1 / 20

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses. LANSPAN Presentation 22 February 2005 Sake Jager University of Groningen. Overview. Introduction Research domain Model for technology implementation Hologram Current perspective CALL implementations and projects.

paul2
Download Presentation

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computer-Assisted Language Learning:Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses LANSPAN Presentation 22 February 2005 Sake Jager University of Groningen

  2. Overview • Introduction • Research domain • Model for technology implementation • Hologram • Current perspective • CALL implementations and projects

  3. Introduction • Faculty co-ordinator ICT and (Language) Learning • Research into implementation of CALL • CALL not yet integrated into the mainstream of language teaching and learning • Develop a framework for implementation • Presentation of some essential components of the framework

  4. Research domain • University setting for language learning • Computer-assisted language learning alongside face-to-face opportunities for language learning; ‘blended’ environment • CALL increases the number of options for language learning • CALL must provide ‘added value’ in e.g. • Effectiveness: The use of CALL increases the extent to which specific outcomes are achieved. • Efficiency: The use of CALL decreases the amount of resources used to achieve specific outcomes. • Appreciation: The use of CALL is rated positively by those using it. • Interest in which options are chosen and why

  5. Institution Implementation Pedagogy Technology Key components technology-enhanced learning Based on Collis & Moonen (2001)

  6. Hologram • Started 1993, still used today • Designed for grammar teaching • German, English, French, Spanish • Addressed following problems: • students did not get enough practice • very few exercises could be dealt with in class • students were poorly motivated, came to class unprepared • lacked knowledge of grammatical structure, concepts, terminology

  7. Hologram: Exercise

  8. Ellips

  9. Hologram implementation • Technology • Clear pay off: Immediate feedback, adaptation to student weaknesses and endless practice • Primarily tutorial use: replaces teacher in a number of respects • Pedagogy • Compliance with language teachers’ beliefs • No changes to grammar teaching • Not a replacement of class-based instruction, textbook, exams • No claims about grammar in relation to language learning • Implementation • Teacher produced their own materials • Saved teaching time, required development time • Exchange of materials between institutions • Bottom-up approach • Institution • Payment for use of program (up to this very date!) • Permanent support

  10. Acceptance of technology • Predictors for acceptance: 4 E’s (Collis & Moonen 2001): • Environment (institutional context) • Educational effectiveness (perceived or expected) • Ease of use • Engagement (personal response to technology and change)

  11. 4-E Model Environmental vector 1 Threshold (success) Educational Effectiveness Ease of use Engagement 3-E Vector sum

  12. Current perspective • Technology: • Rise of the Internet / WWW • Emphasis on Communication: ICT • Increased performance, access • Standardization: shake-out of technology; course management systems (Blackboard, etc) • Pedagogy: • Shift from interaction with computers to interaction through computers • SLA-basis (e.g. Chapelle, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Felix, 1998). • Task-based learning • Meaning focus • Focus on form • Comprehensible input and pushed output • Co-operative and collaborative learning • Authenticity • Learner fit

  13. Current CALL implementations • Many CMC-based applications: • Direct support for SLA-based principles • Ideal for SLA-research • Reported effects • Processes similar to oral communication • Meaningful communication, incidental focus on form • Implicit feedback, self-correction, correction of others • Less teacher control, more student participation • More time to think (communication in ‘slow motion’): greater accuracy, syntactic variety • Pedagogically effective • Different spectrum of technology options than tutorial programs such as Hologram • Findings based on experimental settings

  14. Current projects • Points of interest from latest projects • VLE’s (Blackboard) well-suited for CMC-supported task-based learning; CMC-based CALL not frequently used • Exception: Webquests (University of Tilburg) • E.g. http://kubnw8.uvt.nl/dtk/Webquest%204/ • Interesting new possibilities • Horizon Wimba (spoken communication in Blackboard) • Continued demand for tutorial-like applications • Ellips consortium

