Dear all,
thank you for getting your assigments in ... I'll mark them this weekend/next week and give feedback within 7 days. I'd be happy to give feedback in person/on the phone as well as written.
I'm not quite sure if you want access to the blog now. It seems a shame to close it, but you'll be moving on soon to the next module. Let me know what you want me to do with it.
I have another blog you might be intetested in:
http://technologycele.blogspot.com/
This blog doesn't have much text (one paragraph per entry) but has links to technology I like. Many of the links would be useful for you in your work. It is easy to use and requires no sign up. Tell your colleagues about it if you like.
Alex
Friday 6 November 2009
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Tuesday 27 October 2009
France and assignments
Dear all,
France beckons ... I lived there for almost 15 years ... I began my teaching career more-or-less in earnest there (after a wonderfully surreal but nevertheless false start working for the Ferrari formula one team in Italy). ... virtually all my friends are there... my house and home. So, I'm looking forward to it!
I won't be looking at assignments until NEXT Thursday. If I look in my inbox next Thursday and you have all submitted by then ... I shall be happy. The official deadline is this Friday, I hope you can read between the lines :-)
See you soon and hopefully we can have an enjoyable social evening ...
Alex
PS It has been a real pleasure teaching you and I've enjoyed all the contact and communication I've had with you. You've been a really nice and stimulating group of people to teach.
France beckons ... I lived there for almost 15 years ... I began my teaching career more-or-less in earnest there (after a wonderfully surreal but nevertheless false start working for the Ferrari formula one team in Italy). ... virtually all my friends are there... my house and home. So, I'm looking forward to it!
I won't be looking at assignments until NEXT Thursday. If I look in my inbox next Thursday and you have all submitted by then ... I shall be happy. The official deadline is this Friday, I hope you can read between the lines :-)
See you soon and hopefully we can have an enjoyable social evening ...
Alex
PS It has been a real pleasure teaching you and I've enjoyed all the contact and communication I've had with you. You've been a really nice and stimulating group of people to teach.
Monday 26 October 2009
From the Chinese Ninja
Dear All,
I hope everyone is coping! I would just like to quickly say that I hope you all stay in touch after we finish this module, as I htink we have started to think of some good ideas tha we should try and follow up. I am working a lot on WebCT development, and the creation of the aforementioned 'pathways' for out of class work, and it would be great to hear from anyone who is interested or doing something similar. I decided to write on the value of corpora in EAP in the end, and this has been really interesting too. This is one of many ways that we can incorporate technology into our teaching that seems to have a clear benefit with regard to promoting autonomy (anyone who wants to put themselves through reading my essay at some point can do!!).
Bye for now, and have a great holiday Alex...and thanks for some really interesting insights. I will certainly continue to explore these avenues in my teaching, but I might save the PhD for a while!
Phil.
I hope everyone is coping! I would just like to quickly say that I hope you all stay in touch after we finish this module, as I htink we have started to think of some good ideas tha we should try and follow up. I am working a lot on WebCT development, and the creation of the aforementioned 'pathways' for out of class work, and it would be great to hear from anyone who is interested or doing something similar. I decided to write on the value of corpora in EAP in the end, and this has been really interesting too. This is one of many ways that we can incorporate technology into our teaching that seems to have a clear benefit with regard to promoting autonomy (anyone who wants to put themselves through reading my essay at some point can do!!).
Bye for now, and have a great holiday Alex...and thanks for some really interesting insights. I will certainly continue to explore these avenues in my teaching, but I might save the PhD for a while!
Phil.
Friday 23 October 2009
Wednesday 21 October 2009
Stress ... keep going
Dear all,
I imagine you're all suffering with putting your thoughts in writing, cursing the module and wishing you weren't distance students. I just wanted to encourage you to keep going, avoid any existential crisis until the module has finished, and try to do your best when you've got a lot of competition for your attention and thoughts.
I'm off to France on holiday next Thursday (my summer break!) for a while. I've been working non-stop since the beginning of April ... on my PhD, teaching, developing e-materials, working on an open educational resources project, writing papers, taking on staff development, sitting on committees, reviewing papers and so on. The type of work I do now I find interesting and very stimulating. The reason why I mention this is not to boast in any way ... the reason why I can do these activities is partly because I did an MEd (distance!) and that has created a lot of opportunities for me. I am not suggesting that you may want to do the type of things I do, but doing the PGCTEAP and hopefully not stopping there will give you more options professionally and more autonomy in your work. So, even if you're cursing the module (me even!) keep going and I'm sure you'll see the fruits of your work ...
Once the module is over I think we should (minus Phil I'm afraid) meet up, have a meal and celebrate the fact that you're half way there!
Alex
I imagine you're all suffering with putting your thoughts in writing, cursing the module and wishing you weren't distance students. I just wanted to encourage you to keep going, avoid any existential crisis until the module has finished, and try to do your best when you've got a lot of competition for your attention and thoughts.
I'm off to France on holiday next Thursday (my summer break!) for a while. I've been working non-stop since the beginning of April ... on my PhD, teaching, developing e-materials, working on an open educational resources project, writing papers, taking on staff development, sitting on committees, reviewing papers and so on. The type of work I do now I find interesting and very stimulating. The reason why I mention this is not to boast in any way ... the reason why I can do these activities is partly because I did an MEd (distance!) and that has created a lot of opportunities for me. I am not suggesting that you may want to do the type of things I do, but doing the PGCTEAP and hopefully not stopping there will give you more options professionally and more autonomy in your work. So, even if you're cursing the module (me even!) keep going and I'm sure you'll see the fruits of your work ...
Once the module is over I think we should (minus Phil I'm afraid) meet up, have a meal and celebrate the fact that you're half way there!
Alex
Sunday 18 October 2009
Dear all,
Firstly I would just like to apologise for not contributing on the blog for a while. I think I have discovered that I am not a very good student for the distance learning course – whoops! I have been trying to catch up with all of your ideas, and it looks like a couple of you are in the same position as me – some ideas that you would like to do, but not enough time to do it in. And yes, I agree with you Phil, it certainly is the ‘panic and write phase’ - which is what I have been doing today!
I have kind of settled on trying to expand on my last assignment, by looking at the Internet as a teaching tool, and the difference in use between novice and experienced EAP teachers. I am looking at it from the slant that experienced teachers would be able to exploit the Internet with a better effect, but novice teachers will be more willing to use the Internet in the classroom. So far – it’s not really going that well, but I am sure (or hoping) that it will all come together in the end.
With regard to the group report Julia – I feel the same as you; I do think that something needs to be done where we can all communicate in some way, as I am finding it very easy to brush things under the carpet the way things are going at the moment. Also, like you, I am not really that up on technology – in fact you sound like you know much more than me – I don’t even know what you are talking about with wikis!
Hope you are all getting on well with the assignments,
Claire : - )
Firstly I would just like to apologise for not contributing on the blog for a while. I think I have discovered that I am not a very good student for the distance learning course – whoops! I have been trying to catch up with all of your ideas, and it looks like a couple of you are in the same position as me – some ideas that you would like to do, but not enough time to do it in. And yes, I agree with you Phil, it certainly is the ‘panic and write phase’ - which is what I have been doing today!
I have kind of settled on trying to expand on my last assignment, by looking at the Internet as a teaching tool, and the difference in use between novice and experienced EAP teachers. I am looking at it from the slant that experienced teachers would be able to exploit the Internet with a better effect, but novice teachers will be more willing to use the Internet in the classroom. So far – it’s not really going that well, but I am sure (or hoping) that it will all come together in the end.
With regard to the group report Julia – I feel the same as you; I do think that something needs to be done where we can all communicate in some way, as I am finding it very easy to brush things under the carpet the way things are going at the moment. Also, like you, I am not really that up on technology – in fact you sound like you know much more than me – I don’t even know what you are talking about with wikis!
Hope you are all getting on well with the assignments,
Claire : - )
Distance Learning: Some final thoughts
Exploring the learner-context interface
The learner-context interface is a theory of distance language learning made up of 3 elements: the learner; the context, and the interface.
The learner.
What the learner brings to learning:
prior knowledge of TL (target language);
prior knowledge of how to learn a language;
prior knowledge of distance learning;
knowledge and skills (learning) relating to other domains and,
beliefs and attitudes within educational, cultural and social settings.
The learner, as an individual, will also have a unique profile based on a number of fixed and dynamic elements. These elements will enormously influence learning.
Factors influencing learning:
innate language acquisition capacity
psycholinguistic processes
gender
age
aptitude
cognitive style
personality
self/social/cultural identity
agency
metacognitive knowledge
beliefs
attitudes
motivation
constructions of self
conceptualisations of learning environment
Given the broad and narrow range of factors affecting acquisition in distance learning environments, it is important to bear these factors in mind when dealing with students at a distance. The more tutors help students understand themselves as learners the better they will be at coping and flourishing in this environment.
The Context.
All of the learner factors described above also interact with the context of learning. The context of distance learning can include:
learning sources
learner support
learning spaces
opportunities for interaction
tutors
the community
the learners’ environment
other sources
Notice that the learner factors are mainly made up of elements relating to the individual, whereas the context is largely about how the individual learner relates to others. Significant others not only include students and tutors but may also include friends, family and colleagues. Indeed, the wider network of others interested in the same academic area may also play a significant part in learning (as it did for my own MEd in education).
Think about your own learning in relation to context and to the list above. In particular, have you tried to collaborate with other students on the course? Why (not)? Who provides support for you/who do you help? Post your comments on the blog.
The learner-context interface.
The interface has two meanings according to White (White, 2003):
the place at which learner and context meet, interact and affect one another
the means by which learner and context meet, interact and affect one another
With experience distance learners interact with materials, learners and tutors modifying the learner-context interface. This has an effect on:
preferred ways of learning
matching needs with resources
knowledge of how to learn in this context
metacognitive (self-management skills) development
the interface may facilitate improvements in study skills, language acquisition and/or knowledge of distance learning
The interface is dynamic and individualised. In classrooms teachers mediate all, or most, aspects of learning (planning, assessing, selecting, monitoring, feedback …).
In distance learning the learner has to (situated autonomy) take on many of these tasks. The specific context and individual learner differences will define the interface and with greater experience of DL the interface will modify. In this model the learner is the ‘key agent’ in the construction of the interface
‘Individual learners, with the help of their teachers, are the key agents of the process by whereby particular ICTs are identified as potential tools for language learning; they analyse their potential in terms of their specificity and of their own requirements; they test them, then build them gradually into their language learning environment’
Esch and Zahner, 2000:6
The representation of distance learning by White (and Esch and Zahner) is essentially a dynamic one. It is dynamic because:
needs and preferences change
perceptions of learning context modify
perceptions of the usefulness of TL sources modify
increase in familiarity with DL
increase in self-knowledge
demands of the course modify
successful/less successful learning experiences
feedback from within the learning context
type/extent of interaction preferred may change
preferred learning environments may change
The learner-context interface and sources.
Learning sources are considered central to (distance) learning. Characteristics of DL materials are that they are the sole/main source of instruction. Traditionally distance materials are highly structured and directive leaving little room for students to explore autonomously. There is an underlying assumption that materials are created, then ‘delivered’ to students, and the material is learned. There is also an important assumption (I believe a misconception) that distance means physical distance from the educational establishment. This is, I believe, largely irrelevant. Distance is better understood as psychological distance ( a form of alienation if you prefer) from the course materials, sources and objectives.
A more learner-centred approach to materials might look like this …
The significance of sources in the learner context model is that there is a shift from tutor produced materials being delivered to learners to be processed (input/output) to learners who are active participants in materials/content creation by selecting from and interacting with a range of sources.
This is important because it is the learner who is at the heart of learning and the tutor who is ‘distant’.
The learner-context interface is a theory of distance language learning made up of 3 elements: the learner; the context, and the interface.
The learner.
What the learner brings to learning:
prior knowledge of TL (target language);
prior knowledge of how to learn a language;
prior knowledge of distance learning;
knowledge and skills (learning) relating to other domains and,
beliefs and attitudes within educational, cultural and social settings.
The learner, as an individual, will also have a unique profile based on a number of fixed and dynamic elements. These elements will enormously influence learning.
Factors influencing learning:
innate language acquisition capacity
psycholinguistic processes
gender
age
aptitude
cognitive style
personality
self/social/cultural identity
agency
metacognitive knowledge
beliefs
attitudes
motivation
constructions of self
conceptualisations of learning environment
Given the broad and narrow range of factors affecting acquisition in distance learning environments, it is important to bear these factors in mind when dealing with students at a distance. The more tutors help students understand themselves as learners the better they will be at coping and flourishing in this environment.
The Context.
All of the learner factors described above also interact with the context of learning. The context of distance learning can include:
learning sources
learner support
learning spaces
opportunities for interaction
tutors
the community
the learners’ environment
other sources
Notice that the learner factors are mainly made up of elements relating to the individual, whereas the context is largely about how the individual learner relates to others. Significant others not only include students and tutors but may also include friends, family and colleagues. Indeed, the wider network of others interested in the same academic area may also play a significant part in learning (as it did for my own MEd in education).
Think about your own learning in relation to context and to the list above. In particular, have you tried to collaborate with other students on the course? Why (not)? Who provides support for you/who do you help? Post your comments on the blog.
The learner-context interface.
The interface has two meanings according to White (White, 2003):
the place at which learner and context meet, interact and affect one another
the means by which learner and context meet, interact and affect one another
With experience distance learners interact with materials, learners and tutors modifying the learner-context interface. This has an effect on:
preferred ways of learning
matching needs with resources
knowledge of how to learn in this context
metacognitive (self-management skills) development
the interface may facilitate improvements in study skills, language acquisition and/or knowledge of distance learning
The interface is dynamic and individualised. In classrooms teachers mediate all, or most, aspects of learning (planning, assessing, selecting, monitoring, feedback …).
In distance learning the learner has to (situated autonomy) take on many of these tasks. The specific context and individual learner differences will define the interface and with greater experience of DL the interface will modify. In this model the learner is the ‘key agent’ in the construction of the interface
‘Individual learners, with the help of their teachers, are the key agents of the process by whereby particular ICTs are identified as potential tools for language learning; they analyse their potential in terms of their specificity and of their own requirements; they test them, then build them gradually into their language learning environment’
Esch and Zahner, 2000:6
The representation of distance learning by White (and Esch and Zahner) is essentially a dynamic one. It is dynamic because:
needs and preferences change
perceptions of learning context modify
perceptions of the usefulness of TL sources modify
increase in familiarity with DL
increase in self-knowledge
demands of the course modify
successful/less successful learning experiences
feedback from within the learning context
type/extent of interaction preferred may change
preferred learning environments may change
The learner-context interface and sources.
Learning sources are considered central to (distance) learning. Characteristics of DL materials are that they are the sole/main source of instruction. Traditionally distance materials are highly structured and directive leaving little room for students to explore autonomously. There is an underlying assumption that materials are created, then ‘delivered’ to students, and the material is learned. There is also an important assumption (I believe a misconception) that distance means physical distance from the educational establishment. This is, I believe, largely irrelevant. Distance is better understood as psychological distance ( a form of alienation if you prefer) from the course materials, sources and objectives.
A more learner-centred approach to materials might look like this …
The significance of sources in the learner context model is that there is a shift from tutor produced materials being delivered to learners to be processed (input/output) to learners who are active participants in materials/content creation by selecting from and interacting with a range of sources.
This is important because it is the learner who is at the heart of learning and the tutor who is ‘distant’.
Friday 16 October 2009
Phil in ninja cloak
Dear All,
I can hardly contain my excitement! Alex suggested a proxy server that works, and it is called 'Ninja cloak', which makes it all the more exciting!
With only two weeks left before the deadline, I am afraid that I have, like Sarah, moved away from the idea of basing my assignement on the develpment of pathways, as there just simply won't be time. It does, however, remain a work priority for me this year too, so let's stay in touch! I am now moving on to focus on concordancing, which I have been reading a lot about, and which seems to be a very tangibly useful tool for teaching a very important element of EAP; vocabulary.
On a slightly different note, and just to throw another thought out there really, my thoughts on the value of technology for EAP this week in particular are based on its value to teachers themselves. I facilitated a large staff development session this week at CELE UNNC on the subject of encouraging autonomy amongst students. It seemed like the natural next move after this interesting (one-hour) discussion would be to set up a WebCT discussion board to keep thrashing ideas out, which I am doing now, and it should be ready do next week. It will be really interesting to see how many teachers get involved and how useful they find it, and I think this experiment relates a lot to what we have been talking about. I am particularly thinking about the discussions we had regarding the reluctance of some staff to engage with technology. I will keep you 'post'-ed (ninja cloak permitting)!
As regards an online discussion, I think we are probably all nearing the 'panic and write' phase of the essay development cycle, and so perhaps this is something for after the assignment, when we can perhaps discuss the pathway development ideas, and anything we might get going along the lines of cross campus simulation activities for students?
As a start on pathway stuff, VELA at Hong Kong University (use google search 'VELA Hong Kong' to find it) is pretty good.
Bye for now, and a happy belated 60th anniversary of communist China to you all!
I can hardly contain my excitement! Alex suggested a proxy server that works, and it is called 'Ninja cloak', which makes it all the more exciting!
With only two weeks left before the deadline, I am afraid that I have, like Sarah, moved away from the idea of basing my assignement on the develpment of pathways, as there just simply won't be time. It does, however, remain a work priority for me this year too, so let's stay in touch! I am now moving on to focus on concordancing, which I have been reading a lot about, and which seems to be a very tangibly useful tool for teaching a very important element of EAP; vocabulary.
On a slightly different note, and just to throw another thought out there really, my thoughts on the value of technology for EAP this week in particular are based on its value to teachers themselves. I facilitated a large staff development session this week at CELE UNNC on the subject of encouraging autonomy amongst students. It seemed like the natural next move after this interesting (one-hour) discussion would be to set up a WebCT discussion board to keep thrashing ideas out, which I am doing now, and it should be ready do next week. It will be really interesting to see how many teachers get involved and how useful they find it, and I think this experiment relates a lot to what we have been talking about. I am particularly thinking about the discussions we had regarding the reluctance of some staff to engage with technology. I will keep you 'post'-ed (ninja cloak permitting)!
As regards an online discussion, I think we are probably all nearing the 'panic and write' phase of the essay development cycle, and so perhaps this is something for after the assignment, when we can perhaps discuss the pathway development ideas, and anything we might get going along the lines of cross campus simulation activities for students?
As a start on pathway stuff, VELA at Hong Kong University (use google search 'VELA Hong Kong' to find it) is pretty good.
Bye for now, and a happy belated 60th anniversary of communist China to you all!
Sunday 11 October 2009
Mind mapping tools
Sarah mentioned mind mapping tools in a previous post. I ve just come across this:
http://www.mindmeister.com/
It's really easy to use. Robin Good has used it to map all the best collaborative tools - have a look at:
http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show_public/12213323
http://www.mindmeister.com/
It's really easy to use. Robin Good has used it to map all the best collaborative tools - have a look at:
http://www.mindmeister.com/maps/show_public/12213323
If you'd like a very comprehensive list of technology tools available go to:
Saturday 10 October 2009
Links
Hiya,
back from London and attempting to catch up with activity here, 99 e-mails, and work on the CELE Ning (which you are all invited to join, whether you work at CELE or not. You should have received an invitation ... only a few of you have joined so far).
You might find some interesting articles here for your assiggnments:
http://independentlearning.org/ILA/ila07/proceedings/toc
Alex
PS More from later, no doubt!
back from London and attempting to catch up with activity here, 99 e-mails, and work on the CELE Ning (which you are all invited to join, whether you work at CELE or not. You should have received an invitation ... only a few of you have joined so far).
You might find some interesting articles here for your assiggnments:
http://independentlearning.org/ILA/ila07/proceedings/toc
Alex
PS More from later, no doubt!
Friday 9 October 2009
Hi All
I've been away from the blog for a while and have come back to a flurry of assignment ideas and activity...aaagh! There's obviously a lot of idea sharing going on and for those of us out on a limb I think the live online discussion sounds great- would it work given the numbers?
In terms of my ideas for the assignment, they are still quite vague and time is closing in. Ideally I'd like to do something practical and originally, like Phil, I was thinking along the lines of using the college VLE (Moodle) to create some sort of a pathway to help students navigate through online EAP resources and direct their self study. My problem is that, given that we don't have any form of VSAC (or indeed currently any EAP Moodle presence) at HAUC, it seems a huge task and not one that fits within the parameters and timescale of the assignment. It is, however, one of my aims for the year workwise (and one of the reasons I enroled on the course in the first place); hence my reluctance to let go of it in terms of this assignment.
The other area that I'm becoming interested in is using concept-mapping tools with students. One of the lecturers a HAUC is very interested in them and we've been working together at using them with both undergraduate and postgraduate students in the process of developing research questions. I had also wondered if this might be a possible method for students to analyse their needs/organise their self study? Could a concept map be used as an interface leading students to the appropriate online resources?
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you use web-based concept mapping tools with students you work with and, if so, how?
I've been away from the blog for a while and have come back to a flurry of assignment ideas and activity...aaagh! There's obviously a lot of idea sharing going on and for those of us out on a limb I think the live online discussion sounds great- would it work given the numbers?
In terms of my ideas for the assignment, they are still quite vague and time is closing in. Ideally I'd like to do something practical and originally, like Phil, I was thinking along the lines of using the college VLE (Moodle) to create some sort of a pathway to help students navigate through online EAP resources and direct their self study. My problem is that, given that we don't have any form of VSAC (or indeed currently any EAP Moodle presence) at HAUC, it seems a huge task and not one that fits within the parameters and timescale of the assignment. It is, however, one of my aims for the year workwise (and one of the reasons I enroled on the course in the first place); hence my reluctance to let go of it in terms of this assignment.
The other area that I'm becoming interested in is using concept-mapping tools with students. One of the lecturers a HAUC is very interested in them and we've been working together at using them with both undergraduate and postgraduate students in the process of developing research questions. I had also wondered if this might be a possible method for students to analyse their needs/organise their self study? Could a concept map be used as an interface leading students to the appropriate online resources?
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you use web-based concept mapping tools with students you work with and, if so, how?
Wednesday 7 October 2009
Hi All
Think that'd be really interesting Siobhan - looking at the dist. learning from a subjective point of view. Some of us managed to get together to discuss our assignments and bounce around ideas. I think, as Julia and Phil have expressed in their posts, that we all seem to prefer this kind of exchange, and if we could set up an synchronous live web discu., we'd probably get a lot out of that. ..be pretty funny too! How do you manage turn-taking?!
Regarding ideas for assignments - option 1 may be more feasible - considering time restraints etc, but Phil's suggestion of a cross-campus study is really interesting and something that'd prob. allow lots of scope for further research post-assignment.
Think that'd be really interesting Siobhan - looking at the dist. learning from a subjective point of view. Some of us managed to get together to discuss our assignments and bounce around ideas. I think, as Julia and Phil have expressed in their posts, that we all seem to prefer this kind of exchange, and if we could set up an synchronous live web discu., we'd probably get a lot out of that. ..be pretty funny too! How do you manage turn-taking?!
Regarding ideas for assignments - option 1 may be more feasible - considering time restraints etc, but Phil's suggestion of a cross-campus study is really interesting and something that'd prob. allow lots of scope for further research post-assignment.
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Hello from blustery Buxton,
thank you for sharing so much information on this assignment.
As for me, right now, I literally can't see the wood for the trees, and vice-versa.
I share Phil's need to be sharing ideas over coffee and following up on them, and I'm also thinking along the lines of exploiting WebCT better for collaborative projects. Like you Phil, I'm looking at Option 2 of the assignment and would like to know more about the use of wikis because I think these would allow us, as well as our students, to create the sense of community and belonging that I think Phil is referring to.
Also, some of us have to write a group report for our needs analysis and having a synchronous forum where we can edit everything, view and give immediate feedback would help us feel like a group - I think? And I think the use of wikis can help with that, as well as the use of virtual rooms that you were talking about Sam. We would have to set dates and times to make sure we 'attended', just like the OU does (Siobhan). I personally really feel the need for us to be doing this for our own sakes, but also to instil such practice in the classroom.
Does what I'm saying make any sense? I kind of feel I don't know enough about the technology but that the potential is there. I just don't know which technological tool would best serve the purpose of creating the group cohesion needed to sustain distance learning and what type of collaborative projects would work better online ....
Julia :-/
thank you for sharing so much information on this assignment.
As for me, right now, I literally can't see the wood for the trees, and vice-versa.
I share Phil's need to be sharing ideas over coffee and following up on them, and I'm also thinking along the lines of exploiting WebCT better for collaborative projects. Like you Phil, I'm looking at Option 2 of the assignment and would like to know more about the use of wikis because I think these would allow us, as well as our students, to create the sense of community and belonging that I think Phil is referring to.
Also, some of us have to write a group report for our needs analysis and having a synchronous forum where we can edit everything, view and give immediate feedback would help us feel like a group - I think? And I think the use of wikis can help with that, as well as the use of virtual rooms that you were talking about Sam. We would have to set dates and times to make sure we 'attended', just like the OU does (Siobhan). I personally really feel the need for us to be doing this for our own sakes, but also to instil such practice in the classroom.
Does what I'm saying make any sense? I kind of feel I don't know enough about the technology but that the potential is there. I just don't know which technological tool would best serve the purpose of creating the group cohesion needed to sustain distance learning and what type of collaborative projects would work better online ....
Julia :-/
New post from Phil in China
Klaus and Anne, Your ideas sound very interesting. Firstly, I think you are on to a good line of thinking, Anne, in discussing 'whether we provide enough support...to develop autonomy' and I can relate to your reflections on putting oneself in the shoes of the students and being quite overwhelmed! Coincidentally I am hosting a 'staff development' discussion next week on autonomy and scaffolding (as a facilitator, and not an expert!), and I will let you know if any interesting technology related comments come up. I am intending to raise similar questions to the ones you have proposed, (and those from you, Klaus), and in particular how we can provide more scaffolding for students, as they do seem to be somewhat reluctant (here at UNNC at least) to dive in at the deep end with regard to autonomous study.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this is no big surprise for me when I stop to consider the sheer volume of options they are presented with in terms of self study. Perhaps, therefore, I will work on developing some WebCT 'pathways' that aim to guide students towards suggested study options, thereby opting for the second type of assignemnt structure (i.e. design materials and write a rationale). I was thinking that recommendations regarding a simple set of specific materials could be made by the computer, according to student responses to a questionairre regarding their own needs (which our students have spent a good deal of time considering during our 3 week introductory module, which ends this week, and I am sure something similar is happening in the UK). I am guessing that this would be easy to set up in WebCT. I hope so! Any thoughts?
Another idea that crossed my mind when considering working together on an assignment was a simulation (Ho and Crookall, 1995), (Gonzalez-Lloret 2003), whereby we could exploit the differences in viewpoint between our two campuses and create some kind of cross-campus online activity for students. Perhaps an extended role play regarding environmental issues with one team representing China and the other the UK, or Europe, (or the United Nations, as the case may be!). I have found that students here get particularly passionate when issues of China's internatinal policy are raised, so I don't think that there would be any shortage of active and passionate volunteers for this. Any ideas on how to develop this into something more realisitic would be welcome, not neccessarily for this module only. (ps- we may even be able to muster a Russian 'team' amongst our small Russian student body!)
Finally, I have to admit that I am a bit jealous that Klaus mentioned a discussion with other students regarding the assignemnt (oh, how I yearn for chats with fellow students over coffee on a british campus!), and would really appreciate being involved in a discussion at some point. Perhaps we could use our new found technological awareness (?!) to set up a live discussion online?
Also, Klaus, have you read David Little's article on teacher autonomy? If not, I can email it to you, as I think it may be relevant to at least one of the points you are thinking of writing about.
Bye for now,Phil.
As I mentioned in my previous post, this is no big surprise for me when I stop to consider the sheer volume of options they are presented with in terms of self study. Perhaps, therefore, I will work on developing some WebCT 'pathways' that aim to guide students towards suggested study options, thereby opting for the second type of assignemnt structure (i.e. design materials and write a rationale). I was thinking that recommendations regarding a simple set of specific materials could be made by the computer, according to student responses to a questionairre regarding their own needs (which our students have spent a good deal of time considering during our 3 week introductory module, which ends this week, and I am sure something similar is happening in the UK). I am guessing that this would be easy to set up in WebCT. I hope so! Any thoughts?
Another idea that crossed my mind when considering working together on an assignment was a simulation (Ho and Crookall, 1995), (Gonzalez-Lloret 2003), whereby we could exploit the differences in viewpoint between our two campuses and create some kind of cross-campus online activity for students. Perhaps an extended role play regarding environmental issues with one team representing China and the other the UK, or Europe, (or the United Nations, as the case may be!). I have found that students here get particularly passionate when issues of China's internatinal policy are raised, so I don't think that there would be any shortage of active and passionate volunteers for this. Any ideas on how to develop this into something more realisitic would be welcome, not neccessarily for this module only. (ps- we may even be able to muster a Russian 'team' amongst our small Russian student body!)
Finally, I have to admit that I am a bit jealous that Klaus mentioned a discussion with other students regarding the assignemnt (oh, how I yearn for chats with fellow students over coffee on a british campus!), and would really appreciate being involved in a discussion at some point. Perhaps we could use our new found technological awareness (?!) to set up a live discussion online?
Also, Klaus, have you read David Little's article on teacher autonomy? If not, I can email it to you, as I think it may be relevant to at least one of the points you are thinking of writing about.
Bye for now,Phil.
Monday 5 October 2009
Distance learning
Distance learning has been around for a long time of course and used to be called a correspondence course. When I was still at school I did one of my a levels by correspondence course from somewhere called Wolsey Hall and very hard going it was too. Then of course the Open University turned it into an art form and struggling by yourself was enlivened by those amazing printed OU course modules and the TV programmes-not to mention the summer schools.
