Passages: A simulation game

I found this game on the UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency) website, which offers free teaching materials. This game is quite involved and will require preparation, but may be helpful for church or community groups who wish to get involved in refugee work and advocacy.

A simulation game designed to create better understanding of the problems facing refugees. Participants go through a number of steps which attempt to simulate the refugee experience, from flight to arrival in the refugee camp as well as the difficulties of integration and repatriation of refugees.

http://www.unrefugees.org/atf/cf/%7Bd2f991c5-a4fb-4767-921f-a9452b12d742%7D/Passages.pdf

Inspiration for our Video Podcast

Reading Prompt #12

*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.

Limburgs: A regional language in the Netherlands

As an undergraduate, I wrote a paper for a linguistics class on my Dutch dialect, Limburgs. Well, it was considered a dialect when I was young. Since 1997, Limburgs has been recognized as a regional language. Actually, I'm not sure if Limburgs is officially recognized as a language by the Dutch authority, but it seems the European Union does recognize Limburgs as an official language. I'll have to get this sorted out when I return to Limburg for a visit in May.

As a child, I didn't give much consideration to speaking both Limburgs and Standard Dutch. I've come to appreciate my "linguistic" heritage more over the years and find that my identity is closely linked to this "dialect" and region of the Netherlands.

This link shares some interesting information and isogloss maps.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/540/langdial/limburg.html

world mosaic: a tribute to flickr portraits

world mosaic: a tribute to flickr portraits, originally uploaded by pardeshi.

I love this! No words needed...

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!

Google Earth and UNHCR

What an innovative use for Google Earth application. This video shows how this technology brings awareness to the plight of refugees around the world by capturing current and relevant information and making it accessible to the general population.