Login | Register

Learning Dutch in a Self-Directed Environment Using Google Translate


Learning Dutch in a Self-Directed Environment Using Google Translate

van Lieshout, Catharina (2019) Learning Dutch in a Self-Directed Environment Using Google Translate. Masters thesis, Concordia University.

[thumbnail of vanLieshout_MA_S2019 .pdf]
Text (application/pdf)
vanLieshout_MA_S2019 .pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access.


The technology addressed in this study is Google Translate (GT) and its associated text-to-speech (TTS) and automatic-speech-recognition (ASR) built-in features. In the literature, the three technologies encompassed by GT have shown to have positive effects in the learning of second/foreign language (L2) vocabulary and pronunciation: Translation (Calis & Dikilitas, 2012), TTS (Soler-Urzua, 2011) and ASR (Liakin, Cardoso & Liakina, 2014). This study is an investigation of the affordances of GT and the accompanied technologies in a self-directed learning (SDL) environment.
The study examined the pedagogical use of GT as a source of L2 Dutch vocabulary and pronunciation in an SDL setting. Thirty participants used GT (its translation, TTS and ASR functions) for approximately one hour to learn a small number of “basic/beginner” words and phrases and their respective pronunciations in Dutch (e.g., how to say “hi” – “Hoi” [hoj]). The study followed a pre/post/delayed-post test design that examined the participants learning of vocabulary/phrases and their related pronunciations, combined with a qualitative analysis of video recordings of their self-directed interactions with GT. In addition, surveys about their learning experience and interviews were administered. The findings indicate that the participants were able to acquire Dutch vocabulary and pronunciation on a short-term basis, they interacted with GT’s TTS and ASR technology in different ways and to different extents, demonstrating that GT is a versatile tool. Finally, our findings suggest that participants had overall positive views of GT according to the four perception markers adopted (i.e., learnability, usability, motivation, and willingness to use the technology).

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Education
Item Type:Thesis (Masters)
Authors:van Lieshout, Catharina
Institution:Concordia University
Degree Name:M.A.
Program:Applied Linguistics
Date:April 2019
Thesis Supervisor(s):Cardoso, Walcir
Keywords:Google Translate, pronunciation, vocabulary, ASR, TTS, Dutch, self-directed learning, individual difference
ID Code:985275
Deposited By: Catharina van Lieshout
Deposited On:17 Jun 2019 15:37
Last Modified:17 Jun 2019 15:37


