International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(2) 352-368

Evaluation of Online Language Exchange Platforms: The Example of “Free4Talk”

İsmail Gelen & Ercan Tozluoglu

pp. 352 - 368   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.332.22   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2009-14-0003.R2

Published online: April 07, 2021  |   Number of Views: 86  |  Number of Download: 127


Abstract

This study aims to evaluate online language exchange platforms and its main focus is on the website named “www.free4talk.com” as an example. The theoretical framework is based on self-directed learning, e-tandem language learning, community of inquiry and expressive language competency. Interviews with the founder, administrator and some of the users of the website are conducted and a 5-point Likert type assessment tool with 26 items and 7 dimensions is created with the help of a literature review at the same time. The findings are obtained through analysing the data collected by applying the instrument to 413 people on the website. The research reveals that this platform presents a free environment with a certain amount of safety and it contributes greatly to foreign language development of learners in terms of providing an opportunity for language practice, an undeniable improvement in expressive language competency and a social atmosphere that offers a source of motivation for language learning for both people who finished their formal foreign language training and for students who are still studying at schools.

Keywords: Receptive Language; Online Language Learning; E-Tandem Language Learning; Expressive Language; Community of Inquiry; Self-Directed Learning


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Gelen, I. & Tozluoglu, E. (2021). Evaluation of Online Language Exchange Platforms: The Example of “Free4Talk” . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 352-368. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.332.22

Harvard
Gelen, I. and Tozluoglu, E. (2021). Evaluation of Online Language Exchange Platforms: The Example of “Free4Talk” . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), pp. 352-368.

Chicago 16th edition
Gelen, Ismail and Ercan Tozluoglu (2021). "Evaluation of Online Language Exchange Platforms: The Example of “Free4Talk” ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (2):352-368. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.332.22.

