See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315811588

Language Learners' Reading and Writing in the Digitized

Classroom

Article  in  Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal · December 2016

DOI: 10.18848/1835-9795/CGP/v09i04/27-39

CITATION READS

1 58

1 author:

Boris Vazquez-Calvo
University of Southern Denmark
12 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Identitades y Culturas Digitales en la Educación Lingüística (ICUDEL15) View project

Gaming as an academic and vernacular practice of young people View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Boris Vazquez-Calvo on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VOLUME 9 ISSUE 4

Ubiquitous Learning
An International Journal

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Language Learners' Reading and Writing in

the Digitized Classroom

BORIS VAZQUEZ-CALVO

TECHANDSOC.COM

UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
www.ubi-learn.com
ISSN: 1835-9795 (Print)
doi:10.18848/1835-9795 (Journal)
First published by Common Ground Publishing in 2016
University of Illinois Research Park
2001 South First Street, Suite 202
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
Ph: +1-217-328-0405
www.commongroundpublishing.com
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.
COPYRIGHT
© 2016 (individual papers), the author(s)
© 2016 (selection and editorial matter), Common Ground Publishing
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study,
research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the applicable
copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any
process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions
and other inquiries, please contact
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com.
Common Ground Publishing is a member of Crossref.
EDITOR
Bill Cope, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
MANAGING EDITOR
Dominique Moore, Common Ground Publishing, USA
ADVISORY BOARD
Payal Arora, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
Marcus Breen, Boston College, Boston, USA
Simon Cooper, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Bill Cope, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
William Dutton, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
David Hakken, Indiana University, Bloomington,USA
David Karpf, George Washington University, Washington, DC,
USA
Michele Knobel, Montclair State University, Montclair, USA
Anand Kumar, MS Engineering College, Bangalore, India
Karim Gherab Martín, Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid, Spain
Christiane Paul, The New School, New York City, USA
Alfonso Unceta, Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, Spain
Karl Viehe, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC,
USA
Telle Whitney, Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology,
Palo Alto, USA
Nicola Yelland, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Articles published in Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
are peer reviewed by scholars who are active participants of the
Technology, Knowledge & Society Knowledge Community or a
thematically related Knowledge Community. Reviewers are
acknowledged as Associate Editors in the corresponding volume of the
journal. For a full list, of past and current Associate Editors please visit
www.ubi-learn.com/journal/editors.
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
publishes quarterly (March, June, September, December).
To find out more about the submission process, please visit
www.ubi-learn.com/journal/call-for-papers.
ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING
For a full list of databases in which this journal is indexed, please visit
www.ubi-learn.com/journal.
KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY MEMBERSHIP
Authors in Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
are members of the Technology, Knowledge & Society Knowledge
Community or a thematically related Knowledge Community.
Members receive access to journal content. To find out more, visit
www.ubi-learn.com/about/become-a-member.
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
is available in electronic and print formats. Subscribe to gain access to
content from the current year and the entire backlist.
Contact us at cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com.
ORDERING
Single articles and issues are available from the journal bookstore at
www.ijtq.cgpublisher.com.
HYBRID OPEN ACCESS
Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal
is Hybrid Open Access, meaning authors can choose to make their
articles open access. This allows their work to reach an even wider
audience, broadening the dissemination of their research. To find out
more, please visit
www.ubi-learn.com/journal/hybrid-open-access.
DISCLAIMER
The authors, editors, and publisher will not accept any legal
responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made in
this publication. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein.
 Language Learners’ Reading and Writing in the
Digitized Classroom
Boris Vazquez-Calvo, Pompeu Fabra University, Spain

Abstract: This paper examines informants’ perceptions on how massive introduction of computers and the Internet has
impacted language learning. This descriptive study contains the voices of a cohort of twelve students from two highly
technological schools in Catalonia following the one-laptop-per-child program. The subjects were paired into six same-
age, gender-discordant couples and were interviewed weekly during the second term of the 2014 academic year. The in-
depth, semi-structured interviews focused attention on digital language learning in the three languages of instruction—
Catalan, Spanish, and English—with an emphasis on reading and writing. Results show that while initial attitudes
towards digitization are generally positive among students, they identify a number of hindering factors that gradually
decrease the initial motivation. Literacy is digitized, but not so digital. Reading practices preserve the characteristics of
paper-based reading mainly because of the format of textbooks and the type of assessment. Some writing practices are
more elaborate and there are events of innovation in projects led by individual teachers. Daily writing practices are said
to be interactive, but this is generally computer-human interaction, rather than social interaction on the web. Online
language resources such as dictionaries and spell and grammar checkers are presented to the students as possible
resources to use, but are not fully taught. Machine translation software is proscribed by teachers, yet used and developed
by students as the key resource in their multilingual reading and writing.

