Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanz=
a de
Lenguas Vol. 13 Núm. 26 (2019) =
doi: 10.26378/rnlael1326300 Recibido:
23/12/2018 / Aprobado: 17/02/2019 Publicado bajo licencia de Creativ=
e Commons Reconocimiento Sin Obra
Derivada 4.0 Internacional
Efectos del traductor de Google sobre la
diversidad léxica: el desarrollo de vocabulario entre estudiantes de españo=
l como
lengua extranjera
Effects of Google translate on lexical diversity:
vocabulary development among learners of Spanish as a foreign language
Kent Fredholm
Karlstad University =
and
Uppsala University (Sweden=
)
Kent.Fredholm@kau.se,
Kent.Fredholm@moderna.uu.se
RESUMEN
Este artículo presenta los resultados de un estudio longitudinal sobre =
el
desarrollo de vocabulario entre un grupo de estudiantes suecos de español c=
omo
lengua extranjera. Durante un año escolar, los estudiantes (N=3D31) escribi=
eron
cuatro redacciones en español, una prueba previa y una prueba posterior. 15
estudiantes usaron un diccionario impreso como herramienta de traducción, 1=
6 el
Traductor de Google (GT). El desarrollo de vocabulario escrito fue medido c=
omo
el cambio de diversidad léxica entre la prueba previa y la prueba posterior,
utilizando el índice de Guiraud. Los resultados muestran que el uso de GT da
una diversidad léxica mayor mientras los alumnos lo usan, un efecto que
desaparece cuando GT no se utiliza más. Los resultados indican la necesidad=
de
una comprensión más profunda de estructuras lingüísticas y de léxico, un
enfoque reforzado en el vocabulario en la enseñanza de idiomas extranjeros,=
y
una extensión más amplia de enseñanza de herramientas de traducción.
Palabras clave: Diversidad léxica, traducción automát=
ica
en línea, el Traductor de Google, escritura en idiomas extranjeros, desarro=
llo
de vocabulario.
ABSTRACT
This article presents the results of a
longitudinal study of vocabulary development among Swedish upper secondary
school pupils of Spanish as a foreign language. During one schoolyear, the
pupils (N=3D31) wrote four essays in Spanish, a pre-tes=
t
and a post-test. 15 pupils used a printed dictionary as translation tool, 16
used Google Translate (GT). Vocabulary development was measured as the chan=
ge
in lexical diversity from pre-test to post-test, using Guiraud’s index. The
results show that the use of GT leads to higher degrees of lexical diversit=
y as long as it is used, but that the effect vanishes wh=
en the
tool is no longer used. The results point to the need for a deeper
understanding of language structure and lexicon, a reinforced focus on
vocabulary in foreign language teaching, and a widened range of explicit in=
struction
of translation tools and strategies.
Keywords: Lexical
diversity, Free online machine translation, Google Translate, Foreign langu=
age
writing, Vocabulary development
1. Introduction
The present article is part o=
f a longitudinal
study positioning itself within the fields of computer-assisted language
learning (CALL) and foreign language writing, focussing on changes in writi=
ng
practices and how writing practices affect language learning. One current
change in the school context is the transition from writing by hand to using
computers, and the different affordances (cf. Gibson, 1986) this way of wri=
ting
entails for foreign language learners. From primary education to upper
secondary education, Swedish schools are undergoing a rapid and extensive
process of digitalisation, a topic of much debate. The Swedish national boa=
rd
of education, Skolverket, emphasises the need f=
or
further digitalisation as a way to prepare pupil=
s for,
among other things, future professional and educational needs, for creative
problem solving, and for enhancing equal possibilities for all pupils
regardless of parents’ socio-economic or academic background (see Skolverket 2018a, for a collection of resou=
rces
on digitalisation from the Swedish national board of education; cf. also
Swedish Government, 2017). A majority of
Swedish upper secondary school pupils now have access to a personal school
laptop (Swedish Government, 2017).
Studies of how this widespread
access to computers affects teaching and learning in Swedish classrooms are
still relatively few, especially concerning foreign language education. Stu=
dies
on longitudinal effects of computer use on language learning outcomes are
relatively scarce also internationally (Svensson, 2008; Bucki=
ngham,
2011; Cobo Romaní &=
amp;
Moravec, 2011; von Schantz Lundgren & Lundgren, 2011; Livingstone, 2012;
Fleischer, 2012, 2013; Grönlund, 2014; Grönlund, Andersson, & Wiklu=
nd,
2014). New studies of computer use in
foreign language classrooms are therefore of great relevance to language
education research and to practising language teachers who try to find their
way in today’s digitalised classroom environment.
A report on research outcomes on school digitalisation made for the
Swedish parliament (Riksdagsförvaltningen, 2016)
concludes that international research on computer use in schools shows effe=
cts
on student engagement and motivation, but that effects on learning outcomes=
are
difficult to find, apart from a few studies in Maine where results in
mathematics and essay writing were improved among thirteen-year-olds who us=
ed a
computer (Riksdags-förvaltningen, 2016). Rosén (2012) has also showed that an
increase in computer-use among children has led to a decrease in written
comprehension, especially among the most prolific computer-users.
Swedish studies (Grönlund, 2014) show that computer use may reinforce achievement pat=
terns
already existing in a school and that this might also increase social
discrepancies among pupils, rather than reducing them. In a report on the
effectiveness of the use of ICT (information and communication technology) =
in
education, Haelermans (2017) writes=
that
“computer-directed instruction” (p. 34) can improve learning in mathematics=
and
language to a small extent, but that effects vary between students, dependi=
ng
on such things as personal preferences, and she clarifies that results from
different studies are not conclusive. Especially regarding language learnin=
g, Haelermans writes that studies on ICT effects are few=
and
that very few of these studies have found that ICT use enhances language
learning outcomes. Ghysels & Haelermans
(2018) find enhanced spelling performance among 7th grade
pupils in the Netherlands, especially among low-performing pupils. As seems=
to
be the case also with the studies reported in Haelermans
(2017), the effects appear to be the result of software enabling
frequent repetition of and feedback on easily automatised, basic skills suc=
h as
spelling. Most studies find effects only on mathematics and only in develop=
ing
countries, whereas indications of effects on language learning are scarce. =
In
an experiment in the Netherlands, Haelermans (2=
017)
finds effects on spelling and grammar in 7th and 8th
grade. Over all, ICT used as a complement to the
teacher seems to yield best results, albeit the effects reported are very
small.
