Posts Tagged ‘publications’
Friday, January 21st, 2011
We are very pleased to announce the publication of our new book ‘Good Teacher, Better Teacher. Strategies for the Multicultural Classroom’ co-authored by Marilyn Lewis, Alison Kirkness and myself and published by Perceptia Press.
The tertiary population in many countries has changed considerably in the past ten years with considerable implications for teachers. Today, thousands of students for whom English is a second or even third language are enrolled at English-speaking tertiary institutes. Some are at universities in English-speaking countries. Others are studying through the medium of English in their own countries. Both groups depend on their English language skills to help them achieve academic and professional success. This book addresses all tertiary teachers in institutions where English is the medium, whatever their first language. Tertiary teachers are now asking how they can be better prepared for their teaching and their interaction with students from many language and ethnic groups in a multicultural tertiary institute. This book aims to be part of that preparation – to help good teachers to become better teachers.
Tags: multiculturalism, multilingualism, publications, teaching methodology
Posted in All | No Comments »
Friday, October 15th, 2010
I just came across this report on the role of technology in non-formal education. This brings together two of my interest: the ubiquity and importance of learning outside the classroom, and the role of technology in supporting this. You can download the report here, from the excellent Zunia website.
Here is an abstract of the report:
This publication investigates and analyzes examples of how governments and individuals leverage ICTs when planning for and providing Non Formal Education (NFE). This style of learning offers previously excluded adults and children the opportunity to reach educational goals outside of a traditional classroom setting. This essay examines current practices as a way to realize the ambition of truly living in a “knowledge society.”
Tags: informal, non-formal, out-of-class, publications
Posted in All | No Comments »
Sunday, October 10th, 2010
The article below was just published:
Reinders, H. 2010 ‘Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills’. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 5: 40-55
You can read the article here.
Towards a Cclassroom Pedagogy for Learner Autonomy: A Framework of Independent Language Learning Skills
Hayo Reinders
Middlesex University
Abstract. In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the importance of learner autonomy and the role of individual learners in directing their own learning process, both inside and outside the classroom (Alford & Pachler, 2007; Benson, 2000; Breen, 2001; Conacher & Kelly-Holmes, 2007). However, in practice it is not always clear how to support learners in this role, and how to ensure they are ready to assume it. This paper explores some of the teaching aspects related to the development of learner autonomy and proposes a framework of skills that could be used by teachers as a guide to increasing learner responsibility. Although this framework was developed in the context of language education, its underlying theories apply to all educational settings.
Learner autonomy in language teaching
Language teachers have always attempted to find ways to reconcile the collective nature of most teaching environments with the (inevitably) individual aspects of learning. The development of learner autonomy, or learners’ ability to take control over their own learning (Holec 1981), has been one way in which teachers’ have tried to make links with learners at a more individualised level, and to connect classroom learning with out-of-class language use.
The theoretical and pedagogical rationale for the implementation of more learner-centred approaches to teaching is well developed and goes back many decades. Starting from the 1950s, and influenced by the work of George Kelly (c.f. Kelly, 1955) and others in psychology, there emerged an increased recognition of the importance of the learner as an active individual who brings previous experiences, beliefs and preferences to the classroom. Rather than seeing the learner as a passive container to be filled with the teacher’s ideas, these humanist approaches considered the learner as someone who actively shapes his or her learning experiences with the purpose of self-development and fulfilment (Stevick 1980, Atkinson 1993).
Similarly, constructivism gives a more central stage to the learner by focusing less on the knowledge to be transmitted, and more on the process of constructing, reorganising and sharing that knowledge. In this process, the learner plays a key role. In order to be successful, learners need to be made aware of their own learning and how to manage it. These developments also influenced language education, both through the development of specific teaching methods rooted in these ideas, such as the Silent Way and Suggestopedia (Gattegno, 1963; Lozanov, 1978) and—perhaps more importantly—through a general influence on language teaching toward a greater focus on the learner.
Another influential impetus was the work done in the 1970s and 1980s on identifying the characteristics of the ‘good language learner’ (Naiman et al., 1978). It was found that successful language learners shared a number of characteristics, such as (to give just two examples from a very long list) being proactive in their learning and self-motivated.
On the face of it, this seems to provide language teachers with a clear set of objectives for the classroom. For example, if learners can be made more proactive, then they might be expected to learn better. In practice, however, the implications of these studies are not quite so clear-cut. One problem relates to operationalising constructs such as ‘proactivity’ and ‘self-motivation’. There is a great deal of debate around what such concepts mean. And, even if there was a consensus around them, it still would not be clear how learners could be made, for example, to self-motivate; teacher intervention would, perforce, be a form of direction and any resulting motivation could thus not be said to originate from the learner.
Another, perhaps more important, problem is related to the question of whether the characteristics of good language learners cause success in language learning, or whether these characterstics are simply correlated with better learning outcomes. It may be possible to be a successful language learner, even without being proactive, for example. It just may happen to be that more successful learners are also, generally speaking, more proactive. In other words, research on the good language learner may not have a great deal of explanatory power.
Similar problems surround the concept of learner autonomy, which, although it had been known and used as a political construct for centuries, developed as an educational construct only in the 1980s, being used to refer to the ability of learners to take control over their learning (Holec, 1981). This ability implies many of the characteristics found in the ‘good language learner’. Learners are unlikely to take control over, for example, decisions about what to learn or how, unless they have some degree of motivation to do so, and unless they are proactive in their learning. This also makes the implementation of a pedagogy for developing learner autonomy difficult: for the same reasons it is difficult to identify practical implications of studies into good language learners.
In addition to the learning aspect, however, autonomy also includes a more political element, relating to the idea of individual freedom of choice. As applied to education, learners are unable to ‘take control’ or make choices about their learning, unless they are free to do so. At a practical level, this means that economic and other disadvantages of certain groups in the wider population, state-led education policies, school curricula and the prescribed use of textbooks, are all examples of ways in which the development of autonomy may be hindered. Sometimes individual teachers can overcome these constraints, but often they cannot.
An additional problem in relation to the concept of autonomy is that is unclear exactly what it means. Although a great deal of theorising has taken place over the years (see Benson, 2007, for an overview), it sometimes seems as if autonomy has become a catch-all term, comprising other concepts such as motivation (Ushioda, 1996), awareness (van Lier, 1996), and interaction (Kohonen, 1992). This lack of specificity may reduce its usefulness and make it difficult to operationalise. Few studies exist that have attempted to quantify autonomy (for some attempts, see Lai, 2001 and Vanijdee, 2007), and some have suggested this should not be attempted, as autonomy is a fundamental educational goal that underlies many other skills and therefore cannot be broken down into component parts to be measured. Perhaps as a result, few practical models or comprehensvie frameworks exist that could systematically guide teachers in implementing autonomy in the classroom.
More recent developments in education, both as an extension of the work done in the area of autonomy, and separate from it, have seen a greater understanding of the role of the individual in the learning process:
[...] most researchers agree that a major shift is taking place […] in education away from the teacher-centred classroom toward a learner-centred system where the learner is in control of the lesson content and the learning process.
(Fotos & Browne, 2004, 7)
One impetus for this has been the influential work done in the area of ‘individual differences’. This body of work emphasises, among other things, how learners differ in their capacity to process, store, and retrieve information; how they differ in terms of age, intelligence, beliefs about language learning; and how they differ in their approaches to learning.
A related area is that of ‘learning styles’, which, based on work done in cogntive psychology and general education, attempts to identify ways in which learners differ in their learning preferences. This information may be used by teachers to match teaching styles with individuals’ learning styles, and to ensure that a range of learning styles is provided for.
The realisation that learners approach learning tasks in different ways has also led to an interest in what learners themselves have to say about their learning. The area of ‘learners’ voices’ (Benson & Nunan, 2005), is an example of this interest, and attempts to better understand learners’ motivations, reasons for success, fossilisation or dropping out, and learners choices in how they approach the language learning process. The interest in learners’ voices is an example of a sociocultural perspective on learning. In this view, learners and learning can only be understood with reference to their context: their ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ (Lantolf and Pavlenko, 2001). Sociocultural views of second language acquisition have had considerable influence on language teaching methodologies in recent years.
What all these developments and approaches have in common is that they assume that learners have, or will develop, the ability to manage decisions around lesson content and the learning process (Fotos & Browne 1997), and are able to act on their individual beliefs, experiences, learning styles and preferences. In practice, however, this is not necessarily the case. Students need a great deal of preparation and support before they are comfortable with and able to assume greater responsibility for their learning. Reinders & Cotterall (2000), for example, found from a factor analysis that the most important determinant of success in a self-access centre was the degree of preparation the students had received. The provision of materials for self-study also is not sufficient. Previous studies (for example, Jones, 1993; Reinders & Lewis, 2006) that such materials frequently lack the necessary support structures, such as clear instructions or even answer keys, and do not explicitly encourage students to reflect on the learning process. Hurd also emphasises the importance of preparation:
…if learners are not trained for autonomy, no amount of surrounding them with resources will foster in them that capacity for active involvement and conscious choice, although it might appear to do so.
(Hurd, 1998, 72-73)
Even where materials have been selected carefully and are provided as part of a more comprehensive and structured approach to developing autonomy, the results may be disappointing. Reinders (2007), for example, found that students who were given access to an on-line self-access system, which included a variety of tools (such as needs analyses and learning plans) and support structures (such as guided instructions and automated prompts and reminders), made use of the system in limited ways, often only using a small selection of the materials, without adequate planning, monitoring and revision.
Clearly, there is an important task for the classroom teacher in raising students’ awareness of their learning outside the classroom, and for ensuring students have the necessary skills. This is the focus of the rest of this paper.
Toward a pedagogy for autonomy
Despite the general movement toward greater learner-centredness in education, and the interest in learner autonomy in particular, it is not always clear how individual teachers can implement the underlying principles. Especially in relation to learner autonomy, as we have seen above, there is terminological confusion and existing materials and tools may not be sufficient to ensure that students develop the necessary awareness and skills. In response, several approaches have been taken to fostering autonomy. I divide these into specialist and general approaches.
Specialist approaches
These include all the deliberate programs and support structures that do not form part of (although they may be linked to) regular classroom teaching, and that have the development of autonomy as one of their primary aims. Figure 1 summarises the most common of these approaches, many probably well-known to most readers, and includes references to some of they key texts for more detail.
APPROACH
INVOLVES
REFERENCES
Learner training
Specific courses or short courses where the focus is on developing skills for independent learning and raising students’ awareness of the importance of learning outside the classroom.
Such courses usually include strategy instruction and often also include general study skills, rather than language learning skills only.
Rubin & Thompson, 1994
Strategy instruction
Often offered as part of regular classroom teaching, and sometimes offered as specific classes or short courses on language learning strategies.
Macaro 2001; Oxford 1990
Self-access
Often considered the most common way of implementing autonomy: the provision of a self-access centre or on-line self-access materials usually involves making available resources for independent learning and staff support.
Sometimes self-access learning is integrated into the classroom, with the teacher working with students in the centre, and sometimes self-access is used outside classroom time, for remedial or practice purposes, either with a teacher or independently. In North America, Writing Centres often perform a similar role.
Gardner & Miller 1999
Language advising or language counselling
A type of language support whereby a teacher and a learner meet to discuss the learner’s needs and progress, and where the adviser offers feedback, recommends materials, and helps the learner to plan their learning.
Mozzon-McPherson & Vismans, 2001
Specific tools
Many institutions have developed or link to (on-line or print) tools for the management of the language learning process that often aim explicitly to foster learner autonomy. Examples include (electronic) portfolios, such as those developed by the European Union, tandem learning programs and personal learning environments that aim to facilitate and create links between formal and informal learning. Some have developed on-line learning environments that offer materials for self-study, tips for independent learning, and opportunities for staff and student communication.
Portfolios: Ekbatani & Pierson, 2000
Online learning environments: White, 2003
Tandem learning:
Schwienhorst 2007
Figure 1: Specialist approaches to fostering autonomy
General approaches
This paper is concerned mainly with the practical operationalisation of learner autonomy and its implementation in the language classroom. For that reason the discussion below is restricted to general language teaching situations and looks at ways in which teachers can encourage autonomy in the classroom. One obvious way to do this is to make links with specialist appraoches that may have been taken inside the school. For example, where a self-access centre is available, teachers can take students to the centre at certain times to encourage (guided) self-study. However, here the specialist approaches are left aside (the above references will given practical guidance), and the focus is instead on the pedagogical aspects of autonomy that teachers can implement as part of their teaching.
It is important to point out here that the more political and philosophical aspects of autonomy are not actively considered in this framework (apart from the recurrent focus on reflection – see below), not because they are not considered important (they are crucial), but because a climate of relative freedom for both teachers and learners is assumed for the framework below to be implemented. This is, of course, not the case in all classrooms and institutions, but a discussion of this aspect of implementing autonomy takes us too far from the main aims of this paper. For this, the reader is referred to Benson (2000).
