Archive for August, 2009

Informal adult learning white paper

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills in the UK commissioned and published (in March this year) a white paper on ‘The Learning Revolution’. The paper is about the importance of informal learning in the UK and suggests ways in which the government, local bodies, institutions and individuals can support access to and make better use of informal learning opportunities. For anyone interested in learning outside the classroom, this is compulsory reading. It is frank in saying it is intended as the ‘start of the journey’ and I do not find as much ground-breaking ideas in it as I would have liked (anyone care to join its suggested ‘Festival of Learning’?), but there are certainly very many excellent suggestions. At least in the Uk there is an awereness of the importance of the issues and a commitment to spending GBP210 million on it (although unfortunately ‘only’ 20 million of that goes to its ‘transformation fund’ which is where one would hope to find the potential for real change).

You can download the paper here.

revolution

Language-related episodes in self-access interaction

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

An interesting study in the context of self-access learning, I thought this might be of interest to the autonomy folks out there:

Previous studies have shown that second language (L2) learners use language to refl ect on language form when they carry out collaborative classroom-based activities, and that they generally remember the language forms that they had discussed. The current study similarly investigated whether learners refl ect on and remember language forms, but focused on learners’ interaction during self-access computer activities. The language-related episodes (LREs) that occurred when Thai learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) ( n = 48) carried out computer activities in a self-access environment were examined, and tailor-made tests that targeted the linguistic information discussed in those LREs were administered. The results indicated that the learners’ LREs involved lexical items more often than grammatical forms, and that they successfully resolved the majority of their LREs while they were collaborating. However, their test performance indicated that they only remembered less than half of the lexical items and one-third of the grammatical forms that they had discussed. Suggestions are offered for teachers and administers interested in integrating collaborative selfaccess computer activities into English L2 courses.

Collaborative Dialogue Between Thai EFL Learners During Self-Access Computer Activities. Authors: McDonough, Kim; Sunitham, Wichian. Source: TESOL Quarterly, Volume 43, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 231-254(24). Publisher: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

http://www.ingentaconnect.com.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/content/tesol/tq/2009/00000043/00000002/art00004

Academic Earth

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009

Free lectures from lecturers at top universities on a wide range of topics. You can subscribe by RSS – I love this!

free-lectures

Anthropology and language teaching…some lessons?

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Clifford Geertz is one of the most famous anthropologists of the 20th century. His work is truly groundbreaking and in addition, he writes very well. I was reading his essay on Balinese cockfighting and in it he talks about different types of groupings of people. One term really resonated with me, namely that of a “focused gathering”. A focused gathering is not, in Geertz’s words, vertebrate enough to be called a group and not structureless enough to be called a crowd. It is instead a ‘set of persons engrossed in a common flow of activity and relating to one another in terms of that flow. Such gatherings meet and disperse; the participants in them flucatuate; the activity that focuses them is discreet – a particulate process that reoccurs rather than a continuous one that endures. They take their form from the situation that evokes them, the floor on which they are placed…; but it is a form, and an articulate one, nonetheless’.

The reason why I find this concept so attractive is that it describes my own vision of a supportive language learning environment. Instead of the static groupings of classrooms around other people’s preconceptions about learning and learners’ needs, focused gatherings meet and collaborate based around shared interests and shared motivations. Learners’ needs change and what may be an excellent learning partner on one day may not be on another. The fluid notion of a focused gathering seems far more conducive to situated and meaningful learning. The role of the environment (whether in the form of a bricks-and-mortar school or online language support software) is to facilitate this grouping and to help materialise the agency within it. A learning community then, rather than a classroom, encouraged and supported rather than decided and directed, a marketplace of learning exchanges, rather than an auction where the highest bidder (the most vocal student, the one most liked by the teacher) gets what he wants. Learning as focused gatherings, teaching as enabling focused gatherings….maybe Clifford Geertz was onto something.

