Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott University of Birmingham, UK Patricia Lupion Torres Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil
InformatIon scIence reference Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Managing Development Editor: Senior Managing Editor: Managing Editor: Assistant Managing Editor: Copy Editor: Typesetter: Cover Design: Printed at:
Kristin Klinger Kristin M. Roth Jennifer Neidig Jamie Snavely Carole Coulson Maria Boyer and Sue Vander Hook Jeff Ash Lisa Tosheff Yurchak Printing Inc.
Published in the United States of America by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200 Hershey PA 17033 Tel: 717-533-8845 Fax: 717-533-8661 E-mail:
[email protected] Web site: http://www.igi-global.com and in the United Kingdom by Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global) 3 Henrietta Street Covent Garden London WC2E 8LU Tel: 44 20 7240 0856 Fax: 44 20 7379 0609 Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher. Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition / Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott and Patricia Lupion Torres, editors. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-59904-994-6 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-59904-995-3 (e-book) 1. Language and languages--Computer-assisted instruction. I. Marriott, Rita de Cassia Veiga. II. Torres, Patrícia Lupion. P53.28.H365 2008 418.0078'5--dc22 2007052786 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library. All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher. If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.
Editorial Advisory Board
Clarissa Jordão Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil
Peppi Taalas University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Felicia Zhang University of Canberra, Australia
Piet Kommers University of Twente, The Netherlands
Gavin Dudeney The Consultants-e, Spain
Steve Mann University of Warwick, UK
Jacques Viens Université de Montréal, Canada
Terry Kidd University of Texas, USA
Jeannette Littlemore University of Birmingham, UK
Vera Menezes Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Panayiotis Zaphiris City University London, UK
List of Reviewers
Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues Junior Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil
Irene Mamakou University of Peloponnese, Greece
Ademilde Silveira Sartori Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina (UDESC), Brazil
Janae Gonçalves Martins Sociedade Educacional de Santa Catarina (SOCIESC), Brazil
Alejandro Martins Sociedade Educacional de Santa Catarina (SOCIESC), Brazil
Jenifer Prettyman Matthew Bolton College, UK
Ana Maria Carneiro Costa Silva Universidade do Minho, Portugal Astrid Gesche Queensland University of Technology, Australia Beatriz Regina Tavares Franciosi Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Brazil Betty Rose Facer Old Dominion University, USA Bryan Carter University of Central Missouri, USA Christine Rosalia New York University, USA Edemilson Jorge Ramos Brandão Universidade de Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Euline Schmid University of Education Heidelberg, Germany Fabricio Ricardo Lazilha Centro Universitario de Maringa (CESUMAR), Brazil Gerson Pastre de Oliveira Faculdade de Tecnologia de Jundiaí (FATEC), Brazil
Jing Wang Allegheny College, USA Kevin Wilkinson Anglia Ruskin University, UK Lorena Llosa New York University, USA Lucia Izabel Czerwonka Sermann Centro Universitário Franciscano do Paraná (UNIFAE), Brazil Mahieddine Djoudi University of Poitiers, France Malinee Prapinwong Indiana University Bloomington, USA Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Italy Marcos Vinicius Santos Kucharski Universidade Tuiuti do Paraná, Brazil Margareth Murphy Griffith University, Australia Mauro José Kummer Pontificia Universidade Católica do Parana (PUCPR), Brazil
Renata Chylinski LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Snea Thinsan Indiana University Bloomington, USA
Ria Hanewald LaTrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Victoria Russell The University of South Florida, USA
Robert Zheng University of Utah, USA
Xiaotian Guo New Vision Language Centre, UK
Rosângela Schwarz Rodrigues Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil
Yasunori Nishina University of Birmingham, UK
Sarah Guth University of Padova, Italy
List of Contributors
Abdous, M’hammed / Old Dominion University, USA ................................................................................. 339 Akayoğlu, Sedat / Middle East Technical University, Turkey ........................................................................ 291 Alastuey, Mª Camino Bueno / Public University of Navarre, Spain............................................................. 480 Altun, Arif / Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey ....................................................................................... 291 Barata, Ana / Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal ............................................................. 497 Baturay, Meltem / Gazi University, Turkey ................................................................................................... 186 Boyer, Jeff / University of Florida, USA ........................................................................................................ 132 Braga, Junia de Carvalho Fidelis / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil ..................................... 22 Camarena, Margaret M. / Old Dominion University, USA .......................................................................... 339 Carter, Bryan / University of Central Missouri, USA.................................................................................... 443 Carvalho, Carlos Vaz de / Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal......................................... 497 Chaka, Chaka / Walter Sisulu University, South Africa ................................................................................. 539 Chylinski, Renata / Monash University, Australia ........................................................................................ 387 Daloğlu, Ayşegül / Middle East Technical University, Turkey ....................................................................... 186 Djoudi, Mahieddine / Université de Poitiers, France.................................................................................... 352 Elseth, Dayton / Mohawk Valley Community College, USA........................................................................... 443 Facer, Betty Rose / Old Dominion University, USA ...................................................................................... 339 Gesche, Astrid / Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia ................................................ 524 Grigoriadou, Maria / University of Athens, Greece ...................................................................................... 456 Guth, Sarah / Università degli studi di Padova, Italy .................................................................................... 424 Hanewald, Ria / La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia................................................................. 104, 387 Irala, Esrom Adriano / Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil............................... 307 Isharyanti, Neny / Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia................................................................ 271 Jarvis, Huw / University of of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK ................................................................... 367 Juhary, Jowati / The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia ................................................... 151 Laine, Päivö / Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland ................................................................................................ 497 Leffa, Vilson J. / Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil ............................................................................. 39 Li, Zhuo / University of Florida, USA ............................................................................................................ 132 Liu, Feng / University of Florida, USA........................................................................................................... 132 Llosa, Lorena / New York University, USA .................................................................................................... 322 Mamakou, Irene / University of Peloponnese, Greece .................................................................................. 456 Marriott, Rita de Cassia Veiga / University of Birmingham, UK ................................................................. 120 Martins, Antônio Carlos Soares / Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil .............................................................................................................................. 22 Matas, Cristina Poyatos / Griffith University, Australia ............................................................................... 253 Murphy, Margaret / Griffith University, Australia........................................................................................ 253 Nishina, Yasunori / University of Birmingham, UK....................................................................................... 204
Nyongwa, Moses / University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada ........................................................................... 165 Okada, Alexandra / The Open University, UK ................................................................................................ 84 Paiva, Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e / Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil ................................................................................................................... 53 Pérez-Paredes, Pascual / Universidad de Murcia, Spain ................................................................................... 1 Petrucco, Corrado / Università degli studi di Padova, Italy ......................................................................... 424 Plana, Mar Gutiérrez-Colon / Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain ................................................................ 409 Ramos, Andreia Ferreira / Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil ..................................................... 120 Rodrigues-Junior, Adail Sebastiao / Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil ....................................... 53 Rosalia, Christine / New York University, USA ............................................................................................. 322 Sánchez-Tornel, María / Universidad de Murcia, Spain ................................................................................... 1 Santos, Marcus Vinicius dos / Ryerson University, Canada ......................................................................... 165 Schmid, Euline Cutrim / University of Education Heidelberg, Germany ....................................................... 69 Schultz, Rosa / University of Vienna, Austria ................................................................................................. 509 Seppänen, Ann / Tampere Polytechnic, Finland ............................................................................................ 497 Simon, Heli / Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland ................................................................................................. 497 Swertz, Christian / University of Vienna, Austria .......................................................................................... 509 Toifl, Katharina / University of Vienna, Austria ............................................................................................ 509 Torres, Patrica Lupion / Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil .................... 120, 307 Viana, Vander / Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ................................................................ 219 Wang, Jing / Allegheny College, USA ............................................................................................................ 237 Woungang, Isaac / Ryerson University, Canada ............................................................................................ 165 Yildirim, Soner / Middle East Technical University, Turkey.......................................................................... 186 Zyngier, Sonia / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ................................................................. 219
Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xxx Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................xxxiii
Section I E-Language Learning: Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources Chapter I Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context ............................................................................................ 1 Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Mariá Sánchez-Tornel, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Chapter II The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities ............................................................. 22 Antônio Carlos Soares Martins, Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Chapter III CALL as Action .................................................................................................................................... 39 Vilson J. Leffa, Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil Chapter IV Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment ..................................................................... 53 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil Chapter V Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL.................................................................... 69 Euline Cutrim Schmid, University of Education Heidelberg, Germany
Chapter VI OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning................................................................... 84 Alexandra Okada, The Open University, UK Chapter VII Learning Objects: Projects, Potentials, and Pitfalls ............................................................................ 104 Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Chapter VIII English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR ......................................................... 120 Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott, University of Birmingham, UK Andreia Ferreira Ramos, Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil Chapter IX Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming ................................................................... 132 Zhuo Li, University of Florida, USA Feng Liu, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA Chapter X A Non-Language Learning Courseware and its Challenges ............................................................... 151 Jowati Juhary, The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia Chapter XI A Pliant-Based Software Tool for Courseware Development ............................................................ 165 Marcus Vinicius dos Santos, Ryerson University, Canada Isaac Woungang, Ryerson University, Canada Moses Nyongwa, University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada
Section II E-Language Learning: Developing Skills and Competencies Chapter XII Designing a Constructivist Vocabulary Learning Material ................................................................. 186 Ayşegül Daloğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Meltem Baturay, Gazi University, Turkey Soner Yildirim, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Chapter XIII A Lexical Study Based on Parallel Corpora, DDL, and Moodle ........................................................ 204 Yasunori Nishina, University of Birmingham, UK
Chapter XIV EFL through the Digital Glass of Corpus Linguistics......................................................................... 219 Vander Viana, Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sonia Zyngier, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Chapter XV Electronic Strategies to Improve Chinese Reading Skills .................................................................. 237 Jing Wang, Allegheny College, USA Chapter XVI Politeness in Intercultural E-Mail Communication ............................................................................ 253 Margaret Murphy, Griffith University, Australia Cristina Poyatos Matas, Griffith University, Australia Chapter XVII Interactional Modifications in Internet Chatting ................................................................................. 271 Neny Isharyanti, Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia Chapter XVIII The Functions of Negotiation of Meaning in Text-Based CMC ......................................................... 291 Sedat Akayoğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Arif Altun, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Chapter XIX The Use of the CMC Tool AMANDA for the Teaching of English.................................................... 307 Esrom Adriano Irala, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Chapter XX Assessing the Quality of Online Peer Feedback in L2 Writing .......................................................... 322 Christine Rosalia, New York University, USA Lorena Llosa, New York University, USA Chapter XXI The Impact of Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes .............................................................. 339 Betty Rose Facer, Old Dominion University, USA M'hammed Abdous, Old Dominion University, USA Margaret M. Camarena, Old Dominion University, USA Chapter XXII Listening Comprehension of Languages with Mobile Devices .......................................................... 352 Mahieddine Djoudi, Université de Poitiers, France
Chapter XXIII Computers and Independent Study: Student Perspectives .................................................................. 367 Huw Jarvis, University of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK Chapter XXIV Creating Supportive Environments for CALL Teacher Autonomy .................................................... 387 Renata Chylinski, Monash University, Australia Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Chapter XXV Frustration in Virtual Learning Environments .................................................................................... 409 Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain
Section III E-Language Learning: Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies Chapter XXVI Social Software and Language Acquisition ........................................................................................ 424 Sarah Guth, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Corrado Petrucco, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Chapter XXVII The Usefulness of Second Life for Language Learning ..................................................................... 443 Bryan Carter, University of Central Missouri, USA Dayton Elseth, Mohawk Valley Community College, USA Chapter XXVIII Project-Based Instruction for ESP in Higher Education ..................................................................... 456 Irene Mamakou, University of Peloponnese, Greece Maria Grigoriadou, University of Athens, Greece Chapter XXIX WebCT Design and Users’ Perceptions in English for Agriculture .................................................... 480 Mª Camino Bueno Alastuey, Public University of Navarre, Spain Chapter XXX The LAFEC Experience for Language Skills Acquisition .................................................................. 497 Heli Simon, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Päivö Laine, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Ann Seppänen, Tampere Polytechnic, Finland Ana Barata, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal
Chapter XXXI Language Teaching in Live Online Environments.............................................................................. 509 Christian Swertz, University of Vienna, Austria Rosa Schultz, University of Vienna, Austria Katharina Toifl, University of Vienna, Austria Chapter XXXII Adapting to Virtual Third-Space Language Learning Futures............................................................. 524 Astrid Gesche, Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia Chapter XXXIII Portable Handheld Language Learning: From CALL, MALL to PALL............................................. 539 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 554 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 595 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 608
Detailed Table of Contents
Foreword ...........................................................................................................................................xxiii Preface ................................................................................................................................................ xxx Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................xxxiii
Section I E-Language Learning: Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources Chapter I Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context ............................................................................................ 1 Pascual Pérez-Paredes, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Mariá Sánchez-Tornel, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Pascual Pérez-Paredes and Maria Sánches Tornel investigate the e-skills necessary for foreign language learning as part of an ongoing research project sponsored by the Spanish Ministry of Education. The authors first clarify the terms “skill,” “strategy,” and “computer expertise” in the CALL domain, then discuss the adaptation of course book material used by English language students taking their CEF C1 level in the Lengua Inglesa III 2006/2007 in order to produce more student-centered and constructivist computer-mediated e-material. From data gathered from a questionnaire investigating “e-communication,” “computer use,” “FL-specific skills,” and “Attitudinal/strategic indicators,” the authors draw on feedback and analyze their e-skills model questionnaire. Chapter II The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities ............................................................. 22 Antônio Carlos Soares Martins, Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Antonio Martins and Junia Braga discuss social presence in blended and online learning environments in light of the Complexity Theory and the Community of Inquiry Framework. The authors analyze the affective, interactive, and cohesive dimensions in computer-mediated communication (CMC) within two learning communities. They discuss the conclusions relating to the pedagogical implications based on the corpus analyzed.
Chapter III CALL as Action .................................................................................................................................... 39 Vilson J. Leffa, Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil Vilson Leffa discusses the dichotomies that exist in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) for individuals working on their own or working collaboratively and interactively as part of a community. Arguing that to focus on one dichotomy only would be a reductionist approach, or an “or” approach, he proposes instead an “and” approach to CALL. From this perspective, he points out that CALL could then focus on the action of doing something via a mediating tool, and thus become the “CALL Action Approach.” Chapter IV Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment ..................................................................... 53 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil In this chapter, Adail Rodrigues Jr. and Vera Paiva seek to take the discussion on “footing,” originally presented by Goffman 1981, one step further by applying it to online environments. They propose that footing “is the element that clearly shows how learning is taking place and how interaction unfolds while interactants are contributing to meaning construction.” They consider the categories of social footing, teaching, and cognitive footing, and give examples from their corpus of work by Brazilian EFL students in an online academic forum to illustrate their argument. Chapter V Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL.................................................................... 69 Euline Cutrim Schmid, University of Education Heidelberg, Germany The potential of interactive whiteboard technology (IWB) to support language learning and the teaching of English for academic purposes (EAP) is investigated by Euline Schmid in light of Bax’s theory of the normalization of computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The concept of integrated CALL and the invisibility of technology in the classroom environment is examined against the claim that IWB supports teacher-centered approaches in addition to highlighting the need for devising appropriate teacher training programs. Chapter VI OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning................................................................... 84 Alexandra Okada, The Open University, UK Alexandra Okada examines the open learning movement for language teaching and for fostering language-learning communities using the software tool Compendium developed for the project OpenLearn by the Open University, UK. This is used for knowledge mapping; flashmeetings, which allow for videoconferencing to take place (offering resources such as whiteboard and voting system); and MSG,
“an instant messaging application with geolocation maps” similar to a “personal radar that shows who is online and where.” The application of these free tools for language teaching and an evaluation of student participation are demonstrated. Chapter VII Learning Objects: Projects, Potentials, and Pitfalls ............................................................................ 104 Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia Ria Hanewald provides a theoretical view of learning objects and repositories, exploring their potential and application in language education. She discusses issues such as pedagogical neutrality, language, content, culture, quantity, and quality in relation to the production of learning materials, introducing innovative resources and collections of repositories online, and encouraging practitioners to contribute to these. In addition, she discusses the features of learning objects in light of the issues raised, her goal being to foster leading-edge practice and stimulate future research in the area. Chapter VIII English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR ......................................................... 120 Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott, University of Birmingham, UK Andreia Ferreira Ramos, Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil Patricia Torres, Rita Marriott, and Andreia Ramos give an evaluation of the Learning Objects (LOs) used at the Pontifical Catholic University of Parana, with specific reference to the LO used for English language learning. This is delivered via a Web-based student support system called Sistema de Apoio ao Aluno via WEB or SAAW, which is a development tool offered in the university’s virtual learning environment. The authors discuss the findings, which are based upon qualitative feedback from postgraduate students and the conclusions drawn from the results. Chapter IX Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming ................................................................... 132 Zhuo Li, University of Florida, USA Feng Liu, University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer, University of Florida, USA The potential of e-gaming for foreign language learning is investigated in this chapter by Zhuo Li, Feng Liu, and Jeff Boyer. Following a discussion of the use on traditional games for language learning, the authors examine the role of student motivation in order to situate e-gaming in the context of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL). The challenges encountered within the concept of e-gaming, such as game design, teacher training, and assessment, are also explored. In addition, a number of online resources for use by the foreign language instructor is provided, highlighting the potential of these for foreign language teaching.
Chapter X A Non-Language Learning Courseware and its Challenges ............................................................... 151 Jowati Juhary, The National Defence University of Malaysia, Malaysia Jowati Juhary reports on the implementation of a nonlanguage learning software (NLLS) as used for the teaching of English to a group of 118 cadets in the National Defense University Malaysia (NDUM). The author discusses the main findings of a quantitative survey, which highlights the technical, theoretical, and pedagogical challenges faced in this project, and discusses the implications arising from this practice. Chapter XI A Pliant-Based Software Tool for Courseware Development ............................................................ 165 Marcus Vinicius dos Santos, Ryerson University, Canada Isaac Woungang, Ryerson University, Canada Moses Nyongwa, University of Manitoba CUSB, Canada Marcus Santos, Isaac Woungang, and Moses Nyongwa examine ‘Pliant’, open source software for webbased courseware development and ‘Academia’, a web portal based on Pliant. The features of these tools and their feasibility for e-learning and language acquisition are assessed via the findings of a case study carried out in Translation Studies in a course on Localization, developed at the CUSB School of Translation in Winnipeg, Canada.
Section II E-Language Learning: Developing Skills and Competencies Chapter XII Designing a Constructivist Vocabulary Learning Material ................................................................. 186 Ayşegül Daloğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Meltem Baturay, Gazi University, Turkey Soner Yildirim, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Ayşegül Daloğlu, Meltem Baturay, and Soner Yıldırım focus on Web-based vocabulary learning via WEBVOCLE, a project funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. The authors examine this concept in light of its positive attributes. Based on vocabulary learning and retention theories and the constructivist approach, the emphasis is upon learner-centeredness, contextualized knowledge and meaning construction, opportunities for production, and ongoing/periodic recycling, which takes into account how vocabulary is learned, recycled, and practiced. The effectiveness of WEBVOCLE is analyzed via qualitative research, and the implications of the findings are discussed.
Chapter XIII A Lexical Study Based on Parallel Corpora, DDL, and Moodle......................................................... 204 Yasunori Nishina, University of Birmingham, UK In this chapter, Yasunori Nishina proposes the idea of using data-driven learning (DDL), Parallel Corpus, and Moodle for Bilingual Lexical Studies in a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) environment such as Moodle. More specifically, he argues that EFL students benefit more if they first base their studies on parallel corpora and then move on to the use of monolingual corpora. Using examples from Japanese and English of Error Analysis from Learner’s and Native Speaker’s Corpora, and Translation Analysis from a Parallel Corpus, the author demonstrates how Moodle can be beneficial in the study of corpus linguistics in the bilingual classroom. Chapter XIV EFL through the Digital Glass of Corpus Linguistics.......................................................................... 219 Vander Viana, Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Sonia Zyngier, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Vander Viana and Sonia Zyngier examine the use of corpora in the EFL classroom. Via an analysis of the British National Corpus (BNC) online database, the authors give examples of how this can be exploited for language learning and teaching, in addition to advocating its use as a method for developing student autonomy. Chapter XV Electronic Strategies to Improve Chinese Reading Skills................................................................... 237 Jing Wang, Allegheny College, USA Jing Wang investigates the use of online/off-line hyperlinked dictionaries and authentic e-materials by Chinese EFL students. By introducing a series of studies and comparing and discussing the achievement of beginners, intermediate, and advanced learners in terms of their reading comprehension and vocabulary recall, the author argues that these e-tools are better suited for intermediate-level students. In the conclusion, she proposes some e-activities supported by e-materials and considers new possibilities for language tutors in the teaching of EFL to Chinese intermediate-level students. Chapter XVI Politeness in Intercultural E-Mail Communication............................................................................. 253 Margaret Murphy, Griffith University, Australia Cristina Poyatos Matas, Griffith University, Australia Margaret Murphy and Cristina Matas focus on how to assess linguistic politeness in e-mail communication and how an awareness of e-mail politeness can assist e-teaching practices. By implementing The Tool Kit, developed over four years, e-mail excerpts are assessed using a 10-level criteria to give a Total Politeness Percentage. Limitations of The Tool Kit are discussed as well as its application for second language teaching online.
Chapter XVII Interactional Modifications in Internet Chatting ................................................................................. 271 Neny Isharyanti, Satya Wacana Christian University, Indonesia Neny Isharyanti analyzes the synchronous exchanges that take place between non-native speakers of English when engaged in two communicative language tasks aimed at promoting language acquisition. The tasks are a jigsaw task and a decision-making task. The author analyzes the types of interactional modifications in the negotiation of meaning from the transcripts taken, and compares and discusses the results achieved. Chapter XVIII The Functions of Negotiation of Meaning in Text-Based CMC ......................................................... 291 Sedat Akayoğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey Arif Altun, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey Using computer-mediated discourse analysis (CMDA), Arif Altun and Sedat Akayoglu focus on the types of negotiation of meaning in exchanges among Native Speakers (NS) and Non-Native Speakers (NNS) of English in a synchronous computer-mediated communication environment. Two research questions are investigated: first, what types of negotiation of meaning exist; and second, whether there is a difference between NS and NNS of English in the negotiation of meaning functions. The findings of this study provide both parallel and emerging results that are consistent with the existing literature and could be further explored to advantage by teachers/lecturers preparing their students for online communication. Chapter XIX The Use of the CMC Tool AMANDA for the Teaching of English.................................................... 307 Esrom Adriano Irala, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Patrica Lupion Torres, Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Esrom Irala and Patricia Torres analyze and discuss the use of the AMANDA program (Environment for Mediation and Analysis of Argumentative Discussions) for foreign language learning. This intelligent system, which mediates group debates over the Internet in a mainly automatic procedure, issues reports enabling the teacher to follow the discussion and to evaluate each student’s participation. The feedback from its implementation with intermediate- and postintermediate-level students is discussed, and possible ways of implementing AMANDA in the language class are suggested. Chapter XX Assessing the Quality of Online Peer Feedback in L2 Writing .......................................................... 322 Christine Rosalia, New York University, USA Lorena Llosa, New York University, USA In this chapter, Christine Rosalia and Lorena Llosa introduce an instrument used to formatively assess the quality of peer feedback in a second language online asynchronous writing learning environment. The Online Peer Feedback Assessment (OPF Assessment) is explained by means of examples from peer reviews, and its rubrics are introduced and examined. The authors suggest that the OPF Assessment can
potentially be used in a variety of contexts as a formative tool to improve not only the quality of peer feedback but also the writing proficiency of both writers and reviewers. Chapter XXI The Impact of Podcasting on Students’ Learning Outcomes .............................................................. 339 Betty Rose Facer, Old Dominion University, USA M'hammed Abdous, Old Dominion University, USA Margaret M. Camarena, Old Dominion University, USA Betty Rose Facer, M’hammed Abdous, and Margaret Camarena of the Old Dominium University explore the potential benefits of podcasting for foreign language learning and study habits. Based on qualitative and quantitave data derived from a pilot project developed with an Italian beginner’s class and a French advanced-level group, the authors examine student use of podcasts and the effect of this on their study practices, acquisition of language skills, and knowledge. Interesting conclusions are drawn from the findings, enabling the authors to make suggestions for the future use of iPods/MP3 players and podcasting in the improvement of foreign language learning and education. Chapter XXII Listening Comprehension of Languages with Mobile Devices .......................................................... 352 Mahieddine Djoudi, Université de Poitiers, France Mahieddine Djoudi presents an approach to listening comprehension in foreign language learning using mobile devices. The author first situates mobile learning (m-learning) in distance learning (dlearning) and contextualizes listening comprehension within the language skills. He fully discusses this approach, which incorporates the use of information technology, the Internet, and mobile devices in order to examine the course management system (CMS) and its functionalities such as Podcasting Tool and Interactive Logbook. In conclusion, the author suggests an approach to the evaluation of listening comprehension. Chapter XXIII Computers and Independent Study: Student Perspectives .................................................................. 367 Huw Jarvis, University of Salford-Greater Manchester, UK The use of computer-based materials (CBMs) by students involved in self-study in language resource centers (LRCs) is examined in this chapter. Huw Jarvis specifically investigates the use of CBMs by undergraduates and postgraduates, both native and non-native speakers of English, in the study of Arabic, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). He discusses findings from a qualitative and quantitative study carried out in 2005 to support the conclusion that LRCs are effective in the development of both language skills and learner autonomy. Chapter XXIV Creating Supportive Environments for CALL Teacher Autonomy .................................................... 387 Renata Chylinski, Monash University, Australia Ria Hanewald, La Trobe University, Australia
Renata Chylinski and Ria Hanewald discuss the development of an online portal that aims to support teacher autonomy in computer-assisted language learning (CALL) programs. Designed to promote professional development and centralization of access to all CALL material across four campuses, the project had three stages over a six-month period: concept design, platform design, and project evaluation. Their findings, based on the qualitative data gathered from the research, are fully documented. Chapter XXV Frustration in Virtual Learning Environments .................................................................................... 409 Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain Mar Gutiérrez-Colon proposes a theoretical viewpoint of the problems facing students engaged in virtual courses in addition to discussing what is currently believed to be characteristic of a good e-learning environment. Based on the findings of a questionnaire at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Italy, in which EFL students evaluated blended courses delivered using the Moodle platform, GutiérrezColon reaches conclusions as to what can motivate or demotivate students to e-learning.
Section III E-Language Learning: Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies Chapter XXVI Social Software and Language Acquisition ........................................................................................ 424 Sarah Guth, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Corrado Petrucco, Università degli studi di Padova, Italy Web 2.0 technologies and social software for language education provide the focus for this chapter. Advocating their benefit for language learning, Sarah Guth and Corado Petrucco offer an analysis of two projects carried out with advanced English Language students at the University of Padua, Italy, in which Skype, a wiki, blogs, and social software tools were used. The assessment criteria implemented and the challenges faced when using networked technologies in formal education are fully documented and discussed. Chapter XXVII The Usefulness of Second Life for Language Learning ..................................................................... 443 Bryan Carter, University of Central Missouri, USA Dayton Elseth, Mohawk Valley Community College, USA Bryan Carter and Dayton Elseth examine the use of the 3D virtual reality world “Second Life” for language learning. After considering the role of distance learning, social learning, and e-gaming in education, the authors report on two studies. The first was conducted with students on a Composition Course over a period of two years, and the second with a group at beginner level learning German as a foreign language. Both studies took place at the University of Central Missouri. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the future of distance education and its challenges.
Chapter XXVIII Project-Based Instruction for ESP in Higher Education ..................................................................... 456 Irene Mamakou, University of Peloponnese, Greece Maria Grigoriadou, University of Athens, Greece Irene Mamakou and Maria Grigoriadou describe and discuss a student-centered Language for Specific Purpose (LSP) course developed in e-Class, a learning management system. The authors introduce the methodological proposal, which is based on social-constructivist pedagogy and on collaborative and project-based learning, and discuss its implementation based on qualitative and quantitave research findings. Chapter XXIX WebCT Design and Users’ Perceptions in English for Agriculture .................................................... 480 Mª Camino Bueno Alastuey, Public University of Navarre, Spain Mª Camino Bueno examines the implementation of an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course on Agriculture at the University of Navarre using WebCT as the virtual platform. The author focuses specifically on the usefulness of student input at the end of each of the three years implementation, commenting on the observed changes in organization of content taking place in each course. An evaluation of the results achieved from both quantitave and qualitative research is given in conclusion. Chapter XXX The LAFEC Experience for Language Skills Acquisition .................................................................. 497 Heli Simon, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Päivö Laine, Seinäjoki Polytechnic, Finland Ann Seppänen, Tampere Polytechnic, Finland Ana Barata, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, Instituto Superior de Engenharia do Porto, Portugal The Languages for eCommerce Course (LAFEC), as presented by Heli Simon, Päivö Laine, Ann Seppänen, Ana Barata, and Carlos Vaz de Carvalho, is part of the Leonardo da Vinci program. The course focuses on the acquisition of language skills for trainees in initial vocational training and those in the labor market in the specific field of e-commerce. It is offered to students from participating higher education institutions and developed in a virtual learning environment, Moodle. LAFEC aims to develop the writing skills necessary to convey information in e-commerce Web sites, while considering the needs and cultural background of the target audience. The authors detail the six modules comprising this methodological approach and follow this with a discussion of the challenges identified in its first implementation (October 2006 through April 2007), based on feedback from participants. Chapter XXXI Language Teaching in Live Online Environments ............................................................................. 509 Christian Swertz, University of Vienna, Austria Rosa Schultz, University of Vienna, Austria Katharina Toifl, University of Vienna, Austria
Christian Swertz, Katharina Toifl, and Rosa Schultz discuss the design and implementation of LANCELOT (LANguage learning with CErtified Live Online Teachers), an online language training program for teachers funded by the Leonardo da Vinci Programme of the European Commission. LANCELOT implements an e-learning methodology known as Web-Didactics, which allows students to choose from different paths when learning a topic. The three strands of the LANCELOT course (technology, language teaching methods, and intercultural communications) are presented along with its tools, methodology, and assessment criteria. The feedback from its first implementation is analyzed and will be refined and made available to all interested parties under the Creative Commons License for public use. Chapter XXXII Adapting to Virtual Third-Space Language Learning Futures............................................................. 524 Astrid Gesche, Queensland University of Technology-Brisbane, Australia In this chapter, Astrid Gesche discusses learning within the concept of “third spaces in hyperspaces.” She compares learning in conventional third spaces with learning in virtual third spaces, considering the effects of aspects such as cultural diversity. She addresses the question of data and information privacy, and proposes three fluid and interdependent categories for teaching and learning in online virtual environments: Affective, Cognitive, and Operational. Chapter XXXIII Portable Handheld Language Learning: From CALL, MALL to PALL............................................. 539 Chaka Chaka, Walter Sisulu University, South Africa Chaka Chaka’s research area focuses upon the topic of “handheld and portable language learning aids.” The author first reviews and discusses the current literature on Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL). Second, he examines in detail the latest research on pocket PCs; mobile phones; PDAs; iPods; and Nintendo DS, PSP, and J2ME for their application and potential in language learning. In conclusion, he argues that the future of m-learning lies in Pen-Assisted Language Learning (PALL), and outlines future MALL trends. Compilation of References................................................................................................................ 554 About the Contributors..................................................................................................................... 595 Index.................................................................................................................................................... 608
xxiii
Foreword
E-LEarning (rEsEarch) and ForEign LanguagEs: an introduction In this opening piece, I attempt to offer an introduction to the Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition, edited by Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott and Patricia Lupion Torres, from the perspective of a nonparticipant observer. I am very grateful for the invitation by the editors to share my comments on their ambitious project in this way, and I will do so not only on the basis of a careful reflection on the chapters featured in this book but also against the background of my own personal professional engagement as a teacher and researcher over many years, the latter in a leading specialist higher education institution, inter alia with the fields of foreign language (FL) teaching, learning, and research, as well as FL teacher education and development with particular reference to digital technologies and their application for (FL) teaching and learning. In so doing, my main points of reference will be the chapters of this handbook and their individual and collective contribution to the field. Partly due to lack of space and partly because the historical overviews and literature reviews featured by individual chapters already offer an engagement with at least some of the key literature in the field, I will refrain from providing my own topography here. This allows me to concentrate on the following observations: FL teaching and learning can be considered particularly suited to the use of technologies, new and old, with the focus in this introductory piece firmly on the former. Among other things, the skills and processes involved in FL teaching and learning align well with the characteristics and potential of digital technologies, be it in relation to traditional uses such as drill-practice (e.g., to enhance memorization of new lexical items); the systematic capturing and analysis of linguistic data, both at semantic and syntactic levels; or skill-based work around modeling to improve pronunciation, be it practicing listening through digital artefacts or speaking through the production of digital audio, practicing reading by accessing authentic material on the Internet, or developing writing through computer-mediated synchronous or asynchronous communication tools, to name but a few. The possibilities for the application of new technologies in FL teaching and learning are extensive; the list of examples given here is only indicative but it should suffice to support the previous assertion. In fact, I want to go further than just assert a particularly good fit between the characteristics and potential of new technologies, such as their communicative emphasis, multimodality, distributed nature, interactivity, and so forth, and FL teaching and learning here (for a detailed discussion, see Allford and Pachler [2007]) and instead posit that in view of the increasing proliferation, if not to say ubiquity and functional convergence of technological devices, FL learners as well as their educators can ill afford not to engage proactively with new technologies in the twin processes of FL learning and teaching. While this is not to argue that new technologies have reached the state of normalization, Bax (2003) argues in his oft-cited piece on the past, present, and future of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
xxiv
(i.e., that the technology has become invisible and truly integrated). While invisibility, or rather ubiquity, appears to be increasingly the case in the life-worlds of many learners, particularly of young and teenage learners in the so-called developed countries (Bachmair, 2007), these technologies have far from infiltrated the personal and professional life-worlds of their teachers. I focus on the term ubiquity rather than invisibility since although devices are becoming increasingly portable and wireless networks increasingly allow for anytime and anyplace connectivity, they remain physical entities with potentially disruptive influence on the ecology of formal learning situations. Wireless connectivity cannot readily be equated with true integration (Bax, 2003). Another, in my view, very important dimension that Bax’s notion of normalization ignores or, at best, does not explicitly engage with, is the ideological baggage embedded in technology. While the notion of ubiquity runs the risk of the ideological undergirding remaining undetected, the notion of normalization bestows upon it mainstream status without really examining it critically. In Kress and Pachler (2007), drawing on Bruce and Hogan (1998), we argue that all technological tools embody certain social and cultural values, and we note that it is important to understand how technologies are designed, interpreted, used, constructed, reconstructed, and so forth. Although this current piece is by no means an attempt to deconstruct Bax’s (2003) very helpful critical reassessment of Warschauer’s history of CALL, another important notion that warrants discussion here is what Graham (1997) calls “dynamic obsolescence,” (i.e., the problem of hardware and software constantly evolving and becoming out of date). This fact works fundamentally against normalization. The current—and future—trend is firmly toward mobile, visual, and social technologies (cf. Web 2.0) (for a detailed discussion of these technologies, see Kress and Pachler [2007] and Owen, Grant, Sayers, and Facer [2006]). Suffice it to note that these trends arguably require new explanatory frames for the processes, context, and practices of (FL) learning and are associated with an entirely new set of technologies. For a discussion of these technologies in the context of FL teaching and teacher education, see Pachler, Barnes, and Field (2008). The pace of change is relentless, and it is inevitably difficult to do it full justice in a medium-term project such as this handbook that took two years from conception to completion. It is very pleasing to see, therefore, that some of the contributions (e.g., the chapters on Second Life, podcasting, handhelds, and social software) engage with new technologies, tools, and applications explicitly. My assertion is simply that there is a huge new research agenda emerging and that the challenge for researchers as well as learners and teachers continues, despite the publication of this very helpful and commendable volume. Although the current volume offers a very useful and impressive array of studies, in view of the preceding, it can at best be viewed as work in progress, and there remains an urgent need for more research in this constantly evolving field. In developing this new research agenda, one could do much worse than reflect on the efforts to date of various academics such as Bax (2003) to analyze the developmental trajectory of the use of new technologies in FL teaching and learning. Kern (2006), for example, asks the very pertinent question whether CALL should still be called CALL. In my view, the term is in need of a reappraisal, and I concur with Kern, who, with reference to Egbert (2005) and Warschauer (1999), argues that with the proliferation of tools, the focus on computers is no longer appropriate and the term CALL suggests a dislocation of technology from the normalcy of learners’ and teachers’ engagements with FLs and as “outside the ecology of language use.” The question arises, therefore, what should be used in its stead. The term e-learning appears to be used by contributors to this volume in the same generic sense as the UK government in its 2005 e-strategy (DfES, 2005). Another widely used term, at least in the UK context, is Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). My personal preference is for a more generic term such as “digital technologies,” as this allows for a wider range of use apart from information retrieval, processing, production, and communication. It seems to me to foreground that which is substantively different from older technologies (i.e., the digital format of the content and the possibilities that affords).
xxv
What, then, of the importance of the contribution of this handbook collectively to the debate around the use of digital technologies in FL teaching and learning? In order to be able to answer this question, a closer look at the individual contributions is required. One thing is clear and can be stated with some confidence: the handbook brings together an impressive range of topics and types of technology from a wide range of contributors based on a rich diversity of contexts, languages, learners, and ages. This affords the reader an opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with a wide range of interesting examples. As it is not possible to provide a detailed discussion of all the contributions to this volume given the sheer number of contributions as well as the limited space available for an introduction, I shall confine myself to glossing and commenting briefly, in no particular order, on a few papers with particular emphasis on the newer technologies. Ria Hanewald discusses the potential of digital learning objects; in particular, by examining the tension of neutrality vs. certain value orientations. She argues in particular that while free digital learning objects in digital repositories are important to prevent the marginalization of language education online, attention to the cultural situatedness and pedagogical framing of FL learning and teaching are important, and therefore, particular attention needs to be paid to the conceptualization, standardization, and application of learning objects and repositories. Very useful about her piece is the introduction it offers to a range of selected online repositories, even if it is left to the reader to apply the useful criteria for evaluating them presented in the latter part of the piece. Chaka Chaka coins the acronyms MALL (Mobile-Assisted Language Learning) and PALL (Pen-Assisted Language Learning) as replacements for CALL. The chapter offers an attempt of a multidimensional definition of m-learning and envisions a future in which various portable and ubiquitous computing devices with new types of functionality leading to portable and pervasive, personalized, context-aware, just-in-time flexible language learning. Euline Cutrim Schmid discussed the use of interactive whiteboards (IWBs); in particular, what techniques in their use are available and how these facilitate the integration of multimedia into the curriculum, cater to diverse learning needs, enhance motivation, enhance interaction and collaboration with teachers having to guard against an emphasis on teacher-centered approaches, and an undue acceleration of pace. Betty Rose Facer and M’hammed Abdous examine the impact of podcasting in relation to the reinforcement of content through provision of self-paced access to authentic material and the improvement of pronunciation and vocabulary as well as of oral and aural skills. They describe the application of podcasting very much in the context of an alternative way of curriculum delivery, although they acknowledge that podcasts present a real opportunity for knowledge creation and dissemination by students. Sarah Guth problematizes the relationship between emergent social software as an extension to network-based approaches and FL learning, and stresses access to sites of real and authentic language production and uses they afford. She posits that the focus is on activities rather than applications that focus on the creation, sharing, and managing of knowledge. Alexandra Okada emphasizes the potential of open source educational resources and attendant knowledge mapping techniques for FL learning, such as concept, mind, argument, and Web mapping. For a detailed discussion of these techniques, see the Special Issue of Reflecting Education (http://reflectingeducation.net) on the topic published in 2007. The chapter outlines some open learning communities and their features, such as open products, integrity, transparency, nondiscrimination, and noninterference. As with a number of other areas in this volume, it will be interesting to see some of the concepts and notions critically discussed in future papers. Mar Gutiérrez-Colon Plana discusses the use of VLEs in FL learning from a student perspective; in particular, the frustrations at times experienced by learners, and with reference to relevant background
xxvi
literature, she identifies good and bad practices. The discussion tends to focus on the potential technical and general stumbling blocks; a consideration of these factors may invite the reader to consider how best to teach aspects of listening comprehension online. Margaret Murphy and Cristina Poyatos Matas focus on the issue of politeness in intercultural e-mail communication, and they present, on the basis of their research with Australian and Korean subjects, an instrument to assess politeness and consider the pedagogical application of their instrument. The authors note the limitations of their instrument in terms of subjectivity and potential cultural bias. Interaction-based research in the context of online communities is, indeed, one of the main foci of the volume. In view of the prominence of this theme in the literature, this is not surprising. Adail Sebastiao, Rodrigues Jr., and Vera Paiva offer a conceptually interesting piece in which they use the notion of footing; in particular, social, teaching, and cognitive as a frame for trying to understand and explain online interaction. They argue that in view of the lack of prosodic segmentation and paralinguistic resources bound up in talk-in-context, there is a need for interlocutors to make their footing visible and explicit online. They interpret footing as the indexing of utterances to facilitate knowledge construction. They also relate their discussion to Halliday’s (2004) transitory model. Arif Altun and Sedat Akayoglu in turn investigate the functions of negotiation of meaning across native and non-native speakers using computer-mediated discourse analysis in an attempt to provide a taxonomy for text-based synchronous CMC environments. Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga and Antonio Martins use Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) inquiry framework to explore the role of social presence in blended and online learning environments. Jing Wang examines the use of hyperlinked dictionaries in developing reading of authentic material for learners of Chinese. The study notes the variability of findings across proficiency levels, which is linked to the nature of characters and words in Chinese. With reference to Hubbard (2000), they use the term meaning technologies in relation to hyperlinked dictionaries. Last, but by no means least, for current purposes, Christine Rosalia and Lorena Llosa offer a very useful discussion of peer feedback in online writing. In particular, they describe an instrument developed to assess the quality of peer feedback. In order to enable the reader to make better sense of the diversity offered across theories, practices, methodologies, and contexts, the handbook would have benefited from a more substantial editorial offering an explicit frame of reference against which to read the various contributions. The handbook offers a collection of more or less systematic and inquiry-based reflections on pedagogical and didactic practices, which are, to a greater or lesser degree, aligned to certain theoretical conceptualizations drawn from (a combination of) constructivist, social interactionist, as well as (inter)cultural and/or semiotic approaches (Pachler, 2005). An extended foreword would have supported the reader in the process of meaning-making and categorization in this respect. This diversity of perspectives, in my view, is not necessarily a bad thing, and with Egbert (2005), who made the point in the context of research into technology-enhanced FL teaching and learning, I would argue the need for plurality in theoretical and methodological, pedagogical, and didactic perspectives. However, it is somewhat surprising that those few generic explanatory frames for technology-enhanced and online learning and teaching that do exist, the most prominent being Garrison and Anderson’s (2003) framework for research and practice and Laurillard’s (2002, 2007) conversational model, are conspicuous by their absence in all but very few of the contributions to this handbook, as is, by and large, reference to the fora in which they tend to be debated, such as the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN) (http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/) and the International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education (IRODL) (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl). My contention here is that reference to and critical engagement with the world of educational research and practice more generally
xxvii
can only benefit the advancement of our understanding of FL-specific practices and processes and is a challenge to be taken up by future volumes. Let me finish my critical commendation of this volume by reminding us all that what matters is not technology itself, but rather how it is used. As others have rightly observed before me (Kern, 2006, 2000), technology-enhanced FL teaching is not a methodological approach in itself but must be seen as embedded in particular teaching methods and conceptualization of FL learning processes. Any research into the use of technology for FL teaching and learning must, therefore, take cognizance of these teaching methods and assumptions about how language learning takes place and treat them as important variables. It is, therefore, hoped that this volume will provide inspiration for further research into this important field of study.