As discussed above, it is difficult to operationalise learner autonomy. However, as I have argued elsewhere (Reinders, 2000), it is not as difficult to operationalise autonomous learning; it is not impossible, for example, to recognise learning that is learner initiated, or to identify when a learner self-monitors.
For this reason, the framework below starts from the learner and his or her actions. These actions can be encouraged, modelled and monitored by the teacher. They are an adaptation and extension of Malcolm Knowles’s extensive and influential work on self-directed learning, carried out in the 1970s (Knowles, 1975). Although Knowles wrote about general education rather than language learning, many of the principles he identified apply equally to language education and form the basis of the framework below. A similar approach was taken by Winne & Hadwin (1998), who identified four key phases in academic learning situations. Academic study generally requires a relatively extensive amount of independent learning and learner self-management, and is therefore a reasonable starting point for a discussion on skills for developing learner autonomy. Winne & Hadwin’s four phases include (1), defining tasks; (2) setting goals and planning; (3), enacting study tactics and strategies; and (4), metacogntively adapting studying.
Figure 2 draws on these phases and expands on them. The stages are shown in summary form. The middle column shows how, in general, each stage is covered in a completely teacher-directed environment (such as some classrooms) and the right-hand column in a completely learner-directed situation. Many teaching and learning situations would probably fall somewhere between these two extremes.
LEARNING STAGES
TEACHER-DIRECTED
LEARNER-DIRECTED
Identifying needs
Placement tests, teacher feedback.
Learner experiences difficulties in using the language.
Setting goals
Determined by the course, relatively fixed.
Contextually determined, relatively flexible.
Planning learning
Determined by the teacher. Somewhat flexible.
Contextually determined. Very flexible.
Selecting resources
Provided by teacher.
Self-selection by learners.
Selecting learning strategies
Teacher models and instructions.
Self-selection by learners.
Practice
Exercises and activities provided by teacher
Implementation (language use) and experimentation.
Monitoring progress
Regular classroom feedback and comments on assignments and tasks
Self-monitoring, peer feedback
Assessment and revision
Tests, curriculum changes
Self-assessment, reflection
Figure 2: Stages in the development of learner autonomy
I will now discuss each of these stages in turn, with specific attention to how they can be implemented in the classroom.
Identifying needs
It is surprising how often learners have no clear idea of their language needs, and the discrepancies that exist between what learners think they need and where their actual weaknesses lie. Equally worryingly, many learners have little idea of their learning needs (Barcelos, 2008). In other words: they have little knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses as language learners. They may know, for example, that they need to improve their writing skills, but may not know that they are poor at learning with and from others, which is a learning skill, and one that will affect their success in writing.
In many classrooms, learners are simply given scores that indicate their general levels, but not always individualised profiles of their strengths and weaknesses, including their learning needs. More importantly, learners’ individual needs often do not directly inform classroom practice and learners may be forgiven for wondering what the relation is between their learning and the teacher’s teaching.
An alternative is to make an extensive needs analysis process a focal point of the class in the first weeks of the course and to encourage students to share their findings with others. Subsequent classroom activities should be linked explicitly to the identified needs and students asked to reflect on their success in completing classroom activities in relation to their needs.
The language and learning needs should be recorded (perhaps in a learning diary or portfolio) and reviewed regularly. As a needs analysis is the starting point of a dynamic process, it should be repeated at regular intervals. In this way, students become aware of the importance of aligning their work with their needs on an ongoing basis.
Setting goals
Just as the needs analysis helps students take the first step in understanding their strengths and weaknesses, goal setting helps them to be specific about the outcomes they are aiming for. As Nunan says: ‘learners who have reached a point where they are able to define their own goals and create their own learning opportunities have, by defnintion, become autonomous’ (1999,145).
However, most traditional courses are very prescriptive in what learners are expected to learn. It may not be possible or desirable for teachers to ignore existing curricula and required learning outcomes (such as, for example, in the case of national exams), but learners should be encouraged to view the course as one element in achieving their own goals, and to seek out additional support or opportunities for practice, if needed. In addition, having clear goals allows learners to focus on those aspects of the class that are most relevant to them.
In the longer term, it may be feasible for teachers to encourage the school to move toward a degree of learner-choice in the courses:
[...] the key difference between learner-centred and traditional curriculum development is that, in the former, the curriculum is a collaborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners are closely involved in the decision-making process regarding the content of the curriculum and how it is taught.
(Nunan, 1999, 2)
The only way to move toward learner-centredness, then, is for students to have some say over what they are taught.
Planning learning
Setting goals and planning learning are different sides of the same coin. Whereas one’s goals help to specify one’s destination, planning is like finding the best road to get there. Planning involves drawing up practical plans and allocating time to them. This step is often not made explicit by teachers, who tend to direct classroom practice in the following respects:
1) content and activities
2) the order of the content and the activities
3) the ways in which learners are expected to participate and interact
In other words, most classrooms prescribe the ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ of the learners’ actions. Learner-centred approaches will aim to (gradually) encourage learners to make these decisions for themselves. This could mean giving learners a choice over, for example, whether to use a model argument essay to do cohesion-building exercises, or to write a rebuttal essay. This may mean offering different types of activities for the same set of materials or language content. It may also mean that certain activities do not have to be completed in a fixed order.
Selecting resources
Normally this is the task of the teacher, but many teachers have experimented with involving learners in the selection and preparation of resources for learning (Aston, 1993; Benson, 1994). For example, Dam (1995) asked students to locate authentic materials from outside the school to be used in the classroom and the self-access centre. Many of the activities that could be classified as tasks (c.f. Ellis, 2000) could involve the production or sharing of materials by learners.
Selecting learning strategies
Many learners are content to leave the teacher to decide how activities are to be completed, but will still need to develop the ability to use a wide range of strategies and to choose strategies appropriate to the task, if they are to take full responsibility for their learning.
Generally speaking, strategies are divided into cognitive strategies (e.g. ways of memorising vocabulary), metacognitive strategies (e.g. being able to self-assess), and social-affective strategies (e.g. being able to find opportunities to speak the language, or to motivate oneself) and it is important that teachers consider how they will cover each of these in class through examples, modelling and practice (for a practical overview of strategies in language teaching, see Cotterall & Reinders, 2004).
A good starting point is to ask students to identify their current strategy use. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990), is a good tool for this (an adapted version is available on line at http://homework.wtuc.edu.tw/sill.php). By completing the questionnaire again later in the year, learners can see if they have expanded their repertoire. An important related point is to recognise the improvements learners make in their choice and use of learning strategies, by giving regular feedback and by awarding credit on the basis of progress in this area.
Practice
In classroom situations, teachers provide opportunities for practice and give frequent feedback. Alternatively, many teachers give homework consisting of exercises for drilling. Many of these materials do not offer students any choice in which aspect of the new knowledge they have learned they will practise. Nor does it give them any choice in how they will use or implement their new knowledge. An important aspect of autonomy is the ability to experiment with the language, and to take risks (c.f. Schwienhorst, 2007). It is important then for practice materials and activities to encourage students to find ways to move beyond the confines of the pedagogic environment (the classroom, the self-access centre, the school) and to incorporate new knowledge into their lives. The challenge here is to find a balance between giving students freedom, while still giving them support. This support can be in the form of carefully-structured tasks that require students to practise the language on their own terms, but then to input their experiences back into the task itself (for example, through a webquest, or by accessing a corpus, where students need to find examples of particular language use). In this way, the materials can ensure that language is recycled and that regular presentation and revision take place, while still leaving a degree of choice with the student.
Monitoring progress
In a teacher-directed environment, such as in a course with a set curriculum, progress is generally measured by others; the teacher will give feedback and perhaps there are regular mini-tests and assignments. For the development of autonomy, learners will need to develop the ability to monitor their own progress and revise their learning plans accordingly. This includes reflection on their motivation levels and other social-affective aspects of the learning.
Learning diaries (for example, in the form of a learning blog) are goods tool to encourage this process. These could be private or shared with other learners and, if they are on line, the teacher could give feedback too. Learners need to be encouraged, however, to develop the necessary vocabulary. Generally, many learners’ reflection is limited to surface-level language and learning issues (c.f. Reinders, 2007). Learners might, for example, write about having a problem with understanding a native speaker, without going into detail and without exploring the reasons behind their difficulty. It may be that the learner did not hear the speaker properly, because she has not learned to distinguish between ‘p’ and ‘b’, or it could be because she did not notice or recognise the use of a connector, e.g. ‘however’. Similarly, most reflection tends to focus on problems. It is important to encourage students to record their successes too, and to identify the reasons for them. Providing students with a model diary or practising reflection in class may be helpful.
Assessment and revision
Whereas monitoring one’s progress is an ongoing task that takes place as part of every learning episode, assessment is usually less frequent.
Many students, understandably, want to have a sense of achievement and test scores can provide a kind of external validation that is important to them. Denying this entirely may not be feasible or desirable. However, at the same time learners need to be given opportunities for alternative assessment, so as to enable them to feel confident in their own learning when they no longer have the support of the institution. Many teachers use portfolios for this purpose. The Council of Europe has developed the European Language Portfolio, which is available as a free download (www.coe.int/portfolio). On-line tools, such as Ning (www.ning.com) and Eduspaces (www.eduspaces.com), are more recent ‘Web 2.0’ applications that can be used for the same purpose. Other options include self-assessment worksheets and activities that encourage students to put into practice what they have learned, e.g. to have a conversation with a native speaker or to read an academic article without a dictionary. It is important that the assessment be linked to the learners’ previous work. In some cases, materials (and teachers) make the mistake of individualising the learning and then use a blanket test to assess that learning. Some teachers experiment with alternative forms of assessment, for example those in which the students’ own assessments contribute to their final grades (c.f. Pierson & Ekbatani, 2000).
Underpinning autonomous learning: reflection and motivation
A crucial aspect of the autonomous learning process is the reflection that underpins all of the stages discussed above.
The final reflection that takes place after monitoring one’s progress and assessing one’s learning is a key phase, as it links one’s accomplishments with future work through a revision of one’s goals and plans. Therefore, learners should be encouraged to think about what went well in their learning, what did not go well, why this was so, what alternatives there are and how these affect their objectives. In this way, reflection is the ‘glue’ that holds autonomous learning together. The final reflection changes the learning process from a one-shot sequence, to a cycle of learning where previous experiences are the building blocks for future learning. As Little says: ‘the pursuit of autonomy in formal learning environments must entail explicit conscious processes; otherwise we leave its development to chance’ (2001, 34).
Of course, learning is not only a cognitive but also an eminently social process. Interaction and collaboration are now seen as crucial to the development of autonomy (van Lier, 1996; Schwienhorst, 2008). I have given suggestions above for points in the learning process where students could benefit from interaction and collaborating in their (self-directed) learning. This applies equally to activities involving reflection. Although we often think of reflection as an individual activity, there are many ways in which learners can communicate with others about their learning and help each other become more aware of their roles in the language learning process.
Related to this, the affective aspect of learning is also crucial to success, especially in independent learning, where the traditional classroom environment with its regular feedback and contact with other learners is replaced with, for many learners, a less-familiar context where learners are themselves responsible for maintaining their interest and motivation. Independent learning is likely to challenge learners’ beliefs about what language learning entails, and may lead to frustration. Therefore (self-) motivation, as a blanket term covering the affective aspect of learning, is a key pillar of the model presented below. Teachers know that learners need affective support, but do not generally model techniques for self-motivation and collaborative techniques for learners to draw on each other for support outside the classroom.
This cyclical nature of the autonomous learning process is shown in Figure 3, with reflection, motivation and interaction providing the cognitive, affective and social backbone.
Figure 3: Cyclical nature of the autonomous learning process
Implementing the framework
Developing autonomy is a lengthy process and the successful implementation of the framework described above therefore depends, to a large extent, on the persistence of the teacher.
It is not realistic to expect students to take responsibility for their learning from one day, or even month, to the next. Autonomy develops gradually and is a mind set that calls for certain skills, not the other way around. The overall classroom atmosphere needs to value and encourage reflection and the students’ own views and roles in the learning process.
In many cases, teachers report that students are unwilling to take on a more active role (Brown, Smith & Usioda, 2007; Hiemstra & Brockett, 1994; Huang, 2006; Tsang,1999) and they may be disappointed that their efforts were unsuccessful. However, it may well be that the experience of being asked to guide their learning is entirely new to students. Some of my students were stunned when I asked them how they thought we could best tackle a particular learning task. They had never considered the question. As a result, some learners may criticise the teacher for not doing their job. It is therefore crucial to start with a clear rationale for any changes in the language classroom. Talk to students about what you aim to do and why. Perhaps invite an older student to talk about the importance of independent learning after the course (I have, for example, successfully enlisted the help of PhD students to talk to undergraduates about the skills they need in their studies).
Cotterall (1995) has developed a survey that aims to measure students’ readiness for autonomy. This could be a starting point for determining how much preparation students are going to need.