  15. Current perspective cont’d • Implementation • Shift to the university level; top down orientation • Technology instruments at central level • Teaching and learning support units at central level. • ICT-services at central level • Institutional framework • Strategy focus on differentiation (excellence), internationalization • Emphasis on learning outcomes, competences • Use of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages • Testing and training of staff and students in English Proficiency

  16. Challenges for implementation • Pedagogically motivated CALL, taking into account implementation strategies and institutional frameworks • Implementing for change, building on existing good practices • Setting up projects which relate directly to institutional environment: • Language innovation programme Faculty of Arts • Flexible learning for staff and students participating in English language learning programs

  17. References (1) • Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 120-136. • Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Chen, T. (2003). Reticence in class and on-line: two ESL students' experiences with communicative language teaching. System, 31, 259-281. • Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer. • Corda, A. & Jager, S. (2004). ELLIPS: providing web-based language learning for Higher Education in the Netherlands. ReCALL, 16, 225-236. • Doughty, C. & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50-80. • Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. • Felix, U. (1998). Virtual Language Learning: Finding the Gems among the Pebbles. Melbourne: Language Australia. • Jager, S. (1996). HOLOGRAM: A Fully Interactive Environment for Grammar Teaching and Learning. In A.Gimeno (Ed.), Proceedings EUROCALL '95 (pp. 195-203). Valencia, Spain: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. • Jager, S. (1998). HOLOGRAM - Computer-Assisted Academic Grammar Learning. In S.Jager, J. Nerbonne, & A. Van Essen (Eds.), Language Teaching & Language Technology (pp. 82-87). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

  18. References (2) • Jager, S. (2001). From Gap-Filling to Filling the Gap: A Re-Asssessment of Language Engineering in CALL. In A.Chambers & G. D. Davies (Eds.), Information and Communications Technology in language learning: a European perspective (pp. 101-110). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. • Jager, S. (2004). Learning management systems for language learning. In A.Chambers, J. E. Conacher, & J. Littlemore (Eds.), ICT and Language Learning: Integrating Pedagogy and Practice (pp. 33-48). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press. • Jager, S. & Wekker, H. (1997). Aarts and Wekker hologrammed: contrastive grammar in the computer age. In J.Aarts, I. De Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English Language and Teaching - In honour of Flor Aarts (pp. 257-273). Amsterdam: Rodopi. • Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers - Effects on Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476. • Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M.Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Kitade, K. (2000). L2 Learners' Discourse and SLA Theories in CMC: Collaborative Interaction in Internet Chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13, 143-166. • Leahy, C. (2004). Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behaviour. ReCALL, 16, 124. • Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners' communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 16-24. • Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 Oral Proficiency through Synchronous CMC: Output, Working Memory, and Interlanguage Development. CALICO JOURNAL, 20, 7-32.

  19. References (3) • Pellettieri, J. L. (2000a). Why-Talk? Investigating the Role of Task-Based Interaction through Synchronous Network-Based Communication among Classroom Learners of Spanish. DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INTERNATIONAL SECTION A HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 60, 2469. • Pellettieri, J. (2000b). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M.Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-base Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 59-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Pennington, M. C. (1996). The Power of the Computer in Language Education. In M.C.Pennington (Ed.), The Power of CALL (pp. 1-14). Houston, TX: Athelstan. • Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84, 28-37. • Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4, 82-119. • Toyoda, E. & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6, 82-99. • Tudini, V. (2003). Using Native Speakers in Chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 141-159. • Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  20. Websites • Common European Framework of Reference: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/Common_Framework_of_Reference • Digitalenklas: http://www.let.uu.nl/digitalenklas (to be replaced by http://www.ellipsconsortium.nl) • Ellips:http://ellips.let.uu.nl/ (user: owletteren1 [2-3]; pwd: ellips) • Hologram (description): http://www.rug.nl/let/voorzieningen/ictol/projecten/eerdereprojecten/hologram • Webquest University of Tilburg: e.g. http://kubnw8.uvt.nl/dtk/Webquest%204/

More Related