I'm interested in Sam's comment that you can feel a bit distant from yourself while doing distance learning. I think that is very true for me. When I'm talking to and around other people -bouncing ideas off them etc everything just seems a bit more real (that's a bit sad isn't it?! maybe I should write an assignment about the insecurities of the distance learner). Still its an interesting subject and maybe some subjects lend themselves more to distance learning than others. I must say language learning strikes me as being the very last subject that Iwould want to learn as a distance learner as just by its very nature it is so interactive. Though I suppose if you're very advanced already and brushing up on certain aspects it would be all right though not a lot of fun.
I'm interested in Sam's comment that you can feel a bit distant from yourself while doing distance learning. I think that is very true for me. When I'm talking to and around other people -bouncing ideas off them etc everything just seems a bit more real (that's a bit sad isn't it?! maybe I should write an assignment about the insecurities of the distance learner). Still its an interesting subject and maybe some subjects lend themselves more to distance learning than others. I must say language learning strikes me as being the very last subject that Iwould want to learn as a distance learner as just by its very nature it is so interactive. Though I suppose if you're very advanced already and brushing up on certain aspects it would be all right though not a lot of fun.
Link on Dist. Learning (dist. learning MA and residential)
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/english/postgrad/students_say_dlma07.html
Distance Learning
Some of the lit. suggests that students on Dist. Learning courses are more concerned with assessment and the need to gain qualifications, research suggests they rarely do it for pleasure? Whereas many students may choose campus-based courses precisely for this reason. Personally, I would choose a distance course due to geographical uncertainty, but not for any other reason. I like to learn through talking and often get frustrated having to be 'stuck' in front of a screen. This interests me - (as it seems the very term 'distance' conveys a certain autonomy or at least freedom from physical or geographical constraint) not knowing where I might be based or because it allows you to study abroad etc. As Klaus suggested it's convenient and often the only option for those who need to upgrade to get on. Certainly in the intinerant nature of tefl - an online Masters seems the only option if you need to continue working. I would say that it's also possible to feel 'distant' from yourself whilst studying online. Indeed the term seems very apt.
I'd like to know your thoughts on studying as a distance learner? If we consider the human interaction that many believe is essential to learning - and that many seem to crave in this context - then would you be content to explore various software or technologies that have been designed to try to 'engage' learners or in some way enable such interaction? I don't feel I would, except in the case of distance learning.
I'd like to know your thoughts on studying as a distance learner? If we consider the human interaction that many believe is essential to learning - and that many seem to crave in this context - then would you be content to explore various software or technologies that have been designed to try to 'engage' learners or in some way enable such interaction? I don't feel I would, except in the case of distance learning.
Heyho:) Thanks for posting your thoughts on assignments. Think the practical slant sounds good Anne. I started to interview teachers about their use of technology in the EAP classroom, particularly PowerPoint/its use as an educational tool in general/in the EAP classroom and its relevance in project classes. I'm also drawn towards looking at Distance Learning and have found a recent (2008) article about 'Unreal PowerPoint' and 'Immersive Environments,' which I thought could be applied to EAP with particular relevance to distance learning. For example, one of the criticisms of PP is the 'linear' nature of rhetoric, in that if used in a less than critical fashipn, the tutor may simply present and read information in the order that it is displayed. It could be argued this might improve structure and cohesion for example, but it could also limit discussion and dialogue etc. In an online 'IE', for example where students 'follow' a presenter into 'rooms' where they can access information about, for instance, 'essay structure;' this traditional linear format of relaying information could be avoided as the presenter could ask the students which 'room' they wanted to explore - or when students activated the software by distance learning, (also enabling revision) they could exercise autonomy by choosing which rooms and in what order they wished to access the rooms. They could also choose to focus on a particular area they were interested in, for example, 'linking words' and collaborate with other students to share their 'expertise.' What do you think?
So far, I've only interviewed Klaus, but it was really interesting, and I'm looking forward to interviewing more teachers this week. It has obv. relevance to project class and I'm interested in how teachers utilise it in the classroom, whether teachers think it should be used in project class etc. Why is it still generally accepted as the dominant form of presentation software? Originally conceived as a 'sales tool' - what implications does that have on its application in education? What are the alternatives? One teacher suggested interactive whiteboards, which are a more recent arrival, which have also been criticised as not being that 'smart.' Having taught project classes and assessed many presentations at another school I worked at, where students were very keen to use PP in this context got me thinking. On asking them why they liked using it, many of the shy students said it gave them more confidence as they hated public speaking. In this context, it can be useful as a tool to prepare students (structure/signposting etc), but all too often it can be relied on as a prop, or a professional mask. On observing students observing other student presentations, many seem to 'glaze over' when PP was used, possibly because the student was not engaging with them (an example of technology as a barrier to communication). Those students who didn't use or overuse PP, generally gave more motivating presentations. (This was not just my perception but based on student feedback.) Again any comments on your experience of this would be appreciated. I would argue that PP was not designed to get us to 'think,' so on that basis I'm not sure it should be used as much as it is, and in the way that it often is, in EAP or education in general.
However, I do admit there are ways to be 'creative' with PP - one interviewee mentioned 'mindmaps.' Can you think of any other ways PP can be used in a more engaging or critical way in EAP? How do you use it yourself? Do you feel it helps you to engage with learners - or does using technology seem to have the potential to 'remove' you somehow from the teaching process? On observing others who use PP in their lectures - teaching etc, they often seem to be going through the motions - having delivered it many times before. Personally, as soon as the homogenous blue-screen is projected, I tend to switch off. It is then down to the speaker to wake me from my hypnosis! (!) (Permanently scarred from a brief stint in travel sales!!) I distinctly dislike being taught through PP, prefering not to be given handouts, then a series of slides, read aloud, which I could easily do at home. I knew a teacher who dressed in a suit and used PP everyday. In feedback, his students considered him lacking in expertise, but that he was a well-prepared teacher. This teacher confided in me that he felt unable to face the class without his ready-made presentations. It is interesting that in one study I read, a teacher who used technology, a lot then relaxed his use of it later in the term, received negative comments in post-course feedback, so if a teacher starts out using technology regularly then stops, this may be perceived negatively by students.
I'm rambling, (!) what are your thoughts on the above and how PP is used in EAP and in Project classes in AE?
Are you comfortable to embrace technology in your teaching?
As Alex suggested on this blog - in the future EAP tutors may be teaching by distance learning - how would you feel about this?
Cheers:)
So far, I've only interviewed Klaus, but it was really interesting, and I'm looking forward to interviewing more teachers this week. It has obv. relevance to project class and I'm interested in how teachers utilise it in the classroom, whether teachers think it should be used in project class etc. Why is it still generally accepted as the dominant form of presentation software? Originally conceived as a 'sales tool' - what implications does that have on its application in education? What are the alternatives? One teacher suggested interactive whiteboards, which are a more recent arrival, which have also been criticised as not being that 'smart.' Having taught project classes and assessed many presentations at another school I worked at, where students were very keen to use PP in this context got me thinking. On asking them why they liked using it, many of the shy students said it gave them more confidence as they hated public speaking. In this context, it can be useful as a tool to prepare students (structure/signposting etc), but all too often it can be relied on as a prop, or a professional mask. On observing students observing other student presentations, many seem to 'glaze over' when PP was used, possibly because the student was not engaging with them (an example of technology as a barrier to communication). Those students who didn't use or overuse PP, generally gave more motivating presentations. (This was not just my perception but based on student feedback.) Again any comments on your experience of this would be appreciated. I would argue that PP was not designed to get us to 'think,' so on that basis I'm not sure it should be used as much as it is, and in the way that it often is, in EAP or education in general.
However, I do admit there are ways to be 'creative' with PP - one interviewee mentioned 'mindmaps.' Can you think of any other ways PP can be used in a more engaging or critical way in EAP? How do you use it yourself? Do you feel it helps you to engage with learners - or does using technology seem to have the potential to 'remove' you somehow from the teaching process? On observing others who use PP in their lectures - teaching etc, they often seem to be going through the motions - having delivered it many times before. Personally, as soon as the homogenous blue-screen is projected, I tend to switch off. It is then down to the speaker to wake me from my hypnosis! (!) (Permanently scarred from a brief stint in travel sales!!) I distinctly dislike being taught through PP, prefering not to be given handouts, then a series of slides, read aloud, which I could easily do at home. I knew a teacher who dressed in a suit and used PP everyday. In feedback, his students considered him lacking in expertise, but that he was a well-prepared teacher. This teacher confided in me that he felt unable to face the class without his ready-made presentations. It is interesting that in one study I read, a teacher who used technology, a lot then relaxed his use of it later in the term, received negative comments in post-course feedback, so if a teacher starts out using technology regularly then stops, this may be perceived negatively by students.
I'm rambling, (!) what are your thoughts on the above and how PP is used in EAP and in Project classes in AE?
Are you comfortable to embrace technology in your teaching?
As Alex suggested on this blog - in the future EAP tutors may be teaching by distance learning - how would you feel about this?
Cheers:)
Sunday 4 October 2009
Assignment too!
Okay. I'm also trying to get my head round my assignment. My thoughts are leaning towards what Alex described as a more practical topic. I'm thinking about trying to evaluate how we develop students' library-based research skills, specifically through the project component of the presessional course at CELE. On this course, the students have to find sources through the university online catalogue (UNLOC), the elibrary gateway, or trawling through physical libraries here on campus, to write a 3,000 word project on a topic related to their future major.
It's ironic that I'm sitting here in the Hallward library frustrated at my inability to find relevant articles to read about study skills, critical thinking and student autonomy, using the technology that this coming week I shall be asking my students to do. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach!" Not sure who said that, but I'm feeling it to be true for me at the moment!
Having taught the project component on the 5-week course in the summer, I've been thinking about what we ask the students to do and how successful or otherwise they are at using the technology to access sources. To get me started I have started asking teachers who have taught this component a few questions about what we do, whether we provide enough support to develop the necessary skills that lead to autonomy, and if not, what we could do to improve this. I think I'm gradually narrowing down to consider a)accessing materials through the portal; b)deciding if the materials are useful/relevant/appropriate; c)storing for retrieval. Then I think I need to evaluate the problems/constraints for both the students and CELE and perhaps come up with some recommendations.
Just writing this down now seems to be helping me to focus - as long as I'm focusing in the right direction! I'd be interested in any comments you may have to make.
Klaus, I've just read through your post and feel that I could be your guinea pig when it comes to the technological obstacles impeding teacher autonomy!!
Back to the search for sources.
It's ironic that I'm sitting here in the Hallward library frustrated at my inability to find relevant articles to read about study skills, critical thinking and student autonomy, using the technology that this coming week I shall be asking my students to do. "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach!" Not sure who said that, but I'm feeling it to be true for me at the moment!
Having taught the project component on the 5-week course in the summer, I've been thinking about what we ask the students to do and how successful or otherwise they are at using the technology to access sources. To get me started I have started asking teachers who have taught this component a few questions about what we do, whether we provide enough support to develop the necessary skills that lead to autonomy, and if not, what we could do to improve this. I think I'm gradually narrowing down to consider a)accessing materials through the portal; b)deciding if the materials are useful/relevant/appropriate; c)storing for retrieval. Then I think I need to evaluate the problems/constraints for both the students and CELE and perhaps come up with some recommendations.
Just writing this down now seems to be helping me to focus - as long as I'm focusing in the right direction! I'd be interested in any comments you may have to make.
Klaus, I've just read through your post and feel that I could be your guinea pig when it comes to the technological obstacles impeding teacher autonomy!!
Back to the search for sources.
Assignment
And here is another thing :)
This post realates to our assignment for this module.
I have talked to Claire, Sam and Anne, and we have been exchanging a few ideas, which helped me to find a topic that I would be interested in writing about.
I would like to look at the teacher and technology. For that I have asked myself a few qusetions:
Why are some teachers anxiuos to use technology/embrace new technology?
Does every teacher have to be able to use all sorts of technology?
How can technology facilitate teacher autonomy? (Teacher as autonomous learner? Who teaches the teacher?)
Criticality towards technolgy - What make sense, what does not?
How can teachers develop in order to provide sufficient scaffolding for students to fulfil expectations in their courses? (thinking about the use of technology for learning, presentations, research - I know the latter two will covered in other people's work, but I might want to mention it; focus will be on the first one though)
I think, this is a bit much already, but these are some ideas I'd like to look at, so if anyone has any comments, suggestions, articles that might be useful etc, I am happy to receive replies to this.
Just wanted to share this.
This post realates to our assignment for this module.
I have talked to Claire, Sam and Anne, and we have been exchanging a few ideas, which helped me to find a topic that I would be interested in writing about.
I would like to look at the teacher and technology. For that I have asked myself a few qusetions:
Why are some teachers anxiuos to use technology/embrace new technology?
Does every teacher have to be able to use all sorts of technology?
How can technology facilitate teacher autonomy? (Teacher as autonomous learner? Who teaches the teacher?)
Criticality towards technolgy - What make sense, what does not?
How can teachers develop in order to provide sufficient scaffolding for students to fulfil expectations in their courses? (thinking about the use of technology for learning, presentations, research - I know the latter two will covered in other people's work, but I might want to mention it; focus will be on the first one though)
I think, this is a bit much already, but these are some ideas I'd like to look at, so if anyone has any comments, suggestions, articles that might be useful etc, I am happy to receive replies to this.
Just wanted to share this.
Assignments and other info
Dear all,
I've had a number of meetings and e-mails regarding the assignments. I've been really enthused by your suggestions so far and it is encouraging to see a diversity of questions and interests. Perhaps we're getting to a point where you'd like to peer review some of your ideas for assignments and get some friendly feedback from other participants?
Can I suggest you post your current thoughts on what you'd like to write about for your assignments on the blog? I think a bit of brainstorming might be very useful for everyone.
A second point is that I'm thinking of having our 'academic literacy' week starting next Monday week i.e. starting the 12th of October. This would be great as a means to discuss the ideas emerging from your assignments and readings with other EAP practitioners from the OU and perhaps other colleagues from CELE? We could do this on the this blog OR I could set up another space for this to take plae if you prefer. Could you let me know your thoughts (through the blog and not e-mail so all can see) asap?
I've had a number of meetings and e-mails regarding the assignments. I've been really enthused by your suggestions so far and it is encouraging to see a diversity of questions and interests. Perhaps we're getting to a point where you'd like to peer review some of your ideas for assignments and get some friendly feedback from other participants?
Can I suggest you post your current thoughts on what you'd like to write about for your assignments on the blog? I think a bit of brainstorming might be very useful for everyone.
A second point is that I'm thinking of having our 'academic literacy' week starting next Monday week i.e. starting the 12th of October. This would be great as a means to discuss the ideas emerging from your assignments and readings with other EAP practitioners from the OU and perhaps other colleagues from CELE? We could do this on the this blog OR I could set up another space for this to take plae if you prefer. Could you let me know your thoughts (through the blog and not e-mail so all can see) asap?