Norbert Pachler Institute of Education, University of London, London Norbert Pachler is a Reader in Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, where he is the co-director of the Centre for Excellence in Work-Based Learning for Education Professional. His research interests include foreign language pedagogy, teacher education and development, and new technologies in education, and he has published widely in these fields. He is currently co-editor of the Language Learning Journal (Routledge), associate editor of the London Review of Education (Routledge), and editor of Reflecting Education (WLE Centre).
rEFErEncEs Allford, D., & Pachler, N. (2007). Language, autonomy and the new learning environments. Oxford: Peter Lang. Bachmair, B. (2007). M-learning and media use in everyday life. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 105–152). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www.wlecentre. ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Bax, S. (2003). CALL—Past, present and future. System, 31, 13–28. Bruce, B., & Hogan, M. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269–281). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Retrieved from http://www.isrl.uiuc.edu/~chip/pubs/disappearance.shtml Chambers, A., Conacher, J., & Littlemore, J. (Eds.). (2004). ICT and language learning: Integrating pedagogy and practice. University of Birmingham Press. Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technology, 1(1), 19–43. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num1/chapelle/ Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: CUP. Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Bejamins Publishing.
xxviii
Davies, G. (1997). Lessons from the past, lessons from the future: 20 years of CALL. In A.-K. Korsvold, & B. Rüschoff (Eds.). (1997). New technologies in language learning and teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.camsoftpartners.co.uk/coegdd1.htm DfES. (2005). Harnessing technology: Transforming learning and children’s services. London. Retrieved from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publications/e-strategy/docs/e-strategy.pdf Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert, & G. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives (pp. 3–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer. Halliday, M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (Third Edition). London: Arnold. Hubbard, P. (2000). The use and abuse of meaning technologies. Proceedings of the Ontario TESL Conference. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/phil/MT.pdf Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). The future of CALL. ELT Journal, 60(4), 382–384. Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183–210. Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243–260. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci. edu/person/markw/frontiers.pdf Kress, G., & Pachler, N. (2007). Thinking about the “m” in m-learning. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 7–32). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www. wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Edition). London: Routledge. Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms of mobile learning: Framing research questions. In N. Pachler (Ed.), Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda (pp. 153–176). London: WLE Centre. Retrieved from http://www.wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearning_pachler_2007.pdf Owen, M., Grant, L., Sayers, S., & Facer, K. (2006). Opening education: Social software and learning. London: Futurelab. Retrieved from http://www.futurelab.org.uk/research/opening_education.htm Pachler, N. (2005). Theories of learning and ICT. In M. Leask, & N. Pachler (Eds.), Learning to teach using ICT in the secondary school (2nd Edition) (pp. 189–206). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Pachler, N., Barnes, A., & Field, K. (2008). Learning to teach modern foreign languages in the secondary school (Third Revised Edition). London: Routledge. Thorne, S., & Payne, J. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22, 371–397. Warschauer, M. (1999). CALL vs. electronic literacy: Reconceiving technology in the language classroom. Retrieved from http://www.cilt.org.uk/research/resfor2/warsum1.htm
xxix
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Brown (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/markw/future-of-CALL.pdf Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57–71. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/markw/overview.html Warschauer, M., & Kern, R. (Eds.). (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. Cambridge: CUP. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21(1), 7–27.
xxx
Preface
Language teaching has seen the development of a variety of methodologies and approaches over the past decades. These have included the grammar translation method, the total physical response method, the silent way, and the communicative approach. These practices have involved the use of a range of tools, including the cassette player and VCR and DVD players, and have concentrated on the development of language skills, grammar, vocabulary, and communicative competence. They have also, in the main, relied upon teachers and course books as the principal sources of information and guidance. After the birth of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) in the late 1970s, foreign language teaching and learning saw the introduction of the use of micro and networked computers and the development of hardware and software designed specifically for language instruction. Since the end of the 1990s, with the popularization of synchronous and asynchronous communications and the Internet, a number of CALL research papers and projects have focused on the use of e-mail for language teaching and the establishment of cross-cultural communication activities (Chapelle, 2001). More recently, CALL methodologies have gone a step further, this time to embrace not only the new technology but also methodologies and approaches brought about by the use of the Internet and virtual learning environments. These take into consideration the needs and interests of both students and institutions within the context of a technological and democratic society. It was in this context that the idea for putting together a publication germinated. The initial thoughts of organizing this book stem from several research projects carried out by the editors on computer-mediated learning. From the first investigations, Marriott and Torres sought to propose methodologies that would develop a student’s critical sense, methodologies that would overcome the more traditional teaching methods centered in the reproduction of content. They were also looking for innovative solutions using information and communication technologies, aiming to give support to their own methodological proposals. In 2004, Marriott created the Language Learning Lab (LAPLI)1 (Laboratório de APrendizagem de LInguas). LAPLI is a hybrid (50% face-to-face [F2F] and 50% distance learning) methodology for intermediate and advanced language learning students, developed in a collaborative virtual learning environment (VLE). Involved in its 12 activities, students research on topics of their own interest associated with linguistics or education and select authentic material from trustworthy sources online, saving them in the VLE for all to access and work on. They work at word, paragraph, and text level, and are involved in several activities such as concept mapping2; questioning and answering; creating grammar exercises; and developing summaries, reviews, articles, and PowerPoint presentations. Learners work individually, interactively, and collaboratively among themselves and in small groups formed according to shared interests or involvement in the activities. LAPLI’s activities are designed to challenge students to go beyond their limitations while developing their fluency and accuracy in reading, writing, and oral skills. LAPLI is based on Torres’ distance learning methodology LOLA3 - The Online Learning Lab (Laboratório Online de Aprendizagem4) was created in 2002. Both LAPLI and LOLA are based on
xxxi
constructivist, collaborative, and meaningful learning approaches, placing the students in the center of the process, developing their autonomy, responsibility, and social skills. Following the development and evaluation of these proposals, several new research projects have been undertaken, which has led to an increase in the number of publications in this area. It was in light of these new investigations that the idea of editing this publication took shape and the Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition was conceived. First, let us explain what we mean by “e-learning,” “methodologies,” and “language acquisition.” Elearning means in its broadest sense to “explore new approaches to learning supported by technologies” (HEFCE, 2005), involving the innovative use of information and communication technology (ICT) for F2F, hybrid, and distance learning initiatives in order to be able to “transform learning and teaching” (HEFCE, 2005). Methodology is perceived in its general meaning to encompass “approaches, methods, techniques, procedures and models” (Harmer, 2001) within which theoretical and pedagogical approaches combine, supporting and guiding the use of teaching resources available, and a set of procedures designed to achieve the expected learning outcomes is found. As for language acquisition, we understand this to mean “a natural developmental process of gaining knowledge and mastery of a speech system in a living environment” (Pham, 1994), whereas language learning, also covered in this publication, is “a largely conscious process that involves formal exposure to rules of syntax and semantics followed by specific applications of the rules, with corrective feedback reinforcing correct usage and discouraging incorrect usage” (Felder & Henriques, 1995). Therefore, in this Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition, we gather research on innovative theoretical and practical approaches to language learning and teaching in the area of CALL, using current available teaching resources for F2F, distance, and hybrid courses. The 33 chapters are written by 60 prominent, internationally known authors from all six continents of the world and cover both language learning and language acquisition as well as language teaching. They cover a variety of topics such as the use of computer mediated communication, Web2.0, social software, mobile learning, virtual learning environments, e-gaming, mapping techniques, hyperlinked dictionaries, interactive whiteboards, corpus linguistics, learning objects, virtual reality environments, and podcasting. They report on research and studies focusing on the theory and methodologies for the learning, teaching, and acquisition of languages online, fostering students’ foreign language competencies and communicative skills as well as their autonomy, responsibility, and social skills. The Handbook of Research on E-Learning Methodologies for Language Acquisition covers the areas of pedagogy, methodology, assessment, current and future challenges of online language learning, and teaching. It is divided into the following three foundational areas under the e-language learning umbrella heading: Section I – Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources; Section II – Developing Skills and Competencies; and Section III – Methodological Approaches and Future Tendencies. This publication aims to contribute to the education of language students, novice teachers, academics, and researchers who not only wish to keep abreast of current developments but also want to introduce innovative methodologies and approaches into their own practice. It aims to promote insights into current e-learning practices and methodologies for language teaching, learning, and acquisition, and to foster the development of both theoretical and practical issues concerning learning, skills development, interaction, communication, collaboration, and evaluation of foreign/second language education online, encouraging professional discussion and progress in this fast developing field.
Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott and Patrícia Lupion Torres Editors
xxxii
rEFErEncEs Felder, R., & Henriques, E. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second language learning education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21–31. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/FLAnnals.pdf Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd Ed.). Harlow: Longman. HEFCE. (2005). HEFCE strategy for e-learning. Retrieved November 2007, from http://www.hefce. ac.uk/pubs/HEFCE/2005/05_12/05_12.doc Pham, L. (1994). Infant dual language acquisition revisited. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 14, 185–210. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/jeilms/vol14/ pham.htm
EndnotEs 1
2
3
4
For information on LAPLI, see Marriott, R., & Torres, P. (2006). LAPLI – The Languages Learning Lab: A methodological proposal for a hybrid course in a virtual environment. In P. Zaphiris, & G. Zacharia (Eds.), User-centered computer aided language learning (pp. 133–151). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. For information on LAPLI focusing on concept mapping activities, please refer to Marriott, R., & Torres, P. (2008). Enhancing collaborative and meaningful language learning through concept mapping. In A. Okada, S.B. Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography—Software tools and mapping techniques. Springer-Verlag. LOLA was awarded 1st place in the category “Research” by ABED, the Brazilian Association for Distance Learning (Associação Brasileira de Educação a Distância) and by EMBRATEL, a Brazilian telephone communications company, in 2003. For information on LOLA, see Torres, P.L., & Marriott, R. (2007). The LOLA strategy and e-learning knowledge management. In T. Kidd, & H. Song (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology (pp. 656–669), Volume II. New York: Information Science Reference.
xxxiii
Acknowledgment
We would first like to thank the many authors who contributed to this publication for their enthusiasm for the project, and also the Editorial Advisory Board and the reviewers who gave so much of their time. Grateful thanks are extended to Norbert Pachler, not only for writing the foreword but also for his guidance during the latter stages of production; to the editorial team at IGI Global for their support; and to Janet Schofield for advice. In addition, we thank our families for their support throughout the process: John, Rita’s husband, for his insights and encouragement during all the writing process, and children Rebecka and Nicholas for their understanding and patience during the endless weekends dedicated to the book; Patricia’s husband, Gilberto, for his support and dedication, and children Tattiana and Patrick for their love and understanding during the time spent away from them. We are also grateful to our mothers Maria de Lourdes Silva Veiga and Maria Helena Ribas Lupion and Rita’s brother Fernando Cesar Silva Veiga for being there. Finally, our most heartfelt thanks to four close family members who have enjoyed our happiness and encouraged us from the beginning. They are the late José Schwansee Torres, the late Kenneth Kolbe Marriott, the late José Lupion Jr., and the late Jose Irineu Ribas Veiga. We are sure they would be very proud of the completed venture.
Rita de Cássia Veiga Marriott and Patrícia Lupion Torres Editors
Section I
E-Language Learning:
Theories, Tools, and Pedagogical Resources
Chapter I
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context Pascual Pérez-Paredes Universidad de Murcia, Spain María Sánchez-Tornel Universidad de Murcia, Spain
abstract The research we report is a pilot study carried to test English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ reception of an electronic foreign language teaching (FLT) task. In doing so, our aim was to collect information that can allow us to refine our own e-skills model, a model that adapts to the specific learning context of our students by focusing on the objectives, competence, and learning activities that our students engage in, in their everyday learning experience. In this way, our e-skills model is field-specific and context-survey-driven. The factor analysis results suggest that, although our four-factor solution explains much of the variance, the original dimensions of e-skills in our FLT context should be reformulated and further adjusted.
introduction: putting E-skiLLs in thE broad picturE Within the context of the European Union (EU), e-skills have become one of the main areas of discussion of the so-called ICT Task Force, which was created in June 2006 to foster a debate on the use of information and communication technologies in all major types of activities across the EU. In
the words of the European Commission, the ICT Task Force is “one of several actions undertaken to create a more favorable EU business environment under the Growth and Jobs initiative proposals for specific actions, such as designing a long-term e-skills strategy and promoting interoperability.”1 A report produced by this group in October 2006 stated that a “steadily growing demand for people with ‘e-skills’ (ICT skills) is a long-run trend for
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
business of all sizes and sectors [where] non-ICT related professions will increasingly require at least basic user e-skills.”2 There is, therefore, a strong link between a “knowledge-based economy which has made education and training a lifelong process rather than a one-off activity”3 and “technology-enabled learning (e-learning) [which] can significantly contribute to lifelong learning and make it a reality.”4 Although e-skills have been successfully implemented in other professional and academic areas, it remains to be seen what the potential for foreign language teaching (FLT) is. In 2003, the European e-Skills Forum was established by the European Commission to promote the effective use of ICT and its successful introduction in all major areas of human activity, especially in the business and industrial sectors. As the focus is the promotion of enhanced labor policies, education and training are key factors in this process. In the European E-Skills 2004 Conference5 held in Thessalonica, Greece, e-skills were defined as encompassing a wide range of capabilities (knowledge, skills, and competences) whose dimensions span a number of economic and social areas. However, the ways individuals interact with ICT vary considerably, depending on the work organization and context of a particular employer, or home environment, as the Synthesis Report of the E-Skills Forum reckons. This notion of variation will precisely be of great interest in the following paragraphs as we want to shed some light on adjacent or related terms by surveying the FLT and CALL literature that has dealt with them. Moreover, we want to create our own model of e-skills, a model that adapts to the specific learning context of our students by focusing on the objectives, competence, and learning activities our students engage in, in their everyday learning experience. In this way, our e-skills model is field-specific and context-survey-driven. One of the major challenges of our research is to try and narrow down the usefulness and epistemology of the e-skills term in our field by:
(1) analyzing existing work, (2) submitting our e-skill frame proposal to the learners’ evaluation, and thus (3) in the future, building a data-driven construct that can serve as a starting point for future research. Concerning the first area, once we have discussed mainstream FLT practices, we want to make an effort to outline a notion of eskill in FLT on three different well-defined areas: (a) new curricular needs and the transformation process (Timuçin, 2006), (b) the well-known normalization issue first introduced by Bax (2003), and (c) the new model for communicative competence (Kenning, 2006) and the need to establish a social context for the adaptation of ICT skills to continuous change. This component of our research is distinctively part of a theoryinformed process which seeks to define problems explicitly (Widdowson, 2003). Regarding the second item abovesubmitting our e-skill frame proposal to the learners’ evaluationwe want to feed on the discussion above to later on submit to our Common European Framework (CEF) Level C1 university learners of English a framework for the understanding of e-skills in their learning process. Our drive here is to adapt an e-skills scheme that meets the specific needs of the students mentioned previously. This scheme goes beyond the widespread user skills approach that covers the utilization of common generic software tools and the use of specialized tools supporting functions within industries other than the ICT industry. We will first stay on more familiar ground by going deeper into the research carried out in the field of FLT and CALL.
background FLt Mainstream context Existing terms such as skill, strategy, and computer expertise have traditionally been and still are of paramount importance to the field of language learning and teaching. In particular, the concept
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
of skill is broad and appears in several different domains within FLT. In general terms, a skill can be defined as “a special ability to do something well, especially as gained by learning and practice”; expertise is a “great skill in a specific field,” while strategy is “skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity.”6 Other definitions for these terms are shown in Table 1 (entry number is provided). The different definitions vary in their appraisal of the actors and activities that these terms involve. As the definitions from Table 1 and from the Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture show, these three terms are well related. If we take the term skill, we see how the terms ability and training are in the core of most definitions. This goes to show that, as we will later see in the discussion of skills within the FLT context, those who want to achieve ability in a field need to go through the appropriate training and practice. As for expertise, it is clear that the notions of great skill or special knowledge
are common. As inferred from these definitions, there is a relationship between skill and expertise, as there is a question of degree that differentiates them. Therefore we see that expertise is situated along the know-how ladder in a higher position than skill, as expertise is related to the mastering of a skill. Our third term, strategy, is related to the military field and has to do with the development of a plan to achieve a goal or success on a particular activity. The most frequent terms in the definitions we collected are success and plan or planning. As students are expected to achieve a certain degree of mastering of the languagethat is, developing certain skills or even achieving an expert levelstrategies will be instrumental in the process. In FLT, skill is used to refer to the four basic language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Mainstream FLT authors (Hedge, 2000, among others) devote special attention to each of the skills separately by considering their main features by offering models to manage them in
Table 1. Term definitions Skill OED
7
Expertise
7. Knowledge or understanding of something.
Strategy 2. The art of a commander in chief, the art of projecting and directing the larger military movements and operations of a campaign. 3. The office of a strategies.
COBUILD8
…special ability in a task, sport, etc., esp. ability acquired by training. 2 2. something, esp. a trade or technique, requiring special training or manual proficiency.
1. Special skill, knowledge, or judgment; expertness.
2. A particular long-term plan for success, esp. in business or politics. 3. a plan or stratagem.
WEBSTER’S9
1. An ability that has been acquired by training. 2. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain; “the skill of a well-trained boxer”; “the sweet science of pugilism.”
1. Skillfulness by virtue of possessing special knowledge.
1. An elaborate and systematic plan of action. 2. The branch of military science dealing with military command and the planning and conduct of a war.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
class. In this traditional approach to the study of skills, a division into receptive skills (reading and listening) and productive ones (speaking and writing) is common. If we bear in mind the general definition of skill, we can see that, up to a point, there is a link between the way in which Hedge (2000) conceives the development of reading skills and the concept of skill itself. This link is seen in the two senses in which Hedge conceives reading as an interactive process: from a top-down perspective (schematic knowledge) or from a bottom-up (language knowledge) perspective. In the first case, reading is seen as interactive because the student links words or expressions found in the text with his schematic knowledge, or as Hedge (2000) quotes from Cook, his “mental representations of typical situations…used in discourse situations to predict the contents of the particular situation which the discourse describes” (p. 190). Therefore, if a skill is a special ability obtained through practice or learning, we could say that practice has a clear influence on the development of schemata in the mind of the learner, and consequently on the development of the skill as a whole. Further, the richer those mental images are, the greater the possibility of establishing useful relationships between them and elements from the reading task, which would put the student in a better position to develop the task successfully and eventually to achieve a good command of the skill under consideration. From a bottom-up perspective, reading is an interactive skill because of the fact that a good knowledge of the language system makes the student able to recognize lexical items or syntactic structures he finds in the text, helping him to make sense of it, as Hedge (2000) states. In this case, we see the importance of practice and learning, the two ways to develop a skill. When acquiring reading competence, the greater the knowledge about the language, the easier to identify and understand certain words or structures in the text; in other words, declarative knowledge plays a great role in skill developing (Williams, 2001; Ellis,
Basturkmen, & Loewen, 2002). A second relevant aspect in her view is the purpose of reading. There are different categories of reading depending on the intention of the reader, such as receptive reading, reflective reading, skim reading, scanning, or intensive reading. Each of these types of reading involves the use of certain strategies, for instance skimming is largely based upon a top-down strategy. Traditionally, reading tasks have consisted basically of providing students with a text that has been assessed by means of comprehension questions. This is an interesting area for researchers that want to go deeper into the new models of communicative competence that emerge as a result of new communication paradigms (Kenning, 2006). What used to be considered a static skill could now become a more complex and evolving concept that requires constant re-definition and skill scaffolding. Certainly, not all the skills are managed in the same way by FL practitioners. Hedge (2000) points out that the writing skill is “often relegated to homework and takes place in unsupported conditions of learning” (p. 301). She goes on to suggest the need to raise the students’ awareness on the existence of certain strategies, and to encourage them to develop these strategies whereby they can become more efficient writers. It is in this context that strategies and skills converge. As we saw at the beginning of this section, a strategy is a “skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity.” Hence the importance of developing these strategies10 to gain a good command of this skill in particular. As happens with reading and listening, practice and the use of declarative knowledge of the language serve as facilitators in the development and improvement of writing. Besides, research shows that attention to form can be integrated successfully and is effective in programs where the emphasis is on communication (Williams, 2001). If we move from mainstream perspectives, such as those of Hedge (2000) or Oxford (2001), to those maintained by Widdowson (2000, 2003),
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
we find certain disparity in the way of facing skills. In the entry for Skills and Knowledge in Language Learning,11 Widdowson diverges from the traditional view of the four-skill division as the touchstone for language learning. This author maintains that, although this division is “well-established” (Byram, 2000, p. 549) in determining the objectives of language learning, it might not be “well-founded” (p. 550) and introduces the concepts of mode and medium of manifestation. Widdowson states that the division of skills in productive and receptive skills is merely based on the channel or medium of manifestation, aural or visual, and that there is a need also to consider the mode of interaction and not only the roles of the participants in communication as “physical producers or receivers” (p. 550). Consequently, the author defends that literacy in a language has to do with the ability of the student to act according to the principles that rule different types communicationthat is, the modes of interaction, whether written or oral. Again, we find some grounding to re-define the notion of skill as a dynamic concept. Widdowson (2000, 2003) holds the opinion that learners should be taught how language is used by native speakers in different social contexts and that an appropriate way to attain this is by means of task-based learning. Tasks are intended to put the students in a position to use language in a real-like communicative situation, hence the focus on the adequacy of language to each social context and not only on the linguistic code in isolationas structuralists defend. Nevertheless, this position poses the problem of the impossibility to teach the appropriate for every communicative context. In Widdowson (2003) we find a discussion of the limits of the well-known presentation-then practice-then-production (PPP) scheme and classroom task-based learning. Despite the pedagogical implications for the design of material and methodology, which evidently lie outside the scope of this chapter, the fact that real issues and real activities enhance language
learning leads us to a felicitous occasion when we suddenly discover that most of the e-skills are, by definition, real tools that real people use on an everyday basis. Widdowson’s authoritative view matches the expectations posited on the socio-cognitive model of CALL. Authors such as Kern and Warschauer (2000) stress the role within this paradigm of computer networks that allow for “interactive human communication” (p. 11), and the incorporation of “online activities for their social utility as well as for their perceived particular pedagogic value” (Kern & Warschauer, 2000, p. 13). Some CALL-specific terms that we will review later fall within this paradigm. While the scope of skills in the phrase language skills remains ample, the status for expertise, or more specifically, computer expertise (CE), is similar. However, despite the gradation of this concept, it remains central in the area of CALL as it is an essential requisite to the implementation of ICT-based learning. If expertise is “a great skill in a particular field,”12 computer expertise is, accordingly, a great ability in the use of computers. It is now when we see a more clear reflection of what we posited in the previous introduction to the concepts of skill, strategy, and expertise. From the discussion above emerges a model for understanding these terms which, a priori, is independent of the CALL teaching model (see Figure 1). So, how skilled is an expert? How expert should students be in order to show CE? The following definition taken from Ruiz Madrid (2005), which quotes the U.S. Department of Education, is clarifying: computer expertise is the group of “computer skills and the ability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity and performance” (p. 133). In the same work, we find a division of CE according to the foundations of the NETS (National Educational Technology Standards) Project. The NETS Project has been conducted within the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) and aims at defining “standards
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 1. A framework for understanding e-skills
for students, integrating curriculum technology, technology support, and standards for student assessment and evaluation of technology use.”13 Among these standards we find14: 1. 2. 3.
Basic operations and concepts, Personal and professional use, and Applications in instruction and learning.
The first heading includes “running software, managing and manipulating data, publishing results and evaluating the technology”; the second includes the “use of productivity tools, telecommunications, assisting devices for problem solving, collaboration, research and lifelong learning” (Ruiz Madrid, 2005, p. 134). The third heading is more oriented towards the integration of “a variety of software applications, and learning tools,”15that is, towards the application of “computers and related technologies to support
instruction.”16 Different studies have incorporated CE in their analyses: Sahin and Thompson (2006) report low levels of CE in a study of college teachers as a factor that deters the implementation of CALL in the curriculum. Beatty (2002)17 explores the notion of expertise in the area of collaboration and states that “determining expertise is classified as a collaborative strategy because it helps to clarify what each partner knows or does not know about a task. Learners who start off by determining expertise are better able to collaborate because they are better positioned to evaluate what they and the other person knows.” Expertise here is seen both as necessary and an element for rapport-building in peer or group work. However, it seems to us that the very fact that CE is negotiated and established plays against the interest of CALL as it indicates that normalization is yet to come (Chambers & Bax, 2006). It follows that, in the field of CALL, expertise performs a similar role as skill does in the field of FLT.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Finally, two additional concepts related to the area of computer expertise address the new online collaboration paradigm: electronic literacy and skills of electronic literacy. The former, coined by Chapelle (2001, p. 2), refers to the “communication in registers associated with electronic communication,” while the latter comprises “the skills needed for successful interaction online: for example, how to participate in online discourse and how to access the technology” (Simpson, 2005, p. 327). Simpson’s study is much based upon Vygotskyan theories on language learning through social collaboration, as he proposes that this social collaboration cannot only be applied to language learning in particular, but also to learning in general. Accordingly, in the same way interaction allows students to improve their language skills, it can also have a very positive impact on their skills of electronic literacy, helping them to enhance what Chapelle called “electronic communicative competence” (Simpson, 2005, p. 330). There is, consequently, a link between both Chapelle’s and Simpson’s concepts, since skills of electronic literacy can be placed within the broader area of electronic communicative competence. Once more, there is evidence of the importance of the impact of new technologies in most basic aspects of our everyday lives, and of the importance of developing students’ electronic skills to an optimal level that allows us to get the most out of the ICT resources available for EFL. Simpson’s study was grounded on basic concepts of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory. Vygotsky considers collaboration as the key to learning and proposes the need for scaffolding, that is, “the process of supportive dialogue which directs the attention of the learner to key features of the environment, and which prompts them through successive steps of a problem” (Mitchell & Miles, 2004, p. 195). The point Simpson makes is that this scaffolding or collaboration can be extrapolated to the acquisition of the basic skills necessary to work with computers within
the field of language learning. Thus, he splits skills of electronic literacy into the knowledge of discourse management and the knowledge of technology, encompassing “both access to the technologythe computer hardware and an Internet connection, and also a technical capacity enabling a participant to download particular software, to log on to the system and to join an online group, among other things” (Simpson, 2005, p. 337). Both types of knowledge can be achieved through collaboration in a computermediated communication environment. To finish this overview on computer expertise, we should briefly mention the present-day situation and the new needs of students. Chapelle (2001) draws our attention to the fact that the evolution of technology has an effect on language learning and, therefore, current trends should take into account the new needs of students. One of the authors who has devoted his attention to the way in which the evolution of technology has a direct effect over students’ lives in general is Warschauer (1999). He maintains there is a direct relationship between the use of ICT resources in the classroom and multi-literacies, including electronic literacy, which all language users need in the Western World. This position represents a step forward, as Warschauer considers literacy in new technologies as something that most students live with in their everyday routine. As we infer from the three perspectives we have mentioned so far, great advances in this field have taken place over the past 20 years. We see how we have moved from a position where the main interest was the access or lack of access to technology in a educational context, from an intermediate position concerned with the use of such technology in everyday life to a more recent trend which assumes that the use of technology is common to most students and centers around the specific needs of students using ICT in an educational context. This is to have an effect on the way e-skills spread across education as they become more visible. In this respect, research
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
shows that the more familiar students are with computer use, the more readily they will incorporate e-skills into their skill repertoire (Fernández Carballo-Calero, 2005). The last concept we are concerned with is strategy. As we have seen beforehand, a strategy is a sort of plan designed to achieve an aim, specifically a skillful planning or a particular plan for gaining success in a particular activity. We assume here that this concept is strictly related to the field of language learning in general and to the field of CALL in particular, for adult students use, conscious or unconsciously, certain plans to achieve their goals when learning. In a similar way and more closely related to the topic of language learning, strategies are defined by O’Malley and Chamot, quoted in Vinther (2005, p. 253), as “the special thoughts and behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn or retain new information.” He adds that “a strategy for learning must be positive, since the objective is to point to elements which purposely and encouragingly help the student forward towards the goal of accomplishing new understanding and competence.” This remark is worth mentioning, since it clearly reflects the nature of the term strategy at its most essential meaning. If we go deeper into the field of strategies within language learning, we see how Vinther (2005) considers three different types of strategies in his analysis of students’ use of CALL: affective strategies, cognitive strategies, and memory strategies. Affective strategies are the student’s emotional thoughts or utterances as a result of the student’s interaction with the computer. Within affective strategies, Vinther differentiates indirect statements (sighs and laughs) from direct statements (verbal utterances). As part of future work into CALL-based tasks and e-skills, the individuals that took part in our research also were invited to express their cognitions as regards the different activities being completed. Cognitive strategies are instrumental in integrating old and new knowledge and restructure information, and
include reasoning inductively and deductively, guessing from context and analyzing. In turn, memory strategies are usually the first step in learning declarative knowledge and “help learners link [in a simplistic, stimulus-response manner] a new item with something new” (Oxford, 2001, p. 167). So far, we have tried to go deeper into the definitions of skill, strategy, and computer expertise, three concepts of huge importance that often appear in the literature of CALL. Our aim was to delimit each of them independently, and to clarify some of the possible relationships and overlapping among them that may sometimes cause problems in approaching the topic of instructed second language acquisition (c.f., skill and expertise distinction is neutralized in CALL). Our own scheme proposal, evaluated by the learners themselves, seeks to offer students and the FLT community an informed proposal for the effective integration of so-called e-skills in our own FLT context. It is this evaluation on the part of learners that we discuss in depth in this work, together with the description of the process that we have adopted throughout our experience. Based on the discussion above, we decided on the rationale for our e-skills model as integrative of two types of ICT skillse-communication and computer user skillsas well as FL-specific skills and attitudinal/strategic indicators.
aiM oF thE studY and Working dEFinition For E-skiLLs As the main aim of our research is to establish the foundations to understand e-skills in the FL classroom, we have integrated the discussion presented above into a model that can be submitted to advanced learners of English. This model subsumes the previously discussed notions of skill in FLT, that of (computer) expertise and that of
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
strategy under the same heading: e-skills. One of the main tenets of the e-skill approach is that it does not exclude non-ICT practitioners. Rather, it includes all activity sectors and is user oriented: e-skills are “the capabilities required for effective application of ICT systems and devices by the individual. ICT users apply systems as tools in support of their own work, which is, in most cases, not ICT.”18 From this, it follows that there exists an array of capabilities that matches the efficient use of ICT systems in performing tasks that are field specific. The challenge was to generate an appropriate e-task instrumental in identifying these context-bound capabilities/abilities (Chambers & Bax, 2006). We want to emphasize the fact that e-skills support individuals’ work, which presents itself a propaedeutic value of interest and in connection with Widdowson’s (2003) notion of learning English as a pedagogic construct where personal investment is a most crucial feature. Based on the discussion presented earlier, and in the specific context of our research, the operational notion of e-skills that we have adopted can be formulated as the group of abilities that encompasses both top-down as well as bottom-up language processing in a digital learning environment and which are instrumental in the process of FL task resolution.
sEtting For thE rEsEarch The target population informing this work is a group of third-year university learners of English (n = 9, mean age = 22.0) who are taking an undergraduate course in English Studies at the University of Murcia, Spain. Before leaving tertiary education, these students will be taking two further years. Their curriculum is one that emphasizes a balance between literary and cultural studies, on the one hand, and linguistic and language on the other.
rEsEarch MEthodoLogY As already stated, in this work we report on a pilot study carried out to test the students’ reception of a CALL-based task in order to collect information that can allow us to refine our e-skills model. Based on Timuçin’s (2006) guidelines for the implementation of CALL in FLT, we believe that this process must be: (a) teacher driven, (b) student oriented, and (c) context specific (following Chambers & Bax, 2006). The steps that were taken are summarized in Figure 2 and discussed immediately after.
Analysis of Subject-Specific objectives Our research analyzes the feedback of students (n = 9) taking a compulsory course of English language (CEF C1 level) 01D6 Lengua Inglesa III during the 2006-2007 academic year, a course where CALL-driven classroom instruction plays no significant role. It must be said that this is the last English course that these students will take before their graduate studies and, accordingly, they are expected to achieve the C1 level mentioned above, which posits a great burden in terms of study hours and exam preparation. As the e-skills model is highly dependent on the field of application, we set out then to identify the objectives of our academic subject where eskills could make a relevant contribution.
Identification of Related E-Skills The first group of objectives is specific objectives related to the analysis of the language as a code. This is a very comprehensive block encompassing both theoretical and practical objectives of a lexical-grammatical and pragmatic nature. Thus, the acquisition and use of advanced vocabulary, the noticing of nuances of connotation and denotation, the command of different communicative
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 2. A framework for e-skills model refinement
domains, and the difference of formal and informal registers are areas covered by this first block of objectives. For these objectives to be fulfilled in a CALL-driven environment, students are expected to check word meanings, identify specific contexts of use, and find collocates. Among the varied electronic resources existing, the ones that are more closely related to the development of this first objective are online dictionaries, online thesauri, concordancers, or using the Web as a corpus. The second block of objectives is specific objectives related to reading. Here we find direct reference to some aspects covered before in the background information section, such as the one concerned with approaching different types of reading in the communicative process. For these objectives to be fulfilled in a CALL-driven environment, students are expected to find both general and context-specific information, get the gist of the topic dealt with in the text, check word meanings,
0
and interpret prosody. Among the varied electronic resources existing, the ones that are more closely related to the development of this second objective are online dictionaries, encyclopedias and newspapers, and online corpora. Table 2 shows the subject objectives where we found that implementing CALL-based activities would be feasible, as well as their corresponding, well-delimited functionality. These functionalities have been described as micro skills (Pérez-Paredes et al., 2003) as each of them requires some sort of specific, well-limited learning and practice for its mastery.
Experiment design Once we had decided on the target objectives underlying the e-task, we went on to adapt a set of activities from the subject course book. To minimize the impact of the novelty of a CALL-
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 2. Language course objectives where CALL can make a contribution
E-RESOURCES
FUNCTIONALITY
Online Dictionary
• Check meanings or uses
Descriptor: dictionary Search
• Find similar words or words within the same Online Thesaurus Descriptor: search & find a suitable word
semantic field
Concordancer
• Find concordances of words
Descriptor: search & build hypothesis on which
• Find collocates
words co-occur together
• Find contexts of use • Interpret prosody
Webcorp
• Find concordances of words
Descriptor: search & build hypothesis on which
• Find collocates
words co-occur together
• Find contexts of use • Interpret prosody • Get information on reading, speaking and writ-
Online Encyclopedias Descriptor: search & select useful info
ing topics, facts, and so forth • To solve doubts • Get information on writing topics, facts
Online Newspapers/Magazines/Journals
• Observe the register of different types of texts
Descriptor: search & select useful info
based task, we decided that we should keep this adaptation as close as possible to the original format of activities in the course book. In adapting this group of activities to a CALL environment, our main goal was to move the focus of the traditional classroom-based book activities from a pair/group work, teacher-managed setting to a more individualized and constructivist computer-mediated learning environment. A rationale for the e-task that we designed can be found in Figure 3. For operational purposes, we decided to focus on the reading skill as the starting point for our task. From the perspective of the researchers, the
fulfillment of this task should require putting into practice the micro-skills in column 2 of Table 3. The task matches the reading skills can-do statement for ALTE19 L4 / CEF-C1: “the student can read quickly enough to cope with an academic course, to read the media for information or to understand non-standard correspondence.” The students were given no indication on the resources to use, their URLs, or their names. In this way, we wanted to give them the chance to approach the task in exactly the same way as they would have done if they had to complete it either in the classroom, where no reference resources are available, or at home, where they are free to
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Figure 3. A description of the e-task
decide on the references and materials to use. One of the issues that we want to address is whether our students perceive CALL as normalized (Bax, 2003) and do it in the very context where their learning takes place (Chambers & Bax, 2006, p. 467). In so doing, we purposefully stressed the gap between classroom book-driven activities and our proposal for a CALL-driven implementation.
data-collection tool and Administration of the Task During the fourth week of the second term of the 2006-2007 academic year, students were instructed to access the computer lab facility and invited to sit down at computer stations that had already been set up by the researchers in order to avoid tedious computer starting operations. Nine students out of a potential total of 12 attended the two-hour lesson. It must be stressed that the students had not been informed that this task would be carried out in the computer lab. The collection tool we designed for our research is found in Appendix A. The tool reflects
the dimensions that we consider of relevance for the e-skill model we want to evaluate. As in the case of other experiences (Timuçin, 2006), we designed a questionnaire intended to collect the students’ perception of the task and their view of the skills involved in its resolution. The questionnaire was administered immediately after the completion of the task. The questionnaire reflects our e-skill rationale (see Table 3). The questionnaire gathers information from well-limited areas discussed earlier in this work. First, we find the ICT-skills components relevant to our field, which include e-communication ICT skills and computer use skills. They differ in the role and purpose given to the computer. Second is the FL-specific component, where we have included items that measure the use of computers for academic purposes (5), software use, including a browser and a word processor (16), perception of difficulty of the task (17), time management in connection with the task (18), and creativity in using resources to solve the task (24). Third, a group of items point out to the sort of attitude
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 3. E-skills rationale Relevant ICT Skills:
Relevant ICT Skills:
E-Communication
Computer Use
FL-Specific Skills
Attitudinal/Strategic Indicators
ICT SKILLS
Items
COMPONENT 1
COMPONENT 2
COMPONENT 3
2 4 6 7 8 9 10
13
5
COMPONENT 4
1 (never) to 5 (several times a day) Likert scale description Items
11 12 13 14 15 19 21* 22*
16 17 18 24*
Likert scale
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
20 23 25* 26 27 28 29
description
and CALL-oriented planning manifested by the learners in approaching the e-skill task: we expect item 20 to play no role on the use of e-skills, but the rest fully address attitudinal variables such as perceiving computers as time savers (23), preferring working with computers to traditional study methodology (25), enjoying e-tasks more than book-based tasks (26), considering the lab a useful tool for learning (27), having a desire to engage in further e-tasks (28), and relating the e-task to new ways of approaching the FL experience (29). The values of the items with an asterisk are reversed when computing their means.
rEsuLts
2,4,6,7,8,9,10. The questionnaire can be found in Appendix A. In an exploratory study like this (n = 9), the median is even more revealing than the mean itself as it gives us the typical distribution of answers. The analysis of these tables shows that the items that obtain lower scores are those that involve the use of computers in the university context: items 3 (I use the university computer labs.) and 5 (I use computers for academic purposes.). The educational institution itself is not free from
Table 4. Frequency scores for e-skills component 1 Mean
Median
Q2
4.22
4.00
Q4
3.44
4.00
Q6
3.78
4.00
Q7
3.56
4.00
Q8
2.00
2.00
Q9
3.67
4.00
Q10
2.11
2.00
descriptive data Tables 4–7 show the mean values of the scores for every component and item. For every component (1,2,3,4), you can find below the mean and the median scores for each of the items. For example, Table 4 shows the mean and median values for the items (Q) in component 1, that is,
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 5. Frequency scores for e-skills component 2 Mean
Median
Q1
3.44
4.00
Q3
2.33
2.00
Q11
4.11
4.00
Q12
4.11
4.00
Q13
3.89
4.00
Q14
4.11
4.00
Q15
3.44
4.00
Q19
3.00
3.00
Q21
2.33
2.00
Q22
3.22
3.00
Table 6. Frequency scores for e-skills component 3 Mean
Median
Q5
3.11
2.00
Q16
4.00
4.00
Q17
3.56
4.00
Q18
3.11
3.00
Q24
4.22
4.00
Table 7. Frequency scores for e-skills component 4
Mean
Median
Q20
3.11
3.00
Q23
3.67
4.00
Q25
3.11
4.00
Q26
3.56
3.00
Q27
3.89
4.00
Q28
3.89
4.00
Q29
3.89
4.00
Q30
3.89
4.00
criticism, as computer facilities simply are not up to standard, according to our survey. It is interesting to note that for item 8 (I use my e-mail to communicate with my teachers), the mean and the median are the same, which posits a great challenge on instructors in our research context. Item 10 (I use videoconference (Messenger, VideoCam, Skype, etc.).) shows that computermediated videoconferencing is still in the process of becoming a major communication channel for our students, while item 21 (Speaking while doing the activities made me feel uncomfortable.) shows that multitasking, a feature of professional e-skills, is still a problem. In the other items, the medians are 4, indicating either high frequency or a strong agreement on a positive polar statement. Scores for items 18 (I had enough time to complete the activities.), 19 (The performance of the computer was satisfactory.), and 20 (The design of the task was attractive.) point to the fact that students would have liked to have a longer period of time to complete the task (18) or would have liked to use a more cutting-edge PC.1 Item 22 (I feel lost when working with Internet resources.) did not cast a polarized result, and neither did item 26 (Working with a computer makes the activities more attractive than working with the textbook.), with a mean score of 3.56, which shows that while having the computer expertise to manage a computer, students see CALL as distant. Item 29 (This experience has opened up new ways into learning English.) shows that close contact with a CALL-driven task may encourage learners to further use e-skills in their everyday language learning.
data reduction Method In order to corroborate the existence of underlying, latent dimensions in our e-skills model, we performed a factor analysis to identify whether our insights actually are translated into the questionnaire we designed. Factor analyses are widely used in social and empirical sciences to identify and
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
reduce the dimensions of a given construct. By performing this analysis, a multi-faceted problem can be better studied and understood. Lim and Shen (2006, p. 217) used a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation “in order to identify relationships among items, and therefore, Table 8. Rotated matrix, four-factor solution PA Components 1
2
3
4
Q1
,306
,773
-,391
-,157
Q2
,799
,398
,007
,396
Q3
,805
-,102
,295
,271
Q4
,388
,326
-,155
,356
Q5
,931
,030
-,095
,035
Q6
,784
-,209
,278
,100
Q7
,684
,147
,472
-,083
Q8
,630
,018
,300
,682
Q9
,678
,593
,067
,121
Q10
,154
-,363
,709
,492
Q11
,744
,215
-,149
-,162
Q12
,166
,006
,147
-,796
Q13
,326
-,027
,743
,075
Q14
-,332
-,739
-,007
-,053
Q15
,819
,184
,115
-,408
Q16
,216
-,190
-,921
,188
Q17
,230
-,049
-,078
-,660
Q18
,286
,234
,795
,343
Q19
-,341
-,139
,402
-,622
Q20
,021
-,051
-,048
-,450
Q21
-,062
-,167
,782
-,276
Q22
,757
,392
,027
-,149
Q23
,114
,767
,291
-,301
Q24
-,723
-,301
,176
,230
Q25
-,088
,753
-,153
,132
Q26
,042
,807
-,097
,391
Q27
,378
,804
,138
-,025
Q28
,243
,720
-,100
,341
Q29
,033
,617
,283
,564
Q30
-,316
,710
,342
-,479
the subscales or factors which could be taken as summary measures of the items.” A principal component analysis rests upon the identification of linear combinations of variables, the items included in the questionnaire, looking for a maximum variance in each combination. In our case we performed the same statistical analysis although we specified a four- and a three-factor solution to gain insight into our questionnaire dimensional nature. Table 8 shows the rotated matrix which emerged from the analysis. This is the starting point for the identification and classification of the dimensionsthat is, the factors that explain the construct, in other words, the dimensions that make up our model. The loading index is the correlation coefficient between the item in the questionnaire and the factor. For membership purposes, it is irrelevant whether the loading polarity. All items above obtained >.30 loadings in at least one of the factors. This is the factor structure that emerges from our data. The second component underlying our proposal, Relevant ICT skills: Computer use, appears scattered in all factors, while components 1 and 3, Relevant ICT skills: E-communication and FL-specific skills, this latter to a lesser degree, retain many of their original members. Factor 4 presents little coherence and is a candidate for reformulation.