In earlier studies of laptop =
use
among Swedish upper secondary school pupils studying Spanish as a foreign
language, Fredholm (2015a, 2015b)
observed a widespread use of Google Translate (GT) and similar kinds of free
online machine translation (FOMT) when the participating pupils used their
school laptops to write essays in Spanish. When compared to essays written
without FOMT, the use of GT led above all to fewer errors in spelling and
article/noun/adjective agreement; at the same time, however, the use of GT
increased the number of syntactic errors in the pupils’ essays. The latter
effects were the opposite of what the pupils themselves believed would be t=
he
outcome.
Fredholm (20=
15b) focusses on complexity, accu=
racy
and fluency in Spanish texts written with FOMT, but also finds a possible
effect on lexical diversity, with slightly higher diversity among FOMT-using
pupils, however without investigating whether this effect lasts over time. =
The
present article studies changes in lexical diver=
sity
over one schoolyear in closer detail, observing lexical diversity at each
writing session and the development from the start to the end of the
schoolyear. As in Fredholm (2015b),
comparisons are made to pupils using printed dictionaries, but here, an att=
empt
to pinpoint learning outcomes is made by the use of
pre- and post-tests. The article contributes, thus, to deepened insights in
digitalised foreign language writing practices, focussing on longitudinal
effects on vocabulary learning of the regular use of GT as a translation to=
ol
in essay writing. The article does so by presenting longitudinal observatio=
ns
of lexical diversity in essays written with GT, comparing with the lexical
diversity in essays written with printed dictionaries as a translation tool=
. A
pre- and post-test design enables comparisons from the start to the end of a
schoolyear and reveals both differences and similarities between the googli=
ng
and non-googling participants of the study.
Machine translation is often used as an umbrella term for digital tools for professional translators, as well as for free machine translation services available on the Internet, such as GT, Babelfish etc. Other terms such as automatic translation, online translation= etc. are also used in the literature. (See O’Neill, 2012, for a discussion = on terminology.) When talking about freely available translation sites such as= GT, free online machine translation (FOMT) probably is the most precise and accurate term. To avoid confusion, = the term FOMT will be used throughout the present article, also when referring = to studies using any of the above mentioned terms.<= o:p>
The aim of the present study is to investigate the development of upper seconda= ry school pupils’ Spanish vocabulary in writing, understood as changes in lexi= cal diversity produced in essays written during a schoolyear, comparing possible differences in lexical diversity between pupils using GT and pupils using printed dictionaries as translation tools. The study observes translation practices and their effects on lexical diversity in texts written by upper = secondary school pupils in Sweden studying Spanish as a foreign language on intermedi= ate level (CEFR levels A2.2-B1.1). The following research questions are asked:<= o:p>
1) Do=
es
the use of GT have any effects on lexical diversity in texts written in
Spanish, compared to texts written with printed dictionaries? If so, what a=
re
these effects?
2) If
differences can be found in lexical diversity depending on which translation
tool has been used, does the repeated use of GT during one schoolyear have =
any
lasting effects on pupils’ development of lexical diversity, as compared to
pupils using printed dictionaries? If so, what are these effects?
The present study differs from earlier
studies such as Fredholm (2014), (2015a) and (2015b) by focussing exclusive=
ly
on variation in vocabulary and over a more sustained pe=
riod
of time (one schoolyear rather than three months). Whereas lexical
diversity is approached also in Fredholm (2015b), it is examined in greater
detail in the present study, offering insights into fluctuations in pupils’
vocabulary range over time. Fredholm (2015a) discusses pupils’ digital writ=
ing
strategies, a topic that will not be investigated here.
3.
Theoretical background<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;tex=
t-transform:
uppercase;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'>
Researchers such as Harklau (2002), Swain
(1996, 2005), and Swain & Lapkin (1995) talk about the importanc=
e of
productive output for language learning and the role of writing in a foreign
language in order to strengthen the learning of =
the
language . Writing enables learners to notice “gaps in their interlanguage” (=
Manchón, 2011:47; cf. Izumi,
2003). In line with these theories, foreign language writing could b=
e an
efficient way for learners to notice instances when their own vocabulary is
insufficient, and to give them opportunities to work with and expand their
vocabulary and make it richer or more varied. Vocabulary size is important =
for
performance in all language skills (Milton,
2013) and studies of (effects on) vocabulary development are therefore of interest to researchers and practicing
foreign language teachers alike.
Research on vocabulary
development and word retention in foreign language learning underpins the
necessity for repetition of new words in order for
them to be retained in long-term memory. S=
chuetze
(2015), Schmitt (2008), and =
Schuetze & Weimer-Stuckmann (2011) wr=
ite
that suggestions between three and twenty times have been mentioned in earl=
ier
studies, Schuetze (2015:38) stating that five t=
imes
“would be a good way to start” for English speakers learning German. A unif=
orm
spacing of word repetition is preferable to a more varied pattern, for
retention of vocabulary (Schuetze &
Weimer-Stuckmann, 2011). Words need to be encountered several times =
over
extended time periods. It is reasonable to think that regular use of GT or
similar translation tools could give language learners opportunities to
encounter new words more frequently than what may be the case with printed
dictionaries, as the use of GT often is perceived as easier and faster and =
can
give access to more frequent vocabulary encounters (cf. Fredholm, 2015a).
In Fredholm (2015b), however, lexical diversity (used as a measure=
of
lexical complexity) was identical or nearly identical in texts written with
FOMT and with printed dictionaries, and individual variations in lexical
diversity were correlated to pupils’ grades rather than to the use of
translation method. The study reported in Fredholm (2015b) ran over three
months. More frequent input over a longer period of tim=
e
might have stronger effects on vocabulary learning, and the study in Fredho=
lm
(2015b) is here repeated with a higher number of texts written during an en=
tire
schoolyear, enabling a more detailed picture of changes in written lexical
diversity over a longer period of time.
Lexical diversity is a common
measure of vocabulary size or richness. According to Milton (2009:127), more able language learners are likely to
produce texts with a higher degree of lexical diversity, or, to put it anot=
her
way, word variation. Malvern & Richards
(2002:87) define lexical diversity as “the variety of active vocabul=
ary
deployed by a speaker or writer”. Richness and complexity of vocabulary is a
good indicator of proficiency in a foreign language (Daller & Xue, 2007) and of great importance for the abilit=
y to
communicate in another language (Levitzky-=
Aviad
& Laufer, 2013). Indeed, according to Lindqvist (2016), vocabulary is more important for communication
than syntax or morphology. Developing a varied and functional vocabulary, t=
hus,
is essential for communication in any language, and poses a daunting task to
foreign language learners. In their study on French lexical proficiency
development over time, Bulté, Housen=
,
Pierrard & Daele (2008) clarify the need for a well-dev=
eloped
vocabulary for language proficiency and underline the dearth of longitudinal
research on learning processes and factors impacting on vocabulary learning=
.
