CAI: the computer enables students to work alone and at their own pace> instruction is mediated through the computerCMC: gives the opportunity for meaningful (contextual) and collaborative native Speakers (NS)–Non Native Speakers (NNS), NNS–NNS interaction, for ex. emails
learners that interrupted their writing to request help, through
field independent (Fl) person tends to approachproblem solving analytically, while a field dependent (FD) persontends to approach problem solving in a more global way.
1. CHAPTER 37: COMPUTER- ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING EVAGGELIA CHARALAMBOUS UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS: MA IN TEFL SPRING SEMESTER 2013 ENG 741 TRENDS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS
2. OUTLINE Introduction: 1. Definitions of CASLA, CALL (*focus) , CALT, CAI, CMC 2. Issues around CALL and its implementation in the language classroom 3. Need for the development of pedagogies and evaluation tools for CALL programs Theory in Instructed SLA and CALL Empirical Research on CALL: 1. Product- oriented 2. Process- oriented Principles for CALL Pedagogy Research: 1. Computer-Assisted Language Learning as a Predictor of Success in Acquiring English as a Second Language 2. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants 3. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently?
3. INTRODUCTION Computer-Assisted Language Leaning (CALL) is “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language teaching and learning” (as cited in Chapelle, 2010, p. 539). Computer-Assisted Second Language Acquisition (CASLA) is the umbrella term for: CALL & Computer-Assisted Language Testing (CALT). Additionally, there are sub-areas for these terms, such as the Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), etc. The main issues in using CALL are the pedagogies that can be applied through technology and their evaluation
4. INTRODUCTION Varieties of technologies available to the language teacher: interactive tutorial programs, webinars, EFL/ESL websites, IWB & IWB software, Web 2.0, electronic communication tools, blogs, platforms, social networks, linguistic aids (programs) which help learners with spelling & grammar, etc. There is a need for development of practices (pedagogy) that will accompany these programs and the evaluation of their success after their implementation in the language classroom.
5. INTRODUCTION Underwood (1984), based on the comprehensible input theory by Krashen (1982), tried to develop pedagogical principles for designing CALL activities. These activities must provide students the exposure to sufficient quantities of comprehensible input. They must also aim at unconscious acquisition and teach grammar implicitly. Today’s language learners interact with computers in a variety of ways: they shop online, they communicate through the use of the internet (facebook, chat rooms), they receive linguistic help from the computer (digital dictionaries, error mark- ups on spelling)→ In order to motivate our students, it is essential to
6. INTRODUCTION In order to integrate computers and technology in general in our classroom, findings from empirical research are necessary. The question is: “How can our understanding of SLA inform the design, use, and evaluation of second language learning activities that make use of technology?” (Chapelle, 2010, p.540)→ Note: teachers can use software specificallydesigned for teaching or commercially availableprograms (Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Outlook, etc.)
7. THEORY IN INSTRUCTEDSLA & CALL1st change in SLA theory: Schmidt (1990), contradicts Underwood (1984), by claiming that conscious acquisition (attention) is necessary for the development of the L2. Noticing is required in all aspects of SLA: lexicon, phonology, morphology, grammar, syntax, pragmatics, etc. The above model reinforces the research findings which demonstrate that exposure to input must be enhanced with the appropriate amount of interaction in L2. The importance of interaction → selection of pedagogical materials → CALL pedagogy (select programs which facilitate interaction with the L2)
8. THEORY IN INSTRUCTEDSLA & CALL2nd change in SLA theory: Introduction of the socially-oriented theoretical perspectives. Sociocultural Theory (SCT) proposes that L2 language development is a part of the learner’s “participation in culturally organized practices, life-long involvement in a variety of institutions, and humans’ ubiquitous use of tools” (as cited in Chapelle, 2010, p.541). Tools in CALL: communication technologies (emails, blogs, wikis, IM, ipods, tablets, etc.) Focus on: why and how certain technologies are chosen by learners and how effective they are in the course of SLA.
9. THEORY IN INSTRUCTEDSLA & CALL3rd change in SLA theory: The cognitive and theoretical perspectives that guide the design and evaluation of learning activities and material in general. These materials can be selected by the teachers based on their learner’s context, the instruction and the contribution of these materials to the learning aims. Technological tools must be informed from these theories in order to achieve the goal of learning a second language
10. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLThe aims of the research are to: Evaluate the effectiveness of instruction which is provided by the computer. Decide how and how much technology should be introduced in the language curriculum. Try to enlighten publishers who wish to develop material which integrate technology, teachers that wish to know how successful is the integration of technology and teacher trainers that promote technology-related pedagogies.→The area of research is divided into product-orientedresearch and process-oriented research.
11. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProduct-Oriented Research The problem is that research is limited to comparisons between computer-assisted and non-computer assisted language instruction. This comparison does not help the field to identify the how, when and why technology can help in the classroom. There is a need to focus on the pedagogies around the implementation of technology in the language curriculum (Dunkel, 1991). The purpose of product-oriented research is to examine whether technology-based tasks increase the learners’ language abilities. The methods of these studies are experimental and quasi-experimental with pre-test and post-test designs.
12. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProduct-Oriented Research Recent research is comparing classes that are teacher-led and hybrid classes → some classes are teacher-led and some are online (Chenoweth & Murday, 2003; Scida & Saury, 2006). However, their results are not generalizable and cannot apply to all educational contexts. The how, when and why technology is effective in language instruction is the main concern of developers of CALL tasks and teacher educators.
13. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProduct-Oriented Research Research around the field found positive results of task features such as:1. Subtitles in an interactive listening task (Borras & Lafayette, 1994)2. Highlighting linguistic form in texts (Doughty, 1991)3. Interactive glosses for learning reading and listening online (Yoshii & Flaitz, 2002)4. Specific error identification and corrective feedback (Nagata, 1993) Product-Oriented Research provides information on the benefits of certain CALL activities.
14. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProduct-Oriented Research CMC tasks that provide student-student interaction have shown positive effects in the consolidation of vocabulary knowledge (De la Fuente, 2003) and improvements in speaking ability (Payne & Whitney, 2002). Types of online communication tasks that focus both on meaning and on form are proven to be effective (Fiori, 2005). Research is focused on whether a type of knowledge that has been taught by using technology, is actually learned by students → whether students are able to learn through technology and if technology is a better
15. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research Process-Oriented Research investigates the extend to which learners:1. Engage in interactions expected to prompts noticing2. Produce language providing evidence for development3. Expand their access to and engagement with the target language and culture It examines the interactions, discourse and other aspects of learners performance and the dynamic contexts of CALL use (Chapelle, 2010, p.543).
16. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research Aims & Focus: Understand the use of CALL by examining what learners do and focus on the interactions of students with the computer, the other students and their interlocutors in CMC. The question for examining these interactions is to determine how frequent they are and how successful they can be in the language learning process → These interactions are beneficial for learners because they pay attention to linguistic form, engage in interactional modifications and correct errors in their linguistic output. These kinds of reflective communication and
17. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research In computer-learner interactions, internal modifications occur when the learner interrupts his language processing to request for help → for ex. when the learners read a text on the screen and they click on a word to receive its definition (Chun & Plass, 1996). Bland, Noblitt, Armington & Gay (1990) examined System-D, a software that enables learners to get support on the vocabulary and grammar of French while they are writing. Error-correction tools provide error mark-up, spelling help and online dictionaries & texts available on the Internet can provide examples (sample essays) of idiomatic phrases for high proficient learners.
18. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research Error correction (modify an unsuccessful attempt to express something) in CMC tasks can occur through: 1. feedback from the computer 2. learner’s own reflection on their linguistic output or peer correction. Another focus of process-oriented research: Discourse used when learners are in front of a computer doing collaborative work and on the discourse of CMC .→ Language-for-doing: language for makingdecisions, initiate moves and react to the action that thecomputer program takes.
19. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research Chun (1994) conducted a study to identify the discourse moves that learners of German used in synchronous interactive written communication: It “takes place like a conversation. If your class uses only writing-based tools to communicate, the only synchronous communication possible is a chat session. Everyone gets online in the same chat room and types questions, comments, and responses in real time. Synchronous activities may include chat sessions, whiteboard drawings, and other group interactive work. If your class involves multimedia tools, synchronous communication might involve audio or video feeds to the computer…by conference call, or through closed-circuit television links”. (http://academictech.doit.wisc.edu/ideas/otr/communicati on/asynchronous-synchronous)
20. EMPIRICAL RESEARCHON CALLProcess-Oriented Research Kern (1995) examined the discourse of students in a computer-assisted classroom discussion and found that learners are involved in meaning-focused language at their level. Warschauer (1995/6) found that in CMC tasks the level of participation of learners was more even than the traditional classroom.→ It is important that the technology chosen to beused in the classroom includes “contextual affordancesand constraints that affect learning” (Chapelle, 2010,p.545).
21. EMPIRICAL RESEARCHON CALLProcess-Oriented Research Based on the sociocultural theory, research on CALL should consider the dynamic communication among learners, the teacher, the language, the technology, the institution affected by the cultural and power relations. Belz (2001) demonstrated that the institutional and cultural factors affected their communication with their keypals: a person with whom one becomes friendly by exchanging emails; an email penfriend (oxforddictionaries.com) Thorne (2003) demostrated that the learner’s prior experience with technology influenced their choices in
22. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ONCALLProcess-Oriented Research Technology in the language classroom offers learner’s the opportunity for cultural contact and enhances their intercultural competence. The focus of research is to raise our awareness and lead to the improvement of practices in software development and technology use in the classroom. However, it is important to educate learners on how to utilize and extend classroom practices (learn strategies) outside of the classroom context. “…how learning can be improved in and out of the class through technology?” (Chapelle, 2010. p. 546).