Keywords: Online Language Resources, Reading and Writing, Digital Language Learning, One-Laptop-Per-Child
Program

Introduction

T he digital culture has opened up many possibilities for schools to move forward and adapt
to contemporary ways of doing, communicating, and even learning. In this paper,
classroom digitization refers to the efforts made by governments to export learning and
teaching in traditional schools to hybrid methodologies combining face-to-face learning, but also
e-learning, with the eye set on promoting a whole new set of digital competences to be digital
literate—to know how to act and interact in a digital context. Both developing and developed
countries have promoted policies and programs to implement digital technologies in the
educational system. These programs have attempted to give answer to a political, social, and
educational discourse in favor of the alleged limitless affordances of technological devices for
teaching and learning purposes.
In the 1980s and 1990s, it was common to see brand-new Computer Labs in schools. These
were equipped with desktop computers students to develop IIT skills in a specific subject within
the curriculum—normally IT or Technology. This was followed by occasional pedagogical
experiences targeting the integration of technologies into other subjects of the curriculum, and so
some desktop computers and laptops were introduced in common classrooms. With the advent of
the twenty-first century, low-cost laptop computers and improved wireless connectivity to the
Internet encouraged administrations to allocate public funding to 1x1 programs—one laptop per
child. This was done in hopes of achieving a complete classroom digitization, technically
speaking but also from the point of view of the teaching praxis. Recent reports, however, show
evidence that 1x1 programs fall short of the expected results (Area 2011; Valiente 2011;
Warschauer 2009).
Revisiting the implementation of ICT educational policies between 1989 and 2012 in Spain,
Area Moreira et al. (2014) state that, more often than not, the technological discourse has taken
over the pedagogical discourse in both policies and practices. They argue that this is partly
because policy makers have turned attention to widespread setting-up of infrastructure, rather
than the pedagogical actions to undertake with such infrastructure, namely, laptop computers and

Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal

Volume 9, Issue 4, 2016, www.ubi-learn.com
© Common Ground Publishing, Boris Vazquez-Calvo, All Rights Reserved
Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
ISSN: 1835-9795 (Print)
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

wireless connections, but also overhead projectors or interactive whiteboards. From 2012
onwards, however, the financial crisis has had greater impact on the implementation of the
program as public funding is now non-existent. Some schools, however, still continue to follow a
1x1 curriculum with financial support from students’ families.
In an ideal technological context like the 1x1, it seems relevant to question how students are
experiencing the technological—and methodological—change in their daily school routines as
well as in their literacy practices in the three languages of the curriculum—Catalan, Spanish and
English. Particularly, we aim at exploring the following research questions:

1. Students’ response to digitization. Does 1x1 improve students’ motivation? To

what extent is learning digitized in the eyes of students?
2. The impact of computers in students’ literacy practices. How do reading and
writing change due to 1x1 models? To what extent does this reflect what
happens in the digital world (the changes in communication trends and ways,
the birth of new digital genres) and the skills needed to adapt to these new
ways? How do students capitalize on online language resources (for instance
the use of machine translation and its affordances in language learning)? How
are they taught or learnt?

The Characteristics of the 1x1

This study is context-embedded and cannot be understood without a detailed description of how
the 1x1 program has been applied. The implementation of it has come to see many interpretations
depending on the country. In this sense it is worth noting the several terms by which it is known
in the different countries or regions: one-laptop-per-child, one to one or one per one (1:1 and
1x1), or even School 2.0.
The generalization of the program originated in 2005 in an attempt to (1) bridge the digital
divide among individuals, social groups, and communities, thanks to new low-cost laptop
computers promoted by Negroponte (Lee 2006), (2) build up and foster digital competences and
skills in students, and (3) improve educational practices and students’ learning outcomes. In five
years, the project was widespread. By 2010, at least seventeen Latin-American countries had
already put the project in place, as well as experiences coming up in the USA, Canada, Australia,
South Korea, Singapur, India, and most European countries (Lugo 2010; Severín and Capota
2011; Area et al. 2014; Cassany 2013).
In Spain the project initiated in 2009 under the name of Programa Escuela 2.0 (School 2.0
Program). The main objective was to digitize the classroom with a budget of 200 million euros,
co-funded by regional and central governments. It was implemented in all the regions, except for
Madrid and Valencia. The program was directed at the fifth and sixth years of Primary Education
(10–12 year-old students), but some regions focused on Secondary Education (12–16 year-old
students), as in Catalonia.
Apart from age, other factors mean a diverse application of the program such as 1) whether
the ownership of the laptop, either students or schools, 2) the levels of teacher training, 3) the
levels of technical support, 4) the quality of connectivity, or 5) the quality of digital materials.
Moreover, the tradition of the schools (long tradition of innovation), their nature (state or
privately funded), the leadership of management teams (the role of head teachers), and the self-
generated experience of singular teachers or departments as to testing the newest learning tools
and environments in their classrooms hinder making broad generalizations.

