Norwich Institute for Language Education
MA in Professional development
for Language learning
Module:
Multimedia and the New Technology
in Language Education
July 2002
Article:
This paper is the result of my readings on a topic in
which I am particularly interested as a language teacher: the development of
Computer Assisted Language Learning and the potentialities of Computer Mediated
Communication for language learning and teaching.
I’m well aware of the fact that
there is nothing original in it; I just aimed at exploring the main pedagogical
issues resulting from research into a field that no language teacher today
can ignore or underestimate.
A brief overview of CALL
development
Computers have been used in language
teaching since the early 1960s. The earliest CALL programs consisted of
grammar and vocabulary tutorials, drill and practice programs, as well as
language testing instruments. they were aimed at providing the learners with
immediate positive or negative feedback on the formal accuracy of their
responses. Such a use of computers was definitely in accordance with the
structuralist –audiolingual approach to language teaching, based on the
theories of some psycologists (Watson, Skinner) who considered language
learning merely as habit formation. CALL programs, therefore, provided pattern
drills designed to condition learners to produce automatic, correct responses
to linguistic stimuli. The
cognitive and the social processes involved in language learning were
completely ignored. Some years later, Chomsky’s theories on language learning
(Chomsky, 1957; 1965), mainly based on the assumption that the development of
an individual’s grammatical system was guided by innate cognitive structures
and not by behavioural reinforcement, gave birth to the “cognitive” approach to
language teaching. This new perspective, first led to the idea that it was
important to give individuals an opportunity to “mentally reconstruct the
grammar of a language from extensive natural data” (Kern, Warshauer 2000, p.4) and
then to the belief that this could be accomplished by providing the learner
with comprehensible input rather than grammar rules or patterns 8Krashen,
1982).
In this period, CALL programs were
meant to allow the learner to exploit computer tools and resources rather than
being tutored by them: Problem solving and hypothesis testing were considered
essential for learning to take place. these principles were applied to
“microworlds” (Papert, 1980) and to the construction of games incorporating
full motion video, sound, graphics and texts, which allowed the learner to
“walk around” and explore simulated environments. Usually, this kind of
programs also provided optional comprehension tools, like glossaries,
transcriptions of audio segments, albums of communicative functions, etc.
At this
stage of CALL development, the ultimate aim was to create programs capable of
involving the learner in a sort of communicative interaction with the computer
by “evaluating the appropriatness of their writing or speech, diagnosing their
difficulties and intelligently choosing among a range of communicative response
options” (Kern, Warshauer, 2000, p.10).
Today, the feasibility
of “intelligent” CALL is still considered a realistic aim by many, even though,
for the majority of researchers and
methodologists, it remains a distant dream.
The cognitive-constructivist approach to language learning , based on Chomsky’s mentalistic characterization of linguistic competence, was followed, in the 1960s, by a socio-cognitive perspective, resulting from the theories of some linguists and sociolinguists, among which the American Dell Hymes and the British Michael Halliday. Hymes (1971), in particular, worked out the term “communicative competence”, which became the buzzword of the language teaching profession during the 1980s. The concept of “communicative” competence extended far beyond the concept of “linguistic” competence; it included it, together with sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. It was thought that the cognitive and the social dimensions of language overlapped in a “dialectical, co-constitutive relationship” (Nystrand, Greene & Viemelt, 1993, p. 300). Language teaching, therefore, mainly had to help the learner enter the sorts of “authentic social discourse situations and discourse communities that they would later encounter outside the classroom” (Kern, Warshauer, 200, p. 5). Task-based learning (see for example Breen, 1987; Candlin, 1987; Long and Crooks, 1992) and content-based learning (e.g. Snow, 1991), were both derived from the sociocognitive approach to language learning.
Communication via computer can be either syncronous or asyncronous. In the former, all users are logged on and “chatting” at the same time; in the latter there is a delayed message system. The World Wide Web, on its turn, allows language learners to have access to a huge amount of authentic target language information and also to publish their own multimedia information.