23. PRINCIPLES FOR CALL PEDAGOGY CALL pedagogies must be informed by the research on SLA and technology, the technologies that are available to the learners and successful teaching strategies in implementing technology in the classroom. Learning materials that involve technology should give learners the potential of learning the language: 1. direct learner’s attention to linguistic forms 2. help them with comprehension and production 3. error-correction opportunities. Technological learning materials should also be at the students’ level, appropriate for their age and interests and meaning-focused. Tasks that involve technology should have a positive impact on the learners: 1. enhance their intercultural
24. PRINCIPLES FOR CALLPEDAGOGY CMC and computer-learner interaction provide opportunities for learner’s to develop and enhance their vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, listening, speaking, communication and content-based skills (Chapelle & Jamieson, 2008).→ communication skills (focus on the language): face-to-face conversation, synchronous interactive writtencommunication (learners have more time to reflect on theirlanguage use).→ reading: electronic texts & reading comprehension.→ listening: aural input enhanced with subtitles or focuson specific aspect of the language
25. CALL AS A PREDICTOR OFSUCCESS IN ENGLISH AS ASECOND LANGUAGE Purpose of the study by Chapelle & Jamieson (1986): to examine the effectiveness of CALL in the acquisition of English as a Second Language. Participants: Arabic and Spanish-speaking students (N=48) enrolled in an intensive program offered by the University of Illinois. Their proficiency in English was measured by their TOEFL results. ESL PLATO courseware was the curriculum that involved CALL: focus on grammar, reading and listening. Variables: Cognitive affective characteristics such as Field Independence and Dependence (FI/D), time spend using CALL (PLATO) and learner’s attitudes towards
26. CALL AS A PREDICTOR OFSUCCESS IN ENGLISH AS ASECOND LANGUAGE Results: 1. FI students did not like CALL lessons on PLATO, possibly because their learning style does not match the software → accommodate the needs FI students by finding out which kind of instruction and the lesson they benefit from → importance of matching CALL activities with their learning/cognitive style 2. Time spend on CALL activities and learners’ attitudes are related to FI and how motivated they were. Software developers and teachers should take into account learner and context variables when designing or using CALL in the language classroom.
27. DIGITAL NATIVES VS.DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS Prenksy (2001) discusses the issue of radical change in education: “Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach” (p.1). Singularity: technology’s advances are a break in history → we cannot revert back to how we were without the technology, but what we have to embrace the fact that our students have changed in a way that traditional instruction cannot teach them. Digital Natives: this generation of students who were exposed to technology really early on in their lives. Digital Immigrants: the generation that was exposed to technology at a later stage of their lives.
28. DIGITAL NATIVES VS.DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS Characteristics of today’s learners: they multi-task, prefer instant gratification, like games and rewards, they are audiovisual types and they are constantly networked. Changes that are necessary in order to help these natives acquire a language: in the content and the teaching methodology. Include more games in our classroom, adapt textbook materials and worksheets (digitalize them), include audiovisual stimuli, interactive books, interactive whiteboards, ebooks, tablets, laptops, blogs, pods, etc. Edutainment: entertainment and education combined.
29. DIGITAL NATIVES VS.DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS:PART II Children of today spend most of their time playing videogames, socializing, watching TV… The way today’s learner think is different because it is influenced by the culture they experience and the input they receive. Children cannot follow the traditional way of learning as it does not accommodate their needs and that is why they have shorter attention spans→ they need stimulation and interactivity. Digital Game-Based Learning: Gamification → cutting edge technique of using educational games to produce and demonstrate knowledge.
30. DIGITAL NATIVES VS.DIGITAL IMMIGRANTS:PART IIGamificationhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2N-5maKZ9Q
31. CONCLUSIONS &PEDAGOGICALIMPLICATIONS Innovative learning environment that offers benefits to both learners and teachers and improves the language learning experience. Teachers need to acquire a new set of skills and develop new teaching strategies that will facilitate the use of technology in the classroom. They also need to be selective and evaluate the materials that are using so as for learners to succeed in and out of the classroom (Hauck & Stickler, 2006). Pedagogies around CALL will keep changing, as new technologies are developed. Learners’ language use and knowledge and strategies will be improved so as to help them deal with the modern technological word.
32. REFERENCES Chapelle, C. A. (2010). Computer-Assisted Language Learning. In R.B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp.539-547). New York: Oxford University Press Chapelle, C. A. & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-Assisted Language Learning as a Predictor of Success in Acquiring English as a Second Language, TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 27-46. Prensky M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently?. On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20- %20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part2.pdf Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/prensky%20- %20digital%20natives,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf