Healey’s (2007) article, Theory and Research: Autonomy and Language Learning, begins with multiple terms and definitions that are often used to all refer to learners being in control of their learning in one aspect or another. The definitions are vast and sometimes broad, but I identify most with the “current views of autonomy that have moved away from isolated learning toward social settings and flexible interdependence” (p. 377). When I think of autonomy, student choice immediately comes to mind. One aspect I can imagine is “center” time where the students are able to choose which centers they would like to complete, in what order, and with which peers. I realize that autonomy is so much more than that, but those were my immediate thoughts. Healy focused her article around Oxford’s (2003) technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political-critical perspectives.
When discussing the background issues surrounding autonomous learning, Healy’s section about individual versus group work stood out to me because it brought up the idea of communities of practice which we discussed in the Hubbard article a few weeks ago. Healy stressed the importance of learning from peers and that autonomy does not mean learning in isolation. “The community of practice for a language learner—a learning community—may be other learners, or it may be those who have achieved the level of proficiency or access to which the learner aspires.” She also mentioned how technology enhances the learning process by having access to the Internet.
While we do no call it a ‘community of practice’, our school has a program called Prowl Partners that pairs up language learners with a peer in a higher grade and proficiency level. The partners meet every day for 20 minutes to complete various activities. In the beginning it is all about getting to know each other, so the activities revolve around oral communication in order to establish a relationship with one another. Once a comfortable relationship is formed, the pair may read or write together, or even work on homework. The goal of the program is not only to provide exposure to language for learning purposes, but also to build a support system for the language learning process; the students have someone else to turn to for questions besides an adult or peer of their own age.
When looking at Healy’s table 25-1, Settings for Self-Directed Learning in CALL, and reflecting on my own teaching, I realized that I only utilize cells A (Highly structured learning) and B (Accreditation and training). At the elementary level, I think cells C (contract-based independent study) and D (highly self-directed learning) are more difficult to implement, although not impossible, (especially cell C since webquests fall into that category).
Healy then discussed on the psychological characteristics of learners in reference to motivation and learning preference: self-motivation (learner has control), independent style (know when to ask for help), self-knowledge (need clearly defined goals and feedback), and technology and barriers (unfamiliarity). It is essential to consider these characteristics when planning CALL activities, not only for learners to feel successful, but also in order to reinforce the process of autonomous learning.
Healy’s (2007) chapter reinforced the complexities of learner autonomy by looking at each construct in terms of the CALL environment. Her final paragraph summed it up: “For teachers, being committed to encouraging autonomous learning is more a frame of mind than a technique…As teacher, we cannot create autonomy in learners, but we can do our best to think about the technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political aspects of learning and how CALL can be used to enable and enhance a learning environment conducive to autonomy” (p. 388)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Hubbard
Hubbard’s chapter, Critical Issues: Professional Development, discussed the vital importance of continuous training in the CALL discipline. With so many topics that need to be covered during professional development sessions, it is no surprise that technology usually takes a backseat. In the three years that I have worked at my current school, we have only had one PD session that was about technology, which was how to use the Smart Board in the classroom.
Since standards and accountability practices are not in place regarding technology use and training, it is difficult for teachers to supplement their knowledge unless they have personal motivation to do so. Often the learning will only take place when the specific need is there, such as wanting to incorporate a new software program into a lesson. As Hubbard (2005) stated, “teachers have an individual responsibility for the maintenance and growth of their own CALL proficiency” (p. 280), which is, unfortunately, why some teachers have not ‘kept up with the times’ when it comes to technology.
At my school, one of our Academic Coaches is also the Technology Expert (equivalent to Hubbard’s definition of a mentor) and is responsible for assisting teachers with new software rollouts and troubleshooting issues related to technology. The challenging aspect of having a Technology Expert is that she is the only individual who is focused on technology and it is difficult for her to impart her knowledge unless she is specifically asked. While the expert is very knowledgeable in a lot of areas, she only trains teachers on an as-needed basis.
I think the most effective way to maintain the development of CALL principles would be formal training supplemented with collaborative learning. If all of the staff attends formal training sessions and then is held accountable for the information by utilizing communities of practice, the growth would continue over time between peers. The resources and strategies that Hubbard mentioned, such as professional journals, books, and websites, would be useful ways to supplement the learning process between formal training sessions. However, the community of practice would be necessary to maintain the accountability for the learning so that it doesn’t become something that “I’ll do tomorrow” and tomorrow never comes. With all of everything teachers have on their plates, it is easy for technology to fall to the wayside if you do not have personal motivation for your learning.