FuturE trEnds Felix (2005) has pointed out that the focus of Computer-Assisted Language Learning research has increasingly shifted from an interest in the learning efficiency and new technologies to an interest in the very process of learning. This is the area that will develop more significantly in forthcoming years. As formal learning becomes more influenced by social work and entertainment collaboration frameworks, it seems essential to incorporate
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Table 9. Members and loadings for Factors 1–4 FACTOR 1
FACTOR 2
FACTOR 3
FACTOR 4
Q5
,931
Q26
,807
Q18
,795
Q8
,682
Q15
,819
Q27
,804
Q21
,782
Q20
-,450
Q3
,805
Q1
,773
Q13
,743
Q19
-,622
Q2
,799
Q23
,767
Q10
,709
Q17
-,660
Q6
,784
Q25
,753
Q16
-,921
Q12
-,796
Q22
,757
Q28
,720
Q11
,744
Q30
,710
Q7
,684
Q29
,617
Q9
,678
Q14
-,739
Q4
,388
Q24
-,723
these factors into e-skills models that reflect more faithfully the engagement of a new generation of students with new technologies. These, and particularly the spread of Web 2.0, are to have an important impact on the range of skills that learners bring to the foreign language classroom. New models of e-skills in FLT should take into account research frameworks such as the one included in this chapter, as well as learners’ technology use prior or simultaneous to instruction and the role of collective knowledge and collaboration. In this way, relevant contributions can be made to a new communicative competence (Kenning, 2006) by dealing with the traditional marginalization of technological matters in the descriptions of communicative competence in FLT.
concLusion This research presents the results of a pilot study where an e-skill model questionnaire was answered by language students so as to help our understanding of the relationship between nontraditional skills and new CALL environments. By doing so, we intended to assess the e-skills dimensional structure that underlies the completion of language e-tasks designed by FLT instructors and implemented in CALL classrooms. The results suggest that, although the four-factor solution explains 74.9% of the variance, the different original dimensions of e-skills in our FLT context(1) Relevant ICT skills: E-communication, (2) Relevant ICT skills: Computer use, (3) FL-specific skills, and (4) Attitudinal /strategic
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
indicators should be reformulated and further adjusted. Our original components do not appear to cluster around corresponding dimensions in all four components. In particular, only components 1 and 4 appear to cluster together significantly. It must be stressed, however, that the population of this survey is by no means representative in terms of statistical significance, and accordingly, the factor analysis should feed on more informants in the future. The results also suggest that CE fails to become substantial as a component of its own. This might be an indication that using computers outside the FLT context has become normalized (Bax, 2003), and depending on the group of students, it might not be an issue any more. At the same time, it appears that the attitudinal/strategic dimension manifests itself as strong and coherent. It might be of interest in future research to explore the correlations of the different factors and the individual items to fully appreciate the nature of their interweaving. Again, it is crucial that we develop more substantial research that makes use of a larger sample of informants. Our research presents a framework to implement e-tasks, or group of activities, in instructional learning environments where CALL plays no methodological role. Figure 1 presents a whole model for e-kills refinement which ranges from the identification of the curricular objectives of the course where e-skills are to be used to the very moment when instructors and researchers are presented with data that can allow them to refine their initial stands. On a general level, the e-skill rationale presented in the background and literature review of this work can serve as the starting point for researchers to start implementing their own datadriven construct. For us, this is the beginning of a process that will take us to conduct further research in both the components of the e-skills model and the data collection instrument.
acknoWLEdgMEnt This work is part of an ongoing research project funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education: “ESkills for Advanced Common European Framework of Reference for Languages C1 Learners of English as a Foreign Language: Identification, Implementation and Evaluation.”
rEFErEncEs Bax, S. (2003). CALL: Past, present and future. System, 31(1) 13-28. Beatty, K. (2002). Describing and enhancing collaboration at the computer. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 28(2). Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol28.2/ beatty.html Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 36, 465479. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432. Felix, U. (2005). What do meta-analyses tell us about CALL effectiveness? ReCALL, 17(2), 269-288. Fernández Carballo-Calero, M.V. (2005). Does familiarization with CALL improve students’ attitudes towards CALL? Porta Linguarum, 4, 69-75. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In R. Kern & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press. Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lim, K., & Shen, Z. (2006). Integration of computers into an EFL reading classroom. RECALL, 18(2), 212-229. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning strategies. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 166-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pérez-Paredes, P. et al. (2003). La redacción como proceso: Recursos electrónicos comentados para el inglés académico. LFE: Revista de lenguas para fines específicos, 9-10, 217-250. Ruiz Madrid, M.N. (2005). Aprendizaje autónomo en el aprendizaje de lenguas asistido por ordenador. Un estudio de casos comparativo de las conductas de los aprendices en el contexto de inglés como lengua extranjera. Castellón: Universitat Jaume I. Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. JRTE, 39(1), 81-104. Simspon, J. (2005). Learning electronic literacy skills in an online language learning community. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 327-345. Timuçin, M. (2006). Implementing CALL in an EFL context. ELT Journal, 60(3), 262-271.
Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 251-271. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies. Language, culture, and power in online education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in ELT. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention to form. System, 29(3), 325-340.
kEY tErMs Computer Expertise: Refers to the mastering of the use of computers. In the context of CALL, this term is tightly connected to the abilities the students need to have in order to be able to work efficiently with a computer in the process of language learning. Among these abilities, taking the NETS project’s division, we can mention those related to the management of basic software, the use of computers in the personal and professional contexts, and the capability of using computers in instruction-related contexts. E-Skill: The group of abilities that encompass both top-down as well as bottom-up language processing in a digital learning environment and which are instrumental in the process of FL task resolution. E-Task: A task designed to be performed on a computer. These types of tasks appear in special formats, such as hypertext formats. The process of e-task solving is closely related to the use of electronic resources, as students can turn to this type of resource to overcome possible difficulties they might find during the completion of the task.
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
Factor Analysis: Data-reduction technique used to interpret underlying dimensions in a construct.
7
8
Normalization: Based on Bax (2003), a future vision of future development of CALL in FLT. Skill: A complex term whose scope spans different domains. Within the field of FLT, skill refers to the four basic abilities students must develop to achieve a good command of the language. From a more general perspective, skill refers to any ability acquired by training or practice, allowing individuals to perform well in multifarious types of tasks. In this context, a skill is an ability that is acquired through practice and by using declarative knowledge. Strategy: A plan designed to achieve a goal. Thus, in the context of second language learning, we can take the term strategy as a plan the students devise to solve the tasks and challenges they are presented in the process of language learning.
9
10
11
12
13
14
EndnotEs 1
2
3 4 5
6
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction. do?reference=IP/06/1635 Task-Force on ICT Sector Competitiveness and ICT Uptake. Working Group 5 Skills and Employability (p. 5). Ibid. Ibid. http://eskills.cedefop.europa.eu/eskills2004/ index.htm Definitions from The Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Second edition first published in 1998; sixth impression, 2003.
15 16 17 18
19
The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Ely House, London WI. First edition 1933; reprinted 1963, 1970. Collins English Dictionary. Fifth edition first published in 2000; HarperCollins Publishers 1979, 1986, 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000. http://dictionary.reverso.net/englishdefinitions/skill Webster’s Online Dictionary, http://www. websters-online-dictionary.org/ Among the repertoire of strategies, we can find planning, generating ideas, organizing information, selecting appropriate language, making a draft, reviewing it, and editing (Hedge, 2000, p. 302). Byram, M. (2000). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London: Routledge. The Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. Second edition first published in 1998; sixth impression, 2003. “What is the NETS Project?” http://cnets. iste.org/index.shtml Standards for Basic Endorsement in Educational Computing and Technology Leadership, http://cnets.iste.org/ncate/old/ n_literacy-old.html See 14 See 14 Electronic document European E-Skills Forum, E-Skills for Europe: Towards 2010 and Beyond, Synthesis Report (2004, p. 5) http://www.alte.org/can_do/alte_cando. pdf
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
appEndiX a: post-task E-skiLL ModEL QuEstionnairE Name : BLOCK 1. GENERAL QUESTIONS 1.1 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: never 2: from time to time 3: almost every day 4: every day 5: several times a day 1 1.
I use a computer at home.
2.
I can connect to the Internet at home.
3.
I use the university computer labs.
4.
I use computers for leisure purposes.
5.
I use computers for academic purposes.
6.
I check my e-mail…
7.
I use my e-mail to communicate with my friends/family.
8.
I use my e-mail to communicate with my teachers.
9.
I use Microsoft Messenger or similar instant message software.
10.
I use videoconference (Messenger, VideoCam, Skype, etc.).
2
3
4
5
1.2 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: neutral 4: agree 5: strongly agree 1 11. I can perform basic operations with a computer (run programs, play CD-ROMS or DVDs, copy CDs, scan documents/pictures, attach files to emails…). 12.
I can use a word processor satisfactorily.
13.
I can use search services like Google satisfactorily (i.e., I know tips to improve searches, etc.).
14.
I can typewrite, this is no problem.
BLOCK 2. YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE TASK 2.1 Rate the following statements according to this scale: 1: strongly disagree 2: disagree 3: neutral 4: agree 5: strongly agree
0
2
3
4
5
Understanding E-Skills in the FLT Context
1 15.
Operating the software was easy.
16.
The instructions were clear.
17.
The level of difficulty of the activities was adequate to my English language learning profile.
18.
I had enough time to complete the activities.
19.
The performance of the computer was satisfactory.
20.
The design of the task was attractive.
21.
Speaking while doing the activities made me feel uncomfortable.
22.
I feel lost when working with Internet resources.
23.
Electronic resources save time in comparison with other resources.
24.
I would have liked to have a list of suggested Internet resources.
25.
I prefer working with a textbook and with traditional resources.
26.
Working with a computer makes the activities more attractive than working with the textbook.
27.
The language lab is a valuable option to complement traditional lectures in the classroom.
28.
I would like to do more English language learning activities with computers.
29.
This experience has opened up new ways into learning English.
2
3
4
5
2.2 SUGGESTIONS
Chapter II
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities Antônio Carlos Soares Martins Centro Federal de Educação Tecnológica de Januária/Fapemig, Brazil Junia de Carvalho Fidelis Braga Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
abstract The discussions presented herein emerged from two empirical studies in progress:“Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” and “The Complexity of Learning Environments” in the Graduate Program in Applied Linguistics at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil. One of the major pillars of both studies centers around Complexity Theory. Initially arising from the natural sciences, Complexity Theory has been gaining ground in the comprehension of human and social sciences. This chapter presents some ideas regarding the role of social presence in both blended and online learning environments, in line with the Community of Inquiry Framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000). Moreover, the authors hope to contribute to a better understanding of patterns that emerge from social interactions as well as of the ideas embedded in learning communities as complex systems.
introduction The Community of Inquiry, as reported by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2004), who provide a detailed report of social presence, sets the stage for this
chapter to discuss the emergence of social presence in blended and online learning communities in asynchronous medium. A great number of studies dedicated to the investigation of social presence, in the terms of the Community of Inquiry, focused mainly
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
on quantitative methodology to interpret social expressions in a qualitative manner (Heckman & Annabi, 2002; Rourke & Anderson, 2002; Rourke et al., 2004). Considering these discussions, our chapter presents a complementary contribution that aims to analyze, in the light of complexity, the content of some messages exchanged in blended and online learning communities. By qualitatively analyzing the manifestation of social presence in this setting, we attempt to show possible patterns that may arise.
coMpLEXitY and appLiEd Linguistics: transdicipLinarY diaLogs At first glance, complexity is a phenomenon that encompasses a great quantity of interactions and interference among its agents. For Morin (1990), complexity effectively includes the interweaving of events, actions, interactions, retroactions, determinations, and random events that constitute our world, full of phenomena. Complexity has its place in science due to research that has attempted to explain questions which challenge all conventional categories (Waldrop, 1992). Davis and Sumara (2006, p. ix) argue that “complexity thinking has captured the attention of many researchers whose studies reach across traditional boundaries.” Examples of phenomena under investigation in the education arena include: •
•
How do social collectives work? The assumption that the actions and potentialities of social groups are sums of individual capacities has been challenged as it is becoming more evident that collectives can exceed the summed capacity of their members. What might this mean for classrooms, school boards, communities, and so on? What is the role of emergent technologies in shaping personalities and possibilities?
Children are able to integrate the latest technologies into their existences. What might this mean for formal education, in terms of the pragmatic activity and with regard to common understandings of the purposes of schooling? In this direction, Complexity Theory in its transdisciplinary nature can assist in better understanding the events that take place in blended and online learning environments. A complex system is dynamic, non-linear, open, and presents emergent properties. Moreover, this type of system is capable of adapting, which leads to self-organization, and ultimately to the emergence of new patterns and behaviors (Holland, 1997). An adaptive complex system is made up of agents who interact dynamically and adapt with one another as well as with the environment, as they seek mutual accommodation to optimize the benefits that will ensure their survival. An ever-increasing number of articles over the past years have sought to analyze the second language acquisition process, as well as the language learning classroom in general, in the light of chaos and complexity theories (Cameron, 1999, 2004; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2006; Paiva, 2002, 2005a, 2006a, 2006b; Parreiras, 2005). Although other works had already reflected on the implications of chaos and complexity on teaching and language learning (Bowers, 1990; Connor-Linton, 1995; Lewis, 1993; Van Lier, 1996), it was Larsen-Freeman (1997) who brought these theories to the forefront of Applied Linguistics. In her article, Larsen-Freeman (1997) draws attention to the many similarities between complex systems found in nature and second language acquisition. One of the implications of this perspective, she writes, is that it discourages reductionist explanations of teaching events and language learning. In discussing issues relative to inter-language, individual differences, and the effects of instruction, Larsen-Freeman (1997)
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
contends that in non-linear systems, such as second language learning, the behavior of the whole emerges from the interactions of the parts. Thus, by studying the parts in isolation, one by one, we will merely be discussing each part as opposed to the manner in which the parts interact. After the publication of Larsen-Freeman’s work, several papers have reflected upon the implications of complexity in understanding the relations between language learning and teaching. In Brazil, the first to study complexity in Applied Linguistics was Paiva (2002), who sought to understand the process of foreign language learning as a complex system. This perspective would be further developed in her later works (Paiva, 2004, 2005, 2006). In this same manner, Kramsch (2002) and van Lier (2004), using the “ecology” metaphor, sought to re-think teaching and learning through complexity. In 2006, the journal Applied Linguistics dedicated an entire special edition to Complexity Theory’s contributions to Applied Linguistics, demonstrating this theory’s role as a system of interpretation for studies seeking a broader comprehension of the factors involved in the second language learning process. The basic notions of Complexity Theory will be taken as a viewpoint to understand the role of social presence in investigating online and blended communities, especially as reported by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rouke et al. (2004).
onLinE and bLEndEd LEarning coMMunitiEs as coMpLEX sYstEMs Technology as a mediating resource for the construction of shared1 knowledge is stressed by Lévy (1993), who contends that cyberspace, unlike classic media, introduces an all to all type of interaction, where participants can be both senders and recipients, thus leading to a collective intelligence.
In this light, Palloff and Pratt (1999, p. 5) argue that distance learning is invariably active: “the keys to the learning process are the interactions among students themselves, the interactions between faculty and students and the collaboration in learning that result from these interactions.” Computer-mediated communication (CMC), particularly computer conferencing, has become a versatile medium for the delivery of both distributed and on-campus education. One such advantage is that text-based communication offers opportunities for reflection in terms of the Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). The creation of learning communities is one of the most debated pedagogical interventions used by educators and researchers to contemplate philosophical change related to knowledge construction. This line of thinking suggests that we construct and maintain knowledge through negotiation and not merely by examining the world. Other key aspects embedded in learning communities are those involving interaction, the relationships of reciprocity, and collaboration, essential components in the process of constructing shared knowledge (Cross, 1998; Wenger, 1998). These precepts of learning communities align themselves with the assumptions found in the literature regarding online learning communities. Joint enterprise,2 the relationships of reciprocity, and the sharing of common purposes, vital aspects if a learning community is to function productively, have also been identified by Rogers (2000) in online dialogs. According to Harasim, Teles, Turroff, and Hitz (2005), the words ‘community’ and ‘communication’ stem from the same root, ‘comunicare’, which means ‘to share’. The authors emphasize that people are naturally attracted by the media, sources of communication, and community formation. Paiva (2006a) adds that technological resources provide new opportunities and challenges for the learning process such as collaborative instructional projects, which boost the collective intelligence.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Like online learning communities, blended learning communities have arisen to combine different instructional modalities. The concept of blended learning, as explained by Graham, Allen, and Ure (2003), refers to combining instructional modalities (or delivery media), combining instructional methods, and combining online and face-to-face instruction. In this chapter, the term ‘blended learning’ will be used to refer to educational experiences which combine faceto-face conversation classes with online classes, thus reducing the time spent inside a classroom. This interaction seeks to maximize the potential of both environments. Both blended learning and online learning are imbued with elements that are common to those found in the notions of complexity. The life of a learning community, like other complex systems, is sustained by the interactions among its agents as well as by the relation of interdependence that emerges from these interactions. Moreover, learning communities are open and sensitive to feedback, and are constantly exchanging energy (information, input ) with other systems. Other properties of the systems such as redundancy3 and diversity, as pointed out by Davis and Sumara (2006), are also described in the literature on learning communities. The sharing of responsibility and the relation of reciprocity, as described by Wenger (1998) and Cross (1998), may serve to illustrate instances of redundancy in such pedagogical environments, be they face-to-face, blended, or online. Respect for diversity, on the other hand, is considered by Wenger (1998) to be a crucial element within a learning community, as it is by way of accepting new ideas and embracing the changes and challenges brought on by different perspectives that a community will develop and learn. Literature on complexity thus can trigger relevant insight into understanding online and blended learning communities alike.
thE coMMunitY oF inQuirY ModEL: sociaL prEsEncE The increasing interest on the part of higher education institutions in computer conferencing led Garrison et al. (2000) to propose the Community of Inquiry framework. Assuming that within this community learning takes place through the interaction of the three core elementscognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence the Community of Inquiry framework, inspired by Dewey (1933), attempts to serve as a tool to investigate the quality of the learning process in text-based environments. In Garrison et al.’s (2000, p. 4) terms, cognitive presence is defined as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.” The second component, teaching presence, consists of two general functions in the educational experience: (1) designing, usually performed by a teacher, and (2) facilitating, a function shared by the teacher and the participants. The third element, social presence, is defined as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry.” Although this definition may embrace the affective and social aspects of social presence, it lacks the common purpose and cohesive aspects imbued in the notion of a learning community. For this reason, we adopted the expanded definition proposed by Garrison (2006, p. 2), for whom social presence is “the ability to project one’s self and establish purposeful relationships.” The main function of social presence in Garrison et al. (2000) is to support cognitive objectives through its ability to instigate, sustain, and support critical thinking within a community of learners. As Rourke et al. (2004) argue, communication theorists seem to agree that setting the atmosphere for discussion is an important element in all modes of teaching and learning based on peer
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
collaboration. Based on these issues, the discussions regarding blended and online collaborative experiences presented herein will focus on the aspects that appear to promote the emergence of social presence. The longtime attempt to understand human social interactions was set in motion with the development of modalities of mediated technology. In conversational analysis, reports from Schegloff and others (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, 1968; 1973; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks 1977) sought to understand the nature of telephone and face-to-face conversations. Rourke et al. (2004) cite a variety of reports in communication theory which studied a number of machines, including facsimile machines, voicemail, and audio-teleconferencing in organizational settings, through the concept of “immediacy” from Mehrabian (1969). This concept, developed to analyze face-to-face interaction, refers to “those communication behaviors that enhance closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” (p. 203). These behaviors involve nonverbal channels, such as facial expressions, body movements, and eye contact, which lead to more effective and more immediate interactions among the interlocutors. Rourke et al. (2004) examine many early works that argued that the critical difference between face-to-face communication and computer-mediated communication was the absence of social context cues. According to Rourke et al. (2004), however, recent revisions of social presence question to what extent these results from previous studies can be generalized to all media and to all their applications. One difference between face-to-face contexts and online contexts, highlighted by Garrison (2006, p. 27), is that “communication for social presence in an online context is less frequent and more deliberate and intentional compared to a face-to-face context where physical presence more naturally stimulates expressions of social presence.”
Garrison further points out that an online experience does offer opportunities for reflection in a manner not at all possible in face-to-face environments, which require verbal agility, spontaneity, and self-confidence to address a group. Thus, an online learning environment reflects a “group-centered” pattern of interaction as opposed to an “authority-centered” one in a face-to-face environment. Moreover, there is a greater tendency to lean on the commentaries of others in online environments as compared to the turn-taking dynamics in face-to-face environments. In this manner, according to Garrison (2006, p. 25), there is evidence indicating that “online learning may in fact have an advantage in supporting collaboration and creating a sense of community.” Rourke et al. (2004), in one of the key works on assessing social presence in computer conferencing, propose three broad categories of communicative responses: affective responses, interactive responses, and cohesive responses. These categories, although relabeled to better reflect the nature of the emergent indicators defined by the authors, correspond directly to Garrison et al.’s (2000) original categories. In this chapter, the term dimension, instead of responses, is preferred as the events under investigation involve more than simple responses. The affective dimension involves personal expressions of emotion, feelings, beliefs, and values, and includes indicators such as expressions of emotion, use of humor, and self-disclosure. The interactive dimension includes communication behaviors that provide evidence that others are present, such as agreement/disagreement, approval, and referencing of previous messages, as well as involves indicators such as: continuing a thread, quoting from others’ messages, asking questions, complimenting, and expressing appreciation. The cohesion present here encompasses communication behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment, such as greetings and salutations and group or personal reference. The interweaving of events, actions, and in-
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
teractions in the notions of complex systems is present in the interrelationship of social, cognitive, and teaching presences in a Community of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). Although the categories and indicators suggested in the Community of Inquiry model are in a certain way presented in a static and non-realistic manner, when we consider, for example, that the selection of text segments used to illustrate the indicators in Rourke et al. (2004) is fabricated, the ideas embedded in this model appear to signal the presence of agents (learners, cultural artifacts, contexts), offering possibilities to identify several qualities such as dynamism, self-organization, emergence, and so on, which are common to complex systems. The next part of this chapter will present an overview of classic and contemporary thought with the aim of promoting a better understanding of the core ideas of complexity.
contEXtuaL issuEs The discussion presented herein has emerged from the analysis of two distinct studies: “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” and “The Complexity of Learning Environments.” The first study discusses the main characteristics and functions of online learning communities as well as the emergence of social presence, teaching presence, and cognitive presence in terms of Communities of Inquiry (Garrison et al., 2000). This study’s core analysis focused on the interaction of 50 undergraduate students who participated in a 20-week course for pre-service teachers at the School of Languages and Literatures, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, in the first semester of 2004. This course involved theoretical and practical issues of teaching and learning a second language. These students were divided into small groups of three to five participants and interacted in an online environment without the direct intervention of the teacher.
The second study, a longitudinal ethnographic work, discusses the content of the interactions of 08 undergraduate students in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) academic writing course at the School of Languages and Literatures, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, during the second semester of 2004. This study was designed in a blended format so as to give students the opportunity to interact both online and face-to-face, and thus focuses on learner interaction and collaboration in peer-review activities in both face-to-face and online asynchronous classes. Rather than directly comparing the learning environments, or attempting to discover which is more effective, this research focuses both on their possibilities and constraints, as well as on the value of their combination. In keeping with the perspectives of this chapter, a special inquiry was formulated by choosing two distinct scenes: one related to blended learning and the other related to online learning. Regarding the online experience, the corpus of UFMGPRAT English 1, one of the subcommunities investigated in the study “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity” was chosen. Throughout the course, participants made use of a discussion list to carry out the tasks assigned in the teaching practice course. For each task, the instructional design involved: (1) posting an individual contribution to the discussion list, (2) discussing these contributions, and (3) posting a collective contribution to a forum for feedback from teachers and members of other subcommunities. In the second study, activities alternated between face-to-face and online classes. Face-toface classes entailed reading and discussing theory as well as presenting seminars. The online classes were conducted in an electronic forum where texts produced by students were posted. Also present here was a discussion list via e-mail intended to resolve problems and doubts that would inevitably arise between one face-to-face encounter and another. For the sake of analysis, the data from
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
this study’s online and face-to-face experiences is presented separately. Enlightened by complexity theory, this analysis considers blended learning as a unit, as all events occurring within both online and face to face is intimately interrelated.
(2) Ellen: I am a bit stunned…I got home from college, wrote, sent and…The msn disappeared…I couldn’t believe it…I almost cried. (original text in Portuguese) (3)
Findings This section will be dedicated to pinpointing evidence of the affective, interactive, and cohesive dimensions as well as patterns that may emerge with the support of social presence.
affective dimension Regarding the exclusively online experience of the UFMGPRAT English 1 subcommunity, it can be observed that emotions, feelings, and humor seem to be expressed emphatically, as can be found in excerpts 1 and 2. Any divergence that could otherwise have been resolved by means of looks, tone of voice, or any other resource typical of a face-to-face interaction tends to be expressed textually: (1) Lisa: …Gee, sorry if I offended ya. Didn’t mean to say that all your sentences were bad. On the contrary! What I meant was that we had (in all) a lot of sentences and we would have to be more selective because if we flood the students with visual aids we may end up not getting the result expected. As I said before, when I answer e-mails quickly (most of the time, unfortunately) I end up simplifying the text and it gets a tad too forward. Please don’t get me wrong. I’m really enjoying working with you guys! Expressions of humor and self-disclosure are also constant in the interactions observed in the UFMGPRAT English 1, as illustrated in 2 and 3:
Ellen: I am going to have to punish you… (laughing). (original text in Portuguese) Concerning blended learning, expressions of emotion, feelings, and humor can also be clearly observed in the participant speech of this community. Excerpts 4 and 5 illustrate the presence of the affective dimension, especially expressions of emotion in the face-to-face experience. In excerpt 4, for example, the emotion is expressed not only linguistically, but also non-linguistically, through pauses and laughter in short statements, which are typical of face-to-face conversations. The teacher’s manifestation upon facing a student’s difficulty in performing one of the tasks proposed by the course is immediate, which draws direct correlation to the concept of Mehrabian’s (1969) “immediacy,” which contemplates communicative behavior related to the specific proximity of interaction possibilities in the face-to-face experience: (4) Nathalie: Ana, I’m in trouble! I don’t know how to do it. Ana: You are not, Nathalie! Nathalie: Yes! Ana: I think you’re… Nathalie: I don’t know. Ana: I think you’re in the right way. (Laughter) Ana: I think you’re in the right way. Write it on the board please.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(5) Chris: People are trying to convince me not to talk about (laughs) things that I want to talk about. Expressions of emotion can also be observed in excerpts 6 and 7 in the difficulties the students encounter in performing the tasks. In both cases, non-linguistic elements can be observed, such as pauses and laughter, which aid in the expression of emotion:
It is interesting to note that this message was sent to the teacher’s private e-mail account and not to the discussion list as shown in excerpt 8 sent by the teacher to the discussion list. This event seems to show that, in affective terms, the students preferred to interact directly with the teacher since the proposal of the discussion list, in its course design, had the objective of offering opportunities to resolve problems regarding the completion of tasks.
interactive dimension (6) Chris: We are supposed to continue mine because this is my best. But I’m not going to talk about drama (laughter) ah please help me! How can I do this thesis statement? I’m going crazy (laughter). The interactions observed in the online experience in blended mode do not demonstrate the marked affective dimension seen in the face-toface experience. Yet, due to the absence of certain non-verbal resources typical of a face-to-face interaction, the affective dimension tends to be more linguistically marked, which may indicate that this dimension is more marked in text-based online interactions. This can be observed in excerpts 7 and 8 when one student writes the teacher an e-mail about her difficulty in drafting a composition: (7) Amanda: I am in doubt about how to do my composition. I have surfed the whole Net and can’t find anything. Please, give me some help. (original text in Portuguese)
The core of the interactive dimension is related to the evidence that the other is involved in the common principles of the community. In this manner, indicators, such as using the reply feature to post messages, quoting directly from the conference transcript and referring explicitly to the content of others’ messages, are all types of interactive responses in CMC (Rourke et al., 2004). Of the 189 messages exchanged by the PRATUFMG English 1 subcommunity, 55 present these indicators, mainly referring to the content of others’ messages and the reply feature to post messages. Evidence of complementing and expressing appreciation, indicators that communication is being reinforced in a text-based medium, seem to play a key role in the process of integration in the aforementioned community. Upon demonstrating appreciation for the work of their colleagues, participants of the community express their interest, engagement, reciprocity, and commitment to the proposals of the groups, as illustrated in excerpts 9 and 10: (9)
(8) Ana: Amanda I answered your e-mail but it returned to me as undelivered mail. So, I’m sending it to you in the text factory. I hope it can still help you.
Ellen: Lisa a nd Julia , cong rat ula tions, your texts are very good and I’m sure they’re gonna be useful. I totally agree with what you wrote.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(10) Julia: All the sites are interesting (some I knew others I just now visited) I thought the bloglesworld was great and I suggest it be on the list. (original text in Portuguese) Two other indicatorsexpression of agreement and asking questionsemphasized by Rourke et al. (2004) were also observed in the messages from community participants. In addition to the expressions of agreement, it could also be observed that expressions of divergence can instigate, sustain, and give support to critical thinking within the community, one of the major goals of the collaborative experience. In excerpt 11, for example, one community participant manifests not only agreement but also intention to produce knowledge through her classmate’s suggestion: (11) I agree with you about treating the cultural transversal plurality theme suggested by Lisa. Okay, I’m going to base my part on it. (original text in Portuguese) Likewise, the manifestations of divergence, although categorized as indicators of cognitive presence in the model formulated by Garrison et al. (2000), express displeasure and, as in expressions of agreement, may give rise to the development of critical thinking. In excerpt 12, one participant reacts to a long list of expressions suggested by her classmates. These phrases, part of the completion of one of the group tasks, served to facilitate the interaction among the students in the classroom: (12) I think that we have to make a selection of the phrases from the whole because we can’t bombard the students with phrases, right? (original text in Portuguese)
0
In blended learning, it can be observed that, in the face-to-face environment, the interactive dimension is also manifested in a non-linguistic form. The “evidence that the other is attending,” for example, is perceived through looks, gestures, and so forth. The elements of the interactive dimension that most commonly appear linguistically in this context are asking questions and expressing agreement, as we can see at the end of excerpt 12 as well as in excerpts 13 and 14. In excerpt 13 the student expresses her agreement with the ideas from a classmate, while in excerpt 14 Nathalie agrees with a commentary from the professor regarding her text: (13) Chris: Ok Ok I agree with you. (14) Nathalie: Yeah it’s kind of confuse… In excerpts 15 and 16, we can see examples of questions that appear frequently in the interactive dimension of the face-to-face classroom: (15) Angélica: It’s a good idea? (16) Angélica: How can I improve? In the online experience, the interactive dimension is much more linguistically present than in the face-to-face experience. One common indicator in this context was complimenting and expressing appreciation, as exemplified in excerpts 17 and 18: (17) Your text is much better now. Congratulations!
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
(18) Angélica, your text is very good with just few mistakes. Congratulations!! In this context, which involved the peer editing of their texts, the students frequently wrote commentaries complimenting their colleagues or highlighting the positive aspects of the text before making any corrections or giving any sort of suggestion.
cohesive dimension As pointed out by Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2004), the cohesive expression can be exemplified by activities that construct, develop, and sustain group behavior all at the same time. It can be observed that the vocative cases were constant through the entire life of the PRATUFMG English-1 subcommunity. In addition, there were a number of moments in which the community participants addressed the group using pronouns that refer to the collective, such as “we,” “our,” and “us,” as well as the use of the verb in the third-person plural in messages written in Portuguese. Another indicator of the group cohesion could be identified through communication using phatic expressions and salutation. Many times the community participants spoke to the group using expressions such as “Hi everybody” or “Hi all.’ Also observed was “Hi, Powerpuff Girls,” referring to the cartoon “The Powerpuff Girls,” “saving the world before bedtime.” It is interesting to note that this nickname was not defined in the interactions that occurred in the course discussion forum, demonstrating an intimate identity within the subcommunity. In addition to this nickname, the participants of the UFMGPRAT English-1 group constantly search for motivational and cohesive expressions in the language, which can be considered a new indicator of social presence pointing toward the development of group cohesion. These manifestations can be observed in examples 19, 20, and 21 (original texts were in Portuguese):
(19) Lisa: United we stand!!!! (20) Ellen: A big hug, all for one and one for all!!!! Go girls. (21) Lisa: Together we will overcome the difficulties. I hope so…I’m going to continue to try to resolve these little problems and I hope that they will not hurt us because we’ve worked hard, right? This attachment to group cohesion can be interpreted as a need for the group to ‘stand on its own two feet’ until the end of the course. This fact seems to be related to the pedagogical proposal of the course which established the “own life” of each subcommunitythat is, autonomous communities without the direct intervention of the teacher. The social expressions that emerged from the participants’ interactions in the aforementioned asynchronous learning community seem to offer collaboration and support to the emergence of patterns such as the negotiation of meaning, the overcoming of conflicts, and the development of group cohesion. One of the major joint enterprises that emerged from these interactions within UFMGPRAT English-1 is distributed leadership. The community participants chose to alternate leaders so that each member could participate equally in group activities. Thus, the role of the management of a learning community, many times taken on by the teacher, is distributed among the community participants. Although UFMGPRAT English-1 was the subcommunity investigated for the discussions debated in this chapter, it is important to emphasize that the emergence of distributed leadership occurred in most subcommunities from the course for pre-service teachers, original corpus for the study “Online Learning Communities in the Realm of Complexity.”
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
In blended learning, the cohesive dimension is not as linguistically marked as it is in the faceto-face experience. Vocative cases are inevitably used, as can be seen in excerpt 22: (22) Ana, in my essay I used this. Nevertheless, this use of vocative cases occurred only when attempting to call the attention of the other since the face-to-face conversation dynamics offered diverse nonverbal resources to indicate to whom certain comments were directed. One very common element used was to address or refer to the group using inclusive pronouns, as shown in excerpts 23 and 24: (23) Angélica: And the name (opens the folder and begins to flip through the pages) I bring it for you… Ana: For us (laughter). (24) Ana: We’ve seen the classification essay right? We’ve seen the process analysis essay… In the online experience, even in the electronic forum where the tasks involved only the edition of texts from classmates, the students commonly used the vocative cases, as demonstrated in excerpts 25 and 26: (25) Angélica, these are some suggestions that might improve your text. (26) Amanda, your text is very good, but I think the use of “that is the way it is a valid experience” in the second paragraph is not very clear, maybe you could change the words.
discussion Both learning communities investigated, blended and online, contain characteristics commonly found in adaptive complex systems. These characteristics can be observed in the corpus investigated in this chapter. The results presented herein demonstrate that the communities are in a constant movement of statethat is, dynamicity, which can be illustrated through the events of the aforementioned divergence and convergence. Emergence can be considered the most preponderant aspect in the investigated corpus. Distinct patterns of leadership arise within the studied contexts. In blended learning, leadership centered on the teacher appears in face-to-face classes. Likewise, as reported in a number of studies regarding classroom interaction (van Lier, 1988; Tsui, 1995; Chaudron, 1988; Dalacorte, 1999), the classroom interactive dynamics are, essentially, centered on the teacher who, in general, controls the turn-taking dynamics. In online activities in the blended experience, there arises a more decentralized leadership. In this context, the presence and coordination of the activities by the teacher occurs, but not at the same intensity as in face-to-face classes. These findings are in accordance with studies that indicate a trend toward a greater participation of learners in online classes (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996; Paiva, 1999; Fernández-García & Arbelaiz, 2003). In the online community where there was no direct intervention from the teacher, a pattern of distributed leadership emerged. It is important to emphasize that the aforementioned management patterns were supported by social expressions: affective, interactive, and cohesive. These expressions, in addition to being interrelated, as defended by Rourke et al. (2004), manifest themselves in an interdependent manner, and are based on a constant interweaving in an attempt to comply with the diverse common purposes of both blended and online learning communities.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Another emerging aspect is the fact that social presence is more linguistically apparent in online interactions than in face-to-face interactions. In face-to-face interactions, diverse non-verbal paths, such as looks, facial expressions, and gestures, play key roles in marking social presence or “immediacy,” as defined by Mehrabian (1969). These results are aligned with previous studies (Davis & Thiede, 2000; Martins, 2005, 2006) which indicate that, due to restrictions in contextualization (Gumperz, 1982), common in face-to-face interactions, expressions of emotion and politeness tend to appear more linguistically marked. The results also point out that the expressions of affection, expressions that involve efforts in interactions, and interactions that address the collective, aid in the development process of group cohesion, thus promoting the collaborative experience and opportunities for the construction of shared knowledge. In this sense, the discussions based on the data presented in this chapter follow in line with the findings from Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2004), which indicate that social presence may trigger and sustain the construction of shared knowledge. As the purpose of this discussion has been to prompt some reflection on complexity thinking and social presence, we hope that this study will serve as an incentive for future investigations in other contexts, as the discussion presented herein is based on a small sample from two distinct case studies which was specifically investigated in this chapter.
guidELinEs For FuturE rEsEarch In this chapter we have presented some differences between the processes of socialization in online learning and blended learning. However, further inquires on this topic are still needed, especially those conducted regarding the characteristics of
social presence with different learners and in different learning contexts. Although social presence has been considered to be intrinsically interrelated with cognitive presence, as well as with teaching presence in Garrison et al.’s model, this chapter focuses on social presence only. Therefore, further studies wishing to examine the remaining components of the Community of Inquiry model in both online and blended environments are to be encouraged. In the discussions presented in this chapter, the Community of Inquiry has been scrutinized under the notions of complexity. Considering that our focus was on emergent phenomena in both online and blended learning, research into other characteristics of complexity in learning communities is valid. The use of Complexity Theory as the foundation for the study of online learning is still quite recent, hence an open field for further investigations still exists.
concLusion Initially brought to the field of Applied Linguistics from isolated initiatives, complexity thinking has gradually established itself as a consistent epistemological basis for the understanding of contexts and events involved in teaching and language learning activities. These events, as regards the process of second language learning, much like the universe as a whole, are complex in nature. The complex nature of phenomena has led classic scientists to establish methodological procedures that reduced the phenomena to the investigative conditions of the time. Scientific and technological advances stemming from these efforts established the reductionist view of classic science as a reliable paradigm. The emergence of another viewpoint allows us to investigate certain aspects of a phenomenon, which in many cases is not in fact contemplated within a sole paradigm.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
This idea aligns with Halliday (2001) in the sense that second language teaching is too complex and multifaceted to be analyzed according to one sole perspective, be it what it may. In this light, Larsen-Freeman, (2002b) emphasizes that one of the contributions of complexity is that it enables us not only to review our concepts of teaching and learning a second language but also to perceive the underlying concepts of the more traditional paradigms. In this focus, we share Demo’s (2002) idea that knowledge and learning are considered activities that are imbued in non-linear processes, both in the process of formation and reconstruction as well as in its internal interweaving, due to the fact that they signal typically complex phenomena because they are not exhausted in logical alignments. The discussions related to social presence in both blended and online environments presented in this chapter aim to reiterate the social nature of these types of pedagogical interventions and the potential for the use of CMC in educational practices as far as the construction of shared knowledge is concerned. The creation of blended and online learning communities must therefore be guided by a perspective that embraces instructional designs that, in turn, foster social interactions, considering that out of the issues of effectiveness, interactivity, and cohesion, there may emerge patterns such as reciprocity, commitment, as well as different patterns of negotiation of meaning (e.g., convergence and divergence) and patterns of management (e.g., decentralized and distributed leadership), elements that may trigger the process of critical thinking, one of the major goals of the collaborative experience in the education arena. In this light, the issues herein presented enhance the value of social interactions in textual asynchronous environments and acknowledge the complex nature of blended and online learning communities. As these issues involve both theoretical issues and important practical pedagogical implications, we hope the discussion proposed
in this chapter will contribute to research on elearning methodologies for language teaching and learning as well as pinpoint issues and challenges for others to address and build upon.
rEFErEncEs Bowers, R. (1990). Mountains are not cones: What can we learn from chaos? In J.E. Alatis (Ed.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 123-136). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Cameron, L. (1999). The complex dynamics of language use on tasks. Retrieved November 10, 2004, from http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cross, K.P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? Retrieved June 10, 2006, from http://www. doso.wayne.edu Connor-Linton, J. (1995). Complexity, linguistics and language teaching. In J.E. Alatis, C.A. Straehle, & B. Gallenberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 596-604). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Dalacorte, M.C.F. (1999). A participação dos aprendizes na interação em sala de aula de inglês: Um estudo de caso. Tese (Doutorado), Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries into learning, teaching, and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Davis, B., & Thiede, R. (2000). Writing into change: Style shift in asynchronous electronic discourse. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Demo, P. (2002). Complexidade e aprendizagem: A dinâmica não linear do conhecimento. São. Paulo: Editora Atlas.
Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Kuhn, T.S. (2005). A estrutura das revoluções científicas (9th ed.). São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Fernández-Gracía, M., & Arbelaiz, A.M. (2003). Learners’ interactions: A comparison of oral and computer-assisted written conversations. ReCALL, 15(1), 113-136. Garrison, R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2), 87-105. Garrison, D.R. (2006). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1). Graham, C.R., Allen, S., & Ure, D. (2003). Blended learning environments: A review of the research literature. Unpublished Manuscript, Provo, UT. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (2001). New ways of meaning: The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The ecolinguistics reader: Language, ecology and environment (pp. 175202). London: Continuum. Harasim, L., Teles, L., Turroff, M., & Hitz, S. (2005). Redes de aprendizagem: Um guia para ensino e aprendizagem. São Paulo: Editora Senac. Heckman, R., & Annabi, H. (2002, November). How do ALNs change the role of the teacher in case study discussion. Proceedings of the 8th Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks, Orlando, FL. Holland, J. H. (1997). Ordem oculta: como a adaptação origina a complexidade. Trad. José Luiz Malaquias. Lisboa: Gradiva.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141-165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002a). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 33-46). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002b). Part one: Commentaries. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 88-95). London: Continuum. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619. Lévy, P. (2003). A inteligência coletiva: Por uma antropologia do ciberespaço (4th ed.). São Paulo: Loyola. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove Language Teaching. Macgill, V. (2005). A history of chaos and complexity. Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/history.html Martins, A.C.S. (2005). Interação e discurso eletrônico: Práticas sociais e identitárias em aulas online. In J.M.C. Quintino & M.I.A. Muniz (Eds.), Estudos lingüísticos (pp. 9-35). Montes Claros: Faculdades Unidas do Norte de Minas. Martins, A.C.S. (2006). Discurso e construção de identidades no ciberespaço. In L.C. Travaglia, E.S. Bertoldo, F. Mussalim, M.A.F. Rocha, & M.V. Araújo (Eds.), Lingüística: Caminhos e descaminhos em perspective (pp. 1-11). Uberlândia: EDUFU.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
Mehrabian, A. (1969). Some referents and measures of nonverbal behavior. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 1(6), 205-207. Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (1999). CALL and online journals. In R. Debski & M. Levy (Eds.), WorldCALL: Themes for the new millennium (pp. 249-265). The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Rogers, J. (2000). Communities of practice: A framework for fostering coherence in virtual learning communities. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3), 384-392. Rossi, P. (2001). O nascimento da ciência moderna na Europa. Tradução de Antonio Angonese. Bauru: EDUSC.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2002). Caleidoscópio: Fractais de uma oficina de ensino aprendizagem. Memorial, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002). Exploring social interaction in computer conferencing. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 257-273.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2005a). Modelo fractal de aquisição de línguas. In F.C. Bruno (Ed.), Ensinoaprendizagem de línguas estrangeiras: Reflexão e prática (pp. 23-36). São Carlos: Claraluz.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, R., & Archer, W. (2004). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based, computer conference. Journal of Distance Education, 14, 2.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2006a). Comunidades virtuais de aprendizagem e colaboração. In L.C. Travaglia (Ed.), Encontro na linguagem: Estudos lingüísticos e literários (pp. 127-154). Uberlândia: UFU.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Paiva, V.L.M. de O. (2006b). Autonomia e complexidade. Linguagem e Ensino, 9(1), 77-127.
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075-1095.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-383.
Parreiras, V.A. (2005). A sala de aula digital sob a perspectiva dos sistemas complexos: Uma abordagem qualitativa. Tese (Doutorado). Belo Horizonte: FALE–UFMG.
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.
Prass, A. (2005). História da física. Retrieved May 12, 2006, from http://fisicanet.terra.com. br//historia Prigogine, I. (1996). O fim das certezas: Tempo, caos e as leis da natureza. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp. Prigogine, I., & Steners, I. (1984). A nova aliança: A metamorfose da ciência. Brasília: Editora Universidade de Brasília.
Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29, 491-501. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language acquisition. London: Longman. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London/New York: Longman.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cognitive Presence: Defined by Garrison et al. (2000) as “the extent to which the participants in any particular configuration of a community of inquiry are able to construct meaning through sustained communication.”
van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 140-164). London: Continuum.
Cohesive Responses: This category encompasses communication behaviors that build and sustain a sense of group commitment, such as greetings and salutations, and group or personal reference.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Interactive Responses: This category of social presence, in terms of Community of Inquiry, refers to communication behaviors that provide evidence that others are attending, such as continuing a thread, quoting from others messages, asking questions, or complimenting and expressing appreciation.
Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
kEY tErMs Affective Responses: This category of social presence, in terms of Community of Inquiry, involves personal expressions of emotions, use of humor, and self-disclosure. Blended Learning: Refers to combining instructional modalities (or delivery media), combining instructional methods, and combining online and face-to-face instruction (Graham et al., 2003). This term has been used in the e-learning literature to refer specifically to educational experiences that combine face-to-face conversation classes with online classes, thus reducing the time spent inside a classroom. This interaction seeks to maximize the potential of both environments.
Learning Community: “…dynamic whole that emerges when a group of people share common practices, are independent, make decisions jointly, identify themselves with something larger than the sum of their individual relationships, and make long-term commitments to the well being of the group” (Shaffer & Anundsen, 1993, as cited in Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Social Presence: Concept defined by Garrison et al. (2000) as “the ability of learners to project themselves socially and emotionally in a community of inquiry.” Garrison (2006) expanded this notion, defining it as “the ability to project one’s self and establish purposeful relationships.” Teaching Presence: Involves designing and facilitating the educational experience (Garrison et al., 2000).
EndnotEs 1
The term “shared” is used in this chapter to refer to the type of knowledge that stems from “negotiation and/or exchange” in the solution of problems.
The Emergence of Social Presence in Learning Communities
2
3
Joint enterprise in this context is seen as a result of a collective process of negotiation that reflects the full complexity of mutual engagement (Wenger, 1998). Redundancy in this text is used in Davis and Sumara’s (2006, p. 138) terms: “In social grouping redundancies include common language, similar social status, shared responsibilities, constancy of setting and so on.”
Chapter III
CALL as Action Vilson J. Leffa Universidade Catolica de Pelotas, Brazil
abstract The objective of this chapter is to offer a new approach for research in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). It starts with the assumption that CALL has traditionally emphasized unresolved dichotomies such as tutor vs. tool or individualized instruction vs. collaborative learning. It is argued that a unifying theory, capable of incorporating these conflicting views, is needed. For this purpose, Activity Theory, based on Vygotsky’s ideas and developed by Leontiev, is proposed. It is suggested that research in CALL should focus neither on the individual nor on the community, but on the mediating tool that links them in situated context. CALL is seen as a cultural artifact that needs to be naturalized by the language teaching community.
introduction Mainstream theories in foreign language teaching tend to emphasize either the individual (focusing on such aspects as individualized instruction, learning styles, self-directed strategies) or the community (including methodologies such as community language learning, collaborative learning, study teams). The introduction of computers into foreign language instruction seemed to have contributed further to this dichotomy,
raising awareness of the differences between a student working alone in front of the computer or interacting with others in a community of learners. The basic motivation for writing this chapter is the assumption that an emphasis on either the individual or on the community results in a reductionist approach to the problem, incapable of addressing the complexity of CALL. What is proposed, then, is to emphasize the point where they intersect. For the individual to interact with the community, he or she has to do something (ac-
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
CALL as Action
tion), through some kind of mediation (tool). This is described here as the “action” approach. CALL as mediated action introduces a new paradigm in language teaching and research, putting the focus neither on the student nor on the teacher, but on the relation between them in the learning community. The chapter is structured in two main parts: (1) CALL as divided theory and (2) CALL as mediated action. The first part reviews classifications that have been proposed to explain CALL and its development, starting with the tutor/tool dichotomy and evolving to the concept of CALL as an invisible technology. Whereas in the tutor perspective, the computer is still seen as a traditional teacher, conducting drill practice with individual students, in the tool view the computer is seen as an instrument used by people to communicate with each other. The movement from tutor to tool also signals a movement from a focus on the individual to a focus on the community, with an emphasis on collaborative learning. The second part tries to build the concept of CALL as mediated action, using the Activity Theory perspective: human beings are different from other species because they create tools and are modified by the tools they create, thus evolving and producing history. CALL is described as a cultural artifact, with resources of its own, including higher interactivity and connectivity. It integrates with other components in the learning community, transforming the way teachers and students work and think. From this collective perspective, teaching and learning become a unified activity, distributed not only among the community members but also on the artifacts available in the environment. The main objective of the chapter is thus to describe CALL as a mediating tool, standing between subject (usually the student) and object (usually the content to be learned). In this chapter, we argue that change, and consequently learning, will be more easily implemented if the emphasis is neither on the teacher, as has traditionally been
0
done, nor on the student, as proposed by studentcentered approaches, but on the instruments that link student to content, and the whole learning community, including teacher, other students, rules, and division of labor. We believe that an emphasis on the instrument, for its capability in binding all the elements in the community, offers a more comprehensive view of CALL in situated practice, with more possibilities both for teaching and research purposes.
caLL as a housE diVidEd The idea of CALL as either an individual or a social activity can be related to CALL classification attempts, three of which are detailed here, not only for their historical impact on the area, but mainly for their relevance to the line of reasoning developed in this chapter. They are the magister/pedagogue distinction, as proposed by Higgins (1988), the CALL phases described by Warschauer (1996), and the approaches suggested by Bax (2003). The acknowledged need for a theory to explain CALL (Levy, 1997) has led some investigators to propose different theoretical frameworks, which resulted in different classifications. One of the earliest was postulated by Higgins (1988), who viewed the computer as playing two opposite roles in CALL, either as “magister” or “pedagogue.” Thus, the magister: wears an academic gown to show that he is qualified in subject knowledge. Visible in his top pocket is his salary check, symbolizing the security of tenured appointment. In one hand he holds a handkerchief, symbol of the care and concern which (we hope) he feels for individual learners. In the other he carries a cane, symbolizing the authority to evaluate, praise and censure. In front of him is the book, the symbol of the order of events, the structure which is imposed on him by the syllabus makers and which he will impose
CALL as Action
on the learners by means of the lesson plan. (Higgins, 1988, p. 13) To explain pedagogue, Higgins resorts to the figure of the Greek slave, who was used to assist children in their daily learning activities: So think of a man in sandals and a cheap cotton robe, walking five paces behind the young master. He carries the young master’s books for him, but no cane. The young master snaps his fingers and the pedagogue approaches. He answers the young master’s questions, recites a poem, translates words, plays a game, or even, if that is what the young master demands, gives a test. The young master snaps his fingers again, and the pedagogue goes back to his place. He hopes he has given satisfaction, since otherwise he may starve. (Higgins, 1988, p. 14) According to Higgins, a computer is a magister when it plays the role of a tutor, controlling and guiding the student through a series of drills. The interaction between machine and student is typically conducted through exchanges, as in the IRF (Initiate/Respond/Follow-up) model proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) for traditional classroom discourse. It can be easily seen that the basic classroom exchange, in its three sequential moves, is faithfully reproduced in the CALL environment: (1) computer sets the task (initiate move), (2) student tries to accomplish the task (respond move), and (3) computer evaluates (follow-up move). Considering that, in this case, the machine is not a mediational means between teacher and student, but an actor in the exchange, we can argue that there is an attempt to replace the teacher with the computer; the one-to-one classroom interaction is seamlessly extended to one-to-one computing, with an emphasis on individual learning. On the other hand, computer as pedagogue inverts the master/slave relation between student and machine. Unlike the IRF model, control is
now handed over to the student, who initiates the exchange and tells the computer what to do; the computer responds by trying to accomplish the task. The student finally evaluates the results and may or may not be satisfied with the job done by the machine, now seen as an obedient slave, ready to make things easier for its master. When Higgins proposed the magister/pedagogue dichotomy, in fact based on a previous paper (Higgins, 1983), the Internet, as we know it, was not yet available. Today, with Orkut, discussion lists, and distance learning, the pedagogue metaphor would certainly serve the purposes of collaborative teaching with its emphasis on the collective aspects of learning. Warshauer classifies CALL in three phases, which he refers to as behavioristic, communicative, and integrative. The behavioristic phase is characterized by the heavy use of drills, following the audio-lingual model, with the computer playing the role of tutor. According to Warschauer (1996, p. 4): Programs of this phase entailed repetitive language drills and can be referred to as ‘drill and practice’ (or, more pejoratively, as ‘drill and kill’”)…A computer can present such material on an individualized basis, allowing students to proceed at their own pace and freeing up class time for other activities. The communicative phase emphasizes the use of authentic materials and interactive activities, with the computer playing different roles, not only as a tutor but mainly as a tool for students’ discussions, writing, and other creative activities. Through the use of authentic materials, the emphasis is not on teaching the language per se, but on using the language, taking advantage of materials that were not produced for students. “In this role, the programs do not necessarily provide any language material at all, but rather empower the learner to use or understand language” (Warshauer, 1996, p. 6).
CALL as Action
The integrative phase combines multimedia (integrating text with graphics, sound, animation, and video) with the impact of the Internet (allowing language learners to communicate with other learners 24 hours a day). The use of computermediated communication clearly favors collective learning over individualized instruction: It also allows not only one-to-one communication, but also one-to-many, allowing a 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 thousands of people. (Warshauer, 1996, p. 9) A third classification for CALL activities, of special interest here, was proposed by Bax (2003). He also uses a three-element categorization, but defines CALL as restricted, open, and integrated. The restricted variety is related to Warschauer’s behavioristic CALL, but is not limited to the underlying theory, since it includes activities that cannot be described as behavioristic. The term restricted is preferred because of the limitations that are still observed, considering, for example, the software used, the feedback offered to the students, and the role played by the teacher. By contrast, the open variety is more flexible in all of these aspects, integrating them with simulations and games. It is on the integrated type, however, that Bax differs most from Warschauer, and offers an interesting perspective on CALL. Whereas Warschauer sees integrative in terms of technology, that is, the ability to integrate text with audio and video, for example, Bax describes integrated in terms of socio-cultural aspects, emphasizing not the ability to integrate, but rather the ability to be integrated. The technology, which is visible in Warschauer, becomes invisible in Bax (2003, p. 24): This concept [integrated CALL] is relevant to any kind of technological innovation and refers to the stage when the technology becomes invisible,
embedded in everyday practice and hence ‘normalized’. To take some commonplace examples, a wristwatch, a pen, shoes, writing–these are all technologies which have become normalized to the extent that we hardly even recognized them as technologies. In theory CALL has gone a long way, developing from Higgins’s (1988) metaphor of the magister, placed in center stage, to Bax’s (2003) idea of CALL as an invisible technology. In fact, it starts developing from the center (computer as conspicuous tutor), moves to the margin (computer as an obedient slave, walking five paces behind its master), and finally reaches invisibility (computer as a naturalized tool). Along this journey from visible tutor to invisible tool, there is also a movement from individual action to social activity. Computer as tutor usually emphasizes individualized instruction, with the student working alone in front of the screen. Computer as tool, on the other hand, tends to emphasize collective learning, with students forming a community of learners, working cooperatively, exchanging ideas, and learning together through continual negotiations. The development from tutor to tool goes hand in hand with the development from individual learning, with an emphasis on cognition, to social transformation, with an emphasis on historicity and collective learning. In classroom practice, however, the historical development of CALL does not reflect the ideas defended in mainstream theory. Considering what happens in the classroom, the tendency is towards stability: (1) keep things as they are, not as they should be; (2) if change is inevitable, improve from what is available, not by replacing things; and (3) merge dichotomies instead of strictly adhering to one side or the other. In mainstream theory (Kuhn, 1962), the tendency is in the opposite direction: (1) new things must be proposed and tried out, because there is no evolution without change; (2) scientific revolutions depend on paradigm replacement, not on their improvement; (3) dichotomies represent incompatible, mutually exclusive positions.
CALL as Action
The concept of development as substitution can be detected in the idea that we have moved from computer as tutor to computer as tool, replacing one by the other. This is more a theoretical construction than a practical fact. The development of CALL, as the development of most cultural artifacts in the history of civilization, is better characterized by the idea of evolution, where old artifacts are not replaced by new ones, but incorporated into them. It seems that separation is a theoretical necessity. If we want to investigate CALL, we must find a way to divide and classify it, describe each one of these parts, and then hopefully relate these parts to one another, creating a system or a model. We may devise categories such as types of CALL (behavioristic, communicative, and integrative in Warschauer’s terminology or restricted, open, and integrated, in Bax’s). We may also create dichotomies such as tutor vs. tool or individual vs. society. All this breaking up and possible reassembling is part of the theoretical procedure. We may assume that the theorist’s job is to make all these things visible, so that they can be described and analyzed. In classroom practice, however, it is the opposite. As will be explained later, separation does not work. Using CALL with students is like taking them on a journey into invisibility. Software and computers have to become transparent so that students can see through them; they cannot be in the way between students and the content they need to learn. Tutor/tool or individual/society dichotomies are not adhered to, but ignored or blended together (e.g., Hubard & Hiskin, 2003). The point made here is that both adherence to the fragmentation paradigm, where parts of the whole are separated and analyzed, as done in theory, and adoption of the blending model, where things are put together, as done in practice, are misleading. It can be argued, for example, that the different classifications proposed by different authors are different because the criteria they use to classify them are arbitrary. Although we may
defend the idea that science is after all a subjective truth, dependent on the argumentative skills of the author, the possibility of having innumerable classifications is problematic and may be characteristic of the early stages of a new science, still in a consolidation process, as is probably the case with CALL. Different classifications may lead not only to an excessive concern with the parts, in detriment of the whole, but also preference for some parts in detriment of others, which may result in a blind man’s view of reality, taking the tree for the forest. In a dichotomy, when we chose one side, this side becomes the whole and the other is erased. On the other hand, adopting a blending model, in which both the whole and the parts are considered, is a practical necessity. In the classroom, for example, the teacher cannot always address the whole group; sometimes individual questions from individual students must be answered. Integrative exercises, such as summary writing, may go hand in hand with discrete item activities, such as gapfilling and multiple-choice tests. In CALL terms, computer as tutor is intensively used in some courses, along with collaborative tasks in which students work together with other students. What is needed is a theory, robust enough to incorporate both sides of the dichotomy, no matter how they oppose each other, no matter how apparently incompatible they are. Such a theory is based on the idea of mediation. The concern is neither the individual nor the community, neither the student nor the content to be learned, but the relation between them. Learning does not occur directly but through a mediational artifact, which stands between student and learning as a bond, cementing them. This idea of mediational artifact as cement is important because, although we cannot change either a person’s nature or the nature of an object, we can change the mediational artifact that links them together. Considering, for example, a student learning a foreign language, it is obvious that we cannot change either the foreign language or the student. We might wish to erase
CALL as Action
some verb irregularities in the language we teach to make our job easier, but that is not possible. We might wish to have different students, but that is not possible either. We have to take language and students as they are. The only place where changes are possible is in the artifacts we use: books, learning activities, computer software. If we want to change the way students learn, we have to change the artifacts they use.
caLL as a uniFYing tooL This section addresses the main point of this chapter, which is to present a unified theory for CALL, merging long-standing dichotomies such as tool vs. tutor and individualized instruction vs. collective learning. Unifying different points of view is not an easy task in any area of human activity and seems to be even more difficult in the area of educational research. A view of available literature shows that researchers in education tend to group themselves in different scientific paradigms (Piagetean, Vygotskyan, Chomskyan, etc.), surrounding themselves with a shield that automatically blocks out all the others. Any suggestion to mix different paradigms into one eclectic approach may be discarded as “intellectual obscenity,” according to a saying attributed to Krashen (Barasch & James, 1994). The attempt to describe CALL as mediated action questions this feudalized view of science and offers a multifaceted perspective, viewing research as bricolage (Kincheloe & Berry, 2004). It is proposed that what is traditionally defined as static, lifeless, and a-historical, frozen in space and time, becomes a dynamic, living, and historical entity. The parts are no longer isolated from each other, but integrated into a living organism that reacts to the surrounding environment: what functions as tool in one context may function as tutor in another and vice versa. Describing CALL as a unifying tool in a living organism is obviously more complex than describing it as a
static entity. Previous views on related cultural artifacts such as books, classroom lectures, and language teaching activities have to be revised and reconceptualized for a post-digital perspective. What follows is an attempt to describe CALL in this direction. Due to human tendency to anthropomorphize objects, the tutor/tool dichotomy can be applied to many cultural artifacts, including books, television, radio, tape recordersand CALL. Books are of special interest here, both for what they have in common with computers and for the differences that set them apart when they are anthropomorphized. Teachers are familiar with books and can easily integrate them in their classroom activities; they know exactly when to treat them as physical objects or psychological realities, and know exactly when they are talking in a figurative or in a literal way. As regards computers, however, they are unsure, mainly because the boundary between the figurative and the literal worlds becomes unclear. When they say, for example, that “a book is a teacher,” they know they are talking metaphorically, but if they hear that “a computer is a teacher,” they may not know how to interpret the sentence. Is it a metaphor or can the computer really act as a teacher? The differences between book, computer, and teacher are dealt with here, considering the notion of anthropomorphization, resistance to new technologies, and the need to appropriate the new technology. The basic idea is that a computer should not be seen as a substitute for either book or teacher, but as a technology that integrates them into a greater unit. Considering that the tutor/tool dichotomy is confusing, it is replaced by the words teacher, artifact, and tool. No difference is made between the words tool and instrument, both seen as mediation. As mediation, a tool can be either an object (book, computer) or a subject (teacher, student). Both books and computers are cultural artifacts that can be anthropomorphized, but there are some differences in this anthropomorphization process that must be taken into account. First,
CALL as Action
as regards books, there is an association between object and subject that is not found in computers. Books, unlike computers, are individual entities written by people, which makes it easy to associate any book with its author. We may say that we love Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Charles Dickens, referring to the books they have written, thus erasing the difference between the author and his work. There is no need for the author to be present when he is read; he can be represented by the work he produced. Literally speaking, author and book belong to opposite worlds; one is a subject, the other is an object. Metaphorically speaking, however, they share the same subjective nature. It is also important to notice that no reader is diminished and no author is depreciated when a book is referred to as a person. Computers, on the other hand, are not individual entities; they are artifacts manufactured by a few big companies and registered as trademarks. They have general characteristics (more or less memory capacity, higher or lower speed), but they cannot be easily associated with an author, as happens with books. We may know that Steve Jobs is the maker of Apple Computers, but if we say that we love Steve Jobs, we are probably referring directly to the person, not to the machine that he made. The author is not visible in the computer. Although a given computer usually leaves the factory with a specified serial number, that number is restricted to the documentation; it is not used in our daily interaction with the machine. Computers are not born with individuality; they are produced on an assembly line, all alike, within the specifications of a given model. Individuality is added later, when we buy them, adding accessories, and mainly with use, when we customize them to our needs. Computers do not come ready-made for use, unlike books that come ready-made to be read. There are no metaphors involved here; they literally grow with use, reacting and changing to our personal wishes and needs. Computers are not prêt-à-porter artifacts.
Anthropomorphization is easier with books than with computers. We accept without any sign of discomfiture the notion of a book as a dear friend, always ready to help us, more than we do with computers. The metaphor of a book as a patient friend has probably been used since the days people started reading books. The segment “book is a friend,” for example, produced more than 26.2 million hits in a Google search in early 2007. Some examples: • •
•
•
“A book is a friend.” (American proverb) “A book is a friend; a good book is a good friend. It will talk to you when you want it to talk and it will keep still when you want it to keep still; and there are not many friends who know enough to do that.” (B.A. Billingsly) “A book is a friend you can trust, a friend you can turn to for advice and inspiration whenever you like.” (Anonymous) “Each book is a friend that converses with and teaches me.” (Warren Wiersbe)
Being friendly and trusty are subjective characteristics that are attributed to an object, through anthropomorphization, as we have traditionally done with animals (Easter Bunny, Mickey Mouse) and toys (Pinocchio, the Hardy Tin Soldier), including, lately, household objects (SpongeBob). This process of anthropomorphization is seen as something natural. In the case of books, it is also seen as desirable, based on the assumption, in most cultures, that books are essentially good and should be loved and respectednot for their physical reality, just leaves of paper bound together, but for their psychological content. On the other hand, as regards computers, they may easily spark feelings of disapproval, whether anthropomorphized or not. Some examples: •
“Most schools would probably be better off if they threw their computers into the dumpster.” (Michael Fellows, computer scientist,
CALL as Action
•
University of Victoria, British Columbia, 1997) “When I put a child in front of a computer, what am I subtexting to the child? Please go hide…I have something more important to do. I have something more important than you!” (Clifford Stoll, astronomer, writer, leading authority on computer security, in a lecture at the Buffalo Arts Center, 1996)
A Google search, using the same string above, but replacing book with computer, produced only 26 hits for “computer is a friend,” as compared to the 26.2 million for “book is a friend.” Out of these 26 occurrences, only one put the computer in a clear positive light: For me, computer is a friend who helps me do my work easily, gets me connected with my friends around the world, helps me plan the daily memo, guides in my son’s school projects and what not!1 Considering that we are used to attributing human qualities to animals and objects, including books and computers, the question that begs answering here is why we act one way when we refer to books and a different way when we refer to computers. When we say that a book is a friend ready to teach us, we are treating the book not as an artifact but as a teacherand that is totally acceptable. On the other hand, if we treat a computer as a teacher, not as an artifact, that is usually seen as undesirable. We see it as commendable if books are metaphorically treated as human beings, replacing the teacher, and we encourage students to read books, which is as solitary as playing with a computer. As far as anti-social behavior is concerned, there is more solitude in front of a book than in front of a computer screen. There are certainly many explanations for treating books and computers so differently, although they are both cultural artifacts. One important difference is that a book is a static,
physically inanimate object. We can attribute human qualities to it, but they are not really there; they are only in our minds. The black marks on the page mean nothing by themselves, unless we give them meaning. When we say that a book is a teacher, we are speaking metaphorically. Computers, on the other hand, are dynamic, physically animate objects. They react to input, analyze the data we enter, and can provide different answers to similar questions, generated by a random seed working within certain parameters. When we say that a computer is a teacher, we may be speaking not only metaphorically but also literally. When we interact with a book, the interaction is not really with the book but with a representation of the book that we have built inside ourselves; the book remains untouched as a physical reality. It does not interact back. When we interact with a computer, the computer changes physically, as a result of our interaction; it may add new information to a data bank inside the unit, for example, and then capitalize on this information for the next user, literally becoming a different computer. Unlike a book, the computer interacts back. This ability to interact is not well understood yet and may generate fear, which in turn may lead to resistance. Some people believe that artificial intelligence will turn computers into amazing thinking machines that will eventually replace human beings (Shneidermann, 2002). Computers are interactive machines that can be programmed to simulate some human actions, using algorithms that compare the data entered by the user with the data stored in their random access memories, thus providing automatic feedback based on these comparisons. It may be striking to some people that computers can simulate rather long conversations with human beings, playing different roles. One of the earliest programs, exploiting this side of artificial intelligence, for example, was ELIZA (Weizenbaum, 1966), in the role of a psychiatrist. The excerpt2 below reproduces a possible dialogue with the machine:
CALL as Action
ELIZA: How do you do? Please state your problem. Person: I spend too much time with computers. ELIZA: Why do you mention computers? Person: You are one. ELIZA: Does it please you to believe I am one? Person: Yes. ELIZA: You seem to be quite positive. Person: I suppose I am. Although the idea of artificial intelligence as a replacement for human action has generally been seen with skepticism (Shneidermann, 2002), the fear still remains in some quarters. It may be difficult, for example, to separate the metaphoric from the literal in the ELIZA excerpt above, when we interact with the program on a computer screen and receive immediate answers to the questions we pose. Consequently, what should be seen as a simple preprogrammed algorithm in the machine may be seen as intelligence. When fear is associated with the difficulty that people meet in trying to use the new tools, the result is usually resistance to their use. People who feel that they are excluded from the community of successful users will tend to play down the role of a given tool in that community. Sometimes, however, resistance may be found in the initiated themselves. Plato’s criticism against the use of writing for its undesirable effects on memory is a famous historical example: …your invention [writing] will produce forgetfulness in the souls of those who have learned it, through lack of practice at using their memory, as through reliance on writing they are reminded from outside by alien marks, not from inside themselves by themselves: you have discovered an elixir not of memory but of reminding. To your students you give an appearance of wisdom, not the reality of it; having heard much, in the absence of teaching, they will appear to know much when for the most part they know nothing, and they will be difficult to get along with, because they have acquired the
appearance of wisdom instead of wisdom itself. (Plato, trans. Rowe, 1986, pp. 275a-b) What Plato said of writing in 400 BC is very similar to what Postman, a well-known cultural critic, said of computers in 1992: “It is important to remember what can be done without computers, and it is also important to remind ourselves of what may be lost when we do use them” (Postman, 1992, p. 120). One possible explanation for why we are ready to accept the metaphor of books as teachers is because we are not afraid of books and know how to use them; books have already been naturalized, “normalized” in Bax’s terms. We talk about books as we talk about the objects we use everyday. Centuries of contact with books in our civilization, the years we spend in school learning how to read them, the way we see them displayed in bookstore windows, buy and borrow them, exchange and discuss them, all this has contributed to naturalize books as part of our daily lives. We are so used to books that it causes us no discomfort at all to refer to them as our friends or teachers. On the other hand, when we see how computers are used, either in fiction or in real life, we realize immediately that they are different from booksthey interact directly with the user, answering questions, providing feedback, and so forth, with no apparent human intervention. Some authors have defined this human-machine exchange as interactivity, as opposed to interaction, which is human to human (Wagner, 1994). The computer moves from a simple bearer of messages (e-mails, academic texts, encyclopedias, etc.), to a data processing machine (word processors, presentation programs, design applications, music making software), and reaches subjectivization, simulating human actions. “A computer is a medium in which a variety of methods, approaches, and pedagogical philosophies may be implemented” (Garrett, 1991, p. 75).
CALL as Action
We live in a world where the border between subject and object seems to have become movable, making it difficult to decide whether we are receding towards ourselves, relinquishing the human in us to the objects that surround us, or expanding our humanity and incorporating these same objects. When we wear contact lenses, for example, it is difficult to decide whether our eyes end before the lenses or continue beyond them, creating what Kuuti (1996) referred to as functional unit. The point is that it probably does not matter: we do not interact with our lenses; we interact through them. They are artifacts like telephones, books, and computers. Likewise we do not interact with these artifacts, but through them, no matter how sophisticated they may be. We may talk to computers as we talk to other objects: metaphorically. But we may also talk to computers as we talk to people, that is, literally. A computer is both a book and a teacher; sometimes it acts as a book (just bearing text, for example), but sometimes it also acts as a teacher (providing individualized feedback, evaluating tasks, etc.). Either as book or as teacher, a computer can always be seen as a mediating tool. A good student does not study for the teacher but uses the teacher as a means for reaching a given objective, the same way a home builder uses an architect to design a house or a sick person uses a doctor to get well. A computer, either as a teacher or as an artifact, can always be seen as a mediating tool. A tool does not exist by itself; it was created for some purpose, empowering people in a community to attain a given objective more efficiently. It is apparently obvious that people, including both the individual and the community, should be on the foreground. But this may not always be so. When we do research on how people learn, for example, it may be more productive to put people in the background, so that the tools they use can be brought to the foreground. If we want to teach a child to ride a bicycle, having a bicycle is essential for the child to acquire the skills of riding. We have to sit the child on the bicycle and
do some amount of practice. The child’s behavior will be shaped by the use of the bicycle, to the point that it becomes an extension of her legs and arms and she will be able to ride by herself, without any help. Learning to read or speak a foreign language may require the acquisition of different skills, but they can only be done with the mediation of some kind of tool. Tools are important because it is only through them that we can change the individual, the community, and the world. “Neither hand or mind alone suffice; the tools and devices they employ finally shape them” (Francis Bacon, as quoted by Brunner, 1987). We do not need surgery to change anybody’s hand; we can change the hand by changing the gesture made by the hand. In the same vein, we do not need surgery to change people’s brain; we can change it by changing their mind. And this is done with the mediation of tools. Mediated action has received a lot of attention lately, as part of the Activity Theory paradigm in education. Vygotsky and Leontiev are the main historical references here, complemented by contemporary authors such as Kuuti (1996), Engeström (1999), Wertsch (1998), and Cole (2003). For them, learning is mediated by tools (both psychological such as language, strategy use, etc., or technical ones such as books and computers). The subject who uses these tools is not an isolated individual but a member of a given community (EFL classroom, language lab, etc.). The members in the community (teachers, administrators, etc.) all share the same objective (learning a foreign language). For the community to subsist, a set of rules must be created, dividing responsibilities between its members. When a new tool is introduced (podcasts, RPG, iPods, etc.), it must be mastered by all members in the community, according to the role played by each member (a teacher’s knowledge of an authoring system, for example, may need to be different from the student’s). Any action, any task in the community only makes sense if viewed from a holistic perspective and cannot be separated
CALL as Action
from its final objective (shared by everybody in the community). There seems to be a considerable difference between what is actually done in CALL and what could be done. The reasons for this difference are many, including restrictions from the technology itself and human resistance to its use. In terms of technology, we are still working with an emergent system, lacking in fundamental aspects such as interoperability, standard compliance, and hardware interconnectivity. In terms of human resistance, we tend to compare the computer to the teacher and then rejoice on what it cannot do. Adopting a new technology implies a new way of working and thinking. Producing a learning object to be used on the computer is not necessarily more difficult than preparing an activity to be used with paper and pencil, but it is certainly more complex. A computer program is not a replacement for either the book or the teacher. It has resources of its own, including higher interactivity and connectivity, which have to be adequately exploited. In a socio-cultural perspective, CALL should be seen as a cultural artifact that integrates with the other components in the learning community, including other artifacts and other members (teachers, students, etc.). From this collective perspective, teaching and learning become a unified activity, distributed not only among the community members but also on the artifacts available in the environment. Introducing a new tool is always a challenge, subject to more or less resistance from the members in the community. It usually means acquiring new skills, from the operational (more automatic) stages to higher intentional levels, with the result that by doing different things, we end up thinking differently. When any new artifact (pencil, television, computer, or CALL) is introduced in a community, not only the whole body is involved, but the environment as well and everybody in it.
FuturE trEnds Looking ahead is a general pastime in the area of computer-mediated communication and learning, as can be seen in popular books such as Gates’ (1995) The Road Ahead, Negroponte’s (1995) Being Digital, and Shneiderman’s (2002) Leonardo’s Laptop. In CALL, even components of some current models are sometimes projected into the future, as is the case with Bax (2003), for example, who described his Integrative CALL as something that “does not yet exist to any significant degree, but represents instead an aim towards which we should be working” (p. 22). The future is a challenge because the more unpredictable it is, the more the need to predict it. In terms of CALL, and in the line of reasoning defended here, the trend is towards the idea that computers will be instrumental in the formation of different kinds of communities. Learning to speak a foreign language is acquiring admittance into the community of the speakers of that language, which can be done with computers, through local, regional, and global networks. In the early days of CALL, the emphasis was on the individual and consequently on individualized learning. Later, with the introduction of the Internet and the socio-cultural perspective on education, the emphasis moved to the community and collaborative learning. Considering that computers are instrumental in connecting individuals and communities, the trend, in terms of research and teaching, is to move beyond the individual and the community and focus on what has the potential of introducing the individual into society and society into the individual, along Morin’s (1990) hologrammatical principle. This principle states that not only the whole contains the part, but that the part also contains the whole. Thus, for a language student to be part of a foreign language community, this student must appropriate the language and the values that constitute this community. The community, on
CALL as Action
the other hand, to be ecologically competent to allow for interaction between individuals, needs to develop some cultural artifacts that function as messaging tools for individuals and communities to talk to each other, incorporating the parts into the whole. There is a big difference between CALL as is and CALL as it can be. CALL as is still confines itself to the individual-vs.-society dichotomy, favoring the part in detriment of the whole. CALL as it can be focuses on what links individual to society, accounting for both the part, which contains the whole, and the whole, which contains the part. The trend is clearly towards CALL as it can be.
concLusion Summarizing, the idea put forward in this chapter is that CALL is not aimed at replacing either the teacher or the book. The idea that computers should act like human beings, the humanoids in science fiction, or the agents in some versions of artificial intelligence research may be interesting as entertainment or research projects, but not very useful in practice and is being discarded (Shneiderman, 2002). The basic idea is that we need tools to help us, not humanoids to replicate our actions. CALL has often been described in terms of dichotomies: tutor vs. tool or individual vs. community. These dichotomies can be referred to as the “or” approach, where either the individual or the community is excluded, which is a logical impossibility, since one cannot exist without the other. Another possibility is to go the other way around and emphasize both the individual and the community, reasoning that we may refer to it as the “and” approach. Again, this is problematic because nothing is left out and would probably result in redundancy and duplication of effort. What we propose here is that neither the individual nor the community should be emphasized, but the point where they intersect. For the individual to
0
interact with the community, he or she must do something (action) through some kind of mediation (tool). This can be referred to as the “action” approach, in which the emphasis is neither on the individual nor on the community, but on the relation between them.
rEFErEncEs Barasch, R.M., & James, C.V. (1994). Beyond the monitor model: Comments on the current theory and practice in SLA. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Bax S. (2003). CALLPast, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28. Bruner, J. (1987). Prologue to the English edition. In L.S. Vygotsky (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (vol. 1). New York: Plenum. Cole, M. (2003). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gates, W. (1995). The road ahead. New York: Penguin Books. Higgins, J. (1983). Can computers teach? CALICO Journal, 1(2), 4-6. Higgins, J. (1988). Language, learners and computers: Human intelligence and artificial unintelligence. Singapore: Longman. Hubard, P., & Siskin, C.B. (2003, May). Another look at tutorial CALL. Proceedings of WorldCall 2003, Banff, Canada. Kincheloe, J.L., & Berry, K.S. (2004). Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualizing the bricolage. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
CALL as Action
Kuhn T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuuti, K. (1996). Activity Theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: ESF. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Kopf. Plato. (1986). Phaedrus (trans. and commentary by C. J. Rowe). Warminster: Aris and Phillips. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Random House. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: University Press. Shneiderman, B. (2002). Leonardo’s laptop: Human needs and the new computer technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wagner, E.D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26. Warschauer M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In S. Fotos (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3-20). Tokyo: Logos International. Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZAA computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9, 6-45.
Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
kEY tErMs Activity: Minimal unit of investigation in socio-cultural theories, involving a subject, an object, mediational tools, and the community with its rules and division of labor. Activity Theory: Socio-cultural theory initiated by Vygotsky and his colleagues, based on the idea that human activity is situated in social context and mediated by psychological and physical instruments such as language, dancing, books, or computers. Cultural Artifact: Mediational object used by a member of a community to interact with other members. Examples of cultural artifacts are pencils, books, iPods, computer operating systems, and so forth. Distributed Cognition: Cognitive theory emphasizing the idea that cognition expands from the individual to the community and its artifacts. Distributed Learning: Decentralized instructional model in which teachers, students, and the resources are located in different places. Sometimes a synonym for distance learning. Learning Community: Group of people who share common educational goals and typically work in a collaborative, non-hierarchical fashion to achieve these goals. Learning Object: Reusable learning unit, usually digital, that can be combined into a bigger unit. Mediated Action: Use of cultural artifacts (pencil and paper, data projector, computer programs, etc.) for the purpose of attaining a given objective such as demonstrating a theorem or learning a foreign language.
CALL as Action
Orkut: An Internet social network created by Google, in which users display their profiles, receive and send messages, post testimonials, and create communities.
EndnotEs 1
2
http://www.indusladies.com/forums/technology-for-you-and-me/2914-computersmere-machine-mans-best.html http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/canon/eliza.htm
Chapter IV
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment1 Vera Lucia Menezes de Oliveira e Paiva Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais/CNPq/FAPEMIG, Brazil Adail Sebastiao Rodrigues-Junior Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Brazil
abstract This pedagogical and methodological chapter aims at contributing to increasing Web teachers’awareness of the different ways teachers and students can make themselves “visible” in the virtual environment by describing three categories of footing in online educational forums, namely, social footing, teaching footing, and cognitive footing. The categories are explained in line with the definition of footing, originally presented by Goffman (1981) and extended to online environments by Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007). The data stems from a 60-hour online reading and writing course for undergraduate students of English as a Foreign Language in Brazil and was selected having in mind the categories discussed throughout the chapter, with special emphasis on the role played by the teacher and her students during the course. The analysis has shown that footing can be clearly perceived as an interactive category for online environments by means of textual analysis, with special focus on the transitivity model developed by Halliday (2004) and the social, teaching, and cognitive presences investigated by Garrison (2006) and his colleagues.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
introduction Face-to-face interaction has been investigated for a long time, with a main emphasis on speech acts (Austin, 1962), talk-in-interaction (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977), and conversation (Grice, 1975). Another seminal work in this research field is Forms of Talk by Goffman (1981), especially his work on footing, which he defines as “participant’s alignment, or set, or stance, or posture, or projected self.” Goffman advocates that changes in footing are marked by shifts in tone, pitch, volume, rhythm, stress, tonal quality, and code switching. He says that “change in footing is very commonly language linked; if not that, then at least one can claim that the paralinguistic markers of language will figure” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128), in which gaze shift and facial expression play a part. Online interaction, on the other hand, differs from face-to-face encounters because it lacks prosodic segments and the paralinguistic resources often found in talk-in-context. Although we defend that footing is a phenomenon which can also be studied in online interaction, we contend that new categories are needed in order to understand how it works in this new environment. Online education has been using different kinds of online conferencing, such as messenger, e-mail, chat, and forum. What most interests this educational field is the kind of context where students and teachers interact in simultaneous modes (one to one, one to many, and many to many) at anytime, anywhere. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) have investigated which roles the footings of participants play while they are interacting with their peers in online academic forums. According to them, “within online interaction, interpretive resources usually present in a given context are transferred to utterances produced by interlocutors in virtual interaction” (Paiva & Rodrigues-Junior, 2004, p. 175, our translation). We can take, as an example, the use of capital letters when virtual
interactants intend to emphasize specific feelings. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2007, p. 156) offer an example of this transference, when one of the students of an online course writes “Subject: HELP!!!!!!!!!!!” The capital letters and the exclamation marks point to the emphasis the student gave to her problem, as if she were crying for help in any difficult situation. Moreover, nearly all paralinguistic features easily identified in casual talk (due mostly to the cues immediate contexts provide) become linguistic and discursive elements often used by interlocutors when they are virtually communicating with their peers, like, for instance, emoticons, interjections, punctuation, capital letters, and so forth. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2007) have also given close attention to the generic structures of online forums and to which extent these generic features influence interlocutors’ alignments and their positioning in virtual interaction. One of the main findings Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) have presented is the fact that online forums comprise a myriad of hybridized generic elements frequently perceived in the linguistic and discursive choices their users make. On this basis, this pedagogical as well as methodological chapter deals with the way interlocutors in online academic forums build knowledge as they negotiate meanings while exchanging information with each other. We posit that this meaning negotiation becomes easier to grasp if interlocutors make their footings visible and explicit to their peers, by utilizing linguistic and discursive elements that necessarily lead to this explicitness. We also intend to explore furtherbuilding on the work of Garrison (2006) and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2001)the interactive elements often held by interlocutors and the discursive resources they bring to interaction as a means of overcoming the absence of contextual features within this sort of online communication. The chapter, thus, seeks to be a step forward in the analysis of online academic forums and their important roles to knowledge
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
construction, whose interconnected parts are split into five sections: 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
The introduction, in which we present the aims of the chapter and its structure; Theoretical background, in which we discuss and extend the notion of footing (Goffman, 1981) and the original and in-depth discussion we have held around this issue (Paiva & Rodrigues-Junior, 2004, 2007); Method, in which we present how data was collected and the context from which it stems; Analysis and discussion, in which we present some strips of online interaction and the roles footing play to the understanding of this kind of virtual interaction; and Final remarks, in which we present the conclusions we arrived at for the moment.
Footing In his seminal paper entitled Footing, Goffman (1981) introduced the concept of footing into the social sciences, opening up interesting possibilities of looking at social encounters and their interactants. Footing is more commonly related to participants’ alignments, their social projection, and the way they represent themselves while taking a role in a social encounter. Duranti (1997, p. 296) also posits: “Footing, in other words, is another way of talking about indexing…the process whereby we link utterances to particular moments, places, or personae, including our own self at a different time or with a different spirit (e.g., emotional vs. distant, convinced vs., skeptical, literal vs. ironic).” Duranti (1997) goes on providing general applications of the concept onto contextual features. Interestingly, however, is the fact that footing is naturally related to language, or “languagelinked” (Goffman, 1981, p. 128), with special emphasis on phonemic clauses. Duranti affirms
as well, as we could have noticed, that footing is a kind of interactive process whereby utterances represent the constitution of the social encounter in line with major contextual forces that undoubtedly play a part. Still, when we pay close attention to online interaction, utterances as well as other semiotic elementsfor instance, emoticons, capital letters, sounds, and so forthare the only discursive signs capable of capturing the effects of interactants’ communicative intentions. Whenever there is intention, footing appears as the “process whereby we link utterances to particular moments” (Duranti, 1997, p. 296). Bearing this in mind, Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) attempted to develop a methodology to analyze footing in online educational forums, with particular interest in how students responded to each other’s claims as the activity unfolded. In general, Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007), by focusing on discussions about online educational forums, found out that: 1.
2.
3.
4.
Epithets, adverbs, pronouns of treatment, capital letters, abbreviated words, and so forth, play a part for the establishment of footing as a significant element in online interaction. Given its dialogical constitution, online educational forums naturally demand from its interactants the construction of discursive structures that necessarily lead to the manifestation of their communicative intentions, as the interaction unfolds. A discursive topic is usually presented as the point of departure for the interaction, which in fact determines the subject of discussion and the interactants’ responses to it. An online educational forum is a hybrid genre, since its formation encompasses a range of generic features from academic articles, essays, e-mails, and chats. This generic feature is an example of the complexities usually encountered in online
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
5.
educational forums, because the whole interaction will be subjected to the limits as well as possibilities this mixture of genres raises. Finally, lexico-gramaticalization, more specifically the transitivity system, as presented by Halliday (2004) in the continuum or cline of lexico-grammar, plays a significant role in the identification of footing in online educational forums, and its active participation influences the construction of footings in the ongoing interaction. Contrary to this position, Goffman (1981, p. 128) considers that “sentence grammar won’t help us all that much” to the investigation of linguistic
aspects of footing. Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007), on the other hand, have shown that lexico-grammar helps identify the linguistic hints that signal interactants’ footings in virtual interaction. Halliday (2004, p. 170) explains that “[t]he transitivity system construes the world of experience into a manageable set of PROCESS TYPES.” The transitivity model is formed by six interconnected process types, defined in Table 1. Another point that merits closer examination is the power relations commonly achieved when footing is under thorough scrutiny. In his paper, Goffman (1981) touches very slightly on
Table 1. The transitivity model
Types of Processes (verbs)
Description
Examples of processes (verbs)
Material Processes
They construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events as taking place through some input of energy” (Halliday, 2004, p. 179), with mostly an action performed by a subject onto someone or something.
appear, emerge, develop, cut, modernize, brush, sweep, open, close, leave
Mental Processes
They construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events taking place in our own consciousness” (Halliday, 2004, p. 197).
see, notice, believe, expect, wish, hope, like, hate, perceive, think
Relational Processes
They “serve to characterize and to identify” (Halliday, 2004, p. 210) general nouns, be they human or inanimate subjects.
be, become, remain, taste (like), turn into, represent, constitute, express, signify, stand for
Behavioral Processes
They “are processes of (typically human) physiological and psychological behavior” (Halliday, 2004, p. 248), regarded as a mixture of material and mental processes.
smile, cry, laugh, listen, dream, breathe, sing, dance, faint, talk
Verbal Processes
They “are clauses of saying” (Halliday, 2004, p. 252), usually contributing to the creation of narratives by setting up distinctive dialogues and reported speech.
praise, insult, say, speak, report, announce, question, inquiry, ask, criticize
Existential Processes
They only represent “that something exists or happens” (Halliday, 2004, p. 256).
exist, remain, stand, lie, emerge, grow, erupt, prevail, flourish, ensue
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
this issue by discussing hierarchical relations between interlocutors. In this chapter, however, power relations will become all too visible when students interact with the teacher in the forum, since the teacher plays the role of moderator and consequently filters the interaction in order for it to serve the course’s aims. In this case, it is rather important for the teacher to be a “sage on the side,” as Warschauer and Whittaker (2002, p. 371) put it, and not a “sage on the stage.” It is true that students are eager to learn, but for this to happen they should be brimming with confidence and self-esteem. In what follows, these points will be viewed with critical eyes, principally because learning in online educational forums derives from the collaborative interaction between teacher and students. As a consequence, footing is the element that clearly shows how learning is taking place and how interaction unfolds while interactants are contributing to meaning construction.
cognitiVE, sociaL, and tEaching prEsEncEs For the purpose of exploring further the notion of footing and its relevance to educational contexts, let us now consider the categories developed by Garrison et al. (2001). The authors state that in online education there are three essential elements, which they define as cognitive, social, and teaching presences. In our view, these presences could be interpreted as stances of footing, given their role to the construction of meaning in interaction when interactants are discursively construing the social encounter where meaning negotiation is taking place. Garrison (2006), inspired by the work of Dewey (1933) on reflective teaching, defines cognitive presence as “the exploration, resolution and confirmation of understanding through collaboration and reflection in a community of inquiry” (p. 4). In another text, Garrison (2006b, p. 4) explains that “cognitive presence is the process of collab-
oratively constructing meaning and confirming understanding in a sustainable community of inquiry,” highlighting the importance of facilitation to maintain the construction of knowledge and interaction by means of discourse production. He adds that “facilitation focuses and guides the progression of the discourse as well as providing timely input and information, and summarizing development.” We can identify cognitive presence when students exchange information, connect or apply ideas, counter argument, collaborate, monitor, reflect, and so forth. Cognitive presence can also be identified as a kind of footing, that is, the ability to project one’s self as a thinker, one who reflects upon what is being learned. In this case, mental processes play an important role to the identification of cognitive presence as a type of footing. An example extracted from our corpus clearly shows mental processes working as textual elements that ‘translate’ a cognitive footing: “I’m sorry I see [mental process] that I misunderstood the task’s purpose.” The mental process “see” translates into text a feeling of sorrow of one of the students attending the course. According to Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer (2001, p. 51), “social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves as ‘real people’.” Later on, Garrison (2006, p. 2) describes social presence “as the ability to project one’s self and establish personal and purposeful relationships.” We prefer the latter definition because the former gives much attention to the learner without, in fact, taking into account the essential role teachers play in the process of learning. Moreover, Garrison et al. (2000, p. 89) explain that social presence comprises three categories: emotional expression, open communication (e.g., risk-free expression), and group cohesion (e.g., collaboration encouragement). The authors (2001, p. 58) divide them into three categories: affective (emotions, sense of humor, and self-disclosure); interactive (reply-
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
ing, referring, asking questions, complimenting, expressing agreement, and expressing appreciation); and cohesive (vocatives, inclusive pronouns, phatics, and salutation). As we will demonstrate in the analysis, these categories may be textually represented by mental, verbal, material, and relational processes. One example from our data clearly shows this representation: Hi John, it was [relational process] nice to read [material process] your message. It was [relational process] touching because it is [relational process] authentic. Brief but straight to the point. I hope [mental process] you manage [material process] to see [mental process] them soon. Bye...John. The student expresses her various footings toward her ‘classmate’ by employing different kinds of processes, like, for instance, affection (It was touching), cognition (I hope, I see), and actions (read, manage). These processes also point to softening strategies commonly used in online forums, through which interactants construct their discourses by means of modalization and politeness. In our opinion, the categories Garrison et al. (2000) and Rourke et al. (2001) present can shed light on the notion of footing, since any (virtual) social encounter abounds with moments of collaborative talk, encouragement, and affective expressions, mostly represented by politeness strategies and lexico-grammatical elements, such as verbs (processes), epithets, prepositional phrases, and the like. Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, and Archer (2001, p. 8) define “teaching presence as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.” According to them, teaching presence is markedly present since the beginning of the course preparation, and “continues during the course, as the instructor facilitates the discourse and provides direct instruction when required” (2001, p. 8). Taking these authors as reference we can say that teaching presence has
three categories: design (setting curriculum and methods), facilitation (sharing personal meanings), and direct instruction (focusing discussion, establishing time parameters, utilizing medium effectively, and establishing netiquette). We would like to emphasize as well that teaching presence is clearly perceived in educational environments, mainly in classroom settings, due to the influence exerted by curricula, evaluation, teaching methods, personal meanings, and focused discussions on the construction of meaning negotiations in any educational context, and virtual education is no exception. Material processes, or processes of doing, seem to often appear in this kind of footing, since the teacher is expected to provide general instructions and give support to her students. Outstanding features of this kind of footing are represented by “disguised imperatives,” which commonly appear in declarative sentences and are generally constructed by material processes, as we may see in the following example: “Each one is supposed to select [material process] one of the suggestions for [the] next task.”
thE rEsEarch contEXt Our corpus comes from a 60-hour online course on reading and writing in English that was taught at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil, over 15 weeks during 2006. The objective of the course was to offer authentic input and non-artificial opportunities for students to practice the English language. Those students were prospective English teachers, and it is usually difficult for them to find opportunities to use the language outside the classroom, so the Internet was a useful tool to bridge that gap. To promote online interaction among students, the syllabus was designed to integrate technological and communicative functions to the maximum extent possible. The activities (introducing, giving advice, writing and reading different genres, etc.)
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
can be found on the course homepage at http:// www.veramenezes.com/rw.htm. The course was organized around a discussion list where all the interaction among the virtual communitystudents and teachertook place. The discussion list was hosted on the Yahoo!Groups site (http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/readwrite/) at no cost, but with the proviso that advertisements would come together with the messages. All the messages exchanged during the course were filed away on a page created by the software. Figure 1 shows the appearance of the course homepage and Figure 2 the discussion list homepage as generated by Yahoo!Groups. Students were assigned weekly tasks, and attendance to the course was only registered if each task had been posted until Wednesday. As the objective was to produce meaning, feedback focused on the content and not on the form of the task output. It does not mean, however, that the form was not important, but the university program offers the students different kinds of courses in which they have the opportunities to study the form in-depth. Students were told to keep a copy of each task and choose, at the end of the term, five of their
best tasks to be graded by the teacher (20 points each). They were told to keep in mind that it was the process rather than the product which would be analyzed for assessment and that there was no reason to be afraid of making mistakes as they could edit their tasks as many times as they felt necessary. The theoretical basis for the course is anchored in the sociocultural theory and in the strong version of the communicative approach as described by Howatt (1985, p. 279): “The ‘strong’ version of communicative teaching…advances the claim that language is acquired through communication, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the language system itself.” For Howatt, the weak version could be described as “learn to use English” vs. the strong version’s “using English to learn it.” In choosing the strong version, that is, using the language to acquire language per se, one must emphasize the following aspects: student-centered teaching, with the teacher as mediator; focus on the content with an emphasis on interaction; the concept of language as an instrument of communication and
Figure 1. Reading and writing course homepage
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Figure 2. Reading and writing discussion list homepage
not as a formal system; use of authentic material; and total tolerance for errors. Interaction through discussion groups encourages participants to work in a cooperative way and at the same time allows students to preserve their individuality. As Littlewood (1981, p. 93) says: “The development of communicative skills can only take place if learners have motivation and opportunity to express their own identity and to relate with the people around them. It therefore requires a learning atmosphere which gives them a sense of security and value as individuals.” The sociocultural theory was of paramount importance to the design of the course. First, because it sees learning as a cultural phenomenon, and second, because of the notion of a zone of proximal development, which Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) defines as “the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through the problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
0
with more capable peers.” Although the concept was developed to describe how children learn, it has been applied to adult learning as well (see Lantolf, 2000). We would like to add to Vygotsky’s ideas the notion of collaboration developed by Freire (1970), in which this theoretician presents dialogue as the basis for his pedagogical proposal. Albeit Freire also takes into consideration the role leadership plays in the construction of knowledge; he clearly sees dialogue as the effective means by which educational actors furnish the collaborative transformation of the world.
thE corpus Our corpus comprises 1,241 electronic messages exchanged among students and the teacher from August to November 2006. In order to select some excerpts which can exemplify the different kinds of footing, we used two different strategies: we read various messages and selected some of them
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
to illustrate our discussion, and we also used the search mechanism available in the discussion list when we had in mind some keywords, such as processes, epithets, and nouns, which worked as discourse markers for footing.
anaLYsis Our analysis will identify the kinds of footings that display the three different, but interconnected virtual presences as proposed by Garrison et al. (2001): social, cognitive, and teaching. In general we can see that the students’ footings oscillate mainly from a cognitive footing (ask for help, share doubts, justify mistakes or absences) to a teaching one (give information, clarify others’ doubts, give feedback, express sympathy), since the course is not teacher centered in order to promote collaboration among the students. Social footing overlaps the other two, mainly when the students address the participants.
(Good Morning teacher and “classmates”; Hello Professor Vera and Classmates!; Hi Professor Vera and colleagues!!!; Dear Vera and classmates; Hi, Vera and classmates!) The teacher, on the other hand, keeps her identity of a teacher by consistently starting her messages with Dear students, unless she is addressing a specific student. Self-disclosure is another way to project personal identity. One of the tasks was named “Message in a bottle,” in which the students were supposed to write a message to be thrown into the ocean. Most of them wrote poetic or philosophical messages addressed to anyone who would find the hypothetical bottle. Nevertheless, one of them decided to review his own dramatwo daughters living away from him in Japanby writing the following message: (1)
social presence
I still hope that you decide to come back to Brazil someday…before I die. I still bring inside of me the hope of seeing you again. If you happen to read this message, please, get in touch. I love you and I never forget you!!!!
Social presence is manifested in the virtual environment by means of different kinds of footing. When we read the messages, the first example of social footing we noticed was identity footing, which was generally perceived when students used either their student or their classmate identities.
This message was a starting point for several other messages directed to this specific student, who was held in deep affection by his classmates. This action of publicly demonstrated warm affection worked as a trigger for another kind of social presence, which is called affective footing.
Identity Footing
Affective Footing
Students display different identities when greeting the participants in the online community. The different greeting forms are hints for one’s identity footing. Students identify themselves as members of an online community (Dear all; Hello everyone!; Hi everyone!); or as students by addressing the teacher (Hi Professor Vera); as classmates (Dear peers; Hey mates; Hi + name of a classmate); or as both student and classmate
As soon as his classmates got the message, they showed sympathy by sending messages as the ones in (2), (3), and (4): (2) Hi, John1! Your “message in a bottle” is very touching! I hope your daughters “find it” and decide to come to Brazil! Cheers, Mary
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
(3) Hi John, I didn’t expect to read this kind of message!! I was so touched that I cried!! I hope they come back at least to see you!!!! Best, Mary… (4) Hi John, it was nice to read your message. It was touching because it is authentic. Brief but straight to the point. I hope you manage to see them soon. Bye…John. It was interesting to observe that most of the affective messages were from female students and that male students were more economical in showing their feelings. In (4), for instance, one can see that the writer evaluates the message as a piece of writing, as if he were not touched by the classmate’s drama. However, in the last line he makes a wish giving support to the student. These characteristics are translated into text by means of transitivity, more precisely by the use of relational (“I was so touched”) and mental processes (I didn’t expect). The transitivity system, therefore, works as a means of textualization of footings, since online interaction uses primarily texts to represent emotions, feelings, and wishes. Students express different kinds of emotions and they show the change of footing by using capitalization, repetition of characters, emotions, and punctuation. Capital letters work as a device for calling careful attention, as presented in (5), or for expressing prosodic features and intonation, like, for instance, “THAAAT” in (6). Repetition of punctuation and emoticons display feelings, as shown in example (7), where one may recognize whether or not the sender is happy for having received compliments from John. This example is interesting because capital letters indicate rising intonation, and the repetition of the letter “A” indicates vowel elongation:
(5) P.S.: I’M SO SORRY BUT I COULD NOT JUST POST IT SINCE THE PICTURES WOULD NOT APPEAR. AS I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I SEND IT AS AN ATTACHED FILE. DO NOT WORRY BECAUSE IT HAS NO VIRUSES. (6) I recognize I’m not THAAAT poet, you know… (hahah), but I…can I say I really tried to touch your hearts. (7) Good morning, John!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you again for all your compliments!!! :-)
Interactive Footing Interactive footing examples can be found either in the teacher’s or in the students’ messages. However, given that the course is a collaborative one, many examples can be taken from the students’ postings, like compliments (examples (8) and (9)) made, respectively, by a student and by the teacher, as well as agreements, as shown in example (10). By the same token, the act of quoting others’ messages, like in examples (11) and (12), are common interactive footings in our forum: (8) Hi John! I found very interesting what you pointed out, that knowing how to scan and skim is very important for us as internet users : ) (9) I must say I am really impressed by the quality of the texts you have been producing. Several aspects have called my attention: creativity, rich
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
vocabulary, accuracy and literary quality. It is a privilege to work with such a good group.
Code switching appeared in an interaction among two students in (14):
(10)
(14)
I agree with you that they exaggerated in the effects in some parts of the movie.
Sure John! And, u r welcome! ;) See ya! Ni hao! :) haha
(11) John, I think we have to produce the graphics ourselves…As you said in you message, the sites just show you the models. (12) As Professor Vera said, your summary shows how motivated you are! Cheers, Mary. In examples (9) and (12), the use of verbal processes, respectively, “I must say” and “As Professor Vera said,” indicates that the teacher gave rise to her feelings (“impressed”) by using reported speech, which shows that changes of footing are discursive-dependent as well. In the same way, examples (11) and (12) reproduce the words of another participant, expressing somebody else’s opinion. According to Goffman (1981, p. 151), “when we shift from saying something ourselves to reporting what someone else said, we are changing our footing.” Another change in footing is done with code switching. The teacher in our forum sometimes switches from English into Portuguese in order to force the students to pay attention to the course rules, as we can see in example (13): (13) Por favor, lembre-se de que quarta-feira é o último dia para enviar suas tarefas. (Please, remember that Wednesday is the deadline for the tasks.)
Example (14) is particularly interesting because the author changes his usual footing in the forum by using typical abbreviations often used in informal contexts on the Internet. This somehow individualizes the interaction between the two students and keeps the teacher away from the interaction. At the same time, the student closes his message with a Japanese greeting, an index for his peer about the experience he had in Japan, by adding emoticons and a paralinguistic representation, both representing smiles. In other words, both forms of code switching project a footing of intimacy between the participants and help to build their social presence in the educational forum.
teaching presence The most expected alignment or footing of a teacher is that of the one who gives instructions, as can be perceived in instance (15). This “instruction-like footing” serves as an attempt for the teacher to project herself as someone who has the obligation to help the students, to assess the efficacy of the process, like in example (16), to help students to utilize the media effectively, clearly seen in example 17, as well as to set curriculum, as noticed in example (18): (15) Mary, Welcome to our online course. All our tasks can be found on our homepage: http://www.veramenezes. com/rw.htm
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Just click at tasks. Do not forget to read our instructions. Any doubt, just get in touch. Cheers, Vera Menezes
Mary, We have received four identical messages. Please, do not send it again. Vera Menezes
afraid that, I am sorry are used by the teacher to assess the students’ tasks and tell them that they have not accomplished the tasks as previously expected. By the same token, modalization serves as warnings to the students, principally when they are not observing the time parameters, as readily observed in examples (20) and (21). As far as we are concerned, by choosing these markers the teacher displays a friendly and polite footing, projecting a positive image of herself:
(17)
(19)
John, If your classmates’ tips did not help you, try another free server for blogs.
I think your first choice is too small to be called a scientific article. What about finding another good text to send to your classmates?
(16)
(18) (20) Each student is supposed to select one of the suggestions for the next task. When we analyze the examples from the data, it is reasonable to assume that the teacher, besides giving support and detailed instructions to her students, exerts her power by constructing her discourse using imperatives. Although power relations are present in her discourse, the teacher also softens her imperatives by means of modalization, as we can notice when she utilizes polite expressions like “Any doubt, just get in touch” in example (15) and “Please” in example (16). Even utilizing softeners to filter the force of her arguments, the teacher provides prime examples of her power over the students, which leads us to figure out that teacher footing is closely interconnected with power relations. Consequently, teacher and students express and negotiate their inter-subjective footings in the virtual environment through modalization. Those markers show how the participants in that online community try to protect their faces when they modalize their utterances. Modalization is recurrent in teaching presence. Discourse markers such as I believe, I think, I am
I am afraid you are not reading our e-mails because last Tuesday morning I sent a message reminding the group about the deadline. (21) I am so sorry, but the deadline for the task was Wednesday (yesterday). You should have sent your doubts before. Please, do your tasks earlier in order to avoid problems. Using her power as a teacher, sometimes she does not modalize and changes her friendly footing into a more authoritative one and makes straight assertions, as we can see in example (22), an interaction between the teacher and Mary: (22) Teacher says: (a) Mary, This is not an article, but a book review. Mary sends another text and writes in her message:
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
(b) I believe this one is an article, right Professor Vera? The teacher confirms: (c)Yes, now it is an article.
cognitive presence Modalizing also appears in footings which project cognitive presence. As we can see, in example (22) the student also modalizes (“I believe” in (c)), but it seems that, due to the power relation differences, the student’s footing is different. When the teacher uses “I believe,” her option is to project a polite self, which did not happen in her interaction with Mary. But, when students choose to modalize their utterances, using “I believe,” “I am sorry,” “I am afraid,” it seems that their footings work as markers of humbleness or insecurity, as noticed in examples (23) and (24): (23) I’m sorry I see that I misunderstood the task’s purpose. (24) As to my second question, I’m afraid I did not make myself clear regarding my request on the words “skimming” and “scanning.” What I would really like to know is if there is a specific word in Portuguese for each counterpart in English. Nevertheless, when the interaction happens between two students, the footing displayed by modalization is again of politeness, as we can see in John’s reply to Mary in example (25): (25) Mary, Thank you very much for your feedback! But I’m afraid that if we plant a tree for every mistake we make in our lives, suddenly there won’t be any space at all for us to live in this…
Cognitive presence can also be identified in footings which project one’s self as a thinker, one who reflects upon what is being learned, who wants to learn and collaborate. It is interesting to notice that cognitive footings are generally translated into text by means of grammaticalization, mainly by the use of mental processes, like, for instance, “I’m sorry” and “I’m afraid.” In contrast to what Goffman (1981) has negatively stated about the role grammar plays in footing identification, transitivity serves as a means of textual basis in the emergence of several types of footing in online discourse, mainly social, teaching, and cognitive footings.
concLusion The analyses undertaken have clearly demonstrated that footing is a social and discursive category that is only easily identified in online forums if textual analysis takes into account the presence of other elements within this category. The elements we refer to stemmed from Garrison’s (2006) work on social, cognitive, and teaching presences. However, these elements per se seemed to be insufficient to demonstrate how footing is present in online discourse, which made us draw on grammaticalization, with special emphasis on the transitivity model developed by Halliday (2004), in a bid to pinpoint in our data the prime examples of footing. The data have shown that three different but interconnected types of footing are usually found in online educational forums, that is, social, teaching, and cognitive footings, each of them playing specific roles to the construction of knowledge within this virtual environment. As we could have perceived, the most common footing in our data is social footing, since students were concerned with ways of providing feedback and support to each other, irrespective of the teacher’s support. By the same token, students were able to adopt and improve “corporate”
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
identities, that is, a shared sense of mutual support and confidence. Teacher footing was also present in our data, mainly noticed on the instructions and information given by the teacher. This kind of footing is of particular interest when one is attentive to power relations within online educational environments, which in fact leads to the role teachers play while performing their footing of instructors. Some special textual elements are common to this type of footing, principally modalizers and polite expressions, in order to soften the force of some words used in this footing modality. Lastly, cognitive footing was identified in our corpus as a means of softening the force of some arguments made by the students throughout their interaction primarily with the teacher. In this modality saving face strategies were employed to secure students against possible “harms” during the course of the interaction. This is also true when students interacted with each other, since their aim was to maintain complete harmony among them and to provide a warm environment for holding their discussion. This chapter, therefore, is expected to be a step forward in the investigation of footing in online contexts, which points to the need of future research on this issue. Besides, some other aspects such as gender and age differences might also be compared as far as footing is concerned. Course design might also be another influential factor in the elicitation of different virtual presences in an online educational forum. We are still learning how to behave in online educational forums, and research can show us what is underlying this online environment.
acknoWLEdgMEnt We would like to thank our colleague Rita de Cassia Augusto (Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil) for her comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
rEFErEncEs Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from http://www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/index.asp Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D.C. Heath. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Garrison, D.R. (2006a). Online community of inquiry review: Social, cognitive, and teaching presence issues. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from http://www.communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/Community%20of%20Inquiry%20Issues. pdf Garrison, D.R. (2006b). Online collaboration principles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 10(1), 23-34. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/ v10n1/index.asp Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking and computer conferencing: A model and tool to assess cognitive presence. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7-23. Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http:// communitiesofinquiry.com/documents/CogPres_Final.pdf Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical thinking in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 1-14.
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124-159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold. Howatt, A.P.R.(1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J.P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paiva, V.L.M. de O., & Rodrigues-Junior, A.S. (2007). O footing do moderador em fóruns educacionais. In J.C. Araújo (Ed.), Internet e ensino (pp. 144-164). Rio de Janeiro: Lucerna. Paiva, V.L.M. de O., & Rodrigues-Junior, A.S. (2004). Fóruns on-line: Intertextualidade e footing na construção do conhecimento. In I.L. Machado & R. Mello (Eds.), Gêneros: Reflexões em análise do discurso (pp. 171-189). Belo Horizonte: Faculdade de Letras da UFMG, 2004. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D.R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://cade.icaap. org/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language, (50)4, 696-735.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warschauer, M., & Whittaker, P.F. (2002). The Internet for English teaching: Guidelines for teachers. In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: Anthology of current practice (pp. 368-373). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
kEY tErMs Behavioral Processes: “Processes of (typically human) physiological and psychological behavior” (Halliday, 2004, p. 248), regarded as a mixture of material and mental processes. Examples of behavioral processes include: smile, cry, laugh, listen, dream, breathe, sing, dance, faint, talk. Cognitive Presence: Garrison (2006), inspired by the work of Dewey (1933) on reflective teaching, defines cognitive presence as “the exploration, resolution and confirmation of understanding through collaboration and reflection in a community of inquiry” (p. 4). In another text, Garrison (2006b, p. 4) explains that “cognitive presence is the process of collaboratively constructing meaning and confirming understanding in a sustainable community of inquiry,” highlighting the importance of facilitation to maintain the construction of knowledge and interaction by means of discourse production. Existential Processes: Only represent “that something exists or happens” (Halliday, 2004, p. 256). Examples of existential processes include: exist, remain, stand, lie, emerge, grow, erupt, prevail, flourish, ensue.
Investigating Interaction in an EFL Online Environment
Footing: More commonly related to participants’ alignments, their social projection, and the way they represent themselves while taking a role in a social encounter. In other words, footing “is another way of talking about indexing…the process whereby we link utterances to particular moments, places, or personae, including our own self at a different time or with a different spirit (e.g., emotional vs. distant, convinced vs., skeptical, literal vs. ironic)” (Duranti, 1997, p. 296). Paiva and Rodrigues-Junior (2004, 2007) have investigated which roles the footings of participants play while they are interacting with their peers in online academic forums. According to them, “within online interaction, interpretive resources usually present in a given context are transferred to utterances produced by interlocutors in virtual interaction” (Paiva & Rodrigues-Junior, 2004, p. 175, our translation). Moreover, nearly all paralinguistic features easily identified in casual talk, due mostly to the cues immediate contexts provide, become linguistic and discursive elements often used by interlocutors when they are virtually communicating with their peers, like, for instance, emoticons, interjections, punctuation, capital letters, and so forth (Paiva & RodriguesJunior, 2004, 2007). Material Processes: Construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events as taking place through some input of energy” (Halliday, 2004, p. 179), with mostly an action performed by a subject onto someone or something. Examples of material processes include: appear, emerge, develop, cut, modernize, brush, sweep, open, close, leave. Mental Processes: Construe “a quantum of change in the flow of events taking place in our own consciousness” (Halliday, 2004, p. 197). Examples of mental processes include: see, notice, believe, expect, wish, hope, like, hate, perceive, think.
Relational Processes: “Serve to characterize and to identify” (Halliday, 2004, p. 210) general nouns, be they human or inanimate subjects. Examples of relational processes include: be, become, remain, taste (like), turn into, represent, constitute, express, signify, stand for. Social Presence: According to Rourke et al. (2001, p. 51), “social presence is the ability of learners to project their personal characteristics into the community of inquiry, thereby presenting themselves as ‘real people’.” Later on, Garrison (2006, p. 2) describes social presence “as the ability to project one’s self and establish personal and purposeful relationships.” Teaching Presence: Anderson et al. (2001, p. 8) define “teaching presence as the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning outcomes.” According to them, teaching presence begins with the course preparation and “continues during the course, as the instructor facilitates the discourse and provides direct instruction when required” (2001, p. 8). Verbal Processes: “Clauses of saying” (Halliday, 2004, p. 252), usually contributing to the creation of narratives by setting up distinctive dialogues and reported speech. Examples of verbal clauses include: praise, insult, say, speak, report, announce, question, inquiry, ask, criticize.
EndnotE 1
In order to protect the students’ identities, the male students will be named John and the female ones Mary.
Chapter V
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL Euline Cutrim Schmid University of Education Heidelberg, Germany
abstract This chapter discusses the concept of integrated CALL by drawing upon data collected for a PhD research project that investigated the impact of interactive whiteboard (IWB) technology in the English language classroom. In the first part, the chapter presents and discusses data which indicate that the IWB technology represents a further step towards the integrated phase in the development of CALL envisioned by Bax (2003). According to Bax, this refers to the stage when the computer becomes invisible, embedded in the everyday practices of the educational context in which it is used—that is, the computer becomes normalized. In the second part, the chapter discusses one factor that inhibited the complete normalization of IWB technology in the context investigated. The chapter concludes by making suggestions for further research.
introduction Several authors who have attempted to analyze and understand the history of CALL (Levy, 1997; Warschauer & Healey, 1998; Bax, 2003) have pointed out that CALL has developed in various ways over time. Thus, in the 1960s, computers tended to be used for pattern practice drills, based on a behaviorist learning model which assumed that students learn through imitation and repetition. Later on, in the 1970s and 1980s,
CALL software began to be based on cognitive approaches to communicative language teaching aimed at allowing learners maximum opportunity to be exposed to the target language in a meaningful context so that they could construct their own individual knowledge. Some examples of CALL software in that era included text reconstruction programs and simulations. More recently, advances in technology, the expansion of the Internet, and the increase in computer-mediated communication (CMC) have changed the way in
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
which computers are used in language learning. Thus, in the 1990s, these developments, combined with a new socio-cognitive view of communicative teaching, which placed greater emphasis on language use in authentic social contexts, contributed to a shift from a focus on learners’ interaction with computers to one concerned with learners interacting with other humans via the computer. More recently, Bax (2003) made an important contribution to the analysis of the history of CALL by proposing the concept of Integrated CALL. According to him, “this refers to the stage when the technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice” (p. 23). In fact, anecdotal evidence indicates that it would not be erroneous to say that teachers who make use of computer technology long for the day when computers are so integrated in all aspects of classroom life that they can go almost unnoticed, vs. the current situation where they are usually relatively obtrusive, involve specialized training, and so on. Bax (2003) sees CALL in relation to other technologies in society and stresses the possibility that computers may only become fully effective in language teaching and learning when they have become normalized. Bax (2003) also highlights that only the use of ICT (information and communication technology) in the language classroom would not be enough to normalize ICT in that context. In order for this to happen, teachers and learners would need to feel comfortable enough with the technology and use it as an integral part of the teaching/learning process, “without fear or inhibition, and equally without an exaggerated respect for what it can do” (p.12). Therefore, before reaching the stage of normalization, teachers and learners need to go through a complex process of technology integration in which they need to adapt to new ways of teaching and learning. This usually involves conflicts and challenges, which if not dealt with probably might inhibit normalization of new technologies in that specific context.
0
Chambers and Bax (2006) point out that one of the barriers to the normalization of CALL is the fact that computers are usually located in dedicated computer suites, which are not “owned” by the teachers and are not readily accessible by them. Countries such as the UK and Australia have tackled this problem by equipping classrooms with IWB (interactive whiteboard) technology. This is a relatively new technology in education, which has been used in many education institutions all over the world as a tool to bring the functionality of the computer into the regular classroom. The IWB is a touch-sensitive electronic presentation device. Fully functioning interactive whiteboards usually comprise four components: a computer, a projector, appropriate software, and the display panel, which is a large free-standing or wall-mounted screen up to 2 meters by 1 meter in size. Figure 1 illustrates how this technology works. The Promethean TM system (the brand of IWB that will be used in this research) uses electromagnetic sensing technology with an electronic pen. The company has also developed a whole suite of software and peripheral hardware to complement the use of an interactive whiteboard, such as “ACTIVstudio” software and the “ACTIVslate”1 and “ACTIVote” systems.2 The first interactive whiteboard was manufactured by SMART Technologies Inc. in 1991. Since the early ’90s, classroom adoption of IWB technology has grown steadily in many European countries and throughout North America, and it is becoming increasingly commonplace in educational institutions, from primary schools through universities. The UK was the first school-level market to substantially invest in the use of IWBs. There has been a considerable investment in the installation of IWBs in schools in that country. The percentage of primary schools with IWBs increased from 48% in 2003 to 63% in 2004, and secondary schools from 82% in 2003 to 92% in 2004 (DfES, 2004). In 2005, the UK government allocated £50 million for the purchase of
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
Figure 1. How IWB technology works: The computer images are displayed on the board by the digital projector. The images then can be seen and all applications on the computer can be controlled via touching the board, either with your finger or with an electronic pen/stylus. In addition, the touch-sensitive screen captures everything written or drawn on its surface in real time. All annotations can then be saved to your computer.
IWBs within the primary and secondary sectors. Other countries such as Australia, Mexico, China, France, and Portugal have also invested heavily in the installation of IWBs in schools. Mexico, for instance, recently set out an ambitious plan called Enciclomedia (Spanish), which equips each fifth and sixth grade classroom with a computer, an interactive whiteboard, a printer, and a projector. One of the main advantages of IWB technology that has been discussed in literature (Smith, Higgins, Wall, & Miller, 2005) is that it enhances and provides a more integrated environment for the use of different forms of CALLfor instance, the greater possibility of doing concordancing in whole-class mode, or the exploration of Internet resources, CALL software, and multimedia resources by the group in a whole-class setting. For this reason, Cuthell (2005) defines the IWB as the first ICT tool designed to support both teach-
ing and learning in the ‘traditional’ whole-class classroom. He argues that when ICT resources are concentrated in computer labs, integrating ICT into lessons (and consequently normalizing it) becomes much more difficult. The facilities are “owned” by someone other than the class teacher. As a result, ICT is only used sporadically and is “made a discrete activity, rather than one that is woven into the fabric of teaching and learning” (p. 2). Recent research findings on IWB use in the UK context (Moss et al., 2007) have also drawn attention to the important role played by this technology in opening up the possibility of integrating technology more fully into teaching and learning in every curriculum subject. In this chapter, I discuss the concept of Integrated CALL by drawing upon data collected for a PhD research project that investigated the impact of interactive whiteboard technology in the English language classroom (Cutrim Schmid,
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008). Firstly, I discuss the potential of the interactive whiteboard technology for facilitating the realization of the integrated phase in the development of CALL envisioned by Bax (2003). Secondly, I discuss one factor that inhibited the normalization of IWB technology in the context investigated. I conclude by making suggestions for further research.
