A small study on real-time language translation
and its contribution to language learning.
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
SCIENCE
EVIE JANSSEN
10829318
MASTER INFORMATION STUDIES
HUMAN-CENTERED MULTIMEDIA
FACULTY OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM
July 3, 2015
1st Supervisor 2nd Supervisor
Dr. Daniel Buzzo Dr. Jacobijn Sandberg UvA UvA
A small study on real-time language translation
and its contribution to language learning.
Evie Janssen
University of Amsterdam, Graduate School of Informatics
Science Park 904, Amsterdam evie.janssen@student.uva.nl
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the new real-time machine translation technology and its effect on second language learning motivation. Based on a field experiment among 18 non-native Dutch persons, I conclude that the use of speech translation enhances the motivation and self-confidence when communicating in a second language. In addition, the use of image translation has a positive influence on vocabulary learning. Overall, real-time machine translation stimulates second language learners to maintain the executive motivation.
Keywords
L2 learning, learning motivation, machine translation
1. INTRODUCTION
“If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language that goes to his heart” (Nelson Mandela).
Today, the digital age of internet and mobile technologies are providing global mobility of knowledge. Virtual learning environments have diversified the way of learning by broadening the possibilities of gaining knowledge. As are learning environments in language learning. Moreover, the motivation of language learning is supported in new ways through mobile learning and translation applications.
Learning has been re-assessed as a personalized and learner-centred activity (Leadbetter, 2005). According to Sharples et al. (2005), “so too are new digital technologies offering personalised services.” At the beginning of 2015 Google and Skype both launched what they believe to be the next level of machine language translation: real-time machine translation (RMT). By using phones' cameras or speech, languages can be translated immediately and allow seamless chat between people. Barak Turovsky, product Lead of Google Translate, states in a blog post the following: "today's updates take us one step closer to a world where language is no longer a barrier to discovering information or connecting with each other.1” Altogether, the potential of real-time
translators is exciting. However, we must not forget how important it is to actually learn a foreign language. Within a conversation, words take on different meanings based on the understanding of the language. Communication is based on consciousness as meaning is negotiated for achieving possible understanding (Bakhtin, 1981; Klein, 1986). Therefore, learning and understanding a foreign language is important to communicate properly and connect with a new culture. In addition, learning a second language has far more advantages such as creating job opportunities and even keeping your brain healthy (Mechelli et al., 2004).
The quote from Nelson Mandela, stated at the beginning of this section, is poetry. However, I think we all know in our hearts that his statement is true. Talking to someone in their own language is showing them respect, and with respect comes understanding. I find this an admonitory quote for the excessive use of innovative technologies such as RMT. No technology can ever truly substitute the benefits of knowing second languages. However, I do believe that technology can stimulate the motivation within the process of learning a second language. In this paper I will explore this area of tension.
There are many advantages for knowing other languages and there are many factors taking place in the process of successful language acquisition (Skehan, 1989; Saville-Troike, 2006). Among all these factors, motivation plays an important role in L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005).
From the experience and work of the linguist Steve Kaufmann, contextual and personal learning environments are the stimulating factors for language learning motivation. A learner has to discover the words and the phrases that he or she is going to need (Kaufmann, 2013). The importance of contextual learning environments, therefore, presents the interest for exploring the effect of RMT on language learning motivation.
1
Source: http://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2015/01/hallo-hola-ola-more-powerful-translate.html
The goal of this paper is to evaluate the effectiveness of RMT on the motivation of non-native Dutch users to learn Dutch as a second language. What if we can use RMT in such a way that translated content can become the bridge between discovering information and stimulating language learning? Section 2 presents the evidence from the literature and an interview conducted with an expert in the field of linguistics. In section 3 the main research question will be introduced and the methods for answering this question will be described. This includes an experiment with the new RMT functions among non-native Dutch persons who (want to) learn Dutch. Section 4 and 5 will present the results of my study and discuss the findings. I conclude by offering suggestions for future work.
2. RELATED WORK
2.1 Second Language Learning
A second language (L2) refers to a language an individual learns that is not his/her mother tongue, but is of use in the area of the individual. The conditions for L2 learning are diversified and broadened through modern technology. For example, if there is no fully bilingual teacher available, students have alternatives such as Rosetta Stone, which provide courses for students to immerse themselves with the target language. In addition, mobile language learning Duolingo claims to provide better learning for free because their business model sells translation services. To give an indication of the growth of mobile language learning in the past years, a study by Vavoula (2005) of everyday adult learning for the MOBIlearn project, based on personal learning diaries, found that almost half (49%) of the reported learning episodes took place away from home or the learner‟s own office, i.e. the learner‟s usual environment.
