Aleksandra Kasztalska, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

I recently had the opportunity to teach an intensive summer course in EFL reading and writing at a university in China. My Chinese students, like many of my students in the United States, seemed comfortable with technology and owned smartphones. But my Chinese students relied on online translators to an extent and in a way that was new to me. One morning, as I was walking into our classroom, a student asked me to read a brief message off his phone, which explained that the air conditioner had broken down in our room. I realized then that this student had used a Chinese-to-English translator to convey an idea that was likely beyond his linguistic capabilities. In that moment, I began to wonder about the various ways in which smartphones and other “smart” devices can help bridge language gaps, especially for lower level learners and writers.

I soon realized that my Chinese students were using their smartphones in multiple ways that I had not previously encountered. For example, some would use OCR (optical character recognition) software to translate English texts into Chinese by pointing their phones at the reading we were discussing in class that day. Others turned in drafts of their final paper and oral presentation script that included a text in Chinese along with the English text below, suggesting that they may have written the paper and presentation scripts in Chinese first and then translated them into English, likely with some help from an electronic translator. These experiences made me more aware of the increasing presence of smartphones and online translators—or machine translation (MT) more broadly—in second language (L2) and EFL writing classrooms, encouraging me to think more critically about the various affordances and pitfalls created by these new technologies.

Of course, smartphones have been making their way into writing courses for a while now, as attested by cell phone policies that are now included in many college syllabi in the United States. My own cell phone policies have varied over time and across different courses. Although I have found smartphones to be primarily a distraction in some classes, they have proven to be invaluable teaching aids in others. After all, today’s smartphones are multifunctional devices that can scaffold English language learners by allowing them to quickly look up unfamiliar words in an online dictionary or take photos of course materials. Indeed, one of the most common functions that the smartphone served among my Chinese students was as a quick and convenient dictionary and thesaurus. So, what caught my attention wasn’t that my students used their smartphones in class, but rather the new (to me) ways in which they were using them and the degree to which they seemed to rely on MT.

Although smartphones and MT are becoming increasingly present in writing classrooms, there is relatively little research exploring how and why these devices could be meaningfully integrated into language learning and multilingual writing (Bridgewater, 2014; Persson & Nouri, 2018). This is surprising, given that smartphones have been a contentious and much debated topic in education for a long time now. However, while many university instructors I know routinely include a smartphone policy in their course syllabi, I have never seen an MT policy included in an L2 writing course syllabus and have never included one myself. My recent teaching experiences have made me more conscious of this gap and inspired me to try to better understand the new technologies that are at our students’ disposal.

In this short piece, I review existing research on MT and smartphones in multilingual writing classrooms, highlighting some often raised concerns about these new technologies and demonstrating a kind of disconnect between multilingual writers’ linguistic practices and contemporary approaches to writing instruction. I also offer some recommendations for incorporating smartphones and MT into L2 writing classrooms and call for more systematic research on this topic, so that teachers and other educators can adapt to the changing educational landscapes around them.

Literature Review

In this brief literature review, I first summarize some common criticisms regarding MT in L2 writing and L2 learning more broadly, and I highlight potential drawbacks of this technology. Having outlined negative aspects of MT, I then discuss some early attempts at meaningfully incorporating MT into the classroom and point to several ways in which MT can help writers.

A frequent question raised in regard to MT in L2 writing and L2 learning is whether or at what point does the use of an online translator constitute cheating. For example, if a student writes the first draft of his or her paper entirely or predominantly in their first language (L1) and then uses translation software on a large portion of the text, is the student truly or solely the author of the final product? Should such practices be regarded as plagiarism and thus prohibited in language and writing classrooms, even if, as Zamel’s (1982, as cited in O’Neill, 2012) research suggests, translating papers from an L1 to an L2 is not really a new practice spurred by technological advancements?

