Have a laugh with this video

Twitter

Join Twitter and let the world know what you are doing.
You can follow my twitter messages here.
Have a look at twittermaps and twittervision.

Do we need theory?

“For the CALL practitioner -who might be considered a consumer looking toward theory for guidance- the circumstances are not as straightforward as they once were… The theories have grown not only in number, but also in sophistication and complexity. Some, such as sociocultural theory, involve a considerable number of specialized concepts and levels of analysis. Thus, although using theory as a point of departure is generally to be recommended, there is no doubt that in opting to proceed in this way –in a principled led by theoretical insights- the scale and complexity of the challenge has been increased. What is now needed is not so much a single solution to guide CALL, but rather a careful weighing of the options so that strengths and limitations become evident." Levy & Stockwell (2006:5)

On deciding which is the best methodological approach to CALL there are many variables involved. The multidisciplinary nature of CALL, the ever-changing nature of the technology and the wide variety of applications available cause the need for criteria on how to implement a CALL environment and evaluate the different options. This is not new:

“A glance through the computer-assisted language learning (CALL) literature of the 1990s reveals the profession’s quest for principled means of designing and evaluating CALL. Like researchers in other facets of applied linguistics, CALL researchers look to cross-disciplinary sources for perspectives and research methods.” Chappelle (1997)

One of the problems in the CALL field is the lack of a clear and articulated theoretical base that is commonly shared. New insights and applications coexist with old ideas on technology and how a language is learnt.

“…in terms of pedagogy, the new and improved have not always replaced the old and tired. Instead, many programs being produced today feature little more than visually stimulating variations on the same gap-filling exercises used 40 years ago.” Beatty (2003:11)

Our methodological orientation requires a theoretical base providing pedagogical principles to guide our decisions. A better design and evaluation of CALL activities should be provided by the insights from theoretical developments in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theories, instructional models and theories on learning and knowing and Skill Acquisition Theory (SAT) .

Review of ZACHARIA, G. & ZAPHIRIS, P. (eds.) (2006), User-Centered Computer Aided Language Learning.

A few posts ago I promised to review Smith & Baber (2005) and Zacharia & Zaphiris (2006) . I have been told by Amazon that the first one is not available (if someone knows where I can get it, please tell me).

Zacharia & Zaphiris (2006) is a good overview of new strategies, methodologies and design approaches for building interfaces for a user-centered CALL environment, helping to understand the possibilities and challenges that can be found in the field according to different case studies. There are 14 articles grouped in 3 sections:

(1) Theory and Analysis

(2) Design

(3) Evaluation and Case Studies

In the preface we are told that the key objective of the book was to look at the topic of CALL in a new direction by focusing on the human-computer interaction elements of learning a language online. "Due to the increasing popularity of the Internet and the use of multimedia, there has been a recent move of CALL systems from CD-ROM to Web-based systems, making it possible to create systems that can facilitate the emergence of online communities of learners."

In the first section, we have 3 articles:

1. Ang, C.S. & Zaphiris, P., “Developing Enjoyable Second Language Learning Software Tools: A Computer Game Paradigm”.

It is suggested that ludology and narratology theories of computer games can be useful in designing language-learning software applications, providing a better framework and "making the experience of learning more immersive and engaging". Two case studies are compared: Slime Forest and Alien Language.

2. Lambropoulos, N., Christopoulu, M. & Vlachos, K., “Culture-Based Language Learning Objects: A CALL Approach for a Ubiquitous World”.

This article presents the theoretical basis of CLLOs' CALL design and its current practices in Greek learning as L2 in the UK. “Culture-based L2 teaching and learning could be implemented through CALL, as learners can be engaged in simulations with computer applications through role taking, working on meanings that have cultural associations and making inferences…. Additionally, CALL applications can offer learners the chance to use synchronous and asynchronous online communication with native as well as other speakers of the target language. Thus, they can retrieve cultural and social information directly from native speakers, discuss topics of common interest and expand their knowledge on cultural codes and tolerable and intolerable patterns of verbal behaviour in the contexts where the target language naturally occurs.”