Syncronous and asyncronous
CMC
Syncronous CMC can be carried out both over the local area networks, through the use of special software (e.g. Daedalus Interchange or Common Space), and via the Internet, using one of the many available chat media (e.g. Moos, Internet Relay Chat) or Web Chat Programs. In the former, which is especially popular in the U.S.A., a “Computer Assisted Discussion” goes on: each student sits at an individual computer and composes messages which appear almost instantly on the top half of all the other computers in the class. The messages are listed in chronological order and can be easily re-examined thanks to a scrolling device. An example of such an activity is reported by Kelm (1992). the activity took place in a university level Brazilian Portuguese class. Every Friday, students attended class in the microcomputer centre of the university library. Before each class, they were asked to read a particular Brazilian short story which was meant to provide the topic for the Computer Mediated Class Discussion. When they sat at their computers, they received a message from the instructor containing some questions aimed at assessing their comprehension of the story and at opening discussion on the story topics; then each student, at his/her own pace, composed messages and sent them to the rest of the class.
Chapelle (2001) analyses this activity on the basis of some criteria that she proposes for judgemental analysis of CALL appropriatness: language learning potential, learner fit, meaning focus, authenticity, impact and practicality. first of all, she observes that the syncronous CMC activity was intended to allow the students some time for reflection while producing the target language in written mode and this was likely to provide them opportunity for some focus on form, thus fulfilling the first criterion. Besides, the fact that the instructor selected stories and topics of interest to the students made the activity learner fit. The meaning focus was instead prompted by the instructor’s questions about the content of the stories. As for authenticity, Chapelle observes that the class would no doubt have seen the task as a classroom experiment rather than preparatory for future language use; nonetheless, the activity surely had a positive impact on the learners since it provided them with the opportunity to use the target language outside the teacher-frontedness of many classroom activities. The practicality of the activity, in the end, derived from the apparent availability of the local area network, the syncronous communication software and the necessary technical skills of students and instructor.
the second type of syncronous CMC, i.e. the one which is carried out at a distance, has so far made use of MOOS (Multi-user domains Object Oriented), but in the future these are likely to be supplanted by Web-based chatting. Syncronous CMC seems most suitable when there is a need for long distance partners to communicate, or as an out-of-class activity (Pinto,1996).
Asyncronous CMC is effected mainly via email but it can also be carried out through bulletin boards, newsgroups and web-based conferencing systems. Email seems to be the most convenient for use in the class since it allows learners to get messages in their individual mailboxes and does not require them to log on to sites in order to read their messages.
Many are the purposes for which email and the other forms of asyncronous CMC can be used in second language teaching and learning: some have used them to give the students authentic writing assignments; others have tried to use email exchanges to create opportunities for their students to be involved in authentic communication. Many collaborative projects among schools are based on email exchanges among teachers and learners.
Research on CMC
In his paper “Online Communication” (2001), Mark Warshauer makes a synthetic but effective summary of the main achievements of research on CMC. He preliminarily observes that both syncronous and asyncronous CMC have been seen as capable of shifting the focus from language form to language use in meaningful context (see, for example, Kelm, 1992; Meskill & Krassimira, 2000) and increasing learner motivation (e.g. Meunier, 1998; Warshauer, 1996 b). Long distance asyncronous exchanges, in particular, have also been considered as a means to foster cultural knowledge and awareness (e.g. Kern, 1995 a; Soh & Soon, 1991 as well as an opportunity to make reading and writing more authentic and collaborative (e.g. Tella, 1992 b). computer assisted discussion, on its turn, has been considered capable of providing better opportunities to process and try out new lexical and syntactic language patterns as compared to oral interaction (e.g. Ortega, 1997; Warshauer, 1999).
After these preliminary aspects, Warshauer points out how research on online communication (which refers both to CMC and the use of the World Wide Web) has been focused on three major topic areas: Interaction, Reading and Writing, Affect. Since CMC allows post hoc analysis of recorded messages, many researchers have investigated the kind of interaction taking place both in syncronous and asyncronous communication in the light of major SLA (Second Language Acquisition) theory. The main aspects which have been investigated are the linguistic characteristics, the types of negotiation and linguistic modification and the emerging patterns of participation .