According to the extensive literature review on the topic presented in O’Neill (2012), most language teachers view online translators negatively and consider their usage as academic dishonesty. Similarly, in a survey of university language teachers in Sweden, Case (2015) found that the majority of the participants regarded students’ use of MT, especially on written assignments, as cheating. Additionally, Case (2015) cites several other studies in which language teachers expressed the belief that a student’s use of MT is a form of academic dishonesty, including Correa’s (2011) survey of university language teachers across the United States, many of whom listed MT as an example of cheating. Case (2015) also argues that even those researchers who advocate the inclusion of MT into the curriculum often believe that “the use of MT detracts from language learning,” while admitting that “its use by students is inevitable” (p. 6).

The teachers who participated in Case’s study echo another common concern about MT and smartphones—that they hinder learning. In particular, some educators believe that “an over-dependence on mobile devices may hinder students from activating cognitive skills like brainstorming and recalling that are necessary for creativity” (Nalliveettil & Alenazi, 2016, p. 264). In addition, researchers cited in O’Neill’s (2012) literature review tend to caution against the use of MT on the grounds that this software does not produce high-quality translations. O’Neill (2012) also hypothesizes that MT may lead learners to “produce content that is beyond their linguistic capabilities” (p. 25), such as texts containing lexico-grammatical or other features that the writers are not yet familiar with. As a result, these learners may not be able to evaluate the accuracy or effectiveness of the translation, and one might question whether this type of writing practice results in meaningful learning.

The aforementioned concerns need to be weighed against the potential affordances of MT. Firstly, there is some evidence that—contrary to the research cited in O’Neill (2012)— informed use of MT can lead to high-quality translations. For example, Garcia and Pena’s (2011) small-scale examination of beginner learners of Spanish suggests that using MT helps less advanced learners to produce texts that are not only longer but also rated as higher in quality. Similarly, in his own quantitative study of L2 learners of French at a U.S. university, O’Neill (2012) demonstrates that L2 writers who used MT produced texts that were rated higher in some domains than texts written without MT. Moreover, the learners of Romance languages in Clifford et al.’s (2003, as cited in Case, 2015) study claim that they are able to identify errors in translations produced with the aid of MT, thus dismissing another frequently cited concern about MT.

At the same time, to make the most of MT, learners may first need to be appropriately trained, as writers who receive MT training show bigger gains in comprehensibility and content ratings than writers who do not receive such training (O’Neill, 2012). These results have led O’Neill (2012) to speculate that, when educated, L2 writers can benefit from using MT, which might reduce their cognitive load and allow them to focus less on lexico-grammatical issues and more on content. As such, MT can be seen as just another writing tool that can help learners achieve their communicative goals, perhaps on par with (though not the same as) a traditional dictionary (O’Neill, 2012). Above all, it is important to consider Canale and Swain’s (1980) concept of communicative competence, which includes strategic competence, or the learner’s ability to overcome linguistic gaps and to solve problems. After all, being able to effectively and efficiently use MT or other language software can be a very useful skill in real-life communicative situations—as my Chinese student clearly demonstrated.

Indeed, many of our students are likely already using MT and other technologies not only in their writing and language classes, but also in their everyday lives. However, as Zheng and Warschauer (2017) argue, “a strong disconnect exists between students’ out-of-school and in-school literacy practices” (p. 61), because these tools are often disregarded or outright banned by teachers. For example, in a survey of Saudi Arabian college students and their professors, Nalliveettil and Alenazi (2016) found that, while 87% of the students accessed dictionaries on their smartphones and 83% used their phones to translate from their L1 to English, about 40% indicated that their teachers did not allow them to use phones in class (though the five surveyed teachers had a generally positive attitude toward smartphones). Similarly, in a survey of U.S. undergraduate students enrolled in a research writing course, about 80% reported that their teachers “never” or “hardly ever” used smartphones or tablets in the classroom (Bridgewater, 2014).

At the same time, there is some evidence that attitudes toward new technologies, including smartphones, may be changing. For example, Forsythe’s (2017) literature review suggests that many EFL teachers in Japan now incorporate smartphones into their instruction. Likewise, Klímová’s (2018), admittedly small, synthesis of recent research found that studies on smartphones in EFL teaching generally tout advantages of these tools for learners. And although the issue of MT specifically has received scarce attention from scholars, Case (2015) identified “a growing number of studies which have a more accepting, or even positive, view of MT” (p. 5).