3. Farmer, R. A., “Situated Task Analysis in Learner-Centred CALL”.

Farmer calls for the development and adoption of situated task analysis frameworks in CALL system design and evaluation leading to the development of more fit-for purpose and personalized CALL systems. Language learning is socially situated and settings vary widely. A learner-centred integrative approach is proposed, modelling the cognitive and sociological aspects of learner-computer interaction. “Situating the users’ actions within the context of social human praxis has the potential to reshape perceptions of Human-Computer Interaction. To this end, research in CALL is witnessing a transitional shift away from cognitivist ‘communicative’ CALL (involving drill-and-practice exercises that focus on accuracy and fluency) towards more sociocultural, ‘integrative’ CALL activities (that address the importance of agency).”

The 5 articles in the second section are:

4. De los Arcos, B. & Arnedillo Sánchez, I., “Ears before Eyes: Expanding Tutors’ Interaction Skills beyond Physical Presence in Audio-Graphic Collaborative Virtual Learning Environments”.

In audio-graphical learning environments interaction certain aspects of non-verbal behaviour are absent. We are introduced to strategies to deal with turn-taking, time lag and other incidences, while observing the difficulty in applying a communicative approach in these settings and the differences between face-to-face and virtual classrooms.

5. Coit, C., “A Student-Centered Online Writing Course”.

A student-centered online writing course, where peer corrections were the sole source of feedback.

6. Lonsdale, D., C. R. Graham & Madsen, R., “Learner-Centered Language Programs: Integrating Disparate Resources for Task-Based Interaction”.

Theoretical foundations and design of the GEDspeak application.

7. Veiga Marriott, R. C. & Lupion Torres, P., “LAPLI - The Language Learning Lab: A Methodological Proposal for a Hybrid Course in a Virtual Environment”.

An interesting virtual learning environment design for advanced students with 12 types of activities working with Internet materials and concept maps.

8. Gstrein, S. & Hug, T., “Integrated Micro Learning During Access Delays: A New Approach to Second-Language Learning”.

On micro learning materials designed for mobile devices.

In the third section 6 more different experiences are described:

9. Cantos Gómez, P. & García Iborra, J. , “EOI Online Inglés: A Fully Implemented and Operative Online English Language Course”

10. Chan, W. M., “Metacognition and Learners’ Interactions with a Web-Based CALL Grammar Exercise”.

11. Melton, J., “The Effect of a Native-Language Interface vs. a Target-Language Interface on Students’ Performance”.

12. Schcolnik, M. & Kol, S., “Reading and Learning from Screen”.

13. Hirata, Y., “Evaluating Students’ Perceptions of ‘Online Counselor’ for Independent Language Learning”.

14. Vrasidas, C., Landone, E., Christodoulou, N. & Zembylas, M., “Language Learning and User-Centered Design: The Development of the Electronic European Language Portfolio”.

ICT for Language Teachers

ICT for Language Teachers is a new blog started by Graham Davies. It aims to encourage feedback on the ICT4LT site in particular and the use of ICT in language learning and teaching in general. The first posts are about virtual learning environments, podcasting, interactive whiteboards, presentations, reports on the effectiveness of ICT and digital language labs, with lots of interesting information and references.

Ten suggestions for teachers with limited CALL experience

De Szendeffy (2005: chapter 3) suggests the following 10 tips or guidelines for implementing CALL activities:

1. Focus on activities, not software titles.

Effective lab classes generally revolve around a well thought-out activity that involves content accessed via computers with stimulating student interaction in the target language.

2. Wade in slowly.

Teachers new to CALL are often put off by the perception that they must be technical gurus, that they must know how to do everything in order to do everything. They don't.
Most teachers are familiar with word processing, e-mail or web browsing.

3. Teach.
Lab class should provide human instruction time and contact with each student.

4. Appreciate the richness of the computing environment.

The complexity of this environment frequently leads students to seek help, either from the teacher or, preferably, from a classmate -thus the importance of pairing students or at least seating them according to unlike L1s.

5. Prepare and be patient.

Be familiar with applications you have students use so that you can answer questions knowledgeably. Work through every activity in advance, and anticipate what problems students might encounter. This familiarity is as much the teacher's responsibility as knowing other materials used, such as textbooks.

6. Don’t let technology drive your class.

Don't use technology for technology's sake, because it's there, or let it become an end in itself instead of a means. Recognize the difference between taking advantage of a stimulating language learning environment and letting it dictate what you do... Think of an interactive language activity first, then look to technology to enable it, if possible.

7. Invest time in training and orientation.

Don't assume that students know computers or each program because they're young. They don't... Taking the time to walk students through the use of a new application or activity as a class will save time because it's easier to say something once to the class before an activity.