LitEraturE rEViEW iWb technology research The potential of IWB technology for facilitating classroom language learning is attracting increasing attention. Ioannou-Georgiou (2006) recently stated that IWB technology is currently competing with iPods for the number one spot in terms of attention in the CALL-related ELT field. In the October 2006 issue of CALL Review, the journal of the IATEFL Technologies Special Interest Group, four articles discussed the use of interactive whiteboards, offering a range of viewpoints on this technology. In the same publication, several prominent CALL theorists, such as Warschauer and Bax, said they expect that as the price drops further, IWBs will become commonplace in classrooms of many ELT institutions around the world. However, because IWB technology is a relatively new technology in education, there has so far been very little detailed classroombased research concerning the teaching-learning processes it is capable of stimulating in the FL context. The research reported herein (Cutrim Schmid, 2005) represents one of the first attempts to conduct a more rigorous investigation into the impact of IWB technology on language learning processes. The research investigated the use of IWB in English lessons in the higher education context, and the findings reveal several perceived pedagogical benefits of using the technology in
this context, such as helping learners to adapt to novel ways of teaching, learning, and working in the information technology society, and creating higher levels of active learner participation during the lessons. Another academic study on this topic is the work of Gray, Hagger-Vaughan, Pilkington, and Tomkins (2005), who investigated a group of language teachers in UK secondary schools as they integrated the use of the interactive whiteboard into their classroom practice. Their findings showed that the IWB has the potential to enhance teaching by supporting classroom management, pace and variety, and the drawing of attention to grammatical features and patterns. The teachers investigated also felt that the use of IWB had positive effects on pupils’ memorization skills and writing development (p. 1). Most literature (across the curriculum) is positive about the potential of IWB technology. Thus, some of the advantages associated with the use of IWB technology that it identifies are: a.
b. c. d.
e.
Facilitating the integration of multimedia into the curriculum (Walker, 2003; Hall & Higgins, 2005, Gray et al. 2006); Catering to diverse learning styles (Wall, Higgins, & Smith, 2005); Enhancing motivation (Levy, 2002; Becta, 2003); Enhancing interaction and collaborative learning in the whole-class setting (Cutrim Schmid, 2006a); and Modeling ICT skills (Goodison, 2002a, 2002b).
Two of the reported drawbacks of IWB technology use are: a. b.
Supporting teacher-centered approaches (Goodison, 2003); and Increasing the pace of teaching (Cutrim Schmid, 2005).
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
As already pointed out, a strong claim that has been made about IWB technology is that it facilitates the integration of ICT into the curriculum because it lends itself well to whole-class or group teaching, and it is easily assimilated into the everyday life of the language classroom. As Moss et al. (2007, p. 92) point out, the technology is less disruptive in the classroom because: 1.
2.
3.
It facilitates ICT use in group settings while allowing for clearer teacher control of the shape and direction of that interaction. Its nature makes it relatively easy to install in individual classrooms with minimum disruption to the use of the existing space. It is easy to use and more likely to find favor with teachers who otherwise struggle to incorporate technology into their classrooms.
Dudeney (2006, p. 27) strengthens this argument by pointing out that the main difference between using a computer and a projector in class and using IWB technology is that: “IWBs make the computer invisible, as all interaction with both the hardware and the software takes place within the familiar confines of the board itself, which is something teachers feel very comfortable with.” Therefore, the main argument in favor of the use of IWB technology is that it facilitates the integration of new technologies into the curriculum because it allows teachers to use ICT in a way that does not change the ecology of the classroom so drastically. Technology integration is a core topic in CALL research and has been the theme of several wellestablished conferences in the field. For instance, the 2006 EUROCALL conference, entitled “Integrating CALL into Study Programs,” focused on strategies, tools, pedagogical knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for the effective integration of new technologies into language learning environments. Therefore, CALL practitioners and
researchers have long stressed the importance of recognizing language learning technology as an essential component of teachers’ array of teaching approaches, and not as a discrete activity, separate from everyday learning. In this context, Chambers and Bax (2006) urge CALL practitioners who have not managed to fully integrate ICT into the curriculum to ask themselves the following question: What are the factors which inhibit normalization in my own institution/and or classroom? Having reviewed a number of areas of literature in order to introduce the focus of this chapter and situate my research in the field of CALL, I will now move on to describe the research context in which this investigation has taken place and present the research methods used in this study.
thE studY aims of the study The study reported in this chapter represents a classroom-based investigation of the potential of interactive whiteboard technology for supporting language learning in the teaching of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) to international students at Lancaster University (UK). The study was carried out in the summers of 2003 and 2004. In order to address the purposes of such a study, two main research questions were formulated: 1.
2.
How is the classroom teaching/learning process affected by the use of IWB technology? a. What kinds of interactions are produced when the technology is implemented? b. What kinds of pedagogical goals (e.g., to enhance collaboration) may the technology help to achieve? How do teachers, learners, and researchers perceive the introduction of IWB technology in the language classroom in terms of teaching-learning processes?
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
Apart from addressing these pedagogical aspects, the research was also aimed at making theoretical and methodological contributions at a broader levelthat is, to the development of CALL research and practice in general. Thus, in order to do so, two other research questions were formulated to guide the study: 1.
2.
Does the IWB represent the beginnings of the ability to realize in practice the integrated phase in the development of CALL? Are the classrooms investigated an example of normalized CALL?
rEsEarch contEXt and rEsEarch MEthodoLogY research context All subjects involved in the study were enrolled in the eight-week version of the EAP/Study Skills program, whose main components are: (a) academic reading and writing, (b) listening comprehension, and (c) speaking skills. The students are also offered a number of “complementary courses,” two of which“Using ICT for Academic Study in English” (in 2003, Study 1) and “Web Resources for Learning English” (in 2004, Study 2)provided the sites for the research. All units aimed at exploiting the use of IWB technology to get students involved in novel literacy practices and helping them to develop their academic skills and learning strategies through the use of Web-based study resources. Therefore, the lessons were a mixture of upper-intermediate English language learning and development of awareness regarding ICT learning resources.
interactive Whiteboard use As Walker (2003) points out, one of the key issues to grasp when working with an interactive whiteboard is that the image the students view on
the board is actually the screen of the computer. This means that anything that can be done on a computer can be shown on an interactive whiteboard. In the context investigated, the large IWB screen acted as a focus for pupils’ attention, and the teacher and students used it as a multimedia platform and a wide range of ICT tools were employed, such as language learning CD ROMs, digital videos and audio files, normal computer programs (Word, Excel, and PowerPoint), and Web-based products. The software that comes with an IWB enables the use of electronic flipcharts that simulate traditional white- or blackboard presentation. Flipcharts are a design area, or blank pages for creating teaching materials. The number of pages that can be used is unlimited. Flipcharts can be prepared before a lesson or they can be generated during the course of the lesson. In the context investigated, the teacher made intensive use of the software that came with the IWB, the ACTIVstudio software. By using this software, the teacher had access to a number of tools that enabled activities such as: a.
b.
Handwriting, color, and highlighting: The teacher could use as many as 16 pen colors to write on the board, and all annotations could be saved and/or printed and used in future lessons. The highlighter and pen colors were often used when the learners were involved in collaborative analysis of a single piece of writing. In the IWB-based classroom, the teacher could project a students’ first draft paragraph on the IWB (after scanning it), for the whole class to proofread. Handwriting recognition: Handwritten script could be converted to text, which was important for the clarity of presentation and for promoting the teacher’s organizational skills (e.g., for creating a record of the vocabulary introduced in each lesson and printing it out afterwards for the learners).
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
c.
d.
e.
f.
Dragging and dropping: Objects, including text and pictures, could be moved around on the IWB screen; the teacher used this tool mainly for gap-filling and matching type exercises, or getting the students to rearrange digital objects on the IWB screen (e.g., rearranging a room according to the principles of Feng Shui). Hiding and revealing: By using the reveal tool,3 the spotlight tool, or the white-out effect,4 the teacher could ask the learners to predict or guess any content on the screen by revealing it bit by bit (e.g., images of famous people/paintings, answers to questions, etc.). These tools enhanced interactivity, and encouraged foreign language speaking and pupil involvement in whole-class teaching. Web browsing: Since the classroom had Internet access, the teacher could make plenty of use of Web resources, bringing the world to the classroom and creating a more authentic learning environment (e.g., by using a listening activity with daily news from a Web site such as the BBC, accessing online dictionaries, encyclopedias, Web-based videos, etc.). The teacher could also overwrite the Web sites to emphasize linguistic and cultural elements, and create snapshots of all annotations for future use. Hyperlinking: By using pre-designed electronic flipcharts, the teacher could provide learners with enhanced input through hyperlinking. The designed flipcharts contained links to various kinds of resources (e.g., links to Web sites, to sound, video, or image files, and links to other flipchart pages, which provided further information about a word/idiom/grammar concept). These links could then be activated or ignored depending on the actual responses of the learners. This allowed the smooth integration of sound/text/image with the aim of facilitat-
g.
h.
ing the memorization of lexical items and understanding of new grammar concepts. Snapshots: The camera tool was used to copy selected parts of a homepage, a picture, or a file from the computer directly to the whiteboard screen. This allowed opportunities for developing ideas around a single picture and also enabled the teacher to build up a bank of resources, as images could be placed in the image library of the software. Searching for resources: The software also provides a resource gallery with maps, pictures, diagrams, and audio files which could be searched and dragged and dropped to the electronic flipchart. Because of this easy access to images, visual input was often used to facilitate understanding of difficult concepts/words.
The IWB technology was thus used quite intensively in all stages of the lessons. Several electronic flipcharts were designed for all units; the teacher and students used the ACTIVboard (which replaced the traditional whiteboard) as a presentation device and as a platform for integrating different types of technology (e.g., video, sound, multimedia, Internet).5
research Methodology Twenty-nine students and thirty-three students were involved in Study 1 and Study 2, respectively. Students were from all over the world, but most of them tended to come from mainland China and Taiwan. In order to be accepted into the program, the students must have achieved an IELTS score of at least 6.0 (postgraduates) or 5.5 (undergraduates). All the students in both studies were postgraduates, apart from one undergraduate in course 1, and their ages ranged from 20 to 36. The investigation involved a classroom-based qualitative study of the researcher’s own lessons and teaching. As teacher-researcher, she was
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
responsible for designing and implementing the course, as well as collecting and analyzing the data. All the lessons were video-recorded, and after each lesson she wrote field notes that were mainly descriptive, but also contained some of her thoughts regarding the impact of IWB technology on the pedagogical process. Six critical observers in Study 1 and five critical observers in Study 2 were involved in the research. All of them were experienced language teachers and academic researchers with a good level of expertise in qualitative research. Their role was to observe lessons, write field notes, and fill out a questionnaire at the end of the lesson. A questionnaire was administered at the end of both modules to find out students’ overall response to the course and to the use of IWB technology in the lessons. In Study 1, the teacher-researcher also ran a focus group discussion with 12 students who volunteered to take part in it. In Study 2, she carried out semi-structured individual interviews with 10 students who volunteered for it, and each interview lasted for 30 minutes on average.
rEsEarch Findings iWb technology: Facilitating the normalization of caLL In general, the research findings indicate that teachers and students perceived the use of IWB technology as a further step towards the normalization of CALL in comparison, for instance, to “computer lab work.” As Chambers and Bax (2006, p. 470) point out, “for normalization to take place, CALL facilities will ideally not be separated from ‘normal’ teaching space.” Therefore, the fact that the IWB could be used in the “normal language classroom” (as a whole-class multimedia platform) was considered an advantage in terms of making ICT more invisible and normalized in the classroom.
In the context investigated, the IWB technology facilitated the integration of ICT into the curriculum because it enabled the teacher and learners to have easy access to multimedia resources, which were widely used during the sessions, and also to online resources, which were an important element of course content as well. The work with Web resources was well integrated into the syllabus, in the sense that it was seen to be a central part of the language lesson, and not something that was done as an “extra.” In other words, there was not a clear division between exploring the topic and the language, and exploring Web resources, for instance. While the students were learning about topics, such as “university life in the UK,” they were also learning about ways of finding information about the new words they were acquiring, by using online resources during the sessions. Another important aspect in the process of normalization of CALL pointed out by Chambers and Bax (2006) is the issue of room layout. According to them, “for normalization to occur, the classroom will ideally be organized so as to allow for an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL activities” (p. 470). In the context investigated, the layout of the technology facilitated this process. For instance, by using the IWB technology, it became easier for the teacher to alternate between CALL-related activities (e.g., searching for information on a Web site) and nonCALL activities (e.g., having a group discussion about a certain topic). In fact, this was one of the advantages of IWB use pointed out by students in comparison to computer lab work. When asked whether they would prefer to work in a computer lab or with an interactive whiteboard, the majority of the students said they would prefer the latter. Although some students emphasized the importance of working individually, most students enjoyed the experience of working with ICT as a group and could also identify several advantages of this approach for their learning process.
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
For instance, some students cited as an advantage of IWB technology the possibility it gives the teacher to have a higher degree of control over the students, since the students tend to follow “their own ways” when they are working individually on a computer. Thus, one of the students said:
4.
1.
8.
S: I think with this technology the teacher can have more control of the students, than 2. with the computer, because the computer screen is a physical barrier between the 3. teacher and the students…I prefer the computer because if I am not interested in 4. that topic I can do other things, but it’s not good for the learning and teaching. 5. T: Ah, yeah, for the dynamics, because everyone is doing different things? 6. S: And the computer screen is a physical barrier. 7. T: Physical barrier, you mean the computer screen, because you can go anywhere? 8. S: Yeah, and the teacher needs to have eye contact with the students. (Individual interview with Lauren6, Study 2) In lines 3-4, the student indicated that she would prefer to work from an individual computer because she could “switch off” if she was not interested in the lesson, and “do other things.” However she pointed out that this kind of arrangement would not aid the learning process since the computer would represent a physical barrier between the teacher and the students. This issue was also addressed by another student, who had a good deal of experience in using computer labs. Thus, she pointed out:
5. 6. 7.
we just play games or talk to each other, so I think the whiteboard is quite good for learning, to concentrate on the course, it’s quite good. T: Ah, cause everyone… S: Everyone is committed to what the teacher is saying, what the teacher teaches, this kind of things. (Post-course interview with Jane, Study 2)
According to this student, the IWB classroom enabled a kind of social arrangement that encouraged students to commit to learning processes that were initiated by the teacher. In line 7, she pointed out that by using IWB technology “everyone is committed” to what is being taught. In other words, she highlighted that the strength of the technology was in its potential to support group cohesion (by having everyone involved in the same learning activity). The IWB technology was thus seen as a tool that facilitated the normalization of CALL in the context investigated. However, it must also be said that other parts of the research data point towards a variety of factors that inhibited the complete integration of this technology into the pedagogical process. In other words, in spite of the progress that was made in the direction of normalization, the classrooms investigated were still an example of un-normalized CALL. As the data will show, the main factor that inhibited normalization of IWB technology in the context investigated was the teacher’s (mis)understanding of the concept of technology invisibility (Bax, 2003).
technology “invisibility” 1.
2.
3.
S: It’s interactive between students and teacher, I think that is quite good, and I think in my country we use other ways, everyone has personal computer, and the teachers sit in their seats and we sit in our seats and the teacher says anything and we just don’t care,
Throughout the process of technology integration, the teacher believed that the best way to make the IWB technology invisible would be by means of preventing technical mistakes and by making sure that nothing went wrong with the technology. In other words, she believed that if the lessons went on according to the “script,” it would be easier to
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
keep the technology in the background and not in the foreground of the lesson. Since she realized that when technical problems came up during the sessions, it was much more difficult to achieve this goal, she tried to minimize the possibilities of technical incidents that could disturb the lesson or draw students’ attention to the technology. A good example of this kind of attitude was the use of the ACTIVslate on the course. Some students in Study 1 highlighted the potential of the ACTIVslate for getting them more engaged during the lessons. Therefore, by taking this into account, the teacher decided to subsequently give the students the opportunity to use the ACTIVslate in order to encourage active participation. She used it for a fill-in-the-blanks activity, for which the students would need to use the drag-and-drop tool of the software by using the ACTIVslate from their seats. However, since it was the first time they were using this remote device, they had some difficulty in handling it, which disturbed the lesson. In the following session, she decided not to use the ACTIVslate anymore for two main reasons: (1) because it had disturbed the previous session, at least from her perspective; and (2) because a critical observer would come to observe her lesson on that day, and she wanted the lesson to flow as smoothly as possible. Therefore, in that session the activity was carried out in a different way. She asked only one of the students to go to the board and do the exercises with the help of others. In Unit 4 of Study 2, she also had plans to use the ACTIVslate, but she gave up on the idea during the session. The following field note reveals the reasons why she made such decision: I had planned to use the ACTIVslate, but I didn’t. I even thought of offering it to the students, in case they wanted to help those who were on the board. But in the first session, I was so worried about the time that I thought it would make things more complicated. So I decided not to use it. (Teacher’s analysis questionnaire, September 3, 2004, Unit 4, Study 2)
In another session, one of the students clicked on a wrong button while carrying out a task on the board and created a tickertape (i.e., a word or phrase continuously moving across the screen), so the word “to cram” kept moving on the whiteboard and the teacher did not know how to fix the problem. She even tried to ignore it, but the students kept looking at the word moving, and it was disturbing the lesson. To make things worse, the student who had caused the problem kept apologizing. So she decided to close the flipchart, the software, and start everything again. The following extract of her field notes reveals the way she felt right after the session: The students moved the links and I ended up losing the sound file for bell ring, then later a student clicked on it and suddenly there was this noisy bell and no one knew why that was happening, this made things a bit confusing for the students. (Teacher’s field notes, August 26, 2004, Unit 3, Study 2) Although this incident did not really disturb the lesson, as the problem was solved in just a couple of minutes, this is a good illustration of the “risks” that teachers who share the whiteboard space with the students may have to face. Because of incidents like this, the teacher started to limit students’ access to the whiteboard during the lessons so as to avoid technical problems and consequent focus on the technology. In addition to that, she opted for not giving the students clear explanations on how to use the IWB technology so that they could focus on the content of the lessons and not on the medium (technology), which she thought could distract them from learning. Therefore, her own understanding of the normalization of CALL in that context involved developing expertise on the use of IWB technology prior to teaching in order to avoid the occurrence of technical problems. However, she did not consider the development of students’ expertise as an important aspect of making the technology invisible and therefore normalized.
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
On the other hand, the students had a different understanding of this concept. For them, “invisibility” or “normalization” of the technology involved two main aspects: (a) being able to operate the technology efficiently, and (b) being able to use it as a means for self-expression. During the interviews, several students emphasized that they wanted to learn more about how to operate the whiteboard. They thought they might have taken more advantage of the technology if they had learned how to handle it appropriately. In the following extract, one student pointed out that not having the ability to operate the IWB appropriately could create a barrier for some students, which could lead to less active participation during the lessons, since the students did not want to “embarrass themselves” in front of the whole group: 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
26. 27. 28.
T: What kind of suggestions or recommendations would you give to this person so that this person would make the most out of these sections? What would you say to this person? S: To pay attention very well on how to use this technology, first thing, and hear very well the instruction that you are giving (laughing) T: Yeah, what do you mean by use the technology, to learn how to use the technology S: How to use the pen, how to… T: Why? Why do you think this would be good to this person? S: The incorrect use could be a barrier for us, for example, when you make us to go to the board, for some people it was difficult to use it, so it could be… T: A barrier? S: Embarrassing. (Post-course interview with Lauren, Study 2)
In this other extract, the student explained why he/she thought the students should be given
more opportunities to go to the front and use the whiteboard: 29. S: Sometimes you choose to click this word and sometimes we click not very strong and 30. it don’t work, like this one, and sometimes you just write and the word becomes a typed 31. one, and if we use, perhaps we can’t, we can’t use very…very…how can you say…very 32. familiar? 33. T: You’re not very sure of how to use it or of how things happen. 34. S: Yeah. (Post-course interview with CJ, Study 2) In this sequence, the student made reference to the fact that some students had difficulty operating the whiteboard during the lessons. In line 1, she pointed out that when some students tried to use the drag-and-drop tool, they did not click on the words strongly enough and could not move them to the desired position. She then related these difficulties with the students’ lack of practice in using the whiteboard, since the students were not given enough opportunities to get familiar with the technology (lines 3-4). In line 2, she also mentioned the use of the handwriting recognition tool. In fact, this tool was only used by the teacher for writing new vocabulary on the board or for brainstorming activities. After eliciting contributions from the students, she used the electronic pen to write on the board, and the handwriting recognition was deployed to enhance the clarity of presentation. The students, however, were never given the opportunity to use the electronic pen in this way. Thus, the data indicate that the students wanted to feel reasonably comfortable using the electronic whiteboard. However, since they were not given enough opportunities to learn how to use the technology, they did not perceive their classroom as a context in which CALL was normalized. There-
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
fore, in spite of the potential of IWB technology for facilitating the normalization of CALL, as discussed in the previous section, this potential was only partly realized, as they could not become fully skilled in the operation of the technology in order to develop “ownership” of it.
FuturE trEnds IWB technology is a relatively new technology in education. However, the financial (and pedagogical) investment that has been made in this technology in the last few years (e.g., in British Council language schools all over the world) seems to indicate that it will occupy an important role in educational practice in the years to come. Therefore, more studies of this kind need to be conducted so that more can be learned and discovered about both the potential of the technology and the possible challenges that might be involved in the process of IWB technology integration into the curriculum. In my view, future research should place special emphasis on the alleged potential of this technology for supporting teacher-centered approaches. Several authors have drawn attention to the fact that the IWB technology can be used in a way that merely supports the continuation of traditional approaches (Goodison, 2003; Armstrong et al., 2005; Moss et al., 2007). Although this can happen to any new technology that is integrated into the classroom, this would be aggravated by the fact that the IWB technology can be relatively easily assimilated into existing ways of working in comparison to other technologies, such as that of the Internet and iPods (Armstrong et al., 2005). In other words, instead of using the technology to create new practice, teachers could simply adapt the technology to handle old practice. As Moss et al. (2007, p. 96) point out, “The clear advantage IWBs seem to have in terms of uptakethat their use fits quite easily with existing patterns of whole class pedagogymay also be their
0
weakness.” Therefore, although the literature on IWB technology has been positive regarding its potential to facilitate the integration of ICT into the curriculum, it also warns against the danger of this technology being used to reinforce traditional pedagogical approaches based on one-way knowledge transmission. Referring again to the concept of normalization, it is important to highlight that Bax’s view (2003) of Integrated CALL should not be understood merely as a process of technology assimilation into existing ways of teaching and learning. The concept of Integrated CALL goes beyond that, and suggests that normalization will only occur when the potential of new technologies are fully developed, when their use is fully integrated into the syllabus, and most importantly, that they are effectively used to enhance language learning.
concLusion and rEcoMMEndations This chapter drew upon the concept of normalization (Bax, 2003) to discuss the potential of IWB technology for facilitating the integration of ICT into the language curriculum. The findings of this research indicate that the IWB technology represents the beginnings of the ability to realize in practice the integrated phase in the development of CALL. Two points have been highlighted in the discussion: (1) location and access (the IWB is not separated from ‘normal’ teaching space), and (2) layout (the IWB allows an easy move from CALL activities to non-CALL activities). However, in spite of this potential, the IWB classroom investigated was still an example of un-normalized CALL.7 The teacher’s (mis)understanding of the concept of “technology invisibility” was analyzed as one of the factors that inhibited the normalization of CALL in that specific context. As Chambers and Bax (2006, p. 472) rightly point out, teachers’ (mis)conceptions of what CALL is, and what the role of the com-
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
puter could be, may represent an important obstacle to normalization. It is thus hoped that this discussion will assist other practitioners aiming to move towards the normalization of CALL in their own settings. This discussion also indicates that the design and implementation of appropriate teacher training programs is an essential component of an effective process of the integration of IWB technology in the language classroom. In fact, a number of CALL studies have highlighted the key role played by teachers in the realization of the claimed educational potentials of new technologies (e.g., Cuban, 1986; Warschuaer, 1999; Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker, Tseng, & You, 2006). However, relatively little is known about how teachers interact with technology, what their needs are, and what factors influence their adoption and use of new technologies. There is thus a clear need for studies that focus on teachers’ perspectives in technology integration. The findings of such studies can be used by policymakers, teacher trainers, and others in providing in-service technology training programs that better address teachers’ specific pedagogical needs, concerns, and interests. Chambers and Bax (2006, p. 475) emphasize that “if CALL is to be normalized, teacher training and development may best be offered in collaborative mode rather than in ‘top-down, expert-to-novice mode’.” However, research findings on the use of IWB technology in schools (Moss et al., 2007; Armstrong et al., 2005) have shown that the quality of training programs provided to in-service teachers is still not ideal because they are not always tailored to participants’ needs; they are mainly based on one-day workshops and they do not provide appropriate follow-up and ongoing pedagogical and technical support. These authors also draw attention to the fact that without appropriate training, it is unlikely that teachers will either be aware of or be able to exploit the potential affordances of IWB technology to create new practice. Since the integration of
ICT into pedagogical practice through the use of IWB technology is a relatively new phenomenon in education, there seems to be a need for the development of technology training programs, which on one hand need to have a sound theoretical basis, and on the other need to be designed from the investigation of local teachers’ pedagogical needs and practice.
rEFErEncEs Armstrong, V., Barnesa, S., Suntherland, R., Curranb, S., Millsc, S., & Thompson, I. (2005). Collaborative research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: The use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational Review, 57(4). Bax, S. (2003). CALLPast, present and future. System, 31(4). Becta. (2003). Primary schools–ICT and standards: An analysis of national data from Ofsted and QCA. Coventry: Becta. Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalization. System, 34(4). Chapman, D.W., & Mahlck, L.O. (2004). Adapting technology for school improvement. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.unesco. org/iiep/PDF/pubs/F165.pdf Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom uses of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuthell, J.P. (2005). The impact of interactive whiteboards on teaching, learning and attainment. In Proceedings of SITE 2005 (pp. 1353-1355). Phoenix, AZ: AACE. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2005). An investigation into the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom: A critical theory of technology perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Lancaster University, UK.
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006a). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the language classroom through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 47-62. Cutrim Schmid, E. (2006b). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English Language classroom. Computers and Education (doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.07.001). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com Cutrim Schmid, E. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote system component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35, 119-133. DfES. (2004). Information and communications technology in schools in England 2004—first release. Retrieved August 23, 2005, from http:// www.dfes.gov.uk/ Dudeney, G. (2006). Interactive, quite bored. IATEFL CALL Review, (Summer). Goodison, T. (2002a). Learning with ICT at primary level: Students’ perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 282-295. Goodison, T. (2002b). Enhancing learning with ICT at primary level. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 215-228. Goodison, T. (2003). Integrating ICT in the classroom: A case study of two contrasting lessons. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(5), 549-566. Gray, G., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the Key Stage 3 strategies and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38-44. Ioannou-Georgiou, S. (2006). Editorial. IATEFL CALL Review, (Summer).
Hall, I., & Higgins, S. (2005) Primary school students’ perceptions of interactive whiteboard. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2, 102117. Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Levy, P. (2002). Interactive whiteboards in learning and teaching in two Sheffield schools: A developmental study. Retrieved December 5, 2002, from http://dis.shef.ac.uk/eirg/projects/ wboards.htm Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker, S., Tseng, C., & You, J. (2007). Expert-novice teacher mentoring in language learning technology. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Research in CALL teacher education (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Moss, G., Carrey, J., Levaaic, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE) project: London challenge. Institute of Education, University of London, UK. Smith, H.J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 91-101. Walker, R. (2003). Interactive whiteboards in the MFL classroom. TELL & CALL, 3, 14-16. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: Pupils views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851-867. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Interactive Whiteboards and the Normalization of CALL
Warschauer, M., & Healey, D. (1998). Computers and language learning: An overview. Language Teaching, 31, 57-71.
kEY tErMs ACTIVote System: Wireless response system enabling students to respond to assessment and other questions. Results can then be displayed immediately on the ACTIVboard in graphical format. ACTIVslate: A5 graphic tablet that operates remotely with the ACTIVboard, enabling teachers and students to take control of the IWB from anywhere in the class. ACTIVstudio Software: Software used in conjunction with an IWB. It enables activities such as handwriting recognition, Web browsing, window annotation, dragging and dropping, and so on. See Appendix 1 for more information on these tools. Electromagnetic Whiteboard: Has a hard writing surface and requires the use of special pens that give the function of left and right mouse clicks. These pens emit a small magnetic field detected either by the frame of the whiteboard or by a grid of fine wires embedded beneath the surface of the board. Electronic Flipcharts: Design area or blank pages for creating teaching materials to be used with an IWB. The number of pages that can be used is unlimited. Flipcharts can be prepared before a lesson or they can be generated during the course of the lesson Integrated CALL: The stage when the technology becomes invisible, embedded in everyday practice (Bax, 2003).
Interactive Whiteboard: Touch-sensitive electronic presentation device. Fully functioning interactive whiteboards usually comprise four components: a computer, a projector, appropriate software, and the display panel, which is a large free-standing or wall-mounted screen up to 2 meters by 1 meter in size.
EndnotEs 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The ACTIVslate is an A5 graphic tablet that operates remotely with the ACTIVboard, enabling teachers and students to take control of the IWB from anywhere in the class. The ACTIVote system is a wireless response system enabling students to respond to assessment and other questions. Results can then be displayed immediately on the ACTIVboard in graphical format. The reveal tool is designed to work in a similar way to the traditional method of using a piece of paper to mask off parts of an overhead projector presentation. It can be used slowly to expose the screen in one of four directions (down, up, left, and right). Using a thick pen on white to hide words or pictures. In class, the eraser tool is used to reveal the text or image again. See Cutrim Schmid (2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) for more detailed information on how the IWB technology supported language teaching and learning in the context investigated. All names have been changed in order to protect students’ anonymity. This statement does not imply that all IWB classrooms are examples of un-normalized CALL.
Chapter VI
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning Alexandra Okada The Open University, UK
abstract This chapter presents new methodologies designed to facilitate language acquisition in open learning communities via open educational resources and knowledge mapping. It specifically focuses on the OpenLearn project developed by The Open University. This offers a virtual learning environment based on Moodle platform with free educational materials and knowledge media tools such as the instant messaging MSG, the Web videoconferencing application, FlashMeeting, and the knowledge mapping software tool Compendium. In this chapter, these technologies and mapping techniques are introduced in order to promote open language learning. Ways in which teachers and students can make use of these OpenLearn tools and resources are discussed and some benefits fully described.
introduction: thE opEn LEarning MoVEMEnt and LanguagE LEarning Open content resources have been growing rapidly, opening up new possibilities for active language learning. Free innovative tools, open access content, and collaborative learning strategies provide new opportunities for learners engaging in widening communication and collective construction of knowledge (Willinsky, 2006; Cedergren, 2003). These new resources
and new methodologies can bring new ways to foster meaningful learning. The Open Content Initiative is a growing movement in the promotion of open learning which involves institutions, universities, researchers, teachers, and scientists in the free access to world knowledge resources (O’Mahony & Ferraro, 2003). Its aim is to provide free access to quality teaching materials from the public domain from which open educational resources can be customized, improved, and shared with local communities. These can be personalized to match
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
local contexts and cultural aspects such as language, level of study, pre-requirements, learning outcomes, and so forth (Downes, 2006; Dholakia, King, & Baraniuk, 2006; Jarman, 2006). Open learning communities are defined as a set of people with common interests who interact collaboratively in order to learn together. There are five important features in an open learning community: open products, integrity, transparency, non-discrimination, and non-interference (Reagle, 2004, 2006). Open communities are open to receive new members, share information, reconstruct knowledge, and learn together developing open products. Participants ensure the integrity of the process and their contributions. They are transparent in self-organizing, making their own rules and defining their process. They do not discriminate between people, individuals, or groups. Members can interact and work under their own understanding or conceptualization without interference. They are active contributors (Aigrain, 2004; Stadler & Hirsh, 2002). Open learning environments can be considered a new methodology for informal learning. Academics, teachers, and students alike can benefit from the Open Educational Resource Movement. Teachers can select high-quality materials, use free tools and resources, and engage their students in open learning communities in order to develop skills such as:
•
•
Selecting extra and relevant learning materials, Managing their own learning, Contacting new fellow students, and Developing learning communities.
•
More specifically in language learning, open communities can be very useful in promoting meaningful learning. Students can become active learners by:
•
• • •
• •
•
Communicating with people from different countries, Practicing the language in real situations, Sharing their personal context and creating meaningful opportunities for learning, and Using technology collaboratively to improve their understanding together.
Knowledge mapping can be an efficient strategy for educators, learners, professionals, and researchers to deal with a large quantity of information on the Web, select what is relevant, and make connections structuring knowledge in a meaningful way (Okada & Buckingham Shum, 2006; Okada, 2007). Learning requires the ability to organize relevant information, connect it with previous knowledge, engage in critical thinking, and construct arguments. Students struggle with many of these skills. Knowledge cartography can greatly facilitate these processes of learning, research, and knowledge management. Well-designed maps are effective resources for building knowledge. They act as a concentrated database and are powerful graphic tools for classifying, representing, and communicating the connections between all kinds of information. Through knowledge mapping, learners can: •
• •
Exploit the mind’s ability to establish relationships between thoughts and ideas; Build graphical schemes that enable understanding through spatial relations; Link arguments and relevant information together in flexible structures; Re present opi n ion s, alter nat ive perspectives, different contexts; and Reduce search time and reveal connections that might otherwise not be noticed (Okada, Buckingham Shum, & Sherborne, 2008).
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
In this chapter, some examples from OpenLear n an open educational environmentare analyzed in order to illustrate knowledge mapping techniques and open educational resources as applied to language learning. OpenLearn was developed by The Open University in Moodle, a course management system. This project was launched at the end of 2006, and open language learning communities are still developing. Thus, data at this moment are not enough for a case study. However, the intention of this work is to present possibilities and introduce new strategies that can be useful to foster language-learning communities.
thE opEnLEarn proJEct and opEn LanguagE LEarning rEsourcEs Project “OpenLearn” (http://openlearn.open. ac.uk), sponsored by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, provides free online learning material taken from The Open University courses. It also offers free knowledge media technologies on a large scale, connecting learners with learners and learners with educators. OpenLearn also aims to help teachers reconstruct their own materials from existing open educational resources, downloading, editing, remixing, and publishing new courses. The intention of OpenLearn is to enable a basis for worldwide collaborations over the development and dissemination of supported open learning in several fields including language learning. The OpenLearn based on the open source Moodle platform consists of two virtual learning environments: •
LearningSpace (http://openlearn.open. ac.uk/) hosts a list of open educational resources. It is an area to access free educational resources organized in units and areas of knowledge. These units are initially in
•
•
English and based on The Open University’s courses. LabSpace (http://labspace.open.ac.uk/) is the laboratory area to download LearningSpace materials to remix and reuse. Both areas integrate new technologies developed by the Knowledge Media Institute (KMi) to foster learning communities.
Through OpenLearn, students interested in learning a foreign language can access materials in their own time and find peers from different countries all over the world. It is an opportunity for informal and collaborative study in areas of common interest. Participants can learn at their own pace, alone or in communities. They can manage their own progress by keeping a learning journal, by discussing the topics with other online learners in forums, and by completing self-assessment exercises. In this way, participants can study high-quality materials free, develop their online communities, and manage their own language learning process (OpenLearn, 2007). The target audience of OpenLearn comprises governmental and non-governmental entities interested in promoting continuing professional development to: •
•
• • •
Public and private higher education institutes interested in Open Educational Resources (OER) partnerships; Academic teachers, tutors, training course designers, graduate and post-graduate students; Educational researchers; Professionals interested in specialization courses; and Anyone interested in learning.
In October 2006 OpenLearn published 900 learning hours in the LearningSpace; currently its goal is to make a further 8,100 hours of material available within the LabSpace by the end of 2008. The Open Educational Resources, published
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
mostly in English, are grouped into different categories: Arts and History, Business and Management, Education, Health and Lifestyle, IT and Computing. In the Modern Languages category, there are several language courses including English, French, German, and Spanish. The OpenLearn courses denominated “units” are self-contained and offer a mix of multimedia and Web-based materials. These open educational resources include texts, activities, quizzes, forum, videos, presentations in Web conferences, and knowledge maps. They are designated at a particular academic level and take from 3 to 15 hours of study time. The initial materials published were constructed from current OU courses plus other Web-based materials. However, OpenLearn expects to increase its OER through collaboration with interested participants willing to contribute to the open learning movement. OpenLearn integrates three free knowledge media technologies in Moodle: the instant messaging MSG, the video Web conference FlashMeeting, and the knowledge mapping software
tool Compendium. These free knowledge media technologies are accessible to everyone in LabSpace and LearningSpace.
coMpEndiuM: a LEarning Mapping tooL Compendium (http://www.compendiuminstitute. org) is a knowledge mapping software tool, initially developed by Verizon in 1993 and then by the Knowledge Media Institute at The Open University in the UK. Through Compendium, language learners can represent their thoughts, ideas, and information. They can select and connect interesting resources and structure their knowledge of the content. Diverse mapping techniques can help learners to model problems, connect concepts, and map arguments in discussions. This knowledge-mapping tool can be used as an individual or group tool to summarize discussions in forum, chats, and Web videoconference; and to develop brainstorming activities to explore new ideas,
Figure 1. Compendium—dragging and dropping information to facilitate reading and interpretation through icons, comments, and tags
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Table 1. Open content initiatives. More examples can be accessed at http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/ Education/OER/OpenContent/ MIT OpenCourseWare (USA)
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/
Rice Connexions (USA)
http://cnx.rice.edu/
ParisTech OCW (France)
http://graduateschool.paristech.org/
CORE (China)
http://www.core.org.cn/en/index.htm
Japanese OCW Alliance (Japan)
http://www.jocw.jp/
organize key concepts from text, and structure arguments to write essays. Figure 1 shows an example of Compendium task. Compendium allows users to include any kind of files in the map, for example video, text, Web pages, figures, tables, graphics, and sound. Its key feature is its ability to categorize information through a set of different types of icons which represent questions, ideas, pros, cons, references, notes, decisions, lists, and maps. The tool allows users to develop their own sets of icons and groups these using stencils. Each icon in Compendium can be classified by keywords called “tags.” When the map contains a lot of information, users can search by tags and types of icons, which facilitates the construction of new maps based on specific themes. Knowledge maps are a very useful strategy to select, connect, and share meaningful information from open sources available on the Web. It is a way of integrating different viewpoints, interpretations, and meanings facilitating the process of sense making. (Compendium, 2007; Buckingham Shum, 2005a, 2005b). There are many free language materials not only in the OpenLearn project, but also in other open content initiatives developed by academic institutions, indicated in Table 1. In order to learn about specific topics, teachers can remix the most interesting learning resources by selecting, ordering, and sharing OER from different sources through maps. Then learners can visualize a meaningful sequence of different
possibilities and navigate easily through different resources, saving a reasonable amount of time. They can also download these maps and gather more language learning materials from various sources by dragging and dropping them onto Compendium, sequence them into their own learning path, and publish their maps helping their peers with new combinations. A learning path map is similar to “my favorite list” or the “del.icio.us” Web application. It can easily combine a sequence of the most exciting Web pages about language learning. However, this graphical representation is a more attractive and meaningful diagram (map) than a simple sequence of URLs (list). Moreover, it has the advantage of offering more possibilities: multiple sequences, extra information, personal comments represented by symbols and classified by categories. There are many mapping techniques used to create maps, such as mind mapping, concept mapping, Web mapping, and argument mapping. Theses mapping techniques can be very useful for teachers while designing learning activities, and for students when planning their tasks and answering questions while developing reading and writing skills. The next section will discuss further information on some mapping techniques. The examples illustrating each technique are from the OpenLearn unit, L550-3 Business English—Presenting the Decision. These maps were created by CoLearn Community and can be accessed in the LearningSpace (http://labspace. open.ac.uk/colearn).
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
knoWLEdgE Mapping tEchniQuEs appLiEd to LanguagE LEarning Mind Mapping Mind mapping was developed by Buzan around 1974 in the popular book Use Your Head. Thoughts are often difficult to represent in a linear order and initially appear without logical structure. Mind mapping allows ideas to be represented non-linearly, using keywords, sentences, and pictures in graphic form. The elements are connected by lines and arrows, with short descriptions. Mind mapping is a useful technique by which to generate new ideas, like brainstorming. Through mind maps, students can generate a large number of keywords as an initial step for solving a problem. This technique is helpful in developing creativity, and learners can organize their initial ideas related to a subject to develop a project, write an essay, or prepare a presentation. For example, Figure 2 shows a mind map constructed to answer the activity: What questions
could you elaborate about relocation during an interview? Using Compendium, students can map their initial ideas, bringing in as many keywords as possible. Then, for each keyword, they can elaborate a question.
concept Mapping Concept mapping was developed by Novak in the 1970s based on Ausubel’s theory of meaningful learning. This constructivist approach emphasized that learning with understanding only takes place when new concepts are connected to what is already known. Concept maps externalize a learner’s current knowledge structure, helping them to see connections with new information and make sense of it (Novak, 1990). Concept mapping is a mapping technique used to construct relationships between concepts. Learners can create concept maps to show important keywords from a Web page, explain their meaning, and connect them to other definitions from the Internet and to familiar keywords representing their existing knowledge.
Figure 2. Mind map created with Compendium, questions about “relocation,” Business English (http:// kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/osc/compendium/mmap/)
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 3. Concept map created with Compendium, questions about “relocation,” Business English (http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/osc/compendium/cmap/)
For example, the concept map created through Compendium in Figure 3 shows keywords used to describe “reported speech.” It represents a network of key concepts and the relationships between them.
dialogue Mapping Dialogue mapping was developed by Conklin (2006) to solve wicked problems and share an understanding of these during discussion. It is also derived from the Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) developed by Rittel in the 1970s to solve ill-structured problems. IBIS is a rhetorical grammar with three core elementsissues, positions, and argumentsall of which can be rendered as textual outlines and graphical maps that grow with the conversation. Dialogue mapping is a sense-making strategy useful for structuring reasoning based on questions, statements, pros, cons, and conclusions. Dialogue maps can be applied to prepare and present a set of arguments, develop a logical line of reasoning, and facilitate critical thinking.