There are few studies of lexi=
cal
diversity in the Swedish school context, as Berton
(2014) points out in his Master’s thesis.=
His
study on lexical richness in written production of Spanish as a foreign
language shows that language proficiency affects lexical diversity. Berton =
uses
Guiraud’s index, among other measures, a method used also in the present
article.
Lexical diversity should not =
be seen as an infallible and all-encompassing measure =
for
proficiency in a foreign language, as a good text draws rather on the good =
use
of vocabulary than on the variety of vocabulary (cf. Malvern et al., 2004, I=
ntroduction).
Different “lexical diversity variables” have, however, been found “to be va=
lid
as developmental indices” (Malvern et al., 2004:6. Cf. also Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki & Kim, 1998:104, tal=
king
about lexical variation and sophistication as "related to language
development"). A close observation on the development of lexical
diversity may thus be seen as an indicator of pu=
pils’
language learning, in the present case related to the use or non-use of GT.=
Up till present day, the number of studie=
s on
GT or other kinds of online translation services in foreign language writing
research is rather scarce (Thue Vold, 2018=
),
although the number of studies is increasing. Earlier research has mainly
studied machine translation use for translator training (Thue Vold,
2018; Gaspari, Almaghout,
& Doherty, 2015; Niño, 2009, 2008) and/or FOMT use among university students. As =
Thue
Vold (2018) and Somers
(2001) point out, FOMT was not originally created for language learn=
ers,
but as it is common knowledge that many language learners do use it, it is =
an
important object of investigation.
Thue Vold (2018)<=
span
lang=3DEN-GB style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif;mso=
-ansi-language:
EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN'> offers a valuable review on earlier rese=
arch
on “Machine Translation as a Language Learning Tool” (p. 70),
and concludes that “the literature on foreign language teaching and
learning provides little evidence that the use of FOMT can be beneficial for
language learners in a school context” (p. 72), an assertion also made in <=
span
style=3D'mso-no-proof:yes'>Kazemzadeh & Fard Kashani (2014). In
earlier research on FOMT in the foreign language learning context, several
researchers base their critique, it seems, rather on an intuition that FOMT
probably is not good for language learning, rather than empirical findings =
showing
that that is, or is not, the case (Clifford =
et
al., 2013; Somers, 2007; Somers et al., 2006; Steding<=
/span>,
2009; cf. Thue Vold=
, 2018). Stedin=
g (2009)
fears that FOMT does not develop learners’ own language proficiency,
and wants to prevent its use. Somer=
s et
al. (2006) write that learners may trust the FOMT output too much, e=
specially
at the beginner levels. The findings of O’Neill (2012), studying French learners at university level, point to better
intelligibility and more accurate grammar and spelling in texts where FOMT =
has
been used, but no effect on overall text quality, and he concludes that lit=
tle
points to more language learning (or indeed less) among FOMT using students.
Likewise, no overall effects of FOMT use pointing conclusively in one direc=
tion
are seen in Fredholm (2014, 2015a, 2015b)<=
/span>,
where pupils using FOMT when writing in Spanish produced fewer errors regar=
ding
spelling and article/noun/ adjective agreement, but more errors concerning
syntax, as compared to pupils using printed dictionaries or no translation =
help
at all, on the contrary to what the participating pupils themselves believe=
d.
On the other hand, researchers such as Jolley & Maimone (2015), O’Neill (20=
12),
and Williams (2006)
claim, rather, that FOMT may enhance language learning, provided it be
competently used and that language learners have sufficient knowledge about=
the
language that they are learning. Jiménez-Crespo (2=
018) argues that FOMT has become “another de
facto dictionary for language learners” (p. 4), widely used, and that teach=
ers
and learners need to understand better how it can and cannot be used. This =
view
is shared by Schnitzer & Gromann (2017=
)
who state that language learners nowadays need to be able to efficiently
and competently use the wide array of lexicographic resources available.
A few studies investigating effects of FO=
MT
use show that it may indeed not be all bad; Niño (2008) f=
inds
among advanced learners that FOMT can raise language awareness and help with
reducing errors. Looking at FOMT use among beginners, Garcia & Pena (2011) find that it helped learners, especial=
ly
with lower proficiency, to produce longer texts (one might discuss, though,
whether this is a good thing per se), texts that received better marks from
independent graders. However, judging from pauses and editing interventions,
the researchers conclude that the participants probably would learn more fr=
om
using their own knowledge of the target language, writing without FOMT.
Likewise, Kazemzadeh & Fard Kashani (2=
014),
who study Iranian learners of English as a foreign language, find longer and
syntactically more complex texts as an effect of FOMT use, especially among
beginners, with lower language proficiency.
Thue Vold (2018)
studies pupils’ metalinguistic talk about the quality of a text automatical=
ly
translated in French. She finds that FOMT can indeed be used as
a means to make pupils discuss metalinguistic issues in foreign lang=
uage
learning. The use of GT as a way to raise
metalinguistic awareness is also mentioned by Williams
(2006), who states that pupils need to learn how to use FOMT and oth=
er
tools critically, and by Niño (2008).
Another scholar stating that FOMT may enhance some language skills is Giannetti (2016), who has studied writing=
in
Spanish among seventh grade pupils using GT and finds that GT led to fewer
errors in syntax and semantics. According to Giannetti=
,
pupils need training in using GT successfully, and insufficient language
proficiency made using it more difficult. He argues that GT may “support
learning in the foreign language classroom” (p. 4) and that it can build
“foreign language literacy” (p. 5), if pupils are
instructed how to use it strategically. Finally, Knospe (2017), who studies writing in German as a foreign langu=
age
among Swedish upper secondary school pupils, concludes, among other finding=
s,
in line with Fredholm (2015b), that pupils need a high proficiency in the
studied language to be able to make competent use of online resources such =
as
GT, and that it is important that they learn how digital writing tools can
support their writing and learning.
Two
teachers (here renamed as “Carla” and “Belinda”) participated with one class
each in the study. To simplify the presentation of the data and of the resu=
lts,
the two Spanish classes will be treated as one group in the present article=
.
