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.
Showing posts with label sla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sla. Show all posts
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
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)