References
  1. Akai, S. (2017). Transformative learning in an interculturally-inclusive online community (Doktora tezi). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global veri tabanından erişildi (Erişim No: 10605070). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1994192843?accountid=16701 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alghamdi, F. M. (2016). Self-directed learning in preparatory-year university students: Comparing successful and less-successful English Language learners. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 59-69. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n7p59 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2000). Pedagogical considerations for a web-based tandem language learning environment. Computers & Education, 34, 291-308. [Google Scholar]
  4. Balcı, A. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma (13 ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. doi:10.14527/9789756802403 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca : An investigation of form and communicative effectiveness. De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=544026&lang=tr&site=eds-live&authtype=uid&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_Cover [Google Scholar]
  6. Botero, G. G., Questier, F., & Zhu, C. (2019). Self-directed language learning in a mobile-assisted, out-of-class context: Do students walk the talk? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(1-2), 71-97. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1485707 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Buitrago, A. G. (2017). Collaborative and self-directed learning strategies to promote fluent EFL speakers. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 139-157. [Google Scholar]
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2019). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (26 ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. doi:10.14527/9789944919289 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Can, A. (2019). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (7 ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cavalari, S. M. (2018). Integrating telecollaborative language learning into Higher Education: a study on teletandem practice. Brazilian English Language Teaching Journal, 9(2), 417-432. doi:10.15448/2178-3640.2018.2.31927 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Chakowa, J. (2018). Enhancing beginners' second language learning through an informal online environment. Journal of Educators Online, 1. [Google Scholar]
  12. Comas-Quinn, A., & Fuertes Gutiérrez, M. (2019). Working with online communities: translatingTED Talks. In A. Comas-Quinn, A. Beaven, & B. Sawhill, New case studies of openness in and beyond the language classroom (pp. 101-113). Research-publishing.net. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2019.37.969 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cziko, G. A. (2004). Electronic Tandem Language Learning (eTandem): A Third Approach to Second Language Learning for the 21st Century. CALICO Journal, 22(1), 25-39. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24149442 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dooly, M., & Davitova, N. (2018). 'What can we do to talk more?': Analysing language learners' online interaction. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(Özel Sayı), 215-237. doi:10.16986/HUJE.2018038804 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from www.professorjackrichards.com: https://www.professorjackrichards.com/the-role-of-age-in-second-language-learning/ [Google Scholar]
  17. Dumitrescu, V. M. (2017). The use of online language-learning tools and resources for self-study. The 13th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, (pp. 280-287). Bükreş. doi:10.12753/2066-026X-17-215 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. El-Hariri, Y. (2016). Learner perspectives on task design for oral–visual eTandem Language Learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 10(1). doi:10.1080/17501229.2016.1138578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Ellis, N. C. (2004). The processes of second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, J. Williams, S. Rott, & &. M. Overstreet, Form-meaning connections in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fondo Garcia, M., & Appel, C. (2016). Synchronous tandem language learning in a MOOC context: A study on task design and learner performance. In EUROCALL (Ed.), EUROCALL 2016 Conference. Limasol. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572190.pdf [Google Scholar]
  21. Fondo, M., & Erdocia, I. (2018). Exploring foreign language anxiety and self disclosure relationships in task design for e-tandem speaking practice. (J. J. P. Taalas, Ed.) Future-proof CALL: language learning as exploration and encounters – short papers from EUROCALL, 54-58. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.812 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Fukuda, A. (2018). The Japanese EFL Learners’ Self-Regulated Language Learning and Proficiency. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 65-87. doi:10.25256/PAAL.22.1.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Garett, R., Chiu, J., Zhang, L., & Young, S. (2016). A literature review: Website design and user engagement. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 6(3), 1-14. [Google Scholar]
  24. Garrison, D. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33. [Google Scholar]
  25. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. [Google Scholar]
  26. Garrison, D., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 31-36. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Gelen, İ. (2018). Academicians' predictions of 21st century education and education in the 21st century. European Journal of Education Studies, 4(5). doi:10.5281/zenodo.1233478 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Gimenez, T., El Kadri, M. S., & Simões Calvo, L. C. (2018). English as a lingua franca in teacher education : A Brazilian perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1791427&lang=tr&site=eds-live&authtype=uid&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_Cover [Google Scholar]
  29. González Miy, D., & Herrera Díaz, L. E. (2015). Tracking the path of communities of inquiry in TEFL: A literature review. HOW, 22(1), 80-94. [Google Scholar]
  30. Haidari, S. M., Yelken, T. Y., & Akay, C. (2019). Technology-enhanced Self-directed Language Learning Behaviors of EFL Student Teachers. CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 10(3), 229-245. doi:10.30935/cet.590003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Hampel, R., & Stickler, U. (2005). New skills for new classrooms: Training tutors to teach languages. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 311–326. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hart, T. B. (2012). (Re)negotiating speech codes in an online language learning community. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global veri tabanından erişilmiştir (Erişim No: 1035318782). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1035318782?accountid=16701 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins, M. W. (2018). Self-directed learning as related to learning strategies, self-regulation, and autonomy in an English language program: A local application with global implications. SSLLT, 8(2). doi:10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Heidari, K. (2019). Willingness to communicate: A predictor of pushing vocabulary knowledge from receptive to productive. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 903–920. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-019-09639-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Heriansyah, H. (2012). Speaking problems faced by the English department students of Syiah Kuala University. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 6(1), 37-44. doi:10.24036/ld.v6i1.7398 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Herrera Díaz, L. E., & González Miy, D. (2017). Developing the oral skill in online English courses framed by the community of inquiry. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 19(1). doi:10.15446/profile.v19n1.55957 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Ho, W. Y. (2018). Translanguaging in online language learning: Case studies of self-directed Chinese learning of multilingual adults. University of London. [Google Scholar]