I strongly agree with Hubbard’s (2005) final statement that, “professional development in CALL is an area deserving serious and ongoing attention” (p. 291).
Since standards and accountability practices are not in place regarding technology use and training, it is difficult for teachers to supplement their knowledge unless they have personal motivation to do so. Often the learning will only take place when the specific need is there, such as wanting to incorporate a new software program into a lesson. As Hubbard (2005) stated, “teachers have an individual responsibility for the maintenance and growth of their own CALL proficiency” (p. 280), which is, unfortunately, why some teachers have not ‘kept up with the times’ when it comes to technology.
At my school, one of our Academic Coaches is also the Technology Expert (equivalent to Hubbard’s definition of a mentor) and is responsible for assisting teachers with new software rollouts and troubleshooting issues related to technology. The challenging aspect of having a Technology Expert is that she is the only individual who is focused on technology and it is difficult for her to impart her knowledge unless she is specifically asked. While the expert is very knowledgeable in a lot of areas, she only trains teachers on an as-needed basis.
I think the most effective way to maintain the development of CALL principles would be formal training supplemented with collaborative learning. If all of the staff attends formal training sessions and then is held accountable for the information by utilizing communities of practice, the growth would continue over time between peers. The resources and strategies that Hubbard mentioned, such as professional journals, books, and websites, would be useful ways to supplement the learning process between formal training sessions. However, the community of practice would be necessary to maintain the accountability for the learning so that it doesn’t become something that “I’ll do tomorrow” and tomorrow never comes. With all of everything teachers have on their plates, it is easy for technology to fall to the wayside if you do not have personal motivation for your learning.
I strongly agree with Hubbard’s (2005) final statement that, “professional development in CALL is an area deserving serious and ongoing attention” (p. 291).
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Starfall.com: Where children have fun leaning to read!
Starfall.com is an educational website geared toward elementary school children in grades K-2 who are learning how to read in English. The site is intended to deliver research-based reading instruction including systematic phonics, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.
The front page of the site consists of links to activities categorized by reading level: ABC’s, Learn to Read, It’s Fun to Read, and I’m Reading. The graphics and bold colors are appealing to children and the site is very easy to navigate. The ABC’s section focuses on letter-sound relationships with activities for each letter of the alphabet. Learn to Read concentrates on explicit phonics instruction by introducing three-letter consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words. The 15 lessons allow the students to create words, hear the sounds and words together, listen to a story, and watch a movie based on specific skills such as vowels, silent ‘e’, and chunking. It’s Fun to Read centers on activities that let students create a story with guiding prompts utilizing vocabulary words. I’m Reading contains links to numerous stories such as plays, comics, folk tales, myths, and fables. All of the activities give the student immediate feedback on their work by indicating if the answer is right or wrong.
The site also has resources for parents/teachers to utilize with each reading stage in the Download Center. For example, reading and writing journals, cut-up/take-home books, ABC printouts, phonics puzzle activities, and other online book printouts. All of the supplemental materials are directly related to the online activities. The cut-up/take-home books contain a print out of the same story the students read during the Learn to Read activities. The reading and writing journals and ABC printouts focus on the skills from ABC’s and Learn to Read such as short and long vowel sounds and allow the students extra written practice with these skills.
With resources for educators and parents, this website is definitely a useful tool for students to practice and engage in emergent literacy learning activities. The Educators page explains every one of the strategies used to teach phonics in all of the activities. It also includes a Scope & Sequence chart which lists the words, objectives, and skills for each lesson. The Parent page contains instructions/guidelines for using the website and how to supplement the student’s learning with the external documents.
Overall, I think that this is an excellent educational resource to use in the classroom and would be a valuable supplemental tool for ELLs at varying levels. However, to improve the website I would suggest they also have links to other reading activities that incorporate authentic texts and include a more balanced approach instead of just concentrating on phonics. Phonics is an integral part of language learning, but I feel it is best when it is incorporated into the whole language approach.
The front page of the site consists of links to activities categorized by reading level: ABC’s, Learn to Read, It’s Fun to Read, and I’m Reading. The graphics and bold colors are appealing to children and the site is very easy to navigate. The ABC’s section focuses on letter-sound relationships with activities for each letter of the alphabet. Learn to Read concentrates on explicit phonics instruction by introducing three-letter consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words. The 15 lessons allow the students to create words, hear the sounds and words together, listen to a story, and watch a movie based on specific skills such as vowels, silent ‘e’, and chunking. It’s Fun to Read centers on activities that let students create a story with guiding prompts utilizing vocabulary words. I’m Reading contains links to numerous stories such as plays, comics, folk tales, myths, and fables. All of the activities give the student immediate feedback on their work by indicating if the answer is right or wrong.
The site also has resources for parents/teachers to utilize with each reading stage in the Download Center. For example, reading and writing journals, cut-up/take-home books, ABC printouts, phonics puzzle activities, and other online book printouts. All of the supplemental materials are directly related to the online activities. The cut-up/take-home books contain a print out of the same story the students read during the Learn to Read activities. The reading and writing journals and ABC printouts focus on the skills from ABC’s and Learn to Read such as short and long vowel sounds and allow the students extra written practice with these skills.
With resources for educators and parents, this website is definitely a useful tool for students to practice and engage in emergent literacy learning activities. The Educators page explains every one of the strategies used to teach phonics in all of the activities. It also includes a Scope & Sequence chart which lists the words, objectives, and skills for each lesson. The Parent page contains instructions/guidelines for using the website and how to supplement the student’s learning with the external documents.
Overall, I think that this is an excellent educational resource to use in the classroom and would be a valuable supplemental tool for ELLs at varying levels. However, to improve the website I would suggest they also have links to other reading activities that incorporate authentic texts and include a more balanced approach instead of just concentrating on phonics. Phonics is an integral part of language learning, but I feel it is best when it is incorporated into the whole language approach.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Authenticity via Web-based Learning
Both the Guarinto & Morley (2001) and Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) articles discussed authenticity; however they came from very different perspectives. Guarinto & Morley address authenticity in terms of texts and tasks used in EFL classrooms, while Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver discussed it terms of web-based learning. While both articles were coming from distinct angles, they shared the common theme of engaging students in real-world activities that facilitated language learning. I chose to focus on the Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver article since I do not have ANY experience with EFL.
Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) begin the article by explaining how “there is increasing interest among higher education faculty in authentic activities as a basis for learning in web-based courses” (p. 1). While I was not necessarily surprised by this statement, I was curious as to how this task could be successfully accomplished. All of the online classes I have experienced have been similar to the format of L530 (readings accompanied with forum discussions and independent assignments). According to the authors, authenticity via web-based learning is created by combining constructivism and problem-based learning with online role-playing.
To describe what authentic activities look like, Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) compiled a list of ten characteristics, such as “authentic activities have real world evidence, …comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time, …provide the opportunity to collaborate” to name a few (p. 2-3). The researchers analyzed two web-based courses in order to “investigate the characteristics, implementation, and effectiveness of authentic activity as an alternative model for web-based learning in higher education” (p. 2). Overall, positive results were seen of the investigation of these two courses; however the authors acknowledged that these were just preliminary findings that may change after the investigation of eight additional courses. Some of the challenges that emerged were creating activities that were real-world and engaging at the same time, length of time necessary to complete the tasks, lack of models of previous courses, funding, university support, and course design.
The idea of a constructivist/PBL model of online courses sounds interesting, but very complex, expensive, and tricky to create. I think I would enjoy a class with this format, although I am having difficulty visualizing how it would work logistically as far as student interaction. In previous online classes I have completed a couple of group activities that were not very successful just because of the nature of the online environment. There was unequal participation in the group and it was challenging to communicate efficiently via email and chat. However, the screenshots of the courses examined by Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) seem extremely detailed and pretty self-explanatory.
Does anyone know of or had experience with any online courses in this format?
Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) begin the article by explaining how “there is increasing interest among higher education faculty in authentic activities as a basis for learning in web-based courses” (p. 1). While I was not necessarily surprised by this statement, I was curious as to how this task could be successfully accomplished. All of the online classes I have experienced have been similar to the format of L530 (readings accompanied with forum discussions and independent assignments). According to the authors, authenticity via web-based learning is created by combining constructivism and problem-based learning with online role-playing.
To describe what authentic activities look like, Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) compiled a list of ten characteristics, such as “authentic activities have real world evidence, …comprise complex tasks to be investigated by students over a sustained period of time, …provide the opportunity to collaborate” to name a few (p. 2-3). The researchers analyzed two web-based courses in order to “investigate the characteristics, implementation, and effectiveness of authentic activity as an alternative model for web-based learning in higher education” (p. 2). Overall, positive results were seen of the investigation of these two courses; however the authors acknowledged that these were just preliminary findings that may change after the investigation of eight additional courses. Some of the challenges that emerged were creating activities that were real-world and engaging at the same time, length of time necessary to complete the tasks, lack of models of previous courses, funding, university support, and course design.