The
pupils (in total N=3D31, 26 girls, 5 boys) were randomly divided into two
subgroups, here called the “googlers” (N=3D16, 13 girls, 3 boys) and the
“non-googlers” (N=3D15, 13 girls, 2 boys). A higher number of participants =
would
have been desirable, but practical circumstances such as heavy teacher
workloads and unwillingness among pupils to take part in such a demanding, =
long-term
project reduced the number of available participants. During the schoolyear=
, 18
out of the initially 49 participating pupils chose not to fulfil the study.=
The uneven distribution of boys and girls may be considered unfortunate, but reflects the gender distribution at t=
he
study programmes were the data collection was performed (the Social science
programme and the Humanities programme (Sk=
olverket,
2012)). The random subdivision was controlled for grade
levels in Spanish (from the previous schoolyear), study programme, and gend=
er,
with some minor alterations done to ensure a more even distribution of, in particular, Spanish grade levels from the previou=
s year
among both googlers and non-googlers.
The collected data consist of=
a
pre-test consisting of an essay and a grammar test, four intervention essays, a
post-test with yet another essay and the same grammar test as in the pre-test<=
/span>, and screen-recordings of the
googlers’ computer screens. In the present article, the screen-recordings w=
ill
be used as background information on the amount of text being googled in ea=
ch
intervention essay.
The
pre- and post-tests were written by hand, in order to
prevent the use of technology playing any part in these results. No diction=
aries
were allowed and the pupils’ mobile phones were
collected prior to the pre- and post-tests, as well as before each interven=
tion
essay. Each writing session lasted for 50 minutes (a ti=
me-frame
chosen to give the pupils enough time to write without feeling stressed by =
too
narrow time constraints but also fitting within the pupils’ Spanish lessons=
).
The
topics for the four intervention essays (see section 4.3) were elaborated
together with Carla and Belinda, the two teachers, in o=
rder
to fit within the planned syllabus and to relate to text genres
mentioned in the national curriculum for foreign languages, level 4 =
(Skolverket,
2018b). Level 4 in the Swedish national curriculum for foreign languages
roughly corresponds to CEFR levels A2.2 to B1.1 (Skolverket,
2017) and was chosen as it is the highest level most upper secondary
school pupils reach, and also because the curric=
ulum
for this level is particularly rich in text genres, making it suitable for a
study on pupils’ writing. The all-in-all six writing sessions were evenly
distributed during the schoolyear (three each semester, from the pre-test in
early September 2016 to the post-test in late May 2017). Carla and Belinda =
had
access to all essays produced during the data collectio=
n, and
used the texts to give formative feedback to the pupils. The
googlers were permitted Internet access, and wer=
e allowed
to use GT when needed during the intervention essay writing sessions. The
non-googlers were prevented from accessing the Internet, still writing on t=
heir
laptops but in an online application called Digiexam1,
that blocks Internet access and prevents pupils from fetching previously sa=
ved
files from the computer. The students were already accustomed to the application, as it is us=
ed
at their school during written exams in several subjects. The non-googlers =
were
allowed to consult a printed, high quality Swedish-Span=
ish/Spanish-Swedish
dictionary (Benson, Strandvik, & Santos
Melero, 2000), that they had been able to use before during their fi=
rst
year of Spanish studies at the same school. The
pupils were not encouraged to use GT during their regular Spanish lessons w=
ith
Carla and Belinda (lessons that mainly focussed on reading, listening and o=
ral
communication). Naturally, every action during the regular Spanish classes
cannot be accounted for, and the pupils’ use of GT outside the school conte=
xt
cannot be controlled, but the pupils had no Spanish writing tasks assigned =
as
homework, which makes their frequent use of the technology in extramural
contexts implausible. The
googlers’ computer screens were recorded using the online screencast servic=
e of
apowersoft.com2. Two
recordings are missing due to technical issues. The screen-recordings are used
for detailed analyses of the pupils’ interaction with the GT interface
(forthcoming), and to register each translation instance made by the pupils,
all-in-all 4112 searches ranging from single words over phrases and sentence
fragments to complete, complex sentences. The
collected data relevant for the present paper are summarised in table I. =
Googlers Non-googlers Total =
Pre-tests 16 15 31 =
Intervention
essays 59 57 116 =
Post-tests 16 15 31 =
Screen
recordings 57 - 57 =
Translation
instances 4112 - 4112 The topics for the pre- and post-test ess=
ays
and the intervention essays are presented here in abridged form. The
instructions were given in Spanish, and each topic was accompanied by a few=
simple
drawings to further inspire the writers. The order in which the intervention
essays were written differed between Carla’s and Belinda’s pupils the second
and third writing sessions, as the groups worked with a holiday theme and a
fairy-tale theme in different periods during the schoolyear.
Table
I. Summary of collected data.
4.3
Essay topics
Pre-test
Imagine that you
are 85 years old. <=
span
class=3DSpellE>Think back at your life and write down your memories.
You can talk about things like
work, good times, <=
span
class=3DSpellE>bad
times, family, travel=
ling, your dreams or
things that you regret.
Re=
ply
to a letter from Pablo, 19, who wants to know what he can do to make his
friends take interest in things that he likes, rather than drinking alcohol=
and
hanging about the town.
Wr=
ite
an argumentative text for or against travelling. Why should we travel, or w=
hy
should we not travel? You can also write about your favourite destination, and explain why you recommend it to other=
s.
Wr=
ite
about the traditions and holidays in your country of origin. You can write,=
for
instance, how different holidays are celebrated, explain the origins of some
traditions, tell about traditions that no longer=
are
observed or talk about traditions that you do not like and would like to
change.
Im=
agine
that you are Little Red Riding Hood. You are now 75 years old. When your
grandchild comes to see you, you retell him the story about your adventure =
many
years ago in the forest, when you met the wolf.
How
was your life when you were a little kid? What were your dreams for the fut=
ure?
What did you usually do? Write about, for instance, your family, your frien=
ds,
good times, bad times, interests and dreams.
Le=
xical
diversity can be measured in a variety of ways, ranging from the
straight-forward Type-Token Ratio (TTR) used since 1944 (Johnson, 1944; Daller & Xue, 2007) to more sophisticated
measures such as D (Daller & Xue, 2007). The type/token ratio is reliable when dealing with texts of equal or
|
=
|
Googlers |
Non-googlers |
||
|
types |
tokens |
types |
tokens |
|
|
Pre-test |
=
60.75 |
=
200.09 |
=
57.53 |
=
142.00 |
|
Intervention essays |
=
86.17 |
=
191.59 |
=
75.27 |
=
139.35 |
|
Post-test |
=
97.19 |
=
216.00 |
=
96.53 |
=
220.53 |
Table II. Average numbers of types/tokens.