Thoughts on distance learning
All right, I have a few thoughts on the task, so my views of distance learning in relation to the posts on this blog.
What definitely strikes me as true are the following:
"...the learner is more isolated than most students, is required to maintain/sustain motivation without direct and immediate support from peers and teachers..."
"...requires the learner to manage both the rate and direction of learning. This, inevitably, requires an accurate knowledge of self as a learner. Distance learning environments use technologies and structures (technological and pedagogical) that might be unfamiliar to students. Students need to develop new skills, motivations and commitments to take full advantage of distance learning environments."
While it is also true that distance learning has quite a few advantages, the above points stress that it is, in the form it is currently widely available, a very lonely business. Of course, it is great to be able to manage one's studies oneself. The distance learner is only bound by deadlines. Where I conduct my studies, sitting in bed as I am doing it right now, lazing on a beach on Bali as I would like to be doing it right now or at midnight or 3 in the morning is entirely my business. Given some decent time management skills, that can be great because I can create my own favourite learning environment and not worry about being in a certain classroom at a certain time with certain people. Also, if I felt like, I could get my certificate or degree from an overseas university with appealing programmes. But we all know this.
So here are some thoughts on the downsides of distance learning, and to be honest, I think there are a lot that, in sum, can make a distance course much more difficult to complete successfully than a face to face course.
At times, the learner may simply feel lost. Communication is more complicated than on campus, a tutor might be on leave or not reply to an e-mail, fellow students may not be very keen to communicate with each other for various reasons, and it is entirley possible that a student (I know that from myself and other friends who have taken distance courses)reaches the point where he or she says "Why the hell am I doing this?", as there seems to be limited interes in what they are doing.
The presonal factor very often drops away. People simply do not know each other. The OU, for example, offers one tutorial a month in which students meet the person who marks their assignments. That is not very much and can hardly create a good relation or any form of trust between the student and the institution/teacher. I am currently in the lucky position that I know all the convenors of this course personally and see them every know and again. If that weren't the case, I might think differently about this course, even though there is certianly a lot of effort, proven by e.g. this blog, to keep communication going. But I guess that is the nature of distance learning, which brings me to the next point: Motivation. As I said before, it is great that the distance learner can create their learning environment - if that is a lot of help after a busy day at work is another matter of course:) I think it is easy to loose focus or simply let down one's guard for a while, and suddenly you have missed a few things that seem important, so, I guess everyone can relate to that, one has to quickly catch up with the reading (e.g. the posts on the blog, the recommended articles for a task etc.), which actually makes it difficult to maintain their favourite work environment. Another effect is that, only a few weeks away from the next assignment deadline, a student might only have a rather vague idea of they want to write about, let alone what to read for the assignment. I am usually not the type of person that leaves everything to the last minute, but when I do a distance course (this is not the first one, but the first one with a university), I tend to work in "bursts" of activity. I do a big chunk of work in a very short time and keep repeating that every few days until it is finished. Unfortunately, I very much prefer learning continuously to keep the strain low, but with distance learning, this seems to be my way... I know that I am not alone with that, so perhaps there even is a pattern. Someone apply for funding and research this please :)
I guess what I want to say is that distacne learning can be a really good thing if lacking alternatives (working full-time doesen't leave a lot of alternatives, does it?). It requires a lot of skills, though, that a student would not need to that extent in a face to face course. Certainly that is also true for the tutors, who have to communicate via the same channels as the students and have to keep track of a studnet's "presence" and paricipation in the virtual classroom.
I believe that distance learning will improve a lot, and I know that synchronous learning is alos possible through, i.e., online lectures and tutorials, provided the appropriate technology is available to all involved.
To answer the task question, yes, a lot of the things mentioned do ring true for me as a distance learner, and I think there is a lot of awareness of the student's issues in distance learning. That is a good starting point on which can be built to make distance learning a more attractive and satisfying experience for learners.
What definitely strikes me as true are the following:
"...the learner is more isolated than most students, is required to maintain/sustain motivation without direct and immediate support from peers and teachers..."
"...requires the learner to manage both the rate and direction of learning. This, inevitably, requires an accurate knowledge of self as a learner. Distance learning environments use technologies and structures (technological and pedagogical) that might be unfamiliar to students. Students need to develop new skills, motivations and commitments to take full advantage of distance learning environments."
While it is also true that distance learning has quite a few advantages, the above points stress that it is, in the form it is currently widely available, a very lonely business. Of course, it is great to be able to manage one's studies oneself. The distance learner is only bound by deadlines. Where I conduct my studies, sitting in bed as I am doing it right now, lazing on a beach on Bali as I would like to be doing it right now or at midnight or 3 in the morning is entirely my business. Given some decent time management skills, that can be great because I can create my own favourite learning environment and not worry about being in a certain classroom at a certain time with certain people. Also, if I felt like, I could get my certificate or degree from an overseas university with appealing programmes. But we all know this.
So here are some thoughts on the downsides of distance learning, and to be honest, I think there are a lot that, in sum, can make a distance course much more difficult to complete successfully than a face to face course.
At times, the learner may simply feel lost. Communication is more complicated than on campus, a tutor might be on leave or not reply to an e-mail, fellow students may not be very keen to communicate with each other for various reasons, and it is entirley possible that a student (I know that from myself and other friends who have taken distance courses)reaches the point where he or she says "Why the hell am I doing this?", as there seems to be limited interes in what they are doing.
The presonal factor very often drops away. People simply do not know each other. The OU, for example, offers one tutorial a month in which students meet the person who marks their assignments. That is not very much and can hardly create a good relation or any form of trust between the student and the institution/teacher. I am currently in the lucky position that I know all the convenors of this course personally and see them every know and again. If that weren't the case, I might think differently about this course, even though there is certianly a lot of effort, proven by e.g. this blog, to keep communication going. But I guess that is the nature of distance learning, which brings me to the next point: Motivation. As I said before, it is great that the distance learner can create their learning environment - if that is a lot of help after a busy day at work is another matter of course:) I think it is easy to loose focus or simply let down one's guard for a while, and suddenly you have missed a few things that seem important, so, I guess everyone can relate to that, one has to quickly catch up with the reading (e.g. the posts on the blog, the recommended articles for a task etc.), which actually makes it difficult to maintain their favourite work environment. Another effect is that, only a few weeks away from the next assignment deadline, a student might only have a rather vague idea of they want to write about, let alone what to read for the assignment. I am usually not the type of person that leaves everything to the last minute, but when I do a distance course (this is not the first one, but the first one with a university), I tend to work in "bursts" of activity. I do a big chunk of work in a very short time and keep repeating that every few days until it is finished. Unfortunately, I very much prefer learning continuously to keep the strain low, but with distance learning, this seems to be my way... I know that I am not alone with that, so perhaps there even is a pattern. Someone apply for funding and research this please :)
I guess what I want to say is that distacne learning can be a really good thing if lacking alternatives (working full-time doesen't leave a lot of alternatives, does it?). It requires a lot of skills, though, that a student would not need to that extent in a face to face course. Certainly that is also true for the tutors, who have to communicate via the same channels as the students and have to keep track of a studnet's "presence" and paricipation in the virtual classroom.
I believe that distance learning will improve a lot, and I know that synchronous learning is alos possible through, i.e., online lectures and tutorials, provided the appropriate technology is available to all involved.
To answer the task question, yes, a lot of the things mentioned do ring true for me as a distance learner, and I think there is a lot of awareness of the student's issues in distance learning. That is a good starting point on which can be built to make distance learning a more attractive and satisfying experience for learners.
Thursday 1 October 2009
Info
Dear PGCTEAPers,
hope all is well with all of you and you're enjoying the module/course.
I'm e-mailing all of you about a few things.
Firstly, I'm inviting you to join a social networking site I am in the process of setting up for all of CELE - and that includes staff in Malaysia, Ningbo and Nottingham. I am trying to get it to function properly and you're some the first people I've invited. When you receive an invite please join (you won't find a great deal on it at the moment but content will develop). You can set up a PGCTEAP group within the ning site, use the chat function to brainstorm, start a discussion, post a link, whatever you like. Please play with it, use it and tell me what you'd like to see there and what doesn't work :-(
Secondly, I'll be in touch very shortly about inviting colleagues from the OU to discuss new media and academic literacy. We are looking to have an 'academic literacy' week of discussion starting Monday 12th. This will be an excellent opportunity to meet new people doing EAP, test out some of your perhaps vague ideas that you thinking about for your assignment ... and get a bit of stimulation.
There was a third thing ... but I've forgotten!
I'll remember later.
Best wishes
Alex
hope all is well with all of you and you're enjoying the module/course.
I'm e-mailing all of you about a few things.
Firstly, I'm inviting you to join a social networking site I am in the process of setting up for all of CELE - and that includes staff in Malaysia, Ningbo and Nottingham. I am trying to get it to function properly and you're some the first people I've invited. When you receive an invite please join (you won't find a great deal on it at the moment but content will develop). You can set up a PGCTEAP group within the ning site, use the chat function to brainstorm, start a discussion, post a link, whatever you like. Please play with it, use it and tell me what you'd like to see there and what doesn't work :-(
Secondly, I'll be in touch very shortly about inviting colleagues from the OU to discuss new media and academic literacy. We are looking to have an 'academic literacy' week of discussion starting Monday 12th. This will be an excellent opportunity to meet new people doing EAP, test out some of your perhaps vague ideas that you thinking about for your assignment ... and get a bit of stimulation.
There was a third thing ... but I've forgotten!
I'll remember later.
Best wishes
Alex
Monday 28 September 2009
Distance Learning Readings
A few articles to get you started ....
Gorsky, P. and Caspi, A. (2005) Dialogue: a theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 36 No 2 137–144
Forrester, G et al. (2005) Going the distance: students’ experiences of induction to distance learning in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 29, No. 4, November, 293–306
Miller, S. (2001) How near and yet how far? Theorizing distance teaching. Computers and Composition 18, 321–328
Stroupe, C. (2003) Making distance presence: The compositional voice in online learning. Computers and Composition 20, 255–275
Garrison, R. (2001) Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-17
White, C. (2004) Independent Language Learning in Distance Education: Current Issues. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003, 1-9
White, C., Murphy, L. Shelley, M. & Baumann, U. (2005). Towards an understanding of tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching: Tutor maxims. In T. Evans, P. Smith & E. Stacey (Eds.) Research in Distance Education 6. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University,. 83–97 (available at: http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/research/education/conferences/publications/ride/2004/doc/9White.pdf)
Gorsky, P. and Caspi, A. (2005) Dialogue: a theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 36 No 2 137–144
Forrester, G et al. (2005) Going the distance: students’ experiences of induction to distance learning in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education Vol. 29, No. 4, November, 293–306
Miller, S. (2001) How near and yet how far? Theorizing distance teaching. Computers and Composition 18, 321–328
Stroupe, C. (2003) Making distance presence: The compositional voice in online learning. Computers and Composition 20, 255–275
Garrison, R. (2001) Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-17
White, C. (2004) Independent Language Learning in Distance Education: Current Issues. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003, 1-9
White, C., Murphy, L. Shelley, M. & Baumann, U. (2005). Towards an understanding of tutor attributes and expertise in distance language teaching: Tutor maxims. In T. Evans, P. Smith & E. Stacey (Eds.) Research in Distance Education 6. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University,. 83–97 (available at: http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/research/education/conferences/publications/ride/2004/doc/9White.pdf)
Task
Think about your own experience as a distance student. Do any of the observations in the previous posts ring true for you? What have you learned about yourself as a distance student? How might this knowledge influence you as a distance EAP tutor?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this
The Distance Learner
The distance learner is faced with a learning experience which is potentially quite different from the classroom-based learner. In distance learning contexts learners are more involved with self-management, faced with a larger number of choices, and faced with a greater variety of roles and decisions (usually associated with a teacher). These decisions will relate to language fit (material/tasks and learning needs) and making connections between elements in the course (much as you are having to do now).
In addition the learner is more isolated than most students, is required to maintain/sustain motivation without direct and immediate support from peers and teachers, and has limited access to synchronous communication (both on-line and in person). Feedback, monitoring, assistance and mediation from tutors regarding EAP development are less immediate than the classroom.
The distance context requires the learner to manage both the rate and direction of learning. This, inevitably, requires an accurate knowledge of self as a learner. Distance learning environments use technologies and structures (technological and pedagogical) that might be unfamiliar to students. Students need to develop new skills, motivations and commitments to take full advantage of distance learning environments.
Clearly, from the above, the distance context puts new demands on the learner. The design, pedagogy and structure of the distance learning course must be thought out and planned with these factor firmly in mind.
In addition the learner is more isolated than most students, is required to maintain/sustain motivation without direct and immediate support from peers and teachers, and has limited access to synchronous communication (both on-line and in person). Feedback, monitoring, assistance and mediation from tutors regarding EAP development are less immediate than the classroom.
The distance context requires the learner to manage both the rate and direction of learning. This, inevitably, requires an accurate knowledge of self as a learner. Distance learning environments use technologies and structures (technological and pedagogical) that might be unfamiliar to students. Students need to develop new skills, motivations and commitments to take full advantage of distance learning environments.
Clearly, from the above, the distance context puts new demands on the learner. The design, pedagogy and structure of the distance learning course must be thought out and planned with these factor firmly in mind.
EAP and Distance Learning: Definitions
EAP and Distance Learning: Definitions
White (2003) identifies three ways to approach defining distance learning:
1. organisational/structural concerns
2. pedagogical concerns
3. learner-centred concerns
White (2003) identifies three ways to approach defining distance learning:
1. organisational/structural concerns
2. pedagogical concerns
3. learner-centred concerns
1. An organisational/structural definition usually incorporates the following elements:
the separation of teacher and learner in time and/or place
the use of a variety of media
the use of communication tools
the potential for face-to-face contact
provision of support services
2. The starting point for pedagogical concerns is developing skills in the target language (TL). This means thinking about the focus of the course – writing, reading, speaking and listening. The choice of pedagogical and communication tools/media will have a huge impact on the skills developed and how these skills develop.
3. A learner-centred approach (developed by White (1999/2003) involves …
‘the establishment of an effective interface between each learner and his or her learning context is the crucible for distance language learning. The notion of the learner-context interface and its role in the distance language learning process originates from learners’ reflections and perspectives on the meaning of distance language learning and its unique characteristics.’
White (2003: 86)
A learner-centred approach takes as the starting point the ways in which the learner appropriates – and makes sense of – the context of learning. This will depend on the dynamic reflections and perspectives of learners, the importance they give to learning and how the experience of distance learning shapes their views and beliefs about learning and distance learning in particular.