New article: using computer games to teach writing

Monday, August 17th, 2009

I’ve just had a short article published in English Teaching Professional on using computer games to teach writing. You can read the article below or download it from here. Happy reading!

etp

GAME ON!
USING COMPUTER GAMES TO TEACH WRITING

Hayo Reinders
University of Groningen, the Netherlands

This short article looks at ways of using computer games to teach different aspects of writing in the foreign language classroom. It offers a number of practical tips for use in the language classroom and beyond.

Why games for the teaching of writing?

Most written communication now takes place electronically. This is having a significant effect on the types of writing our students produce. Prensky (2003) estimates that by the age of 21, learners have sent 250.000 instant messages and emails. Clearly, our students love to communicate through writing! Of course, our job is to improve the quality of that writing and to expand their written communication to include different text types. To me, one obvious starting point is the writing my students do for fun and to build on that in class. For this reason I have used text messaging and Facebook to encourage social writing. Especially videogames also offer a lot of potential to motivate students to write a wide range of text types. Considering that by Prensky’s estimates, by the age of 21, the average student has spent about 10,000 hours playing videogames, there is ample opportunity for teachers to link classroom learning with out-of-class activities.

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the pedagogical benefits of computer games. James Paul Gee, for example, has identified 36 learning principles that he found to be present in many of the games he investigated. To give just two examples of these, take the ‘Active, Critical Learning Principle’. This stipulates that ‘All aspects of the learning environment (including the ways in which the semiotic domain is designed and presented) are set up to encourage active and critical, not passive, learning.’ (Gee, 2003). In other words, computer games engage learners and get them involved in the tasks at hand. A second principle is the ‘Regime of Competence Principle’ where ‘the learner gets ample opportunity to operate within, but at the outer edge of, his or her resources, so that at those points things are felt as challenging but not “undoable.” (idem). You may recognise this as being similar to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. If you have ever played a computer game yourself you will have noticed that if you fail a task, the game adapts to your level until you do succeed. Similarly, if you succeed too quickly or too easily, new challenges appear. Computers are good at providing this type of adaptive environment. Surely these are principles many of us strive to implement ourselves in the classroom.

Games in general also have a number of characteristics that make them potentially useful for the teaching of writing. According to Prensky (2001) games share:

1) rules
2) goals and objectives
3) outcome and feedback
4) conflict, competition, challenge, and opposition
5) interaction
6) the representation of a story.

These elements are similar to those in the writing process where the interaction is usually defined by shared rules and where successful writers have clear goals in the communication they engage in. The representation of a story or the resolution of a conflict generally results in some type of response; a form of feedback. Teachers can use these parallels to draw on in the teaching of writing.

Practical ideas
Below I will briefly discuss seven ideas for the teaching of writing using the computer. Most of these do not require more than basic computer skills on your and your students’ part.

Use games to investigate characters and story lines
One of the easiest options is to ask students to investigate the characters in the games they play and to identify the story lines in them. Many games have extremely extensive plots and subplots. Johnson (2005) discusses how in recent years popular media has become more complex and gives examples such as TV programmes and also computer games where multiple characters and storylines intertwine, in some cases running to 200 pages or more when written up. Clearly, there is a lot to say about computer games. Here is an example of the plot of one, now older, game (description taken from Wikipedia):

‘I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream’ is a computer adventure game based upon Harlan Ellison’s short story of the same name. It is about an evil computer named AM that has destroyed all of humanity except for five people he has been keeping alive and torturing for the past 109 years. Each survivor has a fatal flaw in his or her character, and in an attempt to crush their spirits, AM has constructed a metaphorical adventure for each that preys upon their weaknesses. To succeed in the game, the player must make ethical choices to prove to the evil computer that humans are better than machines, because they have the ability to redeem themselves.

Asking students to identify how such a story unfolds, who the characters are and how they relate to other characters and develop in the story, is a good way to focus their attention on the underlying principles both writers and game developers use to develop their stories. You will probably find that your learners have a lot to tell about the games they play!