The idea of a constructivist/PBL model of online courses sounds interesting, but very complex, expensive, and tricky to create. I think I would enjoy a class with this format, although I am having difficulty visualizing how it would work logistically as far as student interaction. In previous online classes I have completed a couple of group activities that were not very successful just because of the nature of the online environment. There was unequal participation in the group and it was challenging to communicate efficiently via email and chat. However, the screenshots of the courses examined by Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver (2002) seem extremely detailed and pretty self-explanatory.
Does anyone know of or had experience with any online courses in this format?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Recipe for Interaction
Whether interaction is defined as “reciprocal events that require two objects and two actions” (Wagner, 1994, p. 8) or “activities where the student is in two way contact with another person” (Daniel & Marquis, 1998, p. 339) or between students and content (Moore, 1989; Juler, 1990), it is evident that learning cannot occur without interaction. Anderson’s (2003) equivalency theorem that “deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level” and that “the other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience” made me question the role of the teacher. I understand that he is not saying that having high levels of student-student or student-content interactions would eliminate the need for the teacher, but I think it shows that a well-designed course (at the university level), that incorporates synchronous and asynchronous experiences, allows the teacher to take a step back.
I like the way Anderson analyzed the role of interactions in various educational settings. Personally, I do not enjoy classes that are solely lectures. While I am a highly motivated learner, having this type of student-teacher interaction does not encourage me to learn. My greatest learning comes from student-student interactions. I need to be able to hear (or read) my peers’ perspectives in order to reflect on my own. Having the ability to see things from another’s point of view allows me to challenge my own thinking. Of course I also learn from student-content interactions, but without hearing the opinions of others it is easy to take the information at face value and not critically evaluate the information, for example, Anderson’s mention of the absence of ‘side talk’ in settings where the learning takes place in the home and how the side talk is a valuable aspect of student-student interaction.
Anderson’s description of the interaction-based model of e-learning where all “three of the major actors interact with each other” seems fascinating, but time consuming. It sounds like an online learning environment that is trying to replicate the face-to-face classroom as much as possible, although with the convenience of being available while sitting on your couch at home. I have never taken a class in this format. I wonder if they are popular or widely used? I would be interested to see the logistics behind this type of course.
While reflecting on the role of the teacher in the various learning environments (lectures, distance education, audio/video conferencing, etc.) at higher education settings, I was trying to imagine how Anderson would apply his theorem to elementary education. Some of the ideas of interaction would be directly valid for high school, but I think several of his points would also pertain to the elementary level. In general, student-student interaction (or collaboration) and student-content interactions are both key principles of constructivism, which lead to meaningful learning.
I like the way Anderson analyzed the role of interactions in various educational settings. Personally, I do not enjoy classes that are solely lectures. While I am a highly motivated learner, having this type of student-teacher interaction does not encourage me to learn. My greatest learning comes from student-student interactions. I need to be able to hear (or read) my peers’ perspectives in order to reflect on my own. Having the ability to see things from another’s point of view allows me to challenge my own thinking. Of course I also learn from student-content interactions, but without hearing the opinions of others it is easy to take the information at face value and not critically evaluate the information, for example, Anderson’s mention of the absence of ‘side talk’ in settings where the learning takes place in the home and how the side talk is a valuable aspect of student-student interaction.
Anderson’s description of the interaction-based model of e-learning where all “three of the major actors interact with each other” seems fascinating, but time consuming. It sounds like an online learning environment that is trying to replicate the face-to-face classroom as much as possible, although with the convenience of being available while sitting on your couch at home. I have never taken a class in this format. I wonder if they are popular or widely used? I would be interested to see the logistics behind this type of course.
While reflecting on the role of the teacher in the various learning environments (lectures, distance education, audio/video conferencing, etc.) at higher education settings, I was trying to imagine how Anderson would apply his theorem to elementary education. Some of the ideas of interaction would be directly valid for high school, but I think several of his points would also pertain to the elementary level. In general, student-student interaction (or collaboration) and student-content interactions are both key principles of constructivism, which lead to meaningful learning.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Better @ English: Real English for Real People
I couldn’t believe how many language learning blogs are out there! While searching, I enjoyed this one because it incorporated some conversations with British English and it was quite comical: Better @ English: Real English for Real People (B@E). The URL is http://www.betteratenglish.com/ The site is designed for adult learners, but some topics could be modified for children as well.
The purpose of the site is to provide language learners with audio and text of “real” conversations in English. The content is organized by learning levels: Intermediate, Upper Intermediate, and Advanced. However, most of the conversations are targeted toward the intermediate learner. There were a couple of resources for the upper intermediate and advanced learners, but most of them redirected the user to go to Manager Tools podcast at www.manager-tools.com
B@E seems very informal compared to other language learning sites I visited. I think it would be useful for a language learner who wanted to supplement his/her formal learning with comical, informal conversations. The site is appealing in that it claims to be “real” conversations for “real” people by focusing on idioms, slang, and colloquial English.