EAP and Distance Learning: Introduction
It may seem strange to focus on distance learning and EAP as there is little evidence, to date, that there is a much activity in this area. It would appear to be a marginal area of activity. Southampton University offer a pre-arrival on-line course for international students, and a few other universities offer EAP support in distance mode. However, it is my view that in the next five to ten years more and more universities will begin to provide fully distance EAP courses. Why is this? Firstly, there will be an increase in projects such as Nottingham’s in China (a kind of global branding of prestigious universities – whatever you may think of this). This entails providing quality assured learning materials across vast distances for a very large number of students: Distance materials may be seen as a cost-effective means to deliver these materials. Secondly, providing distance materials to prospective students is an attractive means of ensuring that international students arrive on campus already well prepared for academic life. Thirdly, more universities – in attempting to ‘cash in’ on the global market of international students will need to do more and more to attract these students. Therefore, providing state-of-the art materials is a means of keeping potential students loyal to the university. Fourthly, technology has advanced to such an extend that all types of multimedia interactions are possible now to counter the image and reputation of distance learning a s a poor relation to campus based education. Lastly, universities are providing more and more distance courses and providing EAP support is a natural extension of this activity.
In this component we will examine some of the issues in distance learning. Mostly, you will be required to think about the content here and apply it to the EAP context. Very little has been written about distance learning and EAP.
In this component we will examine some of the issues in distance learning. Mostly, you will be required to think about the content here and apply it to the EAP context. Very little has been written about distance learning and EAP.
Friday 25 September 2009
New Topics: Distance Learning and Self-access Learning
Hiya,
briefly, over the next week or so we'll be looking at, firstly, Distance Learning and then Self-access learning. We'll only touch on these topics (although I would encourage you to read in depth ... at your leasure) as time is very tight.
I'll be posting tomorrow and Sunday. In the meantime you might want to look at:
Language Learning & Technology - on distance learning
Have a good weekend
Alex
briefly, over the next week or so we'll be looking at, firstly, Distance Learning and then Self-access learning. We'll only touch on these topics (although I would encourage you to read in depth ... at your leasure) as time is very tight.
I'll be posting tomorrow and Sunday. In the meantime you might want to look at:
Language Learning & Technology - on distance learning
Have a good weekend
Alex
Books I like
Hiya,
I'd like to recommend two books which I have found very useful in shaping my own thinking on technology and teaching.
Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching
AUTHOR(S): Marie-Noëlle Lamy & Regine Hampel
Abstract:
Online Communication in Language Learning and Teaching offers theoretical and practical as well as research perspectives for approaching technologies that supportonline communication for language learning. Examining tools such as forums, chats,audio and visual real-time platforms as well as virtual worlds and mobile devices, and reviewing the literature that deals with such tools in use in educational settings, the authors identify key theoretical issues (e.g. pedagogic developments in online language learning, learning theories, teacher and student experience, assessment) and offer a thorough appraisal of the potential benefits and challenges of learning and teaching alanguage via these technologies. The authors talk directly and practically to teachers about research issues of relevance to them and suggest do-able small-scale projects, as well as providing an extensive annotated collection of online resources.
Language Learning in Distance Education
AUTHOR: Cynthia White
Review
'Not only does White offer a comprehensive guide to the study of languages at a distance, but much credit should also be given to the author for her successful efforts in unraveling the ever increasing number of competing definitions, overlapping concepts and eclectic approaches that have mushroomed in the field in recent years. Indeed, although White states that the volume will be of particular interest to anyone who has [already] worked within distance learning contexts, I would argue that it is just as suitable for readers with little or no prior expertise in language learning at a distance ... I can hardly recommend Language learning in distance education highly enough, as a truly groundbreaking contribution to the study of its topic ... provides a sound basis for future research into how distance language learners respond to and reconceptualize their particular learning environments.'
Open Learning
Reflections from Phil
Phil has asked me to post this on the blog. As you know, Phil is working in ningbo China and this blog is 'unavailable' there. So, I'm forwarding all posts to him as and when they are posted. Hopefully, he'll find a way to access the blog soon.
Hello all!
Firstly, apologies for my silence, and I won't bore you with tales of how frustrating it is not to be able to access the internet fully in China! I'd like to pick up from thepoint that it is hard to rely on SLA as a basis for evaluating CALL. I think it is important to make a clear link to autonomy here, in the sense that when we look for factors other than SLA theory for justifying NT and CALL, their relevance to the development of autonomy is paramount. In my experience, I have found that EAP students are much more likely to engage in autonomous learning if there is an element of NT involved. There are a few things that I have considered that might be reasons for this:
-I think that there is an important element of 'freshness' and excitement attached to the use of NT, perhaps in contrast to the acknowledged reticence or hostility on the part of some teachers! (For example...UNNC podcasts with listening materials on them seem to be very popular, if only as a good way for students to show off the best bits of their super wizzy phones to their mates!)
- I have found that students are most comfortable when they are at their computers, and from my informal discussion with students, it seems that that the amount of time the average student here spends in front of a computer is incredible!
Perhaps then, the fact that students find computers appealing and somewhat natural, or at least normal, is a justification in itself for the use of CALL. On the other hand, I have found that students are put off some of the elements of CALL that are offered to them (at UNNC) because of the simple fact that there are a huge amount of options for students to choose from when selecting online materials. Taking these observations into account, and further to Alex's suggestion that we discuss our assignment plans through the blog, I would like to point to one potential field of enquiry here. It could be argued that navigating the vast array of resources available for autonomous study is something we could perhaps help students more in doing. Perhaps we could use technology to do this in some way? A few ideas, perhaps as a starting point for discussion are as follows:
1)-Creating online 'pathways' through WebCT that guide students to the best resources for them on the basis of their self-identified needs.
2)-Projects combining the chat and discussion board functions of WebCT with the aim of encouraging students to meet online and deal with online materials together (perhaps accross classes and departments).
I thought of 1) when in the Self Access Centre at UNNC, where I was insprired by the simple fact that the they have a 'recommended reader' every week, whic helps students to pick a path through the 'forest' of reading resources there. It sounds simple, but I feel this kind of suggestion to be the key to making the step into regular autonomous study, which I feel is sometimes hindered by the sheer quantity of options to choose from. Perhaps what is needed to make this volume of choice less daunting is a similar 'push' to that of the SAC in terms of autonomous online learning. By this I mean that a regular pointer to particularly useful and topical (i.e. in relation to their studies at that time) materials could inspire students to take things more into their own hands. My thoughts on (2 came when reading the article by Hubbard.
Another potential area of focus could be that of correction. I have found that what our students at UNNC often want is more direct correction of their written language, which to some degree is understandable since they only get a few peices of close marked work back per semester, and are often used to having much more than this in previous schools. Bearing in mind work on autonomy, and of course, point five in the interactionist evaluative model, we would need to develop some kind of way for students to correct their own work, or that of their peers with limited input from the tutor. I am sure we all do this in our own way anyway by encouraging peer marking, but what I am suggesting is that we could use NT to take this to the next level. The 'next level' could entail a number of things, but the angle I have thought about most is based on the idea that encouraging more self and peer correction could be crucially related to increasing student confidence in their own marking comments. I am suggesting this because student feedback here has led me to conclude that when correcting their own work or that of their peers, students are often concerned by the fact that their corrections will not be 'good enough'. Perhaps we could we use CALL in some way to provide some confidence here? Could we introduce some element of checking against an external source without sacrificing elements of autonomy? Perhaps, for example, some simple programming could allow academic words versus typically used non- academic words to be highligted. Perhaps also, information from the 'Common Errors Project' could be incorporated into a programme in order to enable students to work out what is wrong with particular errors (I am not sure if UoN also has a 'Common Errors Project' like that we have here, please let me know if not).
One final possibility could be encouraging students to upload videos of themselves practising presentations, in an attmept to encourage some mutual peer feedback around a given structure (i.e. pointing the students to the elements of a good presentation that they could watch out for).
Obviously, this is all pretty vague and I hope it reads Ok, but it is just intended as a start!
Bye for now,
Phil.
Hello all!
Firstly, apologies for my silence, and I won't bore you with tales of how frustrating it is not to be able to access the internet fully in China! I'd like to pick up from thepoint that it is hard to rely on SLA as a basis for evaluating CALL. I think it is important to make a clear link to autonomy here, in the sense that when we look for factors other than SLA theory for justifying NT and CALL, their relevance to the development of autonomy is paramount. In my experience, I have found that EAP students are much more likely to engage in autonomous learning if there is an element of NT involved. There are a few things that I have considered that might be reasons for this:
-I think that there is an important element of 'freshness' and excitement attached to the use of NT, perhaps in contrast to the acknowledged reticence or hostility on the part of some teachers! (For example...UNNC podcasts with listening materials on them seem to be very popular, if only as a good way for students to show off the best bits of their super wizzy phones to their mates!)
- I have found that students are most comfortable when they are at their computers, and from my informal discussion with students, it seems that that the amount of time the average student here spends in front of a computer is incredible!
Perhaps then, the fact that students find computers appealing and somewhat natural, or at least normal, is a justification in itself for the use of CALL. On the other hand, I have found that students are put off some of the elements of CALL that are offered to them (at UNNC) because of the simple fact that there are a huge amount of options for students to choose from when selecting online materials. Taking these observations into account, and further to Alex's suggestion that we discuss our assignment plans through the blog, I would like to point to one potential field of enquiry here. It could be argued that navigating the vast array of resources available for autonomous study is something we could perhaps help students more in doing. Perhaps we could use technology to do this in some way? A few ideas, perhaps as a starting point for discussion are as follows:
1)-Creating online 'pathways' through WebCT that guide students to the best resources for them on the basis of their self-identified needs.
2)-Projects combining the chat and discussion board functions of WebCT with the aim of encouraging students to meet online and deal with online materials together (perhaps accross classes and departments).
I thought of 1) when in the Self Access Centre at UNNC, where I was insprired by the simple fact that the they have a 'recommended reader' every week, whic helps students to pick a path through the 'forest' of reading resources there. It sounds simple, but I feel this kind of suggestion to be the key to making the step into regular autonomous study, which I feel is sometimes hindered by the sheer quantity of options to choose from. Perhaps what is needed to make this volume of choice less daunting is a similar 'push' to that of the SAC in terms of autonomous online learning. By this I mean that a regular pointer to particularly useful and topical (i.e. in relation to their studies at that time) materials could inspire students to take things more into their own hands. My thoughts on (2 came when reading the article by Hubbard.
Another potential area of focus could be that of correction. I have found that what our students at UNNC often want is more direct correction of their written language, which to some degree is understandable since they only get a few peices of close marked work back per semester, and are often used to having much more than this in previous schools. Bearing in mind work on autonomy, and of course, point five in the interactionist evaluative model, we would need to develop some kind of way for students to correct their own work, or that of their peers with limited input from the tutor. I am sure we all do this in our own way anyway by encouraging peer marking, but what I am suggesting is that we could use NT to take this to the next level. The 'next level' could entail a number of things, but the angle I have thought about most is based on the idea that encouraging more self and peer correction could be crucially related to increasing student confidence in their own marking comments. I am suggesting this because student feedback here has led me to conclude that when correcting their own work or that of their peers, students are often concerned by the fact that their corrections will not be 'good enough'. Perhaps we could we use CALL in some way to provide some confidence here? Could we introduce some element of checking against an external source without sacrificing elements of autonomy? Perhaps, for example, some simple programming could allow academic words versus typically used non- academic words to be highligted. Perhaps also, information from the 'Common Errors Project' could be incorporated into a programme in order to enable students to work out what is wrong with particular errors (I am not sure if UoN also has a 'Common Errors Project' like that we have here, please let me know if not).
One final possibility could be encouraging students to upload videos of themselves practising presentations, in an attmept to encourage some mutual peer feedback around a given structure (i.e. pointing the students to the elements of a good presentation that they could watch out for).
Obviously, this is all pretty vague and I hope it reads Ok, but it is just intended as a start!
Bye for now,
Phil.
Thursday 24 September 2009
Report on an international collaborative project
Hi again,
I think you might find this interesting:
http://tdu.massey.ac.nz/VCsim/VCsymposium08WalkerWhiteFINAL/index.htm
It's a presenetation entitled "Teaching & Learning for international collaboration" by Ute Walker and Cynthia White.
Have a look.
Alex
I think you might find this interesting:
http://tdu.massey.ac.nz/VCsim/VCsymposium08WalkerWhiteFINAL/index.htm
It's a presenetation entitled "Teaching & Learning for international collaboration" by Ute Walker and Cynthia White.
Have a look.
Alex
Saturday 19 September 2009
Academic Literacy Discussion
Hi again,
(and for the last time today!) I have been in contact with a colleague at the OU - Mirjam - who is interested in tutors reflections on academic literacy - specifically in relation to academic literacy and technology. I thought that it would be really interesting as part of this module if I invited her and possibly a couple of her colleagues to join us on the blog for a week to have a discussion on this topic. Obviously, I will have given you a couple of readings beforehand, and this topic is part of our module anyway. It would give you the opportunity to discuss with colleagues working in a different context, it could be quite lively and informative, and hopefully we'd all get some new thoughts and perspectives on EAP.
What Mirjam and I would like is to be able to extract some of your comments to i) provide extracts for an OU online course on EAP and ii) provide some data for possible research. You too could also use online comments for your assignments and if you'd like to present or publish. For this week of discussion you could also invite colleagues to join for this period of the module. Of course, for research ethics purposes I would clarify everything and you would be asked permission etc. All comments would be anonymised and your identity would be protected and you could refuse specific comments being used. I think it would be a good thing for everyone ... maybe I could invite colleagues at CELE to participate. I was thinking of doing this in about three weeks time.
Any thoughts on this? Objections? ....
Let me know!
Alex
(and for the last time today!) I have been in contact with a colleague at the OU - Mirjam - who is interested in tutors reflections on academic literacy - specifically in relation to academic literacy and technology. I thought that it would be really interesting as part of this module if I invited her and possibly a couple of her colleagues to join us on the blog for a week to have a discussion on this topic. Obviously, I will have given you a couple of readings beforehand, and this topic is part of our module anyway. It would give you the opportunity to discuss with colleagues working in a different context, it could be quite lively and informative, and hopefully we'd all get some new thoughts and perspectives on EAP.
What Mirjam and I would like is to be able to extract some of your comments to i) provide extracts for an OU online course on EAP and ii) provide some data for possible research. You too could also use online comments for your assignments and if you'd like to present or publish. For this week of discussion you could also invite colleagues to join for this period of the module. Of course, for research ethics purposes I would clarify everything and you would be asked permission etc. All comments would be anonymised and your identity would be protected and you could refuse specific comments being used. I think it would be a good thing for everyone ... maybe I could invite colleagues at CELE to participate. I was thinking of doing this in about three weeks time.
Any thoughts on this? Objections? ....
Let me know!
Alex
Update on the module
Dear all,
the summer presessional programme has just finished at CELE. Anne, Klaus, Sam and Claire are all off on a well-deserved break from CELE. Julia is heading to the countryside and her family. This means that there is unlikely to be much activity in the next week or so from a number of particpants. Phil is in China and has been very quiet due to the fact that China appears to be blocking this blog. I'm sending him updates as and when.
I will continue to add content to the blog though throughout next week. And I'd be very happy to hear from Sarah, Phil and Siobhan next week.
