Reading Prompt #10

*RICHARDSON Ch. 7. Fun with Flickr: Creating, Publishing, and Using Images Online
*BLACKBOARD - Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.

After reading Richardson, what ideas do you have for using images and programs such as Flickr in the language learning classroom?

Kern gives a broad overview of issues in CALL, with specific examples from three areas and implications for teaching and research. Select and share your own thoughts and opinions on one or more issues that Kern raises.

Richardson’s chapter on Flickr shows that using CALL in the language classroom does not have to be difficult and he shares many great ideas for language teaching using photos. Flickr’s annotation feature seems like an easy tool to use and I can definitely see myself using it with ELLs. Students can take their field trip photos, for example, and annotate them to identify key vocabulary words or favorite places. These photos can then be streamed to the classroom blog and tied into other activities that encourage reading, writing and student collaboration. I also like the idea of students creating a photo tour of their home town or country, using Flickr in conjunction with Google Earth to create a truly “global” class presentation.

Kern raises an interesting point regarding the theoretical frameworks that underpin CALL development and research. Developing CALL pedagogy grounded in SLA research becomes a bit tricky when there is controversy as to which theoretical foundations are appropriate. He points out that the field of SLA itself is “informed” by many different theoretical frameworks and that one should not be limited to a single paradigm. In that same sense, Kern suggests that those developing CALL pedagogy should work within the SLA paradigm which best fits their specific research questions, but on a broader scale also take into account viewpoints from the varied theoretical perspectives (p188). This interests me in that I’m fascinated by the social aspects of L2 learning, particularly the notion of language and identity. Kern’s article points to Lam’s study (2000) of Almon, a Chinese immigrant teenager, and others (2003) whose sense of self and identity were greatly affected and changed by their computer-mediated interactions. Our earlier readings on CMC looked at advantages/disadvantages of different types of CMC, such as chat vs. email and language use within those contexts. So it’s interesting to consider CMC communication not only in the way in which it promotes language learning and outcomes, but also how its social nature may influence a learner’s sense of self and identity. What’s most exciting is that these documented positive changes in how learners view themselves seem to endure and affect future L2 learning in a positive manner. Of course, if these changes are indeed long-term, one must consider potential negative consequences for L2 learning if online collaborations result in harming a learner’s sense of self? I find these interesting questions to explore and as an educator must also consider then the best ways to foster positive online collaborations for students.

Reading Prompt #9

BLACKBOARD - Barbierie, F. (2005). What is Corpus Linguistics?
Essential Teacher (Compleat Links).
BLACKBOARD - Conrad, S. (2000). Will Corpus Linguistics
Revolutionize Grammar Teaching in the 21st Century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548-560.

What is Corpus Linguistics? And why are some language teachers so excited about it? What applications can you envision for your current or future classroom?

Barbierie describes corpus linguistics as “an approach to the study of language that relies on the use of computer-assisted techniques to analyze large, principled databases of naturally occurring language (corpora)”. Although neither author explicitly states what excites language teachers about this, I think it’s this connection between grammar and language use that presents possibilities for enhanced grammar teaching. As Conrad points out, grammar use varies across contexts; differences occur within varieties of the English language as well as across registers. With regard to variety of use across different registers (i.e. academic, newspaper, conversation), the empirical data corpus linguistics provides can help teachers focus their grammar teaching on conditions of use and not just grammatical correctness. This will help learners achieve communicative competence, not merely linguistic competence. Conrad’s discussion on lexicogrammatical findings proposes teaching certain grammar structures in relation to lexical (vocabulary) items and that frequency of certain forms may help determine a timeline for introducing specific grammatical forms to learners.

I think that institutional constraints may be an influencing factor in determining how much teachers are able and willing to incorporate new strategies supported by corpora research. Perhaps a shift in thinking will need to take place for administrators as well as teachers. In the future, I hope to work with adults. This environment may be a bit less constrained than K-12 perhaps, but this may be an overly optimistic and idealistic view on my part. I hope to have the flexibility to amend my curriculum, as needed, with new approaches to grammar teaching that are based on empirical evidence.

Reading Presentation CMC

This presentation turned out to be much too long for the time allotted. I found it difficult to condense Dr. Sauro's article, but will probably approach things differently next time, so lessons learned...

Reading Prompt #8

*Levy – Ch. 4 Computer Mediated Communication
*BLACKBOARD – Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Development of L2 Grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.

What are some of the technologies used for CMC? What are some of the promising features of CMC for language learning. Comment on any of your uses of these technologies, in particular if you have used any of them for language learning or practice purposes. Finally, comment on the findings of Dr. Sauro's research, and what the implications may be for future practice.

Levy lists the following types of CMC: email/SMS, chat, audio/video conferencing, mailing lists and bulletin board systems (BBS), and MOOs, virtual environments in which participants can interact with each other and the environment. These different technologies allow for synchronous or asynchronous communication and are varied in their range of interaction. This versatility makes CMC conducive to language learning.

