Unearthing the latent assumptions inscribed into language tools: the cross-cultural benefits of applying a reflexive lens in co-design

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the co-design process. This paper focuses on the second phase: how databases can be appropriated by teachers.

Figure 2. Image of the phase 1 database, prior to the development of the user interface ‘Record and Write’ web database tool (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Phase 2: process overview of the workshops for the user interface ‘Record and Write’ web database tool.

Figure 4. Start page for the ‘Record and Write’ web application. Top: home screen 1– filter and search functions, 2 – phrase database, 3 – action icons. Bottom: edit functions activated when a phrase is added, 4 – adding a phrase, 5 – glossing palate, 6 – input boxes.

Figure 5. An example of how the ‘Record and Write’ tool displays ‘glossing’. The use of colour highlights grammatical features and correspondence between two languages.

Figure 6. ‘Record and Write’ application in edit mode. Image shows major functions including 1 – arrow opens glossing palate, 2 – sound file, 3 – image files, 4 – topics and tags.

Figure 7. ‘Record and Write’ web application - mobile mode. The eye icon in the main screens opens a web version of how a typical mobile application might appear. Hungarian was used as a demonstration language.

Table 1. Workshop participants overview.

Workshop	Date	Location	Participants	Language	Profession in relation to Project	Duration
W1	March 2021	Zoom (homes)	MT & KL	German	Instructional designer of second language learning	2 hr
W2	June 2021	Zoom (homes)	MT & KL & LS	Ktunaxa	Endangered-language learner and teacher	2 hr
W3	October 2021	Zoom (homes)	MT & MH	Gathang	Revitalising-language teacher	1 hr

Table 2. Workshop overview.

No	Activity	Exercises	Purpose
1	Transcribing from audio recording to a written format.	Using a fluent speaker’s audio recording, input how the phrase should grammatically appear in the tool (for teaching purposes).	Understand the difficulties in working from audio archival data, and what a tool requires to be able to support a user to accurately convey audio data.
2	Addition of complex phrases to show meaning. Exploration of subtle differences in multiple phrases and how that is ameliorated.	Provide four phrases to add to the data base. Each phrase should incorporate a different grammatical variant that is typical for the targeted language. (i.e. tenses, pronouns, clauses). An additional phrase to be slightly different in pronunciation/spelling to one previously added.	Understanding the nuances of language. What aspects are important to represent? and how that might be supported in a tool?
3	Organisation of phrases.	Assign the phrases to different keywords and topics. What circumstances decide what phrases to teach at a point in time? How should phrases be organised?	Understand how teachers group topics for learning. What might be more appropriate ways of grouping phrases?
4	Communication through a tool.	Describe a phrase that makes no transliterable sense in the target language. How could meaning of the phrase be added to the tool?	Understand how you communicate meaning through a tool.
5	Colour gloss and levels of keywords.	Choose a phrase. Colour gloss to show morphology and phrase structure.	Determine if a tool can support teachers’ grammatical goals.
6	Conversation tool.	Create a short story using the conversation tool. When would this be useful? What organisation would best suit your method of teaching?	Determine the purpose and strategy of a teacher to use conversations to encourage participation. Understand purpose of ownership of language in teaching language.

Figure 8. Example screen shots of an analysis session using Miro board. Left: Shows ‘sticky notes’ being constructed from video data; yellow denotes pragmatic issues, green denotes issues teaching language, dark green denotes higher level questions and issues. Right: Shows themes starting to be developed through clustering of the green post-it notes.

Figure 9. Screen shot of Workshop 3 with MH-W3. MH-W3 has added glossing to the Gathang words and is working on how to convey grammar to a learner.

Figure 10. Screen shot of the ‘Record and Write’ tool as MH-W3 talks through possibilities for how different teaching methods might be conveyed through the existing database tool.

Figure 11. Screenshot from Workshop 2 with LS-W2. LS-W2 moves beyond the set activity to put their own phrases into the database.

Table 3. Design insights and lessons for language learning technology.

Issue	Design Insight	Design Lessons
Culture	Culture is not adequately provided for in the design of database tools	Community to specify alternative options for the translation language (other than English, e.g. word-for-word fields, audio, images) (Aluvilu et al. 2018; Amery 2001)
		Cultural information for phrases (e.g. contextual notes on culture and translations added by language teachers) Add notation (s.a., visual words, symbols, icons) indicating when phrases should not commonly be used or should only be used at certain times/places or by certain people (Tubby 2021)
Grammatical Accuracy	The need for and value of grammatical detail is related to stages of revitalisation and possibilities for language learning	Interlinear glossing (Amery 2001; Richards et al. 2019)
		Provide in-depth morphological and syntactic knowledge (how phrases are put together and break down grammatically) that can be displayed and hidden depending on the level of the learner
		Provide opportunities for teachers/students/communities to practice speaking together
Governance and transparency of language	Endangered languages require accommodation for governance architectures	Provide ways to document choices of phrases (over others)
		Display verification of sources and who verified those sources
		Display the provenance of audio/video recordings i.e. if they are from legitimate sources
		Ensure the community has and keeps control over their resources (Verran et al. 2007)
Learner conversation support	Tools need to be designed with support for student-teacher interactions in mind	Provide ways of teacher–student interaction including recording notes and ability to ask questions
		Provide ways that students can personalise the way they learn the language i.e. through conversation support, memorisation of phrases (both audio and visual)

Aluvilu, H. N., H. Winschiers-Theophilus, S. Krishnamurthy, H.-N.-N. Muyingi, H. Winschiers-Theophilus, A. Peters, and S. Nggada. 2018. “Promoting an Open and Accessible Digital Preservation of Namibian Indigenous Languages.” In Digitisation of Culture: Namibian and International Perspectives, edited by D. S. Jat and J. Sieck, 119–134. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7697-8_8.

 Google Scholar

Amery, R. 2001. “Language Planning and Language Revival.” Current Issues in Language Planning 2 (2–3): 141–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200108668023.

 Google Scholar

Tubby, S. 2021. “Preserving Native American Language Through Mobile Learning.” In Proceedings of SITE Interactive Conference, edited by E. Langran and D. Rutledge, 59–64. USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/220167/.

 Google Scholar

Richards, M., C. Jones, F. Merlan, and J. MacRitchie. 2019. “Revitalisation of Mangarrayi: Supporting Community Use of Archival Audio Exemplars for Creation of Language Learning Resources.” Language Documentation 13 (May): 253–280.

 Google Scholar

Verran, H., M. Christie, B. Anbins-King, T. Van Weeren, and W. Yunupingu. 2007. “Designing Digital Knowledge Management Tools with Aboriginal Australians.” Digital Creativity 18 (3): 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626260701531944.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar