The Impact of Online Lower-Level Courses on World Language Learners’ Self-Perceptions, Mindset and Willingness to Communicate

  • Rebecca L. ChismEmail author
  • Carine Graff
Part of the New Language Learning and Teaching Environments book series (NLLTE)


The increase in online course offerings in various educational settings provides many advantages, providing more flexible and convenient access to information and communication. Since sociocultural theory posits that each social experience, including those online, is constructed by its participants, it is important to consider the psychological and social impact of such courses, particularly on lower-level world language learners. This study, using an anonymous survey, explored how students described their online class experiences, as well as the pros and cons of online learning. It also considered the influences of online lower-level world language classes on their growth mindset as language learners and their overall willingness to communicate (WTC). Results suggest that any online interaction must be productive and user-friendly, with a definitive teacher and peer presence to be considered successful.


  1. American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. (2012). The ACTFL performance descriptors for language learners 2012. Retrieved June 4, 2018, from
  2. Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, B. (2010). Virtual teaching and strategies: Transitioning from teaching traditional classes to online classes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 3(12), 1720. Scholar
  4. Bartley, S., & Golek, J. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(4), 167–175.Google Scholar
  5. Borstorff, P. C., & Lowe, S. L. (2007). Student perceptions and opinions toward e-learning in the college environment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 11(2), 13–30.Google Scholar
  6. Bosmans, D., & Hurd, S. (2016). Phonological attainment and foreign language anxiety in distance language learning: A quantitative approach. Distance Education, 37(3), 287–301. Scholar
  7. Caruth, G., & Caruth, D. (2013). Distance education in the United States: From correspondence courses to the Internet. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 141–149.Google Scholar
  8. Chism, R. (2003). Collective scaffolding in a computer mediated environment. Florida Foreign Language Journal, 1(1), 19–26.Google Scholar
  9. Chism, R. (2004). Electronic message boards: Conversations and communication beyond the classroom. In L. Lomicka & J. Cooke-Plagwitz (Eds.), Best practices for using technology to teach and learn in the foreign language classroom (pp. 149–154). Boston: Thomson Heinle.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun, D., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement), 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clothey, R. (2016). Increasing diversity in international education: Programming for non-traditional students through an alternative curriculum model. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(1), 22–35.Google Scholar
  13. Cook, R., Ley, K., Crawford, C., & Warner, A. (2009). Motivators and inhibitors for university faculty in distance and e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 149–163. Scholar
  14. DePew, K. E., & Lettner-Rust, H. (2009). Mediating power: Distance learning interfaces, classroom epistemology, and the gaze. Computers and Composition, 26(3), 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drago, E. (2015). The effect of technology on face-to-face communication. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 6(1), 13–19.Google Scholar
  16. Duff, P. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues. Language Teaching, 40(4), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dweck, C. (2006–2016). Mindset. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from
  18. Dweck, C. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
  19. Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fullerton, S., Taylor, D. B., & Watson, J. (2009). Web-based instruction and online delivery of classes: Where are we now? American Journal of Business Education, 2(1), 91–100.Google Scholar
  21. Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. Y. (2007). Relationship between English learning motivation types and self-identity changes among Chinese students. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 133–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Golonka, E., Bowles, A., Frank, V., Richardson, D., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harrison, R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society, 7(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
  24. Hernandez, T. (2006). Integrative motivation as a predictor of success in the intermediate foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. (2016). Changing language mindsets: Implications for goal orientations and responses to failure in and outside the second language classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacIntyre, P., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin, S., & Alvarez Valdivia, I. M. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(18), 1–15.Google Scholar
  28. Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning style and effectiveness of online and face-to-face instruction. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309–319.Google Scholar
  30. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Price, J., & Gascoigne, C. (2006). Current perceptions and beliefs among incoming college students towards foreign language study and language requirements. Foreign Language Annals, 39(3), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rockinson-Szapkiw, A., & Wendt, J. (2015). Technologies that assist in online group work: A comparison of synchronous and asynchronous computer mediated communication technologies on students’ learning and community. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 24(3), 263–279.Google Scholar
  34. Semones, L., & Chism, R. (2001). Learning behind the screen: Computers, conversations, communities. In M. Cherry (Ed.), Dimension 2001 (pp. 31–44). Furman: Southern Conference on Language Teaching.Google Scholar
  35. Shrum, J., & Glisan, E. (2016). The teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language instruction (5th ed.). Boston: Cengage.Google Scholar
  36. Simpson, C. (2010). Examining the relationship between institutional mission and faculty reward for teaching via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1). Retrieved June 27, 2018, from
  37. Skopek, T., & Schuhmann, R. (2008). Traditional and non-traditional students in the same classroom? Additional challenges of the distance education environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(1). Retrieved June 27, 2018, from
  38. Sun, S. (2014). Learner perspectives on fully online language learning. Distance Education, 35(1), 18–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tichavsky, L., Hunt, A., Driscoll, A., & Jicha, K. (2015). “It’s just nice having a real teacher”: Student perceptions of online versus face-to-face instruction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tomei, L. (2006). The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 531–541.Google Scholar
  41. Tu, C., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150. Scholar
  42. Tutty, J., & Klein, J. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Doorn, J., & van Doorn, J. (2014). The quest for knowledge transfer efficacy: Blended teaching, online and in class, with consideration of learning typologies for non-traditional and traditional students. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(324), 1–14.
  44. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Warschauer, M. (1996). Electronic literacies. language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  46. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S. (2014). Performance gaps between online and face-to-face courses: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 633–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu, M. (2011). Effect of communication variables, affective variables, and teacher immediacy on willingness to communicate of foreign language learners. Chinese Journal of Communication, 4(2), 218–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations