On the Internet
Hungarian University Students' Blogs in EFL:
Shaping Language and Social Connections
József Horváth
University of Pécs, Hungary

Abstract

Blogging has by now well established itself in the popular media and particularly in education. In the latter context, creating, reading and commenting on blogs provide interaction with a real audience and promote students' self-expression. Interested in exploiting its potential in peer-to-peer EFL writing pedagogy at university, I started applying the blog as a medium and tool in a Hungarian B.A. program in EFL in 2006. Since then, over one hundred students have participated in blog projects over the past five semesters. In the present article, I focus on the linguistic and social benefits to students in the Fall 2008 semester from the activity of sharing their ideas and providing regular peer feedback on them.

The Course

EFL reading and writing skills (RWS) courses are a basic component of all B.A. programs in FL education in Hungary. At the University of Pécs, the second largest university in the country, this is a two-semester course usually taken in the first year of study. Because opportunities for continuing their studies at the M.A. level are rather limited, it is a crucial aspect at the launch of these programs nationwide that they equip students with practical skills at the undergraduate level.

In my courses in the past five semesters, I have aimed to make both the reading and writing activities relevant to the students by ensuring that some of the reading material was student-produced; hence their use of blogging as a tool for learning. To create an easy-to-reach hub for information related to the course (such as tasks, tips and reminders), and to provide a central area to store all student blog links, I set up my own blog, Take Off: Tips and Tasks for Readers and Writers .

In my teaching practice, I have aimed to incorporate those elements of process writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Horváth, 2001) that have been shown to contribute to both linguistic and social gains in the long term. A focus on the positive, on the message, rather than the form, and the involvement of not only the individual writer but of groups of peers have proven to be effective techniques. From this point of view, blogging can be seen as a form of process writing taken to the next level. It is not only a teacher or a even a limited number of people who may have an effect on the development of the target skills, but the participation of a full group of students, each of whom has a stake in each other's cooperation. The more involved they all are in creating entries and commenting on them, the more likely it is that this engagement establishes a viable learning environment (Godwin-Jones, 2003).

In the Fall 2008 semester, twenty-one students took the RWS course, which ran from September 9 to December 9, for a total of thirteen weeks. Of these students, the majority, eighteen, chose online blogging, with three students opting to show their weekly or bi-weekly printed posts only to me. In what follows I will give an account of the eighteen online blogs -- twelve by female, and six by male, students.

Blogger is among the most popular, easy-to-use blog hosting sites. This site packs dozens of plug-ins that students enjoy browsing and adding to their pages. Although I have always made it clear that the main purpose is to produce text, it is understood that creating blogs that students find have just the right design for them is further motivating, as in the case shown in Figure 1 with the photo sharing plug-in used in one of the students' blogs .)

Figure 1: Photo plug-in on a blog

The students' own illustrations and photographs were often incorporated within the posts themselves; for example, with the snapshots taken at the Coldplay concert last year in Budapest on another of the students' blogs (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Student's concert photos as part of a blog entry

As a rule, I advise against the use in these blogs of pictures pasted from elsewhere on the Net as I aim to assist the students in providing their own materials. In the past several semesters this attitude appears to have worked. By the end of the course in question, there was much less reliance on non-original matter. This is an important outcome as copy-pasting can create confusion over what is truly original material and what has been replicated by clipping items from the Net for use in one's own blog post.

After all of these considerations, how does one go about evaluating work in a genre as personal as the blog? From the beginning, I have assumed that blogging is best done as a cooperative effort. Together with the first two groups in 2006 where blogging was a major component of the RWS course, the students and the teacher agreed on a set of ten criteria for the evaluation of the blogs. Over the past two years, the criteria and the marking have been revised. The wording of the most recent version is given here (and more information on the individual components can be found on the Take Off blog, including the interpretation and relevance of friendly blog entries ).

1. Blog started by the time specified
2. Regular posts (one or more every second week)
3. Friendly posts
4. Regular comments on other students' blogs (one or more every week)
5. Spell-checked posts (no spelling and typing errors at all)
6. Fluent writing (coherent paragraphs, appropriate vocabulary)
7. Accurate writing (no major grammar slips)
8. Interesting posts (themes blogger enjoys writing about)
9. Customized blog
10. Individual option: (different from student to student)

Students were asked to tick those criteria that they thought applied to their work. For the individual option (number 10 in the list of criteria) each student needed to tell me ahead of time what else they thought should be considered as a quality in evaluating their blogs. Everyone was free to define that tenth assessment criterion. For this individual option, some students chose a quantitative, some a qualitative notion. For example, for students who wrote more regularly than others, this option was a higher than average number of blog entries. Qualitative criteria for the individual option included the depth of ideas, a specific theme that a student covered in an entry, and whether a student was able to apply, in their blog entries, various stylistic tips (such as the preference of the active to the passive voice and the omission of needless words--qualities of good writing that appeared in one of the course readings, Strunk and White's Elements of Style).

This scheme was used by each student and me – the final score determined by simply adding up the score from the student's self-evaluation and that from my own assessment, using the same ten criteria. The blog (whether online or offline) counted as 30 percent of the final grade, with class participation, two reading and vocabulary tests, and a special project making up the remaining 70%. I considered it crucial to involve bloggers in the process of evaluation, as this was yet another factor in the development of learner independence and autonomy, which should always be an aim when sustainable skills are being practiced. As Stevens points out, "teachers who practice autonomy in their own professional development formulate heuristics for harvesting knowledge within their personal learning spaces, and thus stand a better chance of inculcating the desired behaviors in their students" (2007, p. 28). I believe such a stance was inherent in both my own blog and the way the RWS course aimed to encourage such a personal learning space. As for the feedback that students provide on each others' work and progress, this is another major component of the autonomy engendered (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006).
The Linguistic and Social Gains: The Comments

As we have seen, online blogging was an option in the course, rather than an obligation. Eighteen students chose to participate, and with one exception, they not only posted entries (some more, some less regularly), but also shared comments on their peers' work. It is these remaining seventeen students' commentary that I will now examine in order to highlight the benefits afforded them in terms of language and community.

The 17 students made a total of 165 comments in the period under study. As one criterion was the regularity of comments, I kept tabs on this throughout the semester. On average, roughly ten comments were posted by each blogger. To be included in the tally, the comments had to be substantive. I did not count extremely short posts such as Yes, you're right and comments saying thank you for comments.

Although on the agreed upon date, the count had to stop, there was a most welcome occurrence. Many students continued both to post to their blogs and to share comments even after the official period was over.

For the most part members of this group engaged in a wide variety of commenting activity. The majority wrote weekly or bi-weekly, starting in mid-October and keeping it up till late November or early December. With more and more students registering and starting to post to their blogs, they saw evidence that their ideas and opinions, their questions and problems, their serious and humorous posts were being attended to. Thus the cycle of regular posting and commenting became a routine that many seemed to enjoy.

The majority of the comments were posted in October and November. When taking a closer look at the pattern of comments, after the initial slow traffic in early October, it can be observed that students increasingly took a liking to expressing their opinions about their peers' posts. On the other hand, in one extreme case, a student posted all her comments, seven, on one single day, which, naturally, could not be regarded as regular activity.

Some of these posts and comments were produced during class. Students were encouraged to bring printouts of blog posts to class, and these were first discussed in pairs or small groups, which was often followed up by students starting to draft a new entry or a new comment to be published online later. The quantity of language produced on these occasions was impressive indeed. What with the growing reluctance of many young people today to engage in time-consuming reading activities whose relevance to their own cultures and interests is not always immediately clear, the volume of language, both read and written in the posts and comments, provided some evidence that motivation was being maintained and in some cases even raised. (In Hungary, this is especially relevant as university students not infrequently come from high schools where commonly employed EFL writing activities rarely exploit the potential in creative expression—see, for example, Nikolov, 1999.)

A closer analysis of one student's case will perhaps highlight the importance of this issue even further. One student posted three rather interesting and detailed reports of various past school events. In terms of regularity of posting, his case can be considered below average. However, when it came to commenting, that is, reading other students' posts and reflecting on them and then sharing his own perspectives, he displayed the highest level of motivation. He wrote a total of twenty-nine comments, never more than a week apart.

Although this prolific commentator was exceptional, the entire blogging group made great strides in their fairly balanced posting and commenting. The network they developed in doing so fostered in them a growing awareness of context, of audience, and of options for further development. Each and every student tried to share mostly encouraging messages by focusing on what was commendable – but of course, such was not (and should not) be the only approach to commentary. In fact, I greatly enjoyed the somewhat heated debates that a few posts ignited.

When we take a look at the form of these comments, three categories are apparent.

(1) By far the most frequent comments were those that reformulated an idea in the original post and added a personal angle to it. Focusing on the content and perceived essence of the original entry and sharing a response to it showed how the students were becoming more and more aware of each other's interests, backgrounds, opinions, and language skills. Representative comments from this type include the following:

Comment 1: When I got about at the half of this post (which seemed a pile of . . . at that time) I was just about to quit reading. (Sorry, Chris.) But for some reason -perhaps for the freedom of will- I went on reading, and at the end I had to make an acknowledgement. You have a point. Congratulations! You made me thinking of it (certainly not about the chicken and the egg), and by this fact your theory proved to be correct. If I had decided not to finish reading, probably I wouldn't have had a reason for writing this comment. (Of which I ought to write more and more as we only have a few days till blog evaluation.)

Comment 2: I imagine 'predestination' in another way. Let me share with you my thoughts. 8-) In My Opinion there are more ways of life, from which we can choose. Every way has a determined ending (so it's predestination), but you have to choose from them (it's your free will). In my way of thinking these two things (free will and predestination) can exist together, in perfect harmony.

Comment 3: I often do that too on buses, watching people. But I don't like aggressive old ladies, sometimes they can be very frightening :)

(2) There were frequent evaluative, mostly positive, comments as well, which mainly served to maintain the connection between reader and writer. They often resulted in response from the original poster, again re-enforcing the language and social gains the blog framework aimed to help bring out:

Comment 4: It's not an average short story, and I like it very much:) Will it be the entry of the week?? I think it will be...:)

Comment 5: Szoszo, it was hilarious! :D Really-really great! hehe . . . :D

Comment 6: The story wasn't really catchy for my taste, but the text was eloquent with nice metaphors.

Comment 7: I would be glad if you summarized your teaching experience in a post. I'm quite interested in it (and I think it's a good topic). Thanks in advance.

Comment 8: You are a strong boy, never give up. This story is really touching. Take care.

(3) The third type of comment was where the comments formed threads, with students responding to each other's comments to one another. Usually, these were the exchanges that involved the most heated debates. The most interesting such debate was triggered by a student's post about pulp fiction, popular TV series like Sex and the City, and fine literature. According to the original entry, one should avoid consuming too much popular culture as it may be as addictive as drugs. The post attracted eleven comments, the majority written by two students who held opposing views on the issue. Others joined in too, and I also succumbed to an urge to share my two cents' worth by saying that it was normal for everyone to form their own attitudes and opinions. A sample of how the students argued:

Comment 9: I would have to argue with that. Sex And The City is a book adaptation. It isn't even pulp fiction. It's a piece of literature of our time.

Comment 10: First of all Sex and the city is not the part of fine literature. It is a perfect specimen of mass-literature or "consumer-literature". Secondly, there we cannot talk about "big-hits" in the reform age. There was no consumer society, not even citizen-society, no free-market economy, in this time fine-literature was the only literature.

Comment 11: Everybody needs to kick back and let some steam out sometimes. Because let's not forget that in the end we are talking about a COMEDY and a very good one at that.

Finally, at the end of the course, I asked my students to share their comments with me. In this anonymous feedback, I invited them to complete the phrase "In this course..." Several students reflected in their response on the blog and the comments:

Student 1: . . . I had the special opportunity to learn how to share my deepest thoughts, fears and feelings with my faithful readers, meet nice, new people who have wonderful personality.

Student 2: . . . I didn't feel pressured at all, I felt like I was doing something very enjoyable and that made progress a lot easier.

Student 3: . . . I had the opportunity to improve my reading and writing skills in English by doing creative work, reading and commenting on others' blogs.

Student 4: . . . I've become a much more fluent reader. I've learned to evaluate blogs and have become a much better thinker than I was before. I've learned to take full responsibility for what I write and to feel free to show the "world" who I am and what I believe in.

Conclusion

For university courses devoted to the development of reading and writing skills in foreign languages, the blog approach has been shown to contribute to both stronger community bonding and to greater individual autonomy. In my own context, the B.A. courses in RWS have provided an opportunity to test the viability of relying on student initiative in fostering a discourse community. It stands to reason that the students could have made linguistic and social gains through other channels, too. One should never fail to notice individual differences in this respect. In fact, the ones who opted to participate through offline blogging (the three students who printed their news, reviews, and reflections only for me) also managed to pass the course with fairly good results. What they missed, however, was the regular participation in a network of communication that was open, welcoming and stimulating. As we continue to explore the benefits blog creation offers in FL writing pedagogy, we will no doubt find many examples we can adopt and adapt. It is my hope that the present paper has managed to contribute to this ongoing conversation.
References

Godwin-Jones, R. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environments for on-line collaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (2), 12-16.

Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London: Longman.

Horváth, J. (2001). Advanced writing in English as a foreign language: A corpus-based study of processes and products. Pécs: Lingua Franca Csoport.

Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.

Nikolov, M. (1999). Classroom observation project. In H. Fekete, É. Major & M. Nikolov (Eds.), English language education in Hungary: A baseline study (pp. 221-246). Budapest: British Council.

Stevens, V. (2007). The multiliterate autonomous learner: Teacher attitudes and the inculcation of strategies for lifelong learning. IATEFL Learner Autonomy SIG Newsletter, Winter, 27-29.

Strunk, W., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Comment/view comments on this article. There are currently 0 comments.
© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately.

Editor's Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.

Computer-Assisted Language Learning:
An Introduction� http://www.gse.uci.edu/faculty/markw/call.html

by Mark Warschauer

Until quite recently, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) wasa topic of relevance mostly to those with a special interest in that area.Recently, though, computers have become so widespread in schools and homesand their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of languageteachers must now begin to think about the implications of computers forlanguage learning.

This article provides brief overview of how computers have beenused and are being used for language teaching. It focuses not on a technicaldescription of hardware and software, but rather on the pedagogical questionsthat teachers have considered in using computers in the classroom. Forthose who want more detailed information on particular applications, atypology of CALL programs (Appendix A) and a list of furtherCALL resources (Appendix B) is included at the end.
Three Phases of CALL

Though CALL has developed gradually over the last 30 years, this developmentcan be categorized in terms of three somewhat distinct phases which I willrefer to as behavioristic CALL, communicative CALL, andintegrativeCALL (cf. Barson & Debski, in press). As we will see, the introductionof a new phase does not necessarily entail rejecting the programs and methodsof a previous phase; rather the old is subsumed within the new. In addition,the phases do not gain prominence one fell swoop, but, like all innovations,gain acceptance slowly and unevenly.
Behavioristic CALL

The first phase of CALL, conceived in the 1950s and implemented in the1960s and '70s, was based on the then-dominant behaviorist theories oflearning. Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills andcan be referred to as "drill and practice" (or, more pejoratively, as "drilland kill").

Drill and practice courseware is based on the model of computeras tutor(Taylor, 1980). In other words the computer serves as a vehiclefor delivering instructional materials to the student. The rationale behinddrill and practice was not totally spurious, which explains in part thefact that CALL drills are still used today. Briefly put, that rationaleis as follows:

* Repeated exposure to the same material is beneficial or evenessential to learning

* A computer is ideal for carrying out repeated drills, sincethe machine does not get bored with presenting the same material and sinceit can provide immediate non-judgmental feedback

* A computer can present such material on an individualized basis,allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class timefor other activities

Based on these notions, a number of CALL tutoring systems weredeveloped for the mainframe computers which were used at that time. Oneof the most sophisticated of these was the PLATO system, which ran on itsown special PLATO hardware, including central computers and terminals.The PLATO system included vocabulary drills, brief grammar explanationsand drills, and translations tests at various intervals (Ahmad, Corbett,Rogers, & Sussex, 1985).

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, behavioristic CALL was underminedby two important factors. First, behavioristic approaches to language learninghad been rejected at both the theoretical and the pedagogical level. Secondly,the introduction of the microcomputer allowed a whole new range of possibilities.The stage was set for a new phase of CALL.
Communicative CALL

The second phase of CALL was based on the communicative approach to teachingwhich became prominent in the 1970s and 80s. Proponents of this approachfelt that the drill and practice programs of the previous decade did notallow enough authentic communication to be of much value.

One of the main advocates of this new approach was John Underwood,who in 1984 proposed a series of "Premises for 'Communicative' CALL" (Underwood,1984, p. 52). According to Underwood, communicative call:

* focuses more on using forms rather than on the forms themselves;

* teaches grammar implicitly rather than explicitly;

* allows and encourages students to generate original utterancesrather than just manipulate prefabricated language;

* does not judge and evaluate everything the students nor rewardthem with congratulatory messages, lights, or bells;

* avoids telling students they are wrong and is flexible to a varietyof student responses;

* uses the target language exclusively and creates an environmentin which using the target language feels natural, both on and off the screen;and

* will never try to do anything that a book can do just as well.

Another critic of behavioristic CALL, Vance Stevens, contendsthat all CALL courseware and activities should build on intrinsic motivationand should foster interactivity--both learner-computer and learner-learner(Stevens, 1989).

Several types of CALL programs were developed and used duringthis the phase of communicative CALL. First, there were a variety of programsto provide skill practice, but in a non-drill format. Examples of thesetypes of programs include courseware for paced reading, text reconstruction,and language games (Healey & Johnson, 1995b). In these programs, likethe drill and practice programs mentioned above, the computer remains the"knower-of-the-right-answer" (Taylor & Perez, 1989, p. 3); thus thisrepresents an extension of thecomputer as tutor model. But--incontrast to the drill and practice programs--the process of finding theright answer involves a fair amount of student choice, control, and interaction.