I've had a couple of requests for clarification regarding assignments. The deadline is as stated in the handbook (the 30th of October I think). The topic and scope of the assignment is open to discussion. However, it must have an EAP and technology focus. It can be theoretical, practical, a small scale research project ... we can talk about it once you get an idea of what you'd like to do.
I'd really like it if we could discuss assignments on the blog. That way we can all contribute to making assignments better. There might be overlap on topics and I'd be delighted if you collaborated on writing the assignmnents by sharing references, perhaps writing on the same topic from different perpsectives, editing and commenting on each other's work. Basically, assignments are not competitive, so perhaps we could all help each other a bit and use various bits of technology (google groups, the blog, google docs, word ...) to support each other. Obviously, no obligation to do so, but I think it would be really interesting to write in a more collaborative manner. What do you think?
As for help with topics and titles, I can provide guidance on this, please ask and we'll start the ball rolling when you're ready.
Right ... now for the potatoes
Alex
the summer presessional programme has just finished at CELE. Anne, Klaus, Sam and Claire are all off on a well-deserved break from CELE. Julia is heading to the countryside and her family. This means that there is unlikely to be much activity in the next week or so from a number of particpants. Phil is in China and has been very quiet due to the fact that China appears to be blocking this blog. I'm sending him updates as and when.
I will continue to add content to the blog though throughout next week. And I'd be very happy to hear from Sarah, Phil and Siobhan next week.
I've had a couple of requests for clarification regarding assignments. The deadline is as stated in the handbook (the 30th of October I think). The topic and scope of the assignment is open to discussion. However, it must have an EAP and technology focus. It can be theoretical, practical, a small scale research project ... we can talk about it once you get an idea of what you'd like to do.
I'd really like it if we could discuss assignments on the blog. That way we can all contribute to making assignments better. There might be overlap on topics and I'd be delighted if you collaborated on writing the assignmnents by sharing references, perhaps writing on the same topic from different perpsectives, editing and commenting on each other's work. Basically, assignments are not competitive, so perhaps we could all help each other a bit and use various bits of technology (google groups, the blog, google docs, word ...) to support each other. Obviously, no obligation to do so, but I think it would be really interesting to write in a more collaborative manner. What do you think?
As for help with topics and titles, I can provide guidance on this, please ask and we'll start the ball rolling when you're ready.
Right ... now for the potatoes
Alex
Comments SLA posts (Klaus and Sarah)
Hi everyone,
I've read with great interest the posts by Sarah and Klaus. I won't attempt a summary nor an extended critique, mainly because both posts seem to make a lot of sense and read very well. Two things caught my attention:
The two websites I spent quite some time looking at both do not fulfil all the given criteria. I do not believe that makes them bad websites with bad materials, but it may illustrate that to actually design web material that addresses a large number of needs and demanding quality criteria, is an extremely difficult thing to achieve that probably needs some serious funding if only to pay the programmer! ...What does that tell me? Materials are not perfect and they need constant development. Whether the criteria Chapelle uses are really realistic, I will ponder another time.
Klaus
In terms of how applicable it is to the websites I'm less sure. I think this maybe partly because I'm not sure that the central aim of many of the sites is language learning/acquiring language per se. Many of the websites seem to be much more aimed at helping students with academic skills: organising, structuring, stylistic features, study skills etc. All of these are very much central to our role as EAP teachers: much of what we do is about choice of and organisation of language rather than acquiring new language. Maybe what's up for debate here is the role of an EAP teacher (I don't think we've focused on this much in this module)?
Sarah
Klaus highlights the cost of producing interactive e-materials and he's certainly correct. Not many EAP centres and tutors have access to vast funds or resources to produce materials. Many don't have the time, others the skills, and some can't see the point. Much of what you can find on the web is produced by dedicated enthusiasts or is the fruit of one-off financing for a specific set of materials with little thought/time given to developing the materials. Quality control, editing and evaluation of materials are not always part of the process of producing materials. And, a specific rationale or SLA theory is often implicit rather than a feature of the design of materials.
This means that the tutor has an important role, as we've said before, in mediating and evaluating existing materials (never mind the production of materials) in order to assess how useful these materials might be for a given group of students. I also note that Sarah or Klaus (sorry can't remember) mentioned that they doubted that their students would be willing to undertake some of the more time-consuming or complex tasks. I certainly often share that idea when I see materials but at the same time I know that this is more based on intuition than any data as such. In other words, I make assumptions about what students will or won't do with e-materials rather than find out what they actually do. I think more hard evidence would be useful and more opinions and experiences from students would also help us to understand why they use or don't use various technologies and websites. We do have a mediating role, including helping students organise their learning, I just think we need to involve the students more actively in this than we often do.
Evaluating materials according to SLA criteria is complex and has led both Sarah and Klaus to doubt whether SLA can provide a solid enough framework for this to be effective. I agree mostly. I think it forms part of a complex set of criteria to evaluate and create e-materials. I have been trying to guide you through some of these - autonomy, history and SLA - and guide you through some others later in the module.
Sarah asks about the focus in this module of the EAP tutor. And, again, she's right. Implicit (although I will make it more explicit later in the module) in what I have been trying to express is that the tutor must understand an array of issues in order to make effective use of technology. This includes roles, autonomy, understanding of where we are in the current teaching and technology 'fashions', the changing nature of academic literacy partly due to technology, and also where we might find hard and soft evidence to support our teaching endeavours with technology.
I thinks that's enough for now. Time to dig up the potatoes ...
Alex
I've read with great interest the posts by Sarah and Klaus. I won't attempt a summary nor an extended critique, mainly because both posts seem to make a lot of sense and read very well. Two things caught my attention:
The two websites I spent quite some time looking at both do not fulfil all the given criteria. I do not believe that makes them bad websites with bad materials, but it may illustrate that to actually design web material that addresses a large number of needs and demanding quality criteria, is an extremely difficult thing to achieve that probably needs some serious funding if only to pay the programmer! ...What does that tell me? Materials are not perfect and they need constant development. Whether the criteria Chapelle uses are really realistic, I will ponder another time.
Klaus
In terms of how applicable it is to the websites I'm less sure. I think this maybe partly because I'm not sure that the central aim of many of the sites is language learning/acquiring language per se. Many of the websites seem to be much more aimed at helping students with academic skills: organising, structuring, stylistic features, study skills etc. All of these are very much central to our role as EAP teachers: much of what we do is about choice of and organisation of language rather than acquiring new language. Maybe what's up for debate here is the role of an EAP teacher (I don't think we've focused on this much in this module)?
Sarah
Klaus highlights the cost of producing interactive e-materials and he's certainly correct. Not many EAP centres and tutors have access to vast funds or resources to produce materials. Many don't have the time, others the skills, and some can't see the point. Much of what you can find on the web is produced by dedicated enthusiasts or is the fruit of one-off financing for a specific set of materials with little thought/time given to developing the materials. Quality control, editing and evaluation of materials are not always part of the process of producing materials. And, a specific rationale or SLA theory is often implicit rather than a feature of the design of materials.
This means that the tutor has an important role, as we've said before, in mediating and evaluating existing materials (never mind the production of materials) in order to assess how useful these materials might be for a given group of students. I also note that Sarah or Klaus (sorry can't remember) mentioned that they doubted that their students would be willing to undertake some of the more time-consuming or complex tasks. I certainly often share that idea when I see materials but at the same time I know that this is more based on intuition than any data as such. In other words, I make assumptions about what students will or won't do with e-materials rather than find out what they actually do. I think more hard evidence would be useful and more opinions and experiences from students would also help us to understand why they use or don't use various technologies and websites. We do have a mediating role, including helping students organise their learning, I just think we need to involve the students more actively in this than we often do.
Evaluating materials according to SLA criteria is complex and has led both Sarah and Klaus to doubt whether SLA can provide a solid enough framework for this to be effective. I agree mostly. I think it forms part of a complex set of criteria to evaluate and create e-materials. I have been trying to guide you through some of these - autonomy, history and SLA - and guide you through some others later in the module.
Sarah asks about the focus in this module of the EAP tutor. And, again, she's right. Implicit (although I will make it more explicit later in the module) in what I have been trying to express is that the tutor must understand an array of issues in order to make effective use of technology. This includes roles, autonomy, understanding of where we are in the current teaching and technology 'fashions', the changing nature of academic literacy partly due to technology, and also where we might find hard and soft evidence to support our teaching endeavours with technology.
I thinks that's enough for now. Time to dig up the potatoes ...
Alex
Friday 18 September 2009
I had a go at using the 7 criteria for evaluating websites and found that I ran into difficulties. Common sense (and my years of experience as an EFL teacher) tell me that the interactionist model and its 7 recommendations form a good basis for helping students to acquire new language and is certainly a good model for classroom practice. In terms of how applicable it is to the websites I'm less sure. I think this maybe partly because I'm not sure that the central aim of many of the sites is language learning/acquiring language per se. Many of the websites seem to be much more aimed at helping students with academic skills: organising, structuring, stylistic features, study skills etc. All of these are very much central to our role as EAP teachers: much of what we do is about choice of and organisation of language rather than acquiring new language. Maybe what's up for debate here is the role of an EAP teacher (I don't think we've focused on this much in this module)?
I suppose one of the reasons that the websites don't seem to focus as much on the productive side, which involves a high degree of interactivity, is not through lack of methodological principle but because of the constraints of time and money. (Klaus expressed this much more lucidly in his post, I think.) In Chapelle, the illustrations used were sophisticated software packages which allowed students to "...engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning" (Chapelle, p16) and this seems to be where many of the websites fail.
So, when I chose websites I tried to focus on activities that had a productive language aim. The first website I looked at was the University of Richmond Writing Center> Writing> Focusing, Connecting> Adding Action and Clarity to Writing (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/clarity/html).
This activity looks at avoiding weak verbs and the passive voice in order to add clarity to writing.
In terms of how it fulfilled the criteria:
Criteria 1 and 2) The focus was more on what language not to use than vice versa. Some examples of how to avoid the passive and weak verbs were given, but the syntactic changes were not highlighted. The semantic (stylistic) implications of the changes were outlined.
Criterion 3) Sentences are provided for transformation, so students do have the opportunity for target language production, though there was no answer key.
Criteria 4,5,6 and 7 were not addressed.
I looked at a few other pages on the site and concluded that this would be a difficult website for students to use unless they were very high level learners. The emphasis was very much on explanation, with complex metalanguage. Not to say it's a bad website, but I'd be more likely to use it as a resource to be adapted for classroom use rather than recommending it to my students.
The site that I looked at that seemed to provide most opportunities for 1-7 was the HKU Writing Machine. I looked at the pages on writing introductions, and liked the way it moved from analysis of form and function through to analysis of own errors (using a previously written introduction) through to output in the form of a revised introduction, followed up by self-analysis against a checklist of questions. It seemed to be a thoughtfully constructed and sequenced set of tasks that took learners through the steps needed to achieve the task. I do wonder, though, how many of my students would take the time to diligently work their way through the different steps.
One thing I do find about trawling through the online materials is that it is a trawl ie very time consuming in terms of locating resources that are useful and appropriate. There is also so much written text to deal with. Personally I feel that a lot of these resources need teacher mediation/guidance in order for learners to get the most out of them. I'm not sure what this says about me and learner autonomy though! I did like Alex's idea of asking students to assess websites or activities as a way of helping direct students' learning.
I suppose one of the reasons that the websites don't seem to focus as much on the productive side, which involves a high degree of interactivity, is not through lack of methodological principle but because of the constraints of time and money. (Klaus expressed this much more lucidly in his post, I think.) In Chapelle, the illustrations used were sophisticated software packages which allowed students to "...engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning" (Chapelle, p16) and this seems to be where many of the websites fail.
So, when I chose websites I tried to focus on activities that had a productive language aim. The first website I looked at was the University of Richmond Writing Center> Writing> Focusing, Connecting> Adding Action and Clarity to Writing (http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/clarity/html).
This activity looks at avoiding weak verbs and the passive voice in order to add clarity to writing.
In terms of how it fulfilled the criteria:
Criteria 1 and 2) The focus was more on what language not to use than vice versa. Some examples of how to avoid the passive and weak verbs were given, but the syntactic changes were not highlighted. The semantic (stylistic) implications of the changes were outlined.
Criterion 3) Sentences are provided for transformation, so students do have the opportunity for target language production, though there was no answer key.
Criteria 4,5,6 and 7 were not addressed.
I looked at a few other pages on the site and concluded that this would be a difficult website for students to use unless they were very high level learners. The emphasis was very much on explanation, with complex metalanguage. Not to say it's a bad website, but I'd be more likely to use it as a resource to be adapted for classroom use rather than recommending it to my students.
The site that I looked at that seemed to provide most opportunities for 1-7 was the HKU Writing Machine. I looked at the pages on writing introductions, and liked the way it moved from analysis of form and function through to analysis of own errors (using a previously written introduction) through to output in the form of a revised introduction, followed up by self-analysis against a checklist of questions. It seemed to be a thoughtfully constructed and sequenced set of tasks that took learners through the steps needed to achieve the task. I do wonder, though, how many of my students would take the time to diligently work their way through the different steps.
One thing I do find about trawling through the online materials is that it is a trawl ie very time consuming in terms of locating resources that are useful and appropriate. There is also so much written text to deal with. Personally I feel that a lot of these resources need teacher mediation/guidance in order for learners to get the most out of them. I'm not sure what this says about me and learner autonomy though! I did like Alex's idea of asking students to assess websites or activities as a way of helping direct students' learning.
Thursday 17 September 2009
An aside: Learning Styles Don't exist
Found this recently and it certainly made me think. In EAP and EFL we talk a lot about learning styles ... here is some evidence that, in fact, they don't exist!
'Good teaching is good teaching and teachers don't need to adjust their teaching to individual learning styles'
'Good teaching is good teaching and teachers don't need to adjust their teaching to individual learning styles'
Sunday 13 September 2009
Chosen VSAC sites
So, here we go on the task:
I looked at two websites linked to VSAC, one for reading and the other one for grammar. I took my time with that. That's why I didn't look at more. Here are my findings:
Reading
intermediate level reading strategy exercise
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/dcts1.pl
Text:
People love Superman because he always saves the day! Superman started as a comic book character. He was first drawn in 1938 by two men named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. He was an immediate success! Everyone loved the man from the planet Krypton. Since then, Superman has appeared in comic books, newspapers, movies, and on television.
1st question:
Find the best replacement for the word immediate.
a)popular
b)slow
c)very great
d)at once
I chose "very great" to check the feedback. It said "Incorrect. Try again."
My view: It is difficult to guess "at once" from context. In fact, given the co-text, I think "very great" is the most likely choice.
More exercises like this follow.
Then this:
Which sentence would best complete this paragraph?
a)Superman started as a comic book character.
b)One of the most famous characters of fiction is called "Superman."
c)Superman is as popular today as he was more than half a century ago.
My view: this tests comprehension and also the ability to interpret the task correctly. What this has to do with reading strategy, is not apparent to me.