The process of memory within language learning is very important in order to increase the language level. The Levels of Processing Theory (Craik, 2002) states that a memory trace can persist in long term memory (LTM) if it involves a deeper level of processing. Therefore, more than one sensory modality, for instance, verbal and visual processing together, are needed (Mayer, 2009).
2.1.1 Contextual Learning
The contextual surroundings of action have a strong motivational influence on educational language motivation (Dörnyei, 2003). Interesting here are both the context and engagement with the language that influences learning. Learning a language involves the social patterns and acquisition of skills which are distinctive of another community (Gardner, 1985).
Therefore, it is important to get emotionally engaged with the language and the context that we‟re learning from. In other words, learning from material that we like and find interesting has resonance.
New conceptions of learning are evolving because of the convergence of mobile and personal technologies. Table 1 shows the similarities between new learning and new technology (Sharples, Taylor, Vavoula, 2005).
New Learning New Technology
Personalized Personal
Learner centred User centred
Situated Mobile
Collaborative Networked
Ubiquitous Ubiquitous
Lifelong Durable
Table 1 - Convergence between learning and technology
The study of McGroarty (2001) explains the role and contribution of different social contexts in a language learning activity to determination of effective language instruction. However, this study focuses only on change in literacy and not on the effect that communication in language and different contexts has on learners‟ motivation.
2.2 L2 Learning Motivation
There are many advantages for knowing other languages. However, many factors are taking place in the process of successful language acquisition (Skehan, 1989; Saville-Troike, 2006). Among all these factors, maintaining the motivation to learn a second language plays an important role (Gardner, 1985; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Dörnyei, 2005).
As part of early research, an extensive interview was done with Dr. Federicon Gobbo, professor in Interlinguistics and Esperanto at the University of Amsterdam. Gobbo states that if the motivation of a language learning falls down, it falls at the beginning of the learning process2.
Motivation has a significant effect on the areas of development and achievement (Steinmayr & Spinath, 2009). Motivation clarifies why people choose a particular activity, how long they are willing to continue doing it and what effort they put in to it (Dörnyei and Schmidt, 2001). According to Gardner (1985) motivation is a “mental engine that subsumes effort, want/will and task enjoyment”. This definition of motivation will be used as a basis for this study.
Overall, there are two types of motivation:
intrinsic motivation applies to cases when language is learned as a desire to integrate into the target language community;
extrinsic motivation refers to cases where language is learned with the intention of achieving a certain external goal like getting a job (Noels 2001).
Research studies have shown that learners are more geared towards extrinsic than intrinsic motivational goals in L2 learning, as they aspire instrumental rewards in the form of grades and achievements, credits, performance incentives and good future jobs (Dörnyei, 1990).
2.2.1 Attitude towards Language Learning
One's attitude towards language learning is related to self-confidence and motivation. Development of a positive attitude towards language learning courses or languages learning in general is an important component of learners‟ motivation. In the AMTB framework of Gardner, motivation is assessed through the combination of the desire to learn, attitude towards learning, and motivational intensity.
An expert in the field, Federico Gobbo, argues that technology stimulating the contextual learning process can be complementary especially for beginners as it can change the attitude of the learners in a positive way3.
2.2.2 Linguistic Self-confidence
Every person carries some extent of belief in one‟s own abilities to speak a second language. The intensity of this belief is different from each other. Linguistic self-confidence refers to a person‟s perceptions of their own competence and ability to accomplish tasks successfully (Clement, 1980).
Self-confidence and experiencing success play an essential role in developing language learners‟ motivation (Ebata, 2008). Thus, linguistic self-confidence could positively influence the learner's motivation and could lead to more effective language learning. Moreover, successful experiences with a second language outside the classroom seem more effectively to the self-confidence comparing to satisfaction gained in a classroom setting (Clement and Kruidenier, 1985; MacIntyre et al., 1998). Yet to this day, very little empirical research has been done to suggest its cause (Dörnyei, 2003; Yashima, 2004).
Heyde mentioned, in research of Park and Lee (2005), that self-confidence can be negatively influenced when the language learner finds oneself limited in the target language. On the other hand, practicing oral
3
Source: Interview with Federico Gobbo
performances can positively influence self-conficence.