Email, an asynchronous communication tool, is one of the most common means to connect learners with authentic language and the target culture. An advantage of the asynchronous nature of email is that it provides learners with more time to process input as well as formulate their own language output. This may be an advantage to low-proficiency students, but equally helpful to advanced learners. Also, unlike synchronous forms of CMC, learners don’t have to be online at the same time. This makes it easier for students communicating across time zones.

An advantage to synchronous communication, such as text-chat, is that it somewhat resembles face-to-face communication. It doesn’t have the prolonged time delay of email, but it does allow for additional processing time over spoken conversation in that turn-taking is slower. Another key difference is that unlike a face-to-face conversation, which unfolds in real-time, text-chat provides learners with complete sentences at one time. The visual record kept in the chat window also provides additional support to learners. Coincidentally, Dr. Sauro’s class this week was online, using the Virtual Classroom chat feature on Blackboard. I’ve never used any of the CMC technologies in my own language learning and it had been a long time since using chat, so it was interesting. I think this experience has given me a better understanding of the benefits and drawbacks in SCMC, particularly the time delay in turn-taking. My chat discussion was with four classmates and the group dynamics made the conversation feel disjointed. A one-on-one chat would probably be more constructive and diminish some of the confusion.

Research in the field of SLA cites advantages of corrective feedback in face-to-face conversations. However, outcome-based studies for corrective feedback in CMC were limited. Dr. Sauro compared two types of corrective feedback (recasts and metalinguistic feedback) in a text-chat context to determine if one would be more effective in immediate or sustained gains in L2 target form. This study demonstrated no significant differences between feedback groups, but both types of feedback did appear helpful to learners as each group showed greater gains with repeated items than the control. This study also revealed some helpful insights to factors that may have influenced the effectiveness and limitations of recasts and metalinguistic feedback in SCMC. This knowledge will undoubtedly assist future research and affect pedagogical practice.

Reading Prompt #7

*LEVY – Ch. 7 Practice
*BLACKBOARD - Grgurović, M. & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Help
Options and Multimedia Listening: Students' Use of Subtitles and the Transcript. Language Learning & Technology, 11(1), 45-66.

What did Grgurović & Hegelheimer find with regards to using subtitles and transcripts to help ESL students develop listening skills in English? What are some of the implications for instruction?

From your reading of Levy, comment on one or more of the issues related to the practice dimension of CALL what you would want to take into consideration for your own classroom.

Grgurović & Hegelheimer set out to determine whether subtitles or transcripts are more effective as a help tool in providing modified input to language learners. Four interaction patterns were observed: participants who interacted only with the subtitles help tool, those who only used the transcripts, participants who used no help tools, and participants who used both help options. They found that students interacted with the subtitles more frequently (65% vs. 35%) and for longer duration than the transcripts. In terms of task performance, the subtitles and transcript groups showed similar results. The subtitles group, however, had the best recall test score. The group with no help interactions, showed the poorest performance. The researchers indicated further studies may wish to compare help vs. no help use, as the non-interaction group exhibited the poorest performance and outcome.

Even though the researchers made efforts to control as many variables as possible, I’m not convinced that the low-performance group’s outcomes are a direct result of non-interaction with the help tools. I think it’s more likely that, as alluded to by the researchers, the task was too difficult for the learners. I think that the help options available, even if used, may not have been sufficient to compensate for the comprehension breakdowns. In this regard, I think it’s important to be aware of learners’ skills and proficiency when using CALL in the classroom. I also feel that help tools, such as the ones investigated by Grgurović & Hegelheimer, can be really useful for students. I would encourage students to use help features available to them. I think a shift in thinking may need to occur though for students to see help features as part of the learning process and not as a negative concept.

Levy’s chapter reiterates the concept of integration; not merely the integration of CALL technology into the curriculum, but more specifically how to integrate certain tools to address practicing specific language skills. He mentions the shift in focus in recent years towards communicative and content-based learning through tasks, but says that there is still need for limited focus form-based learning as well. For my own classroom, I would need to discern which language area and approach to focus on to help students practice those particular skills. For writing practice, I thought it was an interesting distinction between synchronous (chat) and asynchronous (email) communication. Both forms assist with written communication, but the means are very different and depending on the goals, one would more applicable than the other. If my teaching goal is proper grammar usage, email might be a better option as chat writing tends to be more condensed. However, if overall communication is the goal, chat may be more advantageous as it seems to foster quicker establishment of relations, in part due to quick turnaround time between messages (p193). I liked Healey’s quote (Levy p191): “technology alone does not create language learning any more than dropping a learner into the middle of a large library does”. I think it emphasizes the importance of proper integration: knowing what you wish to achieve, which technological options are available, and how those will mesh with the goals & backgrounds of your learners.