestigatetheeffectofsubstitutingatechnology
componentforInformalClassDiscussion.Onemajordifferencebetweenthecontroland
theexperimentalgroupisattributedtothesamplegenderasseeninTable1.
Table1.StudentGenderperCourseSection
InformalClass
Discussion
N=31
Section1:
Section2:
Totalfemale:68%
8female,5male
13female,5male Totalmale:32%
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
97
GradedVT
Section1:
Section2:
Totalfemale:42%
N=26
5female,7male
6female,8male
Totalmale:58%
Toanswerthefirsthypothesis,thatVoiceThreadassignments’gradesshouldreflectthefinal
oralexamgrade,students’gradesinthevariousVTtasksweredetermined.Table2shows
measurementsoftheindependentvariable(gradedpracticeoftaskonVoiceThread),which
leadstoproductionofthedependentvariable(productionofthepresentsubjunctive).As
thedatashows,therewasaconsistentrangeofgradesintaskswithamodeof84,amean
of83.21andamedianof83.5.Thisinterruptedtime-seriesofmeasurementsshowsthat
during“treatment”of7gradedVoiceThreadassignments,studentsproducedtherequired
minimumnumberofsubordinatedsentenceswasfive.Thisminimumnumberwas
determinedbylisteningtotheproductionofsubordinatedsubjunctivesentencesbya
nativespeakeronthesametopicsanddividingthatnumberbyhalf,toaccommodatefor
theIntermediatelevelofspeechofthestudents.
Table2.VoiceThreadTasksandGrades
VoiceThreadTask#
GradedVTSection1
GradedVTSection2
(N=12)
(N=14)
1
80
83
2
84
84
3
84
82
4
81
84
5
82
85
6
72
96
7
87
81
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
98
StudentsweregradedasdescribedintherubricforgradingVoiceThreadsandfinaloral
examanalyticallyinAppendixA.Themeanoftheprogressionintaskswas82,84,83,83,
84,84,84,showingamodeof84,whichindicatedthatstudentsaccomplishedthetaskata
highlevelinallcases.Therewasnoincreaseingradewithtimethatreflectedincreasein
comprehensionorproductionofthetargetstructure.Instead,inallassignments,students
recordedandproducedtherequirednumberandformsofthePresentSubjunctive.
Todiscussthesecondhypothesis,thatstudentsexposedtoVoiceThreadtasksshould
performbetteronthefinaloralexamthanstudentsexposedtoinformalclassroom
discussions,itwasclearthattherewasadifferencebetweenachievementofstudentsinthe
informalclassdiscussionandthosewhorecordedonVoiceThread.
Table3.AverageScoresforFinalOralExams
FinalOralExamScoresofUngraded
InformalClassDiscussionsGroup
Sections1,2:79.23%,70.94%
FinalOralExamScoresofGradedVT
Group
Sections1,2:89.25%,91.21%
Aone-tailtestforT-testofindependentsampleswasperformedonthedatainTable3to
determineifthevarioussectionsofeachcourseshowedasignificantdifferenceinfinaloral
examgrades.ThePvaluewas0.071(not<0.05),whichsuggeststhatthismightbeof
statisticalsignificanceifalargersamplewereused.Themeanofthecontrolgroupwho
reliedonclassroomdiscussionswasof75%,representingasampleof35students.The
meanoftheexperimentalgroupwhoworkedonlyontasksinVTwasof90%representinga
sampleof26students.TheimprovedperformanceontheFinalOralExambythegroupthat
workedwithrecordedassignmentscouldbeattributedtovariouscausesincludingthe
genderofthesamplesincethereweremorefemalestudentsinthecontrolgroupthanin
theexperimentalone.Also,allVoiceThreadassignmentsweregradedwhichenhanced
intrinsicmotivationtocompletethetask.Theinstructormonitoredclassdiscussions,but
therewasnorecordedevidencethatallstudentsinallgroupsperformedequallyand
understoodequallythetopicofthediscussion.
Thethirdhypothesiswasthatstudents’perceptionsoftheirprogressinVoiceThreadtasks
shouldincreasewithtime.Inordertotriangulatedataandobtainthestudents’pointof
view,studentswereaskedtocompleteaquestionnaireonperceptionsofprogress,
(AppendixA)todiscusstheirprogressinproductionandunderstandingofthepresent
SubjunctivebetweentheirfirstVoiceThreadandtheirlastone.InTable4,21students
agreedthattheyunderstoodhowtoproduceandformthepresentsubjunctiveafterseven
VoiceThreadassignments.Outof26students,23mentionedtheyweremoreconfident
withtheirpronunciation,ingeneral.Oneofthemostsignificantanswerswasthattwo
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
99
studentsindicatedtheyhadrecordedmultipletimesandthattheyhadlistenedtofeedback.