State of the Art

Educational research has traditionally been interested in how ICT are used for educational
purposes. The approaches are diverse and cover 1) the framing of new theoretical concepts (e-

28
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

learning, blended learning, or Personal Learning Environment) associated with 2) new

pedagogical methodologies such as flipped classroom; cooperative or collaborative learning; and
task-based, project-based, or problem-based learning for which a number of 3) new applications
and resources (blogs, wikis, webquests, social networks, synchronous writing) are designed,
created, used and tested in 4) pedagogical experiments or experiences.
The widespread introduction of technologies into the classroom has brought even more
attention. From Pedagogy the focus is on the impact of ICT policies as a whole and how teachers
react. In this sense, recent studies have drawn attention to teachers’ voices and perceptions (in
Spain, Alonso et al. 2012; in Catalonia, Aliagas and Castellà 2014), in the OECD as a whole,
Valiente (2011). For instance, Aliagas and Castellà (2014) identify divergent attitudes to
digitization depending on the teacher—in broad terms; they consider teachers to be reluctant to
or enthusiastic about digitization and the 1x1 program. Teachers’ own mindset on technology
and teaching philosophy tend to be the two criteria defining one as more pro or against
technology in the classroom, as this, they claim, represents relinquishing part of the power they
traditionally held in favor of empowering students.
An additional study by Alonso, Rivera Vargas, and Guitert Catasús (2013) attempted to
capture students’ voices on how the 1x1 impacted the role ICT play in students’ lives outside the
school, and their opinion on the 1x1 program. They concluded that students live in a dichotomy
between the formal and informal uses of the computer:

Today’s young generations have a great deal of difficulty trying to make the transition
and combine the inside and outside the classroom in the information society. [...] it is
actually the “outside” where youngsters and teenagers find the dose of emotion,
seduction and passion they need and help them carry on with the transition. (286)

Other studies have considered the impact of the 1x1 program on specific curricular areas
(González Martínez 2012 on Spanish literature) or transversal topics such as writing (Cassany
2013), reading (Cassany and Vazquez-Calvo 2014) and critical reading (Valero, Vazquez-Calvo,
and Cassany 2015), as well as specific devices or resources.
All of the studies above, however, agree that the type of digitization happening may well
reflect the full meaning of the metaphor “the same old wine in a brand-new bottle.” Governments
adopted a techno-determinist attitude, hoping for educational and pedagogical change to happen
simply through the introduction of technology. On the other side, educational institutions and
actors, mainly teachers, reacted to a top-down approach to digitization with conservatism and
reluctance to change in a worldwide context of financial cuts and lack of incentives. Only those
teachers with a strong belief in the inextricable combination between technologies and future
generations’ education may cause some change to happen in their classrooms. But students
continue their own digital path, with or without guidance from teachers.
Although the literature revisited is just a selection of the extensive work published in the
field of digital language learning, it allows us to point out the fact that literacy practices still
remain underexplored in the school context. Additionally, some of their components such as the
digital resources and tools teachers and students use to develop literacy skills have attracted little
attention from research, apart from specific experiments to validate or not the use of specific
resources, rather than exploring what students actually do with them, and to what extent that
correlates to what they are taught.

Framework
This study is situated in line with the tenets of a sociocultural and ecological approach to
language learning and New Literacies. The two theoretical perspectives share common ground
and complement each other, as they look at language learning and literacy as socially and
culturally embedded practices where “the details of written language used, the technologies, the

29
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

cultural practices, the historically informed understandings [are] entwined” (Gillen 2013, 10).
The sociocultural and ecological approach (Van Lier 2004) determines that language learning is a
meaning-building process mediated by semiotic resources available in the learning environment,
including inside and outside the classroom. These resources have to be brought, created, shared,
and used actively under the guidance of teachers and other learners in side-by-side collaboration.
Active learning and learning awareness are of the essence to attain this goal.
In line with these two theories, the way to look into digital practices has to consider the
social context informing the practices themselves. This may be true because of two ongoing
trends: the increasing invisibility of technologies and the blurring boundaries of the formal and
informal, requiring new frameworks of exploration.

[Technology] introduction and use creates the basis for tension and break downs in any
ordering of practice. The creation of new stabilities in practices using new technologies
is dependent upon the re-orderings and emergence of new knowledge and competence.
(Ludvigsen et al. 2011, 105)

In this sense, in the following pages there is an attempt to shed some light on how a
technologically rich context may influence language learning and literacy in school settings. We
explore this by looking into the often-unheard voices of the main protagonists: the students.

Methodology and Corpus of Data

The study combines a qualitative-interpretative approach (Creswell 2013; Yin 2010) with content
and discourse analysis techniques. The aim is to explore and analyze how students perceive the
implementation of the 1x1 program in Catalonia has changed language teaching and learning
practices, particularly reading and writing, and the use of online language resources in two highly
technological secondary education schools.
The two participant schools were chosen because they self-proclaim as technologically-
enhanced schools, and despite financial cuts, both continue to offer the 1x1 model to their
students. The criterion may seem simplistic but hides a rooted belief that technology and
education should go together, and that schools cannot overlook the digital reality. When the
program EduCAT2.0 cut all funding, many schools decided to drop out of it and returned to
paper-based textbooks. But some, as these two, remained under the program.
School 1 (S1) is located in a middle-class neighborhood in Barcelona, whereas School 2 (S2)
is in a low-income, peripheral area of a post-industrial town in the metropolitan area of
Barcelona. In total, 346 minutes and 55 seconds and 52434 words transcribed. The following
table presents the data used for this study:
Table 1: Corpus of interviews
Interview Code Year of Study (age) Minutes Words Transcribed
S1_Int1 15–16 44:41 6521
S1_Int2 15–16 45:11 8354
S1_Int3 15–16 18:04 2659
S1_Int4 15–16 21:08 2846
S1_Int5 15–16 31:29 4164
S1_Int6 15–16 40:59 4942
S2_Int1 12–13 24:21 3827
S2_Int2 12–13 26:39 4599
S2_Int3 12–13 19:53 2884
S2_Int4 12–13 23:54 3711
S2_Int5 12–13 28:27 4780
S2_Int6 12–13 21:47 3147
Total 346:56 52434
Source: Own material.