In=
the
present study, a word is define=
d as a
graphic unit of one or more meaning-making letters surrounded by spaces or
punctuation marks. Non-Spanish words, proper names and numbers not written =
with
letters were excluded from the analysis. Inflectional forms of e.g. the same verb or singular and plural forms of the=
same
noun were considered as one lemma or type =
(cf.
Tidball et al., 2007). Bulté et al. (200=
8)
state that only semantic content words should be used when measuring lexical
proficiency, as grammatical function words indicate learners’ grammatical
competence rather than their lexical proficiency. However, as they also poi=
nt
out, most studies mix these word types. The choice was made also in the pre=
sent
study to measure both content words and function words, a choice based on t=
he
fact that the participating pupils show a low degree of awareness of
grammatical functions of some words; it is plausible that the participating
pupils treat all words merely as words, and excl=
uding
one kind of words would give an unjust view of their productive written
vocabulary.
The development of productive
lexical diversity was measured comparing the Guiraud value in the essay par=
t of
the pre-test to the Guiraud value in the post-test essay. Statistical
significance between the googlers and the non-googlers (with p<0.05) was controlled using a =
t-test in SPSS version 25.
An
overview of the mean level of lexical diversity in the texts from each writ=
ing
session is presented in section 5.1. These results are further commented in
relation to the research questions in section 5.2.
The mean Guiraud values from each writing
session are presented in Table III. Compared to the Guiraud values found in
Fredholm (2015b), reaching mean values of 4.08 among pupils using different
kinds of FOMT and 3.87 among pupils using printed dictionaries, the values =
in
the present study are higher, which might be explicable by the fact that
writing time was shorter (30 minutes) in Fredholm (2015b) than in the prese=
nt
study (50 minutes).
|
=
|
all |
googlers |
non-googlers |
|||
|
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|
|
=
Guiraud
pre-test |
5.39 |
0.15 |
5.46 |
0.24 |
5.31 |
0.20 |
|
=
Guiraud
essay 1 |
5.51 |
0.13 |
5.85 |
0.13 |
5.17 |
0.20 |
|
=
Guiraud
essay 2 |
6.19 |
0.14 |
6.48 |
0.19 |
5.88 |
0.17 |
|
=
Guiraud
essay 3 |
|
0.16 |
6.25 |
0.25 |
5.36 |
0.15 |
|
=
Guiraud
essay 4 |
|
0.17 |
6.40 |
0.20 |
5.51 |
0.22 |
|
=
Guiraud
post-test |
6.36 |
0.27 |
6.61 |
0.25 |
6.47 |
0.26 |
|
=
Guiraud
change from =
pre-test
to post-test |
1.16 |
0.15 |
1.15 |
0.19 |
1.16 |
0.24 |
Table III. Guiraud
values in pre-tests, intermediate essays and
post-tests, and change from pre-test to post-test.
Gi=
ven
the small number of participants, normality testing was done using
Shapiro-Wilks for all of the variables in Table =
III.
Normal distribution was found in all cases but one: essay 4 in the googlers’
group (p 0.014). An ocular
examination of the histogram does however indicate normal distribution or
approximate normal distribution. The result is caused by one outlier with a
high Guiraud value and two extremes with low Guiraud values; none of these
values, however, are exceedingly low or high, compared to Guiraud values in
intervention essays 1-3. The result from essay 4 is therefore estimated to =
be
reliable. Equal variance was found, using Levene’s
test, in all groups at all occasions.
The
mean Guiraud value from each essay writing session is reported in Figure 1,
where the blue line represents the googlers’ texts and the orange line the
non-googlers’. The values are the same mean values as shown in Table III in
section 5.1. The graphs indicate that both groups are making progress in
written lexical diversity from the pre-test in September to the post-test in
May. Googlers and non-googlers alike show a decrease in lexical diversity in
the third intervention essay, at the beginning of the spring term. The reas=
on
for this can only be speculated. It is not caused by the essay topic, as
Carla’s and Belinda’s pupils did not write essay topics 2 and 3 in the same
order. The temporary decrease in lexical diversity might simply depend on t=
he
fact that the pupils had recently been on Christmas holiday for two weeks a=
nd
had had little contact with the Spanish language during this break, or on o=
ther
factors beyond the control of this study.
Figure 1. Development of lexical diversity from pre-test to
post-test, including the intervention essays.
An
independent t-test was conducted to investigate differences between googler=
s’
and non-googlers’ mean Guiraud values at each writing occasion, including p=
re-
and post-tests. The results are summarised in Table IV. Levene’s
test showed that equal variances could be assumed in all cases but one
(intervention essay 3, p 0.020).
Significant differences were found for every intervention essay, (i.e. for the essays written with GT or dictionaries), =
but
not for the pre-test nor for the post-test. As expected, considering the al=
most
non-existent difference between the groups when comparing the development f=
rom
the pre-test to the post-test, this difference was also found to be non-sig=
nificant
(p
0.969). The initial hypothesis that the use of GT leads to greater lexical
diversity is thus corroborated in as far as the intervention essays; the
results do however suggest that this effects is =
not
lasting, but that it disappears when GT is no longer used. This indicates t=
hat
the use of GT, at least to the extent it was utilised in this study, with h=
igh
probability does not facilitate the development of a greater productive voc=
abulary,
compared to the use of printed dictionaries (nor, indeed, the other way
around).
|
|
t |
df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
Guiraud value pre-test * |
0.475 |
29 |
0.638 |
|
Guiraud value essay 1 * |
2.868 |
28 |
0.008 |
|
Guiraud value essay 2 * |
2.336 |
27 |
0.027 |
|
Guiraud value essay 3 † |
2.336 |
21.526 |
0.006 |
|
Guiraud value essay 4 * |
3.079 |
27 |
0.006 |
|
Guiraud value post-test * |
2.969 |
29 |
0.701 |
|
Guiraud value change from pre-test to post-test * |
0.388 |
29 |
0.969 |
* Equal variances=
assumed
† Equal variances=
not
assumed (Levene p
0.020)
Table IV. Differences in mean Guiraud values between googlers and
non-googlers.
