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)
Monday 28 September 2009
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.
Wednesday 9 September 2009
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (3)
CALL and SLA: Language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL.
If this premise is correct, then it is essential to, firstly, look to SLA theories to frame technological choices. This means that, when investigating technologies, the potential of these technologies has to be seen in the light of these technologies to enhance second language acquisition.
The first question that needs to be answered is: What is the relationship between SLA and language teaching?
Pica (1997) claims that the interface between SLA and language teaching can take one of 3 forms:
• coexistence
• collaboration
• complementary
On Pica’s categorisation Chapelle states:
Historically, many applied linguists and teachers have been reluctant to make any application of research to second language teaching, but more recently Pica (1997) has shed light on the complex issue of relationships between research and practice. She categorizes approaches to SLA research on the basis of their interface with teaching: Some SLA research coexists with L2 teaching while having little if any intellectual interface. Other SLA research collaborates with L2 teaching when teachers and researchers work together toward similar goals within the classroom and the sociopolitical environment of education. A third type of SLA research, which is most significant for CALL design, complements L2 instruction.
Chapelle (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34.
Pica (1997) claims that the third type:
In classroom experiments that illustrate. . .complementarity, theoretically grounded learning materials and strategies to facilitate L2 learning are selected or developed by researchers. The researchers then work with participating teachers toward classroom use of these materials and strategies, followed by classroom research on their impact on students' learning.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 48-72
Very importantly, the impact on students is central to this approach. This approach is key when assessing the impact/use of new technologies in language teaching.
So, which SLA Theory?
Pica claims that:
Since its inception, the field of second-language acquisition (SLA) has been both theory-less and theory-laden. It has been theory-less in that, as most major text-books remind us, there has yet to emerge a single, coherent theory that can describe, explain and predict second-language learning. Yet it is theory-laden in that there are at least forty claims, arguments, theories and perspectives that attempt to describe and explain the learning process and predict its outcomes.
Pica (1997:9)
This presents our first problem. As Pica demonstrates, there is no coherent theory of SLA and there are forty theories of SLA to choose from. In trying to demonstrate that technologies have the potential to enhance second language acquisition we are faced with competing theories of SLA and, having settled on one theory, we should be aware that this theory will be incomplete.
Pica’s comments should provide warning on over-relying on SLA to provide a comprehensive framework to settle issues relating to the efficacy of new technologies. One might argue, if nihilistic, that SLA research is so inconclusive that it would be better to abandon SLA as a means to evaluate technologies. This can be counter-argued on the basis that, even if there is no universal (and universally accepted) theory of SLA which can fulfil scientific criteria of description, explanation and prediction, that does not mean that there has been little or no progress in SLA research in the past forty years. Put simply, we know much more about SLA now than we did even ten years ago.
If this premise is correct, then it is essential to, firstly, look to SLA theories to frame technological choices. This means that, when investigating technologies, the potential of these technologies has to be seen in the light of these technologies to enhance second language acquisition.
The first question that needs to be answered is: What is the relationship between SLA and language teaching?
Pica (1997) claims that the interface between SLA and language teaching can take one of 3 forms:
• coexistence
• collaboration
• complementary
On Pica’s categorisation Chapelle states:
Historically, many applied linguists and teachers have been reluctant to make any application of research to second language teaching, but more recently Pica (1997) has shed light on the complex issue of relationships between research and practice. She categorizes approaches to SLA research on the basis of their interface with teaching: Some SLA research coexists with L2 teaching while having little if any intellectual interface. Other SLA research collaborates with L2 teaching when teachers and researchers work together toward similar goals within the classroom and the sociopolitical environment of education. A third type of SLA research, which is most significant for CALL design, complements L2 instruction.
Chapelle (1998) Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning and Technology, 2(1), 22-34.
Pica (1997) claims that the third type:
In classroom experiments that illustrate. . .complementarity, theoretically grounded learning materials and strategies to facilitate L2 learning are selected or developed by researchers. The researchers then work with participating teachers toward classroom use of these materials and strategies, followed by classroom research on their impact on students' learning.
Pica, T. (1997). Second language teaching and research relationships: A North American view. Language Teaching Research, 1(1), 48-72
Very importantly, the impact on students is central to this approach. This approach is key when assessing the impact/use of new technologies in language teaching.
So, which SLA Theory?