In addition to computer as tutor, another CALL model used forcommunicative activities involves the computer as stimulus (Taylor& Perez, 1989, p. 63). In this case, the purpose of the CALL activityis not so much to have students discover the right answer, but rather tostimulate students' discussion, writing, or critical thinking. Softwareused for these purposes include a wide variety of programs which may nothave been specifically designed for language learners, programs such asSimCity,Sleuth,or Where in the World is San Diego (Healey & Johnson, 1995b).

The third model of computers in communicative CALL involves thecomputeras tool (Brierley & Kemble, 1991; Taylor, 1980), or, as sometimescalled, the computer as workhorse (Taylor & Perez, 1989). Inthis role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language materialat all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language. Examplesof computer as tool include word processors, spelling and grammarcheckers, desk-top publishing programs, and concordancers.

Of course the distinction between these models is not absolute.A skill practice program can be used as a conversational stimulus, as cana paragraph written by a student on a word processor. Likewise, there area number of drill and practice programs which could be used in a more communicativefashion--if, for example, students were assigned to work in pairs or smallgroups and then compare and discuss their answers (or, as Higgins, 1988,students can even discuss what inadequacies they found in the computerprogram) In other words, the dividing line between behavioristic and communicativeCALL does involves not only which software is used, but also howthe software is put to use by the teacher and students.

On the face of things communicative CALL seems like a significant advanceover its predecessor. But by the end of the 1980s, many educators feltthat CALL was still failing to live up to its potential (Kenning &Kenning, 1990; Pusack & Otto, 1990; R�schoff, 1993). Critics pointedout that the computer was being used in an ad hoc and disconnected fashionand thus "finds itself making a greater contribution to marginal ratherthan to central elements" of the language teaching process (Kenning &Kenning, 1990, p. 90).

These critiques of CALL dovetailed with broader reassessmentsof the communicative approach to language teaching. No longer satisfiedwith teaching compartmentalized skills or structures (even if taught ina communicative manner), a number of educators were seeking ways to teachin a more integrative manner, for example using task- or project-basedapproaches . The challenge for advocates of CALL was to develop modelswhich could help integrate the various aspects of the language learningprocess. Fortunately, advances in computer technology were providing theopportunities to do just that.
Steps toward Integrative CALL: Multimedia

Integrative approaches to CALL are based on two important technologicaldevelopments of the last decade--multimedia computers and the Internet.Multimedia technology--exemplified today by the CD-ROM-- allows a varietyof media (text, graphics, sound, animation, and video) to be accessed ona single machine. What makes multimedia even more powerful is that it alsoentailshypermedia. That means that the multimedia resources areall linked together and that learners can navigate their own path simplyby pointing and clicking a mouse.

Hypermedia provides a number of advantages for language learning.First of all, a more authentic learning environment is created, since listeningis combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Secondly, skillsare easily integrated, since the variety of media make it natural to combinereading, writing, speaking and listening in a single activity. Third, studentshave great control over their learning, since they can not only go at theirown pace but even on their own individual path, going forward and backwardsto different parts of the program, honing in on particular aspects andskipping other aspects altogether. Finally, a major advantage of hypermediais that it facilitates a principle focus on the content, without sacrificinga secondary focus on language form or learning strategies. For example,while the main lesson is in the foreground, students can have access toa variety of background links which will allow them rapid access to grammaticalexplanations or exercises, vocabulary glosses, pronunciation information,or questions or prompts which encourage them to adopt an appropriate learningstrategy.

An example of how hypermedia can be used for language learningis the programDustin which is being developed by the Institutefor Learning Sciences at Northwestern University (Schank & Cleary,1995). The program is a simulation of a student arriving at a U.S. airport.The student must go through customs, find transportation to the city, andcheck in at a hotel. The language learner using the program assumes therole of the arriving student by interacting with simulated people who appearin video clips and responding to what they say by typing in responses.If the responses are correct, the student is sent off to do other things,such as meeting a roommate. If the responses are incorrect, the programtakes remedial action by showing examples or breaking down the task intosmaller parts. At any time the student can control the situation by askingwhat to do, asking what to say, asking to hear again what was just said,requesting for a translation, or controlling the level of difficulty ofthe lesson.

Yet in spite of the apparent advantages of hypermedia for language learning,multimedia software has so far failed to make a major impact. Several majorproblems have surfaced in regarding to exploiting multimedia for languageteaching.

First, there is the question of quality of available programs.While teachers themselves can conceivably develop their own multimediaprograms using authoring software such as Hypercard (for the Macintosh)orToolbook (for the PC), the fact is that most classroom teacherslack the training or the time to make even simple programs, let alone morecomplex and sophisticated ones such as Dustin. This has left thefield to commercial developers, who often fail to base their programs onsound pedagogical principles. In addition, the cost involved in developingquality programs can put them out of the market of most English teachingprograms.

Beyond these lies perhaps a more fundamental problem. Today'scomputer programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive.A program like Dustin should ideally be able to understand a user'sspokeninput and evaluate it not just for correctness but also orappropriateness.It should be able to diagnose a student's problems with pronunciation,syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options(e.g., repeating, paraphrasing, slowing down, correcting, or directingthe student to background explanations).

Computer programs with that degree of intelligence do not exist,and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. Artificial intelligence(AI) of a more modest degree does exist, but few funds are available toapply AI research to the language classroom. Thus while IntelligentCALL (Underwood, 1989) may be the next and ultimate usage of computersfor language learning, that phase is clearly a long way down the road.

Multimedia technology as it currently exists thus only partiallycontributes to integrative CALL. Using multimedia may involve an integrationof skills (e.g., listening with reading), but it too seldom involves amore important type of integration--integrating meaningful and authenticcommunication into all aspects of the language learning curriculum. Fortunately,though, another technological breakthrough is helping make that possible--electroniccommunication and the Internet.
Steps toward Integrative CALL: The Internet

Computer-mediated communication (CMC), which has existed in primitive formsince the 1960s but has only became wide-spread in the last five years,is probably the single computer application to date with the greatest impacton language teaching. For the first time, language learners can communicatedirectly, inexpensively, and conveniently with other learners or speakersof the target language 24 hours a day, from school, work, or home. Thiscommunication can be asynchronous (not simultaneous) through tools suchas electronic mail (e-mail), which allows each participant to compose messagesat their time and pace, or in can be synchronous (synchronous, "real time"),using programs such as MOOs, which allow people all around the world tohave a simultaneous conversation by typing at their keyboards. It alsoallows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowinga teacher or student to share a message with a small group, the whole class,a partner class, or an international discussion list of hundreds or thousandsof people.

Computer-mediated communication allows users to share not onlybrief messages, but also lengthy (formatted or unformatted) documents--thusfacilitating collaborative writing--and also graphics, sounds, and video.Using the World Wide Web (WWW), students can search through millions offiles around the world within minutes to locate and access authentic materials(e.g., newspaper and magazine articles, radio broadcasts, short videos,movie reviews, book excerpts) exactly tailored to their own personal interests.They can also use the Web to publish their texts or multimedia materialsto share with partner classes or with the general public.

It is not hard to see how computer-mediated communication andthe Internet can facilitate an integrative approach to using technology.The following example illustrates well how the Internet can be used tohelp create an environment where authentic and creative communication isintegrated into all aspects of the course.

Students of English for Science and Technology in La Paz Mexico don'tjust study general examples and write homework for the teacher; insteadthey use the Internet to actually become scientific writers (Bowers, 1995;Bowers, in press). First, the students search the World Wide Web to findarticles in their exact area of specialty and then carefully read and studythose specific articles. They then write their own drafts online; the teachercritiques the drafts online and creates electronic links to his own commentsand to pages of appropriate linguistic and technical explanation, so thatstudents can find additional background help at the click of a mouse. Next,using this assistance, the students prepare and publish their own articleson the World Wide Web, together with reply forms to solicit opinions fromreaders. They advertise their Web articles on appropriate Internet sites(e.g., scientific newsgroups) so that interested scientists around theworld will know about their articles and will be able to read and commenton them. When they receive their comments (by e-mail) they can take thoseinto account in editing their articles for republication on the Web orfor submission to scientific journals.

The above example illustrates an integrative approach to usingtechnology in a course based on reading and writing. This perhaps is themost common use of the Internet to date, since it is still predominantlya text-based medium. This will undoubtedly change in the future, not onlydue to the transmission of audio-visual material (video clips, sound files)World Wide Web, but also due to the growing use of the Internet to carryout real-time audio- and audio-visual chatting (this is already possiblewith tools such asNetPhone and CU-SeeME, but is not yetwidespread).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary to wait for further technologicaldevelopments in order to use the Internet in a multi-skills class. Thefollowing example shows how the Internet, combined with other technologies,was used to help create an integrated communicative environment for EFLstudents in Bulgaria--students who until recent years had little contactwith the English-speaking world and were taught through a "discrete topicand skill orientation" (Meskill & Rangelova, in press, n.p.). TheseBulgarian students now benefit from a high-tech/low-tech combination toimplement an integrated skills approach in which a variety of languageskills are practiced at the same time with the goal of fostering communicativecompetence. Their course is based on a collaborative, interpreted studyof contemporary American short stories, assisted by three technologicaltools:

* E-mail communication. The Bulgarian students correspond bye-mail with an American class of TESOL graduate students to explore indetail the nuances of American culture which are expressed in the stories,and also to ask questions about idioms, vocabulary, and grammar. The Americanstudents, who are training to be teachers, benefit from the concrete experienceof handling students' linguistic and cultural questions .

* Concordancing. The Bulgarian students further test outtheir hypotheses regarding the lexical and grammatical meanings of expressionsthey find in the stories by using concordancing software to search forother uses of these expressions in a variety of English language corporastored on CD-ROM.

* Audio tape. Selected scenes from the stories--dialogues,monologues, and descriptions--were recorded by the American students andprovide both listening practice (inside and outside of class) and alsoadditional background materials to help the Bulgarians construct theirinterpretation of the stories.

These activities are supplemented by a range of other classroomactivities, such as in-class discussions and dialogue journals, which assistthe students in developing their responses to the stories' plots, themes,and characters--responses which can be further discussed with their e-mailpartners in the U.S.
Conclusion

The history of CALL suggests that the computer can serve a variety of usesfor language teaching. It can be a tutor which offers language drills orskill practice; a stimulus for discussion and interaction; or a tool forwriting and research. With the advent of the Internet, it can also be amedium of global communication and a source of limitless authentic materials.

But as pointed out by Garrett (1991), "the use of the computerdoes not constitute a method". Rather, it is a "medium in which a varietyof methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented"(p. 75). The effectiveness of CALL cannot reside in the medium itself butonly in how it is put to use.

As with the audio language lab "revolution" of 40 years ago, those whoexpect to get magnificent results simply from the purchase of expensiveand elaborate systems will likely be disappointed. But those who put computertechnology to use in the service of good pedagogy will undoubtedly findways to enrich their educational program and the learning opportunitiesof their students.

Computer science student challenges tech seizure
by Stephanie Condon

* Font size
* Print
* E-mail
* Share
* 45 comments
* Yahoo! Buzz

A Boston graduate student is challenging the legality of a warrant that enabled police to search his dorm room and seize several of his computers, an iPod, a cell phone, and other devices.

Riccardo Calixte, a computer science student at Boston College, is petitioning the Newton District Court in Massachusetts for the immediate return of his property and is demanding that investigators be prohibited from any further searches or analysis of his digital data. The confiscation of Calixte's property was spurred by an investigation into who sent an e-mail to a Boston College mailing list alleging that Calixte's roommate is gay.

According to a complaint (PDF) Calixte filed April 10, the warrant issued is invalid because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime was committed. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is representing Calixte and filed a memorandum (PDF) in support of Calixte's complaint.

Kevin Christopher, a detective for the Boston College Police Department, submitted an application (PDF) for a search warrant on March 30 and was granted the warrant (PDF) that day.

Christopher said in his application that, following a dispute between Calixte and his roommate in January, the roommate told an officer that Calixte was "involved in some computer hacking incidents." Christopher subsequently interviewed the roommate, who said among other things that Calixte has a reputation as a "hacker," uses two different operating systems to allegedly "hide his illegal activities," and that Calixte had hacked into the university grading system to change students' grades. The roommate also told Christopher that he had been the victim of a mass e-mail incident in which someone sent out attachments to a fake profile of the roommate on a gay Web site.

The police department was later asked to look into the origin of the mass e-mails, given the stress endured by the roommate, and the e-mails were allegedly traced back to Calixte. Christopher subsequently obtained the warrant in question, claiming that given all the information submitted about Calixte, his property would constitute evidence of the crimes of "obtaining computer services by fraud or misrepresentation" and obtaining "unauthorized access to a computer system."

The EFF is arguing it is irrelevant whether or not Calixte sent the e-mails, since the application for the warrant fails to establish probable cause that sending such an e-mail is a criminal offense.

Calixte "stands accused of fraud, though no money or thing of value is at issue," EFF said in its statement of support. "He is accused of 'hacking' merely by sending an e-mail to a list server. Without a crime, there is no just cause for the search."

Furthermore, the statement argues, "No evidence about the e-mail could conceivably have been stored on Mr. Calixte's cell phone or iPod, and yet neither has been returned after nearly two weeks. This scope of the seizure supports the inevitable conclusion that this investigation is a fishing expedition against a student whose reputation and indeed entire educational career has suffered at the hands of a former roommate who has painted an unflattering portrait of him to school officials."

No court date has yet been scheduled to hear Calixte's motion to quash the warrant.

Features
[Print friendly] Print friendly [Send this feature] Send this feature [Send feedback] Send Feedback
Fast-learning computer translates from four languages
Smarter solution for translation between languages? Photo: iStockphoto
Modern approaches to machine translation between languages require the use of a large ‘corpus’ of literature in each language. Now an EU-funded project has demonstrated a cheaper solution which compares favourably with the market leaders in translating from Dutch, German, Greek or Spanish into English.

The European Union now has 23 official languages. That means documents written in one language may need to be translated into any of 22 others, a total of 253 possible language pairs. Small wonder that the institutions of the European Union, and organisations dealing with international commerce, among others, have a keen interest in automating the process where they can.

Efforts to use computers to translate languages, known as machine translation, date from the 1950s, yet computers still cannot compete with human translators for the quality of the results. Machine translation works best for formal texts in specialised areas where vocabulary is unambiguous and sentence patterns are limited. Aircraft manufacturers, for example, have devised their own systems for quickly translating technical manuals into many languages.

The EU has been active in promoting research in this field since the large Eurotra project of the 1980s. In common with other projects of the time, Eurotra used a ‘rules-based’ approach where the computer is taught the rules of syntax and applies them to translate a text from one language to another. This is also the basis of most commercial translation software.

But since the early 1990s the new concept of ‘statistical’ translation has gained ground in the machine translation community, arising out of research into speech recognition. This dispenses with rules in favour of using statistical methods based on a text ‘corpus’.

A corpus is a large body of written material, amounting to tens of millions of words, intended to be representative of a language. Parallel corpora contain the same material in two or more languages and the computer compares the corpora to learn how words and expressions in one language correspond to those in another. An important example is a parallel corpus of 11 languages based on the proceedings of the European Parliament.
Pattern matching

“Parallel corpora are expensive and rare,” says Dr Stella Markantonatou, of the Institute for Language and Speech Processing in Athens, which coordinates the EU’s METIS II project. “They exist only for a very few languages and in small amounts and in specialised texts. So our idea was to try to do statistically based machine translation without this resource, using just monolingual corpora of the target language. For instance, to translate from Greek into English we use a large English corpus.”

To use a single corpus you need a dictionary for the vocabulary and a way to understand the syntax. In the original METIS project, completed in 2003, the corpus was processed to analysis sentence patterns and the text to be translated was then matched against the patterns.

In Greek, for example, the verb can precede the subject of a sentence. “So if you come in with a Greek sentence, ‘Eats Mary a cake’, you would like the machine to be able to translate it into English and rearrange the words to make ‘Mary eats a cake’,” explains Dr Markantonatou. “Pattern matching is a good way of doing that because it is able to take patterns from the source language and make them like the target language.”

METIS II takes the principle further by matching patterns at the ‘chunk’ level, a phrase or fragment of a sentence rather than a sentence as a whole, as this makes the pattern matching more efficient.

It can also use grammar rules to generate alternative possibilities for the translation and then use the corpus to identify which is the more probable. For example, where English would say ‘I like cakes’, some European languages might use the form ‘cakes please me.’ So in translating into English, METIS II can test alternative interpretations against the English language corpus. In this example, 'cakes please me' would get a very low score while the closest match 'I like cakes' would score highly.
Four languages

The partners have now built a system that translates from Greek, Spanish, German or Dutch into English. Trials so far show that it performs well in comparison with SYSTRAN, the rules-based market leader in machine translation. Considering that SYSTRAN is based on half a century of development while METIS II has only run for three years, that is quite an achievement. A prototype is already available on the internet.

The problem now is what to do next. Results from METIS II are being followed up in national research programmes in Spain and Belgium, but there are no plans as yet to further develop the whole system. Some of the components created in the project, such as dictionaries and associated language tools, could be marketable in their own right, but would need an industrial partner to provide the investment needed to turn the prototype into a commercial product.

“For Greek, it would be an excellent opportunity because there is nothing really good for [translating it] at present,” Dr Markantonatou tells ICT Results. “With a better lexicon, fixing bugs and making algorithms more efficient, this kind of thing could work. In another two or three years, METIS could be a very serious competitor to SYSTRAN. It’s a matter of funding.”

