*Ockey, G. J. (2009). Developments and Challenges in the Use of
Computer-Based Testing for Assessing Second Language Ability.
Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus Issue), 836-847.
*Cummins, P. W. & Davesne, C. L. (2009). Using Electronic Portfolios
for Second Language Assessment. Modern Language Journal, 93(Focus
Issue), 848-867.
Ockey argues that Computer based testing has failed to realize its anticipated potential. Describe and discuss on his reasons for his view, and tell why you either agree or disagree with him.
Cummins & Davesne offer an alternative to CBT with electronic portfolios. Comment on some of the ideas from this article that you'd be interested in trying out in your own classroom.
Ockey states that computer-based testing (CBT) has failed to realize its anticipated potential due to a number of factors. Issues that have played an important role involve challenges and limitations with forms of delivery, computer-adaptive testing, test security, and language skills assessment.
One major concern for CBT is ensuring test security. For large-scale, high-stakes testing, it’s difficult and expensive to develop large enough item banks to ensure test security. Web-based testing (WBT) makes assessments possible from any computer in the world, but creates challenges for confirming test taker identity. The storage and retrieval of assessment instruments are also vulnerable to breeches in security from computer hackers. This is becoming less of a concern though with continued improvements in internet technology. Another area of controversy concerns the assessment of language skills and test/task formatting. Language ability is divided into four skill sets: reading, listening (both receptive skills), writing and speaking (productive skills). Initially, test developers focused on assessing these language skills independently. More recently, however, CBT has started integrating one or more productive/receptive skills. Assessments have to take into account which type of tasks to use and task authenticity. Test scoring has proven to be a major challenge as well, especially in the assessment of writing abilities. Automated essay-scoring (AES) systems use corpus linguistics to assess text, but critics insist that although computers can assess quite accurately the mechanics of writing, they can’t interpret the feelings and meaning attached to it. So there still appears to be a place for human raters. Computer-human hybrid approaches seem to be a fair compromise.
It’s this combination of unresolved problems and related issues that have affected CBT development and Ockey’s view that CBT has failed to reach its potential. However, he remains optimistic in stating that it will be worthwhile to continue addressing these challenges in the future.
The concept of electronic portfolios is a refreshing one. There are situations in which formal testing, as outlined in Ockey’s article, is necessary and appropriate. These formal assessments offer a “snapshot” of a person’s abilities at that given moment. An electronic portfolio (EP), on the other hand, evaluates language ability and progress over time and incorporates a component of self-assessment. I think self-assessment is crucial in language learning, echoing Alderson’s view that “without self-assessment there can be no self-awareness” (p851). This self-awareness helps learners set goals and take responsibility for their own learning. I would like to incorporate this notion of self-assessment into my own classroom.
I think that an electronic portfolio says so much more about a person’s ability to function in another language than a test score alone. I thought it was interesting that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment scale made an additional distinction between spoken production and spoken interaction, because I think that these two contexts of “speaking” do indeed require different skills.
Electronic portfolios seem to better address concerns regarding authenticity, learning/assessment that reflects “real life” situations, and assessment of intercultural competence. I think EPs ought to be promoted and integrated into high school and college language curricula, because I see great value in this approach to language assessment. In ESL and foreign language programs, EPs positive format of “can do” assessments has the potential to encourage learner motivation and aid collaboration.
Maastricht aka Mestreech
Maastricht a.k.a Mestreech, "the oldest city in the Netherlands".
Showing posts with label reading prompts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading prompts. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Reading Prompt #11
RICHARDSON Ch. 6. The Social Web: Learning Together
BLACKBOARD - Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004).
Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Share an idea of two about how you could use the ideas from Richardson with ESL students.
What is the "digital divide?' And why do Warschauer et al argue that this term may longer be applicable. What are the issues they found regarding differences in technology use with ELLs and other low socioeconomic students. What are some ways you could address this in your own schools or programs?
Richardson’s chapter on the Social Web once again reiterates the notion of social interaction in education. I admit I’m getting a bit overwhelmed with the many ways in which technology can be used in the classroom and approached this chapter with a bit of skepticism. However, I was intrigued by Richardson’s discussion of Diigo. As my RSS feeds have gotten way out of hand, I think social bookmarking with a tool like Diigo may help me better organize information I want to keep track of. I’ve taken the first step by creating a Diigo account. For personal research, I will probably keep the sites I bookmark public. For classroom purposes, though, I like that you can create private groups and use features such as “annotation”, “highlight”, and “sticky notes” to draw attention to specific passages of text. I might experiment with using Diigo to respond to students’ blogs, as suggested in the example of humanities teacher, Clay Burrell (p. 94). I think Diigo would also be a helpful tool in collaborating with other ESL educators and colleagues to share resources.
Warschauer et al. shared an interesting discussion on technology and equity in different socioeconomic school settings. When hearing the term “digital divide’, one tends to think of the gaps that exist in terms of access to technology. The article cites studies, which indeed have shown that “computer and Internet access is distributed unequally by race, income, and education” (p. 563), but also that these gaps are slowly decreasing. Warschauer and his colleagues argue that one should consider not merely the distribution of technology, but also how this technology is used, particularly in education.
So in their study, they compared 5 high schools in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods and 3 high schools in high SES neighborhoods. Findings were differentiated in terms of “performativity” (measurable skills performance, but outside the context of purposeful learning), “workability” (how easily the technology could be accessed and used), and “complexity” (the integration of computers and teaching). Some clear differences emerged in the way technology was used in these different settings. In terms of performativity, the same pattern was observed across both socioeconomic contexts in that it was common for teachers to focus on technology skills as “an end in themselves” without integrating them into curricular goals. However, the impact appeared to be greater on students in low SES schools. Teachers in these settings operated from the view that most of their students had no home access to computers (although a greater percentage did than was perceived) and therefore focused much of their teaching on basic computer tasks. Their students were also more easily distracted by novelties of particular software programs. Workability issues were also a big factor in low SES schools, because these schools did not have the necessary resources to provide much-needed support for educators and equipment maintenance. But I think the complexity issue has the biggest impact on SES students. Teachers in low SES schools felt immense pressure to focus instruction on raising test scores, which tended to win out over “integrating technology” and as mentioned earlier, computer time that was used focused on non-academic tasks. Another “complexity” challenge was that low SES schools had roughly 3 times as many English language learners (30%) compared to high SES schools. Many classes in the low SES schools included students with varied levels of language ability, complicating teaching in all aspects, including technology. These schools did not appear to have structures and resources in place to address the needs of their large ELL populations. The researchers conclude that although many of the issues they studied were evident in both educational contexts, the social factors involved caused different results and should be addressed in educational policy.
I’m sure to face these challenges in the future. It seems a bit discouraging as many of these “challenges” require solutions at a policy or funding level. However, the issue of “integration” can certainly be addressed by engaging students in meaningful computer interaction. I think that many of the problems cited in the article describing learners’ difficulties with web searches and the overuse of spelling and grammar aids can be dealt with in the classroom. I don’t see these as huge obstacles, just some focused instruction for ELLs who need it. Perhaps entering the field of teaching with an attitude that views technology as an effective tool in collaborative education may go a long way too? If not, I may need to pursue a career in education policy instead!
BLACKBOARD - Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004).
Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Share an idea of two about how you could use the ideas from Richardson with ESL students.
What is the "digital divide?' And why do Warschauer et al argue that this term may longer be applicable. What are the issues they found regarding differences in technology use with ELLs and other low socioeconomic students. What are some ways you could address this in your own schools or programs?