30
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

For the purposes of this paper, we focus only on students’ perceptions. We have captured the
discourse of twelve students by means of two types of semi-structured, in-depth interviews.
Longer diagnostic interviews lasted an average of 60’ and considered 1) demographic
information, 2) contextualizing information, 3) classroom activities, 4) reading and writing
practices, 5) use of online language resources, 6) activities outside the classroom, 7) social
networking, and 8) an overall assessment of the 1x1. Shorter follow-up interviews lasted an
average of 10’ and covered the questions: 1) What have you done this week that you liked or
disliked using the computer? and 2) Have you used any online language resource? How have you
used them? What for?
The students were interviewed during one full term on a weekly or a fortnight basis,
depending on students’ availability. They were also interviewed in same-year, gender-discordant
pairs, to allow for more fluent conversation between the students and with the interviewer, as
well as clearer voice differentiation in the transcribing task. No academic criterion was
considered. However, there was the intention to cover most of Compulsory Secondary Education
(CSE) years and the evolution of the 1x1 implementation in Catalonia. This covers from twelve-
year-old students in the first year of CSE to sixteen-year-old students in the fourth year of CSE.
Two seventeen-year-old students from the first year of the Baccalaureate program, which gives
access to university studies in Spain, were also interviewed because the 2013–2014 cohort was
the first one in having experienced the 1x1 program in its entirety, allowing for a global vision on
how digitization actually impacts on their learning. The table above presents the diagnostic
interview and the first follow-up interview.
The data was analyzed using Atlas.ti. Firstly, the textual information derived from the
interviews was transcribed allowing for a first exploration of the data. Once transcribed, a set of
seven steps was observed to ensure a thorough job of analysis:

1. Brief annotations were added when relevant information was found

2. These annotations were then exported and listed as different types of
information
3. The items on the list were categorized with a descriptive code
4. The items on the list were linked together and split into major themes and
minor themes
5. The themes were then collected and examined in detail to consider their
relevance
6. A revision of the themes was conducted to ascertain if some categories could
be merged or sub-categorized
7. A revision of the transcript was conducted to ensure that all the relevant data
was categorized.

The categories were obtained inductively—themes were extracted in a bottom-up approach

by immersion in the data and students’ discourse—but major categories represent the topics
under which the answers to the research questions fall. The categories encountered are as
follows:

 Students’ response to digitization.

o Positive traits
o Negative traits
 The impact of computers in students’ literacy practices.
o Digital reading
 The textbook: Linear reading
 Other sources: Non-linear reading
 Informal reading
o Digital writing

31
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

 The interactive activities

 Learning projects
o Reading and writing aids
 Focus on form: Spell and grammar checkers
 Focus on meaning: Dictionaries
 Focus on both: Translators

From the data, nineteen quotes were extracted to epitomize the categories encountered.
These quotes from students’ perceptions are properly anonymized to ensure confidentiality, but
they are publicly accessible through Annex 1, so as to inform this paper.

Results and Discussion

Students’ Response to Digitization

Here are presented students’ initial feelings as regards using computers on a daily basis for their
lessons. There is also a compilation of positive and negative traits students perceive in this
process of digitization. Firstly, when it is announced that students will be provided with one
laptop for the school, some react with joy and awe, since it is really “cool.”
In some other students’ opinions, this initial awe is translated into fear for the unknown.
However, this is quickly overcome as it is equally or even more efficient, since, in their words,
you get to access more resources.
In a more practical view, having one computer each brings about advantages and
disadvantages in equal share:

a) Even if they carry less weight in their backpacks, many teachers still require
the use of paper-based notebooks students have to carry as well
b) There are many connectivity issues, the Internet does not support hundreds of
computers simultaneously logged in. Older buildings also lack plug-ins for
every student
c) Students may get easily distracted when the subject is not engaging
d) Students complain about health-related issues such as eye tiredness.

When it comes to classroom activity, the use of the computer is helpful only in certain
situations. Students welcome computers as they present information in just one screenshot, with
less letters and more images, either in the digital textbook, or during teachers’ lectures while
using projectors and presentations. Students also welcome computers when used for self-
correcting drills, but not for more elaborate tasks, particularly those involving sciences and
figures. Unfortunately, when students refer to “studying,” all of them agree that paper-based
studying is far more beneficial for optimal results. This is due to the type of assessment, as it
favors short-term memorization, rather than problem solving strategies.
Outside the classroom, technologies are still present in multiple ways. Computers are used
for homework as well as for personal activities, mainly social networking and watching audio-
visual material. They converge the informal and the formal learning. Instant messaging and
social networking sites are the get-together place when students have a doubt but have no teacher
to resort to, particularly when a quick answer is needed. The students confirm the use of
Whatsapp for school learning purposes, as they have a “Classroom Whatsapp group,” the
existence of which the teacher can only imagine. They also confirm that the intersection between
informal and formal can work well when done conveniently, setting some kind of yardstick
flexible enough for students to be at ease with their informal environment becoming also a
learning environment. For instance, students could consider setting up a Facebook group for
classroom purposes only if the teacher has no access to their private info and pictures. In this