Advanced search
Search


[Get help on search] Search by Category
e-Bulletin [e-Bulletin]

View e-Bulletin sample

RSS [RSS 2.0]

[RSS 2.0]

About RSS

Related Articles

* Creating linguistic resources for aut...
* Electronic Jeeves to smooth your soci...
* PyPy – the 'Babelfish' of programming
* The technology of language- a new sur...
* Computer aid ensures speedy, high-qua...
* The future voice of speech-driven int...


Information :
DATE : 18 Feb 2008
TECHNOLOGY AREA:
Content authoring [Explanation]
Language/speech
Software/distributed systems [Explanation]
MARKET APPLICATION:
Culture/tourism [Explanation]
Education/training [Explanation]
Exchange of information [Explanation]
PARTNERSHIP SOUGHT:
Licence or manufacturing agreement [Explanation]
Market validation and exploitation [Explanation]
USEFUL LINKS: METIS II project
METIS II fact sheet on CORDIS

Recent articles :

* e-Procurement one-stop shop, big deal for small business
* Telemedicine to transform European healthcare
* Rich musical pickings with easier access to archives
* Soft hardware for a flexible chip
* Saving time – and money – with semantic design

AddThis Social Bookmark Button [RSS 2.0] [e-bulletin]
[Back] Back to features overview
Top Top

Welcome to the New CFL Website

In order to encourage and promote the reuse of computers, GSA is proud to sponsor the new re-engineered Computers for Learning (CFL) website.
Computers for Learning

The CFL program evolved as a guide for implementing Executive Order 12999, Educational Technology: Ensuring Opportunity for all Children in the Next Century. The executive order encourages agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to transfer computers and related peripheral equipment excess to their needs directly to schools and some educational nonprofit organizations. The CFL program specifically matches the computer needs of schools and educational nonprofit organization with excess equipment in Federal agencies.

Direct transfers are authorized by law through 15 USC 3710(i) commonly known as the Stevenson-Wydler Act (amended by Public Law 102-245 on February 14, 1992).

The CFL program's ambitious goal is to make modern computer technology an integral part of every classroom so that every child has the opportunity to be educated to his or her full potential. This program can be phenomenally successful.

Greetings Students and Fellow Wikipedians!

Hola! I am a English-as-a-foreign-language instructor who has worked at ITESM for over 5 years... for the first five years worked at Campus Toluca but now I am in charge of the language laboratories at Campus Ciudad de Mexico. My professional interests are Computer assisted language learning, Self_access_language_learning_centers and the teaching of composition. At Campus Toluca, I started their self access digital lab and used Wikipedia for the advanced college-level English classes to teach writing skills. Because of this, I tend to work on articles related to Mexican geography and Language education. At Campus CCM, Im working on changing the laboratory focus to the traditional (read: boring) listening drill work at workstations as a class (you know the crap we've been doing since the 1960's) to a self access resource center.

In Toluca, my students in English Advanced A and Advanced B worked on a number of Wikipedia articles in 2007 and 2008. However, due to change of jobs, I will not be working with Wikipedia as a teacher. I still edit on my own, however. As lab director, one of my duties is to promote computer assisted language learning and Wikipedia is part of that.

I have a B.A. in Linguistics from Rutgers University, a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Arizona and M.A. in English Language and Linguistics from the U. of Arizona. I have taught advanced English as a second/foreign language for over 10 years at Cochise College, the U. of Arizona, ITESM Toluca and ITESM Ciudad de Mexico

I am originally from Carteret, New Jersey but I have lived in California, Texas, Germany, Massachusetts and Tucson, Arizona, Toluca, [[Mexico] and now Mexico City. I love Mexico but I DO SOOOOO miss decent pizza and bagels! (I dont miss telemarketers and junk mail however. :D ) As you can see, my professional life takes up much of my time and effort at this point in my life. That is because after being a stay-at-home mom for 15 years or so, its time to have a career! That and the fact that I love what I do.

Add to what I do in Wikipedia... I am an administrator in Mexico English Teacher's Alliance MM META and I have just created a wiki-webliography for language teachers at Virtual Language Laboratory

For the more mundane stuff... I am 44 years old, 7 years divorced with a 20-year-old son. When I am not being a workaholic I sew and quilt as well as keep in touch with quite a few English teachers around the world. I just recently closed on an apt. in Mexico City in which I finally live in full-time!


Havent gotten any of my work rated yet, but articles Ive worked extensively on include:

* Mexico City Cathedral My first Good Article!
* History of Mexico City
* National Palace (Mexico)
* Nacional Monte de Piedad
* Zocalo (rated as "stub" (???) by Wikiproject Architecure)
* Centro (Mexico City)
* Jane Elliott (Rated as "start" by Wikiproject Biography)
* Colonia Doctores
* Computer assisted language learning (Rated as "start" by Wikiproject homeschooling)
* Self access language learning centers
* 1985 Mexico City earthquake (rated as "start" by Wikiproject earthquakes) Nomination for Good Article status
* Tolantongo
* Toluca(rated as "B" by Wikiproject Cities)
* Federal District buildings
* Almoloya del Río
* Templo Mayor(rated "B" by Wikiproject Mesoamerica)
* Agustin de Iturbide
* Valley of Mexico

[edit] Userboxes

_
My:Userboxes
This little tag you are reading is a userbox.

en This user is a native speaker of English.

es-3 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel avanzado de español.

spanish
⇔
english This user is a translator from spanish to English on Wikipedia:Translation.

This user hopes to be a Mexican citizen someday.

This user is a citizen of the United States of America.


9 This user has set foot in 9 countries of the world.
This user attends or has attended Rutgers University.

A This user attends or attended the University of Arizona.
BA This user has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Linguistics.

BA This user has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish.

MA This user has a Master of Arts degree in English Language and Linguistics.
This user works at the ITESM-Campus Toluca.

This user teaches at a university or other institution of higher education.

As an English teacher, this user reads Wikipedia with a red pen in hand.

This user is or was a member of The United States Army. USA
This user is interested in Wicca.

WP:
WPN This user is a member of WikiProject Neopaganism.


This user is a cat lover.

This user thinks no outfit is complete without cat hair.



This user's favourite animal is the Grizzly Bear.

This user thinks pets should only come from an animal shelter.

Sellout This user watches the Super Bowl for the ads.

This user plays ping pong.



This user plays 8-ball.

This user plays 9-ball.
This user does not smoke.

This user supports Stem Cell research.
EDNOS This user has eating disorder not otherwise specified.


This user prefers pizza made in
Jersey.


This user prefers cheesesteaks with provolone.

This user knows that MREs owe their famed longevity to the fact that even bacteria will not touch the stuff.
This user worships Mexican gastronomy and gladly eats some chili con carne with his Corona.

This user would likely die without eating the occasional curry.

BAM! This user believes that gaaahhhlic is a beautiful thing!

This user eats bagels.
☢ This user enjoys Cabbage In soup, Corned Beef, and Fish Tacos

This user loves döner kebab.

This user loves paella.

This user eats sushi.
Why would anyone eat a peep?

This user eats Swedish Fish.

A&W This user loves A&W Root Beer

COKE
zero This user drinks COKE Zero religiously.
C2H5OH-2 This user drinks occasionally.

This user drinks beer.

This user is more than happy to retain their "personality disorder(s)" and delights in telling their mental health professional to screw off.

This user survived El Grito 2007 in the Zocalo. ¡VIVA MEXICO!


This user remembers using
a rotary dial telephone.

This user remembers when
television programming was only in black-and-white.

This user is American; recognized ancestry ends at the border.

This user is straight
but not narrow.

This user is Single.
Too many userboxes This user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!!

:( This user provides information using userboxes because he or she is bored.



END This user has no more userboxes.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thelmadatter"
Categories: Wikipedia school and university projects | User en | User es | User es-3 | Available translators in Wikipedia | Translators es-en | American Wikipedians | Wikipedians by alma mater: Rutgers University | Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Arizona | Wikipedians with BA degrees | Wikipedians with MA degrees | Wikipedian university teachers | Wikipedian military people
Views

* User page
* Discussion
* Edit this page
* History

Personal tools

* Log in / create account

Navigation

* Main page
* Contents
* Featured content
* Current events
* Random article

Search

Interaction

* About Wikipedia
* Community portal
* Recent changes
* Contact Wikipedia
* Donate to Wikipedia
* Help

Toolbox

* What links here
* Related changes
* User contributions
* Logs
* Upload file
* Special pages
* Printable version
* Permanent link

Powered by MediaWiki
Wikimedia Foundation

* This page was last modified on 24 April 2009, at 04:23 (UTC).
* All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
(Redirected from ATALL)
There are no reviewed revisions of this page, so it may not have been checked for quality.
Jump to: navigation, search

Autonomous Technology-Assisted Language Learning (ATALL) includes (a) the development and use of technological tools to facilitate foreign language (FL) or second language (L2) learning (both to be used synonymously hereafter), and (b) research on the development, use, and effects of such tools.

