Digital technology for language teaching and learning
Digital technology for Language Teaching and Learning Cecilia Goria23/02/2012
What makes language learning special? Time required on the Type of effort: learning effort: far beyond memorization, repetition, the time of contact hours Different skills involved consolidation, continuous possible in a standard practice etc. language course; Continuous learning in small doses rather than all Context Authentic materials in one go Social interaction Continuous evaluation More?
What are the main difficulties? L1 Language interference barrier Memorizing Consciousness Foreign Can you think Language of others? Anxiety
Main Applications of CALL Word Processing: spelling checkers Practice Gaming Literature: linking literature to Simulations multimedia Corpus Linguistics: concordancer Communication Computer Mediated Communication Web resources Flexibility Adaptation of other materials for CALL Other? Mobile Technology (Beatty 2010)
CALLFirst CALL (1970s to 1980s) based on text because no sound andimage on computers. Mainly drill-and-practice, delivery ofinstructions.Second CALL (1990s to present day) based on multimedia, moreinteresting, richer environment. Still drill-and-practice but moreemphasis on communication.Third CALL: (1993 to present day) = Web CALL, opens up the fieldto a whole new world of resources. However, it remained drill-and-practice (on the Web) for a long time. A proliferation of authoringtools, (eg Hotpotatoes, integrated to VLEs) to create an abundanceof Quizzes such as Multiple Choices, Fill in the Gaps, etc., manyfreely accessible online.Adapted from: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm
Web 2.00Blogs, discussion boards, wikis, socialnetworks, virtual worlds, etc. – allsupported by the increasing number ofmore and more sophisticated desktop andmobile applications.
Web 2.0 contdWeb 2.00 is significant for language learningin providing the context for continuouspractice especially outside the classroom, indeveloping learner autonomy, and especiallyin offering the contextual authenticity thattraditional classrooms do not provide.These features are further enhanced by thefact that the online environment lowersinhibition.
Online DisinhibitionOnline disinhibition (Joinson 1998, 2001)is mainly due to the illusion of anonymityand invisibility given by the possibility tohide behind the monitor and newlycreated online identities.This may lead people to behave in waysthat differ from their normal behaviour inface-to-face (F2F) situations (Suler 2004).
Pedagogy 2.0"a learner-based, communal, media-richand flexible approach [which] uses socialsoftware tools to enable the developmentof dynamic communities throughconnectivity, communication, andparticipation"(McLoughlin and Lee 2008:3)
Creating/Editing/Sharing TextPedagogy 2.0 applications Word clouds Images Digital story telling Podcasts Videos
Blogs • Support reflections, self-regulation,Pedagogy 2.0 spaces self/peer/tutor feedback; • Correction of language mistakes; • Support practice of writing, speaking (if voiced)
Discussion boards • Foster participation, reduction of foreignPedagogy 2.0 spaces language anxiety self/peer/tutor feedback • Correction of language mistakes • Support practice of writing and speaking (if voiced) skills.
Wikis • Foster collaboration, sharing;Pedagogy 2.0 spaces • New knowledge is created through the incongruity between peoples knowledge and the information in the wiki (Moskaliuk et al. 2009).
Social Networks • Support extension of the “community of inquiry”Pedagogy 2.0 spaces (Garrison and Anderson 2003; Burgess et al. 2010) beyond the classroom. Thus foster knowledge sharing; • Social presence (Yamada 2009) Livemocha, Buusu, Facebook (special interest groups), etc. Umbrella term for several types of applications: text based, video based, sound based, images, etc.
Virtual Worlds • Provide contextualized learning, exposure to authentic speech, rich and stimulatingPedagogy 2.0 spaces environment, communities; • Playfulness (e.g. quests); • Social presence (Yamada 2009) enhanced by the graphic self representation (Kostantinidis et al. 2010, Peterson 2006); • Foster identity exploration: individualization (Turkle 1995) and socialization (Taylor 2002)
Avatars Avatars lower inhibitions (Meadow 2008)Pedagogy 2.0 spaces and “facilitate and motivate the interaction among users as well as the user’s engagement with the virtual world” (Talamo and Ligorio 2001:111).
