Experiencing Flow with Technology in Foreign Language Classrooms

Abstract

Information and communication technologies (ICT) used in education, particularly Web 2.0 tools, have become vital for today's language teaching environment. Learners and instructors employ these tools to enhance engagement and motivation in the classroom. Optimal experience and heightened focus associated with Web 2.0 tools align with the flow theory. This study explores the flow experience of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners and instructors while utilizing Web 2.0 tools and the factors influencing this experience. The Flow Short Scale and semi-structured interviews were employed for data collection. The findings indicate that EFL learners and instructors experienced flow while using Web 2.0 tools, and their perspectives on using these tools were revealed. Furthermore, the study emphasizes effectively integrating Web 2.0 tools into language lessons to enhance in-class flow experience and learning performance.

Keywords

• Flow experience
• Web 2.0 Tools
• ICT
• Motivation

References

1. Abbott, J. A. (2000). “Blinking out” and “having the touch”: Two fifth-grade boys talk about flow experiences in writing. Written Communication, 17(1), 53–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088300017001003
2. Admiraal, W., Huizenga, J., Akkerman, S., & Dam, G. T. (2011). The concept of flow in collaborative game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1185-1194.
3. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-80.
4. Alayyar, G. M. (2011). Developing preservice teacher competencies for ICT integration through design teams [Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente]. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036532341
5. Albayrak, E., & Kıyıcı, M. (2017). Bilgisayar ve öğretim teknolojileri eğitimi bölümü öğrencilerinin kişilik tiplerine göre web 2.0 araçlarını kullanım durumları. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 8(3), 481-512. [The use of web 2.0 tools according to the personality types of the students of the department of computer and instructional technology education]
6. Albion, P. R. (2008). Web 2.0 in teacher education: Two imperatives for action. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 181-198.
7. Al-Kadi, A. (2018). A review of technology integration in ELT: From CALL to MALL. Language Teaching and Educational Research (LATER), 1(1), 1–12.
8. Allison, M. T., & Duncan, M. C. (1988). Women, work, and flow. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S.Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 118–137). Cambridge University Press.

9. Aşıksoy, G. (2018). Elt students' attitudes and awareness towards the use of Web 2.0 technologies for language learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(2), 240-251.
10. Aubrey, S. (2017). Inter-cultural contact and flow in a task-based Japanese EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 21(6), 717–734.
11. Azizi, Z., & Ghonsooly, B. (2015). Exploring flow theory in TOEFL texts: Expository and argumentative genre. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(1), 210–215.
12. Barrot, J. (2016). Using Facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: impact and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29(3), 286–301.
13. Başer, G. (2011). Elementary teachers’ perceptions towards ICT integration in teaching and learning process: an explanatory mixed method. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University
14. Belce, Ö. (2019). Flow experiences of EFL instructors in Turkey. [Doctoral dissertation, Bilkent University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
15. Chen, H., Wigand, R. T., & Nilan, M. (2000). Exploring web users’ optimal flow experiences. Information Technology & People. 13(4), 263–281.
16. Çıldır, M., & Koçak, M. (2022). Web 2.0 araçlarinin ikinci yabanci dil almanca dersinde kullanilmasina yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Alman Dili ve Kültürü Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(7) , 52-88. https://doi.org/10.55143/alkad.1033123 [Student opinions on the use of Web 2.0 tools in the second foreign language German lesson] [German Language and Culture Research Journal]
17. Cochrane, T. D. (2014). Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01384.x
18. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
19. Çelik, H. R., & Aşık, A. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 2023-2, 124-142
20. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage.
21. Crook, C. (2008). Web 2.0 technologies for learning: the current landscape opportunities, challenges, and tensions, Coventry, Becta.
22. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
23. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperPerennial.
24. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and education. NAMTA Journal, 22(2), 2-35.
25. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815-822.
26. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (Eds.). (1992). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
27. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J.(2014). The concept of flow. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 239-263). Springer.
28. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Toward an organismic integration theory: motivation and development. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior, 113-148.
29. Dörner, R., Göbel, S., Effelsberg, W., & Wiemeyer, J. (Eds.). (2016). Serious games: Foundations, concepts and practice. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40612-1
30. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivation in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284.
31. Duchesne, S., & McMaugh, A. (2016). Educational psychology for learning and teaching. Cengage AU. Duffy, P. (2009). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: strategies for using web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2(6), 119–129.
32. Egbert, J. (2004). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, pp. 87, 499–518.
33. Göktaş, Y., Yildirim, Z., & Yildirim, S. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of its integration into preservice teacher education programs. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 193–204. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ833426
34. Grant, S. (2016). Peer review process completion rates and subsequent student perceptions within completely online versus blended study modes. System, 62(1), 93–101.
35. Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use Web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
36. Guan, X. (2013). A study on flow theory and translation teaching in China’s EFL class. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(4), 785-790.
37. Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Advanced Analytics, LLC.
38. Huang, H. C., Pham, T. T. L., Wong, M. K., Chiu, H. Y., Yang, Y. H., & Teng, C. I. (2018). How to create flow experience in exergames? Perspective of flow theory. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1288-1296.
39. Huffman, K. (2017). Web 2.0: Beyond the concept, practical ways to implement RSS, podcasts, and Wikis. Education Libraries, 29(1), 12-19.
40. İşigüzel, B., & Çam, S. (2014). The adaptation of Flow Short Scale to Turkish: A validity and reliability study, Journal of Human Sciences, 11(2), 788-801.
41. Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 76-90.
42. Jones, M. G. (1998, February). Creating electronic learning environments: games, flow, and the user interface [Paper presentation]. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MO.
43. Karaman, S., Yıldırım, S., & Kaban, A. (2008). Öğrenme 2.0 yaygınlaşıyor: Web 2.0 uygulamalarının eğitimde kullanımına ilişkin araştırmalar ve sonuçları [Paper presentation]. III. Türkiye’de İnternet Konferansı Bildirileri 22-23 Aralık 2008 Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara. [Learning 2.0 is becoming widespread: Research and results on the use of Web 2 0 applications in education] [The third Internet Conference of Turkey Papers December 22nd-23rd 2008 Middle East Technical University]
44. Kavaliauskienė, G., & Anusienė, L. (2009). English for specific purposes: Podcasts for listening skills. Santalka. Filologija. Edukologija, 17(2) 28-37. https://doi.org/10.3846/1822-430X.2009.17.2.28-37
45. Ke, I. C., & Cahyani, H. (2014). Learning to become users of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF): How ELF online communication affects Taiwanese learners' beliefs of English. System, 46, 28-38.
46. Kim, D., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport spectators' flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 93, 346-356.
47. Kirchhoff, C. (2013). L2 extensive reading and flow: Clarifying the relationship. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 192-212.
48. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131-152.
49. Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The net generation as preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 144-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784671
50. Kutlutürk, L., & Akbayrak, E. H. (2013, September). Akademik araştırmalarda Web 2.0 etkisi [Paper presentation]. ÜNAK 2013 Conference, İstanbul, Türkiye [The Web 2.0 effect on acamedic research]
51. Larson, R. (1988). Flow and writing. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 150–171). Cambridge University Press.
52. Lu, J., Lai, M., & Law, N. (2010). Knowledge Building in Society 2.0: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Khine M., Saleh I. (eds) New Science of Learning. Springer, New York, NY
53. Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (1997). Measuring the flow experience among web users. Interval Research Corporation, 31(1), 1-35.
54. Novak, T. P., Hoffman, D. L., & Yung, Y. F. (1999). Measuring the flow construct in online environments: A structural modeling approach. Wp, Vanderbilt University http://www2000. ogsm. vanderbilt. edu, 1-48.
55. Özel, A. G. (2013). The use of the Internet and Web 2.0 tools among EFL instructors (Publication No. 354625) [Master’s thesis, Akdeniz University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
56. Öztürk, Ö. (2017). An investigation of English lecturers' attitudes toward information and communication technologies (ICT) and their use of technology (Publication No. 501518) [Master's thesis, Uludağ University]. Council of Higher Education Thesis Center.
57. Rahimi, E., Van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven construction of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers & Education, 81, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.012
58. Rha, I., Williams, M. D., & Heo, G. (2005). Optimal flow experience in web-based instruction. Asia Pacific Education Review, 6(1), 50-58.
59. Rotto, L. I. (1994, February). Curiosity, motivation, and "flow" in computer-based instruction [Paper presentation]. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN.
60. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
61. Schmidt, R., & Savage, W. (1992). Challenge, skill, and motivation. PASAA, 2(2), 14–28.
62. Çelik, H. R., & Aşık, A. Language Teaching and Educational Research, 2023-2, 124-142
63. Shernoff, D. J., Tonks, S., & Anderson, B. G. (2014). The impact of the learning environment on student engagement in high school classrooms. National Society for the Study of Education, 113(1), 166–177.
64. Shishkovskaya, J. V., & Sokolava, E. Y. (2015). Integration of Web 2.0 technologies into the process of students' self-directed English learning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 541-545. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2p541
65. Smith, D. N., & Sivakumar, K. (2004). Flow and Internet shopping behavior: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1199-1208.
66. Smith, J., & Dobson, E. (2011): Beyond the Book: Using Web 2.0 Tools to Develop 21st Century Literacies, Computers in the Schools, 28:4, 316-327
67. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). What does it mean to be smart? California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 99.
68. Şahin Kızıl, A. (2015). Investigating the impact of wikis on writing performance of EFL students. In H. Oz (Ed.), Language and communication research around the globe: Exploring untested ideas. 103–126
69. Tardy, C. M., & Snyder, B. (2004). ‘That's why I do it’: flow and EFL teachers’ practices. ELT Journal, 58(2), 118-128.
70. Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 1-6.
71. Trevino, L., & Webster, J. (1992). Flow in computer-mediated communication: Electronic mail and voice mail evaluation and impacts. Communication Research, 19, 539-573.
72. Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1992). Educational psychology's first century. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 6.
73. Watkins, J., & Wilkins, M. (2011). Using YouTube in the EFL classroom. Language Education in Asia, 2(1), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I1/A09/Watkins_Wilkins
74. Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. J. (1993). Turning work into play: Implications for microcomputer software training. Journal of Management, 19(1), 127-146