ATALL is autonomous in that it provides the means for language learners to improve their L2 proficiency whether or not they are taking formal courses in the language they are learning. Thus, ATALL can be used by students in conjunction with formal L2 study or by learners who are not taking L2 classes. ATALL activities can be used as an integrated component of formal L2 courses or for supplemental study (and perhaps extra credit) within L2 courses. ATALL can also be used by non-native L2 teachers who wish to improve their L2 skills and show their students how they can continue to develop their L2 proficiency outside of class. "Autonomous" also implies that the tools are widely available (such as via the World Wide Web) at no or low cost (see Autonomy in Language Learning for resources about autonomy and language learning; for a comprehensive, empirically-based theory of human autonomy, see Perceptual Control Theory and the Control Systems Group).

ATALL encompasses all forms of electronic and information technology that can be used to facilitate L2 proficiency. This includes the obvious tools of computer and Internet technology. But it also includes other forms of communication technology such as wired and wireless telephony, television and radio (broadcast, satellite and cable) and the integration of older communication technologies with newer information technologies.

ATALL is based on the latest theory and research on second language acquisition (SLA), the psychology of learning and computer-assisted language learning (CALL). Research and theory provides directions and implications for how technology can best be used to improve L2 proficiency in the areas of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Principles derived from L2 research and theory are applied to the development of ATALL tools and activities.

ATALL activities can be divided into the five primary domains of input, output, interaction, exercise, and assessment, which form five of the primary modules of this wikibook.

{search strings: tech for language learning; technology for language learning}

Use of CALL for the four skills

A number of studies have been done concerning how the use of CALL affects the development of language learners’ four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing). Most report significant gains in reading and listening and most CALL programs are geared toward these receptive skills because of the current state of computer technology. However, most reading and listening software is based on drills. [5] Gains in writing skills have not been as impressive as computers cannot assess this well. [6]

However, using current CALL technology, even with it current limitations, for the development of speaking abilities has gained much attention. There has been some success in using CALL, in particular computer-mediated communication, to help speaking skills closely linked to “communicative competence” (ability to engage in meaningful conversation in the target language) and provide controlled interactive speaking practice outside the classroom. [3] Using chat has been shown to help students routinize certain often-used expressions to promote the development of automatic structure that help develop speaking skills. This is true even if the chat is purely textual. The use of videoconferencing give not only immediacy when communicating with a real person but also visual cues, such as facial expressions, making such communication more authentic. [6]

However, when it comes to using the computer not as a medium of communication (with other people) but as something to interact with verbally in a direct manner, the current computer technology’s limitations are their clearest. Right now, there are two fairly successful applications of automatic speech recognition (ASR) (or speech processing technology) where the computer “understands” the spoken words of the learner. The first is pronunciation training. Learners read sentences on the screen and the computer gives feedback as to the accuracy of the utterance, usually in the form of visual sound waves. [3] The second is software where the learner speaks commands for the computer to do. However, speakers in these programs are limited to predetermined texts so that the computer will “understand” them. [5]

[edit] Multimedia language centers

During the 1960s, language laboratories with cassette players and headphones were introduced into educational institutions. The use of this kind of center grew rapidly in the late 1960s and 1970s, but then went rapidly out of fashion."[9] Later, “digital language labs” were introduced, still following the traditional language format, such as teacher monitoring. What made them new what that they incorporated new technologies such as video. The term multimedia was originally used to describe sets of learning materials which included a book, audiocassettes and/or videocassettes. However, with the advent of computer-based materials, such packages tend to be called multiple media or mixed media - although there is not absolute consensus on this point. Nowadays multimedia refers to computer-based materials that can perform more varied tasks then the purely-audio mixed-media. Not only can such play pre-recorded audio and video material, it can create new audio and video recordings. It also has the capability of integrating the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing, as well as giving immediate, if limited, feedback to the student. However, like its predecessors, multimedia centers run the risk of being underutilized due to poor management. [10]

While multimedia computer-based materials can be used directly in the classroom, because of costs, such resources are usually found in a multimedia language center, fulfilling the role of the previous cassette-based and digital language laboratories. However, managing such a center requires knowledge of a wide range of equipment and the increasing expectations of such equipment from administrators, language teachers and students. Administrators often have the mistaken belief that buying hardware by itself will meet the needs of the center (often devoting 90% of a center’s budget to such and ignoring software and training needs) and will cut down on the number of teaching staff needed. [11]

While multimedia offers many opportunities for language learning with the availability of text, images, sound and video as well as interactive activities, the problem is that these opportunities have not been taken advantage of well. Most multimedia computer programs tend to be strong on presentation but weak as far as pedagogy and even interaction. One of the main promises of CALL is the ability to individualize learning, but like with past language laboratories, use of the facilities in many cases have devolved into rows of students all doing the same drills. The only advantage to the multimedia in these cases has been better sound and color images. Most modern language learning theories stress the importance of teacher guidance rather than control, giving students control over what they do, how fast they do it and even the ability to find and correct their own mistakes.[11]

Managing a multimedia language center properly requires not only knowledge of foreign languages and language teaching methodology, it also requires a certain amount of technical know-how and budget management ability as well as the ability to combine all these into creative ways of taking advantage of what the technology can offer. Often a center manager needs assistants for technical problems, for managing resources and even the tutoring of students. Multimedia centers lend themselves to self-study, and potentially self-directed learning, but such is often misunderstood. The simple existence of computers in a laboratory does not automatically lead to students learning independently. Significant investment of time is essential for materials development and creating an atmosphere conducive to such.

Self access language learning centers or independent learning centres have emerged partially independently, and partially in response to these issues. In self-access learning, the focus is on developing learner autonomy through varying degrees of self-directed learning, as opposed to (or as a complement to) classroom learning. In most centres, learners access materials and manage their learning independently, but have access to staff for help. Many self-access centres are heavy users of technology and an increasing number of them are now offering online self-access learning opportunities. Some centres have developed novel ways of supporting language learning outside the context of the language classroom (also called 'language support') by developing software to monitor students' self-directed learning and by offering online support from teachers (cf. [12])

Center managers and support staff need to have new roles defined for them to support students’ efforts at self-directed learning. In fact, a new job description has emerged recently, that of a “language advisor”[13].

[edit] Advantages of CALL

[edit] Motivation

Generally speaking, the use of technology inside or outside the classroom tends to make the class more interesting. However, certain design issues affect just how interesting the particular tool creates motivation. [6] One way a program or activity can promote motivation in students is by personalizing information, for example by integrating the student’s name or familiar contexts as part of the program or task. Others include having animate objects on the screen, providing practice activities that incorporate challenges and curiosity and providing a context (real-world or fantasy) that is not directly language-oriented.

For example, a study comparing students who used “CornerStone” (a language arts development program) showed a significant increase in learning (compared to students not using the program) between two classes of English-immersion middle-school students in language arts. This is because CornerStone incorporate personalized information and challenging and imaginative exercises in a fantasy context. [14] Also, using a variety of multimedia components in one program or course has been shown to increase student interest and motivation. [6]

One quantifiable benefit to increased motivation is that students tend to spend more time on tasks when on the computer. More time is frequently cited as a factor in achievement. [6]

[edit] Adapting learning to the student

Computers can give a new role to teaching materials. Without computers, students cannot really influence the linear progression of the class content but computers can adapt to the student. [5] Adapting to the student usually means that the student controls the pace of the learning but also means that students can make choices in what and how to learn, skipping unnecessary items or doing remedial work on difficult concepts. Such control makes students feel more competent in their learning. [14] Students tend to prefer exercises where they have control over content, such as branching stories, adventures, puzzles or logic problems. With these, the computer has the role of providing attractive context for the use of language rather than directly providing the language the student needs. [5]

[edit] Authenticity

“Authenticity” in language learning means the opportunity to interact in one or more of the four skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) by using or producing texts meant for an audience in the target language, not the classroom. With real communication acts, rather than teacher-contrived ones, students feel empowered and less afraid to contact others. Students believe they learn faster and better with computer-mediated communication. [5] Also, students learn more about culture in such an environment. [6] In networked computer environments, students have a conscious feeling of being members of a real community. In situations where all are learners of a foreign language, there is also a feeling of equality. In these situations students feel less stressed and more confident in a language learning situation, in part because surface errors do not matter so much. This works best with synchronous CMC (e.g. chats) as there is immediate feedback but email exchanges have been shown to provide most of the same benefits in motivation and student affect. [5]

[edit] Critical thinking skills

Use of computer technology in classrooms is generally reported to improve self-concept and mastery of basic skills, more student-centered learning and engagement in the learning process, more active processing resulting in higher-order thinking skills and better recall, gain confidence in directing their own learning. This is true for both language and non-language classrooms. [6]