  38. Johnson, E. (2016). Intergenerational telecollaboration: what risks for what rewards? In M. K. S. Jager, New directions in telecollaborative research and practice: selected papers from the second conference on telecollaboration in higher education (pp. 97-103). Research-publishing.net. doi:10.14705/rpnet.2016.telecollab2016.495 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Kacetl, J., & Klímová, B. (2019). Use of Smartphone Applications in English Language Learning—A Challenge for Foreign Language Education. Education Sciences. doi:10.3390/educsci9030179 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Kalocsai, K. (2013). Communities of practice and English as a lingua franca : A study of students in a Central European context. De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=710698&lang=tr&site=eds-live&authtype=uid&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C [Google Scholar]
  41. Kavanoz, S., & Varol, B. (2018). What do young EFL learners’ written texts tell us about their productive vocabulary knowledge? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 211-225. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kawai, G. (2006). Collaborative peer-based language learning in unsupervised asynchronous online environments. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creating, Connecting and Collaborating through Computing (C5'06). IEEE Computer Society. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kilmen, S. (2015). Eğitim araştırmacıları için SPSS uygulamalı istatistik. Ankara: Edge Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  44. Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York: Association Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press Inc. . Retrieved from http://www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/sl_acquisition_and_learning.pdf [Google Scholar]
  46. Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317-335. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.568417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Laufer, B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391. [Google Scholar]
  48. Lewis, T., & O'Dowd, R. (2016). Online intercultural exchange and foreign language learning: a systematic review. In R. O'Dowd, & T. L. haz.), Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice. Routledge. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/47044/1/9781138932876_chapter%202.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Litzler, M. Y., Huguet-Jerez, M., & Bakieva, M. (2018). Prior experience and student satisfaction with e-tandem language learning of Spanish and English. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 12(4). doi:10.3991/ijim.v12i4.9196 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. Murnane, K. (2016). How men and women differ in their approach to online privacy and security. Retrieved from www.forbes.com: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurnane/2016/04/11/how-men-and-women-differ-in-their-approach-to-online-privacy-and-security/?sh=21ff3d7b7d88 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nunley, K. F. (2003). Layered curriculum brings teachers to tiers. Education Digest, 69(1), 31-36. [Google Scholar]
  52. O'Dowd, R. (2016). Emerging trends and new directions in telecollaborative learning. Calico Journal (Online), 33(3), 291–310. doi:10.1558/cj.v33i3.30747 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Pae, H. K., & Greenberg, D. (2014). The realtionship between receptive and expressive subskills of academic L2 proficiency in nonnative speakers of English: A multigroup approach. Reading Psychology, 35, 221–259. doi:10.1080/02702711.2012.684425 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Resnik, P., & Schallmoser, C. (2019). Enjoyment as a key to success? Links between e-tandem language learning and tertiary student's foreign language enjoyment. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 541-564. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.3.6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. Richards, J. C. (2008). Moving Beyond the Plateau, From Intermediate to Advanced Levels in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  56. Sánchez, J. B. (2015). The dynamics of social interaction in telecolaborative tandem exchanges (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest veri tabanından erişildi. (Erişim no. 10016536). [Google Scholar]
  57. Sidiropoulou, Z., & Mavroidis, I. (2019). The relation between the three dimensions of the community of inquiry and the learning styles of students in a distance education programme. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(23). [Google Scholar]
  58. Sockett, G. (2014). The online informal learning of English (1 ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  59. Stevens, M., & Rice, M. F. (2019). Collaborating to create middle level blended learning environments (chapter 5). In B. Eisenbach, & P. Greathouse,, The Online Classroom : Resources for Effective Middle Level Virtual Education. Information Age Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  60. Studenska, A. (2011). Educational level, gender and foreign language learning self-regulation difficulty. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences(29), 1349-1358. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sun, Y., Franklin, T., & Gao, F. (2017). Learning outside of classroom: Exploring the active part of an informal online English learning community in China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 57-70. doi:10.1111/bjet.12340 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  62. Thomas, N., & Rose, H. (2019). Do language learning strategies need to be self-directed? Disentangling strategies from self-regulated learning. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 248-257. [Google Scholar]
  63. Thu, T. H. (2009). Recent Research on Measuring Receptive and Productive Vocabulary. ERIC veri tabanından erişildi. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507439.pdf [Google Scholar]
  64. Webb, S. (2008). Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 79-95. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/44488020 [Google Scholar]
  65. Xu, Q. (2009). Moving beyond the Intermediate EFL Learning Plateau. Asian Social Science, 5(2), 66-68. [Google Scholar]
  66. Xu, S. (2019). Investigating an online community of self-directed language learners at the Mixxer (Doktora Tezi). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global veri tabanından erişildi (Erişim No:13862929). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2235420696?accountid=16701 [Google Scholar]
  67. Yurtsever Bodur, G., & Arıkan, A. (2017). Why Can’t We Learn English? : Students’ Opinions at Akdeniz University / Neden İngilizce Öğrenemiyoruz?: Akdeniz Üniversitesi Öğrencilerinin Görüşleri. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 1 - 7. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhao, R., Chen, Q., An, X., Gong, X., & Ma, N. (2019). A comparative analysis of forum and barrage interactive patterns in online language learning. 2019 Eighth International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT). IEEE. doi:10.1109/EITT.2019.00014 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Zhong, H. (2018). The relationship between receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge: A perspective from vocabulary use in sentence writing. The Language Learning Journal, 46(4), 357-370. [Google Scholar]