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces Avatars Attractive avatars tend to be more willing to self disclosure, taller avatars are more confident and assertive (Yee et al. 2009).
Avatars People with avatars more attractive than their real selves tend to be moreWeb 2.0 spaces extroverted and more confident in virtual worlds than they are in real life (Messinger et al. 2008).
Games Games: playfulness, motivation, engagement,Pedagogy 2.0 spaces affinity group (Boellstorf 2008, Whitton (2010), language socialization (Thorne S. et al. 2009 and references therein) Use of the language becomes an added activity to gaming (Bryant 2006) Commercial games, commercial game-like packages for language learning, adaptions (WoW)
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces WoW in Education http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ3Zn_VEV20&feature=play er_embedded#!
OERs• Recent development of online education is the spread of OERs (Open Education Resources):• Repositories of study materials, teaching materials, more autoring tools• Toolkits – UoN – an example• Fully fledged courses
MOOCsAre MOOCs good for Language Learning ?Here some thoughts about a LMOOC
Limitations• Technical glitches• IT skills (digital natives vs. digital immigrants (Prensky 2001)) - ????• Distance and isolation (lack of F2F Stodel et al. 2006)• Lack of bodily-presence (Dreyfus 2009) - ???? (Blake 2002)
Teacher’s perspectiveRussell StannardNick PeacheyJosè PicardoEdudemicamong many others
ReferencesBeatty, K. (2012) (2nd ed) Teaching and Researching Computer-Assisted Language Learning. LongmanBlake, N. (2002) Hubert Dreyfus on Distance Education: relays of educational embodiment. Educational Philosophy and Theory 34, 4, pp. 379-385.Boellstorff, T. (2008) Coming of Age in Second Life. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Bryant, T. (2006) Using World of Warcraft and Other MMORPGs to Foster a Targeted, Social, and Cooperative Approach Toward Language Learning.Burgess et al., (2010) Teaching and Learning in Second Life: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate ininstructional technology. Internet and Higher Education 13, pp. 84-88.Cormier, D. and Siemens, G. The Open Course Thorugh the Open Door: Open Courses as Reaserch, Learning and Engagement. EDUCAUSE review,July/August 2010, pp. 31-39.Dreyfus, H. L. (2009) On the internet (2nd ed) London: RoutledgeGarrison D.R. and Anderson T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for Research and Practice. London, Routledge.Joinson, A. N. (1998) Causes and implications of disinhibition on the Internet. In The Psychology of the Internet, Gackenbach, J. (ed.). Academic Press:New York; 43-60.Joinson, A.N. (2001) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal ofSocial Psychology 31, pp. 177-192.Kostantinidis, A. et al. (2010) Fostering collaborative learning in Second Life: Metaphors and affordances, Computers & Education 55, pp. 603-615McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2008) Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software. innovate. 4 (5) June/July 2008.Meadow, M.S. (2008) I, Avatar. The Culture and Consequences of having a Second Life. Berkeley: New Riders.Messinger, P. et al. (2008) On the Relationship between My Avatar and Myself. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1, 2, pp. 1-17.Moskaliuk et al. (2009) Wiki-supported learning and knowledge building: effects of ncopngruity between knowledge and information. Journal ofComputer Assited Language Learning, 25 pp 549- 561.Peterson, M. (2006) Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning 19, 1, pp. 79-103.Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, NCB University Press, 9, 5, pp. 1-6.Stodel, E. et al. (2006). Learners Perspectives on What is Missing from Online Learning: Interpretations through the Community of InquiryFramework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 7, No 3.Suler, J. (2004) The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 7, 3, pp. 321-326.Talamo, A. and Ligorio, B. (2001) Strategic Identities in Cyberspace. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 4, 1, pp. 109-122.Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars, pp. 40-62. London: Springer.Thorne, S. et al. (2009) Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Gaming. The Modern LanguageJournal, 93, Focus Issue, pp. 802-821.Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.Whitton, N. (2010) Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London: Routledge.Yamada, M. (2009) The role of social presence in learner-centered ommunicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediatedcommunication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, pp. 820-833.Yee N., et al.. (2009) The Proteus Effect Implications of Transformed Digital Self-Representation on Online and Offline Behaviour. CommunicationResearch. 36, 2, pp. 285-312.