Using your learners’ online characters
Another option involving little or no technical skills on your part is to ask students to describe their online characters; most games, and especially online environments like Second Life (which has the advantage that its basic membership is free), let you ‘create’ your own character. This involves choosing your gender, race, fashion, but also your behaviour (will you play the good or the bad character?). Ask your students to read the descriptions of each others’ characters or let students show the characters in class using projector or on a prinout and then ask them to discuss their choices. A fun activity could be to shuffle the printouts of the different characters and hand them out. Students then have to guess which character belongs to whom (but be careful this doesn’t get out of hand as it can get very personal). In the example in the previous section, you could ask the students to explain their ‘ethical choices’. Why did they do what they did? How did this affect the other characters in the game? With hindsight, would they have done things differently? Similarly, you could ask students to discuss the right or wrong of violent computer games and the characters’ actions in them. A popular game such as Grand Theft Auto IV would be a good candidate for this.

Another good game to use for this purpose is the world’s most popular game, The Sims (www.thesims.com), but unlike Second Life, this is not free. An alternative to Second Life is Active Worlds (www.activeworlds.com), which offers lower prices for eductional institutions through its ‘Active Worlds Educational Universe’ or Moove, which is free (www.moove.com).

Use screenshots for discussion.
A screenshot is simply a picture of whatever is showing on your computer screen. Every computer keyboard has a key labelled ‘Prt Sc’, usually near the top right-hand side of the keyboard. Press this and then open a word processor. Right-click and choose ‘paste’. You will now see your screenshot. You can use such screenshots as a starting point for a discussion in class. An ambiguous image is best (is the character trying to help the victim or will he abandon him?). If you do not have access to games yourself, ask your students to bring their own screenshots. Then ask your students to describe the scene and predict what will happen next and why. You could ask them to write out a possible dialogue. Another use for screenshots is to ask students to summarise a computer game with the help of a number of screenshots from key moments in the game. I have found that especially with reluctant writers the use of the visuals makes it easier for them to get started.

Get playing!
Some games are more language-rich than others. Educational games are specifically designed for use in the classroom but often students do not find them as interesting as non-educational games. Some non-educational games are particularly suited to language learning. An interesting example is Ace Attorney (cf. Stanly and Mawer 2008). This is about a young lawyer who investigates crime and prosecutes offenders. Successful players build a strong case and strategise to find and then deliver the strongest arguments. Students could play this game and write out their choices, their arguments and eventually the whole case. Different teams could play each other, both on the computer and offline, in writing. Social games like Second Life and The Sims mentioned above also involve a lot of opportunities for communication. Numerous smaller games exist that can be useful too. An example is ‘Mystery of Time and Space’ (http://www.albartus.com/motas/) in which ‘the adventurer has to solve riddles and puzzles, find and use objects, escape from locked rooms, find hidden passages and be a detective and examine everything to unlock the doors of the mystery of time and space’. Some other games can be found here: www.languagegames.org

Encourage communication in online role-playing games
The term ‘MMORPG’ stands for ‘massively multiplayer online role-playing game’. These games are played by hundreds and sometimes up to hundreds of thousands of people online. They often involve fantasy worlds and elaborate character development. Success in playing the game depends on participants’ ability to plan ahead and to use strategies, – crucially-, with the help of others. This involves communication via chat (frequently written but also spoken) and thus offers an opportunity to practise quite extensive forms of transactional writing which is highly ‘situated’; where the communication is related to the participants’ here and now and is authentic in that context. Many students play these games in their first language but are quite happy to play in English and are often thankful for help as it will allow them to play with more people. As the teacher you could ask students to print out their chat conversations which you can then use in class to focus on the language used. Alternatively you could participate in the game yourself and join in the chat communication and perhaps help scaffold the conversations. This can also help you identify difficulties your students are having. The most popular MMORPG is World of Warcraft, which has been around for years and is extremely extensive in its plot. A free alternative, albeit more suitable for younger learners, is Disney’s Toon Town (http://play.toontown.com). This has the advantage that it was designed with children and families in mind and is thus more likely to be free of unwanted language. The description from its website reads:

In Toontown, players, as Toons, join forces to save the world from the invading robot Cogs – humorless business robots who are attempting to turn the colorful, happy world of Toontown into a corporate metropolis. Because Cogs can’t take a joke, Toons use cartoon gags to crack them up!

