• Save
Social web and language learning
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Social web and language learning

on

  • 6,306 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,306
Views on SlideShare
5,835
Embed Views
471

Actions

Likes
17
Downloads
0
Comments
3

19 Embeds 471

http://edtechizabel.blogspot.mx 199
http://www.tesolmaster.com 119
http://babel20.blogspot.com 44
http://socialweb4learning.tumblr.com 16
http://babel20.blogspot.com.es 13
http://segundoorden.blogspot.com 12
http://edtechizabel.blogspot.com 11
http://elearningxxi.blogspot.com 10
http://elearningxxi.blogspot.com.es 10
http://www.slideshare.net 7
http://digitizationoflife.blogspot.com.ar 7
http://babel20.blogspot.mx 5
http://ele-greifswald.wikispaces.com 5
http://badlychosenshoes.blogspot.com 4
http://1285785339.nvmodules.netvibes.com 3
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 2
http://net-bubble.tumblr.com 2
http://safe.tumblr.com 1
http://babel20.blogspot.com.ar 1
More...

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

Social web and language learning Social web and language learning Presentation Transcript

  • Engaging Second Language Learners through the Social Web Esperanza Román-Mendoza George Mason University eromanme @gmu.edu http://eroman.wordpress.com Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald January 12, 2009
  • Contents
    • Social web
      • Concept and definition
      • Development
      • Services
      • Advantanges and disadvantages as a tool for foreign language teaching.
    • How to integrate the social web in the foreign language learning process
      • Gradual approach
      • “ Best practices” approach
      • Most commonly-used tools
      • Examples and activities
    • Practice
  • Social Web
    • Concept and definition
      • Multiplicity of terms: web 2.0, read-write web, social web, user-generated, live.
      • Variety of definitions:
        • See, for instance, Hinchcliffe, 2005 and MacManus, 2005 for repositories of definitions coined at that time : http://web2.socialcomputingmagazine.com/review_of_the_years_best_web_20_explanations.htm and http ://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_definiti.php
      • Controversy about the concept and the terms.
      • Semantic web.
    • Development
    • Different degrees of integration/usage
  • Source: Galer ía Flickr de Kelly.fitzmorris. http://www.flickr.com/photos/29986400@N05/3002558964/
  • Social Web
    • Publish, share, and update text and audiovisual content almost immediately:
      • Blogs (Blogger, Wordpress)
      • Social networks (Facebook, Myspace, Ning)
      • Social tagging (Delicious)
      • Microblogging (Twitter, Edmodo)
      • Lifestreaming (Friendfeed)
      • Storage and distribution services (YouTube, Flickr, Scribd, Slideshare, Podomatic, Odeo)
      • Feed/news readers (Google Reader, Bloglines)
      • Social personalized start pages (Netvibes, Pageflakes)
      • From any other information available on the web (Snappradio)
  • Social Web
    • Create documents in a collaborative way
      • Wikis (PBwiki, Wikispaces)
      • Concept Maps (CMap Tools, Gliffy)
      • Brainstorming (Wridea)
    • Access and use online applications stored in a server (Google Applications)
    • Take advantage of two or more different technologies to create a new service (Mashups)
  •  
  • Social Web
    • Short life span
    • Relative novelty
    • Free services (to certain degree)
    • Different types of technical support
    • Most tools have been developed in (and for) the English speaking world
    • Great source of realia – Information overload
    • Administrators are usually reluctant to support social web tools
    • Academia’s incursion in students’ “vernacular” reign
    • New opportunities to cooperate and collaborate
    • Classrooms without walls / without time limitations
  • Integration into the Learning Process
    • Web 1.0
      • Instructor selects and publishes information
      • Limited interaction
        • With materials
        • Unidirectional: with the instructor
    • Web 2.0
      • Instructors and students select and publish information
      • Interaction
        • With materials
        • With the instructor
        • Among students
        • With the community
  • Myths
    • All young people:
      • Are digital native.
      • Perfectly know what the social web is and its tools/services.
      • Know how to find information better than adults do.
      • Are the only ones with new habits regarding searching, reading and retrieving information.
      • Learn to use technology by trial and error.
      • Pay more attention to what their peers say than to other sources of knowledge or data.
      • Need to be constantly online.
    Based on Nicholas et al. (2008) and Ofcom (2008)
  • Challenges
      • Those of us striving to integrate participatory media literacy practices into our classes often face resistance.  Other faculty might argue that we are turning away from the foundations of print literacy, or worse, pandering to our tech-obsessed students.  Meanwhile, students might resist too, wondering why they have to learn to use a wiki in an anthropology class.   The surprising-to-most-people-fact is that students would prefer less technology in the classroom (especially *participatory* technologies that force them to do something other than sit back and memorize material for a regurgitation exercise).  We use social media in the classroom not because our students use it, but because we are afraid that social media might be using them - that they are using social media blindly, without recognition of the new challenges and opportunities they might create.
    • Michael Wesch. http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=192
  • Integration into the Learning Process
    • Face-to-face contact in the classroom is very limited.
    • Students’ contributions are stored and can be analyzed later on.
    • Students (and teachers) reinforce their communicative, interpretative and interpersonal skills.
    • Students have more time to reflect on their answers and their peers’.
    • Teachers have more time to reflect on their students’ answers.
    • Students control learning process and become more active. (Harasim)
    • Discusions are more open and less restricted (Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire)
    • Students can participate more equally (Kiesler, Siegel and McGuire)
    • Discussions and activities take place in a more individualized, interpersonal and interactive environment. (Lee)
    • Spatial and temporal limits disappear.
    • Learning is more authentic, continous and integrated within a learning network.
  • Communicative Processes
    • Instructor -> Students
      • Publication and distribution of information (logistics, contents , activities, grades)
    • Students -> Instructors
      • Medium to do excercises (essays, comments to previous entries, memes, etc.)
      • Ask questions
      • Provide content and resources
    • Students <-> Students
      • Personal introductions
      • Peer review
      • Group projects
      • Share resources
    • Instructor <-> Instructor (administrative and academic issues)
      • Exchange of ideas on contents, teaching strategies, instructional technologies, bureaucratic issues and logistics
    • Students -> Community
      • Ask questions, provide information
    • Community - > Students
      • Provide information, provide opportunities for meaningful practice in L2
    • [Instructor <-> Parents]
  • Best practices in e-language learning
    • Productive
    • Informative
    • Collaborative
    • Communicative
    • Aggregrative
      • (Source: PICCA best practices model in e-language learning. Chinnery, 2008)
  • Blogs
    • A web page that consists of (1) a list of entries ordered in reverse chronological order and (2) other types of information related to the blog topic or its author.
    • Synonym of weblog (term coined by Jorn Barger). The term blog was coined by Peter Merholz.
    • Elements: title, content description, entries, links, calendar, archives. Some blogs also contain audiovisual information.
    • Blogs allow immediate publishing of the author’s ideas and the readers’ comments.
    • Most widely known blog services providers: Blogger and Wordpress
  • Wikis
    • Server software that allows users to freely create and edit Web page content using any Web browser.
    • Allows open editing.
    • Old versions are stored and can be easily restored.
    • Supports hyperlinks, file and widget embedding.
    • Simple structure and syntax for creating new pages and changing content.
    • Most widely known example: Wikipedia (which uses Wikimedia as wiki software).
  • Social Tagging
    • Services that allow archiving and tagging of all kinds of web documents.
    • A step beyond “favorites” or “bookmarks” stored in personal computers.
    • Document sharing or private tagging.
    • Comments.
    • Popularity of a particular document on one of this services may be an indicator of its relevance.
    • Example: Delicious
  • Social Personalized Start Pages