32
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

sense, another tangential point is raised: the need to build up awareness on how to manage the
digital identity.
As a final point to this section, students seem to welcome the use of technologies in the
classroom, but they see many problems related to 1) technical support, namely connectivity
issues, 2) health, particularly sight tiredness and back pain. This is due to incongruences between
what is sold and what is seen, digitization is only half-way: a) schools are not that well prepared
and funding has been cut dramatically due to the financial crisis; b) the screens of affordable
laptops are too small, allow for limited use and cause eye fatigue; c) other devices such as mobile
phones are not normally contemplated, at least not under the umbrella of the EduCAT2.0
program, but they may foster interaction, debate, and discussion in certain situations, in a more
contemporary Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) perspective; d) even if the internet has countless
resources, there is the need to control for quality too, which as seen in the following sections may
not always be the case.

The Impact of Computers in Students’ Literacy Practices

Digital Reading

For the purposes of the study, we understand the term “digital reading” as any reading practice
taking place with digital technologies and materials. Three practices were observed from the
students’ reports: the reading of the textbook, the reading of online curricular content, and the
reading of online informal content.

The Textbook: Linear Reading (Quotes 6, 7, 8)

The digital textbook functions as a reference book for most subjects and is often in the form of a
PDF-enriched document, with scarce links to the web or multimodal sources of information.
Students welcome the lighter weight but complaint about not being able to edit the content as
they please. Furthermore, the attempts of publishing houses to bring multimodality into the books
have not been successful yet, as the pictures are too childish, and the structure is not user-
friendly. In general terms, there is a leap from paper-based to digital textbooks, but replicating
the role of textbooks as encyclopedic written-word sources, rather than surfable, multimodal
sites. When it comes to teachers using or rather over-using textbooks, the teaching praxis
preserves traditional channels of knowledge transmission, as in the following example where the
teacher lectures and paraphrases the content in the digital textbook, and then students have to
summarize the lectures and content in paper-based notebooks for future memorizing.
Overall, reading remains linear and maintains the characteristics of paper-based reading.
There is little evidence of digital critical reading in terms of considering aspects such as
multimodality and hypertextuality in the new multi-layered format. Recent empirical studies
confirm this when Valero, Vazquez-Calvo, and Cassany (2015) analyzed critical digital reading
skills in English as a Foreign Language. The first year university participant students displayed a
rather inadequate comprehension of culturally embedded terms in English, as well as a lack of
awareness of the importance of non-linear, multi-layered reading for complete understanding of
texts. On the other hand, textbooks are presented as an enriched PDF books, with some links to
external close-ended activities. Students do not favor efforts from certain publishing houses to
make the reading more visual and multimodal; they find it “childish and unstructured.” This may
be partly because the reading proposed goes in line with a traditional memory-based assessment,
rather than learning—and assessing learning—by doing. Students ask for more editing features,
such as being able to underline and highlight text, or add notes on the margin. This is not because
they would like to enhance the text by adding information from the web, but because their
learning strategy is exam-oriented, and exams call for short-term memory. In this sense, students’
liking of textbooks is positive, because the content is more condensed, but not because they have

33
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

a more enjoyable learning experience. The lack of editing features and the type of assessment
forces most students to take notes in paper-based notebooks, except for those in the first year
students when the amount of input information is lower than later on in secondary education.

Other sources: Non-linear Reading (Quote 9, 10)

When teachers, or students, escape from textbooks, they seem to read in a way more coherent
with the layered nature of the internet. Some teachers may ask for screenshots for them to verify
and correct certain activities.
In a similar way, when students are asked to escape the frames of the digital textbooks, still
very convergent in shape, content, and media with paper-based textbooks, they may benefit from
hypertextuality (beyond the directed and guided reading promoted in current digital textbooks) in
order to verify the information contained in additional sources of information such as Wikipedia.

Informal Reading: Contemporary Reading (Quote 11)

Digital reading is nonetheless hyperlinked, multimodal, and social. Students consult the
blogosphere to get the information they need about the topics they like. They access video
materials for guidance and tutorials. And most of their leisure is concentrated on the computer
and mobile phone, either as a source of leisure material (games, series, movies, music), as a
complement to their social identity—the construction of their digital identity through, mainly
social networking.

Digital Writing

As with digital reading, for the purposes of the study, we understand the term “digital writing” as
any writing practice taking place with digital technologies and materials. Two main practices
were observed from the students’ interviews: the writing during interactive activities, and the
writing during learning projects.