0
Learners can create these maps with Compendium to organize argumentation in face-to-face meetings and online conversations such as discussion forums, Web videoconferences, chats, or from texts and video clips. Dialogue maps can contain many kinds of resources such as videos, pictures, audio, graphs, text, forums, or Web conferences. Figure 4 is an example of a dialogue map. Figures 4 and 5 show the process in which a dialogue map was created from an audio clip about “interviewing for relocation.” This dialogue map was a useful strategy for taking notes and recording the main statements made during the conversation. After constructing the map, students can export using “outline view,” which shows a linear sequence of arguments. They can then produce a text using reported speech.
argument Mapping Argument mapping was developed by J.H. Wigmore in 1913 to help in the analysis of legal arguments by showing the evidence for each claim and how it is related in the structure of the argument.
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 4. Dialogue map created with Compendium, interview about relocation (http://kmi.open.ac.uk/ projects/osc/compendium/dmap/)
Figure 5. Report speech generated from a dialogue map, outline view in Compendium
This mapping technique is also widely used in informal logic and in the teaching of philosophy and critical thinking (Harrell, 2005; van Gelder, 2001; Van Gelder, Bissett, & Cumming, 2004). Therefore it is another technique which can be used to develop critical and logic thinking. In an argument map, statements are organized in
a coherent structure based on claims, reasons, and objections. In order to develop reasoning, several questions can be asked: What is the main preposition? What are the evidences? What are the reasons for and against? Through questioning, stronger arguments can be selected and a better conclusion can be reached. Argument maps are
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 6. Argument map created with Compendium, outline view and reported speech on relocation (http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/osc/compendium/amap/)
also an efficient way to represent the key line of reasoning because they extract the logical and coherent essence of thinking, leaving out what is not relevant or what does not add value. Visualizing the process of thinking through argument helps students reflect on content and develop better structures. Figure 6 shows an example of an argument map about moving from small towns to big cities. As we can see, through this argument map created in Compendium, learners can draw their reasoning by structuring claims, objections, and reasons.
Web Mapping The technique known as Web mapping developed in response to the rapid growth of the Internet. The huge number of Web sites and overflow of information can cause users to become lost in cyberspace. Web maps enable users to record
their navigation using icons, hypertext, and hyperlinks. Cartography tools permit selection of what is relevant in cyberspace, indexing and retrieving hypermedia Web material (Dodge & Kitchin, 2000). Web mapping is a useful technique to group and share important references from learning materials and from the Web. The example of a Web map in Figure 7, which was created in Compendium, shows interesting Web sites relating “Business Englishpresenting Decisions” grouped by categories such as activities, videos, Web pages, vocabulary lists, PDF files, and maps. Teachers and students can select not only material from the OpenLearn environment, but also from other learning resources available on the Web, such as concepts in Wikipedia, videos in YouTube, and pictures in Flickr.
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 7. Web map created with Compendium, interesting resources about Business English—Decisions (http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/osc/compendium/wmap/)
FostEring opEn LanguagE coMMunitiEs Open educational resources and tools are not restricted to academic or scientific institutions, but comprise all learning communities. These include communities of practice, knowledgecreating communities, groups of peers, and all individual learners interested in learning about similar topics. However, there are challenges facing open learning communities. These challenges, such as finding new peers and interacting to keep the community alive, and managing their own learning through assessment, are discussed in the following subsections.
Finding new peers to interact and Learn Language together In addition to Compendium, OpenLearn integrates two other knowledge media technologies, FlashMeeting and MSG. These tools can be used
to find new peers, foster language learning communities, and promote the collective building of knowledge. Firstly, MSG is an instant messaging application with geolocation maps that allow students to find fellow learners. Like ‘personal radar’, it shows who is online and where. With one click, language students can chat by sending instant messages. A key advantage of MSG, compared to other instant messenging systems such as MSN Messenger, AIM, and GTalk, is its full integration into the LearningSpace and LabSpace environments. Participants can see who is currently online and can immediately communicate synchronously. Participants can access a list of contacts automatically generated in MSG based on the courses they have enrolled in (MSG, 2007). Secondly, FlashMeeting is a Web-based videoconferencing application. This new media system offers instant meetingany time, any place, and any platform. The applet is implemented in Adobe Flash, a widely available and highly compatible
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 8. FlashMeeting is a Web videoconferencing application offering instant online meetings
Figure 9. FlashMeeting Memo applet showing a peer-to-peer event (left), chat (right), and timeline (bottom) (http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/)
type of browser plug-in. It is incredibly lightweight, efficient, and pleasing to the eye. Based on Flash MX Server technology, through FlashMeeting it is possible organize, record, edit, and share virtual meetings. Meeting recordings can be annotated with comments and tags. Every part
of the meeting is a URL, so any event, comment, text chat, or speaker in the meeting can be directly referred to (FlashMeeting, 2007). Figure 8 shows the FlashMeeting screen where participants were discussing the OpenLearn project. A language learner or a teacher can book a meeting and the
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
system generates a URL. This URL can then be shared to the language learning community by e-mail or via MSG. The replay is browsed by navigating through the names of the attendees or via the timeline which represents the length of each broadcast. There are different kinds of FlashMeeting events such as seminars held by experts, video lectures on a variety of topics, Webcast talks, interviews of e-learning specialists, moderated project meetings, peer-to-peer student meetings, and many other examples.
Figure 10. A FlashMeeting maps in Compendium
resources for open Learning assessment Through FlashMeeting, participants can exchange interesting URLs, questions, possible answers, arguments, and some possible conclusions. FlashMeeting allows participants to create labels to mark specific segments in the meeting, and they can also type keywords in the FlashMeeting chat log. After the event, the FlashMeeting Memos generate a set of metadata, available in an XML file, which can be imported into Compendium and turned automatically into knowledge maps. Through these maps, participants can visualize a summary of key information exchanged in the meeting, including temporal and conceptual references: •
• •
Figure 10 shows several Compendium maps related to a FlashMeeting about the OpenLearn project. These maps introduce an overview of the Web conference: attendees, who spoke when, chat, URLS visited, whiteboard, voting, keywords, and meeting files chat. The map in Figure 11 allows the user to keep track of who spoke when. The map in Figure 12 includes all URLs shared and visited during the event. Users can click and navigate on the Web sites suggested by attendees in the meeting.
Figure 11. Keeping track of who spoke when
Figure 12. Mapping the URLs visited along with their time during the event
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 13. Mapping questions, ideas, pros and cons discussed on the webconference
Students can use these communication channels provided in FlashMeeting differently, which also includes whiteboard, URLs, lists, and a voting system. Through these graphs, it is possible to identify participation according to: • •
•
The map in Figure 13 presents questions, ideas, pros, and cons discussed on the Web conference.
All the elements in the knowledge maps illustrated by Figures 10-13 and created in Compendium are automatically linked to the Web videoconference. Therefore, participants can use them to replay only interesting segments. Through the maps, they can evaluate the content of the meeting and also their learning during the event. They can edit maps and organize new connections in a strategy to reorganize their learning and reconstruct their knowledge.
using graphs to Evaluate participation in Language Learning Meetings Another way of evaluating participation language learning meeting is through “linear and polar visualizations” of the broadcast and chat dominance per attendee automatically generated by FlashMeeting. Through these graphs, students and teachers can visualize how knowledge is transferred via a range of communication channels, such as audio, video, and text chat (Scott, Tomadaki, & Quick, 2007b).
Each user’s percentage of the total event audio-visual talk time, and The proportion of the number of chat messages that the user made compared to the number of messages of the most active participant.(Scott, Quick, Tomadaki, & Linney, 2007a).
Some events in FlashMeeting present graphs with similar features. For instance, in virtual seminars and lectures, the main presenter takes up nearly all of the broadcast time, and the graphs will show the dominance of one person. Interviews will show the presence of the interviewee and the interviewer. A collaborative student meeting will show similar participation among participants, which can be a good indicator for quantitative analyses. The knowledge map can show the content of contributions, which can be tagged to indicate the quality of participation. Therefore, through graphs and knowledge maps, the OpenLearn community can identify if the meeting was productive, if time was well shared between all participants, and if the quality of content was meaningful. Sometimes, some participants may talk less than others, but their contribution in terms of ideas, references, and questions can be of more quality than that of colleagues who are more talkative. Additionally, graphs and maps can offer data for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Mapping social presence using Msg and FlashMeeting Social presence is an indispensable feature for language learning communities. In Biocca, Burgoon, Harms, and Stoner (2001) (Okada et
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 14. The broadcast dominance
Figure 15.The chat dominance
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 16. MSG, displaying the availability on contacts of the same course worldwide. (kmi.open. ac.uk/technologies/msg/about/)
al., forthcoming), social presence is described as “being there in other places” and “being there with other people.” Mapping social presence can be a strategy in visualizing collective intelligence, diversity of participants from different countries, the most popular events, the biggest communities, and so forth. Students and teachers can identify who and where specialists are, the most interactive communities, and the most popular events. By providing geo-locations of the individuals who may be relevant to a specific knowledge domain, students can easily contact people available online or face to face. An instant messaging system, MSG offers a set of presence attributes such as time, context, availability, location, and activity. All these indicators can help students meet other fellow learners with similar interests or in interesting and interactive language learning communities. They can then access a list of contacts which may provide peer support during learning activities. Figure 16 illustrates the availability of contacts throughout the globe, mapping who is online and available to be contacted.
FlashMeeting also shows geographic maps on the location of participants. Through these geographic maps, which are generated automatically, participants in the community and possible new members can see the distribution of users for both the attendance of live FlashMeeetings and FlashMeeting replay access. These maps are useful in illustrating: 1.
2.
How the tool is being used to connect people from the same social network or community of practice, and The learning impact of the event reuse in different parts of the world.
The geographic maps in Figures 17 and 18 related to a FlashMeeting event, the live OpenLearn Web Conference’ (FlashMeetingCompendium) on Open Content and Metadata, which was held in March 2006 and attended by 14 participants located in different parts of Europe and South America. The public replay was viewed 228 times by different users in Europe, Australia, Asia, and
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Figure 17. 13 Live FlashMeeting attendees of the OpenLearn webconference in March 2006
Figure 18. 228 unique IPs of the viewers—OpenLearn webconference replay in October 2007
Africa, as well as in South and North America, in March 2007.
concLusion and FuturE rEsEarch In conclusion, a heightened understanding of influential factors that shape the effectiveness of
peer interactions is essential to fostering open learning communities. Knowledge media tools such as Compendium, FlashMeeting, and MSG have indicated new possibilities for language acquisition. New strategies such as knowledge mapping, interactive discussions through Web videoconferencing, and finding new peers through geolocation instant messaging have been seen to be very useful in the development of language-
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
learning skills. Open learning communities are a valuable opportunity for students to manage their own process of learning by: • • • • • • •
Learning to learn, Encouraging time management, Self-motivating, Developing critical thinking, Mapping information and knowledge, Organizing their own learning path, and Exploring new learning styles. The are also valuable to learn with others
by: • • • • • • • • •
Aigrain, P. (2004). The individual and the collective in open information communities. Proceedings of the 16th BLED Electronic Commerce Conference (pp. 9-11). Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/aigrain3.pdf Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., & Stoner, M. (2001). Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Proceedings of the Presence 2001 Conference, Philadelphia. Buckingham Shum, S. (2005a). Knowledge technologies in context. Open University Press
Collaborative/cooperative learning, Studying in groups, Solving conflict and difficulties together, Encouraging peer mediation, Active listening, Sense making, Broadening their network of social relationships, Facilitating situated language learning in real context, and Encouraging collective feedback and selfassessment
In our future research, our aim is to investigate how participants of language learning communities in the OpenLearn project can develop their abilities to foster their language learning communities through these tools and contribute with the open content initiative. OpenLearn is potentially an effective learning environment for language acquisition. The concept of openness marks a profound shift in theories and methods of language learning, involving developing skills, constructing and sharing knowledge collaboratively, and participating as active learners. Students move from simply following information/instructions/ rules to discussing and making sense of these, as well as reconstructing and sharing meanings collectively. 00
rEFErEncEs
Buckingham Shum, S. (2005b, September). From open content repositories to open sensemaking communities. Proceedings of the Conference on Open Educational Resources, Logan, UT. Buzan, T. (1974). Use your head. London: BBC Books. Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cedergren, M. (2003). Open content and value creation. First Monday, 8(8). Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_8/cedergren/ Dholakia, U.M., King, J.W., & Baraniuk, R. (2006). What makes an open education program sustainable? The case of Connexions. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/3/6/36781781.pdf Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2000). Mapping cyberspace. London: Routledge. Downes, S. (2006). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page. cgi?post=33401
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Einsenstadt, M., & Vicent, T. (1998). The knowledge Web learning and collaborating on the Net. London: Kogan Page. FlashMeeting. (2007). FlashMeeting: The simple meeting tool that works in a Web browser and creates instant Web replays. Retrieved from http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/ Jarman, S. (2005). Open content initiative application to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/_ _assets/ 06sngpqpwminsmwxov.pdf Jefferson, C.A., Kirschner, P., Carr, C., & Buckingham-Shum, S. (2003). Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer. Hurley, P. (2003). A concise introduction to logic. Wadsworth.
Okada, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2006, September 3-6). Knowledge mapping with Compendium in academic research and online education. Proceedings of the 22nd ICDE World Conference, Rio de Janeiro (www.icde22.org.br). Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sherborne, T. (2008). Knowledge cartography: Mapping techniques and software tools. London: Springer. Okada, A., Tomadaki, E., Buckingham Shum, S., & Scott, P. (2007). Combining knowledge mapping and videoconferencing for open sensemaking communities. Proceedings of Open Education 2007: Localizing and Learning 4th Annual Open Education Conference. Retrieved from http://cosl. usu.edu/conferences/opened2007/ Open Source Initiative. (2007). Homepage. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www. opensource.org/
MSG. (2007). MSG—The world’s simplest instant messenger. Retrieved from http://kmi.open. ac.uk/technologies/msg/launch/
Reagle, J. (2004). Open content communities. M/ C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 7. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0406/06_Reagle.rft.php
Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept maps and vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learning. Instructional Sciences, 19, 29-52.
Reagle, J. (2006). Notions of openness. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://numenor.lib.uic. edu/fmconference/viewpaper.php?id=36
Novak, J.D., & Gowin, B.D. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., Bachler, M., Tomadaki, E., Scott, P., & Eisenstadt, A. (forthcoming). Knowledge media tools to foster social learning. In S. Hatzipanagos & S. Warburton (Eds.), Social Software and developing Community Ontology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Okada, A. (2007, January). Technologies for open learning in collaborative communities. Proceedings of the Technology, Knowledge and Society Conference (TKS 2007), Cambridge, UK.
Scott, P., Quick, K., Tomadaki, E., & Linney, J. (2007a, January). Ambient video-awareness for building working communities. Proceedings of the Technology, Knowledge and Society Conference (TKS 2007), Cambridge, UK. Scott, P.J., Tomadaki, E., & Quick, K. (2007b). The shape of live online meetings. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 3. Stadler, F., & Hirsh, J. (2002). Open source intelligence. First-Monday, 7(6). Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_6/stalder/
0
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
Van Gelder, T. (2001). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Retrieved from http://www.philosophy.unimelb. edu.au/reason/papers/ASCILITE2001.pdf Van Gelder, T.J., Bissett, M., & Cumming, G. (2004). Cultivating expertise in informal reasoning. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 142-152. Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
kEY tErMs Argument Mapping: A visual representation of the structure of an argument in informal logic. It includes the components of an argument such as a main contention, premises, co-premises, objections, rebuttals, and lemmas. Argument maps are often used in the teaching of reasoning and critical thinking, and can support the analysis of pros and cons when deliberating over wicked problems. Concept Mapping: A technique for visualizing the relationships between different concepts. A concept map is a diagram showing the relationships between concepts. Concepts are connected with labeled arrows, in a downward-branching hierarchical structure. The relationship between concepts is articulated in linking phrases, for example, “gives rise to,” “results in,” “is required by,” or “contributes to.” Dialogue Mapping: A structural augmentation of group communication. As the conversation unfolds and the map grows, each person can see a summary of the discussion so far. The map serves as a “group memory,” virtually eliminating the need for participants to repeat themselves to get their points made. Other benefits of dialogue mapping include: the group sees where they are,
0
where they have come from, and where they are going to, and is thus self-correcting if they get “off topic.” The shared display map shifts the dynamic of the group into a collaborative mode: “What can we think and learn together?” The map focuses the group on a kind of “lightly logical” perspective as they work on the issues at hand. The map increases the group’s shared understanding about the problem at hand, possible solutions, meaning issues, roles and responsibilitiesall of the key elements of a successful project. Knowledge Mapping: A technique for knowledge visualization that aims to facilitate the creation and communication of knowledge through the use of computer and non-computerbased, complementary, graphic representation techniques. Examples of such visual formats are information graphics, sketches, diagrams, images, maps, interactive visualizations, dynamic visuals (animations), imaginary visualizations, storyboards, or even physical objects for inspection. While information visualization concentrates on the use of computer-supported tools to explore a large amount of abstract data, knowledge visualization focuses on the transfer or creation of knowledge among people. Beyond the mere transfer of facts, knowledge visualization aims to further create or transfer insights, experiences, attitudes, values, expectations, perspectives, opinions, and predictions by using various complementary visualizations. Dynamic forms of visualization such as educational animation have the potential to enhance understandings of systems that change over time. Mind Mapping: A diagram used to represent words, ideas, tasks, or other items linked to and arranged radially around a central keyword or idea. Used to generate, visualize, structure, and classify ideas, and as an aid in study, organization, problem solving, and decision making. It is an image-centered diagram that represents semantic or other connections between portions of information. By presenting these connections
OpenLearn and Knowledge Maps for Language Learning
in a radial, non-linear graphical manner, it encourages a brainstorming approach to any given organizational task, eliminating the hurdle of initially establishing an intrinsically appropriate or relevant conceptual framework to work within. Open Educational Resources: Term first adopted at UNESCO’s 2002 Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Open educational resources are educational materials and resources offered freely and openly for anyone to use, and under some licenses remix, improve, and redistribute. Open educational resources include: learning content: full courses, course materials, content modules, learning objects, collections, and journals; tools: software to support the creation, delivery, use, and improvement of open learning content including searching and organization of content, content and learning management systems, content development tools, and online learning communities; and implementation resources: intellectual property licenses to promote open publishing of materials, design-principles, and localization of content.
Open Language Learning: A teaching method for language acquisition based on open educational resources, open source technologies, and online communities. Open learning was founded on the work of Célestin Freinet and Maria Montessori. Open learning aims to allow pupils self-determined, independent, and interest-guided learning. More recent work on open learning has been conducted by pedagogues Hans Brügelmann, Falko Peschel, Jörg Ramseger, and Wulf Wallrabenstein. Due to the rapid development of information and communication technologies, open learning has been associated with free learning resources, collaborative study, and open communities. Web Mapping: The process of designing, implementing, generating, and delivering maps on the World Wide Web. While Web mapping primarily deals with technological issues, Web cartography additionally studies theoretic aspects: the use of Web maps, the evaluation and optimization of techniques and workflows, the usability of Web maps, social aspects, and more.
0
0
Chapter VII
Learning Objects:
Projects, Potentials, and Pitfalls Ria Hanewald La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
abstract This chapter provides an overview of the field of digital objects and repositories. It introduces the concepts of digital objects and repositories, their purposes, and their abilities to develop a coherent understanding of their nature and function. It continues by identifying and describing a number of generic and language-specific repositories. Examples of language objects are given to illustrate potentials and pitfalls. The review and dissemination of knowledge about these innovative resources assists educators in embracing new portals for teaching and learning languages with the most recent technologies. How they are being used and how this might fit into the future of language education is outlined to capitalize on their potential while avoiding the pitfalls. It is argued that showcasing repositories, promoting leading practice among language educators, and advocating high-quality digital resources prevents the further marginalization of language education in online environments. The main issue of standardization and neutrality are outlined, and the tension of value-free learning objects vs. the values embedded in the cultural aspects integral to language teaching and learning are explored. The chapter concludes with future research opportunities on learning objects, specifically in relation to the field of language acquisition to ensure adequate design and thus worthwhile use of future digital resources.
introduction This chapter is a reference for practitioners and researchers interested in learning objects, and their potential and application in the field of language education. The principal goal of this chapter is
a general introduction to learning objects: their definition, current trends, and future directions in the field. The more specific objectives include an understanding of the basic terms, an outline of the current discussion on their various abilities, the main issues in creating and reusing learning
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Learning Objects
objects, specific examples and applications, a discussion on the contradictions of value-free content and cultural values, and suggestions for future research. The intention of this chapter is to stimulate original approaches, to introduce innovative resources, to encourage leading-edge practice in order to utilize the potential, and to pave the way for future research. It is argued that there is a marginalization of languages in online environments and that familiarity with digital learning objects and their active usage is needed to counteract this trend. Also, it is hypothesized that advocacy is required to ensure high content quality, cultural appropriateness, and relevance in the development of future learning objects. The main section of the chapter covers the conceptualization, standardization, and application of learning objects and repositories. It introduces and promotes learning objects and repositories to raise awareness and interest. A definition of key terms and the clarification of main concepts are followed by an identification of commonalities and differences in the variety of digital resource offerings and how this relates to integration into existing language acquisition programs. A ready-made collection of relevant, quality digital repositories is presented to facilitate use and to build a community of practitioners. The contradictions of the striving for value freeness of digital resources is explored and contrasted with the realities of value richness in culturally based languages. The gap in the literature on discussions of the lack and future incorporation of cultural aspects in language learning objects is uncovered. It identifies potential implications for practitioners interested in the development of additional digital objects and highlights the need for research in that area. By identifying disparities and distinct approaches to the design of learning objects for language education, the importance of considerations for future development of new digital resources is emphasized.
Overall, the chapter aims to add to existing knowledge about learning objects within the specific context of language education by outlining definitions, explanations of abilities, relevant applications and models, considerations for the development of new digital resources, and future research opportunities.
background Over the last few years, there has been an explosion of digital resources, namely learning objects and repositories. Currently, more than 65.8 million learning objects and 511 million digital repository references1 are readily available through Web-based applications. They are either commercially provided or through the efforts of universities and funded projects of governments around the world. Previously, each online course had been mostly designed as a whole and thus in undividable units, with some providing modular subsections. Current e-learning practice is moving away from developing whole modules or courses towards producing the resources that form the components of these blocks of learning (Wharrad & Leeder, 2003). These blocks of learning are packaged as learning objects, which can be easily downloaded, modified, repurposed, and used on CD, DVD, or other electronic environments such as intranets and learning management systems (i.e., WebCT™ and Blackboard). The distinctive feature of learning objects is the fact that they can be used either independently as a standalone activity or part of a larger unit of work. The latter can be achieved through assembly of several learning objects to form a cluster of activities or incorporation of a learning object into an already existing course. It is this flexibility in addition to a number of other “-abilities” that comprise the superiority of learning objects over traditional online delivery (McGreal, 2004).
0
Learning Objects
dEFinition oF LEarning obJEcts and rEpositoriEs The concept behind learning objects is not new, as educators have shared text-based resources on the Web since its inception (i.e., Dave’s ESL Café, http://www.eslcafe.com/; super Language Web sites, http://www.uni.edu/becker/): In the mid-1990s, relatively simple learning objects were made available informally, as instructors shared syllabi, lesson plans, and learning activities. Later, more complex and/or topic-specific repositories came into existence as museums, journals and magazines, educational television, and other organizations placed content on the Web and encouraged it to be used for educational purposes. (Smith Nash, 2005, p. 218) However, learning objects can include any media type (e.g., text, graphics, audio, video, animation, games, tests, and simulations), macro skill, and teaching purpose. This stimuli combination offered through the multimedia content exceeds traditional learning resources. It makes learning objects surpass previous Web-based resources.
Currently, a number of terms are in use (e.g., learning objects, digital objects, content objects, educational objects, information objects, knowledge objects, media objects, units of learning) to identify units that are “digital, reusable, and are intended to support learning” (McGreal, 2004, p. 9). The lack of consensus on the definition and terminology is caused by different focus and conceptual underpinnings. In the context of this chapter, the term of learning objectscoined in 2000 by Wayne Hodgins2 is most appropriate and will be used (Jacobsen, 2001). The choice was based on learning, indicating its inherent purpose within educational settings, and object, denoting an asset that can be used and reused in a variety of ways. However, while every video clip, text document, picture, graph, and so on in digital file format can be used as an online resource and constitutes a digital object, it is not automatically a learning object. Learning objects “have special characteristics that distinguish them from the more common learning resources with which most educators would be familiar” (Sosteric & Hesemeier, 2004, p. 32).
Figure 1. Example of a digital object, © 2008 Ria Hanewald (Used with permission)
0
Learning Objects
The picture in Figure 1 is used to exemplify the difference between a digital object and a learning object. By itself, the picture can be used as a multimedia element to support computer-assisted language learning. However, to become effective it needs to be embedded into instructional context that is underpinned by a particular pedagogical intent. For example, this image might be aimed at illustrating architecture of the target country via a typical street scene; or it might be geared towards discussion on appropriate clothing due to climatic conditions; or it might be directed at common ways of shopping via street vendors; or it might be utilized to introduce a dialogue for purchasing tropical fruit; or it might be utilized to make the cultural point of negotiating prices for items on sale. Without the contextual information, educators have no guidance on how to use the image and must be reliant on their own background information or their own creativity in interpreting the teaching and learning potential of each resource. From a pedagogical perspective, the difference that distinguishes a learning object from any other digital resource is therefore the instructional information, the teaching context, and the underpinning educational intent. From a technical perspective, the Learning Technology Standards Committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE, 2007) clarifies that: Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Examples of technology supported learning include computer-based training systems, interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aided instruction systems, distance learning systems, and collaborative learning environments. Examples of Learning Objects include multimedia content, instructional content, learning objectives, instructional software and software tools, and persons, organizations, or events referenced during technology supported learning.
These learning objects or digital objects are kept in a collection or in a storage area called a digital repository. Repositories help to locate and deliver the learning object(s). Most repositories are standalone. “A digital repository provides a flexible and discipline-independent mechanism for storing and managing digital objects, thus enhancing integrating learning and research environments” (Richardson, 2004, p. 6). Learning object repositories are rather new, with a number of universities and funded government projects around the world having established them as recently as 2003 (i.e., eduSource and SchoolNet in Canada, Curriculum Online in the UK, HEAL and iLumina in the U.S.). Given that in 2000, 98% of public schools in the United States had Internet access, with 12.2 million computers available in American classrooms and 76.6 million students, and a total of $380.4 billion spent on the public school system (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007), the use and reuse of electronically available materials in digital repositories by educators and students alike is a financially savvy strategy.
proJEcts coMpiLing gEnEric LEarning obJEct rEpositoriEs The reason for presenting a collection of repositories here in this section is twofold: promotional and practical. Firstly, they raise awareness of and facilitate use in repositories and learning objects among educators interested in delivering content through the Word Wide Web; and secondly, they provide practitioners with a ready-made collection of relevant, quality electronic resources in language learning contexts, thus making best use of the time available by preventing cumbersome searches. These repositories are chosen foremost because of their high quality, with some being appraised by fellow associates in their areas of expertise. This point is illustrated on MERLOT (see below for more details), which is:
0
Learning Objects
…largely modeled on the academic peer review process for scholarly research and publication familiar to a university faculty. The MERLOT Web site currently supports 14 discipline-specific communities, each with an editorial board that guides peer review policies and practices. (Nesbit & Belfer, 2004, p. 145) All selected repository project sources and providers are essentially non-profit organizations. The target audience is either pitched at a particular educational level (i.e., primary, secondary, and tertiary) or geographic vicinity (i.e., school clusters, university networks, states, countries), and all details are current.5 The generic repositories hold scholarly articles on the wider theme of language acquisition and the area of applied linguistics. Designated sections are created for language learning objects, which can be readily employed in the classroom. In the language acquisition context, some of the repositories are bilingual and are thus equally useful as authentic materials in teaching and learning context, and as a professional development opportunity for language proficiency maintenance of teachers. The following generic repositories are listed in alphabetical order.
curriculum online All the resources offered are supporting the British curriculum and its division into key stages from school entry age to about 16 years of age. The digital resources are searchable by key stage; subject and topic with some are available for purchase while others are free (http://www. curriculumonline.gov.uk/).
EdNA (Education Network Australia) The network is a joint initiative of the Australian government and state and territory governments. More than 16,000 materials are freely available for teachers and learners. The online resource
0
collection is divided into educational sector (e.g., early childhood, vocational, and technical education; adults and community education; higher education). A wide range of subjects are covered (http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/go).
eduSource (Canadian Network of Learning objects repositories) This is a fully bilingual (English/French) project designed for Canadian learners that caters for users with disabilities. A smaller format (thumbnail) is provided as a visual reference, and a button allows viewing of the metadata (full record and summary) for each learning object (http://www. edusource.ca/).
MErLot (Multimedia Educational resource for Learning and online teaching) Designed for higher education purposes, namely academic staff and students, this is a free and open collection. It is undertaken by the California state university system and provides learning materials, assignments, and reviews. The MERLOT World Languages Portal is divided into tips for teaching, learning materials, a member directory for networking, professional organizations, and regular showcases (http://worldlanguages. merlot.org/).
the Le@rning Federation An initiative funded by the Australian, state and territory, and New Zealand governments which produces learning objects free to primary and secondary schools in Australia and New Zealand (http://www.thelearningfederation.edu. au/tlf2/). The above inventory of repositories is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather to present a ready-made collection of reputable and stable projects that enable the novice entry into
Learning Objects
the subject matter and provide educators with a repertoire of digital resources and best practice examples for general educational purposes.
proJEcts coMpiLing LanguagE-spEciFic LEarning obJEct rEpositoriEs The overall criteria for selection and inclusion of the next repositories correspond to those described in the above section on generic repositories. These repositories are specific to language education and are suggested as the basic foundation for an ever-expanding collection. This directory in the area of language acquisition extends the general repertoire of repositories to discipline specific ones and are particularly relevant to the professional practice of language educators as they are considered examples of best practice.
ariadnE (European knowledge pool system) The collection contains materials on a wide variety of interactivity levels in many European languages (i.e., Dutch, English, French, German, and Italian) (http://www.ariadne-eu.org/).
Languages online A free site provided by the Department of Education and Training in Victoria, Australia, for students learning French, German, Indonesian, or Italian. There are over 800 tasks and games in 33 topic-based sections which are self-paced and self-correcting. Over 170 printable worksheets with a variety of guided speaking, reading, writing, and research tasks complement the online activities (http://www.education.vic.gov. au/languagesonline/).
LearningLanguages.net A portal with online foreign language resources for teachers of French, Japanese, and Spanish. It is aimed at English-speaking students from primary to secondary age (http://www.learninglanguages.net).
sLoop project (sharing Learning objects in an open perspective) This project aims to produce a digital repository of free learning objects in several languages. It is co-funded by the European Community (http:// sloop.tes.mi.it/sloop/).
nLn (National Learning Network) This project, funded by the UK government, holds 2,251 learning objects designed for the Adult and Community Learning Sector, with one of the main topics being English for Speakers of Other Languages. It is password protected and requires setup of an account with a waiting time of up to 48 hours until access has been granted (http://www.nln.ac.uk/). This concludes the portion of the chapter that provided examples of repositories and a short description of their offerings. It introduced some of the current applications that are being used, gave a general overview with selected generic repositories, and then moved into language-specific examples of learning object collections, while aiming to offer readers the opportunity to embrace new technologies and to exploit their potential. Overall, there is a rich assortment of various digital learning objects across disciplines with a pronounced shortage in the area of language acquisition. Observable is rapid growth in repositories for the natural sciences, with focus on teaching and learning content on computer science and mathematics. Increasingly, discipline-specific repositories are emerging in the social sciences.
0
Learning Objects
In stark contrast, the field of linguistics is notably under-serviced, language teaching and learning specific repositories are scarce, and few learning objects have yet been developed. While the area of learning objects is still in its infancy and repositories are growing only for the more prevalent languages, practitioners are encouraged to increase their professional expertise by using learning objects, but also to develop and contribute their own materials to repositories. This will ensure that the languages domain is well resourced and represented to avoid a peripheral existence.
initiaL pitFaLLs and potEntiaL oF LEarning obJEcts and rEpositoriEs One of the drawbacks is that some “learning object repositories or ‘LORs’ can be difficult to navigate, and the object difficult to integrate into one’s online course” (Smith Nash, 2005, p. 218). At the time of Smith Nash’s writing, these navigation problems were most likely due to repositories still being under construction and learning objects being partially non-compliant. In the meantime, fine-tuning has been completed due to moving through the last phase of improvement in the traditional instructional ADDIE3 model. During the last stagethe actual evaluationusers give feedback, which in turn is brought in to overcome any problems. Eliciting feedback from teachers and students during earlier ADDIE stages such as the Analyze, Design, or Development phase prevent difficulties in the end stage. Alternatively, the piloting of scaled-down versions provides opportunities to identify and subsequently eliminate some of those navigation difficulties. Even so, as pioneers in the field consolidate their efforts, digital repositories and learning objects will become more user friendly. At the same time, enabling easily, quickly, and cheaply constructed learning objects may lead
0
to low quality, or it may lead to mass production and thus oversupply of similar objects, which is confusing for the user and wasteful for the educator-designers (McGreal, 2004). Nevertheless, easier access and use is strongly fostered by the development of the IEEE’s Learning Technology Standards and the increasing compliance towards it. They apply to the development of new learning objects and the upgrading of existing digital resources. Standards will ensure that the “-abilities” of individual learning objects are increasing and that learning object integration into existing courses will be much more easily achieved. The current potentialities and pitfalls of learning objects depend on the technical and pedagogical characteristics. This is equally true for those wishing to create learning objects as it is for those merely wanting to use any of the abundant and free learning objects that are already available. In both instances, understanding of the basic principles is needed to exploit the promise of this new medium and to avoid the downside. In terms of the technical characteristics, the “-abilities” of learning objects form the basis of design specifications and are crucial for standardization; in terms of pedagogical characteristics, neutrality of learning objects form the basis for contextualization and didactic support.
tEchnicaL charactEristics oF LEarning obJEcts Learning objects are the modular building blocks of digitalized learning content and are frequently compared to LEGOTM building blocks. Just like individual bricks are standardized to fit together in many different ways, learning objects are being normed through metadata.4 Standardization issues progressed rapidly (IEEE, 2007). Widespread acceptance and adoption of the technical standards is fundamental for the implementation of learning objects. Standardized metadata en-
Learning Objects
ables fitting parts together to form larger parts (interoperability), which can be assembled yet again into a larger unit, thus creating unlimited possibilities for constructions. Learning object metadata also contain identifiers, helping search engines to find (discoverability) specific items, which enables an efficient hunt through the use of sharply focused search criteriathus being the most practical and directly useful ability for teachers and learners. Learning objects allow for one-off use or repeated use, and their key advantage and arguably superiority over other digital resources is their reusability. The reuse of learning materialswhether they are in traditional or digital formsis the most cost-, time-, and energy-efficient strategy for teachers and their employing institutions. Learning objects hold a number of other “-abilities” that are also worthwhile knowing. McGreal (2004, pp. 1-2) has compiled a comprehensive list and detailed descriptions, with a synopsis provided here: •
•
• • •
• • • •
Accessibility: Instructional components can be accessed from one remote location and delivered to many other locations. Interoperability: Components can be developed in one location with one set of tools (platform) or in another location with a different set of tools. Adaptability: Instruction can be tailored to individual and situational needs. Reusability: Components can be incorporated into multiple applications. Durability: Instructional components can be used when base technology changes, without the need for redesigning or recoding. Affordability: Learning can be increased, while reducing time and costs. Assessability: Pedagogical effectiveness, price, and usability can be assessed. Discoverability: Components can be easily found using simple search terms. Interchangeability: One component can be substituted for another.
• • •
Manageability: Components can be found, inserted, replaced, and substituted. Reliability: The other ‘abilities’ can be counted on to work. Retrieveability: Components can be retrieved when and where you want them.
In summary, technical qualities endow learning objects with accessibility, discoverability, interchangeability, and manageability of learning objects, while affordability, durability, reusability, and retrieveability enable simple, inexpensive, and speedy production. Easily, quickly, and cheaply constructed learning objects may lead to low quality, or it may lead to mass production and thus oversupply of similar objects, which is confusing for the user and wasteful for the educator-designers (McGreal, 2004).
pEdagogicaL charactEristics oF LEarning obJEcts The technical characteristics of learning objects allow the patching together of a number of single learning components into an instructional segment. These session parts can be stitched up into lessons, with several lessons being tailored into a custom-made course. Thus constructed, these specifically built language acquisition programs cater for personalized learning opportunities. In terms of pedagogical characteristics, they enable the compilation of highly individualized pathways. These purposely created avenues can be used either for a single learner with distinct learning needs or for a group of learners with a particular learning motivation, educational focus, and outcome in mind. Previously, the interest, research, and subsequently literature in the area focused mainly on the technical features. This aspect was explored in the preceding discussion on the “-abilities” of learning objects. The technical features alongside the pedagogical aspects originated their superior-
Learning Objects
Figure 2. Granularity of learning objects. ©2008 Ria Hanewald. Used with permission.
Course Lesson Instructional segment
Lesson Instructional segment
Learning component
Learning object e.g. video clip
Learning component
Learning object e.g. text document
Learning component
Learning object e.g. graph
ity and have given rise to the expeditious development of learning objects and the establishment of digital repositories over the last four years, which has opened up new potentialities for teaching and learning. As discussed, learning objects are seen as building blocks, mere chunks of information that can be put together in countless ways to create larger stacks of content for teaching and learning. This view of learning objects as information representations divorces from educational philosophy and creates a pedagogical vacuum. This is in line with Richards, McGreal, Hatala, and Friesen (2002), who initially asserted that learning objects and repositories are purely instructional and pedagogically neutral as they do not address issues of pedagogy. If this were true, everything could constitute a learning object even if it contains violent, racist, or pornographic images or messages. However, as the discussion around the example of the learning object in Figure 1 implied, the selection of learning objects is based on educational worth and grounded in preconceived notions. This pedagogical partiality is geared towards usefulness, significance, meaning, and importance. The chosen teaching and learning goals and the subsequent instruc-
Lesson
tional focus is selected and prioritized against an array of other possible objectives and outcomes. It is therefore argued that pedagogical neutrality does not exist and that the notion of pedagogical partiality is inherent in all learning objects. Even if the notion of pedagogical neutrality is accepted, it creates a vexed issue, as Friesen (2004) points out, that “specifications and applications that are truly pedagogically neutral cannot also be pedagogically relevant” (p. 5). The problem of pedagogically neutrality and relevance of learning objects lies in the fact that they are not pinned in either instructional theory, namely behaviorist, cognitivist, constructivist, or situationalist paradigms. It effectively detaches learning objects from the larger context of pedagogy and the body of knowledge on learning theories and instructional design. Consequently, it amputates learning objects from their discipline-specific communities of practice and their culture in which the knowledge, skills, and outcomes of learning actually is based. However, it could be counter-argued that anyeven unintentionalunderlying paradigm can easily be extracted from any attached exercise or activity. To illustrate this point, an example from Languages Online (http://www.education.
Learning Objects
Figure 3. Pedagogical paradigms underpinning learning objects
vic.gov.au/languagesonline/) by the Department of Education and Training in Victoria, Australia, is given below. Any language educator with command of German will quickly detect the educational paradigm and the language methodology theory underpinning this exercise, which requires changing the noun from the singular to the plural form. Blandin (2004) and Wiley (2005) assert the existence of pedagogical neutrality and see it as an advantage, as it implies impartial and value-free learning objects that can support any educational method because they are unbound by any particular pedagogical approach. In entertaining this line of thinking, it could be argued that learning objects created in a pedagogical void put the focus solely on the technology rather than the learning process. Undeniably, the development of multimedia enabled instructional designers to assemble sophisticated learning objects, but this does not automatically ensure that a learning process or an actual learning outcome occurs.
Pedagogical objectiveswhether they are cognitive, emotional, or socialare an intrinsic part of the instructional design. Learning objects need “thoughtful and informed pedagogical design to generate effective and compelling educational experiences” (Marshall, 2004, p. 11). This is why more recent publications (Smith Nash, 2005; de Salsa & Ellis, 2006) advocate selection of an explicit learning design to support learning objects and repositories for educational purposes. Furthermore, the notion of learning objects freed of any pedagogy assumes a learning situation devoid of any educational features. It denies the presence of learning styles and preferences, which are inherent characteristics of any learner and thus any learning episode. It seems to assume that the endowed neutrality of learning objects caters to every learner, regardless of their aptitudes, circumstances, and the context of their learning. Friesen (2004, p. 61) alerts that learning objects:
Learning Objects
…are introduced into educational contexts and practices clearly bearing the stamp of their technical origin. Instead of being presented in terms familiar and meaningful to educators, they bear connotations that appear unclear or even negative in these practical contexts. Perhaps it is for these reasons, that there is slow and deficient adoption of learning objects in real-life contexts by practitioners despite the huge financial investments by governments, organizations, and higher education providers worldwide. Acceptance and implementation by educators is based on relevance, which seems to be a missing element under the existing conditions. Mason (2003) places the blame for this position firmly in the educators’ corner, which has left the technologists in charge. The responsibility for changing this situation now lies with all practitioners.