The same goes for the following deduction question:
Which sentence could logically be inserted in this paragraph?
a)Superman led the way to many other 'superheroes' in comic books.
b)The Superman movies were not very good.
c)Superman was created before Batman.
The 7 criteria:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
The tasks are clear, but do not relate to the section I chose. No task addresses reading strategies.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
Not given. The learner receives "correct" or "incorrect" as reply to their effort. It would be helpful to have an explanation as to why a choice is incorrect, e.g. the real meaning of the word in the vocab exercise.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
Multiple choice. No output.
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
They don't through reflection or indication. Firstly, this is multiple choice, so there is no real output in terms of produced language. They are told that the answer is incorrect and they should choose another one. Basically, they are ruling out the wrong answers.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
They do, by multiple choice, eliminating wrong answers.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
Not given. Synonyms in the vocab section could have helped.
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
No interaction.
Apart from the task assuming that everyone knows Superman and Batman, it disappoints as it does not give any help with reading strategies. It is a mixed task of vocab guessing and reading comprehension. There are thousands of tasks like this on the web, which work in the same way, so this one here is not special. If we take the 7 criteria, the task fails to address most of them, simply because the reader does not produce anything. The task about completing the paragraph, for example, could have been exploited to that goal. This was the first task that came up when I determined my choices (intermediate/reading strategies), so I would have expected something more tangible, or salient, to get me started.
Grammar
Guide to Grammar and Writing
No level indicated, no choice of e.g. intermediate, advanced etc.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
"highly recommended" by VSAC
On paragraph level, I chose an exercise on coherence and transition.
While doing so, I noticed that the site presumes a very high level of English for the reader, making it difficult to say how accessible this really is to learners of, say, IELTS 5.5. level. I also looked at prepositions on sentence level, the exercise related to which was all right, if not interactive in terms of production. It was a "click all the prepositions" exercise, which then went on to explain why some words that often are prepositions are not in this particular text. This may be helpful if the student is not put off by the sheer amount of theroetical reading.
But back to coherence and transition.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/transitions.htm
We look at explanations that could have been taken form a grammar book. That is not in itself bad. I look at grammar books a lot. So, a lot of information (rules, words, theory) is presented and some examples are given. Then we can move on to do an exercise.
The instructions are rather clear, but the actual task is exemplified by and requires a lot of meta language - perhaps quite the opposite of what a learner is looking for when trying to address one particular grammar issue. The information here is quite sound, but as I said, there is a lot of virtual teacher talking time and the application of the thusly acquired knowledge presumes a high level of language proficiency. So, for a lower level learner, this site may actually appear quite daunting. Once the task is completed (or at any time actually), the student can get the answers the website suggests.
So, back to the 7 criteria:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
The tasks are clear, and there is a lot of in-depth explantion, at times quite idiomatic (e.g. run the gamut), potentially making it difficult for lower-level users to find the site user friendly. There are some examples to illustrate the use of language features.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
Given. In the prepositions task, the learner receives explanations on why some words are prepostions and some, in the specific context, are not.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
Very limited. The learner is required to identify devices for coherence. This does not make him/her actually produce them, but to analyse them and name them (meta language).
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
Errors are not flagged. The student has to compare the own answers with the suggested answers. From an analytical point of view, this makes sense. From the learner's point of view, this may be inconvenient.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
Not given.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
Not given. The exercise is entirely descriptive and does not allow for finding alternatives
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
Certainly, the tasks provide valid examples and good explanations, but they are not particularly interactive. The tasks I looked at are desinged for individual study and do not allow the student to expand. Practical language output is very limited.
All in all, this seems a good website for students who really want to engage in in-depth learning. It does not provide quick fixes or a lot of exercises. It presumes a high level of proficiency of the learner. From experience I would say that a large number of my current students (aiming at IELTS 5.5/6) might just close the site once they see the lengthy explanations that come before the small amount of exercises. Again, gramatically, the site is sound and it all makes sense. But it is quite theoretical behind a facade of superficial interactivity (clicking in places and writing down one's own thoughts in a text box).
It is not a bad site, but it does not at all levels satisfy the criteria we are looking at.
The two websites I spent quite some time looking at both do not fulfil all the given criteria. I do not believe that makes them bad websites with bad materials, but it may illustrate that to actually design web material that addresses a large number of needs and demanding quality criteria, is an extremely difficult thing to achieve that probably needs some serious funding if only to pay the programmer :). Still, the websites, I looked at are doing mostly fine in what they want to achieve, which is obviously different from what Chapelle's criteria ask for.
What does that tell me? Materials are not perfect and they need constant development. Whether the criteria Chapelle uses are really realistic, I will ponder another time.
I looked at two websites linked to VSAC, one for reading and the other one for grammar. I took my time with that. That's why I didn't look at more. Here are my findings:
Reading
intermediate level reading strategy exercise
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/dcts1.pl
Text:
People love Superman because he always saves the day! Superman started as a comic book character. He was first drawn in 1938 by two men named Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. He was an immediate success! Everyone loved the man from the planet Krypton. Since then, Superman has appeared in comic books, newspapers, movies, and on television.
1st question:
Find the best replacement for the word immediate.
a)popular
b)slow
c)very great
d)at once
I chose "very great" to check the feedback. It said "Incorrect. Try again."
My view: It is difficult to guess "at once" from context. In fact, given the co-text, I think "very great" is the most likely choice.
More exercises like this follow.
Then this:
Which sentence would best complete this paragraph?
a)Superman started as a comic book character.
b)One of the most famous characters of fiction is called "Superman."
c)Superman is as popular today as he was more than half a century ago.
My view: this tests comprehension and also the ability to interpret the task correctly. What this has to do with reading strategy, is not apparent to me.
The same goes for the following deduction question:
Which sentence could logically be inserted in this paragraph?
a)Superman led the way to many other 'superheroes' in comic books.
b)The Superman movies were not very good.
c)Superman was created before Batman.
The 7 criteria:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
The tasks are clear, but do not relate to the section I chose. No task addresses reading strategies.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
Not given. The learner receives "correct" or "incorrect" as reply to their effort. It would be helpful to have an explanation as to why a choice is incorrect, e.g. the real meaning of the word in the vocab exercise.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
Multiple choice. No output.
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
They don't through reflection or indication. Firstly, this is multiple choice, so there is no real output in terms of produced language. They are told that the answer is incorrect and they should choose another one. Basically, they are ruling out the wrong answers.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
They do, by multiple choice, eliminating wrong answers.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
Not given. Synonyms in the vocab section could have helped.
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
No interaction.
Apart from the task assuming that everyone knows Superman and Batman, it disappoints as it does not give any help with reading strategies. It is a mixed task of vocab guessing and reading comprehension. There are thousands of tasks like this on the web, which work in the same way, so this one here is not special. If we take the 7 criteria, the task fails to address most of them, simply because the reader does not produce anything. The task about completing the paragraph, for example, could have been exploited to that goal. This was the first task that came up when I determined my choices (intermediate/reading strategies), so I would have expected something more tangible, or salient, to get me started.
Grammar
Guide to Grammar and Writing
No level indicated, no choice of e.g. intermediate, advanced etc.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/
"highly recommended" by VSAC
On paragraph level, I chose an exercise on coherence and transition.
While doing so, I noticed that the site presumes a very high level of English for the reader, making it difficult to say how accessible this really is to learners of, say, IELTS 5.5. level. I also looked at prepositions on sentence level, the exercise related to which was all right, if not interactive in terms of production. It was a "click all the prepositions" exercise, which then went on to explain why some words that often are prepositions are not in this particular text. This may be helpful if the student is not put off by the sheer amount of theroetical reading.
But back to coherence and transition.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/transitions.htm
We look at explanations that could have been taken form a grammar book. That is not in itself bad. I look at grammar books a lot. So, a lot of information (rules, words, theory) is presented and some examples are given. Then we can move on to do an exercise.
The instructions are rather clear, but the actual task is exemplified by and requires a lot of meta language - perhaps quite the opposite of what a learner is looking for when trying to address one particular grammar issue. The information here is quite sound, but as I said, there is a lot of virtual teacher talking time and the application of the thusly acquired knowledge presumes a high level of language proficiency. So, for a lower level learner, this site may actually appear quite daunting. Once the task is completed (or at any time actually), the student can get the answers the website suggests.
So, back to the 7 criteria:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
The tasks are clear, and there is a lot of in-depth explantion, at times quite idiomatic (e.g. run the gamut), potentially making it difficult for lower-level users to find the site user friendly. There are some examples to illustrate the use of language features.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
Given. In the prepositions task, the learner receives explanations on why some words are prepostions and some, in the specific context, are not.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
Very limited. The learner is required to identify devices for coherence. This does not make him/her actually produce them, but to analyse them and name them (meta language).
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
Errors are not flagged. The student has to compare the own answers with the suggested answers. From an analytical point of view, this makes sense. From the learner's point of view, this may be inconvenient.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
Not given.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
Not given. The exercise is entirely descriptive and does not allow for finding alternatives
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
Certainly, the tasks provide valid examples and good explanations, but they are not particularly interactive. The tasks I looked at are desinged for individual study and do not allow the student to expand. Practical language output is very limited.
All in all, this seems a good website for students who really want to engage in in-depth learning. It does not provide quick fixes or a lot of exercises. It presumes a high level of proficiency of the learner. From experience I would say that a large number of my current students (aiming at IELTS 5.5/6) might just close the site once they see the lengthy explanations that come before the small amount of exercises. Again, gramatically, the site is sound and it all makes sense. But it is quite theoretical behind a facade of superficial interactivity (clicking in places and writing down one's own thoughts in a text box).
It is not a bad site, but it does not at all levels satisfy the criteria we are looking at.
The two websites I spent quite some time looking at both do not fulfil all the given criteria. I do not believe that makes them bad websites with bad materials, but it may illustrate that to actually design web material that addresses a large number of needs and demanding quality criteria, is an extremely difficult thing to achieve that probably needs some serious funding if only to pay the programmer :). Still, the websites, I looked at are doing mostly fine in what they want to achieve, which is obviously different from what Chapelle's criteria ask for.
What does that tell me? Materials are not perfect and they need constant development. Whether the criteria Chapelle uses are really realistic, I will ponder another time.
Thoughts on Posts 1-3
Before I have a go at the task set in Alex's post #4, I'll write down a few thoughts I had while reading the first three posts on this topic, simply because some issues were introduced there that I find crucial for understanding the why technology is viewed in a light so different from the criteria that seem to be common to evaluate other teaching approaches/materials. I find it interesting where the opposition to integrating technology into teaching comes from. I certainly don't have the answers, but I do have an idea.
To start with, my guess is that change is very often regarded as challenge.If a (relatively) new method or new tools for a certain activity, in this case something as traditional as teaching, a re introduced, "experts" (i.e. teachers and linguists - and to a certain extent learners) in the field in question, are extremely critical, because, in a way, new technologies challenge traditional ways of doing something - they are often not perceived as help but as an intrusion.
The introduction of new techniques, or technologies, always brings critque and a call for justification in its wake. Surely, this is a healthy thing. It's not advisable to simply "let loose" technologies for CALL on classrooms or homes. The tools that are introduced need careful examination. In one of the previous posts, Alex posted a list of criteria that he looks for in a good website. Certainly, all materilas, textbooks, handouts, lesson plans and of course technology require such examination - especially in an EAP context, where the tolerance for errors is (for good reasons) extremely limited.
The reason CALL and new technologies are to extra justification probably is that they require recipients to acquire additional skills. This goes back to the problems "technophobes" have when asked to use technology in the classrom. To be honest, the usefulness of smart boards (are they really smart???) still hasn't become very clear to me. If I were trained in their use, I guess I could utilise them to make things easier. But way I see it now, I simply do not need them, and the only good they do for me is to save whiteboard markers. But maybe I am missing something. Anyway, I believe viewpoints like this explain the demand for extra justification. Whether that demand is in itself justified or not, I cannot say.
I do remember when I studied translation, a new piece of technology was introduced, allegedly producing accurate translations. There was an uproar in the "translation community" seeing as we saw ourselves become obsolete. Of course, the thing was by far not as good as claimed, and translators remain an important asset to companies, law firms, embassies etc. around the world. The reason I am saying this is that the thought quite ties in with an idea from Alex's second post (Dehumanises teaching)"takes away control from the teacher. Often teachers perceive technology to be in control of the teaching and learning, relegating the teacher to the role of supervisor/monitor". Here, a teacher would move to the background of teaching, letting technology take over while the teacher pushes the (hopefully) right buttons. If technology is perceived as such a monster - as something that occupies a teacher's space, replaces his or her skills, enslaving the teacher to tickle it in the right place to come up with a good product - and I honestly believe that is how real technophobes perceive technology - then of course there is a huge problem. I guess, technolgy, like anyhting else that is "new", especially in academia (which, I think, can at times be a bit dusty), needs careful introduction and the above-mentioned scrutiny. However, I also think that discussion like this quickly turn into witch hunts where a new idea or an alternative is categorically rejected for no rational reasons.
To make SLA theory the basis for evaluation of CALL/new technologies seems a bit risky in the light of the diversity of theories... The theories of Second Language Acquisition provide so much material for discussion that it appears some "internal" problems should be sorted out first befor making them a central evaluation criterion for something else. All this seems too vague, and one can always argue, while assessing technology, that a certain innovation does not address, say, cognitive learning or it does not follow academic conventions or it is not visual enough (or too visual) for some learners etc. The discussion is endless and perhaps even pointless since it is highly unlikely that it facitlitates objective evaluation of technology.
One thing that is mentioned, however, is very important. It actually puts the student at the centre of the evaluation, not so much theories or teachers. And that is what this is all about - the students... So, coming from this angle might be a good idea to evaluate the sense or non-sense of technology - not in general but certain items. If something is really useful for the students, it fulfils a purpose. And I belive that technology, like the robot teacher from a few weeks ago, will not be able to replace the teaching profession. At least I will not live to see it. But, given students can benefit from it, introducing some new approaches or tools to the classroom or independent study, may be a thing worth considering.
To start with, my guess is that change is very often regarded as challenge.If a (relatively) new method or new tools for a certain activity, in this case something as traditional as teaching, a re introduced, "experts" (i.e. teachers and linguists - and to a certain extent learners) in the field in question, are extremely critical, because, in a way, new technologies challenge traditional ways of doing something - they are often not perceived as help but as an intrusion.
The introduction of new techniques, or technologies, always brings critque and a call for justification in its wake. Surely, this is a healthy thing. It's not advisable to simply "let loose" technologies for CALL on classrooms or homes. The tools that are introduced need careful examination. In one of the previous posts, Alex posted a list of criteria that he looks for in a good website. Certainly, all materilas, textbooks, handouts, lesson plans and of course technology require such examination - especially in an EAP context, where the tolerance for errors is (for good reasons) extremely limited.