Richardson’s chapter on the Social Web once again reiterates the notion of social interaction in education. I admit I’m getting a bit overwhelmed with the many ways in which technology can be used in the classroom and approached this chapter with a bit of skepticism. However, I was intrigued by Richardson’s discussion of Diigo. As my RSS feeds have gotten way out of hand, I think social bookmarking with a tool like Diigo may help me better organize information I want to keep track of. I’ve taken the first step by creating a Diigo account. For personal research, I will probably keep the sites I bookmark public. For classroom purposes, though, I like that you can create private groups and use features such as “annotation”, “highlight”, and “sticky notes” to draw attention to specific passages of text. I might experiment with using Diigo to respond to students’ blogs, as suggested in the example of humanities teacher, Clay Burrell (p. 94). I think Diigo would also be a helpful tool in collaborating with other ESL educators and colleagues to share resources.
Warschauer et al. shared an interesting discussion on technology and equity in different socioeconomic school settings. When hearing the term “digital divide’, one tends to think of the gaps that exist in terms of access to technology. The article cites studies, which indeed have shown that “computer and Internet access is distributed unequally by race, income, and education” (p. 563), but also that these gaps are slowly decreasing. Warschauer and his colleagues argue that one should consider not merely the distribution of technology, but also how this technology is used, particularly in education.
So in their study, they compared 5 high schools in low socioeconomic status (SES) neighborhoods and 3 high schools in high SES neighborhoods. Findings were differentiated in terms of “performativity” (measurable skills performance, but outside the context of purposeful learning), “workability” (how easily the technology could be accessed and used), and “complexity” (the integration of computers and teaching). Some clear differences emerged in the way technology was used in these different settings. In terms of performativity, the same pattern was observed across both socioeconomic contexts in that it was common for teachers to focus on technology skills as “an end in themselves” without integrating them into curricular goals. However, the impact appeared to be greater on students in low SES schools. Teachers in these settings operated from the view that most of their students had no home access to computers (although a greater percentage did than was perceived) and therefore focused much of their teaching on basic computer tasks. Their students were also more easily distracted by novelties of particular software programs. Workability issues were also a big factor in low SES schools, because these schools did not have the necessary resources to provide much-needed support for educators and equipment maintenance. But I think the complexity issue has the biggest impact on SES students. Teachers in low SES schools felt immense pressure to focus instruction on raising test scores, which tended to win out over “integrating technology” and as mentioned earlier, computer time that was used focused on non-academic tasks. Another “complexity” challenge was that low SES schools had roughly 3 times as many English language learners (30%) compared to high SES schools. Many classes in the low SES schools included students with varied levels of language ability, complicating teaching in all aspects, including technology. These schools did not appear to have structures and resources in place to address the needs of their large ELL populations. The researchers conclude that although many of the issues they studied were evident in both educational contexts, the social factors involved caused different results and should be addressed in educational policy.
I’m sure to face these challenges in the future. It seems a bit discouraging as many of these “challenges” require solutions at a policy or funding level. However, the issue of “integration” can certainly be addressed by engaging students in meaningful computer interaction. I think that many of the problems cited in the article describing learners’ difficulties with web searches and the overuse of spelling and grammar aids can be dealt with in the classroom. I don’t see these as huge obstacles, just some focused instruction for ELLs who need it. Perhaps entering the field of teaching with an attitude that views technology as an effective tool in collaborative education may go a long way too? If not, I may need to pursue a career in education policy instead!
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
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.
*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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
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.
*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.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
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.
*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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Reading Prompt #6
RICHARDSON Ch. 8. Podcasting, Video and Screencasting, Live Streaming: Multimedia Publishing for the Masses
BLACKBOARD - McQuillan, J. (2006). iPods in Education: The Potential for Language Acquisition
BLACKBOARD – Stansbury, M. (2009). iPods help ESL Students Achieve Success. eSchool News (May 11).
Do you have an iPod or another type of .mp3 player? If so, have you used it for anything other than listening to your own music, such as downloading and listening to podcasts? Note some of the points McQuillan made about how podcasting can support second language learning. Which of the ideas from the readings would you be interested in trying out in your own classroom?
I don’t have an iPod or other type of mp3 player nor have I ever used one. I viewed iPods as gadgets, something one can easily do without. Now, I’m not running out to purchase one, but perhaps I view them in a different light. I am a bit intrigued after reading McQuillan’s article and would love to try one out.
McQuillan cites a lot of SLA research to support the use and benefits of iPod technology. I like the opportunity iPods provide for comprehensible input that’s portable. The capability of added linguistic support through text, pictures, and video is helpful, especially for independent study. It is easy to see the benefits for increasing comprehension. It gets a bit technical for me when considering recording features for creating video skits and such. Although I don’t doubt this can be an effective and creative teaching strategy, I need to get more comfortable with the technology to fully appreciate it. Perhaps an easy way to get acquainted with using this in the classroom would be through listening to podcasts and audio books. The examples given on podcasts created for ESL students, which incorporate features such as slowed speech rate and dialogue discussions definitely seem a good place to start. Once I become more familiar with listening to podcasts, I might try out the idea of creating an “audio penpals” program as a language exchange between two distant classrooms. One use I found really ingenious was Stansbury’s description of students using a voice recorder with their iPod during a museum field trip to create a podcast of their visit.
BLACKBOARD - McQuillan, J. (2006). iPods in Education: The Potential for Language Acquisition
BLACKBOARD – Stansbury, M. (2009). iPods help ESL Students Achieve Success. eSchool News (May 11).
Do you have an iPod or another type of .mp3 player? If so, have you used it for anything other than listening to your own music, such as downloading and listening to podcasts? Note some of the points McQuillan made about how podcasting can support second language learning. Which of the ideas from the readings would you be interested in trying out in your own classroom?
I don’t have an iPod or other type of mp3 player nor have I ever used one. I viewed iPods as gadgets, something one can easily do without. Now, I’m not running out to purchase one, but perhaps I view them in a different light. I am a bit intrigued after reading McQuillan’s article and would love to try one out.
McQuillan cites a lot of SLA research to support the use and benefits of iPod technology. I like the opportunity iPods provide for comprehensible input that’s portable. The capability of added linguistic support through text, pictures, and video is helpful, especially for independent study. It is easy to see the benefits for increasing comprehension. It gets a bit technical for me when considering recording features for creating video skits and such. Although I don’t doubt this can be an effective and creative teaching strategy, I need to get more comfortable with the technology to fully appreciate it. Perhaps an easy way to get acquainted with using this in the classroom would be through listening to podcasts and audio books. The examples given on podcasts created for ESL students, which incorporate features such as slowed speech rate and dialogue discussions definitely seem a good place to start. Once I become more familiar with listening to podcasts, I might try out the idea of creating an “audio penpals” program as a language exchange between two distant classrooms. One use I found really ingenious was Stansbury’s description of students using a voice recorder with their iPod during a museum field trip to create a podcast of their visit.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Reading Prompt #4
LEVY – Ch. 2. Design
RICHARDSON Ch. 5. RSS: The New Killer App for Educators
Comment on one or two issues raised by Levy and Stockwell CALL educators must think about when it comes to the design of CALL products. Then, comment on what types of RSS feeds you might be interested in using with students or following yourself.
For me, what stands out most about Levy’s chapter on CALL product design, is the concept of integration. He describes this from several perspectives; the integration of CALL activities into the curriculum, the learner’s interaction with CALL technologies, and the incorporation of CALL into learning institutions as a whole.
I think Levy gives a very effective explanation of a healthy relationship between CALL activities and the teaching curriculum. Paraphrasing Levy, he states that there should be enough flexibility in a curriculum for CALL activities to be successfully integrated, but not be so loosely structured that one loses sight of the curricular goals and objectives (p29). That makes sense to me, especially since I’ve experienced a rather unsuccessful attempt at using software with ESL students. Without any structure or goals to frame the use of that technology, it lost much of its ineffectiveness.
