Assessing undergraduate student engagement in a virtual resource center

Abstract

International audienceThis contribution seeks to better understand undergraduate students’ perceptions of and engagement in a virtual resource center for Business English and the links between the use of the center and English language learning. In order to assess student engagement in the virtual resource center, we have conducted a representative questionnaire study. The results show that there is a complex relationship between perceptions and actions and that even when students claim to perceive tools as relevant this does not necessarily lead to increased engagement. These results bring us back to the drawing board to discuss how we can encourage students to take the next step and spend more time using the resources available to them in order to increase their investment in individualized English language learning opportunities online.Cet article cherche à mieux comprendre l’investissement des étudiants d’anglais en licence LEA dans un centre de ressources virtuel ainsi que leurs perceptions du centre et les liens entre l'utilisation de celui-ci et l'apprentissage de l'anglais. Afin d'étudier l'engagement des utilisateurs dans le dispositif, nous avons effectué une enquête représentative par questionnaire. Les résultats montrent que la relation entre les représentations construites et les actions des étudiants sont complexes. Percevoir un outil comme étant utile pour améliorer ses compétences en langues ne se traduit pas systématiquement par une utilisation accrue du dit-outil. Les résultats nous encouragent à nous concentrer sur les développements futurs du centre et sur la manière d'encourager les étudiants à s'en servir davantage afin d'augmenter leur investissement dans l'apprentissage de l'anglais en ligne

New developments in ESP teaching and learning research

“…Previous studies on students' and teachers' representations (McAllister & Narcy-Combes, 2015;McAllister et al, 2012;Narcy-Combes & McAllister, 2011; on the development of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of written production between the beginning and the end of the programme (McAllister, 2013;McAllister & Belan, 2014) and on the students' use of the virtual resource center (McAllister, 2013;Starkey-Perret, McAllister, Belan, & Ngo, 2015) showed that although the programme is generally appreciated for the opportunities it generates for small-group interaction (McAllister et al, 2012;Starkey-Perret et al, 2012), students and teachers tend to prefer a PPP approach, claiming that TBLT does not leave sufficient room for FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012;McAllister, 2013). Questionnaire studies carried out with the students showed that the way 'grammar' is dealt with is the least satisfactory element of the programme and that there simply is not enough FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012).…”

“…Studies also showed that the VRC is underexploited by the students, which implies that they do not do the individual post-task form-focussed activities, which makes it difficult to assess the VRC's effects on language development (McAllister, 2013;Starkey-Perret et al, 2015). A questionnaire study showed that just under half of the students (48%) visited the VRC, 66% of whom used it between one and three times over the course of the semester for a duration of under 30 minutes each time (Starkey-Perret et al, 2015). However, it was noted in the same study that the students who used the VRC found it useful for learning and that the more they used it, the more they found it useful.…”