<b>The impact of Duolingo in developing students’ linguistic competence:</b> an aspect of communicative language competences

Peláez-Sánchez, Iris Cristina; Velásquez-Durán, Anabel

doi:10.1590/S1678-4634202349252467eng

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Educ. Pesqui. 49 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-4634202349252467eng copy

The impact of Duolingo in developing students’ linguistic competence: an aspect of communicative language competences

O impacto do Duolingo no desenvolvimento da competência linguística dos alunos: um aspecto das competências linguísticas comunicativas

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This paper reports the impact of a type of m-learning on developing students’ linguistic and communicative competence in English as a second language. This study is a Mexican-based case using Duolingo to improve virtual courses in higher education students whose first language is Spanish. This study is a quasi-experimental research that analyzed pre-test and post-test results on a sample of 40 participants (control group of 20 participants and experimental group of 20 participants). The measuring instruments were designed for this specific study and focused on testing the six components of linguistic competence according to CEFR at level A2 (2018). A pilottest was previously conducted, and pre-test (0.81) and post-test (0.98) coefficients were considered acceptable according to Cronbach’s Alpha. This study addressed the following questions: a) How does Duolingo contribute to the development of linguistic competence in higher education students and support English learning in virtual courses via the m-learning methodology? and b) Which components were improved in student´s linguistic competence after using Duolingo? Results revealed a profound improvement in the experimental group participants. The post-test result of the experimental group is superior ( M=43.75) compared with the control group (M=30.35), mainly in the phonological control (+5.20) and the orthographic control (+2.65) compared with the control group, whose score slightly increased primarily attributed to the English virtual classes.

Keywords
Duolingo; M-learning; Higher education; Linguistic competence; Second language acquisition; Communicative competences

Duolingo activity	Component of linguistic competence promoted in the activity
a) Activities to write vocabulary after seeing a picture of it.	Vocabulary control: the user practices a repertoire dealing with concrete everyday needs. Vocabulary range: the user checks his vocabulary to express basic communicative needs.
b) Activities to translate a phrase or a sentence into the user’s native language.	General linguistic range: the user checks brief everyday expressions to satisfy simple needs of a concrete type, e.g., personal details, daily routines, wants and needs, requests for information.
c) Activities to translate a phrase or a sentence into the target language.	General linguistic range: the user applies of short, memorized phrases which cover predictable survival situations. Grammatical accuracy: the user must use simple structures correctly. He can check word meaning while translating the sentence or phrase. Vocabulary range: the user employs vocabulary for simple survival needs.
d) Dictation activities for listening to sentences and phrases and then writing them in the target language.	Orthographic control: the user must write a phrase or a sentence with reasonable phonetic accuracy. He must recognize short words that are in his oral vocabulary.
e) Pronunciation activities for reading sentences and checking correct pronunciation using voice recognition software.	Phonological control: the user can check his pronunciation since the voice recognition software provides immediate feedback on aspects such as stress, rhythm, intonation, and intelligibility.
f) air-word activities to match vocabulary from their first language with the target language.	Vocabulary range: the user practices vocabulary to explore routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics. Vocabulary range: the user checks vocabulary to express basic communicative needs.
g) Activities requiring the unscrambling of words into meaningful sentences or phrases.	Vocabulary range: the user checks a vocabulary to conduct routine, everyday transactions involving familiar situations and topics.
h) Activities for practicing the correct ordering of sentences from three ones given in random order in the target language.	General linguistic range: the user employs phrases and sentences to deal with predictable, everyday situations. General linguistic range: the user utilizes phrases and sentences which enable him/her to deal with everyday situations with predictable content.

Participants’ background		Control group N	Percentage	Experimental group N	Percentage
Gender	Male	7	35%	8	40%
Gender	Female	13	65%	12	60%
Age	18	1	5%	5	25%
	19	3	15%	5	25%
	20	3	15%	2	10%
	21	3	15%	1	5%
	22	3	15%	1	5%
	23	3	15%	4	20%
	24	4	20%	2	10%
Academic fields of study	Humanities and social sciences	1	5%	1	5%
	Natural and Formal sciences	2	10%	0	0%
	Professions and applied sciences	17	85%	19	95%

Group	Test	Mean	Median	Variance	SD
Control group	Pre-test	26.40	30	92.253	9.605
Control group	Post-test	30.35	28	28.766	5.363
Experimental group	Pre-test	24.50	25	40.684	6.378
Experimental group	Post-test	43.75	44	6.303	2.511

Group	Test	Dimension	Mean	Median	Variance	SD
Control group	Pre-test	Linguistic general range	5.00	5.50	3.789	1.947
		Vocabulary range	6.05	6.50	2.682	1.638
		Grammatical accuracy	5.25	6.00	3.039	1.743
		Vocabulary control	2.00	1.00	4.316	2.007
		Phonological control	3.15	3.00	4.661	2.159
		Orthographic control	4.95	6.00	8.050	2.837
	Post-test	Linguistic general range	6.80	7.00	1.642	1.281
		Vocabulary range	6.95	7.00	1.208	1.099
		Grammatical accuracy	4.95	5.00	2.155	1.468
		Vocabulary control	4.10	4.50	4.411	2.100
		Phonological control	3.45	3.00	3.945	1.986
		Orthographic control	4.10	2.00	8.411	2.900
Experimental group	Pre-test	Linguistic general range	5.00	5.00	2.632	1.622
		Vocabulary range	6.35	6.00	1.397	1.182
		Grammatical accuracy	4.95	5.00	2.682	1.638
		Vocabulary control	1.40	1.50	2.147	1.465
		Phonological control	2.45	2.00	4.471	2.114
		Orthographic control	4.35	4.00	8.555	2.925
	Post-test	Linguistic general range	7.75	8.00	0.408	0.639
		Vocabulary range	7.85	8.00	0.134	0.366
		Grammatical accuracy	7.45	8.00	0.471	0.686
		Vocabulary control	6.05	6.00	0.892	0.945
		Phonological control	7.65	8.00	0.239	0.489
		Orthographic control	7.00	8.00	2.000	1.414

	T-test for Equality of Means
	t	df	Sig.(2-tailed)	Mean difference	Std. Error Difference	95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
	t	df	Sig.(2-tailed)	Mean difference	Std. Error Difference	Lower	Upper
A2prem-learning Pre-test	0.737	38	0.466	1.900	2.578	−3.319	7.119
A2postm-learning Post-test	−10.120	26.944	0.000	−13.400	1.324	−16.117	−10.683

Paired differences
Groups	Tests	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Control group	Pre-test – Post-test	−1.569	19	0.133
Experimental group	Pre-test – Post-test	−11.844	19	0.000

Faculdade de Educação da Universidade de São Paulo Av. da Universidade, 308 - Biblioteca, 1º andar 05508-040 - São Paulo SP Brasil, Tel./Fax.: (55 11) 30913520 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revedu@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Contacts: cristina.pelaez.sanchez@gmail.com