Interactive Activities (Quotes 12, 13)

In all the language subjects, when students refer to “interactive activities,” they frequently mean
self-correcting drills. These exercises are very welcome by students and teachers. Digital close-
ended activities such as drills allow for traceability, continuous assessment, and more
individualized practice.
The use of “interactive” also seems to imply activities with a hyperlink students need to click
on to gain access. Altogether, the interactive activities as conceptualized in the two cases studied
are non-textbook, self-correcting exercises. Students naturally refer to these activities as
interactive. They assume interaction in the language curriculum with all available technologies is
accessing a website with extra material where you can automatize certain language features by
means of non-reflexive, auto-correcting feedback, and repetition. Interactive activities are also
known as digital activities in the school jargon. At this point in the digitization process,
interaction is all about computer-student or computer-teacher interaction, but a more
sociocultural interaction on the web requires higher order strategies students are not taught.

Learning Projects

No student reports any larger learning projects. In informal conversations with teachers, teachers
claim they do plan for learning projects such as creative writing, in the form of short novels or
augmented reality, where students need to provide a multilingual version of an audio narration to
inform about items in the local museum. The absence of reports from the part of students on this

34
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

item may lead to think that automated, close-ended activities represent the bulk of the curricular
activity with the computer. This fosters human-computer interaction and is rather limited in view
of the communicative approach in language learning.

Reading and Writing Aids

We also look into reading and writing aids of all sorts to better comprehend how reading and
writing are conducted. We detect three main protagonist resources in the language classroom: 1)
spell and grammar checkers, 2) dictionaries, and 3) automated translation online software.

Spell and Grammar Checkers (Quote 14)

Students are demanded to observe spelling and grammar accuracy in the three languages of
instruction. As seen with the presence of online drills to practice spelling and grammar points,
the focus on form in language learning is massive. Students are asked to provide fully accurate
written productions and to do so; they are encouraged to use spell and grammar checkers
embedded in word processors. Teachers do not teach the use of spell and grammar checkers, but
advise on their limited trustworthiness. Students become aware of this.
Students know spell and grammar checkers are of little use in certain contexts, as in cases of
diacritics or amphibology. Their limitations are not presented at all, either in theory or with
practical awareness-raising exercises. Neither do students get to know the features of the
checker: the meaning of colored highlights, the setting of the language, the “adding to the
dictionary” feature. Due to the lack of teaching in this part, the criterion applied by students
seems to be “intuition.” Students are encouraged to use checkers to ensure correctness in their
spelling. There is a clear focus on form.

Dictionaries (Quotes 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

The use of dictionaries is rather limited. There is little evidence of a sound usage other than
teachers giving “general suggestions” such as using dictionaries supported by an “official
institution.” Teachers tell students to use the DIEC dictionary for Catalan, the DRAE dictionary
for Spanish, and the Oxford dictionary for English. WordReference may also be used by students
and accepted by teachers, but the function of the Question-Answer fora is not explained or
explored. When students are asked to do a more elaborate activity than looking up a word and
check on the definition, they may have to use other resources, such as a synonym dictionary. In
this case, students search for the resource on Google with no search criterion or guidance.
Neither do they store the resource they use. Google may be used as a dictionary too, using the
following search input: [unknown word (and) definition]. Google Images is at times used in this
sense, too. Some teacher may use more resources, but students do not seem to internalize them.
As with the case of spell and grammar checkers, the criterion applied by students to use
dictionaries is again “intuition.”
Furthermore, the number of linguistic contexts demanding specific linguistic needs where
specific lexicographic resources could be used is rather limited, and revolves around finding the
definition of a word, or exceptionally a synonym in the form and manner presented above. When
students have a doubt, teachers may resort to a more speedy way out, such as a “verbal
translation” or an “oral explanation.”
No student has reported the use of reverse dictionaries for contexts of usage, collocation
dictionaries for lexical-syntactical patterns, specialized dictionaries for specific curricular
subjects or linguistic features such as slang, inverse dictionaries for word endings for poetry, and
so forth. Only a pair of students reported the use of the DRAE to search for etymological
information of words (Latin or Greek lexical bases) at the utmost. Further text-based resources

35
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

such as corpora to use for lexicographical patters and linguistic doubts are not known by both
teachers and students.

Translators (Quotes 16, 17, 18, 19)

Language teachers censor the use of machine translation software, but students use them and
need to use them. The following example describes how a project requires students to search for
information in groups about a local topic: the Aquifers in the city of Barcelona. This is done in an
English-taught History module, as part of a CLIL program in the school (Quote 16). The locality
and specificity of the information limits the range of information about it in English, and so
students are forced to translate from Spanish or Catalan into English. Students have no
translation competence or experience, as translation is often regarded by teachers as a non-
naturalistic approach to language learning. Their level of English is also limited, and so they try
to develop new strategies to cope with this new linguistic need. They find Google Translate
quick and user-friendly, apt for “words” but not “phrases” as it may provide “silly solutions.” Yet
they constantly use it for prompts to build adequate lexical-syntactical patterns. But the teacher
does not teach its affordances and limitations and prohibits it.