Thisquestionshouldhavebeenincludedinthequestionnaireinordertobetterassessthe
valueoftherecordingsinVoiceThread.Itwasconfirmedthat21/26studentsbelievedthat
theproductionofthepresentsubjunctivewas“easier,understoodwhenandhowtouseit”
withtime.Becausethereisnocomparisonwiththecontrolgroup,itcannotbedetermined
whetherthecontrolgroupalsofeltthattheyunderstoodhowtoproducethepresent
subjunctiveafterrepeatedclassdiscussions.
Table4.Students’PerceptionsofProgress
Variable
Students’Perceptions(#ofstudents)
ProductionofthePresentSubjunctive
Goteasier,formedcorrectendings,
understoodwhen,where,andhowtouse
it,confident,comfortable,clear(21)
Stillneedswork(2)
PronunciationinGeneral
Improved,sayingmorewords,moreclear,
moreconfident(23)
DifficultypronouncingSpanish“j”(3)/
double“r”/“q“(2)‘“ll”
ProductionofVocabulary
Harderwords,longerwordsinthelast
assignmentsbecausefirsttopicwas“Parts
ofthebody”andlasttopicwas“Social
Changes”(3)
OverallCommunication
Messagewasunderstoodwhencomparing
VoiceThread1andVoiceThread9
AdditionalComments
Irecorded3-4times/Listeningto
feedbackhelped(2)
Toobtainaquantitativeanalysisoftheproductionofthepresentsubjunctiveinthefinal
oralexams,twoindependentraterscountedthenumberofclausesproducedwiththe
Subjunctive.Inter-raterreliability,determinedbytheCohenKappaCorrelation,was.506,
whichwasmoderate.Toreconcilethedifferencebetweencorrelations,theinstructorand
thebilingualstudentreviewedthefinaloralexamsjointlytodiscusstheirdifferencesandto
reachaconsensus.Only18outof26fileswereanalyzedforsubjunctiveproductionasseen
inTable5.Thisisbecauseonly18studentshadtoproducethesubjunctiveinthefinaloral
exam.Thenumberoffilesis14becausefourpresentationsinvolvedtwostudentswhile
therestofthetenpresentationsweregivenindividually.Studentsproducedatotalof99
subordinatesentenceswiththesubjunctive,or5.5sentencesperstudent,whichwasthe
expectedgoalforthistask.
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
100
Table5.Inter-raterEvaluationsofProductionofSubjunctiveintheFinalOralExams
FileNumber
NumberofSubjunctive
produced-Instructor’s
Evaluations
NumberofSubjunctives
produced-BilingualStudent’s
Evaluations
1
6
6
2
6
5
3
8
7
4
10
9
5
7
7
6
1
1
7
10
7
8
13
9
9
5
5
10
9
9
11
9
5
12
8
7
13
2
2
14
10
8
Limitations
Inthisactionresearchcasestudy,therewasanattempttominimizevariables.Thus,the
sameinstructortaughtbothSpanishcourses,thecontrolgroupwithinformalclassroom
discussionsandthegradedVoiceThreadrecordings.Thesametaskswerepresentedto
studentsinbothgroups.However,becauseitisaquasi-experimentaldesign,someinternal
validitythreatsobservedweresamplesize,feedback,andtimeontask.
Withregardstosamplesizeandassignment,thedistributionofstudentsinthetwogroups,
informalclassroomdiscussionsandgradedVoiceThreads,wasbasedonadvisingschedules
andtheneedofthestudenttofulfilltherequiredlanguagecredit.Thegenderimbalance
mayhaveskewedtheresults.Groupsizewas31inthecontrolgroupand26inthe
experimentalone,whichmaynotreflectastatisticallysignificantproportionofthecollege
population.
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
101
Concerningfeedback,theinstructorprovidedin-classcommentstostudentsinbothgroups
butbecauseoftimelimitations,itwasdifficulttoallotthesameamountoftimeperstudent
inclassdiscussions.FeedbacktothegradedVTgroupwasmoreproportional,sincethe
instructorhadtheleisuretolistentoarecording,verifytheinformationonthewrittenslide
andgiveapersonalcommenttoaidstudentswithnoclassconstraints.Anotherpotential
variablewasthetimethatstudentsspentontask,whichmaynothavebeencomparable.