8. Pace activities.

Allowing students to complete activities at their own pace is part of the beauty of CALL... Have buffer activities ready for students who finish earlier... Transitioning from one activity to another takes time... Students are slow to change gears when they're at the wheel (that is, the mouse), so segue from one activity to another without abruptly interrupting their momentum. New activities must overcome the inertia of the preceding one while addressing the technical overhead of the new one.

9. Be a resource guide.

A lab teacher's skill is largely exhibited in his or her ability to choose appropriate and effective materials and activities and to teach access skills and epistemology, particularly of the enormous Internet resources. As a lab teacher, you are the librarian of the lab in that it is partly your responsibility to introduce students to appropriate lab resources, whether used in class or not, in fact, especially for relevant materials you won't have time to use in class.

10. Orchestrate communicative activities.

A CALL's teacher job is to orchestrate communicative activities that are student centered and student empowering. In a CALL lab, students have an expectation of hands-on work and active participation more than passive listening; they are more predisposed to doing something. Give them instructions for an activity, and let them have at it. Develop open-ended activities where students create as much as possible and are not arbitrarily restricted to a narrow, predefined model.

CALL history (& 2)

Warschauer (2000), a revised version of Warschauer & Healey (1998) , is considered the most influential interpretative description of CALL history, which is divided into three stages:

Stage I : Structural CALL (1970s-1980s): Grammar-translation & audiolingual teaching; view of language as a formal structural system; mainframe technology; drill and practice as principal use of computers; accuracy as main objective.

Stage II : Communicative CALL (1980s-1990s): Communicative language teaching; cognitive view of language (mentally constructed system); microcomputers as technology and communicative exercises as principal use; not only accuracy as main objective, but also fluency.

Stage III: Integrative CALL (21st century): Content based, ESP/EAP teaching; socio-cognitive view of language (developed in social interaction); multimedia and internet technologies; authentic discourse as principal use; agency is added to accuracy and fluency as main objective.

I do not want to suggest that these stages have occurred sequentially, with one following the other, from "bad CALL" to "good CALL". At any one time, any of these may be combined for different purposes. However, there has been a general trend or development over the years, with new ideas and uses of computers being introduced in combination with those previous.

Bax (2003) gives a critical examination of Warschauer's stages. He prefers to talk about approaches rather than phases or stages and offers three new categories:

I - Restricted CALL

II - Open CALL

III - Integrated CALL

In general, my three approaches do coincide with general historical periods— Restricted CALL dominated from the 1960s until about 1980; Open CALL has lasted from the 1980s until today, with some Restricted CALL manifestations still observable and still valuable in their place (e.g. in grammar revision and checking). Integrated CALL exists in a few places and a few dimensions only, but is far from common

...

The key point about Integrated CALL - which sharply distinguishes it from Warschauer and Healey's formulation - is that it does not yet exist to any significant degree, but represents instead an aim towards which we should be working (Bax 2003:22)

This concept is relevant to any kind of technological innovation and refers to the stage when the technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice and hence 'normalised'. To take some commonplace examples, a wristwatch, a pen, shoes, writing - these are all technologies which have become normalised to the extent that we hardly even recognise them as technologies. (Bax 2003:24)

In the last years new possibilities of communication and collaboration have appeared thanks to web 2.0 tools, which make it easier to participate and share resources online. Podcasting and video sharing in virtual communities are among these new possibilities of practice and interaction. Sound and video files are easily created and downloaded to portable devices or shared in community portals, wikis or blogs. Nevertheless, the teaching exploitation of these new resources and practice and its integration into the school processes of teaching and learning is something to be developed.

The Future? Predictions made even 15 years ago tended to focus on more intelligent tutorial software and the promise of multimedia. We were looking for opportunities to make learning more efficient and individualized through computers. Then came the web and the spread of CMC, along with social constructivist methodology, making collaboration and communication through computers a stronger focus. I am betting on a future that has room for both. In recent presentations, Claire Bradin Siskin and I have argued for a softening of the tutor-tool distinction (Another Look at Tutorial CALL). I anticipate increased recognition that blended environments building on the complementary strengths of tutorial software; text, audio, and video CMC; authentic language from the web; and the face-to-face interaction of students to teacher and students to students will yield more effective learning than any of these in isolation. Hubbard (2004-2006)