[edit] Problems and criticisms of CALL instruction

The impact of CALL in foreign language education has been modest. [3] Several reasons can be attributed to this.
The first is the limitations of the technology, both in its ability and availability. First of all, there is the problem with cost[1] and the simple availability of technological resources such as the Internet (either non-existent as can be the case in many developing countries or lack of bandwidth, as can be the case just about anywhere). [5] However, the limitations that current computer technology has can be problematic as well. While computer technology has improved greatly in the last three decades, demands placed on CALL have grown even more so. One major goal is to have computers with which students can have true, human-like interaction, esp. for speaking practice; however, the technology is far from that point. Not to mention that if the computer cannot evaluate a learner’s speech exactly, it is almost no use at all. [3][1]
However, most of the problems that appear in the literature on CALL have more to do with teacher expectations and apprehensions about what computers can do for the language learner and teacher. Teachers and administrators tend to either think computers are worthless or even harmful, or can do far more than they are really capable of. [8]
Reluctance on part of teachers can come from lack of understanding and even fear of technology. Often CALL is not implemented unless it is required even if training is offered to teachers. [8] One reason for this is that from the 1960’s to the 1980’s, computer technology was limited mostly for the sciences, creating a real and psychological distance for language teaching. [15] Language teachers can be more comfortable with textbooks because it is what they are used do, and there is the idea that the use of computers threatens traditional literacy skills since such are heavily tied to books. [15] [16] These stem in part because there is a significant generation gap between teachers (many of whom did not grow up with computers) and students (who did grow up with them).
Also, teachers may resist because CALL activities can be more difficult to evaluate than more traditional exercises. For example, most Mexican teachers feel strongly that a completed fill-in textbook “proves” learning. [16] While students seem may be motivated by exercises like branching stories, adventures, puzzles or logic, these activities provide little in the way of systematic evaluation of progress. [5]
Even teachers who may otherwise see benefits to CALL may be put off by the time and effort needed to implement it well. However “seductive” the power of computing systems may be[5], like with the introduction of the audio language lab in the 1960’s, those who simply expect results by purchasing expensive equipment are likely to be disappointed. [1] To begin with, there are the simple matters of sorting through the numerous resources that exist and getting students ready to use computer resources. With Internet sites alone, it can be very difficult to know where to begin, and if students are unfamiliar with the resource to be used, the teacher must take time to teach it. [5] Also, there is a lack of unified theoretical framework for designing and evaluating CALL systems as well as absence of conclusive empirical evidence for the pedagogical benefits of computers in language. [3] Most teachers lack the time or training to create CALL-based assignments, leading to reliance on commercially-published sources, whether such are pedagogically sound or not. [1]
However, the most crucial factor that can lead to the failure of CALL, or the use of any technology in language education is not the failure of the technology, but rather the failure to invest adequately in teacher and the lack of imagination to take advantage of the technology's flexibility. Graham Davies states that too often, technology is seen as a panacea, especially by administrators, and the human component necessary to make it beneficial is ignored. Under these circumstances, he argues, "it is probably better to dispense with technology altogether".[9]

Rody Klein, Clint Rogers and Zhang Yong (2006) studying the adoption of Learning Technologies in Chinese schools and colleges have also pointed out that the spread of video games on electronic devices, including computers, dictionaries and mobile phones, is feared in most Chinese institutions. And yet every classroom is very well equipped with a desk imbedded computer, Internetconnexion, microphone, video projector and remote controlled screen to be used by the teacher for multimedia presentations. Very often the leaders prefer to ban completely Learning Technologies for students at the dismay of many foreign ESL teachers. Books and exercise books still prevail. In order to enhance CALL for teaching ESL and other languages in developing countries, it would be also crucial to teach students how to learn by themselves and develop the capacity to practice self evaluation and enhance intrinsic motivation. Tests and quizzes should be designed accordingly to encourage and enhance students autonomous practice. Teachers using CALL should be computer literate and trained continously. Ideally each Foreign Language Department using CALL should hire an experienced Computer Scientist who could assist teachers. That expert should demonstrate dual expertise both in Education and Learning Technologies.

CALL and computational linguistics

CALL and computational linguistics are separate but somewhat interdependent fields of study. The basic goal of computational linguistics is to “teach” computers to generate and comprehend grammatically-acceptable sentences… for purposes of translation and direct communication with computers where the computer understands and generates natural language. Computational linguistics takes the principles of theoretical linguistics with the aim of characterizing a language with computational applications in mind. [2]

A very simple example of computers understanding natural language in relation to second language learning is vocabulary drill exercises. The computer prompts the learner with a word on either the L1 or target language and the student responds with the corresponding word. The computer “understands” the input word by comparing it with a stored answer and gives feedback to the user. Cloze tests work on a similar principle, where the computer compares the words/phrases provided by the learner to a database of correct answers. [2]

On a superficial level, the core issue for humans and computers using language is the same; finding the best match between a given speech sound and it corresponding word string, then generating the correct and appropriate response. However, humans and machines process speech in fundamentally different ways. Humans use complex cognitive processes, taking into account variables such as social situations and rules while speech for a computer is simply a series of digital values to generate and parse language. [2] [3] For this reason, those involved in CALL from a computational linguistics perspective tend to be more optimistic about a computer’s ability to do error analysis and other pedagogical tasks than those who come into CALL via language teaching. [4]

The term Human Language Technologies is often used to describe some aspects of computational linguistics, having replaced the former term Language Engineering. There has been an upsurge of work in this area in recent years, especially with regard to machine translation and speech synthesis and speech analysis. The professional associations EUROCALL (Europe) and CALICO (USA) have special interest groups (SIGs), respectively devoted to Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Intelligent CALL (ICALL). See Module 3.5 at the ICT4LT website for further information.

[edit] Theoretical basis for CALL instruction design

Computers have become so widespread in schools and homes and their uses have expanded so dramatically that the majority of language teachers now think about the implications. Technology brings about changes in the teaching methodologies of foreign language unless they are used simply to automate fill-in-the-gap exercises. [5] The use of the computer in and of itself does not constitute a teaching method, but rather the computer forces pedagogy to think in new ways to exploit the computers benefits and work around its limitations. [1] To exploit computers’ potential we need language teaching specialists who can promote a complementary relationship between computer technology and appropriate pedagogic programs. [5]

A number of pedagogical approaches have developed in the computer age, including the communicative and integrative/experimentative approaches outlined above in the History of CALL. Others include constructivism, whole language theory and sociocultural theory although they are not exclusively theories of language learning. With constructivism, students are active participants in a task in which they “construct” new knowledge based on experience in order to incorporate new ideas into their already-established schema of knowledge. Whole language theory postulates that language learning (either native or second language) moves from the whole to the part; rather than building sub-skills like grammar to lead toward higher abilities like reading comprehension, whole language insists the opposite is the way we really learn to use language. Students learn grammar and other sub-skills by making intelligent guesses bases on the input they have experienced. It also promotes that the four skills (reading, writing, listening and speaking) are interrelated. [6] Sociocultural theory states that learning is a process of becoming part of a desired community and learning that communities rules of behavior. [7]

What most of these approaches have in common is taking the central focus away from the teacher as conveyor of knowledge to giving students learning experiences that are as realistic as possible where they play a central role. Also, these approaches tend to emphasize fluency over accuracy to allow students to take risks in using more student-centered activities and to cooperate, rather than compete. [5] The computer provides opportunity for students to be less dependent on a teacher and have more freedom to experiment on their own with natural language in natural or semi-natural settings.

[edit] Role changes for teachers and students

[edit] Teachers

Although the integration of CALL into a foreign language program can lead to great anxiety among language teachers, [8] researchers consistently claim that CALL changes, sometimes radically, the role of the teacher but does not eliminate the need for a teacher altogether. Instead of handing down knowledge to students and being the center of students’ attention, teachers become guides as they construct the activities students are to do and help them as students complete the assigned tasks. In other words, instead of being directly involved in students’ construction of the language, the teacher interacts with students primarily to facilitate difficulties in using the target language (grammar, vocabulary, etc.) that arise when interacting with the computer and/or other people. [6] [5]

Elimination of a strong teacher presence has been shown to lead to larger quantity and better quality of communication such as more fluidity, more use of complex sentences and more sharing of students’ personal selves. [6] However, teacher presence is still very important to students when doing CALL activities. Teachers should be familiar enough with the resources to be used to anticipate technical problems and limitations. [5] Students need the reassuring and motivating presence of a teacher in CALL environments. Not only are they needed during the initial learning curve, they are needed to conduct review sessions to reinforce what was learned. Encouraging students to participate and offering praise are deemed important by students. Most students report preferring to do work in a lab with a teacher’s or tutor’s presence rather than completely on their own. [6]

[edit] Students

Students, too, need to adjust their expectations of their participation in the class in order to use CALL effectively. Rather than passively absorbing information, learners must negotiate meaning and assimilate new information through interaction and collaboration with someone other than the teacher, be that person a classmate or someone outside of the classroom entirely. Learners must also learn to interpret new information and experiences on their own terms. However, because the use of technology redistributes teachers’ and classmates’ attentions, less-able students can become more active participants in the class because class interaction is not limited to that directed by the teacher. [6] Moreover more shy students can feel free in their own students'-centered environment. This will raise their self-esteem and their knowledge will be improving. If students are performing collaborative project they will do their best to perform it within set time limits.