Asnotedintheself-assessmentquestionnaire,twostudentsansweredthattheyrecorded
betweenthreeandfourtimes,whereasthein-classdiscussiongroupworkedonthetaskin
class,wheresomemayhavebeenmoreproductivethanothersandwheretherewereno
immediaterewardstoaccomplishthetaskbecausethesetaskswerenotgraded.Inclass
assignmentsseemedtohavebeentakenmorelightlythangradedtasks.Thisadded
anothervariabletoourstudy.
ConclusionandRecommendations
Wasthesuccessofthepresentsubjunctiveproductioninthefinaloralexamofthegraded
VTgroupduetointensivepractice,tointensivefeedback,ortootherfactors?Itwas
unclearbecauseinthequestionnairetheinstructordidnotaskhowoftenstudentslistened
tothefeedback,orspenttimerecording.Somestudentsmayhaverecordedseveraltimes.
Somestudentsmayhavelistenedtocommentsseveraltimesasconfirmedbycommentson
thestudents’perceptionofprogress.Whatwasclearwastheeffortmadebytheinstructor
topreparetaskswhichfocusedontheformandwhichcorralledthestudentstoproducethe
targetstructureswhileengagingtheminmeaningfuldiscourse.Therepetitionofthetask
aidedstudentsinreflectiveobservations,whichaccordingtoKolb(1976)ledtoapossible
rearrangementofabstractconceptualizations.Furthermore,studentsthenmadeaneffort
totesttherulesinnewsituations.
ThepreparationandevaluationofsevenbiweeklyVoiceThreadtasksperstudentfor26
studentswasone,whichrequireddedicationandtimeonthepartofbothinstructorand
students.However,asthedatainthiscasestudysuggests,itwastimewellspentsince
studentsrealizedtheimportanceofpracticeandpayingattentiontoforminorderto
successfullycommunicatehypotheticalideasinSpanish.Furtherresearchcouldbedoneon
determininghowmuchtimestudentsspentlisteningtothefeedbackandhowmanytimes
theyrecordedaVoiceThreadbeforetheysubmittedthefinalversion.Itwouldalsobe
interestingtoknowhowmuchtimeittookthemtopreparetheassignments.Forthe
controlgroup,gradingin-classdiscussionswouldalsobeusefultoreflectstudent
understandingoftheformationofthetargettask.Understandingstudents’self-awareness
andtheirabilitytoformabstractconceptualizationswouldbeimportantindevelopingnew
tasksandtestingthemonothersoftwareprogramsthatenhancelanguagepedagogical
skills.
Acknowledgements
Theauthorwouldliketothanktheparticipantsofthisstudy.
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
102
AbouttheAuthor
BeatrizG.GlickisanInstructorinSpanishandFrenchatThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity/
Hazleton,Pennsylvania.SheteachesseverallevelsofFrenchandSpanishaswellasculture
coursesandindependentstudies.Herresearchinterestsincludelanguagelearningstyles
andtheuseoftechnologytoenhancelanguagelearning.Email:[email protected]
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
103
ReferenceList
Brunvand,S.,&Byrd,S.(2011).UsingVoiceThreadtopromotelearningengagementandsuccessforall
students.TeachingExceptionalChildren,43(4),28-37.
ChanM,&Pallapu,P.(2012).AnexploratorystudyontheuseofVoiceThreadinabusinesspolicycourse.
MERLOTJournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching,8(3),223–235.
Chun,D.M.(2008).Computer-mediateddiscourseininstructedenvironments.InS.S.Magnan(ed),Mediating
DiscourseOnline(pp15–46).Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPubl.
Collentine,J.G.(1998).ProcessingInstructionandtheSubjunctive.Hispania,81,576-587.Retrievedfrom
http://www2.nau.edu/~jgc/research/pi/
Crane,B.F.(2009).UsingWeb2.0toolsintheK-12classroom.NewYork:Neal-SchumanPubl.
Ducate,L.&Lomicka,L(2009).Podcasting:Aneffectivetoolforhoninglanguagestudents’pronunciation.
LanguageLearning&Technology,13(3),66-86.
Farley,A.P.(2001).AuthenticprocessinginstructionandtheSpanishSubjunctive.Hispania84,(2),289-299.