2.3 L2 Learning Motivation Frameworks
Research on language learning motivation has a long history in the field of L2 acquisition (Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Dörnyei, 1990, Masgoret and Gardner, 2003). Several concepts such as goals, attitudes and self-confidence are central constructs within this field. Therefore, in order to gain a better understanding of which concepts are crucial in this study, it is important to explain different frameworks of L2 learning motivation.
The first three decades of L2 learning motivation research, before the early 1990s, were largely fuelled by work of Robert Gardner and his associates. Motivation was primarily seen as a concept of learner‟s social perceptions and individual differences were key factors affecting L2 acquisition (Gardner; Lambert, 1972). Empirical studies in the past few decades have focused on different aspects of motivation. Motivation is a complex multi-dimensional construct and involves a wide range of components. The traditional approach of L2 learning motivation gave way to a more complex and qualitative approach in research based on the theory of Dörnyei.
From 1993 to 2010, the understanding of L2 learning motivation changed to encompass the variability in the external factors affecting L2 learning. More characteristics were added to describe the variables affecting each of the individual factors; these were compiled in the Attitude Motivation Test Battery developed by Gardner which will be explained later in chapter 3.
2.4 Mobile Machine Translation
Machine Translation (MT) is language translation performed by a computer which translates source language text (SL) into target language text (TL) (Hutchins, 1995).
The use of mobile dictionaries has grown over the past years. Dictionary.com saw more than 30 million app downloads in 2011 and engagement levels on mobile were already nearly three times more than online4. However, Google Translate is one of the most popular services of mobile language translation. At present Google Translate can provide written translation of 90 languages and is capable of hearing a number of spoken languages and translating them5.
4
Source: http://www.mobilemarketer.com/cms/news/rese- arch/10301.html
5Source:https://sfi.usc.edu/news/2015/04/9053-explore
Gobbo argues that the use of Google Translate is great for understanding an authentic text written in an unknown language. However, he stresses that the production of this application has too many errors to produce well written text. Nevertheless, it is a complementary feature because of the mobile orientation6.
Research of Chen et al. (2008) shows that mobile devices are used extensively in an informal learning context. In addition, mobile devices are used in ways that correspond to the contextual mobile learning philosophies identified by Dörnyei. Interestingly, data shows that participants are prepared to adapt existing mobile device features to suit their learning needs, and may develop informal learning interests as a result of owning the device (Chen et al., 2008).
2.4.1 Speech Translation
Pronunciation is a fundamental element of language learning. Through speech translation, conversational spoken phrases are automatically recognized, translated and spoken aloud in a second language. This technology enables speakers of different languages to communicate. A participant of this study mentioned the importance of speech during L2 learning:
“During the day at work I speak some Dutch. It is the only way I learn Dutch properly. I have learned more during interactions than studying Dutch.” (resp. 17)
A study of Holland et al. (1999) on speech technology in language learning explored the effect of speech interaction between a learner and technology. Results show an apparent learning effect for short sentences and repeated attempts.
2.4.2 Text in image translation
Word Lens was integrated into Google Translate which allows users to instantaneously translate written text with the use of their smartphones‟ camera. This type of language detection means text can be quickly scanned; identified and translated visibly onscreen by the use of a smartphones‟ camera7. This feature of RMT is a step towards language learning in augmented reality8.
Results of a study on short-time memory and content representation show that providing learning content with pictorial annotation in a mobile language learning environment can help learners with lower verbal and higher visual ability learn, because they are cognitively better equipped for learning content presented in visual form. In addition, providing learning content with both written and pictorial
annotation can help learners with higher verbal and visual ability (Chen, 2008).
3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
3.1 Problem Statement
As we have seen in the previous section, the main challenge for language learners is to maintain the executive motivation. In particular, motivation has a significant effect on the areas of development and achievement and therefore can lead to effective language learning. Personal learning environments and contextually relevant content are key in gaining language learners‟ motivation. In addition, self-confidence and experiencing success plays an essential role in developing language learners‟ motivation.
Content of RMT is mostly contextually relevant, however it is unclear how RMT affects user‟s language learning motivation. As people have increasingly started using mobile translation tools, it will be interesting to see whether their language learning intentions are affected by RMT through the use of speech and image translation. Does the comfort and convenience of RMT lead to less intention of language learning or does it enhance the L2 learners‟ motivation?
3.2 Main Research Question
The main question of this research is stated as following:
Does real-time machine translation enhance linguistic self-confidence and does it have a positive influence on second language learners’ motivation?