Conclusions and Recommendations

New technologies, including MT and smartphones, are quickly becoming a part of multilingual writers’ and L2 learners’ toolkits. However, teachers do not always have a good grasp of how these new tools could be used (or are already being used) by students and how they can be integrated into courses. Consequently, students may regard our writing approach as “stale” (Bridgewater, 2014, p. 25), because they are unable to see a connection between the classroom and authentic communicative contexts (Zheng & Warschauer, 2017). As teachers of writing, we should therefore critically examine the affordances and challenges brought about by new technologies, so that we can “honor [multilingual writers’] linguistic ingenuity” and “encourage other innovative strategies” (Horner, Lu, Royster, & Trimbur, 2011, p. 307) that can help writers achieve their communicative goals. Indeed, preliminary research suggests that when multilingual writers have sufficient training and practice with MT, they can engage in a form of translingual practice that acknowledges all of the languages in their repertoire.

Thus, I do not believe that we should shun MT and smartphones in our classrooms, but rather try to help our students use these tools in an informed and effective manner. This is important because not all of our students may be familiar or comfortable with MT or with technology in general; indeed, depending on their profile, such as socioeconomic status, some students may not even own a smartphone, so we need to ensure that they are aware of and can access free online translation software. Incorporating MT into our curricula might also mean designing in-class and other activities that use MT in a way that is appropriate for the task and for the learners’ proficiency levels, and that avoids common pitfalls of these technologies.

Moreover, we should encourage students to consciously and critically reflect on their use of MT and smartphones, so that they can become more self-aware consumers of these technologies. To accomplish this, teachers should develop “fair, ethical, and pedagogically sound policies that foster student learning” (O’Neill, 2012, p. 216) and clearly communicate these policies to students in course syllabi and during lectures. In particular, we should ensure that our plagiarism and academic dishonesty policy delineates acceptable and unacceptable uses of MT and other translation tools (including traditional dictionaries), as they pertain to written and other assignments. We could also explicitly acknowledge and encourage the various educational uses of smartphones, such as taking photos of lecture slides and course materials, quickly sharing files with classmates and teachers, and so on.

To summarize, it is important for L2 writing teachers to understand MT and other emerging technologies, because they “are contributing greatly to creating, complicating, and influencing how, why, when, what, and where people write” (Bridgewater, 2014, p. 5). To do so, we should not only take interest in our students’ writing practices in and beyond our own classes, but also share best practices for using MT with each other and encourage students to reflect on how they use these tools in their writing. Finally, we need more research to better understand how new devices and software are changing the writing practices of contemporary L2 learners and writers.

References

Bridgewater, M. A. (2014). Writing in the age of mobile: Smartphone and tablet multiliteracies and their implications for writing as process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from OhioLINK. (Document No. bgsu1386939727)

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.

Case, M. (2015). Machine translation and the disruption of foreign language learning activities. eLearning Papers, 45, 4–16.

Forsythe, E. M. III (2017). Qualitative case study of Japanese university students and personal smartphone use in English as a foreign language classes. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Accession No. 10680709)

Garcia, I., & Pena, M. I. (2011). Machine translation-assisted language learning: Writing for beginners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 471–487.

Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321.

Klímová, B. (2018). Mobile phones and/or smartphones and their apps for teaching English as a foreign language. Education and Information Technologies, 23(3), 1091–1099.

Nalliveettil, G. M., & Alenazi, T. H. K. (2016). The impact of mobile phones on English language learning: Perceptions of EFL nudergraduates. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(2), 264–272.

O’Neill, E. M. (2012). The Effect of Online Translators on L2 Writing in French (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/34317

Persson, V., & Nouri, J. (2018). A systematic review of second language learning with mobile technologies. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(2), 188–210.

Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61–67.