In addition to giving students a rationale, start slowly by occasionally allocating some reflection time, or by modelling one of the skills in the framework. Once students are comfortable with these breaks from (what they perceive to be) regular classroom teaching, you can gradually move toward implementing the entire framework, perhaps initially in the form of a project.
In addition, students will need support while acquiring these skills. Ask them to work together in teams or pairs and give regular feedback on their learning plans or the resources they have selected. Students need to know that you are there to guide them when needed, and will need to be motivated to persist with what may be a new and at times frustrating process (Dickinson 1995, 168). It is important to connect the work students do by themselves with what happens in the rest of the class. You can make this connection by asking students to talk about their experiences, either in public or by sharing their learning diary with you. Encourage students to talk about what worked for them and what did not, and help them to identify reasons for this. Share success stories with the other students. In other words, implementing autonomy should never be a case of sink or swim, but a gradual testing of the waters with a lifeguard on hand, before actually diving in.
An example of this process of ‘acculturation’ to what is, in essence, a new form of learning for many students is the development of a ‘guided self-study programme’ at the University of Auckland. The University has a significant number of students who have been diagnosed as being ‘at risk’ for underachieving academically as a result of insuffient (academic) language proficiency. Many of these students do not have time built into their programmes and so it is important to give them flexible opportunities for accessing learning resources and support. The University therefore established a self-access centre that students can visit whenever they want and where they can find self-study materials, but perhaps more importantly also meet with a dedicated ‘language advisor’ who will help them to plan their learning and who will give them feedback on their progress. In addition, an online learning environment was developed, based on the model above. The programme encourages students to plan their learning, helps with the selection of resources, suggest appropriate strategies, facilitates practice, and upon completion, encourages students to monitor their own progress and reconsider their learning goals and methods. It prompts students at every decision point to relfect on their choices, their success and difficulties, and encourages regular interaction with language staff (see for a description Reinders 2006).
The tips and suggestions above do not cover the whole story. As mentioned at the start, they do not explicitly address the political aspect of autonomy. Some teachers may find it difficult to implement the framework because their institutions do not allow much freedom in the curriculum.
Nevertheless, it may be possible to select one or more parts of the framework as a starting point. Also, learner autonomy is not only about the development of a set of skills, but is rather about developing a certain mind set that sees learning as an active process of discovery. For teacher educators, a starting point then is to begin by encouraging (group) reflection on what teachers’ views are of the key elements of the learning process. By doing so, teachers’ deep-seated views of learning can be brought to the fore, and can be used a starting point to discuss the importance of (asking students to engage with) the different elements of the model above and to generate ideas on ways to put this into practice.
Although implementing the framework suggested above will not guarantee students develop autonomy, the activities do involve a shift of focus from you onto the learners. Knowing that they are valued as individuals and are supported in their learning will mean that students are more likely to develop this mind set, and knowing this, teachers are more likely to consider the importance of student ownership of the learning process.
References
Allford, D.,& Pachler, N. (2007). Language, autonomy and the new learning environments (first ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Aston, G. (1993). The learner’s contribution to the self-access centre. ELT Journal, 47:3, 219-227.
Barcelos, A.M.F. (2008). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs within a Deweyean framework: Conflict and influence. In Kalaja, P. & Barcelos, A.M.F, Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 171-199.
Benson, P. (1994). Self-access systems as information systems: Questions of ideology and control. In D.
Gardner & L. Miller (eds). Directions in self-access language learning (3-12). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Longman.
Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (2005). Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. Harlow: Longman.
Breen, M. P. (2001). Learner contributions to language learning. New directions in research.
Applied linguistics and language study. Harlow: Longman.
Brown, P., Smith, R. & Ushioda, E. (2007). Responding to resistance. In A. Barfield & S. Brown (eds). Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Conacher, Jean and Kelly-Holmes, Helen. (2007). New learning environments for language learning: Moving beyond the classroom? KFU. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 206.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: investigating learner beliefs. System, 23, 195-205.
Cotterall, S. & Reinders, H. (2004). Learner strategies: a guide for teachers. Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
Dam, L. (1995).Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. In Oxford applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 387.
van Essen, A. (2002). A historical perspective. In Grenfell, M. Modern languages across the curriculum. London: Routledge.
Gardner, D. & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gattegno, C. (1963). Teaching for languages in schools: the silent way. Reading: Educational Explorers.
Fotos, S. S. & Browne, C. (2004). New perspectives on CALL for second language classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hiemstra, R. & Brockett, R. (1994). Overcoming resistance to self-direction in adult learning. London: Jossey-Bass.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Huang, J. (2006). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research, 10(1), 95-117.
Hurd, S. (1998). Too carefully led or too carelessly left alone? Language Learning Journal 17, 70-74.
Jones, F. R. (1993). Beyond the fringe: A framework for assessing teach-yourself materials for ab initio English-speaking learners. System, 21, 453-469.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. First ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2.
Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 14-39.
Lai, J. (2001). Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy. AILA review, 15, 34-44.
Laurillard, D. M. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge: London.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum : awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman.
Little, D. (2001).. Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the Internet. In A. Chambers & G. Davies (eds). ICT and language learning: a European perspective . Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 29-38.
Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon & Breach.
Macaro, E. (2001). Learner strategies in second and foreign language classrooms. London:
Continuum.
Naiman, N., Froehlich, H., Stern, H. & Todesco, A. (1978). The good language learner. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ekbatani, G., & Pierson, H. (2000). Learner-directed assessment in ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Reinders, H. (2000). Do it yourself? A learners’ perspective on learner autonomy and self-access language learning. Groningen: Unpublished MA thesis. Available from www.hayo.nl.
Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In Supporting independent learning: issues and interventions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 219-238.
Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System, 35, 93-111.
Reinders, H. (2008). The what, why, and how of language advising. MexTESOL, 32(2).
Reinders, H. & Cotterall, S. (2000). Language learners learning independently: How autonomous are they? Toegepaste Taalwetenschappen in Artikelen, 65(1), 85-97.
Reinders, H. and Lewis, M. (2005). How well do self-access call materials support self-directed learning? JALTCALL Journal, 1(2).
Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. (2006). The development of an evaluative checklist for self-access materials. ELT Journal 60:2, 272-278.
Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994).How to be a more successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and virtual environments in CALL. Routledge studies in computer assisted lanuage learning. London: Routledge, 227.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching languages: a way and ways. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Tsang, E. (1999). Resistance to self-access learning. In B. Morrison (ed.) Experiments and
evaluation in self-access language learning. Hong Kong: Hasald, 25-42.
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Vanijdee, A. (2003). Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy. Open Learning, 18(1), 75-84.
Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., Hacker, D., Dunlosky, J. & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Useful resources
Auto-L, an on-line discussion forum for people interested in learner autonomy and self-access.
To subscribe to AUTO-L , send a message to:
Wldyc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Subject line: AUTO-L Request
Message:
Subscribe AUTO-L
Your name
Your institutional affiliation
Your e-mail address
Autonomy bibliography. Approximately 1,700 references in the areas of autonomy, self-access, and advising. http://www.autonomybibliography.info
On-line postgraduate certificate in language advising: http://www.hull.ac.uk/languages/postgraduate/online_PG/index.html
On-line examples and videorecordings with worksheets of language advising sessions.
http://ec.hku.hk/1to1/
Tags: autonomy, curriculum, materials, policy, publications, textbooks
Posted in All | No Comments »
Sunday, July 11th, 2010
Debut is an online peer-reviewed journal for undergraduate students of languages, linguistics and area studies. You can find it here.
An excellent initiative!
Tags: publications
Posted in All | No Comments »
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
I am very excited to call for papers for an edited book on Computer Games in Language Learning and Teaching. If you are working in this area I encourage you to contribute!
Recent years have seen a growing interest in the pedagogical benefits of computer games. Gee (2003), for example, identified 36 learning principles in the games he investigated. It is clear that computer games have the potential to engage learners and to encourage interaction in the target language. Immersive environments offer learners opportunities for situated learning and the adaptive qualities of most games ensure that learners are motivated to persist in their learning, thus increasing the chance of further exposure to target language input, and opportunities for output. The use of computer games in language education is based on the premise that successful learning is integrated into the sociocultural context of learners’ lives and encourages collaboration and lifelong learning (Lamb & Reinders, 2005). The use of new technologies, and in particular computer games, thus facilitates the bridging of learning within and outside the language classroom.
The potential of computer games, however, has not been investigated much from a second language learning and teaching perspective. Do games really motivate learners? Do they actually encourage more use of the target language? Do they offer opportunities for negotiation of meaning, or focus on form? Do they result in greater uptake and acquisition? Although some recent studies have started to address these questions (for example deHaan, Reed and Kuwada 2010, Piirainen-Marsh 2009, and Zheng, Young, Brewer and Wagner 2009), there is currently no dedicated collection of papers to bring together the state-of-the-art in research into game-based learning.
Similarly, for language educators it is not easy to identify the best way to include game-based learning into the curriculum (either as part of classroom or online instruction, or as a self-study complement to such instruction). There has not been much exchange of best practice in this area. Through the presentation of action research and case studies, it is hoped this volume will better inform language teaching practice about the potential role of computer games.
You can download more information about the book and how to submit a proposal here.
Tags: calls, games, publications
Posted in All | No Comments »
Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010
The article below was recently published in CALL-EJ. I hope you enjoy reading it.
* CALL-EJ Online
* Vol. 11, No. 2, February 2010
Encouraging Autonomy with an Online Language Support System
* Pornapit Darasawang
* iporwang@kmutt.ac.th
* King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand
* Hayo Reinders
* http://www.innovationinteaching.org
* Middlesex University, United Kingdom
In this article we describe the results of a small study into the implementation of a new institutional language support system in an academic English class at a Thai University. The system was designed to encourage out-of-class learning and to develop autonomous learning skills. As a pilot project, access to the program was offered to one group of students as part of their regular classroom course. We report the amount and type of student usage of the program and in particular the extent to which learners made use of those features of the program designed to encourage self-directed learning. It was found that fewer students used the program than had been expected and that those students who did use it, used it in limited ways. In this article we describe these usage patterns and identify some possible reasons for them. The results may help others in implementing online language support.
Keywords: learner autonomy; online language support system; self-directed learning; CALL; blended learning
Background and rationale
The University where this study took place (King Mongkut’s University of Technology in Bangkok) had identified a number of problems relating to the language proficiency of its students and graduates. In particular, the results of a recent survey study done at the University (Report on the Follow-up of the University Graduates, 2004) had shown that employers thought graduates from the University were not sufficiently proficient in English. This prompted the University to invest in improving the quality of its language teaching and also in exploring ways to prepare students for their language use and ongoing learning in the workplace. One of the measures taken was the establishment of an online language support system that could be used by students and teachers to access language learning materials and support from anywhere at any time. One of the major goals of the system was to encourage students to continue their language learning outside the classroom, and for the program to help them to develop their self-directed learning skills. This program, called ‘My English’, encourages and supports students in setting learning objectives, choosing appropriate materials to achieve their objectives, encourages reflection on their learning and evaluation of their performance. The program also provides a channel for the learners to seek help when they are learning by themselves. This study attempted firstly to identify whether the provision of this type of support was successful in encouraging students to learn by themselves, and secondly to report students’ perceptions of the program.
Literature review
As mentioned above, one of the main reasons for developing the online support system was a perceived need for the University to do more to help students develop their self-directed learning skills. The reasons for this were both practical and pedagogical. The numbers of students requiring language support at the University are very large, and the provision of self-study opportunities was hoped to alleviate some of the pressure on the language courses and their teachers. The pedagogical rationale was to better equip students to manage their learning, both with and without the help of a teacher, and to prepare them for life after graduation through the development of lifelong learning skills and learner autonomy (Dam, 1995; Littlewood, 1996; Breen & Mann, 1997).
One way to develop learner autonomy is to train students how to use cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies so that they can manage their learning without the help of a teacher. Learner training can be done in class by providing explicit training to the learners (Wenden, 1991). Learner training can also be done by providing an environment and resources for self-study so that learners can develop experience in working alone while being guided in their self-study. A common environment is the self-access centre where the learners have control over the decisions relating to their learning process, such as the selection of resources, monitoring of progress and (self-) evaluation. Self-access centres are now widely regarded as the most common way in which institutions implement the development of learner autonomy (Benson & Voller, 1997).
Many different types of self-access centres exist and many increasingly use technology to support the development of learner autonomy (Schwienhorst 2008; Ulitsky 2000; Vanijdee, 2003). There are several reasons for this. Firstly, CALL materials can be offered to learners independent of time and place and in this they way allow learners to learn the language outside the classroom and without constant teacher direction. CALL materials also facilitate immediate feedback, thus further reducing reliance on the teacher. Because the computer can record and monitor learners’ behaviour and progress, it can dynamically alter input, or make suggestions to the learners, based on their performance. The records can be made accessible to the student to encourage reflection on the learning process and help students make decisions about their learning progress and priorities for further study. The increased control that technology can give students can help students to feel more responsible for their own learning, and can thus increase self-motivation (Ushioda, 1996). In other words, CALL has the potential to empower learners, i.e. to give them more control of their learning, and in doing so, to help the development of metacognitive skills and learner autonomy (Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000).