The reason CALL and new technologies are to extra justification probably is that they require recipients to acquire additional skills. This goes back to the problems "technophobes" have when asked to use technology in the classrom. To be honest, the usefulness of smart boards (are they really smart???) still hasn't become very clear to me. If I were trained in their use, I guess I could utilise them to make things easier. But way I see it now, I simply do not need them, and the only good they do for me is to save whiteboard markers. But maybe I am missing something. Anyway, I believe viewpoints like this explain the demand for extra justification. Whether that demand is in itself justified or not, I cannot say.
I do remember when I studied translation, a new piece of technology was introduced, allegedly producing accurate translations. There was an uproar in the "translation community" seeing as we saw ourselves become obsolete. Of course, the thing was by far not as good as claimed, and translators remain an important asset to companies, law firms, embassies etc. around the world. The reason I am saying this is that the thought quite ties in with an idea from Alex's second post (Dehumanises teaching)"takes away control from the teacher. Often teachers perceive technology to be in control of the teaching and learning, relegating the teacher to the role of supervisor/monitor". Here, a teacher would move to the background of teaching, letting technology take over while the teacher pushes the (hopefully) right buttons. If technology is perceived as such a monster - as something that occupies a teacher's space, replaces his or her skills, enslaving the teacher to tickle it in the right place to come up with a good product - and I honestly believe that is how real technophobes perceive technology - then of course there is a huge problem. I guess, technolgy, like anyhting else that is "new", especially in academia (which, I think, can at times be a bit dusty), needs careful introduction and the above-mentioned scrutiny. However, I also think that discussion like this quickly turn into witch hunts where a new idea or an alternative is categorically rejected for no rational reasons.
To make SLA theory the basis for evaluation of CALL/new technologies seems a bit risky in the light of the diversity of theories... The theories of Second Language Acquisition provide so much material for discussion that it appears some "internal" problems should be sorted out first befor making them a central evaluation criterion for something else. All this seems too vague, and one can always argue, while assessing technology, that a certain innovation does not address, say, cognitive learning or it does not follow academic conventions or it is not visual enough (or too visual) for some learners etc. The discussion is endless and perhaps even pointless since it is highly unlikely that it facitlitates objective evaluation of technology.
One thing that is mentioned, however, is very important. It actually puts the student at the centre of the evaluation, not so much theories or teachers. And that is what this is all about - the students... So, coming from this angle might be a good idea to evaluate the sense or non-sense of technology - not in general but certain items. If something is really useful for the students, it fulfils a purpose. And I belive that technology, like the robot teacher from a few weeks ago, will not be able to replace the teaching profession. At least I will not live to see it. But, given students can benefit from it, introducing some new approaches or tools to the classroom or independent study, may be a thing worth considering.
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (7): Socio-affective factors
Questions for reflection/discussion.
SLA theory is not the only criteria for choosing CALL. What other factors should we take into account when integrating new technologies?
How relevant is SLA theory to CALL?
Does psycholinguistics based on (traditional) classroom research have much to say about human-machine interaction or CMC?
Is the Interactional Model of SLA any more than a set of common sense suggestions which is too vague to be of practical use?
Where else can justifications for NT and CALL be found if not in SLA theory?
Does EAP have addition criteria in terms of evaluation and judgement before CALL and NT can be adopted?
I have provided a large number of articles on SLA and new technologies below.
The aim of the section of the module has been to start thinking about the rather obtuse relationship between SLA and new technologies. Many of the connections are unclear and the teacher has to make the connections.
You should be a position now where you can look at a VLE, website, or CD-Rom and begin to sense what potential this technology/material has for SLA.
You should also be aware of just how complex SLA research is and how difficult it is to apply to concrete examples. The problem is that regardless of whether a website/materials/VLE/CD-Rom has a clear and explicit SLA rationale there are, inevitably, underlying assumptions about how students learn a language. If you have to design e-materials you may be tempted to ignore SLA. You do this at your peril – as your (faulty?) assumptions about languages, language learning and acquisition will emerge through the design and pedagogy of your materials.
Returning to the original problem in this section (one of justifying technology through SLA) it should be clear that any claims of improved language acquisition through technology need to be treated critically. Likewise, the sceptic asking for ‘evidence’ in unlikely to obtain unquestionable evidence that software ‘X’ will lead to greater acquisition. We are, perhaps, asking too much of SLA theory, and certainly too much of technology!
Readings:
Technology and second language acquisition CA Chapelle - Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2008
Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition D Larsen-Freeman - The Modern Language Journal, 2007
Three Fundamental Concepts in Second Language Acquisition and Their Relevance in Multilingual Contexts C Kramsch, A Whiteside - The Modern Language Journal, 2007
Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest
Communities and Online Gaming
Revised version (June 15, 2009) of article (forthcoming) for publication in the Modern
Language Journal, volume 93. SL Thorne, RW Black, JM Sykes
Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition PJM Groot - Language Learning & Technology, 2000
Network-based Language Teaching R Kern, P Ware, M Warschauer - Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2008
Mediating Technologies and Second Language Learning Steven L. Thorne
Also have a look at the archives section of Language Learning and Technology Journal for a list of articles on SLA and technology.
SLA theory is not the only criteria for choosing CALL. What other factors should we take into account when integrating new technologies?
How relevant is SLA theory to CALL?
Does psycholinguistics based on (traditional) classroom research have much to say about human-machine interaction or CMC?
Is the Interactional Model of SLA any more than a set of common sense suggestions which is too vague to be of practical use?
Where else can justifications for NT and CALL be found if not in SLA theory?
Does EAP have addition criteria in terms of evaluation and judgement before CALL and NT can be adopted?
I have provided a large number of articles on SLA and new technologies below.
The aim of the section of the module has been to start thinking about the rather obtuse relationship between SLA and new technologies. Many of the connections are unclear and the teacher has to make the connections.
You should be a position now where you can look at a VLE, website, or CD-Rom and begin to sense what potential this technology/material has for SLA.
You should also be aware of just how complex SLA research is and how difficult it is to apply to concrete examples. The problem is that regardless of whether a website/materials/VLE/CD-Rom has a clear and explicit SLA rationale there are, inevitably, underlying assumptions about how students learn a language. If you have to design e-materials you may be tempted to ignore SLA. You do this at your peril – as your (faulty?) assumptions about languages, language learning and acquisition will emerge through the design and pedagogy of your materials.
Returning to the original problem in this section (one of justifying technology through SLA) it should be clear that any claims of improved language acquisition through technology need to be treated critically. Likewise, the sceptic asking for ‘evidence’ in unlikely to obtain unquestionable evidence that software ‘X’ will lead to greater acquisition. We are, perhaps, asking too much of SLA theory, and certainly too much of technology!
Readings:
Technology and second language acquisition CA Chapelle - Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2008
Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition D Larsen-Freeman - The Modern Language Journal, 2007
Three Fundamental Concepts in Second Language Acquisition and Their Relevance in Multilingual Contexts C Kramsch, A Whiteside - The Modern Language Journal, 2007
Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest
Communities and Online Gaming
Revised version (June 15, 2009) of article (forthcoming) for publication in the Modern
Language Journal, volume 93. SL Thorne, RW Black, JM Sykes
Computer assisted second language vocabulary acquisition PJM Groot - Language Learning & Technology, 2000
Network-based Language Teaching R Kern, P Ware, M Warschauer - Encyclopedia of Language and Education, 2008
Mediating Technologies and Second Language Learning Steven L. Thorne
Also have a look at the archives section of Language Learning and Technology Journal for a list of articles on SLA and technology.
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (6): Socio-affective factors
Socio-affective Factors influencing SLA.
In addition to the cognitive factors described in the previous posts, there are also a number of socio-affective factors which can influence successful SLA (this is also based on Skehan’s account).
Socio-affective factors in a task-based approach leading to successful second language acquisition
WTC (willingness to communicate) is the key factor. Learners need to seek opportunities for communication and use them. 10 factors influence whether opportunities to communicate will be taken.
1. Desire to communicate with a particular person
2. Communicative self-confidence at a particular moment
3. Interpersonal motivation
4. Intergroup affiliation
5. Self-confidence
6. Intergroup attitudes
7. Social situation
8. Communicative competence
9. Intergroup climate
10. Personality
Think about how, as a teacher of EAP, you could encourage WTC using new technologies? Focusing on cognitive factors would seem more straight-forward as attention to linguistic features etc. could be built into the design of a module. Attending to socio-affective factors, as a teacher, might require more thought.
In addition to the cognitive factors described in the previous posts, there are also a number of socio-affective factors which can influence successful SLA (this is also based on Skehan’s account).
Socio-affective factors in a task-based approach leading to successful second language acquisition
WTC (willingness to communicate) is the key factor. Learners need to seek opportunities for communication and use them. 10 factors influence whether opportunities to communicate will be taken.
1. Desire to communicate with a particular person
2. Communicative self-confidence at a particular moment
3. Interpersonal motivation
4. Intergroup affiliation
5. Self-confidence
6. Intergroup attitudes
7. Social situation
8. Communicative competence
9. Intergroup climate
10. Personality
Think about how, as a teacher of EAP, you could encourage WTC using new technologies? Focusing on cognitive factors would seem more straight-forward as attention to linguistic features etc. could be built into the design of a module. Attending to socio-affective factors, as a teacher, might require more thought.
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (5)
What are the ideal cognitive and socio-affective conditions for instructed SLA?
What are the optimal learning environments for successful SLA?
Cognitive factors influencing SLA.
These are, clearly difficult, questions to answer! We shall, firstly, look at Skehan’s ‘A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language’, (OUP, 1998) claims regarding the cognitive conditions for instructed SLA. Cognitive factors in a task-based approach leading to successful second language acquisition (Skehan 1998: 132):
Condition 1
Choose a range of target structures
Rationale
Learners acquire structures when they are ready to do so. Teaching can help quicken the process but cannot alter it. Therefore a lockstep approach to teaching structures will not be effective. The range of structures must be within their abilities for acquisition to take place.
Condition 2
Choose tasks which meet the utility condition.
Rationale
Meeting the utility requirement means creating the conditions in which the probability that target structures will be used during a task is high.
Condition 3
Select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development.
Rationale
Balanced goal development refers to L2 task performance in terms of;
accuracy
fluency
complexity (taking risks, trying out new language…)
Acquisition involves progression in all 3 areas – tasks should aim to develop all 3.
Condition 4
Maximise the chances of focus on form through attentional manipulation.
Rationale
Learners need to notice and attend to linguistic form for acquisition to take place. Whilst carrying out meaningful tasks learners needs to focus on form.
Condition 5
Use cycles of accountability
Rationale
It is the learners’ responsibility to keep track of their learning but tutors need to draw attention to learners to what is salient. What they need to focus on.
This is a highly simplfied representation of Skehan’s ideas. You are recommended to read A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language (1998:OUP)
How can attention be directed to linguistic form in L2 tasks?
This is an important question: It is raised in Skehan’s model above and requires some further comments.
Attention can be directed to linguistic form by:
Modified interaction
Modified output (self-correction)
Time pressure (lack of pressure enables a focus on form)
Modality (spoken/written)
Support (clues/information available to help construct meaning. Therefore more attention free to focus on form)
Surprise
Control
Stakes (high stake tasks lead students to focus on form)
What are the optimal learning environments for successful SLA?
Cognitive factors influencing SLA.
These are, clearly difficult, questions to answer! We shall, firstly, look at Skehan’s ‘A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language’, (OUP, 1998) claims regarding the cognitive conditions for instructed SLA. Cognitive factors in a task-based approach leading to successful second language acquisition (Skehan 1998: 132):
Condition 1
Choose a range of target structures
Rationale
Learners acquire structures when they are ready to do so. Teaching can help quicken the process but cannot alter it. Therefore a lockstep approach to teaching structures will not be effective. The range of structures must be within their abilities for acquisition to take place.
Condition 2
Choose tasks which meet the utility condition.
Rationale
Meeting the utility requirement means creating the conditions in which the probability that target structures will be used during a task is high.
Condition 3
Select and sequence tasks to achieve balanced goal development.
Rationale
Balanced goal development refers to L2 task performance in terms of;
accuracy
fluency
complexity (taking risks, trying out new language…)
Acquisition involves progression in all 3 areas – tasks should aim to develop all 3.
Condition 4
Maximise the chances of focus on form through attentional manipulation.
Rationale
Learners need to notice and attend to linguistic form for acquisition to take place. Whilst carrying out meaningful tasks learners needs to focus on form.
Condition 5
Use cycles of accountability
Rationale
It is the learners’ responsibility to keep track of their learning but tutors need to draw attention to learners to what is salient. What they need to focus on.
This is a highly simplfied representation of Skehan’s ideas. You are recommended to read A Cognitive Approach to Learning Language (1998:OUP)
How can attention be directed to linguistic form in L2 tasks?
This is an important question: It is raised in Skehan’s model above and requires some further comments.
Attention can be directed to linguistic form by:
Modified interaction
Modified output (self-correction)
Time pressure (lack of pressure enables a focus on form)
Modality (spoken/written)
Support (clues/information available to help construct meaning. Therefore more attention free to focus on form)
Surprise
Control
Stakes (high stake tasks lead students to focus on form)
Saturday 12 September 2009
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (4): Interactionist model
In this post we'll be looking at applying SLA models to evaluating new technologies.
A Useful Model of SLA (Chapelle 1998)
Below Chapelle’s diagram (Click on image to view) sets out what she terms a ‘useful’ model of SLA - the basic components in the SLA process in interactionist research:
This model is based, and very much expands on, Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input.This model attempts to explain what makes input comprehensible and to explain how this input becomes output. As Chapelle claims, this model is a consensus (and simplified) interactionist theory of SLA.
At this point, you should turn your attention to Chapelle’s article (Chapelle (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34) which is freely available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/
If you don’t read this article then the diagram above will not make much sense!
A theory of SLA applied to CALL
You should now be familiar with the interactionist model. Below are the recommendations for developing CALL materials:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
Go to the VSAC and select a few sites. Based on the advice above – evaluate the extent to which these sites provide opportunities for 1-7.
A Useful Model of SLA (Chapelle 1998)
Below Chapelle’s diagram (Click on image to view) sets out what she terms a ‘useful’ model of SLA - the basic components in the SLA process in interactionist research:
This model is based, and very much expands on, Krashen’s theory of comprehensible input.This model attempts to explain what makes input comprehensible and to explain how this input becomes output. As Chapelle claims, this model is a consensus (and simplified) interactionist theory of SLA.
At this point, you should turn your attention to Chapelle’s article (Chapelle (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34) which is freely available at: http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/
If you don’t read this article then the diagram above will not make much sense!
A theory of SLA applied to CALL
You should now be familiar with the interactionist model. Below are the recommendations for developing CALL materials:
1. The linguistic characteristics of target language input need to be made salient.
2. Learners should receive help in comprehending semantic and syntactic aspects of linguistic input.
3. Learners need to have opportunities to produce target language output.
4. Learners need to notice errors in their own output.
5. Learners need to correct their linguistic output.
6. Learners need to engage in target language interaction whose structure can be modified for negotiation of meaning.
7. Learners should engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for good interaction.
Go to the VSAC and select a few sites. Based on the advice above – evaluate the extent to which these sites provide opportunities for 1-7.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