Abar, B., & Loken, E. (2010). Self-regulated learning and self-directed study in a pre-college sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 25-29.
Altena, S. (2015). Implementing iPads as personal learning devices: Making the paperless MBA possible. In N. Souleles & C. Pillar (Eds.), iPads in higher education: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Use of IPads in Higher Education (pp. 179-200). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal, 15(3), 421-49.
Azer, H., & Aghayi, M. (2015). An evaluation of output quality of machine translation: Padideh Software vs. Google Translate. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(4), 226-237.
Bahri, H., Mahadi, T. (2016). Google Translate as a supplementary tool for learning Malay: A case study at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 161-167.
Bekleyen, N. & Selimoglu, F. (2016). Learner behaviors and perceptions of autonomous language learning. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 20(3), 1-20.
Bimmel, P., & Oostdam, R. (1996). Learning to learn in language instruction. Levende Talen, 510, 250-252.
Bione, Tiago and Walcir Cardoso (in press). Synthetic voices in the foreign language context. Language Learning & Technology.
Calis, E., & Dikilitas, K. (2012). The use of translation in EFL classes as L2 learning practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46(2012), 5079 – 5084.
Ciampa, K. (2014). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82-96.
Cardsos, W., Collins, L., & White, L. (2012). Phonological input enhancement via text-to-speech synthesizers. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Boston U.S.A.
Cardoso, W., Smith, G., & Garcia Fuentes, C. (2015). Evaluating text-to-speech synthesis (pp. 108-113). In F. Helm, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (eds.), European Association for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (EUROCALL). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.
Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D., Goodwin, J. & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching Pronunciation: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. (2003). The potential of technology for language learning. English Language and Technology. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741-753.
Chapelle, C. & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for Teaching with CALL: Practical Approaches to Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Pearson-Longman: White Plains, NY.
Chik, A. (2018). Learner Autonomy and Digital Practices. In Chik, A., Aoki, N. & Smith. R. (Ed.), Autonomy in language learning and teaching (pp. 73-92). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chiu, T., Liou, H., & Yeh, Y. (2007). A study of web-based oral activities enhanced by automatic speech recognition for EF: college learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal, 3(3), 209-233.
Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Klepikova, T. A. (2016). The effectiveness of computer-based spaced repetition in foreign language vocabulary instruction: A double-blind study. CALICO Journal, 33(3), 334-354.
Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.
Cobb, T. (2007). Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 learning. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 38-63.
Cosnefroy, L., & Carré, P. (2014) Self-regulated and Self-directed Learning: Why Don’t Some Neighbors Communicate? International Journal of Self-Directed Learning, 11(2), 1-12.
Cucchiarini, C., Neri, A., & Strik, H. (2009). Oral proficiency training in Dutch L2: The contribution of ASR-based corrective feedback. Speech Communication, 51(10), 853-863.
Cumming, T. M., & Rodriguez, C. D. (2013). Integrating the iPad into language arts instruction for students with disabilities: Engagement and perspectives. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28(4), 43-52.
Dalby, J., & Kewley-Port, D. (1999). Explicit pronunciation training using automatic speech recognition technology. CALICO Journal, 3(3), 425-445.
de Vries, B., Cucchiarini, C., Bodnar, S., Strik, H., & van Hout, R. (2015). Spoken grammar practice and feedback in an ASR-based CALL system. Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal, 6(6), 550-576.
Derwing, T. M. & Munro, M. J. (2009). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 42(4), 476-490.
Dickerson, W. (2015). Using orthography to teach pronunciation. In Reed, M. & Levis, J. (eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation (pp. 488–503). Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Du, F. (2013) Student perspectives on self-direct language learning: implications for teaching and research. International Journal for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1-18.
García Botero, G., & Questier, F. (2016). What students think and what they actually do in a mobile assisted language learning context: new insights for self-directed language learning in higher education. In S. Papadima- Sophocleous, L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds), CALL communities and culture – short papers from EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 150-154).
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah: NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). Emerging technologies: The technological imperative in teaching and learning less commonly taught languages. Language Learning and Technology, 17(1), 7-19.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70-105.
Groves, M., & Mundt, K. (2015). Friend or foe? Google Translate in language for academic purpose. English for Specific Purposes, 37, 112-121.
Handley, Z. (2009). Is text-to-speech synthesis ready for use in computer-assisted language learning? Spoken Language Technology for Education, Speech Communication, 51(10), 906-919.
Jie, L., & Xiaoqing, Q. (2006). Language learning styles and learning strategies of tertiary-level English learners in china. RELC Journal, 37(1), 67-90.
Kassem, H. M. (2019). The impact of student-centered instruction on EFL learners’ affect and achievement. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 134-153.
Lai, C. (2013). A framework for developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100.
Lai, C., Shum, M., & Tian, Y. (2016). Enhancing learners’ self-directed us of technology for language learning: The effectiveness of an online training platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1(1), 40-60.
LaRocca, S. A., Morgan, L. L., & Bellinger, S. M. (1999). On the path to 2x learning: Exploring the possibilities of advances speech recognition. CALICO Journal, 3(3), 295-309.
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on formS in second-language vocabulary learning. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63, 149-166.
Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., & Ip, T. (2016). Use of computer technology for English language learning: Do learning styles, gender, and age matter? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(5), 1033-1049.
