computer assisted language learning changing perspectives changing uses l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 20

Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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

  • Introduction
  • Research domain
  • Model for technology implementation
  • Hologram
  • Current perspective
  • CALL implementations and projects
  • 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
research domain
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
key components technology enhanced learning





Key components technology-enhanced learning

Based on Collis & Moonen (2001)

  • 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
hologram implementation
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
acceptance of technology
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)
4 e model
4-E Model

Environmental vector 1





Ease of use


3-E Vector sum

current perspective
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
current call implementations
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
current projects
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.
    • Interesting new possibilities
      • Horizon Wimba (spoken communication in Blackboard)
    • Continued demand for tutorial-like applications
      • Ellips consortium
current perspective cont d
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
challenges for implementation
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
references 1
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.
references 2
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.
references 3
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.
  • Common European Framework of Reference:
  • Digitalenklas: (to be replaced by
  • Ellips: (user: owletteren1 [2-3]; pwd: ellips)
  • Hologram (description):
  • Webquest University of Tilburg: e.g.