That brings me to the perspective of the learner; I agree with Levy that it’s important for CALL designers to have as much information as possible about their target users and that learners' needs will be best met if their input is incorporated into the design process. I relate to this from other contexts in that my professional background is primarily in non-profit and social service environments. When working in the “field”, it was not uncommon to be asked to implement a certain practice or meet a specific goal, which looked very promising on paper, but turned out be absolutely unrealistic in “real life”. Therefore, I think the user’s input should not be underestimated.
Lastly, in order to successfully integrate CALL materials into teaching institutions, it’s important for designers to be mindful of the policies and technological provisions/support in place. Institutions will undoubtedly place limitations on CALL designs, as most organizations are motivated by the same factors: cost saving, centralization, and consolidation of technical expertise (p33). Thus, CALL designs will need to fit within these given parameters. As an educator, one also has to be aware of the institution’s technological provisions to support classroom goals and objectives.
I enjoyed reading Richardson’s chapter on RSS as I find it an intriguing and seemingly useful tool. In my excitement, I promptly subscribed to a wealth of RSS feeds, but I have yet to figure out a system for sifting though the mass amounts of data that has now amassed in my Reader. I’m following feeds on CALL, ESL and refugee resettlement programs, newspapers (including a few Dutch ones), linguistics, bilingualism, and SLA. Although it involves some growing pains, I’m grateful to learn about these technological tools at the onset of my graduate studies. I think RSS, in particular, will help me with research and staying abreast of new developments in the field of linguistics and ESL. As I get more comfortable with these tools, it will be easier to integrate them into an ESL classroom and share them with students.
RICHARDSON Ch. 5. RSS: The New Killer App for Educators
Comment on one or two issues raised by Levy and Stockwell CALL educators must think about when it comes to the design of CALL products. Then, comment on what types of RSS feeds you might be interested in using with students or following yourself.
For me, what stands out most about Levy’s chapter on CALL product design, is the concept of integration. He describes this from several perspectives; the integration of CALL activities into the curriculum, the learner’s interaction with CALL technologies, and the incorporation of CALL into learning institutions as a whole.
I think Levy gives a very effective explanation of a healthy relationship between CALL activities and the teaching curriculum. Paraphrasing Levy, he states that there should be enough flexibility in a curriculum for CALL activities to be successfully integrated, but not be so loosely structured that one loses sight of the curricular goals and objectives (p29). That makes sense to me, especially since I’ve experienced a rather unsuccessful attempt at using software with ESL students. Without any structure or goals to frame the use of that technology, it lost much of its ineffectiveness.
That brings me to the perspective of the learner; I agree with Levy that it’s important for CALL designers to have as much information as possible about their target users and that learners' needs will be best met if their input is incorporated into the design process. I relate to this from other contexts in that my professional background is primarily in non-profit and social service environments. When working in the “field”, it was not uncommon to be asked to implement a certain practice or meet a specific goal, which looked very promising on paper, but turned out be absolutely unrealistic in “real life”. Therefore, I think the user’s input should not be underestimated.
Lastly, in order to successfully integrate CALL materials into teaching institutions, it’s important for designers to be mindful of the policies and technological provisions/support in place. Institutions will undoubtedly place limitations on CALL designs, as most organizations are motivated by the same factors: cost saving, centralization, and consolidation of technical expertise (p33). Thus, CALL designs will need to fit within these given parameters. As an educator, one also has to be aware of the institution’s technological provisions to support classroom goals and objectives.