Some recent reports describe CALL programs used for the development of learner autonomy. Toogood & Pemberton (2002) introduce the Virtual English Language Adviser software that was designed to help students develop a personalised learning plan and suggest appropriate materials and strategies. Gick (2002) describes a program of blended learning where traditional and online learning are combined for a grammar course with the help of CALL, within a self-access centre. In this program students make a personal working plan for grammar and use CALL materials produced in-house which they then discuss with a counsellor. Esteve, Arumi & Canada (2004) describe the promotion of autonomy through CALL, also in a blended-learning course. This course combines online materials and activities with classes, where a study plan is developed, monitored and assessed. Learner training is offered both in class and online. Reinders (2006), for example, describes an Electronic Learning Environment that functions as a shell. The shell provides access to language content, and includes mechanisms to support self-directed learning, such as monitoring of student progress and intervention in the form of advice when students’ learning goals and their learning behaviour (e.g. their materials selection) do not match. Studies into the effects of these tools and mechanisms on student learning (Reinders 2006, 2007) made a number of interesting findings. In general, both questionnaires and interviews showed that students were extremely satisfied with the program. Usage records showed that many students had accessed the resources and had done so frequently and over periods of many months. Many students reported using more resources and more often than they normally did or would have without the program; in this sense the program’s access features were a clear advantage. Staff too were satisfied in that they could look up students’ progress and did not have to spend much time on administration; an advantage of the automatic storage and retrieval of learners’ work. However, SQL queries (queries of information stored in the records of a SQL database) of 1,200 student database records collected over a period of one year gave a somewhat less positive picture. Despite numerous automated suggestions, many students did not complete their initial needs analysis and very few updated their learning plans as a result. Similarly, the suggestions made by the computer were seldom followed by students; when students had set their minds on learning with particular materials or in a particular way, it was clearly difficult to encourage them to change.
The use of online materials and the use of blended learning as a complement to existing classes requires certain skills on the part of the teacher (Reinders 2009) and also factors like departmental support, student perceptions of and experience with self-directed learning, and a range of other factors are likely to have an effect on the success or otherwise of the implementation of this type of support. The study described here aimed to identify what these factors were in the implementation of an online language support system.
We now turn to a brief description of My English, the program used in this study. For a more complete description, we refer the reader to
My English
My English is an online language support system. The program can be accessed online from both within and outside the university. It has a student, a teacher, and an administrator interface. The screenshot below shows the homepage of the student interface which has nine different learning and support modules. The modules can be accessed randomly but are numbered from top-left to bottom-right in an order corresponding to the different stages in the self-directed learning process. The first module is Your learning plan, where the students can write down their personal goals, the difficulties they have in meeting those goals and the ideas they have to remedy them. They can do a self-assessment by completing the online needs analysis. To help them get started, the program uses the results from the needs analysis to provide a list of priority skills and a list of recommended resources suitable for their level. The Find resources module acts as an online catalogue for language learning materials which includes online and print, commercial and in-house produced materials. ‘Recommended resources’ are materials selected by teachers as being the best available for the relevant skills. Your learning record keeps a record of students’ work, such as the materials they have used and the language skills these are intended for. Teachers can provide comments and feedback on the students’ work. The Test yourself module provides eight online tests of general and academic English proficiency. It was included in part because Thai students expect to be tested and like to get regular feedback on their progress. The English for fun module gives information about activities and materials that are more entertainment-oriented. These could include movie screenings or computer games in English, for example. Your progress gives an overview of the students’ learning progress, the number of tests they have completed, the number of times they have used the program and for how long how. It is intended to give students a quick overview of their progress until that point. Getting help from a teacher allows the students to contact the teacher (either their language teacher, if they have one, or the staff at the self-access centre) by posting messages via chat, or, if the teacher is not available, via email. Students can also book an (online or face-to-face) advisory question using this module. The Activities module is a place where the SALC (the Self-Access Learning Center, the unit in charge of My English) can advertise online and face-to-face activities and news. The last module is Live chat which provides chatrooms for communication among the students and for use by teachers, for example to organise a discussion group. Next we will describe the context in which My English was used.
Figure 1: My English homepage
Context of the study
This study investigated the use of My English (described above) and was conducted in the context of an Academic English course (with a primary focus on writing) for postgraduate students from a range of faculties, taught by one of the authors. The class was made up of 31 adult learners ranging in age from 23 to 30 years. They met the teacher 3 hours a week for 15 weeks. They were generally motivated to learn as seen from their attendance rate and their involvement while learning. During the course, the teacher attempted to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning and make decisions for themselves. They were taught how to apply different steps to writing reports and at the end of the semester had to submit a complete report in groups of three to four people. Students were able to choose a topic for themselves and were free to choose how to present on it. They were encouraged to plan their own learning and to self-correct their drafts.
My English had been largely completed just prior to the start of the course (the modules ‘activities’ and ‘live chat’ described above were not fully functional yet) and was implemented for the first time with this group.
Research questions and methodology
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. 1) Do students use the online language support of My English, and if so, how often and for how long?
2. 2) What aspects of their self-directed learning do they use it for?
3. 3) What do students think of My English?
To answer these questions queries were written for the database of My English, which records all information pertaining to students’ online activities. This information includes times of access, materials accessed, requests for help, and all other activities the students engage in. By using this source of data we were able to piece together a comprehensive picture of students’ usage of the online language support, and answer research questions 1 and 2.
To answer research question 3, we administered a short questionnaire (see appendix A) to the students after the course finished. Nineteen out of 31 students in the class, or 61%, answered the questionnaire. In addition to this, informal feedback about the program was obtained by the researcher-teacher during class time.
Procedures
All students in the class were introduced to My English in the first week of the course. They were shown the program and given an explanation of its purpose and a demonstration of how to use it. Students then individually explored the program in class and completed its online needs analysis. Subsequent usage of the program was voluntary and in no way affected the students’ course grades.
Students who decided to continue using the program received weekly feedback from the teacher, who used the system to respond to student queries online, and to monitor their progress. Students were not given any specific instructions on what to work on (as the program was intended to support self-directed learning, and each learner could choose to practise the skills most relevant to them), or how to use the program. Students therefore had complete control over their learning with My English.
Results
Out of 31 students in the class, a total of 16, or 52%, continued to use the program after the introductory session. The table below shows the number of times these 16 students used My English and the total time they spent using it, over the 14 week period of the course (13 weeks if we exclude the first week introduction; the time taken for the introduction is not included in the figures below).
Table 1: Student usage of My English
St Total time in minutes Nr of times
1 217 6
2 74 2
3 42 4
4 500 14
5 103 11
6 214 9
7 321 9
8 268 18
9 349 13
10 81 2
11 82 12
12 359 10
13 348 16
14 1289 38
15 858 12
16 1348 18
Average 403 12
The average number of times students used the program was 12 so approximately once per week, although there is a large variation with some students only accessing the program twice and others up to 38 times. The average amount of time spent using the program was six and a half hours, but again with a large variation, from a low of 42 minutes to a high of 1289 (over 21 hours).
Table 2 shows which parts (modules) of My English students used. As mentioned above, the ‘activities’ and ‘live chat’ modules were not fully functional at the time of this project and were therefore excluded from the results below.
Table 2: Modules used
St Find
Resources
(mins) Learning
Record
(mins) Test
(No. of tests
completed) Get Help
From the
Teacher
(mins)
1 171 45 0 0
2 3 0 1 (10 mins) 0
3 26 0 0 0
4 306 5 8 (100 mins) 0
5 10 0 3 (42 mins) 0
6 113 0 3 (49 mins) 0
7 199 0 0 0
8 55 113 3 (43 mins) 0
9 253 0 3 (31 mins) 0
10 81 0 0 0
11 0 0 3 (19 mins) 0
12 203 36 0 0
13 194 5 8 (82 mins) 0
14 707 202 8 (222 mins) 66
15 362 35 3 (189 mins) 2
16 926 70 8 (276 mins) 20
Average 1 226 32 66 6
The data above show that, as would be expected, the catalogue and the materials it contains are easily the most popular of the modules. The average amount of time students spent searching for or interacting with materials is nearly four hours on average. Perhaps more surprisingly, only half of the students record their progress. The language tests seemed to be more popular with students spending well over an hour on average and some students spending up to four and a half hours. Interestingly, students do not make much use of the help function of the program that allows them to contact their teacher.
In order to answer the third research question, a short questionnaire (see appendix A) was distributed to all students in the course (i.e. both those who did not make use of My English beyond the initial introduction and those who did), to investigate their perceptions of My English. Out of 31 students, 19 responded. Of these 14 were users of My English, and 5 were not.
The latter were asked why they had chosen not to use the program. Two students responded that they did not have enough time, and three said they did not know enough about it.
Students who used My English were then asked to list the purposes for which they used the program:
* – practise English (e.g. listening, reading, grammar) (11)
* – test their English knowledge (3)
* – review the lessons (2)
* – practise English in order not to have to attend the class (2)
* – compensate for a missed class (1)
* – use English in everyday life (1)
* – practise English from websites (1)
Next, all students were asked to tick all the activities they engaged in to practise their English outside the context of the course. This was intended to identify to what extent students study independently, and to determine if there was a difference between those who used My English and those who did not.
Table 2: Out-of-class activities
Activity Students using
My English
( N = 14) Students not using
My English
( N = 5 )
Reading news/information in the Internet. 85.71% 40.00%
Watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles. 64.29% 60.00%
Review grammar from grammar books 64.29% 40.00%
Listen to English songs and try to understand their lyrics. 50.00% 60.00%
Watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news). 42.86% 40.00%
Sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent. 35.71% 40.00%
Email/ write letters/ chat with friends in the other countries. 35.71% 0.00%
Read English novels. 28.57% 0.00%
Watch English movies and try to guess from the story. 28.57% 60.00%
Read English newspapers. 28.57% 80.00%
Talk to foreigners. 21.43% 0.00%
Take English courses e.g. speaking in the workplace 21.43% 40.00%
Read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions. 14.29% 20.00%
Practise from English language teaching websites 7.14% 20.00%
Other, please specify 100% 60.00%
To answer research question 3, participants were asked what they liked about the program. They mentioned the following:
* – includes a wide range of different exercises (4)
* – allows students to practise English on their own (3)
* – allows further study (5)
* – it can be accessed all the time (2)
* – it helps to communicate with the teacher (1)
* – can be used to practise English during free time (1)
* – it can record learning progress (2)
* – it contains interesting websites (1)
The final question asked students for suggestions on how to improve My English. Those who used the program responded as follows:
* – the content should be more up-to-date and suitable for teenagers
* – there should be a greater variety of content
* – the program should contain new movies and songs
* – there should be somebody available so that the user can practise speaking with him/her
* – the tests should have more levels
* – the program should provide some kind of motivation after use
* – the tests should provide answer keys
* – more tests such as TOEIC or TOEFL should be added
* – answer keys to writing exercises should be provided
Suggestions from those who did not use the program were as follows:
* – students should be forced to use the program (2)
* – instructions on how to use the program should be provided (1)
Discussion
The first thing to point out is the relatively small number of students who used the program. Only just over half of all students enrolled in the class decided to make use of My English, even though it was freely accessible, encouraged by the teacher, and, one would hope, directly relevant to their course (there was no evidence in the questionnaire data to suggest otherwise). Another point is that of the 16 students who did elect to use the program, five only made use of it for a relatively short amount of time. In other words, only 11 out of 31 students used the program for a meaningful length of time during the course. It is important to identify why this is so. Responses to the questionnaire as well as informal feedback from students in class showed that students felt they did not know enough about the program, with some recommending that its use be made compulsory. This shows that the introductory session, even though it lasted the better part of an entire class and had students using (not just watching the teacher demonstrate) the program, simply was not sufficient to encourage students to continue to use it. Perhaps more guidance in subsequent lessons, or recommended activities and structured activities would have been beneficial.
Another clue may come from the type of use the students made of the program. As shown in table 2, students, understandably, spent most of their time using the online materials. They also spent considerable time completing the language tests. The education system in Thailand is very test-driven, and many students like to take regular tests to measure their progress. Much less time was spent by the students on recording their learning. In fact, only eight out of the 16 students made an attempt to record their learning activities. Perhaps to the reader this may not sound very surprising, however when one takes into account the introductory session, and the ongoing focus during the course on the development of learner autonomy, as well as the design features of the program that encouraged these postgraduate students to keep track of, and reflect on, their learning, the amount of time students spent on this part of the program could be considered small. Part of the reason for this, is that students do not have a great deal of experience in maintaining a record of their own learning. Some of the comments that they recorded were very superficial. For example, when students completed their learning plan and their intentions for future study they would write down ‘practice’, or when recording their language difficulties, they would write down ‘English’.