Provide language support around games
Another, relatively straightforward option, is to create help around the games that students play. One interesting project was carried out at King Mongkut University in Thailand. Teachers there found that many students played the game Football Championship Manager. They also found that many students had difficulty understanding the vocabulary in the game. They decided to create a simple support website where students can look up the words, read English descriptions, Thai descriptions and see a picture. Simple, yet effective! You could, of course, choose to focus on any aspect of the language. For example, students may want help with more communicative aspects of games, such as addressing strangers through chat, or the language for planning and strategising (excellent for practising the future tense, conditionals, etc) in MMORPGs.

You or the students create games
This sounds more daunting than it really is. A number of programmes have been written that allow students to create computer games themselves. One interesting project is ‘Scratch’ (http://scratch.mit.edu/), designed at MIT for children eight years and older. This free software lets students create environments, characters, and animations, using a simplified programming language. There are templates that students can start with and adapt, and students can also create things from scratch (no pun intended). The main aims of Scratch are to help students develop thinking skills, the ability to use technology productively and to learn to develop and follow through a plan, but Scratch can also be integrated into the language classroom. For example, you can ask students to write summaries of their games, or a manual with information on how to use it, or encourage them to create ads to promote their games. You will probably also find that creating the games in class will give ample opportunity for spoken interaction of quite a complex nature, and thus provide an excellent opportunity for language practice. An alternative to Scratch is www.stagecast.com.

A similar option, and one very popular with teenagers, is a form of storytelling called Machinima. A contraction of machine and cinema, Machinima is the telling of a story based on games graphics. So, for example, if a student likes a particular game they can use the characters and scenes from those games to ‘mod’ (modify) them in order to tell their own story. Modding involves taking an existing game or aspect of a game (such as a character) and using software to change it in some way. A word of warning: just as some games can be violent so can the graphics students derive from those games be unsuitable for use in class. You will probably have to set some clear boundaries here.

A final suggestion is to use Gamics (www.gamics.com). A contraction of games and comics, Gamics are similar to Machinima, except they involve still images. Students use images from their favourite cartoons to create their own.

Final thoughts
There are a number of drawbacks to using computer games. One is that not everyone in class may be used to playing games and some students may not have access to computers or game consoles. Perhaps you can ask your system administrator to make one of the (free) online games mentioned above available on one or more of the workstations in your school (perhaps at restricted times).

Another potential pitfall is that playing games can be exciting but entertainment in itself does not necessarily lead to learning or to learning in the most effective way. You will have to set clear goals for yourself and articulate these to your learners so they know what is expected of them. Similarly, you will have to set rules for what games can be played and when. Some games may not be suitable for use in class. This will also be a concern for parents and administrators. Talk to them and explain what you aim to do and what the intended learning outcomes are. Explain how you will protect the students from inappropriate content.

A practical issue is the cost associated with computer games. Most schools now have computer facilities available for students so the main cost will be for software. Above I have tried to recommend several free programmes. Many students also have access to computer games at home and you could ask them to use those (and perhaps to share them with students who do not), for example by bringing screenshots back to class (see second idea above). Of course, many of the ideas suggested here do not necessarily require the use of a computer. Various forms of role play and traditional games for example offer opportunities for practice similar to that of computer games. However, with the many free computer games available nowadays and the advantages they offer, it may be worthwhile to experiment.

At times exasperating, at times exhilarating, computer games are almost never boring. You are likely to see strong student involvement. Your challenge will be to channel that involvement in ways that actually benefit the development of writing skills. Oh, and to have as much fun in the process as possible. Game on!