Concluding Remarks
The digitization process is slower than expected. We identified hindering factors mainly related
to technical problems or lack of training or support for the teachers. Students welcome
digitization and laptops as they are closer to their reality—they use computers at home for
personal reasons and feel comfortable with them. They also appreciate the lighter weight
computers and digital textbooks have in comparison with paper-based textbooks, but they see
some incongruence when some teachers still demand paper-based practices like note taking.
Literacy is digitized but not so digital. This has to do with the quality of the materials, but
also with the way teachers understand reading, writing, and language learning practices with
technologies. For instance, the digital textbook is an enriched PDF document. Some teachers
complain about their quality and the “limitations of the screen” (linear reading is more
complicated). Students wonder why it is necessary to have a computer when they are not asked
for more than just reading the textbook and extracting information from it. Basically the learning
experiences with textbooks remain intact as compared with pre-OLPC times.
Reading continues to be rather linear and maintains the main characteristics of paper-based
reading, yet with the problems and limitations of the screen. The format of the textbook limits the
exploration of new reading strategies, in line with the multimodal, hyperlinked, network-like
nature of the internet. Students complain about the use of the textbook as the almost omnipresent
source of information, about the size of the screen and health-related issues, like eye tiredness.
Writing is scarce, with little attention on the part of teachers according to the words of
students. The attention is drawn on language learning activities are increasingly more
individualized, but also less critical. This means that students can track their progress and pace
their work, but also there is the risk that students go for an “error-trial” approach when solving
the activities, rather than developing a critique about the language patterns and their own learning
of the language.
Reading and writing aids are scarcely used, rarely taught, and intuitively learned.
Paradoxically enough, online language resources, such as spell and grammar checkers,
dictionaries or automated translation software, are not exploited. Students report that teachers
encourage the use of spell and grammar checkers and dictionaries, but they do not teach them.
There is a tendency to take the knowledge attached to online language resources for granted.
Students overcome this partly thanks to self-made intuitive learning strategies, and because of the
guided nature of the activities proposed, which do not cater for greater learner autonomy. In most
cases only institutional, non-collaborative resources are considered, which limits the spectrum of

36
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

resources (e.g., inverse, reverse, collocation, or conceptual dictionaries are not identified) and
affordances at the students’ disposal (e.g., communicative tools such as the forum on
WordReference). On the other hand, non-official undervalued online language resources are
discouraged or censored by teachers. This is to do basically with automated translation software,
as translation itself may be seen as a non-naturalistic approach to language learning. Students
normally use this software as it is quick, user-friendly, multilingual, and multifunctional. They
resist teachers’ discourse, and maintain a practice which is seen as cost-effective. When reading,
students use translation software for quick comprehension of a text. When writing, students need
translation software for grammatical-lexical prompts and syntactical patterns they are unfamiliar
with. They themselves develop strategies such as word limitation in the input text or changing
the output language for a more statistically plausible language combination.
In the light of the above, there is a need for teachers to realize that innovation with ICT does
not only mean the assimilation of a new mediating device, but rather the transformation of the
practices in place. Educational institutions in Spain may want to provide effective teacher
training, rather than pouring all the financial efforts on hardware that later on remains underused
(Cuban 2003). Training may want to focus on not only the technology but also the perceptions of
what language learning with technologies may mean: general concepts such as communication,
interaction, digital, and translation and educational concepts, such as flipped classroom, e-
learning, collaborative learning, and learner autonomy should be revisited for effective language
learning purposes. With updated technologies, and sufficient training, teachers may be able to
lower their dependency on the textbook and leap forward to the internet for varied information
and activities allowing for communication, rather than only computer-student interaction. They
could better satisfy the demands students have as to their linguistic needs, by providing the
knowledge to use reading and writing aids as scaffolding tools (Warschauer 2009) in their
process of learning, reading, and writing languages.

Acknowledgement
Boris Vazquez-Calvo held a competitive pre-doctoral grant from the Spanish Ministry of
Economy, with reference number BES-2012-052622, at the time of developing this study.
The data contained in this article stem from two competitive the research projects: a) IES2.0:
Digital literacy practices. Materials, classroom activities and online language resources, under
the 2011 National Program for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation
from the Spanish government, with reference number EDU2011-28381; 2012–14, b) Digital
Identities and Cultures in Language Education, under the 2015 National Program for Scientific
Research, Development and Technological Innovation from the Spanish government, with
reference number EDU2014-57677-C2-1-R; 2015-2017.
A final word of gratitude must go to the students and teachers who have kindly agreed to
participate in the study.

