• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Powerpoint Intro
 

Powerpoint Intro

on

  • 2,258 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,258
Views on SlideShare
2,221
Embed Views
37

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0

3 Embeds 37

http://cmediatedc.wikispaces.com 27
https://cmediatedc.wikispaces.com 7
http://www.slideshare.net 3

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Powerpoint Intro Powerpoint Intro Presentation Transcript

    • Computer-Mediated Communication and Language Learning: From Theory to Practice Randall Sadler, UIUC & Betil Eröz, METU
    • What is CMC?
      • CALL  self-contained, programmed applications (e.g., tutorials, drill, simulations, instructional games, standardized tests, such as TOEFL, TSE)
      • CMC/ NBLT  a different kind of CALL
        • computers connected in local or global networks
        • human-to-human communication is the focus (K&W:1)
      • A Sociocognitive Approach to CALL— S hifts from learners' interaction with computers to learner’s interaction with other humans via the computer (K & W:1 1 )
        • computer as tutor  computer as tool (C rook , 1994)
    • CMC and Learning Theory
      • Vygotsky (1934) claimed that all human learning, including language learning, is attained through interaction with other people.
        • Zone of Proximal Development— learners will benefit most from social interaction when the tasks they are engaged in cannot be accomplished alone, but, instead, must be achieved collaboratively, preferably with the aid of more knowledgeable teammates
    • CMC and Learning Theory (cont.)
      • Language is a socially constructed phenomenon (Hymes, 1971)
      • Communicative Competence
      • “…there are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless” (Hymes, 1971, p. 10).
    • Why CMC? Theory to Practice
      • extends interaction possibilities beyond classroom walls; time constraints; and the usual limited type of interlocutors of classroom pair and group work (B elcher,99 )
      • Allows learners to engage in “playful” interaction (Belz & Reinhardt, 2004)
      • enhances opportunities and motivation for authentic interaction and meaning negotiation (Kern, 1995)
      • reduces anxiety and produces more talk (Fanderclai, 1995; Harris, 1995; Kern, 1992; Reid, 1994)
      • improves linguistic proficiency and increases self-confidence (Beauvois & Eledge, 1996; Gebhard & Nagamine, 2005).
    • Procedure—Tools Explored
      • Asynchronous
      • Email
      • Message Boards
      • Wikis
      • Blogs
      • Synchronous
      • Text chat
      • Audio Telephony
      • MUDs, MOOs, WOOs
      • Video/ teleconferencing
      AND what are these things???
    • Message Board www.eslweb.org/cmcforum/
    • Blogs: Student Blog for a Course
    • W I K Is www. wikipedia.org
    • Lingua MOO: Sadler’s Shack
    • WOOs: Active Worlds
    • Audio telephony : Skype
    • Video Conferencing MSN Messenger
    • Advantages of using CMC in ELT
      • Opportunity to meet people from other cultures who are located thousands of miles away
      • Real and authentic communication in English (especially for NNSs)
      • First-hand and hands on experience with the technology they could use in their own classroom (trail and error, warm-up before using with their Ss)
      • Chance to have discussions and see different perspectives on the uses and applications of CMC in pedagogical contexts
    • Student responses to using CMC tools in ELT
      • As a teacher, I think having students use a MOO in the way we did could be very beneficial. Students can 1) meet people from across the globe while 2) still accomplishing something important 3) in real time . Without MOOs, you could certainly meet people from other countries online, but usually just for fun things. In class, you can accomplish something important, but only with people in the same geographical space. With discussion boards, you can accomplish important things with people from other countries, but not in real time! (Errol, M, U.S.)
      • Each time I read the articles assigned for the weeks and the suggestions provided by the members of this forum, I feel more happy to take such a course which helps me to get more acquainted with the limitless facilities of virtual world. (Elcin, F, TR)
    • Student responses to using CMC tools in ELT
      • As language teachers, we can use MOOs to be able to help our students out of the class. We create a virtual world on the web and register all our students. In this world, we can add a virtual library, some information of useful links, some sample term projects, assignments, visual and audial elements,  etc. or anything that we cannot include in a traditional classroom. (Banu, F, TR)
      • … Moo chatting is better than regular chatting room in that it's more teacher-controlled. I think msn or yahoo has the similiar function, but it will be harder for the teacher to monitor several groups at the same time. (Penny, F, China )
    • Potential Disadvantages
      • Message l ag time in emails
      • Technical Issues
      • Busy Schedules
      • Conflicting time zones
      • Semester schedule conflicts
      • Waning enthusiasm or no enthusiasm to begin with!
    • Pedagogical Implications
      • Collaborative projects must activate and integrate prior ICT knowledge.
      • Tasks must have a concrete framework, with a clear purpose .
      • Tasks must be motivating and engaging .
      • Task instructions should be available to all students in various formats .
      • Cultural aspects of communication should be discussed .
      • Provide students with a “collaboration contract.”
      • Collaborative projects should include “getting to know each other” time .
      • Teachers should be actively involved and give regular feedback in order to maintain student motivation.
      • Comments ?
      • Questions?
      • This presentation is available at:
      • http://www.eslweb.org
    • Some useful CMC Resources
      • Message Boards
        • Simple Machines
        • PhpBB
      • Blogs
        • Blogger
        • Xanga
        • Wordpress
      • Wikis
        • Wikipedia
        • Wikimedia software
        • Pbwiki
      • MOOs and WOOs
        • Lingua MOO
        • Active Worlds
    • More Resources—Audio/Video
      • Audio/Video
      • VOIP Buster
      • Skype
      • MSN Messenger
      • Ivisit
      • Paltalk
      • Language Exchange Sites
      • http:// www.xlingo.com
      • http:// www.sharedtalk.com
      • http://www.zuiop.com
      • http:// www.friendsabroad.com
      • http:// www.eslbase.com /language-exchange/
      • http:// www.atisba.com
      • http:// www.exchangelanguage.com
      • http:// www.flale.com
      • http:// www.inlinguapenpals.com
      • http:// www.languagebuddy.com
      • http:// www.lingup.com
      • http:// www.phrasebase.com
      • http:// www.languagepenpals.com
      • http:// www.tandemcity.com
    • Selected Research from the field
      • Bays, H. (1998). Framing and face in internet exchanges: A socio-cognitive approach. Linguistik Online, 1 .
      • Bearden, R. J. (2003). Chatting in a foreign language: An interactional study of oral vs. Computer-assisted discussion in native speaker and non-native learner dyads. THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN.
      • Beauvois, M. H., & Eledge, J. (1995 Winter & 1996 Spring). Personality types and megabytes: Student attitudes toward computer mediated communication (cmc) in the language classroom. CALICO journal, 13 (2&3), 27-45.
      • Belz, J. A. (2002). Social dimensions of telecollaborative foreign language study. Language learning & Technology, 6 (1), 60-81.
      • Belz, J. A. (2005). At the intersection of telecollaboration and learner corpus research: Considerations for language program direction. In J. A. Belz & S. L. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education . Boston, MA: Heinle& Heinle.
      • Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2003). Asynchronous discussion groups in teacher training classes: Perceptions of native and non-native students. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3), 24-46.
      • Blake, R. (2001). What language professionals need to know about technology. ADFL Bulletin, 32 (3), 93-99.
      • Bloch, J. (2004). Second language cyber rhetoric: A study of chinese l2 writers in an online usenet group. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (3), 66-82.
      • Carney, N. (2005). A critical review of telecollaborative projects involving japan. The Pennsylvania State University.
      • Chapelle, C. A. (2004). Learning through onilne communication: Findings and implications from second language research. DRAFT .
      • Chen, Y. H. (2005). Computer mediated communication: The use of cmc to develop efl learners; communicative competence. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (1).
      • Crook, C. (1994). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
      • Cziko, G. A., & Park, S. (2003). Internet audio communication for second language learning: A comparative review of six programs. Language learning & Technology, 7 (1), 15-27.
    • Selected Research from the field (cont.)
      • Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). Call environments: Research, practice, and critical issues . Alexandria, Viginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
      • Gebhard, J. G., & Nagamine, T. (2005). A mutual learning experience: Collaborative journaling between a nonnative-speaker intern and native-speaker cooperating-teacher. Asian EFL Journal, 7 (2).
      • Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Emerging technologies tools for distance education: Toward convergence and integration. Language learning & Technology, 7 (3), 18-22.
      • Hampel, R. (2002). Network-based language teaching today: Multimodality, multi-dimensionality and interaction. Paper presented at the the International conference on Computers in Education (ICCE).
      • Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2004). Towards an effective use of audio conferencing in distance language courses. Language learning & Technology, 8 (1), 66-82.
      • Kelm, O. R. (1996). The application of computer networking in foreign language education: Focusing on principles of second language acquisition. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 19-28): University of Hawaii Press.
      • Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Intoduction: Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Networked-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
      • Kung, S.C. (2002). Synchronous electronic discussions in an EFL reading class.
      • Lee, B. C. (2004). Korean efl inservice teachers' experiences with native-speaking teachers of efl using two computer-mediated communication modes: A qualitative case study. University of Alberta.
      • Liu, Y. (2002). What does research say about the nature of computer-mediated communication: Task-oriented, social-emotion-oriented, or both? Electronic Journal of Sociology .
      • Murray, D. E. (2000). Protean communication: The language of computer-mediated communication. TESOL QUARTERLY, 34 (3), 397-421.
      • O'Dowd, R. (2004). Network-based language teaching and the development of intercultural communicative competence. University Duisburg-Essen.
      • Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of cmc technologies and their impact on language learners' online interaction. Computer in Human Behavior, 19 (6), 703-729.
      • Warschauer, M. (2000). On-line learning in second language classrooms: An ethnographic study. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 41-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
      • Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking tje digital divide . London, England: The MIT press.