References
Gee, J. P. 2003. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Johnson, S. 2005. Everything bad is good for you: how today’s popular culture
is actually making us smarter. New York: Riverhead Books.

Prensky, M. 2001. Digital game-based learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Prenky, M. 2003. Keynote presentation delivered at the Distance Learning Conference,
Madison. Available from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing

Stanley, G. and Mawer, K. 2008. Language Learners & Computer Games: From Space
Invaders to Second Life. TESL-EJ 11(4).

Should teachers do research?

Friday, August 14th, 2009

Common sense would say yes, they should. It certainly is the politically correct answer. Surprising then to see an article in ‘Studies in Philosphy and Education’ titled ‘Investigating the myth of the relationship between teaching and research in higher education: A review of empirical research’.

It is bold and important to ask these questions. Now let’s hope there are people bold enough to make some important changes to the way research and teaching are being connected.

Here is the abstract of the article:
Despite the widespread belief in a positive influence of research on education, the empirical evidence is lacking (Hattie and Marsh 1996). Several authors have questioned the appropriateness of the operationalisation of both aspects of the relation between teaching and research. This article takes a closer look at the research questions in empirical studies on the nexus between teaching and research and examines the used variables and their measurement techniques. The study reveals that the used variables and their operationalisation are diverse as well as limited. There is for example a diversity in the investigated population, the level of analysis (individual faculty, department, institutions), the nature of the institutions investigated or the questionnaires used. The operationalisation of both teaching and research is limited. Student learning or the way research is integrated into teaching are virtually absent and the measurement of research is mostly confined to the quantity of the research output. This calls for a more systematic research agenda in which student learning is investigated along with more fine grained measures of teaching and in which the relation of these two indicators and the research proficiency of faculty are looked at.
Verburgh, Elen and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2007, 26(5).

Call for Papers: Personal Learning Environments

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

PERSONAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

Proposal Deadline: October 1st, 2009

Editor
Michael Thomas Ph.D.

Further information

http://wirelessready.nucba.ac.jp/PLEbook.pdf>

INTRODUCTION

Over the last ten years centralized virtual learning environments (VLE) -
alternatively referred to as course management systems (CMS) or learning
management systems (LMS) – have emerged in educational institutions around
the world. Though intended for use by educators and students, commercially
available applications such as Blackboard and WebCT, have often been imposed
as top-down solutions, more useful it seems to administrators than those
engaged in the day-to-day activities of teaching and learning. While VLEs
have become staple elements in the delivery of e-learning, distance learning
and face-to-face learning, they have also been often opposed as systems
whose real purpose is to control educational activity rather than foster it.

In opposition to VLEs, personal learning environments (PLE) have been
increasingly advocated as a decentralized alternative, thereby offering
students the opportunity to have greater control of their own learning and
goal setting. PLEs are often connected with a group of personal tools
associated with one particular learner thus supporting a more
learner-centric and constructivist approach to learning. With the advent of
Web 2.0 applications, many of the characteristics of PLEs have seemingly
been realized, such as enabling learners to communicate more easily with one
another, manage the process of learning more effectively, and take a larger
stake in the ownership of content. When stated in these terms, it is
difficult to oppose the intent to place the learner and his/her unique needs
at the center of the educational process, rather than assuming that learners
must always adhere to an inherited educational system. Given the emergence
of so-called digital natives, advocates of PLEs argue that we are closer
than ever to being able to realize a form of rich personalized learning as
the students currently entering schools and universities are already
familiar with their own group of web-based social networking and
communication tools.

As desirable as this may appear, the current prominence of personalized
learning is nevertheless fraught with a number of technological, pedagogical
and cultural issues that must be addressed. These include providing
solutions to support a large group of users with a multiplicity of different
tools at their disposable; balancing student choice and learner centrism
with institutional standards for assessment, quality assurance and
instructor expertise; and enabling the use of common tools for
communication, collaboration and the shared construction of knowledge.