In order to answer this question, I will measure how RMT will stimulate L2 learners‟ motivation by affecting the following two domains: attitude towards language learning; and linguistic self-confidence. To get a detailed insight into these relationships, I will test the following 6 hypotheses divided in two broad categories:
L2 learning motivation
1. People who use RMT are likely to have a more positive attitude towards Dutch language learning.
2. The use of RMT is likely to have a stronger positive influence on the intrinsic motivation of language learners than the use of a paper dictionary.
6
Source: Interview with Federico Gobb
7
Source:http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/16/5724230/google-buys-word-lens-translation-app
8
3. The use of RMT will positively influence the extrinsic motivation of second language learners.
4. People who use RMT are likely to have more self-confidence in communicating Dutch.
RMT experience
5. People find speech translation stimulating when learning a second language.
6. People find image translation stimulating when learning a second language.
In the following section I will discuss in detail the methods used in this research.
4. METHODS
This study was based on an experimental pre- and post-test design in which all participants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The first group (group A) used the speech and image translation functions of the Google Translate application on their mobile phones for two weeks. The other group (group B) was the control group. The participants from this group used an old-fashioned paper dictionary during two weeks. In addition, all participants were asked to keep a daily journal of their experiences.
Before the experimental phase started, a pre questionnaire was administered to measure the motivation, attitude and self-confidence of all participants. At the end of the experimental phase the same test was administered again by filling in a post questionnaire. For the data analysis, the difference in scores between the pre and post questionnaire was used as the dependent variable.
4.1 Questionnaires
For this study, I prepared two questionnaires in order to measure the language learning motivation of the participants; their attitude towards learning Dutch; and the experience of the new functions of the Google Translate application. The first questionnaire (pre questionnaire A) and the second questionnaire (post questionnaire B) consist both of a qualitative part containing background questions and a quantitative part containing questions on attitude towards the Dutch language, motivation and self-confidence. The participants were asked to rate each item on a 7-point Likert scale so as to determine their level of agreement with each item statement.
For this study I used the Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), originally developed by R. C. Gardner (2004). The underlying principle of selecting
Gardner‟s AMTB was its established validity and reliability over the last two decades, as it has been used in a significantly large number of quantitative studies which focused on examining different affective components influencing second/foreign language (Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Masgoret & Gardner, 1994; Williams, Burden & Lanvers, 2002). The questionnaire items were modified to the context of Dutch language learners in order to make it more meaningful and contextually relevant for the participants (Gardner, 2008). The goal of the design of this questionnaire is to be a reliable instrument where scores on similar items are related (internally consistent), but in which each item contributes some unique information as well.
4.2 Interviews
Interviews with predefined open questions, based on questions from the questionnaires, were used for cross validation. In essence, most of the same research questions were asked twice (in the questionnaire and in the interview), with the goal of analysing a similar pattern in the results.
4.3 Field Experiment
The field experiment was conducted among a group of 18 non-native Dutch people who learn Dutch as a second language. All participants were randomly assigned to either the RMT user group (group A) or the control group (group B) of paper dictionary users. Taking into account the short time frame, the participants were asked to use either the Google Translate application or paper dictionary for only two weeks. This between-subject design allows one to compare the effect of RMT with a well-known old fashioned type of translation.
Group A was asked to use the new technology of speech and image translation by using the Google Translate application. Additionally, participants were asked to keep a diary observing their experiences. See figure 1 for a visual explanation on using the image translate function.
Figure 1: explanation of image translation function.
I used a test protocol which explained the field experiment in detail for both user groups (see Appendix A).
4.4 Participants
38 responses were received from the pre questionnaire through convenience sampling (Marshall, 1996). Due to the intense participation needed for this study, a smaller but focussed sample group of 18 participants was residual for the experiment (7 males, 11 females), aged between 23-50. Our sample contained 12 different native languages, of which English was most prominent (4/18). More than half (13/18) of the participants indicated they were very familiar with mobile language translation and most (15/18) of the participants use mobile language translation at least once a day. Participants‟ self-reported Dutch language skills was null (3/18), low (9/18), intermediate (5/18) and advanced (1/18). Additionally, the participants indicated they had troubles with speaking (14/18), listening (9/18), writing (14/18) and reading (10/18) the Dutch language.
4.5 Data Analysis
4.5.1 Factors Cronbach’s Alpha
The Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951) was used to test whether the items per factor within the pre and post questionnaires form a reliable measure or not. Reverse coding is applied on several positively and negatively phrased questions.