I enjoyed reading Richardson’s chapter on RSS as I find it an intriguing and seemingly useful tool. In my excitement, I promptly subscribed to a wealth of RSS feeds, but I have yet to figure out a system for sifting though the mass amounts of data that has now amassed in my Reader. I’m following feeds on CALL, ESL and refugee resettlement programs, newspapers (including a few Dutch ones), linguistics, bilingualism, and SLA. Although it involves some growing pains, I’m grateful to learn about these technological tools at the onset of my graduate studies. I think RSS, in particular, will help me with research and staying abreast of new developments in the field of linguistics and ESL. As I get more comfortable with these tools, it will be easier to integrate them into an ESL classroom and share them with students.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Reading Prompt 3
*LEVY – Ch. 8. Technology
*BLACKBOARD - Soares, D. d.A. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development. Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 517–533.
What challenges did Soares face when using blogs with her ESL students, and what lessons did she learn? How does she feel about using blogs with students in the future? Levy describes several types of technologies Choose one of them and describe how you might want to use it (or have used it), and discuss some of considerations that need to be taken when using this technology with ESL students
Soares' article on using a class blog with her pre-intermediate EFL students in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil describes some of the challenges she faced. Soares observed that her students were excited to get the blog started and showed interest in class, but demonstrated lower than expected participation in posting information and comments from home. She set out to gain some insight to her students' motivations and attitudes by engaging her students in some learning activities and distributing a survey to other professionals in the field (in varied countries) involved in blogging activities.
Due to unfamiliarity with blog platforms, Soares encountered some technical problems. Additionally, she learned that technical difficulties had a negative impact on some of her students, which may be minimized in the future through some tutorial training. The survey helped Soares realize that some of the trends she saw with her students, such as being more interested in reading blogs than commenting on them, occurred in other contexts as well.
I think one of Soares' great insights came as a result of her second learning activity. She observed great collaborative efforts from her students when she gave them directed blog activities during class time. Not only were her students involved in "learning" through the blog assignment, but they were relying on each other for feedback and correction in their writing. Soares also discerned that her student seemed more comfortable using their English skills through the class blog with an identifiable audience rather than with "strangers". I think this is an important point to consider with ESL classrooms, especially with beginning-level language learners.
In regards to Soares' attitude about using blogs with future students, I'd say she is optimistic. I think she will use the knowledge she's gained so far to develop and improve her blog practices. Additionally, she uses her own blog to continue collaboration with other practitioners regarding this technology in education contexts.
Of the technologies described by Levy, I am most familiar with authoring software and learning management systems (LMS), such as BlackBoard. While teaching at a local language school, I used some language learning software called English Beat, which is geared towards children. As I received no proper instruction in how to use this program though, I can attest to Debski and Gruba's argument (1999) that this sort of "unfamiliarity with advanced technologies can lead to uncertainty towards using them" (p220). This experience did indeed make me a bit hesitant about using new technology in the classroom. However, I can certainly see the value of using authoring tools in language teaching and, in the future, will not likely introduce a new technology into the classroom until I am certain of how to use it to achieve specific curricular goals.
An authoring software, such as Hot Potatoes, offers flexibility to the instructor in terms of using it teach specific concepts and gives immediate feedback to the learner, which seems helpful. It takes longer, though, to get these details to the teacher and with corrective feedback as an important component to L2 learning, this is an area of concern. However, with continued developments and improvements in technology, such as the ability to link information across platforms through hybridization, this appears to be less problematic in the future. A second drawback is that that while the simple scripting in Hot Potatoes allows for fairly easy compatibility with a database, it may also pose security concerns for testing purposes. Levy suggests that computer savvy students may cheat by locating source codes for tests with the correct answers. These concerns may be overcome though by strict supervision during testing periods. In sum, I think the benefits of using authoring software with ESL students outweigh the negative aspects. I can see myself using this technology with my ESL students, preferably in combination with an LMS or database.
*BLACKBOARD - Soares, D. d.A. (2008). Understanding class blogs as a tool for language development. Language Teaching Research, 12(4), 517–533.