Apart from a lack of experience, another reason may be that students do not like to formalise their out-of-class learning. Feedback from some of the students in class showed that they did not necessarily mind practising their English at home, but that recording or planning their learning would make the activity too much like school work. Perhaps it is a bit surprising then, that they still spent a considerable time completing the online language tests.
To some extent, this is also reflected in the results showing the activities students engaged in outside the classroom. Predictably, activities such as watching movies and listening to music score high. It is interesting that some of the more taxing activities, such as e-mailing and writing in English and talking to foreigners, were done more by the students who chose to use My English, than by the students who did not. Perhaps there is a difference in terms of the motivation of these two groups, which would be worth exploring in a future study.
When asked to give their feedback on the program, students asked for more tests and an opportunity to get speaking practice. Interestingly, two of the students who had not used My English during the semester, suggested that the program should be made compulsory.
A surprising result was the small amount of contact the students made through the program with the teacher. It had been thought that the students would take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with their teacher and get regular feedback on their learning. However, very little use was made of this feature. It could be, that the students were able to ask their questions during the class time, however, especially seeing as the class only met once per week, clearly they did not make use of the program to extend their learning opportunities outside the classroom in this way.
What the results above have shown, is that the use of this type of program depends on a number of factors. One of these is the perceptions of the students, not only of the program itself, but also the role of this type of program in their own learning. Some students indicated that they did not wish to make their learning outside the classroom like their learning inside it. Also the results from the questionnaire showed that students predominantly engage in ‘lighter’ activities outside the school, such as watching movies and listening to music. These are, of course, worthwhile activities, and certainly should be encouraged. The question is to what extent these types of activities offer genuine learning opportunities, and perhaps more pressingly, how teachers and institutions, as well as their support mechanisms such as online programs like My English, can ensure that such activities move beyond entertainment and towards language learning. It is clear that a significant amount of preparation and training may be necessary for the students not to see a clear division between their learning inside and outside the institution. At this point, with this particular group of learners, it seems as if most still see language learning as something that predominantly takes place inside the classroom, not as something that is an integrated part of their own lives.
Conclusion
It has to be pointed out that there are several limitations to this study. First of all, the total number of users was rather small. Second, the number of respondents to the questionnaire was also rather small especially with only five of the students responding who had not used My English during the semester. A second limitation is that the study did not aim to record what other activities students engaged in outside the classroom. Although the questionnaire asked students to list these, it is possible that they may have engaged in other work besides My English and the activities mentioned in the questionnaire. This may have been the reason why not all of them chose to use My English, and it is also possible that some of them displayed a greater degree of self-direction in other ways. However, this seems unlikely based on the teacher’s experience with this group and previous groups. Nonetheless, it is a possibility, and future studies should probably aim to control for this variable.
Conacher and Kelly-Holmes (2007) identify flexibility, diversity, accessibility and equality as the key features of ‘new learning environments’. My English makes available learning opportunities to all students, and in this way it improves accessibility. It also allows the teacher to expand classroom learning to the students’ lives, and enables more flexible ways of teaching and learning. Because of its focus on individual learning, the program also caters to diversity, and with its potential to encourage self-directed learning, it can play a role in increasing students’ ability for lifelong learning, and thus, equality. What the program does not do, however, is make all of this sufficiently clear to the students. Students may need more encouragement and perhaps initially even be required to use the program. In addition, they would benefit from more extensive training, not only in the technical but also in the pedagogical aspects of using the program for self-directed learning. Even though the program was intended to be used as a self-directed learning opportunity, the students would have benefited from more explicit instructions and perhaps initially a greater integration of the program into the classroom. In the future perhaps My English can be built into the curriculum in the first few weeks of the course, with required and regular contributions from the students and feedback from the teacher, after which the use of the program could be made voluntary. The results from this small study are somewhat similar to those obtained in previous studies by Reinders (2006, 2007), who found that students who accessed an online self access system did not make use of its features that encouraged the development of learner autonomy. In that study, the author argued for more training, and for making the aims and rationale of the program more explicit to the students. One major difference, however, between that study and the program it described, and this study, is that My English is intended for use as an extension to the classroom, and as such, more integrated than programs such as that developed by Reinders, Toogood & Pemberton, and others described above, which are used by students independently.
What all these studies have in common is that they seem to point to a need for students to recognise the importance of bridging the classroom with their own lives. By connecting the formal learning that takes place in the classroom, with the informal learning that can take place anywhere, students may come to see the University learning experience as not confined to the campus, but rather as an ongoing pursuit that extends beyond the here and now at the university and into the future (Allford & Pachler, 2007). This may sound like a lofty goal, but it is only until students are ready to assume responsibility for their own learning that they will be able to benefit from this type of program. It is the institution’s, and the teacher’s role to provide this rationale to the students, and to ensure that they are ready to assume it. In the case of My English, future courses will need to dedicate more time to emphasizing the ways in which the program may benefit students’ learning. In a way, then, developing My English was perhaps the easy part. Getting the teachers and the learners to take advantage of it may prove an exciting challenge for the years to come.
References
* Allford, D., & Pachler, N. (2007). Language, autonomy and the new learning environments (1st ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.
* Breen, M. & Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on pedagogy for autonomy. In P. Benson and P.Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp.132-149). London: Longman.
* Conacher, J. & Kelly-Holmes, H. (2007). New learning environments for language learning: Moving beyond the classroom? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
* Esteve, O., Arumi, M. & Canada, M. D. (2004). Hacia la autonomia del aprendiz en la ensenanza de lenguas extranjeras en el ambito universitario: el enfoque por tareas como puente de union entre el aprendizaje en el aula y el trabajo en autoaprendizaje. BELLS, 12.
* Gick, C. (2002). Autonomes Grammatiktraining in der Mediathek. Babylonia, 2, 55-58.
* Littlewood, W. (1996). gAutonomyh: An autonomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
* King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. (2004). Report on the Follow-up of the University Graduates. Bangkok: Planning Division, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
* Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: issues and interventions (219-238). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System, 35(1), 93-111.
* Reinders, H. (2009). Technology and second language teacher education. In: A. Burns and J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and virtual environments in CALL. London: Routledge.
* Shetzer, H. & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.171-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Toogood, S. & Pemberton, R. (2002). Integrating self-directed learning into curriculum: A case study. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Challenges to research and practice (pp.86-110). Dublin: Authentik.
* Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
* Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learner strategies with technology. Educational Computing Research, 22, 285-322.
* Vanijdee, A. (2003). Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy. Open Learning,, 18(1), 75-84.
* Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Appendix A – Questionnaire
(This questionnaire was administered in Thai but has been translated into English for this article).
When you were taking LNG 600, I introduced My English, the online language support
program. This questionnaire asks your opinion about the program. The first part of the questionnaire is for those who used the program. If you did not use the program, please go to the second part of the questionnaire.
PART I Students who used My English
1.What do you normally do when you want to practise English in addition to studying in class (you can choose more than one answer).
_______ watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news).
_______ watch English movies and try to guess from the story.
_______ watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles.
_______ listen to English songs and try to understand the lyrics.
_______ sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent.
_______ read English newspapers.
_______ read news/information in the Internet.
_______ read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions.
_______ read English novels.
_______ talk to foreigners.
_______ email/write letters/chat with friends in the other countries.
_______ review grammar from grammar books.
_______ practise from English language teaching websites.
_______ take English courses, e.g. speaking in the workplace.
_______ other, please specify………………………………………………………….
2. When you used My English, how did you choose what materials to work with?
_______ 1. I first chose from the language skills which I wanted to practise (e.g. listening, reading, writing). Then I chose from the suggestion provided by the program, e.g. Top five materials or Recommended materials.
_______ 2. I chose by typing ‘key word’ based on the skill in order to find the materials I wanted to work with.
_______ 3. I did not think of any language skill but I chose from the Top five materials.
Other, please specify……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3.For what purposes did you use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. When using My English, did you use the learning record?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
5. Do you think there is enough content in My English?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
6. Do you think the content in My English is useful for English language practice ?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
7. Overall, what do you think about My English? Please specify what you like or dislike
about the program. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. How could we improve the program?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PART II Students who did not use My English
1.What was your main purpose for taking LNG 600?
_______1. to pass the English requirements of the university.
_______2. to develop academic English proficiency.
_______3. to be able to write my thesis in English
_______4. other………………………………………………………………………..
2.How often do you practise English outside the University?
________ almost never ________ sometimes ________ often
1.What do you normally do when you want to practise English in addition to studying in class (you can choose more than one answer).
_______ watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news).
_______ watch English movies and try to guess from the story.
_______ watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles.
_______ listen to English songs and try to understand the lyrics.
_______ sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent.
_______ read English newspapers.
_______ read news/information in the Internet.
_______ read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions.
_______ read English novels.
_______ talk to foreigners.
_______ email/write letters/chat with friends in the other countries.
_______ review grammar from grammar books.
_______ practise from English language teaching websites.
_______ take English courses, e.g. speaking in the workplace.
_______ other, please specify………………………………………………………….
4. Do you think online programs such as My English can help you to learn outside class? How?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.Overall, what do you think about My English? Please specify what you like or dislike about the program.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6.Why did you not use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. How could we better motivate students to use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your cooperation
1. The number of minutes of average use of the program in table 1 is greater than the addition of the average minutes of use of the different modules in table 2 because table 1 includes general browsing of the program where students read instructions or explore the program without using any of the actual modules.
Copyright (c) 2010, Pornapit Darasawang, Hayo Reinders & CALL-EJ Online. All rights reserved.
Tags: autonomy, call, learning environments, publications, self-access, virtual learning environments, vle
Posted in All, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, May 27th, 2010
The article below was just published in this excellent volume edited by Nigel Harwood:
Reinders, H. & C. White 2010 ‘The theory and practice of technology in materials development and task design’. In: Harwood, N. Materials in ELT: Theory and Practice (p. 58-80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The theory and practice of technology in materials development & task design
Hayo Reinders and Cynthia White
Summary
Technology nowadays plays a prominent role in the development of language learning materials, both as a tool in support of their creation and as a means of delivering content. Increasingly, technology is also used to support the individual’s language learning process and to extend language learning opportunities outside the classroom. The development of materials is still largely a practitioner-led practice, not always clearly informed by theories of learning (Chapelle 2001). In this chapter we aim to firstly identify the distinctive features of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) materials versus traditional non-CALL materials, and how these features affect their development. Theoretical principles for task design in CALL are reviewed followed by examples of current practice in CALL materials development discussed from a practical, pedagogical, and a theoretical perspective. We conclude by identifying a number of issues that are likely to affect future developments in this area.
Introduction
A decade ago Tomlinson’s (1998) edited collection entitled ‘Materials Development in Language Teaching’ made little reference to the contribution of computers, apart from a discussion of corpus data and concordances and Alan Maley’s observation that we stand on the threshold of a new generation of computerised materials for language teaching. The absence of a focus on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) materials in that collection was remarked on (see for example Johnson 1999; Levy & Stockwell 2006), as an indicator of the divide between CALL and the wider field of language teaching. In the decade since Tomlinson’s book, opportunities for language learning and teaching have been further transformed by the rapid development of a wide range of technology-mediated resources, materials, tasks and learning environments. The place of these developments in the field of language teaching has been the subject of debate. Coleman (2005), for example, argues that current research and practice in CALL has the potential to enhance our understanding of language learning and teaching, but that it remains in a relatively marginal position. Chapelle (2001) maintains that anyone concerned with language teaching in the 21st century ‘needs to grasp the nature of the unique technology-mediated tasks learners can engage in’ (p. 2). The key challenge according to Gruba (2004) is to think of ways to construct tasks to make effective use of the vast computer networks available, noting that earlier attempts to migrate classroom-based tasks to online environments have not always been successful, largely due to a poor understanding of task design within the affordances of the new environments. And Levy and Stockwell (2006) propose that CALL can bring important insights such as understanding the language teacher’s role as a designer in CALL, not only of materials but of whole learning environments. While innovations in technology and practice have clearly outstripped theory development in technology-mediated language teaching (White 2006), but important contributions have been made to the development of principles for the design of CALL materials which we review in this chapter. But first we need to define what is meant by CALL materials, and explore the central notion of design in technology-mediated language teaching.
Technology, Materials and Design in Language Teaching
CALL materials – that is artefacts produced for language teaching (Levy and Stockwell 2006) – can be taken to include tasks, websites, software, courseware, online courses and virtual learning environments. So clearly language teaching materials conceptualised in this way may include rather more than may be the case for materials conceptualised in face-to-face classroom settings. However, Levy and Stockwell identify earlier precedents for this view, drawing on the work of Breen, Candlin and Waters (1979) who distinguish between content materials as sources of information and data and process materials which act as frameworks within which learners can use their communicative abilities. CALL products then encompass both content and process dimensions of materials. While CALL materials can be seen as sharing many of the features of non-CALL materials, they also have a number of unique features largely due to the materiality of the medium. We review these features in the next section, but first consider the concept of design.