The following factors were measured:
Factor 1 (Attitudes towards Dutch language learning; 6 items) = 0.67
o If item 4 is deleted = 0,76
Factor 2 (Attitudes toward native Dutch; 3 items) = 0.49
Factor 3 (Intrinsic motivation; 5 items) = 0.86
Factor 4 (Extrinsic motivation; 5 items) = 0.87
Factor 5 (Self-confidence; 5 items) = 0.74 A reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered “acceptable” in most social science research situations. The overall internal consistency estimates 0.73 highlighting the instrument to be highly reliable in measuring student‟s motivation, attitude and self-confidence towards Dutch language learning.
The factor „extrinsic motivation‟ showed the highest alpha (0.87). Whereas the „attitudes towards native Dutch‟ illustrated the lowest alpha (0.49). A possible explanation for this low alpha score could be that most of the participants had troubles speaking Dutch, therefore item 3 is not consistent within factor 2. As this factor (2) is not essential for answering my hypotheses, I will not take this factor into account while analysing the data. Factor 1 scores a reliability
of 0.76 when item 4 is deleted, therefore I will not use item 4 when analysing the data.
5. RESULTS
First I will present the general results on the pre questionnaire. Next, I will analyse the factors of all participants per user group and then I will compare both user groups on the factor results.
5.1 Pre and Post factor Results
A paired samples t-test (N=9) was conducted on all factors for both user groups (A and B). For both groups, factor 1 was not found statistically significant (A, p = 0.80; B, p = 0.57). In addition, factor 3 (A, p = 0.84), factor 4 (A, p = 0.60; B, 0.29) and factor 5 (A, p = 0.83) were also not found statistically significant. This is presumably because of the small group of subjects and the minor effects within this short timeframe which are therefore not visible on such a small group. Gorsuch (1983) recommended that N should be at least 100 within a factor analysis, and Kline (1979) supported this recommendation. However, the necessary N is in fact highly dependent on several specific aspects of a given study (MacCallum et al., 1999). Therefore, I will analyse these factors with possibility statements which I will support with qualitative results. In addition, each item of a factor contributes some unique information as well.
Contrary to group A, factors 3 (p = 0.01) and 5 (p = 0.05) within group B are statistically significant.
5.2 Language Translation Preferences
This study offers a number of useful insights on the language translation preferences of non-native Dutch people who live in the Netherlands. More than half of the participants (67%) have a Dutch language level which can be indicated as a beginner level9. Interestingly, 72 per cent mention they are familiar with mobile translate applications and using it at least once a day. In addition, 83 per cent mentions to be generally comfortable using a mobile translation application.
A statistical analysis10 of the data provides extra insights on the effect of the experiment on the attitude, motivation and self-confidence of the participants.
9
Beginner level: zero or low level of Dutch.
10
5.3 Attitude towards Dutch Language
Learning
The mean difference of factor 1 within both groups is similar to an equal -0.09. This could indicate that the attitude of all participants towards Dutch language learning has decreased during the experiment. However, this decrease is minimal and can be unbraced for group A by the fact that the mean of items 2; 3; 4; and 6 within factor 1 were already high rated with a 6 out of 7. In addition, the mean difference of item 111 (m = (0.56) has increased tremendously within group A.
Group B, as opposed, has a tremendously decreasing mean difference at item 1 (m = -1.11). However, the mean differences of items 2 (m = 1.00); 3 (m = 0.56); and 6 (m = 0.11) have increased.
As an exploration, the high and low Dutch level participants were compared. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for both user groups to test if factor 1 relies on this independent variables: level of Dutch. Interesting is that the exponential growth of item 2 within group B comes from participants with a beginners level of Dutch (zero or low level).
In addition, qualitative data12 of beginners shows that using a dictionary gives opportunities to understand Dutch words better.
“Though a dictionary is not that easy, it‟s really interesting and has much precise meaning comparing to Google Translate.” (resp.11) “When using the dictionary it is funny to see how one word has so much meaning.” (resp.16)
Item 5 askes participants directly what attitude they have towards Dutch language learning. This item has increased for group A. Therefore, I will not fully reject hypothesis 1:
People who use RMT are likely to have a more positive attitude towards Dutch language learning.