As concerns the linguistic characteristics of computer mediated messages, it has emerged that CMC has its own distinctive features as compared both to face-to-face conversation and written interaction. In fact, it appears to be more formal, in terms of syntactical complexity and lexical density, than face-to-face-conversation (Warshauer, 1996 a) but more informal and conversational than traditional writing (Wang, 1993). CMC, therefore, seems to fall in the middle of the continuum of more formal communication (writing) and informal communication (speech). This has the relevant pedagogical implication that CMC can serve as a bridge between speaking and writing, since it activates a kind of interaction which is linguistically complex yet informal and communicative.
As concerns the way second language learners modify their communication in negotiation and interaction with others, several studies have shown that extensive incorporation of new syntactical patterns and lexical chunks occurs during computer mediated interaction, since learners are allowed the opportunity to analyse incoming messages and carefully plan responses (Pelletieri, 2000). Moreover, research has also found that the nature of CMC is strongly affected by the types of tasks and topics chosen, with greater benefits coming from conversational, goal-oriented tasks (Lamy & Goodfellow, 1999; Pelletieri, 2000).
L1 and L2 research has also shown that CMC encourages more balanced participation than face-to-face conversation, with less dominance by outspoken individuals (Sproull and Kiesler, 1991). Student participation increases dramatically in student-teacher interaction via computer (Kern, 1995 b; Warshauer, 1999) and those students who participate least in face-to-face-conversation increase their participation in student-student computer mediated interaction (Warshauer, 1996 a). All this suggests that CMC can definitely encourage greater participation of shy learners and can help find alternatives to the traditional “IRF” ( teacher initiation, student response, teacher follow up) classroom discourse pattern.
Research has also investigated the types of reading and writing processes that occur in CMC. Several studies have shown that students’ reading and writing become more purposeful when they engage in collaborative projects based on email exchanges (e.g. Kern, 1996) and especially when they publish their work on the net. In this case, their work becomes more “reader centred”, i.e. written with a particular audience in mind (Warshauer, 1999).
A third area of research on CMC has investigated whether opportunities for online communication increase students’ motivation. Many studies have shown that online learning activities motivate language learners for two main reasons:
a) students feel they are gaining technical skills which will be beneficial in their future (e.g. Warshauer, 1996 b).
b) learners are motivated by the opportunity to publish their work , communicate with distant partners, work in groups and work on projects based on their own interests (Barson & al., 1993; Tella, 1992 a; Warshauer, 1999).
Some studies (Pinto, 1996; Warshauer, 1998) have indicated that learners lose motivation if they don’t understand or don’t agree with the purposes of online activities.
In conclusion, research on CMC in language teaching and learning, though still in its infancy, has clearly indicated that a number of important language learning objectives can be supported by online activities, provided these are implemented in a well-planned and purposeful manner.
The need for new
literacies
In the current era, the Internet has become one of the primary media of literacy and communication practices; the number of worldwide users of the Internet is constantly increasing; electronic mail has become the most frequently used communication tool in certain business sectors; Internet-based publishing is revolutionizing scientific research (Harnad, 1991); for students from all over the world learning to find, , share and interpret information has become a “must” (Lemke, 1998).
The development of literacy and communication skills in new online media has definitely become critical to success in almost all spheres of life. As a consequence, educators nowadays are no longer concerned only with how to use technology in language teaching but have also started to consider how to teach language so that learners can make effective use of information and communication technology. This is at the basis of what is generally defined “an electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching” (Shetzer & Warshauer, 2000). According to this approach, ESL and EFL teachers should exploit the new online opportunities for language teaching and, at the same time, get their students to develop computer-based communication and literacy skills. this double hard task involves some crucial questions:
· What strategies should students be taught?
· What goals should language teachers aim at?
· What kind of online projects could best facilitate the accomplishment of these goals?
· What crucial electronic resources should teachers learn and teach to their students?