The centrality of design to the theory and practice of CALL identified by Levy (1997, 1999, 2002) has emerged as a recurrent theme in the literature on technology-mediated language teaching (Salaberry 2001, Gonzalez-Lloret 2003, Gruba 2004, Yutdhana 2005, Wang 2006, Hampel 2006, Rosell-Aguilar 2005). Levy and Stockwell note that design – including for example, materials design, screen design, task design and software design – ‘enters into the discourse of CALL in many forms and at a variety of levels, from the scale of an institution down to the level of an exercise’ (p. 10). Furthermore, the design process is extremely complex, endeavouring to draw on elements of theory, research and practice in an optimal way given the affordances of particular technologies and the opportunities and constraints of individual contexts, not the least of which are the needs and resources of teachers and learners. As such, design procedures and practices have been closely examined.
A number of principled theoretical approaches to design have been proposed in CALL and are reviewed later in the chapter but the challenge remains one of closing the distance and bridging the gap between theory and practice. The nature of the gap and the relationship between theory and practice of design in CALL is also the subject of much debate. Levy (1997) argues that requiring CALL instructional design to be theory-driven is unnecessarily restrictive, noting too that many of the theories suggested for CALL have been created and applied in non-CALL contexts; rather, what matters is the fit between the capabilities of technology and the demands of the learning objective. Following Richards and Rodgers (1986) it is argued that the design of pedagogical activities may begin at any of their three levels: theoretical approach, pedagogical design, or teaching procedure. More recently, Hampel (2006) has applied the framework to computer-mediated communication (CMC) and online tasks, presenting a non-linear, non-hierarchical three-level model for task development in virtual classrooms, represented in Lamy and Hampel (2007: 71) as follows:
Approach Scrutinising theoretical frameworks and concepts for their ability to inform task design appropriately (e.g. ensuring that cognitive theories inform conversation-based tasks or that community building concepts inform simulation tasks).
Design Examining the triangular relationship between task type, tutor or student role and the affordances of the medium based on its materiality. For example… what can we say about the effectiveness of tasks designed for audiographic versus videoconferencing environments?
Procedure Thinking about how tasks can be orchestrated in the virtual classroom in order to foster interaction between learners and improve their communicative competence; taking account of research to ensure more frequent participation, release more control to the students, enable collaborative work and a problem-solving approach, and negotiate certain pitfalls (e.g. issues of power online).
The model is intended to represent dynamic, iterative processes of design and implementation, with each stage exerting an influence on the development and progression of other stages, and cyclical relationships between the stages. A key point here is that design and development processes for technology in language teaching have diverse points of departure, with a broad concern for the relationship between theory, research – including teacher research – and practice, and include matching the affordances of the technologies with the complexities of the teaching context in a pedagogically optimal way.
The distinctive features of CALL materials
CALL materials are similar in many ways to traditional materials in that they function as tools in aiding the development of L2 acquisition and are therefore subject to the same pedagogical affordances and constraints. Nonetheless, CALL materials do have certain features which allow educators to draw on potential affordances and deal with constraints in different ways. Many discussions of new software or CALL in general point out advantages of their use. Summarising some of these in relation to ‘new’ technologies such as peer-to-peer networking, gaming and messaging, Godwin-Jones (2005) suggests that CALL materials 1) help develop computer literacy (which some have pointed out creates a circular argument), 2) help develop communicative skills, 3) help with community building, 4) identity creation, 5) collaborative learning, and 6) mentoring. Although none of these are specific to language learning per se, they help facilitate using and learning the social aspects of language or aid learning indirectly.
Zhao (2005) suggests several advantages that are more directly related to language learning and teaching. According to Zhao, CALL materials help by 1) enhancing access efficiency through digital multimedia technologies, 2) enhancing authenticity using video and the internet, 3) enhancing comprehensibility through learner control and multimedia annotations, 4) providing opportunities for communication (through interactions with the computer and through interactions with remote audiences through the computer), 5) by providing feedback, 6) by offering computer-based grammar checkers and spell checkers, 7) through automatic speech recognition technology, and 8) tracking and analysing student errors and behaviours. Although this list combines technical (e.g. ‘speech recognition’) and pedagogical advantages (e.g. ‘authenticity’), it is clear that there is a broad range of potential areas where CALL materials can make a contribution. Below we offer an alternative selection, divided into organisational and pedagogical advantages.
Organisational advantages of CALL materials
Access
CALL materials can be offered to learners independent of time and place. This is a frequently cited advantage especially in relation to internet-based materials. For materials developers this means opportunities to provide materials to learners for use outside the classroom and to learners who are otherwise unable to attend classes. Although this has offered many practical opportunities, it is not yet clear what the effects of access to materials are on second language acquisition. Recent studies have especially shown the importance of support where learners access materials without the direct intervention of a teacher, whether in a self-access context (Reinders 2005; Ulitsky 2000), or in distance education (Hampel 2006; Wang 2007; White 2006). Without such support, learners tend to use fewer or inefficient learning strategies, motivation levels tend to be low, and dropout rates high.
Recent studies in Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) offer a similar picture. Thornton and Houser (2005; see also Levy & Kennedy 2005) offered a vocabulary learning programme based on principles of distributed learning. Text messages were used to present vocabulary items along with regular options for review. They found that the participants in their study did not necessarily access materials more often than when they did not have mobile access. At this point it is not yet clear what the effects of ‘anytime/anywhere’ material access are on second language behaviour and acquisition.
Storage and retrieval of learning behaviour records and outcomes
Learner progress and test results can be stored electronically (and potentially automatically) and retrieved at any time, which is not only an organisational benefit for teachers and administrators but also potentially a pedagogical benefit for students. And recently considerable progress has been made in the area of automatic essay scoring and evaluation (see for example Warschauer & Ware, 2006).
Sharing and recycling of materials
CALL materials can easily be shared and updated. For materials developers, learning objects that meet certain international standards such as the shareable courseware object reference model (SCORM; http://www.adlnet.gov/scorm/index.aspx), are interoperable and can reduce development time as they can be employed in different contexts. Changes to online resources are immediately available to users and learners can thus be given new materials without having to return to class.
Cost efficiency
CALL materials are sometimes said to result in cost reduction, for example by providing learners with electronic instead of print materials or by having students study independently rather than with a teacher. However, the provision of hardware and software and their maintenance has proven costly. Also, as mentioned above, learners need considerable guidance and a reduction in staffing has not always proven possible. In future, mobile-assisted language learning may reduce the need to provide dedicated facilities and thus reduce associated costs. Text messaging, for example, is already being used as a cost-effective way to bypass unavailable or unreliable infrastructure in developing countries to deliver education (cf. www.kiwanja.net). Increasing interoperability of technologies and the use of open source technologies and content may also make it possible to reduce the overall costs of developing language learning materials.
Pedagogical advantages of CALL materials
Authenticity
There are two parts to this potential advantage: CALL materials aid in the development of more authentic materials (computer-based or not) by allowing the selection of content based on actual language use. Examples are the application of corpora in the creation of dictionaries and to inform the selection of content for textbooks. In addition, corpora are being used with learners in the language classroom, amongst others, to promote learning by discovery and as a type of consciousness-raising activity (cf. Aston, Bernardini and Stewart 2004).
The second advantage is said to be that CALL materials resemble the types of resources especially younger learners use in everyday life. The use of educational games is an example of ways in which materials developers have attempted to mimic learners’ out-of-class activities. Computer games have been shown to be potentially beneficial to learning and literacy development. Gee (2003) identified 36 learning principles in the games he investigated. An example of these is 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.’ 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.” Despite their potential, early attempts at designing games for language learning have not been entirely successful. One reason for this is that developers have not yet adapted to the (open and interactive) characteristics of the game environment but instead have attempted to copy existing content into a game (Prensky 2001).
Perhaps more important is the claim that the use of computers can help learners engage in inherently more authentic forms of language use, for example through a language exchange, where two or more students with different language backgrounds communicate in each language for some of the time, or through a webquest, where learners have to interact with authentic materials. This claim raises similar questions as with traditional materials: what is our definition of ‘authentic’? Are authentic materials always necessarily better than non-authentic materials? And if the answer is no, then what would be the ideal balance? Claims that CALL materials are ‘authentic’ are only useful to the extent that this concept is operationalised and has been shown to be beneficial to learning.
Interaction
A major advantage of CALL materials is said to be that they facilitate interaction and language use. Chapelle (2005) refers to ‘interaction’ as ‘any two-way exchanges’. This can be between two people, or between a person and the computer, as well as within the person’s mind.
Swain’s output hypothesis (2005) claims that by producing the language, learners can become aware of gaps in their interlanguage, and others (e.g. N. Ellis 1996) have argued that language production can act as a form of practice, thereby strengthening existing connections in the mind. Sociocultural theory emphasises the importance of interaction in a meaningful context (Lantolf 2000) and various popular CALL programmes aim to create this context and opportunities for language use through email or chat communication, or through language exchanges between learners (where a learner with a specific L1 is partnered with someone who wants to learn that language as a second language). Some researchers, however, have pointed out that the comprehensible input from the interaction alone is not sufficient to result in the development of accuracy and that some type of attention to form is necessary. In computer-mediated communication (CMC), materials and instructions would thus have to include some direction as to what learners are expected to do and what aspects of the language they are required to use.
The accompanying instructions can affect whether the interaction focuses predominantly on meaning, on form, or on both. In a study of the effects of peer-feedback in online communication, Ware & O’Dowd (2008) assigned students to either an e-tutoring group (where they were asked to correct their partners’ mistakes), or an e-partnering group (where they were not asked to do so). Even though participants in the e-tutoring group provided more corrections, it was clear that many participants were not well-equipped to provide feedback:
We speculate that, from a student’s perspective, online exchanges are likely “forward-oriented” toward the next message containing new information, unlike, perhaps, teacher-directed class assignments that can be iterative products that are revised multiple times for accuracy (and a grade). Therefore, we would suggest that teachers structure carefully sequenced tasks so that they build on the previous interaction. (p. 54)
Situated learning
Above, mention has already been made of the importance of providing learners with the opportunity to use the language in a socioculturally meaningful context. Mobile technologies may make it easier to provide materials and support tailored to a particular situation. Ogata & Yano (2004), for example, developed a system that used PDAs to provide information on which Japanese forms of address to use in which situations. As participants moved from room (situation) to room, and from interlocutor (more status) to interlocutor (less status), the information changed. Developing materials for such situations requires knowledge of the entire domain (participants, situations, language used) and may be prove to very challenging, unless learners can actively tap into a larger database or access support from teachers when faced with difficulties in using the language. A more open-ended and somewhat less ambitious approach was used by Reinders (2007b, Reinders & Lewis forthcoming) who created exercises for use on Ipods and gave students tasks to complete for which they had to go out, talk to people, find and share information, and answer questions. The ability to have access to guidance and support, to record progress (using a microphone plugged into the Ipod), and to complete real-world activities with other learners, seemed to have a positive effect on students’ motivation and their ability to speak. However, more research is needed to investigate how situated language learning can be structured and its effects on language acquisition.
Multimedia
The ability to integrate different modes of presentation is an improvement over traditional materials. Different modalities have been shown to result in vastly different processing on the part of the learner (Leow 1995) and the ability for the teacher to ‘repackage’ materials to emphasise one modality over the other can be of benefit. Learners too, can choose on the basis of their preferences or to request more help (for example by turning on or off the subtitles on a DVD). The ability to use multimedia thus results in an enriched learning environment. Simulations are an example of a multimodal environment that have the potential to mimic real-world processes. In practice, however, CALL simulations have been built on very specific domains and are therefore limited in scope. This is largely because of technical challenges.
New types of activities
CALL materials can include activities that are difficult or impossible to achieve using other learning materials, such as moving objects across the screen (matching), recording one’s voice etc. Of course, the effects of each of these activity types needs to be investigated for what it aims to measure or teach, and this has not always been the case.
Feedback
Immediate feedback is possible, dependent on the user’s input and a whole range of other factors (past input, timing). Different forms of feedback are possible, such as those using sound, movement, text etc or a combination of them. Also, it is possible to implement forms of feedback such as modeling, coaching and scaffolding that are hard or impossible to implement in traditional learning environments. Natural language processing and parser-based CALL can potentially provide feedback based on participants’ prior language learning progress and their specific needs (Heift and Schulze 2007).
Non-linearity
A long-recognised benefit of hypermedia is its ability to display information non-linearly and for students to access information as and how they want to, rather than in a predetermined sequence. This is a benefit only insofar as students know how to find the information they need and have strategies to learn with hypermedia. Of course, and first and foremost, this is also only an advantage insofar as the quality of linked resources is sufficiently high.