Pica claims that:
Since its inception, the field of second-language acquisition (SLA) has been both theory-less and theory-laden. It has been theory-less in that, as most major text-books remind us, there has yet to emerge a single, coherent theory that can describe, explain and predict second-language learning. Yet it is theory-laden in that there are at least forty claims, arguments, theories and perspectives that attempt to describe and explain the learning process and predict its outcomes.
Pica (1997:9)
This presents our first problem. As Pica demonstrates, there is no coherent theory of SLA and there are forty theories of SLA to choose from. In trying to demonstrate that technologies have the potential to enhance second language acquisition we are faced with competing theories of SLA and, having settled on one theory, we should be aware that this theory will be incomplete.
Pica’s comments should provide warning on over-relying on SLA to provide a comprehensive framework to settle issues relating to the efficacy of new technologies. One might argue, if nihilistic, that SLA research is so inconclusive that it would be better to abandon SLA as a means to evaluate technologies. This can be counter-argued on the basis that, even if there is no universal (and universally accepted) theory of SLA which can fulfil scientific criteria of description, explanation and prediction, that does not mean that there has been little or no progress in SLA research in the past forty years. Put simply, we know much more about SLA now than we did even ten years ago.
SLA, New Technologies and EAP (2)
Hiya,hope you're all well .... here's the second installment of SLA, EAP and New technologies.
In the introduction I asked ...
'Why do you think CALL and new technologies are subject to extra or special arguments and justifications before these technologies are used in teaching?'
Some of the reasons for this extra scrutiny might include:
Expense
Often integrating technology requires (scarce) resources to be allocated to buying software, hardware, training, materials development and teaching. There is sometimes a reticence to allocate these resources as the ‘gain’ for the students using technologies might not be perceived to be enough in relation to the cost involved.
Transient nature of technology
Many technological innovations appear to become obsolete quickly. One university language centre invested heavily in video discs (predating DVDs) in the 80s-90s and now they are more or less forgotten. Because no-one is able to predict with an certainty technological innovations there is a fear of buying heavily into a ‘system’, hardware or technology which might have a very short shelf-life.
Disruption to the curriculum
Technology is not always seen as a tool which should blend into the everyday teaching experience. Often technology (as with self-access) is viewed as an addition or add-on to the range of activities. If this is so, then it is hard to justify the inclusion of technology.
Lack of awareness/skills
Many teachers are only vaguely aware of the potential of technology to enhance teaching and learning and, therefore, there is not always grassroots pressure to innovate with technology.
Dehumanises teaching
Technology is often perceived to be the ‘poor’ relation of the classroom. Technology implies a lack of ‘warm bodies’, human interaction, and, importantly, 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.
Innovation
Fear of innovation may be the real cause of concern for teachers. Any change to a system (technology or any other) is not always met with enthusiasm. Technological innovations might be perceived as a means of reducing teaching costs (or jobs!). It could be that technology unsettles teachers: a new set of skills are required, a different (more transparent) classroom is implied by the use of technology, or even, the ability of students to orientate their learning themselves may be disconcerting.
‘Drill and Kill’/’Old wines in new bottles'
Many teachers point to the pedagogically unsophisticated use of new technologies to provide endless drills, multiple choice exercises, gap-fils, and other (decontextualised) exercises as reasons not to innovate with technology. Look at the VSAC for examples of this! There are, of course, many other reasons why technology is viewed with such reticence or even hostility. The one requirement for technological innovation/use that is (often) voiced by both technophiles and technophobes is that language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL.
Any other suggestions??
In the introduction I asked ...
'Why do you think CALL and new technologies are subject to extra or special arguments and justifications before these technologies are used in teaching?'
Some of the reasons for this extra scrutiny might include:
Expense
Often integrating technology requires (scarce) resources to be allocated to buying software, hardware, training, materials development and teaching. There is sometimes a reticence to allocate these resources as the ‘gain’ for the students using technologies might not be perceived to be enough in relation to the cost involved.
Transient nature of technology
Many technological innovations appear to become obsolete quickly. One university language centre invested heavily in video discs (predating DVDs) in the 80s-90s and now they are more or less forgotten. Because no-one is able to predict with an certainty technological innovations there is a fear of buying heavily into a ‘system’, hardware or technology which might have a very short shelf-life.