· How can students be encouraged to become autonomous learners beyond class and school?
Shetzer & Warshauer (2000) propose a conceptual framework for the development of electronic literacy and discuss both the classroom and the research implications of their approach. First of all, they point out how the spreading of online communication is reshaping literacy today at a very fast pace, making it a shifting target. An electronic literacy approach assumes that there is not just one literacy, but many kinds of literacy, depending on context, purpose and medium. Furthermore, electronic literacy is not to be confused with computer literacy, since it doesn’t apply to such matters as how to turn a computer on or operate single programs; instead it is concerned with how people use computers to interpret and express meaning.
According to Shetzer and Warshauer (2000), electronic literacy skills can be roughly divided into three main overlapping areas: communication, construction and research, each involving conceptual and teaching issues.
In this paper I have already dealt with the main features of CMC, some of which typical of written communication, others belonging to spoken language; nonetheless, there are some features which are unique to the computer medium, such as special forms of salutation and greetings, abbreviations and symbols, rules for turn-taking and topic-shifting. Social context clues, which in face-to-face communication are quite complex, become more easily controllable; CMC allows individuals to follow their own time and pace, making communication more free-flowing. All this means that CMC involves new ways of interacting and communicating which go beyond translating from one medium to another.
In particular, the following skills are likely to be crucial for the development of online communicative literacy:
· contacting and being contacted by individuals on line to ask questions, give opinions
and advice, share knowledge
· contacting and being contacted by groups of people; interacting with them
· participating in collaborative projects with people from different countries to pursue shared objectives
· selecting and using the available asyncronous and syncronous communication technologies
· understanding netiquette, privacy and safety issues.
The second area of electronic literacy identified by Shetzer & Warshauer (2000) is construction literacy and it is very likely to replacewhat in traditional pedagogy was labelled as “writing”. Construction literacy skills include :
· the ability to produce hypertexts instead of traditional essays
· the ability to construct multimedia instead of texts made up of words only
· the ability to collaborate in the construction of Web sites.
This means that language teachers and students will have to engage in
· creating Web pages and sites individually and collaboratively
· storing , managing and marketing Web pages and sites, encouraging communication about the topics presented
· exploiting the available Web technologies (software for the creation of Web pages, HTML, etc)
· understanding netiquette isues, privacy issues, safety issues concerning the creation of Web pages and sites.
Shetzer & Warshauer (2000) also point out the fact that the development of electronic literacies not only affects issues of students and teachers’ new opportunities, but also issues of professional research, which will have to involve teachers and learners as well as professional experts. A model of this type of “action” research is provided by Heath (1992).
Conclusion
Starting from a brief overview of CALL development in the light of major language learning theories, I have tried to focus on CMC as one of the most important CALL resources nowadays. Finally, I have dealt with the need of electronic literacies both for students and teachers.
Well aware of the fact that this paper is only an approach to such important FLT issues, I promise myself to go much deeper into them, mainly aiming at improving my professional skills as an English teacher.
Barson, J., Frommer, J., & Schwartz, M. (1993). Foreign
language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective:
Interuniversity experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of
Science Education and
Technology, 4(2), 565-584.
Breen, M. P. (1987). Learner
contributions to task design. In C. N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds), Lancaster
practical papers in English language education, vol. 7, Language learning tasks (pp 23-46).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Candlin, C. N. (1987). Towards
task-based language learning. In C.N. Candlin & D. Murphy (Eds),
Lancaster practical papers in English language
education, vol. 7, Language learning
tasks (pp 5-22).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer
Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University
Press.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic
structures. The Hague: Mouto.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crook, C. (1994). Computers and
the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Eastment, D. (1999).
Computer-assisted Language Learning . Unpublished article for MA programme,
University of
York.
Harnad, S. (1991).
Post-Gutenberg galaxy: The fourth revolution in the means of production and
knowledge. Public-Access
Computer Systems Review, 2(1), 39-53.
Hymes, DD. (1971). Competence and
performance in linguistic theory. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds),
Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp 3-28).
London: Academic Press.