A
crosstab analysis of grade levels and the amount of GT use (Table V) shows =
that
pupils with lower grades generally googled a larger amount of their texts, =
and that
pupils with higher grades googled fewer words (with one exception, a pupil =
with
the grade B who on average googled 64.44% of the words). Again, F, E, and D
were counted as low grades, C, B, and A as high. A mean use of GT under the
median amount of 37.40% (thus <M) , was consi=
dered
as restricted use of GT, whereas a use equal to or above 37.40 % (
|
=
|
Restricted use of GT (<M) |
Extensive use of GT (≥M) |
Total |
|
=
Low
grades (F, E, D) |
0 |
9 |
9 |
|
=
High
grades (C, B, A) |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|
=
Total |
6 |
10 |
16 |
Table V. Crosstab analysis of correlations between GT use and grade
level.
Wh=
en
looking at correlations between the amount of googled text in the intervent=
ion
essays and the Guiraud values in the googlers’ essays, no significant
correlation can be found (Pearson correlation 0.068). Analyses of correlati=
ons
between the amount of googled text in the intervention essays and the
development of lexical diversity measured as the difference from pre-test to
post-test also show non-significant correlation (Pearson -0.056). That is to say, there seems to be no correlation betwe=
en the
amount of GT use and the development of productive lexical diversity. In the
present set of data, thus, nothing seems to indicate that more googling wou=
ld
lead to the retention of more words in the long run, albeit claims of causal
links cannot be made.
The
results reported in this section reflect the statement in Giannetti (2016:18), saying that FOMT “ca=
nnot
replace proficiency in a language”. Using GT may help foreign language pupi=
ls
to produce texts, but it seems unlikely that it can teach them how to produ=
ce
texts without it, to follow the line of argument in Garcia & Pena (2011; cf. Giannetti, 2016), who compare GT t=
o a
GPS system that enables you to get where you want but does not make you ski=
lled
in orientating yourself without help.
The present study contributes to research=
on
FOMT use among pre-university level language learners by giving a more deta=
iled
insight into the effects, or absence of effects, on vocabulary development =
of
GT use during essay writing in Spanish as a foreign language. In particular, it gives a detailed picture of how lexi=
cal
diversity may evolve and vary during a schoolyear. As the results indicate =
that
the use of GT does not lead to neither greater nor smaller lasting effects =
on
vocabulary variation, as compared to a more traditional approach, the study=
may
provide foreign language teachers with a more nuanced perception of the role
and the affordances of different translation tools.
There are two main conclusions to be drawn
from the results in the present study: firstly, that the use of GT does see=
m to
help language learners to write texts with a more varied vocabulary, as long as GT is being used; secondly, that the use of=
GT
does not appear to help the same language learners to gain a more varied ac=
tive
vocabulary over time, when left on their own, as compared to language learn=
ers
using printed dictionaries. Neither, indeed, does the use of printed
dictionaries, in the present study, point to a major increase in productive
vocabulary compared to the use of GT. This strengthens the results from
Fredholm (2015b), adding a more complex picture of vocabulary development o=
ver
time.
The
same kinds of errors and mistakes were often made by the non-googlers in the
present study, albeit they looked up fewer words than their googling peers.
Considering observations made in Fredholm
(2015a; 2015b), pupils may struggle with understanding results of
dictionary searches as well as of GT searches. A higher level of language a=
wareness
– both in the mother tongue and in the target language – does seem necessar=
y in order for foreign language learners to be able to u=
se the
translation tools at their disposal. Otherwise expressed, in
order to become a good foreign language writer, one needs to reach a
high level of knowledge in the studied language, rather than to take shortc=
uts
relying on any kind of translation technology, be it digital or analogue.
As both googlers and non-googlers in the
present study gained more or less the same development in written lexical
variation at the end of the schoolyear, it may thus be reasonable to conclu=
de
that the use of GT or a printed dictionary as translation tool may be of le=
ss
importance than raising the pupils’ awareness of language structure, enhanc=
ing
their vocabulary as well in the studied language as in their mother tongue,=
and
developing their general linguistic knowledge through explicit instruction.=
Considering the findings of Levitzky-Aviad & Laufer (2013:144), w=
ho
show a slow development of active vocabulary in English among Israeli learn=
ers,
a need for more explicit vocabulary instruction and practice, also of
“non-basic vocabulary”, in earlier schoolyears, may be necessary.
The notable increase in lexical diversity
from the last intervention essay to the post-test, among both googlers and
non-googlers, may be puzzling and has no evident explanation. It was the la=
st
writing session for the entire schoolyear (not only for the study but for
regular lessons as well), and it is plausible that the pupils made an effort to show their best work, as the texts w=
ere
available also to the grading teachers. Another reason could be that the
translation tools (GT and printed dictionaries) used during the intervention
essay writing sessions may have been a disturbance to the pupils, leading t=
o a
greater focus on translation than on the production of cohesive texts. The
absence of the translation tools may, then, have led to a greater focus on =
the
texts themselves. A follow-up study comparing intermediate level learners
writing with GT, dictionaries and without any translation tools would be of
great interest.
The
results of this study are, in a way, double. On the one hand, it is clear that the use of GT does affect lexical
diversity, giving the googled texts a wider range of vocabulary. On the oth=
er
hand, the results also indicate that the effect is immediate but not lasting
when GT is no longer used. Considering this, it is reasonable to presume th=
at GT
in itself may not have a lasting effect on forei=
gn
language vocabulary development. It is also reasonable to conclude that GT =
is
not able to boost less proficient learners’ vocabulary; it does help them to
write texts, but it does not seem to develop their independency and to beco=
me
capable of writing lexically more varied texts on their own. Considering what Izumi (2003) writes about output and its
ability to make language learners more aware of what they can and cannot
express, it seems reasonable to say that this was not the case in the prese=
nt
study, as pupils often did not trust their own knowledge, or their linguist=
ic
gut-feeling, if the expression may be allowed.
Fo=
reign
language teachers reading this text may wonder what the above-mentioned res=
ults
might imply for their own teaching. If vocabulary development seems to be t=
he
same regardless of pupils’ using GT or printed dictionaries, shall pupils be
left to choose for themselves? As highlighted in Fredholm (2015a), pupils often struggle with GT and printed
dictionaries alike, and need training in both ways of working with translat=
ing (cf. Schnitzer & Gromann, 2017, who talk abo=
ut the
need for competence using all available translation resources).
Prohibiting pupils from using GT is probably fruitless, and more is gained =
by
showing pupils different ways of using it and discussing together why diffe=
rent
translations are more or less trustworthy or mor=
e or
less faulty. This may be one way to enhance pupils’ metalinguistic reflecti=
on,
to some extent in line with Thue Vold (201=
8).
This way of dealing with GT in the foreign language classroom setting does =
not
take for granted that its use will enhance pupils’ language learning, but v=
iews
GT, rather, as one of several tools that are available to learners, and that
they will benefit from knowing in a less superficial way. GT can be a useful tool to ma=
ke
language learners write, especially less proficient learners who otherwise
would not write as much or, perhaps, not at all; it is important, though, t=
hat
language teachers stress that it is improbable that GT =
in
itself will improve pupils’ vocabulary learning.
notes<= o:p>
1 https://=
digiexam.zendesk.com/hc/sv
2 https://=
www.apowersoft.com/free-online-screen-recorder
ReferencEs
Benson, K., Strandvik, I., & Santos Mele=
ro, M.
E. (eds.). (2000). Norstedts spanska ordbok. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Berton, M. (2014). La riqueza
léxica en la producción escrita de estudiantes
Buckingham, D. (2011). Beyond Technolo=
gy:
Children’s Learning in the Age of Digital Culture. Cambridge: Polity Pr=
ess.
Bulté, B., Housen, A.=
, Pierrard,
M., & Daele, S. V. (2008). Investigating lexical profic=
iency
development over time – the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in
Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 277–298.=
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003451=
Clifford, J., Mersch=
el,
L., & Munné, J. (2013). Surveying the Lands=
cape:
What is the Role of Machine Translation in Language Learning?
https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/attic/article/vi=
ew/2228
Cobo Romaní, C., &am=
p; Moravec, J. W. (2011). Aprend=
izaje
Invisible. Hacia una nueva ecología de la educación. Barcelona: =
Col·lecció Transmedia XXI=
. Laboratori de Mitjans
Daller, M. H., & Xue,
H. (2007). Lexical richness and the oral proficiency of Chinese EFL student=
s.
In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Treffers-Daller
(eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (150-164).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fleischer, H. (2012). What is our current
understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A systematic narrative resea=
rch review. Educational Research Review, 7(2=
),
107-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.=
004
Fleischer, H. (2013). En elev – en dator: kunskapsbildningens kval=
itet
och villkor i den datoriserade skolan. Jönköping University, Jönköping.
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?=
pid=3Ddiva2:663330
Fredholm, K. (2014). Effects of online
translation on morphosyntactic and lexical-pragmatic accuracy in essay writ=
ing
in Spanish as a foreign language (96-101). CALL
Design: Principles and Practice; Proceedings of the 2014 EUROCALL Conferenc=
e,
Groningen, The Netherlands. Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
https://doi.org/doi:10.14705/rpnet.2014.0=
00201
Fredholm, K. (2015a). El uso de traducción automática y <=
span
class=3DSpellE>otras estrategias de escritura digital en español como lengua extranjera. <=
/span>Estu=
dios de Lin=
güística
Aplicada, 33(62), 9-31.
Fredholm, K. (2015b). Online Translation =
Use in
Spanish as a Foreign Language Essay Writing: Effects on Fluency, Complexity=
and
Accuracy: El uso de traduc=
ción
automática en la
https://www.nebrija.com/revista-linguistica/=
files/articulosPDF/articulo_54ff41bcb4d19.pdf
Garcia, I., & Pena, M. I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted
language learning: writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 24(5), 471-487.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108=
0/09588221.2011.582687
Gaspari, F., A=
lmaghout,
H., & Doherty, S. (2015). A survey of machine translation competences:
Insights for translation technology educators and practitioners. Perspec=
tives,
23(3), 333-358.
Ghysels, J., & H=
aelermans,
C. (2018). New evidence on the effect of computerized individualized practi=
ce
and instruction on language skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learnin=
g,
34(4), 440-449.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12248
Giannetti, T. R. (2016). Google Tr=
anslate
as a Resource for Writing: A Study of Error Production in Seventh Grade Spa=
nish
(master of science). School of Arts and Sciences=
, St.
John Fisher College, Pittsford, N.Y.
http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent=
.cgi?article=3D1358&context=3Deducation_ETD_master
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Ney York, N.Y.: Psychology Press.
Grönlund, Å. (2014). Att förändra skolan =
med
teknik: Bortom ”en dator per elev”. Örebro: Örebro university.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:=
706366/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Grönlund, Å., Andersson, A., & Wiklund, =
M.
(2014). Unos uno årsrapport 2013. Örebro univ=
ersity.
Guiraud, P. (1954). Les charactères
statistiques du vocabulaire. Essai de méthodologie. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Haelermans, C. (2017). Digital Tools in Education. On Usage,
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of wri=
ting in
classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writin=
g,
(11), 329-350.
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and Produ=
ction
Processes in Second Language Learning: In Search of the Psycholinguistic
Rationale of the Output Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24(2=
),
168-196.
Jiménez-Crespo, M. A. (2018). The role of
translation technologies in Spanish language learning. Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching, 0(0), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.140=
8949
Johnson, W. (1944). Studies in language
behavior: I. A program for research. Psychological Monographs, 56=
,
1-15.
Jolley, J. R., & Maimone,
L. (2015). Free online machine translation: use and perceptions by Spanish
students and instructors. Learn Language, Explore Cultures, TransformLives, 2017.
Kazemzadeh, A. A., & Fard
Kashani, A. (2014). The effect of computer-assi=
sted
translation on L2 learners’ mastery of writing. International Journal of
Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(3), 29-44.
Knospe, Y. (2017). Writing in a=
Third
Language. A Study of Upper Secondary Students’ Texts, Writing Processes and
Metacognition. Universiteit Antwerpen, Umeå University, Umeå.
Levitzky-Aviad=
, T., & Laufer, B. (2013=
).
Lexical properties in the writing of foreign language learners over eight y=
ears
of study: single words and collocations. In C. Bardel<=
/span>,
C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use. New perspectives on assessment and =
corpus
analysis (127-148).
Lindqvist, C. (2016). Tredjespråkets
ordförråd. In C. Bardel, Y. Falk, & C. Lindqvist (eds.), Tredjespråksinlärn=
ing.
Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflecti=
ons on
the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford Review of Education, 38<=
/i>(1),
9-24.
Malvern, D. D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical Diver=
sity
and Language Development: Quantification and Assessment. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002).
Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new
measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85-104=
.
https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa=
Manchón, R. M. (2011). The Language
Learning Potential of Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Lessons from
Research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt
(eds.), Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles & Practices=
(44-64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Milton, J. (2009). Measuring Second La= nguage Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.<= o:p>
Milton, J. (2013). Measuring the contribu=
tion
of vocabulary knowledge to proficiency in the fours
skills. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. La=
ufer
(eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge =
and
use: Nes perspectives on assessment and corpus
analysis (57-78). European Second Language Association.
Niño, A. (2008). Evaluating the use of ma=
chine
translation post-editing in the foreign language class. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 21(1), 29-49.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108=
0/09588220701865482
Niño, A. (2009). Machine translation in f=
oreign
language learning: language learners’ and tutors’ perceptions of its advant=
ages
and disadvantages. ReCALL, 21(2),
241-258.
http://journals.cambridge.org/production/=
action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=3D5579748
O’Neill, E. M. (2012). The Effect of O=
nline
Translators on L2 Writing in French. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Riksdagsförvaltningen. (2016). Digitalise=
ringen
i skolan - dess påverkan på kvalitet, likvärdighet och resultat i utbildnin=
gen
Rapport från riksdagen 2015/16:RFR18 - Riksdagen (No. 2015/16:RFR18). <=
/span>Stockholm: Riksdagsförvaltningen.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-laga=
r/dokument/rapport-fran-riksdagen/digitaliseringen-i-skolan---dess-paverkan=
-pa_H30WRFR18
Schmitt, N. (2008). Instructed second lan=
guage
vocabulary learning. Language teaching research, 12(3), 329-363.
Schnitzer, J., & Gr=
omann,
D. (2017). Estrategias de =
combinación
de recursos lexicográficos=
en la adquisición de lengu=
as
extranjeras (en contextos<=
/span> específicos). Revista=
Nebrij=
a
de Lingüística Aplicada a
la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 11(23), 124-145.
https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael112334
Schuetze, U. (2015). Spacing techniq=
ues in
second language vocabulary acquisition: Short-term gains vs. long-term memo=
ry. Language
Teaching Research, 19(1), 28-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541726<= o:p>
Schuetze, U., & Weimer-Stuckmann, G. (2011). Retention in SLA lexical proces=
sing. CALICO
Journal, 28(2), 460-472.
Skolverket. (2012). Upper Secondary Sc=
hool
2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.
https://www.skolverket.se/sitevision/prox=
y/publikationer/svid12_5dfee44715d35a5cdfa2899/55935574/wtpub/ws/skolbok/wp=
ubext/trycksak/Blob/pdf2801.pdf?k=3D2801
Skolverket. (2017). Kommentarmaterial till
kursplanen i moderna språk. Reviderad 2017. Stockholm: Skolverket.
https://www.skolverket.se/sitevision/proxy/o=
m-oss/publikationer-och-nyhetsbrev/sok-publikationer/svid12_5dfee44715d35a5=
cdfa2899/55935574/wtpub/ws/skolbok/wpubext/trycksak/Blob/pdf3866.pdf?k=3D38=
66
Skolverket. (2018a). Förändringar och digital
kompetens i styrdokument. Stockholm: Skolverket.
https://www.skolverket.se/temasidor/digit=
alisering/digital-kompetens
Skolverket. (2018b). Ämne – Moderna språk (Gymnasieskola=
n). Stockholm: Skolverket.
https://www.skolverket.se/undervisning/gy=
mnasieskolan/laroplan-program-och-amnen-i-gymnasieskolan/gymnasieprogrammen=
/amne?url=3D1530314731%2Fsyllabuscw%2Fjsp%2Fsubject.htm%3FsubjectCode%3DMOD=
%26lang%3Dsv%26tos%3Dgy&sv.url=3D12.5dfee44715d35a5cdfa92a3
Somers, H. (2001). Three perspectives on =
MT in
the classroom. I MT Summit VIII Workshop on Teaching Machine Translation=
(25-29). Santiago de Compostela: Citeseer.
Somers, H. (2007). Machine Translation an=
d the
World Wibe Web. In K. Ahmad, C. Brewster, &=
M.
Stevenson (eds.), Words and Intelligence II (209-233). Springer.
Somers, H., Gaspari<=
/span>,
F., & Niño, A. (2006). Detecting inappropriate use of free online machi=
ne
translation by language students–A special case of plagiarism detection. I =
Proceedings
of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the European Association for Machine
Translation (41-48).
Steding, S. (2009). Machine transla=
tion in
the German classroom: Detection, reaction, prevention. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 42(2),
178-189.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111=
1/j.1756-1221.2009.00052.x/full
Svensson, P. (2008). Språkutbildning i en
digital värld Informationsteknik, kommunikation och lärande.
Swain, M. (1996). Three functions of outp=
ut in
second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhof=
er
(eds.), Principle & Practice in Applied Linguistics (125-144).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: =
Theory
and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of
research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 1-1, 471-483).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lap=
kin,
S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A =
step
towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3),
371-391.
Swedish Government. (2017). Stärkt digital
kompetens i skolans styrdokument. Regeringskansliet.
https://www.regeringen.se/493c41/contentasse=
ts/acd9a3987a8e4619bd6ed95c26ada236/informationsmaterial-starkt-digital-kom=
petens-i-skolans-styrdokument.pdf
Thue Vold, E. (20=
18).
Using Machine-Translated Texts to generate L3 Learners’ Metalinguistic Talk=
. In
Å. Haukås, C. Bjørke, &
M. Dypedahl (eds.), Metacognition in Language
Learning and Teaching (67-97). New York: Routledge. Tidball, F., Treffer=
s-Daller,
J., & Tidball, F. (2007). Exploring measures of vocabulary richness in
semi-spontaneous French speech. A quest for the Holy Grail? In J. Treffers-Daller, H. Daller, &
J. Milton (eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge
(133-149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalo=
gue.asp?isbn=3D9780521878517 van Hout, R.,=
&
Vermeer, A. (2007). Comparing measures of lexical richness. In H. Daller, J. Milton, & J. Tref=
fers-Daller
(eds.), Modelling and Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge (93-115).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. von Schantz Lundgren, I., & Lundgren,=
M.
(2011). Unga elever m=
ed egen
dator – Några lärares tankar om hur deras undervisning påverkas.
Williams, L. (2006). Web-Based Machine
Translation as a Tool for Promoting Electronic Literacy and Language Awaren=
ess.
Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 565-578.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.111=
1/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02276.x/abstract
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Ki=
m,
H.-Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluenc=
y,
Accuracy, & Complexity. Honolulu, Hawai’i: Second Language Teaching
& Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at M=
57;noa.