What challenges did Soares face when using blogs with her ESL students, and what lessons did she learn? How does she feel about using blogs with students in the future? Levy describes several types of technologies Choose one of them and describe how you might want to use it (or have used it), and discuss some of considerations that need to be taken when using this technology with ESL students
Soares' article on using a class blog with her pre-intermediate EFL students in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil describes some of the challenges she faced. Soares observed that her students were excited to get the blog started and showed interest in class, but demonstrated lower than expected participation in posting information and comments from home. She set out to gain some insight to her students' motivations and attitudes by engaging her students in some learning activities and distributing a survey to other professionals in the field (in varied countries) involved in blogging activities.
Due to unfamiliarity with blog platforms, Soares encountered some technical problems. Additionally, she learned that technical difficulties had a negative impact on some of her students, which may be minimized in the future through some tutorial training. The survey helped Soares realize that some of the trends she saw with her students, such as being more interested in reading blogs than commenting on them, occurred in other contexts as well.
I think one of Soares' great insights came as a result of her second learning activity. She observed great collaborative efforts from her students when she gave them directed blog activities during class time. Not only were her students involved in "learning" through the blog assignment, but they were relying on each other for feedback and correction in their writing. Soares also discerned that her student seemed more comfortable using their English skills through the class blog with an identifiable audience rather than with "strangers". I think this is an important point to consider with ESL classrooms, especially with beginning-level language learners.
In regards to Soares' attitude about using blogs with future students, I'd say she is optimistic. I think she will use the knowledge she's gained so far to develop and improve her blog practices. Additionally, she uses her own blog to continue collaboration with other practitioners regarding this technology in education contexts.
Of the technologies described by Levy, I am most familiar with authoring software and learning management systems (LMS), such as BlackBoard. While teaching at a local language school, I used some language learning software called English Beat, which is geared towards children. As I received no proper instruction in how to use this program though, I can attest to Debski and Gruba's argument (1999) that this sort of "unfamiliarity with advanced technologies can lead to uncertainty towards using them" (p220). This experience did indeed make me a bit hesitant about using new technology in the classroom. However, I can certainly see the value of using authoring tools in language teaching and, in the future, will not likely introduce a new technology into the classroom until I am certain of how to use it to achieve specific curricular goals.
An authoring software, such as Hot Potatoes, offers flexibility to the instructor in terms of using it teach specific concepts and gives immediate feedback to the learner, which seems helpful. It takes longer, though, to get these details to the teacher and with corrective feedback as an important component to L2 learning, this is an area of concern. However, with continued developments and improvements in technology, such as the ability to link information across platforms through hybridization, this appears to be less problematic in the future. A second drawback is that that while the simple scripting in Hot Potatoes allows for fairly easy compatibility with a database, it may also pose security concerns for testing purposes. Levy suggests that computer savvy students may cheat by locating source codes for tests with the correct answers. These concerns may be overcome though by strict supervision during testing periods. In sum, I think the benefits of using authoring software with ESL students outweigh the negative aspects. I can see myself using this technology with my ESL students, preferably in combination with an LMS or database.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reading Prompt #2
Prompt #2
*BLACKBOARD – Egbert, J. (2005). CALL Essentials: Principals and Practices in CALL Classrooms.—Ch. 1. Introduction: Principles of CALL.
*RICHARDSON Ch. 3. Weblogs: Getting Started
Egbert describes the optimal conditions for classroom language learning. Discuss how blogs and blogging can be a tool for achieving these conditions with ELL students. Finally, describe your own experience creating your blog this week. What topic or topics do you plan to blog about?
*BLACKBOARD – Egbert, J. (2005). CALL Essentials: Principals and Practices in CALL Classrooms.—Ch. 1. Introduction: Principles of CALL.
*RICHARDSON Ch. 3. Weblogs: Getting Started
Egbert describes the optimal conditions for classroom language learning. Discuss how blogs and blogging can be a tool for achieving these conditions with ELL students. Finally, describe your own experience creating your blog this week. What topic or topics do you plan to blog about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)