Kelm, O. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second
language instruction: A Preliminary
Report. Foreign Language Annals, 25(5),
441-454g
Kern,
R. (1995a). DŽcouvrir Berkeley: Students' representation of their world on the
World Wide Web. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Virtual
connections: Activities and projects for networking language learners (pp. 355- 356).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kern, R. (1995b).
Restructuring
classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language
Journal, 79(4), 457-476.
Kern, R. (1996). Computer-mediated
communication: Using e-mail exchanges to explore personal histories in two cultures. In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in
foreign language learning (pp. 105- 19).
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center
Kern, R. & Warschauer, M.
(2000). Theory
and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern
and M. Warschauer (Eds), Network-based
Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp 1-19).
Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles
and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Nystrand, M.,Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993).
Where did composition studies come from?: An intellectual
history. Written communication,
10 (3), 267-333
Lamy, M.-N.,
& Goodfellow, R. (1999). "Reflective Conversation" in the Virtual
Language Classroom. Language, 2(2), 43-61. Retrieved February 1, 1999 from the
World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol2num2/article2/index.html
Lemke, J. L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M.
McKenna, L.Labbo, & R. D. Kieffer
(Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post- Typographic World (pp. 283-301).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M. H., &
Crookes, g. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design. TESOL
Quarterly,
26(1), 27-56.
Meskill,
C., & Krassimira, R. (2000). Curriculum innovation in TEFL: Technologies
supporting socio- collaborative language learning in Bulgaria. In M.
Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language
teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Meunier, L.
(1998). Personality and motivational factors in electronic networking. In J.
Muyskens (Ed.), New ways of learning and teaching: Focus on
technology and foreign language education. AAUSC Series:
American Association of University Supervisors,
Coordinators, and Directors of Foreign Language Programs (pp. 63-
126). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Ortega, L.
(1997). Processes and outcomes in networked classroom interaction: Defining the
research agenda for L2 CACD. Language Learning
& Technology, 1(1), 82-93. Downloaded July 18, 1999 from the World Wide Web: http://polyglot.cal.msu.edu/llt/vol1num1/ortega/
Papert,
S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York:
Basic Books
Pelletieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of Chatting
in the development of grammatical competence.
In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice . New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica,
T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language
learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language
Learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Pinto, D. (1996). What does
"schMOOze" mean?: non-native speaker interactions on the Internet. In
M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration
in Foreign Language Learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i symposium , 165-184.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center.
Shetzer,H.,& Warshauer, M. (2000). an
electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warshauer & R. Kern (Eds), Network based
language teaching: concepts and Practice (pp 171 – 185). New York: Cambridge University Press
Snow, M.A. (1991). teaching language through
content. In M.A. Snow (Ed.), Teaching English as a second
or foreign language (pp 315-328). Boston: Newbury House.
Soh, B.L., & Soon, Y. P. (1991). English by
e-mail: creating a global classroom via the medium of computer technology.
ELT Journal, 45(4), 287-292.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler,
S. (1991). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Tella, S. (1992a). Boys, girls
and e-mail: A case study in Finnish senior secondary schools. (Research
report No. 110). Department of Teacher Education, University
of Helsinki.
Tella, S. (1992b). Talking shop via
e-mail: A thematic and linguistic analysis of electronic mail communication. (Research
report No. 99). Department of teacher education, University of Helsinki.
Wang, Y. M.
(1993). E-mail dialogue journaling in an ESL reading and writing classroom.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Oregon at Eugene.
Warschauer, M.
(1996a). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second
language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
Warschauer, M. (1996b). Motivational
aspects of using computers for writing and communication. In M. Warschauer
(Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the
Hawai'i symposium.
Honolulu, HI: University
of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Warschauer,
M. (1998). Online learning in sociocultural context. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(1),
68-88.
Warshauer, M., Healey, D. (1998). Computers and
language learning: An overview. Language Teaching,
31,
57 – 71.
Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and
power in online education. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Warshauer, M. (2001). Online
communication. In R.Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to
teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp 207
– 212). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
.