5.4 Intrinsic Motivation
As mentioned in section 5.1, factor 3 is found statistically significant within group B. The intrinsic motivation in group B (m = -0.93) has decreased. Interestingly, the intrinsic motivation of group A (m = -0.04) remained stable. However group A is not found statistically significant, I will analyse this data on possibilities. Item 4 within group A (m = 0.440) has
11
Item 1: I would rather spend more time on learning Dutch than learning other languages.
12
I
nterviews, diary and open questions.
increased which possibly indicates that the use of the speech translation motivates users to learn Dutch in order to communicate in that language. This statement is supported by participants:
“It is interesting to learn pronunciation.” (resp.3) “I think Google speech translation might help me with pronunciation and encourage me to speak more Dutch.” (resp. 9)
In addition, item 2 within group A is also increased (m = 0.11). This could indicate that the use of speech and image translation combine different aspects of language learning within a contextual environment which possibly increases motivation.
“It is a great way to learn a new language, but it must have a good design which motivates you to keep improving, learning, and studying.” (resp. 2)
This means that I do not reject hypothesis 2:
The use of RMT is likely to have a stronger positive influence on the intrinsic motivation of language learners than the use of paper dictionary.
5.5 Extrinsic Motivation
The main reason all participants are in the Netherlands and learn Dutch is because of the extrinsic motivations partner (11.11%), study (33.33%) and work (55.55%).
A one-way ANOVA was conducted for both user groups to test if factor 4 relies on the independent variables: reason to be in the Netherlands.
Interestingly, study (n = 5) has an increasing mean value with overall a mean difference of 0.55. This can be supported by qualitative data that states that international students probably want to stay for work in the Netherlands:
“In the Netherlands, a job application always says that understanding Dutch or even speak fluent Dutch is preferred. So I think studying Dutch will definitely give me an advantage say over someone that can‟t speak any Dutch.” (resp. 8) Therefore, I will partly support hypothesis 3:
The use of RMT will positively influence the extrinsic motivation of second language learners.
5.6 Self-confidence
Within group B, factor 5 was found statistically significant. The self-confidence factor of group B has an overall decrease of m = -0.38. Almost all items of
this factor are decreased (item 1 and 2 (-0.67); item 3 (-0.22) and item 4 (-0.78).
The total self-confidence of group A is decreased (m = -0.11). Understanding spoken language is possibly not stimulated when looking at item 4 with a decreased mean difference of -1.00. A participant mentioned a contradictory statement during the interview:
“Really there is a massive difference between my listening confidence and my speaking confidence. I mean I can understand Dutch but speaking is very difficult. (resp. 17)
Interestingly, items 2 and 5 are increased (2, m = 0.56; 5, m = 0.67) which possibly indicates that using speech translation increases the self-confidence in speaking a second language.
Therefore, I will not reject hypothesis 4:
People who use RMT are likely to have more self-confidence in communicating Dutch.
5.7 RMT Experience
5.7.1 Speech translation
Overall, opinions on the speech translation function are divided under all participants. Some participants found that the function rarely works appropriately when speaking Dutch. However, translating from English to Dutch was found to be more positive. Here are some more insights from the respondents:
“I don't feel it had any impact on my stimulation or motivation.” (resp.1)
“I went to a book club, and I found it impractical to use the speech translation for words that were spoken that I wanted to look up.” (resp. 3) “It a fun way to practice your Dutch pronunciation.” (resp.9)
This means that I do not fully reject hypothesis 5:
People find speech translation stimulating when learning a second language.
5.7.2 Image Translation
Participants are overall very positive about image translation. This function helps them improve their vocabulary (66.67%). However, participants also find the app easy to use and are fearful losing the vocabulary quick. Other insights from participants are:
“It helps me to associate an image to a word, thus I remember the meaning.” (resp.2)
“I realized it is quicker and easier to use image translation in translating paper documents than to type it into Google translate as I did before.” (resp. 9)
Therefore, I will not reject hypothesis 6:
People find image translation stimulating when learning a second language.
6. DISCUSSION
6.1 L2 learning motivation
As we have seen in section 2, it is considered essential for language learners to discover a language in order to maintain the executive motivation. Motivation is important as it has a significant effect on language learning. Contextually relevant learning content and personal learning environments are therefore important for language learners. In addition, experiencing success and satisfaction plays an essential role in developing self-confidence and is therefore stimulating language learners‟ motivation.
The results of this study reveal that, while RMT users overall have a stable intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, speech and image translation does stimulate communication in a second language. As we have seen in section 2.2, intrinsic motivation applies language learning as a desire to integrate into the target language community. The use of RMT possibly stimulates integration as communication is less interrupted when using this technology. In addition, a paper dictionary is found time-consuming. RMT seems to have a more positive influence on both the intrinsic (hypothesis 2) and extrinsic motivation compared to paper dictionary, indicating that RMT has specific benefits. Hence, RMT combines different aspects of language learning within a contextual environment. Therefore, I will support Kaufmann with his statement that contextual and personal learning environments are stimulating factors for language learning motivation.
The main reason given by the participants to learn Dutch as a second language is because of their work in the Netherlands. As results of Salim and Dörnyei show in section 2.2, L2 learners are more geared towards extrinsic motivation. This study shows similar results as mostly students who use RMT have an increased extrinsic motivation to learn Dutch (hypothesis 3). This indicates the reliability of this study.
As we have seen in section 2.2.2, Heyde mentioned that high self-confidence can be positively correlated with oral performance. Interestingly, the results of this study show that the use of the speech translation possibly motivates users to learn Dutch in order to communicate (hypothesis 4). I agree with Heyde, as
supported by this study, the use of speech translation stimulates oral performances.
The use of RMT did not show clear results of having a likely positive effect on the attitude of language learners (hypothesis 1). A reason could be that this specific technology is new and therefore possibly not used properly. Further research could help investigating the adoption of the new RMT technology.
This study revealed also an interesting difference between language levels of participants. Further research among a larger group of respondents with different levels in language is needed to see whether this is indeed the case.
6.2 RMT Experience
The experience of the group A participants with speech translation are divided. Gobbo mentioned in section 2.2 that the application will have too many errors. This is supported by this study as some participants mentioned in their diaries that the speech translation only works correctly when speaking the language on a high level (hypothesis 5).
Nevertheless, Gobbo mentioned that it is a complementary feature. I agree with this statement as participants argue that the speech translation functions was fun and good for practicing the Dutch pronunciation.
The Levels of Processing Theory, discussed in section 2.1, states that the combination of sensory modalities involves a deeper level of processing. Image translation stimulates improving vocabulary by using both pictorial and textual modalities. Some participants seemed fearful of forgetting words because of the ease of the new technology. Others find that associating words with pictorial moments helps with the process of memory within language learning. This confirms my intuition that people would found image translation stimulating when learning a second language (hypothesis 6).
The effect of RMT on L2 learning lies partially in its use and adoption. Hence, assessing the effectiveness of a technology is in reality assessing the effectiveness of its uses rather than the technology itself. Results of the study show that the use of an old fashioned paper dictionary, well-known and technology-free, gives beginner learners the opportunity to understand Dutch words better. Nonetheless, most participants prefer mobile dictionary and translation apps over old-fashioned paper dictionaries as they work quicker and are easy to take with you. The new technology of speech and image translation may have great educational
potential. Most participants mentioned to be comfortable using mobile translation, however, the new RMT technology is different in use. The technology must be used properly, to conceive positive impact on learner‟s motivation. Further research can reveal to what extent this new technology is adapted by the user, and what technology is best suited for specific learner levels and contexts.
Interestingly, however participants find RMT a great way to learn a language, they are also apprehensive about the continuing improvement, learning and studying when using RMT. Further research is needed to see whether the combination of RMT and mobile language learning can help continue improving a second language.
7. CONCLUSION
The main challenge for language learners is to maintain the executive motivation. Personal and contextual learning environments stimulate language learners‟ motivation. Content used for RMT is usually relevant to the context of the user. In this paper I have explored if RMT affects user‟s language learning motivation.
Based on a field experiment among 18 non-native Dutch participants, I can conclude that, whereas the total motivation remained stable for both groups, RMT seems to have a more positive influence on both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation compared to using a paper dictionary. Therefore, RMT stimulates L2 learners to maintain the executive motivation. RMT stimulates language learners‟ motivation to integrate and communicate in a second language. In addition, RMT users are more self-confident in communicating a second language.
As expected, the RMT experience was overall very positive. However not all participants find speech translation stimulating language learning, they do mention its effectiveness for pronunciation and communication. Furthermore, image translation is stimulating vocabulary learning, whereas it helps with the process of memory, which gains a positive effect on the language learning motivation.
Therefore, I can state that real-time machine translation enhances the linguistic self-confidence when communicating in a second language and has a positive influence on second language learners‟ motivation compared to paper dictionary.
8. FUTURE WORK
The research I have done was necessarily limited in scope, because of time constraints and the small
number of people involved in the field experiment. A follow-up of the research should at least include the following steps:
Test RMT among a larger number of L2 learners, especially with a variation in language level.
Test both RMT functions separate among L2 learners.
Test mobile typing translation as the control group instead of an old-fashioned paper dictionary.
Furthermore, the adoption and usage of RMT technology could be investigated in order to determine which technology suits a specific language level.
9. REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (Vol. 1). University of texas Press.
Chen, C.-M., & Hsu, S.-H. (2008). Personalized Intelligent Mobile Learning System for Supporting Effective English Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3), 153-180.
Chen, N. S., Hsieh, S. W., & Kinshuk, A. (2008). Effects of short-term memory and content representation type on mobile language learning. Language learning & technology, 12(3), 93-113.
Clement, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford: Pergamon.
Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Clement's model. Journal of language and Social Psychology, 4(1), 21-37. Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present... and future?. Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign‐Language Learning. Language learning, 40(1), 45-78.
Dörnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition (Vol. 23). Natl Foreign Lg Resource Ctr.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ebata, M., (2008). Motivation Factors in Language Learning. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 4, April 2008, from:http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ebata-motivationfactors.html Gardner, R. & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes a motivation in secondary language learning. Rowley, M. A: Newbury House
Gardner, R. C. (1985). The Attitude Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report 1. University of Western Ontario: Londen.
Gardner, R. C. (2004). Attitude/motivation test battery: International AMTB research project. Retrieved, 5(2010), 237- 260.
Holland, V. M. (2005). Preliminary tests of language learning in a speech/interactive graphics micro -world. Research in Technology and Second Language Education: Developments and Directions, 3, 317.
Hutchins, W., 1995. Machine Translation: A Brief History, Concise history of the language sciences: from the Sumerians to the cognitivists. Edited by E.F.K.Koerner and R.E.Asher, Oxford: Pergamon
Press, pp. 431-445.
Kaufmann, S. (2003). The linguist: A personal guide to language learning. The Linguist.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Leadbetter, C. (2005). Learning about Personalisation: how can we put the learner at the heart of the education system. Retrieved 25th June, 2005, from http://lx.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Learn
ing%20about%20personalisation.pdf
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological methods, 4(1), 84.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., and Noels, K., 1998. Modern Language Journal, 82, p. 547.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta –analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language learning, 53(1), 123-163.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.
McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Dörnyei, Z. & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 69-90). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‟i Press.
Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O'Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Price, C. J. (2004). Neurolinguistics: structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431(7010), 757-757.
Noels, K. A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. Motivation and second language acquisition, 23, 43-68.
Park, H., & Lee, A. R. (2005). L2 learners‟ anxiety, self-confidence and oral performance. In 10th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Edinburgh University, conference proceedings (pp. 197 -208).
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn 2005, 1(1), 1-9. Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as a predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 80-90.
Vavoula, G. 2005. A Study of Mobile Learning Practices, Internal Report, Deliverable 4.4 for the MOBIlearn project (IST-2001- 37440).
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). „French is the language of love and stuff‟: Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503-528.
APPENDIX
A. Test protocol - field experiment
Group A
Thank you for your subscription on my study! You're of great help, I hope you will enjoy the next phase: the experiment.
You can start exploring and using the speech and image translate functions of the Google Translate application for the following 2 weeks. Three things are important during this experiment:
1. Make sure you use the application on your mobile phone (You can download the app for free);
2. Make sure you only use the speech and/or image translation within the application (see here on page 3 a short tutorial about how to use the speech and image translator of the Google Translate application); 3. Keep a diary with you in the following two weeks and write down your daily experiences about using the
Google Translate application functions. What are your thoughts? When do you use which function? Do you struggle when using the app? (Attached you can find an excel version of the diary).
Enjoy! I will contact you after two weeks and send you a post questionnaire to measure the effect of the application on your motivation.
Group B
Thank you for your subscription on my study! You're of great help, I hope you will enjoy the next phase: the experiment.
You are part of the control group of dictionary users. You can start using a paper dictionary for the following 2 weeks.
Keep a diary with you in the following two weeks and write down your daily experiences when using the paper dictionary. What are your thoughts? When do you use the paper dictionary? Do you struggle when using a paper dictionary? (Attached you can find an excel version of the diary).
Enjoy! I will contact you after two weeks and send you a post questionnaire to measure the effect of a paper dictionary on your motivation.