Glick,B.(2012).UsingVoiceThreadtoGenerateL2SpeechintheSpanishClassroom:Students’Perceptions.In
L.GómezChova,A.LópezMartínez,andI.CandelTorres(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheFourth
InternationalConferenceofEducation,ResearchandInnovation,ICERI2012Proceedings,536-542.
Houston,L.,Stoddard,T.&Coleman,A.(2008).VoiceToolsandVirtualClassrooms.Reflectionsonthejourney
takenwhenresearchingandimplementingvarioustechnologyandpedagogyintoTESOLonline
courses,AustralianFlexibleLearningFramework,7
Kolb,D.(1976).LearningStyleInventoryTechnicalManual.Boston:McBer
Lee,J,&VanPatten,B.(2003)MakingCommunicativeLanguageTeachingHappen.NewYork:TheMcGraw
HillCo.
McKeeman,L.(2012).UsingVoiceThreadtoengagestudentsandenhancelanguagelearning.TheLanguage
Editor.Jan,54-56.
Meskill,C&Anthony,N.(2010).TeachingLanguagesOnline.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.
MorenodeAlba,JoséG.(1978).ValoresdelasformasverbalesenelespañoldeMéxico.México:
UniversidadAutónomadeMéxico.
th
Orlando,J.andOrlando,L.(2010).UsingVoiceThreadtoimproveeducationaloutcomes.26 Annual
ConferenceonDistanceTeaching&Learning.Retrievedfromwww.uwex.edu/.../28642_10.pd
Tu,C.(2011).VoiceThreadapponiOS(Weblogpost).Retrievedfrom
http://etc647.blogspot.com/2011/10/voicethread-app-on-ios.html
VanDeusen-Scholl,N.(2008).Alongitudinalstudyofcomputer-mediatedforeignlanguagelearning.InS.S.
Magnan(ed),MediatingDiscourseOnline(pp191–228)Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishing.
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
104
AppendixA:StudentQuestionnaireonPerceptionsofProgress
ComparethefollowingbetweenthefirstVoiceThread“IntheDoctor’sOffice”andthelast
VoiceThread“ReflectionsaboutPaintings”:
1.ProductionofthePresentSubjunctive:DidyouproducethePresentSubjunctive?How
difficultwasit?DoyoufeelthatyourunderstandingofhowtoformandusethePresent
Subjunctiveimprovedingeneral?Whyorwhynot?
2.ProductionofVocabulary:DidyoufeelcomfortablespeakinginSpanish?Whichwords
weredifficulttopronounce?Why?
3.PronunciationinGeneral:Howquicklydidyouspeak?Wasyourspeechsmoothor
hesitant?Doyoufeelthatyourpronunciationimproveingeneral,Whyorwhynot?
4.OverallCommunication:Wasyourmessageunderstoodbyyourinstructor?Wherethere
specificcomments?
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
105
AppendixB:RubricforGradingVoiceThreadsandFinalOralExamAnalytically
Category/Score/Description
Weightasapercentage:
Communicativesuccess
25%
5pts-Appropriatetopic,exchangewellconnected,properamountoftime
4pts-Exchangeconnectedbutnotenoughtime.
3pts-Conversationnotontopicandsome
misunderstandings
2pts-Conversationofteninappropriateand
frequentmisunderstandings
0–1pt-Conversationinappropriateandno
connecteddiscourse.
Grammar
40%
5pts-Veryfewerrors
4pts-occasionalerrors,communicationrarely
impeded
3pts–frequenterrors,frequent
misunderstandings
2pts-constantgrammaticalerrors,verydifficult
tounderstand
0–1pts-extremelackofcontrolofstructures,
nocomprehensiblespeech
Vocabulary
25%
5pts–Showscontrolofawiderangeof
vocabulary
4pts-showscontrolofanadequaterangeof
vocabulary
3pts-showssomecontrolofvocabularybut
reliesonbasicvocabulary
2pts-showslittlecontrolofvocabulary,
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights
THEJOURNALOFTEACHERACTIONRESEARCH
106
communicationextremelydifficult
0–1ptshowsnocommandofthevocabulary
Fluency
10%
5pts-speechsmooth,nomispronunciations
4pts-speechoccasionallyhesitant,some
mispronunciations
3pts-speechhesitant,withseveral
misunderstandingsarisingfrommispronunciation
2pts-speechhesitantandchoppy,conversation
almostimpossibletofollow
0–1pt-speechlimitedtoisolatedwords,no
comprehensiblespeech
JournalofTeacherActionResearch- Volume3,Issue1,2016,<practicalteacherresearch.com>,ISSN#2332-2233©JTAR.AllRights