Disruption to the curriculum
Technology is not always seen as a tool which should blend into the everyday teaching experience. Often technology (as with self-access) is viewed as an addition or add-on to the range of activities. If this is so, then it is hard to justify the inclusion of technology.
Lack of awareness/skills
Many teachers are only vaguely aware of the potential of technology to enhance teaching and learning and, therefore, there is not always grassroots pressure to innovate with technology.
Dehumanises teaching
Technology is often perceived to be the ‘poor’ relation of the classroom. Technology implies a lack of ‘warm bodies’, human interaction, and, importantly, 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.
Innovation
Fear of innovation may be the real cause of concern for teachers. Any change to a system (technology or any other) is not always met with enthusiasm. Technological innovations might be perceived as a means of reducing teaching costs (or jobs!). It could be that technology unsettles teachers: a new set of skills are required, a different (more transparent) classroom is implied by the use of technology, or even, the ability of students to orientate their learning themselves may be disconcerting.
‘Drill and Kill’/’Old wines in new bottles'
Many teachers point to the pedagogically unsophisticated use of new technologies to provide endless drills, multiple choice exercises, gap-fils, and other (decontextualised) exercises as reasons not to innovate with technology. Look at the VSAC for examples of this! There are, of course, many other reasons why technology is viewed with such reticence or even hostility. The one requirement for technological innovation/use that is (often) voiced by both technophiles and technophobes is that language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL.
Any other suggestions??
Monday 7 September 2009
SLA, New Technologies and EAP: Introduction (1)
Hi everyone,
we've had a look at autonomy as a way of framing the use of technology in teaching EAP and we've had a brief look at the evolution of new technologies. Now, we shall turn our attention to Second Language Acquisition, technologies and EAP.
The aim of this and the next few blog posts is to begin to explore the relationship between second language acquisition (SLA), new technologies and EAP.
These notes are here to help you think about ways in which these topics interrelate and also provide with some sources for you to explore.
These notes begin with a few comments of the demands of new technologies. By that I mean the ways in which new technologies are expected to provide a SLA rationale for their use. Then, we will consider theories of SLA and pursue one such theory. SLA theory/ies can provide evaluative guidance to assess the impact of integrating new technologies into an EAP programme.
The final part of these notes also raises some questions as to efficacy of looking to SLA research to provide fundamental rationale for the use of new technologies.
These notes are somewhat speculative and you should delve further into the literature on this as there are many points of view.
Consider the following two quotes:
‘CALL has always been viewed by some as an experiment requiring scrutiny and justification beyond what is expected of evaluation of other classroom activities’
Chapelle (2001: 51)
‘We need to examine the value added to students who pursue some or all of their language education using innovative technologies’
Tucker (2000: 217)
Key points emerge, regarding technology, from these two quotes:
Extra scrutiny of technologies is required;
Justification is demanded for their use in the classroom;
Value to students must be demonstrated.
Why do you think CALL and new technologies are subject to extra or special arguments and justifications before these technologies are used in teaching?
we've had a look at autonomy as a way of framing the use of technology in teaching EAP and we've had a brief look at the evolution of new technologies. Now, we shall turn our attention to Second Language Acquisition, technologies and EAP.
The aim of this and the next few blog posts is to begin to explore the relationship between second language acquisition (SLA), new technologies and EAP.
These notes are here to help you think about ways in which these topics interrelate and also provide with some sources for you to explore.
These notes begin with a few comments of the demands of new technologies. By that I mean the ways in which new technologies are expected to provide a SLA rationale for their use. Then, we will consider theories of SLA and pursue one such theory. SLA theory/ies can provide evaluative guidance to assess the impact of integrating new technologies into an EAP programme.
The final part of these notes also raises some questions as to efficacy of looking to SLA research to provide fundamental rationale for the use of new technologies.
These notes are somewhat speculative and you should delve further into the literature on this as there are many points of view.
Consider the following two quotes:
‘CALL has always been viewed by some as an experiment requiring scrutiny and justification beyond what is expected of evaluation of other classroom activities’
Chapelle (2001: 51)
‘We need to examine the value added to students who pursue some or all of their language education using innovative technologies’
Tucker (2000: 217)
Key points emerge, regarding technology, from these two quotes:
Extra scrutiny of technologies is required;
Justification is demanded for their use in the classroom;
Value to students must be demonstrated.
Why do you think CALL and new technologies are subject to extra or special arguments and justifications before these technologies are used in teaching?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