Monitoring and recording of learning behaviour and progress
CALL programmes can record and monitor learners’ behaviour and progress and dynamically alter input, or make suggestions to the learner. They can also compare learners’ progress with their own goals and other learners’ (Reinders 2007b). The records can be made accessible to the student to encourage reflection on the learning process. Part of the rationale behind initiatives such as the European Union’s e-portfolio project, that encourage the keeping of personal records to support ongoing study and planning, is to develop learners’ metacognitive awareness and to engage their metacognitive strategies. Metacognitive awareness helps learners to prioritise their learning and helps learners select the most appropriate study plan and learning strategies. This, in turn, gives learners a sense of control over their learning and may help them to self-motivate (Ushioda 1996). Metacognitive strategies also help learners develop autonomy by allowing them to self-monitor and self-assess. In practice, however, it has proven to be particularly difficult to encourage learners to keep records or to plan their learning. Reinders (2006) found, for example, that many learners did not respond to computer prompts to create or revise learning plans and concluded that more training and staff intervention was necessary.
Control
As an extension of monitoring, learners potentially have more control over how they use CALL materials as they can often be accessed randomly or adapted to suit individual needs in level of difficulty of the input or in the amount of support available (e.g. with or without glossaries, spell checkers, etc).
Empowerment
An important benefit of the characteristics of CALL materials discussed above is that together they have the potential to empower learners by offering easier access to materials, greater control to learners, and more opportunities for the development of metacognitive skills and learner autonomy (cf. Shetzer & Warschauer 2000). At the same time, people have worried about the ‘digital divide’ or the potential for new technologies to leave disadvantaged groups even further behind. On the other hand, people (including we) have argued that technology can actually help close that gap and numerous examples exist of the technology bringing access to resources and opportunities that before did not exist, especially in the area of mobile technology (see also Warschauer 2004).
Conclusion
Many differences exist between CALL and traditional materials, however, the above brief review makes it clear that whether or not these differences translate into improved learning and teaching depends entirely on how the technology is implemented. It is also clear from the above that considerably more research is needed to establish how the differences impact (or not) our learners and how we can best take advantage of this. In the remainder of the chapter we look at two sets of theoretical principles for task design in CALL and then describe two approaches to the design of CALL materials, one in distance language teaching, the other is self-access.
CALL in theory
A recurrent theme in CALL is the need for more explicit links between materials development and SLA theory. Here we review two influential frameworks of principles for task design proposed by Chapelle (2001) and Doughty and Long (2003). Drawing on interactionist second language acquisition theory, the aim of Chapelle’s (2001) framework of criteria for CALL task appropriateness is to provide ‘ideal cognitive and social affective conditions for instructed SLA’ (p. 45). The first of these criteria, language learning potential, and arguably the most critical, is based on general processes for SLA, referring to the degree to which the task promotes focus on form; it is this focus which distinguishes language learning activities from an opportunity purely for language use. The requirement for focus on form is closely aligned to the requirement for meaning focus, referring to the need for learners’ attention to be directed towards the meaning of the language required to complete the task: both focus on form and meaning focus need to be present in the completion of a meaning-focused task. The importance of the individual learner is captured in the criteria of learner fit, including characteristics which need to be considered in designing CALL activities such as learning style, age and willingness to communicate. Authenticity in CALL as discussed above is based around the links between classroom and real-world language use, centring on texts and tasks that learners can find relevant in their language use beyond the classroom. Positive impact refers to effects beyond language learning potential including engaging learners’ interest and the development of literacy skills, learner autonomy and metacognitive awareness, for example. The final criterion practicality is an important one in that CALL activities should not impose too much of a burden on teachers and learners in terms of accessibility and use; the resourcing of CALL is a key dimension to this criteria.
Permission requested 22-4
(Chapelle 2001, p.55)
Another example of such an explicit formulation of design principles is offered by Doughty and Long (2003) based on cognitive and interactionist SLA theory. Specifically ten methodological principles of task-based learning are proposed:
1. Use tasks, not texts, as the unit of analysis.
2. Promote learning by doing.
3. Elaborate input (do not simplify, do not rely solely on “authentic” texts).
4. Provide rich (not impoverished) input.
5. Encourage inductive (chunk) learning.
6. Focus on form.
7. Provide negative feedback.
8. Respect “learner syllabi”/developmental processes.
9. Promote cooperative/collaborative learning.
10. Individualize instruction (according to communicative needs and psycholinguistically). (p. 52)
Distance foreign language learning is the specific technology-mediated context Doughty and Long have in mind, and much of their discussion is based around the constraints of that context. For example they identify the practicalities of developing an understanding of learners, and emerging learner needs in the distance context as key issues in adopting a task-based approach in distance language learning. Doughty and Long’s work informs many of the most significant contributions to task design in distance foreign language teaching including research on task design for desktop videoconferencing (Wang 2006) and for audiographic conferencing (Hampel 2006, Rosell-Aguilar 2006). The relative weight given to theoretical and practical issues is interesting in Doughty and Long’s framework: Chapelle (2005) comments that the guidelines for instructional materials given by Doughty and Long rely strongly on a theoretical view of how language is acquired through interaction and that this is ‘a defensible course of action for materials development’ (p. 57). From another perspective, referring to Doughty and Long’s contribution, White (2006) argues that there remains an important gap in the research literature, since no one has yet extended and elaborated such a synthesis, putting it into practice not only for course design but for sustained course delivery, and then identifying implications for theory, research and practice.
Doughty & Long’s design principles
Permission requested 22-4
CALL in practice
In the next section we discuss two projects in terms of their unique CALL features and the theoretical/pedagogical considerations reviewed above. The first project concerns a distance education environment, the second an online self-access programme.
Task Design in Online Distance Foreign Language Teaching
The challenges in materials design for the distance context have been well documented (see for example White 2003), including the fact that the teacher-designer is at times distant from the learners and the sites of learning. One result of this challenge has been that a number of researcher-practitioners have articulated rich accounts of the design processes they have undertaken. Here we explore one such account and relate it to our previous discussion.
Regine Hampel’s (2006) exploration of task design centres on the fact that while the computer medium in terms of its materiality differs from the kinds of resources generally used in face-to-face language learning settings, the field has been slow to appreciate and accommodate the particular features of technology-mediated learning environments, with reliance on transferring face-to-face tasks to the new settings. In the process of ‘rethinking task design’ Hampel explores how tasks can be devised appropriate for a multimodal virtual environment. A fascinating contribution of the research is the sustained comparison between task design and task implementation with different groups of learners and different tutors – that is exploring what happens to tasks in audiographic conferencing.
The learning environment named Lyceum was developed by the Open University UK, and is an Internet-based application which allows learners to interact synchronously using a range of modes: the modes include audio, writing and graphics, and the environment includes a voicebox, whiteboard, a concept map, a document facility and text chat. The key point is that while multimodal environments offer seemingly similar modes of communication to those of conventional classrooms, they have very different affordances which in turn impacts on how the environment, and tasks, are used by learners. (For a detailed description of audiographic environments see Hampel and Baber (2003).)
In discussing task development Hampel draws on the three-level approach discussed earlier, with approach, design and procedure stages, noting that the approach influences not just the design and implementation stages, but also that the evaluation during implementation feeds back into how the approach is understood in online environments. The theoretical approaches Hampel draws on are primarily interactionist SLA theory, sociocultural theory, and theories of medium, mode and affordances, all of which are needed to understand and inform the design of sociocollaborative tasks in multimodal environments.
The tasks designed by Hampel aim to address one of the key challenges of the distance learning context, that is providing opportunities for learners to develop the kinds of real-time interactive competence that is required to use language in interpersonal social processes (Kötter, 2001; White 2003). They have been designed to be part of online tutorials, and are just one learning source within the course. Hampel notes that the tasks ‘show a number of criteria which Chapelle [...] has summarized for CALL and CMC’ (p. 113); she does not indicate whether the criteria were used implicitly or explicitly at different stages of the development process. What is clear, however, is that learner fit is critical for distance students in a technology-mediated mode, and that, addressing Doughty and Long’s concerns, detailed, practical knowledge of learners was drawn on in identifying the kinds of experiences they were likely to bring to tasks which would facilitate interaction and participation. Beneficial focus on form and meaning focus were also considered, as was authenticity, focusing on current issues in German-speaking countries using predominantly authentic texts. Hampel notes that while the scenarios and participant roles were not of themselves authentic they simulated authenticity and the authentic texts were seen as having a positive impact – another of Chapelle’s features – on student interest. Practicality, in terms of having resources to support the CALL activities was a key concern as learners were mostly located in their home environments, and careful planning – including online socialization – were directed at supporting this aspect of the process. Finally, and critically, positive impact was central to the tutorial tasks as learner motivation is often vulnerable at key points in distance learning processes and opportunities for interaction and support have been found to impact very positively on persistence and progression. Below are the sequences of activities available in Lyceum, including the online resources used and the skills practised:
Table 2: Outline of tasks
Steps Sequence Activity Resources Skills
1 In advance of tutorial (voluntary) Reading preparation document (tutorial summary) Course website Reading
2 In advance of tutorial (voluntary) Preparatory activity: finding information about the topic Course materials; WWW (via selected links on course website) Reading;
processing information from different sources
3 Tutorial (plenary) Sound check; warm-up activity Lyceum (audio, images, text) Listening; speaking
4 Tutorial (plenary) Introduction of the topic through brainstorming or preliminary discussion; instructions for group work (e.g. allocation of roles) Lyceum (audio, images, text) Listening; speaking
5 Tutorial (group work) Preparation for final activity (e.g. preparing roles, arguments, presentation or written text) Lyceum (audio, images, text) Summarizing information; negotiating positions; collaboration; preparing presentation or discussion
6 Tutorial (plenary) Final activity (e.g. discussion, presentation) Lyceum (audio, images, text) Taking part in presentation or discussion
7 After plenary Feedback on task, error correction Lyceum or email Reflection on learning
8 After the tutorial (voluntary) Additional group activity: expanding the task Lyceum and/or email Writing; collaboration
Hampel 2006: 114. Permission granted
The second part of Hampel’s study moves from theory and design to implementation, identifying significant differences between tasks as conceptualised and tasks as realised. Firstly Hampel notes how tutors adapted the tasks largely for practical reasons such as student numbers fluctuating, for unforeseen issues of learner fit, particularly in terms of learner needs and interests, and finally because of timing, with different stages of tasks taking much longer than anticipated. While positive impact was carefully considered at the design phase Hampel notes that not all students found the tasks engaging or motivating: in some cases this was due to the actions of peers who were linguistically or technologically more proficient, in other cases it was due to the lack of assessment awarded to this part of the course, pointing to wider issues of curricular articulation for technology-mediated tasks (White 2006). In addition the complexity of the multimodal environment was found, certainly in the initial stages, to overwhelm some students, having a somewhat inhibiting effect on communication, as did the absence of visual cues. Thus the mediating role of what can be broadly defined as learner interpretation of tasks (Batstone 2005) was key to understanding task enactment in synchronous online environments. Hampel concludes by underlining the importance of context-dependent features noted by Chapelle (2003) which must be taken account of in designing and implementing tasks: in this case the materiality of the multimodal environment and the ways in which learners and teachers responded to those features had a dramatic effect on what happens to tasks in audiographic conferencing.
An online self-access environment
In a rather different project carried out at the University of Auckland, the development of an online self-access environment (called ELSAC, or English Language Self-Access Centre) was initiated as a response to the large numbers of students needing English support. Studies done at the University estimated as many as 10,000 students could be in need of improving, especially, their academic English skills. The online self-access environment was designed as a practical solution to supporting this many students from all different backgrounds and faculties, and also as a way to foster learner autonomy and to allow students to develop skills to continue improving their English on their own (see Schwienhorst 2003, 2007, for a discussion of the relationship between autonomy and CALL). In terms of the unique features of CALL materials discussed above, especially the organisational advantages of anytime/anywhere access, the automatic storage and retrieval of learner records, and the hopes of cost efficiency were important drivers. Pedagogically speaking, the key aim was to offer students control and empower them, through allowing non-linear access to a wide range of multimedia resources to cater for a wide range of learner differences, and to offer feedback and support through the monitoring of learning behaviour and progress.
To this end, the online environment was developed consisting of two elements: 1) a large database of electronic resources (shown above), some commercially published, some developed in-house, to cater to all learner needs and interests, and 2) several tools to support the students’ learning process. Examples of the latter included a needs analysis, a learning plan, a learning record, and learning strategies worksheets. In addition to these tools there were several mechanisms that monitored student learning and gave feedback at key points in the learning process. An example of these was a process for comparing students’ needs (as identified in their needs analysis) with their learning plans and their actual learning. It was not uncommon, for example, for students to establish, say, writing expository essays as one of the priority skills for improvement, but then to continue using grammar resources. At this point the computer would prompt the students to revise their plans and/or materials use.