Definition

CALL originates from CAI (Computer-Accelerated Instruction), a term that was first viewed as an aid for teachers. The philosophy of CALL puts a strong emphasis on student-centered lessons that allow the learners to learn on their own using structured and/or unstructured interactive lessons. These lessons carry 2 important features: bidirectional (interactive) learning and individualized learning. CALL is not a method. It is a tool that helps teachers to facilitate language learning process. CALL can be used to reinforce what has been learned in the classrooms. It can also be used as remedial to help learners with limited language proficiency.

The design of CALL lessons generally takes into consideration principles of language pedagogy, which may be derived from learning theories (behaviorist, cognitive, and constructivist) and second language learning such as Krashen's Monitor Theory.

Others may call CALL an approach to teaching and learning foreign languages whereby the computer and computer-based resources such as the Internet are used to present, reinforce and assess material to be learned. CALL can be made independent of the Internet. It can stand alone for example in a CDROM format. Depending on its design and objectives, it may include a substantial interactive element especially when CALL is integrated in web-based format. It may include the search for and the investigation of applications in language teaching and learning. [1] Except for self-study software, CALL is meant to supplement face-to-face language instruction, not replace it.[2]

CALL has also been known by several other terms such as technology-enhanced language learning (TELL), computer-assisted language instruction (CALI) and computer-aided language learning but the field is the same. [3] For further information see the ICT4LT website, especially Section 1 of Module 1.4, headed "What is CALL?": Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) is a subset of both Mobile Learning (m-learning) and Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL).

Computers have been used for language teaching ever since the 1960s. This 40-year period can be divided into three main stages: behaviorist CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and certain pedagogical theories. The reasons for using Computer-assisted Language Learning include: (a) experiential learning, (b) motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) authentic materials for study, (e) greater interaction, (f) individualization, (g) independence from a single source of information, and (h) global understanding. The barriers inhibiting the practice of Computer-assisted Language Learning can be classified in the following common categories: (a) financial barriers, (b) availability of computer hardware and software, (c) technical and theoretical knowledge, and (d) acceptance of the technology.

Introduction

[edit] History

CALL’s origins and development trace back to the 1960’s (Delcloque 2000). Since the early days CALL has developed into a symbiotic relationship between the development of technology and pedagogy.

Warschauer (1996) divided the development of CALL into three phases: Behavioristic CALL, Communicative CALL and Integrative CALL (Multimedia and the Internet)[1]. Bax (2003) perceived the three phases as Restricted, Open and Integrated - and there have been several other attempts to categorize the history of CALL: see the ICT4LT website (Section 3 of Module 1.4)].

Behavioristic CALL is defined by the then-dominant behavioristic theories of learning of Skinner as well as the technological limitations of computers from the 1960’s to the early 1980’s. Up to the late 1970’s, CALL was confined to universities where programs were developed on big mainframe computers, like the PLATO project, initiated at the University of Illinois in 1960. Because repeated exposure to material was considered to be beneficial or even essential, computers were considered ideal for this aspect of learning as the machines did not get bored or impatient with learners and the computer could present material to the student as his/her own pace and even adapt the drills to the level of the student. Hence, CALL programs of this era presented a stimulus to which the learner provided a response. At first, both could be done only through text. The computer would analyze errors and give feedback. More sophisticated programs would react to students’ mistakes by branching to help screens and remedial activities. While such programs and their underlying pedagogy still exist today, to a large part behavioristic approaches to language learning have been rejected and the increasing sophistication of computer technology has lead CALL to other possibilities.

Communicative CALL is based on the communicative approach that became prominent in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. In the communicative approach, the focus is on using the language rather than analysis of the language, teaching grammar implicitly. It also allowed for originality and flexibility in student output of language. It also correlates with the arrival of the PC, making computing much widely available resulting in a boom in the development of software for language learning. The first CALL software in this phase still provided skill practice but not in a drill format, for example, paced reading, text reconstruction and language games but computer remained the tutor. In this phase, however, computers provided context for students to use the language, such as asking for directions to a place. It also allowed for programs not designed for language learning, such as Sim City, Sleuth and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? to be used for language learning. However, criticisms of this approach include using the computer in an ad hoc and disconnected manner for more marginal rather than the central aims of language teaching. It usually taught skills such as reading and listening in a compartmentalized way, even if not in a drill fashion.

Integrative/explorative CALL, starting from the 1990’s, tries to address these criticisms by integrating the teaching of language skills into tasks or projects to provide direction and coherence. It also coincides with the development of multimedia technology (providing text, graphics, sound and animation) as well as computer-mediated communication. CALL in this period saw a definitive shift of use of computer for drill and tutorial purposes (computer as a finite authoritative base for a specific task) to a medium for extending education beyond the classroom and reorganizing instruction. Multimedia CALL started with interactive laser videodiscs such as “Montevidisco” (Schneider & Bennion 1984) and “A la rencontre de Philippe” (Fuerstenberg 1993, all of which were simulations of situations where the learner played a key role. These programs later were transferred to CD-ROMs, and new RPGs such as Who is Oscar Lake? made their appearance in a range of different languages.

In multimedia programs, listening is combined with seeing, just like in the real world. Students also control the pace and the path of the interaction. Interaction is in the foreground but many CALL programs also provide links to explanations simultaneously. An example of this is Dustin’s simulation of a foreign student’s arrival in the USA. Programs like this led also to what is called explorative CALL.

More recent research in CALL has favored a learner-centered explorative approach, where students are encouraged to try different possible solutions to a problem, for example the use of concordance programs. This approach is also described as data-driven learning (DDL), a term coined by Tim Johns. See Module 2.4 at the ICT4LT site, Using concordance programs in the Modern Foreign Languages classroom.

Do I Have to Pay Syntax?

Rim ember us poke in cent tense all most stall ways gun deigns word snot in ten did
Do you understand the sentence on the right? How in the world can you do it? Dr. Goodword invoked every trick in his bag to mislead you. Obviously, speakers must perceive things in sentences beyond what they receive, for there are two ways to interpret the sentence "Remember, a spoken sentence almost always contains words not intended;" yet, we respond to only one. Why? What stops us from interpreting this sentence the way it is presented in the graphic to the right?

Listening and reading are not passive activities. As your ears receive sentences in your language your mind must actively attack it for its contents. Its weapon: GRAMMAR! But 'grammar' in a different sense. Every sentence is full of ambiguities which you must resolve using your knowlege of sentence structure, word structure, and semantics. For example, what does "The British left waffles on the Falkland Islands" mean? The political left in England can't make up its mind on the Falklands? Or the mess sergeants didn't clean up after breakfast? The words and their order are the same under either interpretation. What else can there be in a sentence other than words and their order? Plenty.
Intonation, suffixes like the -s on waffle in the sentence above, word order-all specify grammatical relations between the concepts behind the words in sentences. Our mental dictionary, the list of about 50,000 words we keep in our heads, tells us that left and waffle can either be nouns or verbs. This means that the sentence "The British left waffles on the Falkland Islands," may be parsed in two different ways. Parsing is the way we understand how words in a sentence relate to each other. We can represent the relationships of words in sentences by parsing trees, like the two below. The branches on these trees tells us how each word is related to all the other words in the sentence.
The British left waffles on Falkland Islands
Looking at the two syntactical trees of the British headline, we see that the structure we assign to the sentence depends upon whether we decide that British is a noun or an adjective. If we decide that British is an adjective, then left must be the noun it modifies and waffles must be the verb, i.e. [The British left] [waffles on the Falkland Islands (issue)]. Only Tree No. 1 is possible. If, on the other hand, we choose The British as our noun phrase, left must be the verb and waffles then must be another noun, the direct object since it comes after the verb, i.e. [The British] [left waffles on the Falkland Islands], and only Tree No. 2 is possible. The point is that we must apply knowledge about words and sentence structures which is not present in the sounds in order to interpret such sentences as this one either way. Sentence structure is an invisible but essential part of the mental processing of language.
Syntactic ambiguity is important-and not just for politicians. It is a major component of humor in all languages. For example, did you hear about the child who returned from her first visit to Sunday School and when asked how things had gone, replied that she had learned a dumb song about some cross-eyed bear named "Gladly"? Further questioning brought out the fact that her class has been taught the hymn (Keep thou my Way) containing a line similar to "gladly, the Cross I'd bear". The unusual word order led the child to misanalyze (misparse) the title of the song and assign the phrase the wrong structure; that led to the major misunderstandiung of what the song was about.
So, language tells us much about ourselves, not only how we speak but why we laugh. It makes us laugh. Still, it has been the object of serious research for 4,000 years. The magic word, to repeat, is LINGUISTICS. When it turns on the relations of words in sentences, it is called syntax (which isn't a levy on misbehavior, as you can see). The best news is that you can find out much more about it right here at this web portal.
But There are no Such Things as Words! > < Back to Directory

*

alphaDictionary.com
Home • Language Dictionaries • Specialty Glossaries • Alpha Agora • Translation • Language Blog • Miss Spelling's Center
Dr. Goodword's Office • Word Fun • Laughing Stock • Today's Good Word • Privacy Policy • About Us • Contact us • Sponsor Us!
©2004-200