Leite, F. O., Cochat, C., Salgado, H., da Costa, M. P., Queiros, M., Campos, O., & Carvalho, P. (2016). Using Google Translate © in the hospital: A case report. Technology and Health Care, 24(6), 965-968.
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2014). Learning L2 pronunciation with a mobile speech recognizer: French /y/. CALICO Journal, 32(1), 1-25.
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W. & Liakina, N. (2017a) The pedagogical use of mobile speech synthesis (TTS): Focus on French liaison. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(3-4), 348–365.
Liakin, D., Cardoso, W., & Liakina, N. (2017b). Mobilizing instructions in a second language context: learners’ perception of two-speech technologies. Languages, 2(11).
Little, D. (1995). Learning as Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Autonomy on Teacher Autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181.
Liu, T. & Lin, P. (2011). What comes with technological convenience? Exploring the behaviors and performances of learning with computer-mediated dictionaries. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 373-383.
Lotz, S., & Alta, V. R. (2016). Omission and other sins: Tracking the quality of online machine translation output over four years. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 46, 77.
Luo, T. (2013). Web 2.0 for language learning: Benefits and challenges for educators. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3), 1-17.
McCrocklin, S. M. (2016). Pronunciation learner autonomy: The potential of automatic speech recognition. System, 57, 25-42. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.12.013
Moussalli, S. & Cardoso, W. (2019). Intelligent personal assistants: can they understand and be understood by accented L2 learners? Computer Assisted Language Learning (online).
Mutlu, A. & Eröz-Tuga, B. (2013). The role of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Education Research, 51, 107-122.
Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H., & Todesco, A. (1995) The Good Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nation, I.S.P. (2003). Vocabulary. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English Language Teaching (pp. 129-152). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Nation, P. (2005). Teaching Vocabulary. Asian EFL Journal: The EFL Professional’s Written Form. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/sept_05_pn.pdf
Nation, I.S.P. & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York: Routledge.
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002).The pedagogy-technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(5), 441-467.
Nistor, C. M., & Comanetchi, D. (2018). How to keep feedback effective: Immediate online response. Elearning & Software for Education, 2, 485-490.
Obari, H., & Lambacher, S. (2015). Successful EFL teaching using mobile technologies in a flipped classroom. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference (pp. 433-438). Padova, Italy.
Ogata, I. (1974). From pattern practice to communication practice. Eigo Tenbo/ELEC Bulletin, 46, 28-29.
Pollitt, M. (2014). A warning from history for the Google Translate generation. History Today, 64(9), 3-4.
Pulido, D., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2008). The virtuous circle: Modeling individual differences in L2 reading and vocabulary development. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 164-190.
Rahimi, M. (2015). Handbook of Research on Individual Differences in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.com
Roberts, L., & Meyer, A. (2012). Individual differences in second language learning: Introduction. Language Learning, 62, 1-4.
Rodríguez-Castro, M., Salas, S., & Benson, T. (2018). To Google Translate or not? Newcomer Latino Communities in the middle. Middle School Journal, 49(2), 3-9.
Roediger, I. H. L. III, & Pyc, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying Cognitive Psychology to enhance educational practice. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 242-248.
Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.
Sanz, C. (2003). Computer Delivered Implicit Vs. Explicit Feedback in Processing Instruction (p. 241-255). In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sert, N., & Boynuegri, E. (2017). Digital technology use by the students and English teachers and self-directed language learning. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 9(1), 24-34.
Shu-ping, L., Hui-Kai, S., & Shin-da, L. (2012). Effects of computer-based immediate feedback on foreign language listening comprehension and test-associated anxiety. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 114(3), 995-1006.
Soler-Urzua, F. (2011). The acquisition of English /ɪ/ by Spanish speakers via text-to-speech synthesizers: a quasi-experimental study. Master's Thesis. Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Song, Y. & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary testing. ReCALL, 20(3), 290-314.
Spellman, R. (2011). Developing best practices for machine translation using Google Translate and OCR Terminal. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserves, 21(3), 141-147.
Sun, M. (2007) A study of non-traditional technological and vocational college-level EFL students' use of strategies for language learning in Taiwan (china). Available from Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA).
Thering, R. (2018, November 18). Basic English: 30 Golden Phrases That Are Incredibly Useful. https://www.fluentu.com/blog/english/basic-english-phrases/
Tudor, I. (1996). CALL and the learner. Etudes & Travaux, 1, 39-60.
Ullman, M, & Lovelett, J. (2018). Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Language Research, 34(1), 39-65.
van Rensburg, A., Snyman, C., & Lotz, S. (2012). Applying Google Translate in a higher education environment: Translation products assessed. Southern African Linguistics & Applied Language Studies, 30(4), 511-524. doi:10.2989/16073614.2012.750824
Yeh, R.. (2014). Effective Strategies for Using Text-to-Speech, Speech-to-Text, and Machine-Translation Technology for Teaching Chinese: A Multiple-Case Study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts. (3666758)
Yoshida, M. T. (2018). Choosing technology tools to meet pronunciation teaching and learning goals. CATESOL Journal, 30(1), 195-212.
Zhou, Y. & Wei, M. (2018). Strategies in technology-enhanced language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning & Teaching, 8(2), 471-495.
Zimmerman B. J. (1990). Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview. Educational Psychologist 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 25(1), 82-91.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Downloads per month over past year

Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
- Research related to the current document (at the CORE website)
Back to top Back to top