37
UBIQUITOUS LEARNING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

REFERENCES
Aliagas, Cristina, and Josep Maria Castellà. 2014. “Enthusiast, Reluctant and Resistant Teachers
towards the One-To-One Laptop Program: A Multi-Site Ethnographic Case Study in
Catalonia.” In Media and education in the digital age. Concepts, assessments,
subversions, edited by M. Stochetti, 237–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Print.
Alonso Cano, Cristina, Montse Guitert Catasús, Manuel Area Moreira, and Teresa Romeu
Fontanillas. 2012. Un ordenador por alumno: reflexiones del profesorado de Cataluña
sobre los entornos 1×1. In Tendencias emergentes en educación con TIC, edited by J.
Hernández, M. Pennesi, D. Sobrino y A. Vázquez, 83–101. Barcelona: Asociación
Espiral, Educación y Tecnología. Print.
Alonso Cano, C., Pablo Rivera Vargas, and Montse Guitert Catasús. (2014). Una aproximación a
los entornos 1x1, “un ordenador por niño”, desde las experiencias y las percepciones de
los estudiantes de educación secundaria en el marco de la sociedad informacional.
Revista de La Asociación de Sociología de La Educación 6 (2): 153–168.
Area Moreira, M. (2011). Los efectos del modelo 1:1 en el cambio educativo en las escuelas.
Evidencias y desafíos para las políticas Iberoamericanas. Revista Iberoamericana de
Educación 56: 49–74.
Area Moreira, Manuel, Cristina Alonso Cano, José Miguel Correa Gorospe, María Esther Del
Moral Pérez, Juan De-Pablos-Pons, Joaquín Paredes Labra, José Peirats Chacón, Ana
Luisa Sanabria Mesa, Ángel San Martín Alonso, and J. Valverde Berrocoso. 2014. “Las
Políticas Educativas TIC en España después del Programa Escuela 2.0: las tendencias
que emergen.” RELATEC: Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa 13
(2):11–33. Print.
Cassany, Daniel. 2013. “¿Cómo Se Lee Y Escribe En Línea?” Revista Electrónica: Leer,
Escribir y Descubrir [RELED]: 1 (1):1–24. International Reading Association. Print.
Cassany, Daniel, and B. Vázquez-Calvo. 2014. “Leer en línea en el aula.” Revista Peruana de
Investigación Educativa 63–87. ISSN: 2077-4168.
Creswell, John W. 2013. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method
Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Print.
Cuban, Larry. 2001. Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge:
Harvard UP. Print.
Gillen, Julia. 2014. Digital Literacies. London: Routledge. Print.
González Martínez, Juan. 2012. El Proyecto Educat1x1 Y Su Impacto En La Asignatura De
Lengua Castellana. Un Primer Análisis Desde Las Terres De L’Ebre. Tarragona:
Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Print.
Lee, Newton. 2006. “Interview with Nicholas Negroponte.” Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 4
(1): 3-Es. Print.
Ludvigsen, Sten. 2011. Learning across Sites: New Tools, Infrastructures and Practices. New
York: Routledge. Print.
Lugo, Maria Teresa. 2010. “Las Políticas TIC En La Educación De América Latina: Tendencias
Y Experiencias.” Fuentes: Revista De La Facultad De Ciencias De La Educación
10:52-68. Print.
Severín, Eugenio, and Christine Capota. 2011. “La Computación Uno a Uno: Nuevas
Perspectivas.” Revista Iberoamericana De Educación 56: 31–48. Print.
Valero Hoyos, Mª José, Boris Vazquez-Calvo, and Daniel Cassany. “Desenredando La Web: La
Lectura Crítica De Los Aprendices De Lenguas Extranjeras En Entornos Digitales.”
Ocnos: Revista De Estudios Sobre Lectura 13: 7–23. Print.
Valiente, Oscar. 2011. “1-1 in Education: Current Practice” International Comparative
ResearchEvidence and Policy Implications. Oecd Education Working Papers (44). N.p.:
OCDE. Print.

38
 VAZQUEZ-CALVO: LANGUAGE LEARNERS’ READING AND WRITING IN THE CLASSROOM

Van Lier, Leo. 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural
Perspective. Boston; Dordrecht: Kluver Academic. Print.
Yin, Robert K. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications. Print.
Warschauer, Mark. 2010. “Learning to Write in the Laptop Classroom.” Writing & Pedagogy
WAP 1 (1).

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Boris Vazquez-Calvo: Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Translation and Language
Sciences, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Catelonia, Spain

39
Ubiquitous Learning:
Ubiquitous Learning: AnAn International
International Journal
Journal sets Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal is a
outone
is to define an emerging
of the five field.
thematically Ubiquitous
focused learning
journals that is peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
a new educational
comprise paradigm
the Technology made possible
Collection in part by
and support
the
the Technology,
affordances of Knowledge, and Society knowledge
digital media.
community—its journals, book series, and online
Ubiquitous Learning is a counterpart to the concept
community.
“ubiquitous computing”, but one which seeks to put
The journaland
the needs setsdynamics
out to define an emerging
of learning ahead field.
of the
Ubiquitous learning is a new educational
technologies that may support learning. The paradigm
arrival of
made possible in part
new technologies doesbynotthemean
affordances of digital
that learning has to
media.
change. Learning should only change for learning’s
sake. The key perspective of the conference and
Ubiquitous Learning is a counterpart to the concept
journal is that our changing learning needs can be
“ubiquitous computing”, but one which seeks to put
served
the needs by ubiquitous
and dynamics computing. In this
of learning aheadspirit, the
of the
journal investigates the affordances for learning
technologies that may support learning. The arrival in theof
digitaltechnologies
new media, in school
does and throughout
not mean everyday
that learning haslife.
to
change. Learning should only change for learning’s
Ubiquitous Learning:
sake. The key An International
perspective is thatisour
Journal
of the journal a
peer-reviewed scholarly
changing learning needs journal.
can be served by ubiquitous
computing. In this spirit, the journal investigates the
affordances for learning in the digital media, in school,
and throughout everyday life.

ISSN 1835-9795

View publication stats