LanguagE LEarning, cuLturaL LEarning, and LEarning obJEcts This section will give a short synopsis of language education and teaching culture based on the assumption that readers will be familiar with the literature. The brief summation will serve as a springboard to explore the link with learning objects. Language teaching and learning is currently dominated by the communicative approach, which rose to popularity during the 1980s. It originated from Dell Hymes’ (1972) idea and detailed-yetabstract discussion that communicative competence is more than the mastery of the vocabulary and grammatical rules of a particular language. Since achieving communicative competency is the ultimate goal of learning another language, the four distinct parts as identified by Michael Canale (1983) have to be managed: grammatical competence (e.g., pronunciation, syntax, vocabulary), discourse competence (language structures
in and for a variety of contexts), sociolinguistic competence (appropriateness in given situations), and strategic competence (negotiating meaning, repairing misunderstandings). Celce-Murcia, Zoltan, and Thurrell (1995) added actional competence based on the recognition that language requires action (e.g., apologizing, bullying, comforting, encouraging). All of these five competencies are shaped by culture. The ‘teaching of culture’ has also undergone successive waves. According to Risager (1998), the ‘foreign-culture’ approach was popular prior to the 1980s, with the ‘intercultural’ approach being the dominant method in the late 1990s. In multi-ethnic societies such as Australia, she predicted the emergence of a ‘multicultural’ approach, which she expects to be replaced by a ‘transcultural’ approach through the effects of globalization and internationalization. This short overview makes two points: First, language and culture are intrinsically linked. Both aspects need to be considered not only during the actual teaching and learning stage, but also in the development of learning objects. For example, the screen shot in Figure 4 is from an animation of the Learning Federation (http://www.thelearning federation.edu.au/ ), which shows a Japanese quiz show. The host’s physical appearance, especially the curly blond hair and the facial features, is not depicting a Japanese person, thus conveying a culturally inappropriate image. The assertive body gesture of the female’s arms resting on her hips is also objectionable. Secondly, approaches to ‘teaching culture’ are not static. They are undergoing change according to complex outside factors (e.g., societal changes, different learner needs), much like approaches to the teaching of languages did progress over time. These significant developments in conceptual understandings and the building of new theoretical frameworks have practical implications for the actual teaching and learning of languages and subsequently the production of learning materials.
Learning Objects
Figure 4. Cultural messages in learning objects, © 2008 Curriculum Corporation (Used with permission)
Quiz shoW The quiz show series assists students to deduce the meaning of compound words from the meanings of the individual characters. All characters used in this series appear in the character catalog.
For learning object developerswhether they are instructional designers or language practitionersthe challenge lies in identifying the cultural learning goals for each language that is being taught and incorporating them into learning objects to achieve cultural learning.
FuturE trEnds Introduced were the notions of learning objects that are free of any pedagogical approach and indicated some of the complexities involved in the debate. The idea of educational objects being devoid of an educational approach and the resulting implications need further investigation. Research is suggested to examine the effects on the learner, and to gain a better understanding of the relationship between learning objects and pedagogy in order to develop best practice. Ideally, this would need to occur prior to the rapid and expensive development of additional learning objects and repositories to ensure time, energy, and effort is well spent.
In examining a few contemporary learning object offerings, it becomes evident that they are solely focusing on content. In the language education field, the majority of learning objects are designed for beginning levels, often containing only basic topic vocabulary (see Figures 3 and 4). While some providers make attempts to incorporate culturally relevant situational contexts for the introduction of the lexical items, these are not explicit to learners. Implicit indication of unfamiliar cultural settings may not raise awareness, nor encourage analysis or even comparisons and understanding or appreciation. The previous discussion indicated that the existing thinking on learning objects has several limitations and that future theoretical developments will be dealing with these. Part of the dilemma is the bonanza that saw the production of large quantities of learning objects because of the availability of substantial funding and the apparent aspiration by educational stakeholders to have presence in the new technological arena. It is assumed that this caused emphasis on the fast manufacturing of large amounts of learning objects, thus concentrating on speed and quantity
Learning Objects
at the cost of quality. It was furthered by the firm grip of the learning object development area by technologists, as indicated by Robson (2004). The lacking influence and thus subject-specific expertise of language educators and practitioners added to the calamity. Not only did this race for e-learning resources and visibility in the technology arena by key stakeholders result in the production of large amounts of learning objects, it also furnished online environments with multiplication of efforts, as similar instructional content was created and released in various places all over the world. This preoccupation with the build-up stage of construction might be part of the reason for the negligent attention to pedagogical aspects. Another factor might be the lack of in-depth studies on the educational consequences of learning objects. Future trends are the emerging of recognition of attentiveness to the dynamics that contributed to the existing gaps in the literature. Starting points are implementation and subsequently discussions of practical examples, the developing of applications past the beginner’s level, assessment of learning outcomes, and learning effectiveness of the new innovation. Research is needed to develop real units of learning to investigate and identify effective aspects of pedagogical designs, to gather empirical findings, and to be able to learn from the experience of practitioners. Research is also needed into the very advantage of learning objects, namely reusability and its pragmatic implications and the creation of individualized learning paths. The outcomes of these investigations, particularly the pedagogical relevance of learning objects in terms of language and cultural education, will be of particular interest to readers of this book.
concLusion and rEcoMMEndation Electronic resources for language learning and teaching have been growing exponentially, with
interest in digital objects and repositories exploding over the last few years. This chapter gave an introduction into learning objects and repositories, and an overview of their technical and pedagogical “-abilities.” The chapter elucidated technical aspects and standards development, and alluded to the current tension surrounding educational aspects while moving the discussion into the field of language education and its specific needs in order to encourage and support educators in adopting innovative technology. It therefore provided teachers in the language learning and teaching field with a ready-made collection of high-quality digital resources. Their usage will facilitate the building of a community of practitioners to ensure the representation of language educators among the other curriculum areas and domains to halt further marginalization. Awareness and utilization of learning objects will add to educators’ repertoire of electronic teaching resources and thus will prevent duplication of effort in designing and developing new materials. It will thus further the development of professional skills and standards, while offering opportunities for engaging in reflective discussions and collaborative exchange of ideas and approaches. It is hoped that embracing these new electronic resources for teaching and learning will utilize their potential, provide educators with a smorgasbord of teaching and learning materials, and empower learners through self-access opportunities. In the theoretical sphere, current notions of pedagogically neutral learning objects were discussed and the existing tensions of valuefree learning objects vs. the implicit values in education were examined, with need to unpack these complexities more. It needs to be further explored, negotiated, and managed to ensure that future investments in the development of learning objects for language learning and teaching promote not only communicative competence but also cultural knowledge. The potential dangers that the development and re-usage of learning objects are heading
Learning Objects
towards, such as the recent bonanza and its resulting implications and the dominance of the area by technologist rather than educationalist, were outlined. The gap in the literature and subsequently in current research on case studies, practical applications, assessments, and learning outcomes strongly suggests future research by language educators and practitioners for illumination and possible resolution.
rEFErEncEs Blandin, B. (2004, February). Are e-learning standards neutral? Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Aided Learning in Engineering Education, Grenoble, France. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www-clips. imag.fr/calie04/actes/Blandin_final.pdf Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), In language and communication (pp. 2-27). London/New York: Longman. Celce-Murcia, M., Zoltan, D., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35. de Salsa, K., & Ellis, L. (2006). The development and implementation of learning objects in a higher education setting. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 1-22. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.ijklo. org/Volume2/v2p001-022deSalsa[1].pdf Friesen. N. (2004). Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 59-70). London. Routledge. Hodgins, W.H. (2000). Background. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.learnativity. com/waynehodgins.html
Hymes, D. (1972). Language in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IEEE. (2007). WG12: Learning object metadata. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://ltsc.ieee. org/wg12/ Jacobsen, P. (2001). Reusable learning objects— What does the future hold? Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.elearningmag.com/ltimagazine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=5043 Marshall, S. (2004). E-learning standards: Open enablers of learning or compliance strait jackets? Proceedings of ASCILITE. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/marshall.html Mason, J. (2003). Secret standards business? Proceedings of EDUCAUSE in Australasia 2003, Adelaide, Australia. McGreal, R. (2004). Learning objects: A practical definition. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Education, 1(9). Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/ Sep_04/article02.htm Nesbit, J., & Belfer, K. (2004). Collaborative evaluation of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 138-155). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Richards, G., McGreal, Hatala, & Friesen. (2002). Learning object repository technologies: Portals for on-line objects for learning. Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 67-79. Richardson, J. (2004, February). Implementing HarvestRoad’s hive system at Griffith University: Practice validates theory. Proceedings of the ALIA CAM Digital Repository Seminar, Sydney, Australia. Risager, K. (1998). Language teaching and the process of European integration. In M. Bryam & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective—Approaches through
Learning Objects
drama and ethnography (pp. 242-254). London: Cambridge University Press. Robson, R. (2004). Context and the role of standards in increasing the value of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 159-168). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Smith Nash, S. (2005). Learning object repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best practices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1(5), 217-228. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://ijklo.org/volume1/v1p217-228Nash.pdf Sosteric, M., & Hesemeir, S. (2004). A first step towards a theory of learning objects. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects (pp. 32-42). London: RoutledgeFalmer. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Census in schools. Retrieved September 19, 2007, from http://www2. census.gov/govs/school/04f33pub.pdf Wharrad, H.J., & Leeder, D. (2003). Experiences with re-usable learning objects: Process and evaluation. Proceedings of the Association of Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C) on Communities of Practice, Sheffield, UK. Wiley, D. (2005). Pedagogy-agnostic standards and a much needed rant. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/archives/145
kEY tErMs IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (IEEE LTSC): “…chartered by the IEEE Computer Society Standards Activity Board to develop accredited technical standards, recommended practices, and guides for learning technology (retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://ieeeltsc.org/).
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): “The world’s leading professional association for the advancement of technology” (retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.ieee. org/portal/site). International Standards Organization (ISO): “Worldwide federation of national standards bodies from 130 countries and nongovernmental, promoting the development of standardization” (retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline. frontpage). Learning Content Management System (LCMS): System combining course administration with content creation and storage capabilities, thus offering the potential of both a learning management system and a content management system in one package. Learning Management System (LMS): Offers an instrument for sequencing content and creating a manageable structure for academic and administrative staff. Examples include WebCT, Blackboard, and Desire2Learn. Learning Object Metadata (LOM): “A data model, usually encoded in XML, used to describe a learning object and similar digital resources used to support learning. The purpose of learning object metadata is to support the reusability of learning objects, to aid discoverability, and to facilitate their interoperability, usually in the context of online learning management systems” (retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Learning_object_metadata). Learning Object Metadata Management System (LOMMS): Metadata is data about data, describing a resource so that it can be located. In the case of learning objects, the metadata is either embedded or placed separately. The metadata are indicators that allow identification by search engines. The learning object metadata is handled through a management system.
Learning Objects
Reusable Information Object (RIO): A term introduced by Cisco Systems “…the leading supplier of networking equipment and network management for the Internet” in its 1999 Reusable Information Object Strategy (retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.cisco.com/).
EndnotEs 1
2
Data gathered through a search engine (http://www.google.com) on August 1, 2007. Wayne Hodgins is strategic futurist, director of Worldwide Learning Strategies, Autodesk Inc.; past president, strategic advisor to the board of the Computer Education Management Association (CEdMA); chair, IEEE Learning Technology Standards Commit-
3
4
5
tee (LTSC); learning object metadata cofounder, Learnativity Alliance. Homepage of Wayne Hodgins, retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.learnativity.com/waynehodgins.html ADDIE = Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate. One of the first models for instructional systems design, containing five distinct stages. Metadata is basically data on data, usually coded in XML. It identifies a digital object so that it can be found through a search engine (discoverability), thus allowing multiple retrievals (reusability) and providing a standardized fit to enable integration with and into other systems (interoperability). All URLs, descriptors, and other details were current as of August 1, 2007.
0
Chapter VIII
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR Patrica Lupion Torres Pontificia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), Brazil Rita de Cassia Veiga Marriott University of Birmingham, UK Andreia Ferreira Ramos Faculdade Luterana São Marcos/RS, Brazil
abstract This chapter presents the experience of production and use of learning objects (LOs) for English-language learning at the Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Parana (PUCPR), Brazil. PUCPR made its first steps towards online education in 1995 when it started developing its virtual learning environment. Along this trajectory, the need was felt to look for technological resources for the development of digital didactic material. This led to the creation of the Web-based Student Support System (SAAW) by the Center for Educational Technologies. In this research, we developed a case study as the basis for this small data-collection study to elucidate and analyze perceptions and information supplied by the study population. This study was carried out by students studying for a Master’s in Education and taking the “Theory and Practice in Distance Education” module. The English-language LO was considered to be satisfactory and to facilitate the teaching learning process.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
introduction In the modern world, where students and teachers come into daily contact with technological innovations in different sectors of society outside the classroom, it has become essential to produce support material for use in classroom-based or distance education that stands out from other material. Today’s students were born in an age where information is readily available in their homes, distances are shrinking, and the pace of change is accelerating. This worldfull of interaction, images, color, and videoneeds to be part of the school environment to help students in the teaching and learning process. The motivation needed in the educational process can be stimulated by digital material that stands out from other such material and that allows the student to interact with, manipulate, and even change it on his or her own. Learning objects (LOs) are one possible type of digital material. Teachers can prepare an LO themselves or build one in partnership with their students. The content matter in LOs is usually presented in the form of games, in situations that are part of the students’ daily lives. A review of the literature reveals a concern with issues related to the standardization and storage of LOs, but it should be stressed that the pedagogical aspect is also important to increase the likelihood of this type of resource being successfully used. LOs should therefore be planned and implemented by a team consisting of IT, education, psychology, and design professionals, to mention but a few. By making use of a multidisciplinary team, the resulting LO will have a user-friendly, creative, highly interactive interface that respects users’ different learning styles and has clearly defined pedagogical features. In this chapter, we describe some of the concepts and main characteristics related to LOs and provide details of the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná’s experiences with them.
soME briEF considErations on LEarning obJEcts There is a lack of consensus regarding what constitutes a learning object. Most authors support the idea that for a resource to be an LO, it must be digital and reusable and have an educational purpose. According to Muzio (in Bastos, 2005, p. 29): “There are many different definitions of a[n] LO, and many other terms are used. This always leads to confusion and problems with communication, which is hardly surprising, as this field of study is new.” Coutinho (2003) states that from the instructional point of view, learning objects correspond to small study segments and must be linked to one or more specific learning objectives. In addition, learning objects must follow some kind of instructional strategy (BASTOS, 2005, p. 29). Wiley (2001, p. 5) defines an LO as any digital resource that can be reused to aid learning. His definition includes any digital resource, whether small or large, that can be distributed over a network on demand. Tarouco, Fabre, and Tamisiunas (2003, p. 2) extend this concept to include: …any resource that is supplementary to the learning process and can be reused to support learning. The term learning objects is generally applied to learning material that is designed and built in small units with a view to maximizing learning situations where the resource can be reused. The basic idea is that the objects should be like blocks with which the learning context will be built. Few authors appear to be concerned with the educational aspect of LOs or consider it part of the concept of LOs. The technical characteristics are always remembered and are (Ramos, 2006): •
Reusability: The possibility of using a learning object in different contexts.
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
•
•
•
Portability: The possibility of transporting it from one platform to another without the need for modifications and without leading to difficulties associated with hardware or software upgrades. Modularity: A learning object can contain other learning objects or can be contained in one or more objects in one or more courses. In this case, learning objects can be considered self-contained educational building blocks. Metadata: This is a complete description of the learning object, its content, and use. This item is important, as it allows the object to be catalogued and encoded so that it can be used on various platforms. The concept of metadata can be better understood if one thinks of a process similar to that involving library record cards (Ramos, Domênico, Torres, & Matos, 2005).
One idea related to LOs involves the distribution of educational material to reduce costs, as an LO can be used in different contexts, and if it is kept in a portal where anyone can access it, there is much less need to create different resources related to the same subject. There is a tremendous variety of material in these portals, and the teachers and pupils must choose from this material according to the objectives they wish to achieve. The planning, development, and implementation of an LO requires an interdisciplinary team, with, among others, educational, computer science, and design professionals as well as a specialist in the content matter involved. LOs are considered to contribute to the teaching and learning process as long as they include the necessary technical and pedagogical characteristics and are used in a supporting role during the course to help students with their learning and make them reflect on what is being introduced in the object. It is important to analyze LOs from a pedagogical perspective, and to this end, the authors suggest
that the following educational issues be considered when planning and implementing LOs: •
•
•
•
Interactivity: This allows the student to be “the actor, the author” rather than a passive information receiver (Silva, 2001, p. 13). In an LO, the interaction (with the medium or with the other actors) provides the opportunity to produce useful information based on objectives. To produce useful information, communicative action is based on interaction, and its first aim is mutual understanding, shared knowledge, and trust and agreement between the actors. Autonomy: A central issue when preparing learning resources is that these encourage learner independence. Stoney and Wild (in Loiselle, 2002, p. 113) highlighted “the interest in interfaces, emphasizing learner interactivity and control and encouraging student exploration and involvement” by means of certain characteristics that favor learning autonomy, such as openness to other material and human resources and the establishment of a communication network. Cooperation: “Technology provides the means to facilitate the cooperative and collaborative process, whether it be in the field of education or work” (Torres, Alcantara, & Irala, 2004, p. 133). Thus, if an LO is interactive and includes simulations, it will probably contribute to cooperative learning, as those using it, including the teacher, will have to exchange ideas and work collectively on the concept being presented. Cognition/Metacognition: Flavell (in Santos & Romanowski, 2006, p. 9) considers metacognition to be both necessary to, and important in, the learning process, but stresses that it is knowledge just like many other forms of knowledge and it is acquired gradually. Metacognition is not greater than or better than other forms of knowledge in
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
•
terms of the mind’s functions and activities. An interactive LO that encompasses concepts that are part of the world that students experience and that allows them to exchange ideas with their peers and reflect on what they are doing would make a significant contribution to their learning. Affection/Desire: The desire to explore the LO must exist in, or be stimulated in, the student. This desire to explore is intimately related to the pupil’s learning style and is nearly always born of the relationship between the pupil and the educator and the object in itself. For this to happen, the LO must involve the pupil and be attractive and contextualized, as, according to Marques (2000, p. 11), “affectivity plays a crucial role in learning. This is what triggers and guides activity…It can be a source of disturbance as well as satisfaction.”
An LO should not be considered just another resource, as in this case we would merely be giving a different name to the resources currently
available on the Internet. An LO that embraces the technical characteristics and pedagogical aspects suggested in this chapter can lead to a change in attitude on the part of the teacher and student, as both will need to reflect at great length to prepare such a resource and take into account the various issues governing LOs. Building an LO also requires a team that is committed to the goal of producing an attractive, interactive resource that actually makes some difference to the teaching and learning process.
VirtuaLization tooLs at pucpr: soME considErations on EurEka and saaW The first steps towards online education at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná were taken in 1995, when a project was launched in partnership with Siemens to develop Eureka, the virtual learning environment. After many years of work involving the development team and research by postgraduate teachers and students,
Figure 1. Eureka-SAAW
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
Eureka finally became established in 1999 as a support tool for online education. By the end of 2006, there were 30,963 registered users, 7,523 open rooms, and 1,492 MATICE1 rooms for students to study for their repeat examinations online. As the Eureka virtual environment has evolved and become more widely used, teachers and students have felt the need to look for technological resources to develop digital teaching material. With this new demand, various professionals became involved in the development of a new Eureka tool, known as SAAW2 (Web-based Student Support System, or Sistema de Apoio ao Aluno via Web, in Portuguese), proposed by the Center for Educational Technologies. According to Tarrit et al. (2006, p. 200), this system “was designed to satisfy the need to make certain content matter available in a secure and efficient manner and to offer a set of functionalities integrated with Eureka” such as the broadcasting of LOs within the Eureka virtual learning environment. New research was carried out, as a result of which the first LOs at PUCPR were made available to all the teaching staff. One of the first LOs to be developed was the English-language learning object. This was built as a result of a need that existed in the English Language and Literature course, whose students had different levels of knowledge and fluency in English. In this particular case, because there was an institutional demand, the learning objects were developed by the lecturers themselves who were responsible for the content matter who were hired by the institution; the learning objects were subsequently made available to all the teaching staff for use at the university. According to Hilú and Tarrit (2006, p. 107), “all the virtual undergraduate rooms [at PUCPR] have automatic access to this functionality [SAAW] once the person in charge creates one or more study paths for all or some of the students in the room.” SAAW within Eureka allows teachers to make content matter available to their students and to create learning paths that are attractive
and different for the whole class, for a group of students, or even for individual students. This feature was considered extremely useful by the teachers who evaluated the tool and particularly useful for teaching English, as the students who join the English Language and Literature course have different levels of knowledge of the language and different degrees of experience using it. Thus, when teachers are monitoring the learning process and knowledge production of each student or each group of students, they can provide the resources or material that they consider to be best suited to each student according to his or her learning style and the strengths or weaknesses identified during the learning process, thereby ensuring that the support provided matches individual and group needs. The system allows teachers to develop their own LOs and make them available to students. Thus, if a particular student or group of students need specific English-language material, the teacher can develop this quickly and easily, and associate it in his or her learning path with any other module developed by the teachers responsible for the content matter. The different levels of mastery of English in a class can also be managed individually without adversely affecting those who are more advanced or who are behind the rest of the class. The Eureka environment allows collaborative activities to be associated with the LO, thus helping manage heterogeneity and collective knowledge production, which is facilitated by peer exchange. In Eureka, collaboration is promoted by means of synchronous and asynchronous communication tools, as well as data-, content- and informationsharing tools. Thus, in English-language teaching using learning objects available via SAAW, and interaction between users, a new set of material, data, and information is created, and it remains permanently available to all those taking part in the teaching-learning process for the period defined by the teacher or group.
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
Figure 2. A screen shot of the English-language teaching MILI, Module 5
It is also possible to associate the use of any of the other functionalities of Eureka with the proposed learning path, as well as combining different modules on different subjects within the learning path. In other words, the teacher may feel that it is necessary to create a plan with an English module linked to another one on information technology associated with one more on knowledge processes. For Hilú and Tarrit (2006, p. 113), SAAW makes it possible to “work with the didactic material in a flexible way. This concept is based on the specific logic of ‘establishing paths’ for the knowledge to be shared.” The first screen of each module gives basic information about the module, such as the learning objective for the module, average study time, difficulty, prerequisites, and credits. The browsing commands are given at the bottom of the screen. Figure 2 is an example of an exercise in Module 5Like/Love/Hate/Mind in which the students are invited to choose one of the characters to write to, based on shared interests (exercise created by Rita Marriott).
a rEport on EXpEriEncE With thE tooLs usEd to buiLd Los at pucpr After the short review of the literature related to this research and the brief introduction to the virtualization tools at PUCPR given above, following are some considerations on SAAW and the use of LOs as a tool to manage the different levels of knowledge of the English language among students on the English Language and Literature course. These considerations are the result of one of many surveys carried out to improve and develop this functionality in Eureka. In this research, we developed a case study as the basis for this small data-collection study to elucidate and analyze perceptions and information supplied by the study population. Using this methodology, which gives the researcher a large degree of freedom in terms of theory and methodology, we sought to answer questions raised by the researchers at the Center for Educational Technologies and the Education, Communication and Technology Research Group in the Postgraduate Program in Education at PUCPR about the
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
use of the Eureka environment and its SAAW functionality. This study was carried out with students who were studying for a Master’s in Education and were taking the “Theory and Practice in Distance Education” course at the Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná. Initially, the 22 MEd students used the SAAW tool as a self-learning program to study the English-language modules. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of LOs in SAAW, as all the students in this class in the Master’s in Education course had some teaching experience and were preparing to work with the development of LOs for distance education. After the students had carried out all the activities, they reported their experiences to the class. The students evaluated the English material published in SAAW in light of the theoretical review of LOs that had previously formed the basis of a class debate. The teacher responsible for the subject supervised the students throughout the whole process. Following are some of the comments made by the research subjects. As can be seen, the comments made related to the positive aspects of the English-language learning objects, with particular emphasis being given to the clarity, objectivity, creativity, and interactivity present in the learning object: • •
•
S.03—Positive Points: Dynamic, objective, clear, easy to access and interactive. S.07—Positive Points: It is interactive, creative, encourages students to answer, respects the student’s own pace of learning and is flexible. S.13—The LO’s positive points include good interactivity and ease of use, as well as the fact that during the course learners feel that they are being supported and are motivated to continue.
Also highlighted as positive factors related to the LO were the various ways that resources
could be integrated, the quality of the interface, the activities, and the exercises: •
•
•
S.01—Positive Points: I was able to see, with the particular configuration of this module, that the different ways the tool can be used with other editing software results in a very interesting product with a lot of resources. For example, on a single page you can have access to the link for a particular Web site. And you can do the exercises by typing or just dragging the mouse. S.02—Positive Points: Easy-to-use interface, very detailed explanatory material, lots of exercises to reinforce the content matter. S.19—Positive Points: Colorful screens; friendly interface; the available activities allow students to “improve” their learning and manage their study; interactive.
The difficulties that some students faced when using SAAW as a learning experience with LOs were among the negative aspects highlighted by students: •
•
S.03—Some activities are poorly thought out, on slide 13 of module 03, it is difficult for students to form the sentence, as they have to drag the word several times to try to complete the exercise. S.19—Negative Points: The exercises are sometimes complicated to solve: sometimes it is difficult to drag an icon from one place to another (it is not clear that a particular icon needs to be dragged). When the exercise is a long one and you make a mistake with one item, the icon only tells you that you have made a mistake, not where the mistake is. Students end up becoming demotivated, as they know they have made a mistake but not what the mistake is.
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
Some students identified negative points and were keen to suggest modifications or ways to solve the problem, as can be seen in the following comments: •
•
•
S.02—Negative Points: Some multimedia tools, such as films and audio, could be used to help the learning process. S.05—This is the first time I have used SAAW, and I have not found any [negative points] other than the lack of audio (I think it is important when teaching a language). S.07—Negative Point: The fact that there is no page showing the answers at the end of an exercise.
When asked whether the English-language learning object can facilitate the teaching-learning process, 90% of respondents said yes and highlighted the following points: •
•
•
•
S.07—I believe it can. The student has an incentive to answer the questions, and the windows with the explanations of the grammar are available as support. The exercises that are repeated with different examples help drive home the grammar point being studied. S.20—Yes, as the module gave students a good knowledge of the material that was covered. Anybody with a minimum level of knowledge would be able to complete the module successfully because of the examples. S.02—I think that learning objects encourage the student to concentrate more. As a result, learning becomes more attractive and motivates the student more, even when used individually. When used with the help of a tutor or with other students to exchange information, it becomes more efficient. S.08—I think so, as it stimulates an attitude of “I want to learn,” “I want to get it right,” so that you move on to the next screen and consequently internalize the learning.
Other individuals who replied to the questions in the affirmative highlighted the importance of the object being interactive, combining more than one resource and having exercises to reinforce the subject matter: •
•
•
•
S.03—Yes the modules became interactive, as the addition of images and text encouraged students to learn, so that they participated actively in knowledge construction. S04—Yes, specially when more than one resource (image and text) is combined, then the learning really becomes effective. S.11—Yes, as when there is a combination of more than one resource—for example text + image and interaction (with exercises), the learning becomes meaningful and effective. There is a dialogue between technology and the learner. S.12—This learning object did indeed facilitate learning, as content can be clarified more readily; however, more exercises were needed to reinforce the material covered.
One group of respondents who gave affirmative answers stressed the need for the object to be of good quality, “well built”: •
•
S.15—It is helpful if it is well built so that it allows students to interact with it and if it includes simulations and animations that make abstract concepts more concrete, thereby making learning easier. If the technology is well applied, it can really encourage interaction, communication and learning. S.05—Yes. The objects make learning more dynamic and attractive as long as they are well integrated. I think the tools (didactic material) are excellent for teaching; teachers just have to plan in advance how they will use them in their classes.
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
The ease with which the LO can be accessed anytime and anywhere was also mentioned by respondents who said that the object facilitated learning:
Some respondents felt that the LO had few exercises and was too simple. It was also pointed out that the methodology tended to be based upon a technical approach to teaching:
•
•
•
S.09—Yes, especially because it can be accessed at any time, the content matter is always available. S.10—It helps students, but they need to seek out more information about the subject covered so that the learning becomes more meaningful. Flexible access anywhere, anytime.
•
• Among the 20% of research subjects who replied in the negative to the question whether the English-language learning object can facilitate the English-language teaching-learning process, only one gave any justification. Note that the respondent can see that the object in question could potentially be used as a support tool. •
•
S.16—Not necessarily, but it is one way of arousing interest.
During this evaluation process, creativity was highlighted by some respondents: •
• •
S.03—Well, it is creative and makes the virtual learning environment a place that is full of ideas, as the students learn while having fun completing pictures that help them understand the objectives of the module. S.04—Good, creative, easy access, activities allow learning to be checked. S.05—It is creative and supplies immediate answers to the exercises; it is easy to browse and students can return to previous pages if they are unsure of something. A variety of exercises are provided (including additional exercises) that help to make learning easier. The forecast time needed was sufficient and the layout and appearance were attractive.
S.12—It is very clearly laid out, and topics can be easily located in the modules. However, the modules would be more comprehensive if they had more exercises. S.06—The learning object being used was well organized, although there were not enough activities to practice the material that had been learnt. S.14—I thought the object was worthwhile, but I think that the modules could be more complex with more support material and additional activities; but it is a useful tool that stimulates learning and interactivity. Operationally, it worked well. S.09—The English module is organized sequentially and gradually, so that even students who have limited ability in English can learn. As for the methodological approach, you can see that it is quite technically oriented, but in distance education it is difficult to make use of methodological innovations.
Even those interviewed who had the weakest command of English made positive comments and highlighted the simple, clear language and browsing facilities and the possibility of receiving feedback about, and evaluating, their own performance: •
•
S.20—I believe that the course was very well prepared, as I have very limited knowledge of English and was able to understand the material. I really liked the modules, they were very visual and easy to read. The examples given helped a lot. It was a very interesting experience. S.15—Pleasant and well prepared modules, they facilitate learning, use language that is
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
clear and provide students with feedback. The activities allow students to assess their learning. The main negative comments related to the instructional design of the object: •
•
•
S.02—The “English” learning object within SAAW is well designed, but I think that the colors chosen are very gloomy for such a long course and could make the students tired. Other types of interactivity could be included in the exercises. S.13—The object allows students to immerse themselves in the course and works satisfactorily, but it needs to have a few adjustments made in terms of its organization. S.11—The LO is somewhat confused, more explanations and adjustments are needed.
Based on the data gathered during the study, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn: •
•
• The various comments made by the students who were studying “Theory and Practice in Distance Education” in the Postgraduate Program in Distance Education were debated in the classroom at the end of the unit on LOs after extensive theoretical revision of the subject and after the master’s students had had experience of using the SAAW tool to study the English language module and to develop LOs on subjects related to distance education.
soME briEF considErations on EngLish-LanguagE LEarning obJEcts in saaW In light of the comments made by the research subjects, it can be seen that MILI, the learning object used to teach English in SAAW, which formed the basis of this study, was considered to be satisfactory and to facilitate the teaching learning process. The suggestions for improvement were relevant and were forwarded to the SAAW development team.
•
•
The evaluation of the learning object by professionals from various areas who were studying “Theory and Practice in Distance Education” in the Postgraduate Program in Distance Education allows us to posit the hypothesis that MILI delivered via SAAW is suitable for online education; however, it is important that teachers and students be given guidance, as the roles that they play in this approach change. The use of LOs in virtual subjects is still a challenge, particularly when the aim is to overcome the traditional paradigm of teaching in which the focus is on the reproduction of knowledge. The use of LOs can represent an advancement in approaches to virtual education as they allow the teaching-learning process to be more flexible and thus go beyond the limits of traditional formal education. The development of LOs as a tool was well accepted by the research subjects, although with a certain degree of caution. The uptake and approval by the master’s students of the use of LOs in spite of their remaining limitations show that SAAW has been accepted.
It is worth mentioning that after nearly 10 years of research on the development of LOs and SAAW, the Center for Educational Technologies, directed by the head of the Distance Learning Department, is consolidated as a center for research, development, and use of technologies for the support of the taught learning process. Among all the different research projects created during these years is the investigation presented in this chapter. This long experience of research authorizes us to infer that the use of an English-language LO, available via SAAW and with the help of other functionalities
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
in Eureka, allows us to develop innovative and collaborative methodological proposals in distance learning English courses. Collaboration is more favorable in the virtual environment for the synchronous and asynchronous communication tools and the sharing of data, content, and information, allowing all the participants to be responsible for their own knowledge production. It is in the exchange between pairs that a new base of content, data, and information is generated, which remains available to all within the language learning process during the time defined by the professor or the group itself.
rEFErEncEs Bastos, C.A.R. (2005). Curso hipermídia interativo de física: Adaptação de um curso presencial através do uso e reuso de objetos de aprendizagem, Dissertação de Mestrado, UFRJ. Hilú, L., & Tarrit, C.R. (2006). SAAWSistema de Apoio ao Aluno via Web. In P.E. Gomes & A.M. Mendez (Eds.), Tecnologia e inovação na educação universitária: O MATICE da PUCPR. Curitiba: Editora Champagnat. Loiselle, J. (2002). A exploração da multimídia e da rede internet para favorecer a autonomia dos estudantes universitários na aprendizagem. In S. ALAVA (Ed.), Ciberespaço e formações abertas: Rumo a novas práticas educacionais? Porto Alegre: Artmed. Marques, R. (2000). Dicionário Breve de Pedagogia (Pedagogy Dictionary), 1st ed. Lisboa: Editora Presença. Ramos, A.F. (2006). A contribuição dos objetos de aprendizagem na educação: Um estudo de caso sobre o objeto de aprendizagem “Conversa Virtual com Pasteur.” Dissertação de Mestrado, PUCPR, Brazil.
0
Ramos, A.F., Domênico, L.C., Torres, P.L., & Matos, E.L.M. (2005). Uma experiência com objetos de aprendizagem no ensino de matemática. Proceedings of the 12th Congresso Internacional De Educação a Distância, Florianópolis. Retrieved November 29, 2005, from http://www.abed.org. br/congresso2005/por/pdf/187tcc3.pdf Santos, L., & Romanowski, J.P. (2006). A contribuição dos processos metacognitivos na formação do pedagogo. Proceedings of the 4th Congresso Internacional de Educação, São Leopoldo. Silva, M. (2001). Sala de aula interativa (2nd ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Quartet. Silva, M. (Ed.). Educação on-line. São Paulo: Loyola. Tarouco, L., Margarida R., Fabre, M-C., Mascarenhas, J., & Tamusiunas, F. R. (2003). Reusabilidade de objetos educacionais. (Reusability of educational objects). Revista Novas Tecnologias na Educação. UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil. Tarrit, C.R., Hilú, L., Stahlke, J., Verçosa, P.B., de Souza, C., & Mendez, A.M. (2006). SAAW Sistema de Apoio ao Aluno via WebEstudo de funcionalidades e implementação. In P.E. Gomes & A.M. Mendez (Eds.), Tecnologia e inovação na educação universitária: O MATICE da PUCPR. Curitiba: Editora Champagnat. Torres, P.L., Alcantara, P.R., & Irala, E.A.F. (2004). Grupos de consenso: Uma proposta de aprendizagem colaborativa para o processo de ensino-aprendizagem. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 4(13). Wiley, D.A. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional theory: A definition, a metaphor and a taxonomy. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc
English-Language Teaching with Learning Objects at PUCPR
kEY tErMs Autonomy: Ability to work independently, to be able to manage the learning process, and to act thoughtfully when working on activities and exercises without anybody else’s help. Collective Knowledge Production: Knowledge produced collectively by students engaged in collaborative or cooperative activities. Digital Resource: A resource distributed over a network and used electronically. Eureka: PUCPR’s collaborative virtual learning environment developed since 1995 in partnership with Siemens. In 1999 it became fully functional and started being used by the university as a support for its online education. It now has more than 30,000 students in its nearly 8,000 classes. Interactivity: Process that emerges from the participation of all learners that interact among themselves by an active dialogue, a constant exchange of information, points of view, queries, and ideas that occur in a learning environment.
Learning Objects (LOs): Reusable, standalone digital or non-digital units of learning; they are chunks of content that are forbidden to refer to each other. They can be anything from an image, a document, a video, or a Web site, or can be a highly sophisticated, creative, and interactive interface offering units of learning involving the work of a multidisciplinary team with clear pedagogical features. Portal: A point of access to content on the World Wide Web. SAAW (Sistema de Apoio ao Aluno via Web): Web-based student support system tool developed by PUCPR that can be used as a platform for learning objects.
EndnotEs 1
2
Program under development at PUCPR since 2002 that currently allows students to study subjects they failed online. This tool can be used to develop learning objects. In 2007 it gained support from CNPQ for the development of studies into the production of new objects.
Chapter IX
Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming Zhuo Li University of Florida, USA Feng Liu University of Florida, USA Jeff Boyer University of Florida, USA
abstract The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the present use of e-gaming in language acquisition along with its potential and challenges. We review the use of traditional, non-electronic games for language acquisition, provide a brief introduction of computer-assisted language learning (CALL), and examine the use of electronic games in language learning. Although there is limited research on the use of electronic games in language acquisition, potential exists for the integration of electronic games in language classrooms. In addition, more in-depth research is still needed in this field. For classroom practice, we provide a resource of online e-games for practitioners.
introduction It is increasingly common to see young people spending time playing video games. Several researchers (Funk, Hagen, & Schimming, 1999; Squire, 2006; Williams, 2003) have noted that many youth today spend more time playing video
games than reading, or watching TV or films. Thibodeaux’s study in 2001 showed that nearly 84% of children between the ages of 12 to 17 had a video game console, and 38% of them played video games for at least an hour every week (as cited in Jenkins, 2005, p. 48). The Kaiser Family Foundation reported in 2003 that 50% of U.S.
Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming
children have played computer games by the time they are six years old (as cited in Jenkins, 2005, p. 48). Similar findings were reported in Jones’s survey of students at more than 20 U.S. colleges and universities in 2003, which indicated that all students had played a video, computer, or online game (collectively, electronic games) and that 65% of the students identified themselves as “regular or occasional” game players (as cited in Jenkins, 2005, p. 48). Facing students’ strong interests in and even addiction to these electronic games, many educators seek to understand games’ attractiveness. Many wonder if there are attributes of games that are beneficial to learning and consider ways in which games could be used for learning. Some scholars have challenged the traditional view that “games, as opposed to work, are unproductive and non-utilitarian” (Ang & Zaphiris, 2007, p. 448) and have attempted to explore the potential of games in education. For example, Gee (2005) maintains that good games incorporate learning principles supported by current research in cognitive science. With the rising interest in using electronic games in education, electronic games may also have potential to impact the field of second language acquisition. In this chapter, we first elaborate on research using traditional (non-electronic) games in language acquisition. Next, we identify key findings from existing research in the intersection of electronic gaming and language acquisition. Finally, we explore implications for future research, policy, and practice.
background traditional (non-Electronic) games in Language Learning Reviewing non-electronic game use in language classrooms sheds light on further exploration of e-gaming (electronic gaming) in language teaching.1 The use of simulations and games in
language acquisition has been valued by many practitioners and researchers (García-Carbonell, Rising, & Montero, 2001; Gaudart, 1999; Halleck, 2002; Hill, 2002; Kovalik & Kovalik, 2002; Macedonia, 2005; Jung & Levitin, 2002; Saliés, 2002). Language classrooms often integrate roleplaying simulations or card and board games for language instruction. Cekaite and Aronsson (2005) studied the role of play in children’s second language acquisition and emphasized the need to incorporate language play into learning. According to Crookall and Oxford (1990), gaming techniques are very powerful means of helping people to acquire certain foreign or second language skills. Previous research on the use of simulations and games in language classrooms has illustrated the impact of their use to teach speaking (Macedonia, 2005), writing (Kovalik & Kovalik, 2002; Saliés, 2002; Spelman, 2002), and enhance cross-cultural understanding (Jung & Levitin, 2002) and communicative competence (García-Carbonell et al., 2001). Based on the previous research, two significant strengths of using simulations and games in language learning are presented below.
Motivation and Traditional Games Using simulations in language classrooms promotes positive affective factors such as increased motivation and engagement. Reflecting on using simulations and games in an English for Academic Purpose (EAP) class, Saliés (2002) maintains that students were highly motivated when involved in simulations and games, and had positive attitudes towards learning. Furthermore, simulations involve students, even those who are normally quiet, in active participation (Saliés, 2002). Macedonia (2005) states that language games are used to practice or strengthen declarative knowledge with entertainment as a positive side effect based on her experience with using wooden blocks, cards, and finger games in teaching Italian as a foreign language to German-speaking learners. She
Amusing Minds for Joyful Learning through E-Gaming
emphasizes that language games provide opportunities of “redundant oral repetition of grammar structures” (p. 139), yet in a playful way. From a neurological perspective, Macedonia (2005) stresses the important role of positive emotions in game-based language learning, which can enhance students’ fundamental motivation.
Traditional Simulations Simulation is commonly used in language learning. Simulation provides real-world and life-like language learning opportunities and a culturally immersive learning environment to language learners.
Real-World and Life-Like Experience Real-world communication and life-like interactions are created in simulations to engage students in participation and therefore encourage “declassrooming the classroom” (García-Carbonell et al., 2001, p. 485) by promoting a student-centered classroom over a teacher-centered classroom (Saliés, 2002; García-Carbonell et al., 2001). Gaudart (1999) believes that one major advantage of using simulations and games in language classrooms is to alter teacher-centered classrooms by providing students with opportunities to fully use the language: “With practice comes progress, with progress comes motivation, and with motivation comes more learning” (Gaudart, 1999, p. 290).
Learning Environment Jung and Levitin (2002) report using a courtroom simulation in an ESL (English as a Second Language) class for Southeast Asian government officials. They find simulations can offer real-life cultural and linguistic environments for language students. In Halleck’s words, the courtroom simulation used in Jung and Levitin’s classroom can “provide a bridge to another worldnot only
that of courtroom but that of spontaneous communication in a formal setting and in a foreign language” (2002, Halleck, p. 278). However, Jung and Levitin (2002) point out that not all students may perceive the value of the simulations. Some students may think simulations are “time consuming and not serious” (p. 372). Hill (2002) contends that simulations may not address all learning styles. Also, unequal participation may be bothersome for some students.
caLL: computer-assisted Language Learning In a rapidly developing information age, “technology” has be