Advocacy of personalized learning and personal learning environments is in
danger of being supported by the same kind of rhetoric of ‘educational
transformation’ evident in the history of learning technologies, from
educational radio and television to interactive whiteboards. Pushed forward
by government policy makers in search of something ‘new’ rather than
learning technologies based on sound pedagogy and educational research, the
philosophy of personalized learning risks repeating the same errors and
aporias.

This edited collection aims to be one of the first to address the context of
personal learning environments and personalized learning in a Web 2.0
context, by considering the opportunities as well as the obstacles to their
development. The book aims to publish high quality research-based chapters
as well as reflective and visionary perspectives on issues surrounding the
introduction of PLEs in educational institutions. It attempts to interrogate
the key assumptions behind personalized learning environments and present
recommendations that will make the book relevant to policymakers,
administrators and educators in general, and those in learning technologies
and curriculum design in particular.

CHAPTER PROPOSALS

Chapter proposals are being sought for the first section of the book (6-10
chapters). Chapters should focus on a substantive area of pedagogy related
to the use of PLEs in education. Completed chapters should be between 6,000
- 8,500 words in length, and fully referenced following APA style
guidelines. Possible subject areas to be addressed by the chapters include
but are not limited to the following:

(i). VLEs vs PLEs (or next generation personal VLEs)
(ii). Developing a PLE
(iii). PLEs in open and distance learning
(iv). Student-centered learning and PLEs
(v). Centralization vs decentralization of learning technologies and online
resources
(vi). A literature survey on VLEs/PLEs in education
(vii). PLEs and mobile learning
(viii). The use of PLEs and the implications for teaching and learning
(ix). Administering PLEs in education, consideration of security, technical,
cultural/pedagogical and maintenance issues
(x). Open source and VLEs/PLEs

Proposals on other topics in addition to those listed are of course
welcomed.

CASE STUDIES PROPOSALS

The second section of the book includes 5-10 case studies that develop and
compliment the themes of the first section of the book by exploring
instructors’ practical experiences.

All of the case studies are organized according to a similar format thus
enabling comparison. Case studies represent first-hand accounts from those
involved directly in the projects described. The case studies should be
based on research done with PLEs in the last four years. Each case study
should address the following sections where appropriate:

(i). the context of the project
(ii). the rationale of the project
(iii). the teaching and learning aims and objectives of the project
(iv). the technology infrastructure
(v). the evaluation and assessment criteria used
(vi). the learning outcomes and findings of the project
(vii). future implications of the project (institutional, for teaching, for
learning, for professional development)

The final word-length of each case study is expected to be in the range of
3,500 – 6,000 words

SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

Please send a 1-2 page proposal outlining the main features of your proposed
chapter or case study and how it is relevant for the collection. Proposals
should be sent as MS Word documents by email to: Michael Thomas, at:
. The deadline for the receipt of a proposal is
October 1st, 2009. The subject line of the email should read, “PLE
Chapter/Case Study Proposal.”

All proposals should include the following information:

(i). Full name and title of the author(s)
(ii). Professional status (Teacher, Lecturer, Professor etc.)
(iii). Professional affiliation (Name of your educational institution)
(iv). Professional address
Department
Employer
Country
Phone/Fax
Email addresses

(v). Please attach a short biographical statement of each author (max. 150
words).

All proposals will be vetted and returned to the authors within 2 weeks of
receipt with appropriate feedback.

The first draft of the chapters and case studies is due on or before
February 20th, 2010. All submitted papers will be subject to a refereed
process of peer review.

Authors of accepted proposals will be sent further guidelines for the
development of their chapter or case study. Prospective authors may submit
more than one chapter and/or case study proposal. However, only one chapter
and case study can be accepted per author.

The book has attracted interest from a number of educational publishers and
it is expected to be published in 2010/11.