Studies into the effects of these tools and mechanisms on student learning (Reinders 2006, 2007a) made a number of interesting findings. In general, both questionnaires and interviews showed that students were extremely satisfied with the programme. Usage records showed that many students had accessed the resources and had done so frequently and over longer periods of time. Many students reported using more resources and more often than they normally did or would have without the programme; in this sense the programme’s access features were a clear advantage. Staff too were satisfied in that they could look up students’ progress and did not have to spend much time on administration; an advantage of the automatic storage and retrieval of learners’ work. However, SQL queries (queries of information stored in the records of a SQL database) of 1,200 student database records collected over one year gave a somewhat less positive picture. Despite numerous suggestions, many students did not complete their initial needs analysis and very few updated their learning plans as a result. Similarly, the prompts made by the computer were seldom heeded; when participants had set their minds on learning with particular materials or in a particular way, it was clearly difficult to encourage them to change.
The results of these studies were interpreted as showing a need for more learner training and more staff support. Students obviously needed more information about the rationale behind the programme and how to respond to its prompts. As a result of these studies, additional support structures were put in place. These included language advisory sessions where students met face-to-face with a language advisor to discuss their learning needs and progress. Although the advisors made extensive use of the electronic records of the programme, obviously the cost-efficiency factor of the software has turned out to be lower than expected. In addition, a range of workshops was implemented to help students develop independent learning skills.
Taking the above findings into account, a more recent incarnation of ELSAC was developed for King Mongkut University of Technology in Bangkok, called My English. Developed in a similar context (albeit in an EFL setting) and for similar reasons, this differed from the above programme in the inclusion of additional support mechanisms so as for students to contact staff more easily to get help, as well as several elements to encourage communication in English, such as chatrooms and online communication activities.
Hayo owns copyright.
[INSERT ‘MY ENGLISH’ SCREENSHOT HERE: SEE ARTWORK FILE]
As with ELSAC, the programme is a shell for teachers to place language learning materials in, and so its main intended advantages are at the level of the learning process (containing both process and content materials) rather than individual tasks. Nonetheless, the inclusion of interaction-oriented modules is in line with Doughty & Long’s recommendations. An important difference between ELSAC and My English is that the latter is not designed to be mainly used by students independently, but rather as an integral part of and complement to the existing language courses; the aim is to encourage ongoing study during and after those courses finish. In this way it is hoped that over time students engage in more language use and are exposed to more input than without such support programmes.
Conclusion
In the preceding sections we have tried to identify some of the features that make CALL materials unique and have discussed relevant theories and pedagogical approaches. Next, we have reviewed several examples of CALL materials and programmes. Although it is paramount to consider language learning materials from a pedagogical perspective it is important to remember that, even more so than with non-CALL materials, issues of practicality play an important role. Organisational and practical advantages offered by the use of technology can sometimes be sufficient reason to adopt a new technology, even outweighing any pedagogic advantages. Among the many important questions arising during the process of the development of CALL materials, a key one is how to reconceptualise language tasks in ways that enable us to provide the best opportunities for language learning. And a key way to meet this challenge suggested by Gruba (2004) can be found in our collective attempts to define tasks, write them and try them out with students; equally importantly there is a need to strengthen the links between theory, research and practice, and to acknowledge that the divide between CALL and non-CALL materials is disappearing. We hope that this will lead to a new understanding of materials development.
Discussion Questions and Tasks
Reflection
1. Look at how CALL materials are defined in this chapter – how does it relate to the way you think about language teaching materials?
2. Think about a CALL program that you have used. Which of the benefits in table 1 do you think it offers? Are there any missing from the table that you would add?
3. How useful is the idea of the role of a language teacher as designer? What are some of the strengths and the limitations of this as a perspective on what language teachers do?
4. Think about a teaching context you are familiar with. Which organisational and pedagogical advantages of CALL materials are the most evident?
5. What do you think can be the effect of providing students with non-linear access to CALL materials?
6. Can you identify the kinds of differences that may take occur between task design and task implementation in the kinds of synchronous online environments described by Hampel (2006)?
Evaluation
7. Look at some CALL materials in terms of Breen et al.’s (1979) distinction between content materials and process materials. Do you find this distinction helpful? How would you evaluate materials in terms of content and in terms of process?
Adaptation/Design
8. Choose a set of language teaching materials designed to fit a particular learning need. How would you need to adapt them to take account of the opportunities and constraints of a particular technology-mediated environment and pedagogical context?
References
Aston, G., Bernardini, S., & Stewart, D. (2004) Corpora and Language Learners. . Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Batstone, R. (2005) Planning as discourse activity: A sociocognitive view. In R. Ellis (ed.) Planning and Task Performance in a Second Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 277–295.
Breen, M., Candlin, C. & Waters, A. (1979) Communicative materials design: some basic principles. RELC Journal, 10:1-13.
Chapelle, C. (2001) Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (2005). Interactionist SLA theory in CALL research. In J. Egbert & G. Petrie (eds), Research Perspectives on CALL. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 53-64.
Coleman, J. (2005) CALL from the margins: towards effective dissemination of CALL research and good practices. ReCALL, 17: 18-31.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (2003) Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology 7: 50-80.
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA. Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91-126.
Gee, J. P. (2003) What Video Games have to Teach us About Learning And Literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Godwin-Jones, B. (2005) Emerging technologies. messaging, gaming, peer-to-peer sharing: language learning strategies and tools for the millennial generation. Language Learning & Technology 9: 17-22.
Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2003) Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En Busca De Esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology 7: 86-104.
Gruba, P. (2004) Designing tasks for online collaborative language learning. Prospect, 19(2): 72-81.
Hampel, R. (2006) Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL 18: 105-121.
Hampel, R., & Baber, E. (2003) Using Internet-based audio-graphic and video conferencing for language teaching and learning. In U. Felix (ed.), Language Learning On-line: Towards Best Practice . Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 171-191.
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2007) Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Parsers and Pedagogues. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, M. (1999) Review of B. Tomlinson (ed.), Materials Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge University Press. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics, 5: 93-97.
Kötter, M. (2001). Developing distance learners’ interactive competence – can synchronous audio do the trick? International Journal of Educational Telecommunication 7: 327-353.
Lamy, M.-N. & Hampel, R. (2007) Online communication in language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leow, R. P. (1995) Modality and intake in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 79-89.
Levy, M. (1999) Design processes in CALL: Integrating theory, research and evaluation. In K. C. Cameron (ed.), CALL: Media, Design and Applications. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, pp. 85-109.,.
Levy, M. (1997) Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Context and Conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Levy, M. (2002) CALL by design: products, processes and methods. ReCALL 14: 129-142.
Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. (2005) Learning Italian via mobile sms. In A. Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, J. (eds.), Mobile Learning. A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. London: Routledge, pp.76-83.
Levy, M. & Stockwell, G. (2006) CALL Dimensions: Options and Issues in Computer Assisted Language Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004) Context-aware support for computer-supported ubiquitous learning. In: BT IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education. IEEE Computer Society, pp.27-34.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital Game-based Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reinders, H. (2005) Non-participation in a university language programme. JALT Journal, 27: 209-226.
Reinders, H. (2006) Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In T. Lamb, T. & H. Reinders (eds.), Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp.219-238.
Reinders, H. (2007a) Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System 35: 93-111.
Reinders, H. (2007b) Podquests. Language learning on the move. ESL Magazine, 58.
Reinders, H. and Lewis, M. (2008) Podquests. Language games on the go. In: M. Andreade (ed.), Language Games. Alexandria: TESOL. (in press)
Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (1986) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. A Description and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2005) Task design for audiographic conferencing: promoting beginner oral interaction in distance language learning, Computer Assisted Language Learning 18: 417-442.
Salaberry, M. (2001) The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: a retrospective. The Modern Language Journal 85: 39-56.
Schwienhorst, K. (2003) Neither here nor there? Learner autonomy and intercultural factors in CALL environments. In D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (eds.), Learner Autonomy Across Cultures. Language Education Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.164-181.
Schwienhorst, K. (2007) Learner Autonomy and Virtual Environments in CALL. London: Routledge.
Shetzer, H., & Warschauer, M. (2000) An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (eds.), Network-Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.171-185.
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honor of William E. Rutherford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.125-144.
Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005) Using mobile phones in english education in japan, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 217-228.
Tomlinson, B. (ed.), (1998) Materials development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learner strategies with technology. Educational Computing Research, 22: 285-322.
Ushioda, E. (1996) Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Wang, Y. (2006) Negotiation of meaning in desktop videoconferencing-supported distance language learning. ReCALL 18: 122-146.
Wang, Y. (2007) Task design in videoconferencing-supported distance language learning, CALICO Journal 24: 657-673.
Ware, P. & O’Dowd, R. (2008) Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 43-63.
Warschauer, M. (2004) Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
Warschauer, M., & Ware, P. (2006) Automated writing evaluation: Defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research 10, 1-24.
White, C. (2003) Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, C. (2006) State of the Art article: The distance learning of foreign languages, Language Teaching 39: 247-264.
Yutdhana, S. (2005) Design-based research in CALL, in: J. Egbert & G. Petrie (Eds) CALL Research Perspectives. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zhao, Y. (2005) Research in Technology and Second Language Education. Developments and Directions. Greenwhich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Tags: call, materials design, publications
Posted in All | No Comments »
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010
I am very excited to announce a new book series for Palgrave Macmillan on ‘New Language Learning and Teaching Environments’, dedicated to recent developments in learner-centred approaches and the impact of technology on learning and teaching inside and outside the language classroom I am inviting submissions for full-length manuscripts and edited books.
New Language Language Learning and Teaching Environments offers a multidisciplinary forum for presenting and investigating the latest developments in language education, taking a pedagogic approach with a clear focus on the learner, and with clear implications for both researchers and language practitioners.
Aims and scope:
• To publish cutting-edge research into current developments and innovation in language learning and teaching practice.
• To publish applied accounts of the ways in which these developments impact on current and future language education.
• To encourage dissemination and cross-fertilisation of policies and practice relating to learner-centred pedagogies for language learning and teaching in new learning environments.
• To disseminate research and best practice in out-of-class and informal language learning.
Work on New Language Environments encompasses research (both theoretical and applied) and development in areas as diverse as (and not limited to):
Virtual learning environments
Learner Autonomy
Self-access centres
Blended learning
Distance learning
Self-directed learning
Content and Language Integrated Learning
Work-based learning
Community initiatives
Self-study
Mobile learning
New Literacies
Situated learning
Language Support
Language Advising and Counselling
You can find out more about the series or learn how to submit a proposal here.
Tags: autonomy, informal, lifelong, mobile, mobile learning, out-of-class, publications, self-access
Posted in All | No Comments »
Friday, April 30th, 2010
A new online journal called elearningpapers as an EU project. Access to the journal is free. You can read it here.
Tags: publications
Posted in All | No Comments »
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Pia Sundqvist recently completed her PhD study on how learners acquire a foreign (not second!) language outside the school. As one of the few evidence-based of such studies, I highly recommend anyone interested in learner autonomy, strategies and motivation to read this. It is available for free download here.
The abstract:
he present study examines possible effects of extramural English (EE) on oral proficiency (OP) and vocabulary (VOC). The study is based on data collected from Swedish learners of ESL in grade 9 (aged 15-16; N=80; 36 boys, 44 girls) over a period of one year. EE was defined as linguistic activities that learners engage in outside the classroom in their spare time. EE was measured with the help of a questionnaire and two language diaries, each covering one week. In the diaries, the learners recorded how much time they had spent on seven given EE activities (reading books, reading newspapers/magazines, watching TV, watching films, surfing the Internet, playing video games, listening to music). There was also an open category. Speech data were collected with the help of five interactional speaking tests; learners were in random dyads on each occasion. Each student performance was assessed by three raters with the help of a profile scheme, resulting in an overall grade. Based on these grades from the tests, a mean grade for OP (the OP grade) was calculated for each student. OP was defined as the learner’s ability to speak and use the target language in actual communication with an interlocutor. Learners’ VOC was measured with an index variable based on the scores on two written vocabulary tests. For a selection of ten learners, additional analyses were made of oral fluency and the use of advanced vocabulary in speech. A mixed methods research design was used, but the lion’s share of data was analyzed using inferential statistics.
Results showed that the total amount of time spent on EE correlated positively and significantly (p < .01) both with learners’ level of OP and size of VOC, but that the correlation between EE and VOC was stronger and more straightforward than the one between EE and OP. The conclusion drawn was that although EE impacts both OP and VOC, the causal relationship is more salient in the case of VOC. Results also showed that some activities were more important than others for OP and VOC respectively; i.e., the type of EE activity mattered. EE activities that required learners to be more productive and rely on their language skills (video games, the Internet, reading) had a greater impact on OP and VOC than activities where learners could remain fairly passive (music, TV, films). An important gender difference was identified. Boys spent significantly more time on productive EE activities than girls; therefore, EE had a greater impact on OP and VOC for boys than for girls. Four background variables were also studied. The conclusion was that EE is an independent variable and a possible path to progress in English for any learner, regardless of his or her socioeconomic background.
Tags: autonomy, motivation, out-of-class, publications, strategies
Posted in All | No Comments »
|
| Menu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recommended reading | |
| Recent finds
|
| | What I am reading now | |
|
|
|