    • Through these services, users can create personalized start pages (like MyYahoo or iGoogle) and share them with all the Internet community or with a group of people.
    • Unline social networks, it is not necessary to create a personal profile / provide information about followers and friends.
    • They allow the integration of all kinds of information via content syndication and widgets ( flakes in Pageflakes).
    • Examples: Pageflakes y Netvibes
  • Other Useful Tools
    • Survey creation services (Surveygizmo)
    • Microblogging for education (Edmodo)
    • Text and multimedia repositories with comments and group creation capabilities (Flickr, Scribd, Slideshare)
    • Database creation services (Zohocreator)
    • Timeline creation services (Dipity)
    • Slide shows and animation creation services (Animoto)
    • Resources wiki. Webtools4u2use. http://webtools4u2use.wikispaces.com/Webtools4U2Use
    • Directory of free tools for every learnign problem. http://zaidlearn.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-learning-tool-for-every-learning.html
  • Some Recommendations
    • Identify specific challenges in L2 learning .
    • Integrate technology in a gradual manner.
    • Provide clear and short directions/guidelines.
    • Provide examples of technology use in authentic contexts.
    • Activate mechanisms for selfreflection and feedback throughout the course and/or assignments.
    • Adapt expectations according to students’ performance and response.
    • Motivate students to participate in the development of learning activities.
    • Invite community members to the learning environment.
    • Go beyond the classroom/course limits.
  • References, Sources and Bibliography
    • Godwin-Jones, B. (2003) “Emerging Technologies. Blogs and Wikis: Environments for On-line Collaboration.” Language Learning & Technology, 7( 2), 12-16 . http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/emerging/default.html
    • Harasim, (1990). Online education: Perspectives on a new environment . NewYork: Praeger.
    • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer mediated communications. American Psychologist, 39 , 1123-1134.
    • Lee, L. (1998) Going Beyond Classroom Learning: Acquiring Cultural Knowledge via On-Line Newspapers and Intercultural Exchanges via On-Line Chatrooms. CALICO Journal, 16 , 101-120.
    • Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I. y Huntington, P. (2008). Information behaviour of the researcher of the future. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.pdf .
    • Ofcom (2008). Social Networking. A quantitative and qualitative research report into attitudes, behaviours and use. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/media_literacy/medlitpub/medlitpubrss/socialnetworking/report.pdf
    • Román, E. (2008). Manual del Módulo “Tendencias Actuales del e-learning 2.0. Madrid: UNED. http://www.ciberuniversidad.com/elearning/
    • Rom án-Mendoza, E. (in print). “RSS and Social Personalized Start Pages: Optimizing E-language Learning through Content Syndication, in Anderson, L & Lord, G . Second Generation CALL .
    • Solis, B. & JESS3. The Conversation Prism http://www.flickr.com/photos/briansolis/2735401175/sizes/l/
    • Wesch, M. (2009). Participatory Media Literacy: Why it matters. http://mediatedcultures.net/ksudigg/?p=192
  • Cited Web 2.0 Tools
    • Animoto. http://animoto.com/
    • Blogger. http://blogger.com
    • CMap Tools. http://cmap.ihmc.us/conceptmap.html
    • Delicious. http://delicious.com
    • Dipity. http://www.dipity.com
    • Edmodo. http://edmodo.com
    • Facebook. http://www.facebook.com
    • Flickr. http://www.flickr.com
    • Friendfeed. http://friendfeed.com/
    • Gliffy. http://www.gliffy.com/
    • Google Reader. http://www.google.com/reader
    • iGoogle. http://www.google.com/ig
    • MySpace. http://www.myspace.com/
    • MyYahoo. http://my.yahoo.com/
  • Cited Web 2.0 Tools
    • Netvibes. http://netvibes.com
    • Ning. http://www.ning.com/
    • Odeo. http://odeo.com/
    • Pageflakes. http://pageflakes.com
    • PBWiki. http://pbwiki.com/
    • Podomatic. http://podomatic.com/
    • Scribd. http://scribd.com/
    • Slideshare. http://www.slideshare.net/
    • Snappradio. http://www.snappradio.com/
    • SurveyGizmo. http://surveygizmo.com/
    • Wikipedia. http://wikipedia.org/
    • Wikispaces. http://www.wikispaces.com/
    • Wordpress. http://wordpress.org
    • Wridea. http://wridea.com/
    • YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/
    • Zoho Creator. http://creator.zoho.com