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Michael Thomas Ph.D. is Professor of Language Learning Technologies at
Nagoya University of Commerce & Business in Japan. He is editor of
the International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments. His
research interests are in digital literacies and Web 2.0, digital
technologies and TESOL education, the Internet and society, and the
philosophy of language. He is author of The Reception of Derrida:
Translation and Transformation (2006), editor of Handbook of Research on Web
2.0 and Second Language Learning (2009), and co-editor of Interactive
Whiteboards for Education: Theory, Research and Practice (in press)
and Task-Based Language Teaching and Technology (forthcoming 2010).

FURTHER INFORMATION

More information about the book may be found at the following website as the
project develops:

Make mobile websites

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

In the past I have used www.wirenode.com to make mobile versions of my website. I have now found a new website called Mippin, which seems just as easy. It will take an RSS feed from your website and turn it into a mobile-ready version, complete with pictures, formatting and layout. Brilliant.

The address for this website’s mobile version is: www.mippin.com/innovationinteaching

mippin

Free temporary access to Sage articles

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

If you do not have easy access to academic journals, this may be interesting to you:

Free online trial to 13 key Language and Linguistics journals until 30th September:
Register Today!

Get acquainted with SAGE’s journals in Language and Linguistics now during our free online access period. We are currently offering free full-text access to 13 key journals for two months until 30th September 2009.

The journals featured below are immediately available to you today through this free trial offer. All you have to do is register here. Once registered you will be able browse abstracts, perform quick or advanced keyword searches, and download full-text articles to all of these journals. Access to the following titles, amongst many, are also included:
(If the link doesn’t survive … point your browser to https://online.sagepub.com/cgi/register?registration=FT9196
You’ll also have access to any new issues that are posted online during the free access period! So make sure to bookmark your favourite journal pages and check back often for recently published articles.

The benefits of study abroad on L2 acquisition

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

As someone who emphases the benefits of ‘out-of-class learning’ I have a great interest in studies on the effects of study abroad programmes. Common sense would say that such programmes cannot but be beneficial. It was interesting then to attend Robert de Keyser’s presentation last year at AILA as part of a symposium led by Jim Coleman where he reported on a study that showed no benefit. At the time I had some issues with the study, one of them being that the study abroad stay was rather short. To my mind, and in my own experience, there is a considerable ‘gestation period’ before a cascade of progress is set in motion. I vividly remember my study abroad stay in Cairo in the 90s. I had been studying up to 15 hours a day trying to develop my Arabic proficiency with not entirely convincing results. I had made progress at the grammatical and vocabulary level but the different pieces of the puzzle just hadn’t fallen in place; it was all discrete bits. Then one night as I was half-asleep I physically felt something happening inside me, not just in my head but in my whole body, and I knew that something important had changed. To say that the next morning I was able to speak Arabic would be a grave exaggeration but from that day the language (insofar as I had learned about it up to that point) had become internalised and I made tremendous progress.

It was interesting then to read a recent study by Àngels Llanes and Carmen Muñoz who, in contrast to de Keyser, did find a benefit of short-term study abroad programmes. This debate has not been settled yet, but it is certainly an interesting additional data point.

Here is the abstract of the study:

Given that summer abroad programs are becoming more and more popular, the aim of the present study is to find out whether foreign language proficiency can be significantly improved during a summer stay of 3–4 weeks. The present study examines learners’ linguistic gains through oral fluency and accuracy measures as well as a listening comprehension task. Learners’ oral fluency is examined in terms of syllables per minute, other language word ratio, filled pauses per minute, silent pauses per minute, articulation rate, and length of the longest fluent run. The accuracy of learners’ oral production is measured by means of the ratio of error free clauses and the average number of errors per clause. In addition, learners’ errors are classified into 4 categories: morphological errors, syntactic errors, lexical errors and covered errors. Results reveal that these short stays do indeed producfe significant gains on most measures, and that proficiency level strongly affects the intensity of learners’ progress.

System 37, 3. (2009).
doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.001