The most recent conversation is displayed on the front page. For example, the current conversation is titled “Don’t step in the dog doo” and is part 4 of 4 conversations. The most useful external documents provided are the transcripts of the conversations, which seem extremely helpful. The author also includes links to other sites for further learning such as practice with grammar and vocabulary. However, I think it would be more beneficial if the guides and learning resources were available on the within the site instead of being directed to another location. The learner is only able to listen to the conversations on the site. There are no areas to practice speaking, vocabulary, grammar, or any other language learning skills without following a link.
The site is easy to navigate since the conversations are also categorized by topics such as, phrasal verbs, British vs. American English, business English, grammar, idioms and slang, vocabulary, and many others, which makes it easy to quickly find your area of interest. (An archive is also available that contains all conversations since 2006.) In addition, users can access categories including learning resources, listening, teaching resources, and videocasts. The ads take away from the integrity of the site and were confusing at times.
B@E is an interesting, informal site that would be useful solely for the purpose of listening to casual, conversational English. I would not recommend the site for anything other than that purpose. All in all, I would not rate the site as a good resource since it is not inclusive to all language learning needs and does not provide the learner with practice, feedback, or assessment of any kind. While the site contained links to numerous other sites for these purposes, the links were not always reliable and were more advertisements for Google Ads than useful links.
The purpose of the site is to provide language learners with audio and text of “real” conversations in English. The content is organized by learning levels: Intermediate, Upper Intermediate, and Advanced. However, most of the conversations are targeted toward the intermediate learner. There were a couple of resources for the upper intermediate and advanced learners, but most of them redirected the user to go to Manager Tools podcast at www.manager-tools.com
B@E seems very informal compared to other language learning sites I visited. I think it would be useful for a language learner who wanted to supplement his/her formal learning with comical, informal conversations. The site is appealing in that it claims to be “real” conversations for “real” people by focusing on idioms, slang, and colloquial English.
The most recent conversation is displayed on the front page. For example, the current conversation is titled “Don’t step in the dog doo” and is part 4 of 4 conversations. The most useful external documents provided are the transcripts of the conversations, which seem extremely helpful. The author also includes links to other sites for further learning such as practice with grammar and vocabulary. However, I think it would be more beneficial if the guides and learning resources were available on the within the site instead of being directed to another location. The learner is only able to listen to the conversations on the site. There are no areas to practice speaking, vocabulary, grammar, or any other language learning skills without following a link.
The site is easy to navigate since the conversations are also categorized by topics such as, phrasal verbs, British vs. American English, business English, grammar, idioms and slang, vocabulary, and many others, which makes it easy to quickly find your area of interest. (An archive is also available that contains all conversations since 2006.) In addition, users can access categories including learning resources, listening, teaching resources, and videocasts. The ads take away from the integrity of the site and were confusing at times.
B@E is an interesting, informal site that would be useful solely for the purpose of listening to casual, conversational English. I would not recommend the site for anything other than that purpose. All in all, I would not rate the site as a good resource since it is not inclusive to all language learning needs and does not provide the learner with practice, feedback, or assessment of any kind. While the site contained links to numerous other sites for these purposes, the links were not always reliable and were more advertisements for Google Ads than useful links.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Reflection of Egbert (2005) Article
Introduction: Principles of CALL
Egbert (2005)
I was surprised to find so many different definitions/names for CALL! To me, it seems like a very straight-forward concept, but now I understand how it could be construed in numerous directions. The three themes that Egbert explained emerged from the various definitions were (1) that CALL is focused not on technology but on language learning, (2) that CALL occurs in many contexts and with many diverse populations, and (3)that CALL pedagogy should be grounded in theory and practice (as should everything, right?!).
Egbert stated that classroom conditions, ESL standards, technology use guidelines, and NETS standards are the principles of CALL that are necessary to support language learning. The eight essential conditions for classroom language learning are interaction, authentic audience, authentic task, production and exposure, time and feedback, intentional cognition, atmosphere, and autonomy. The author's descriptions of each of these conditions would be a great topic for a professional development workshop.
The ESL standards outline ways to utilize technology to engage in activities in the students' target language, such as providing opportunities to interact with native English speakers, while the NETS standards focus solely on the use of technology.
Technology use guidelines suggest that technology supports pedagogical goals, is accessible to all learners, is used as a tool, effectively and efficiently. One example Egbert listed as a viable use of technology was a WebQuest because it is an inquiry based task that utilizes the internet, a word processor, and requires students to transform knowledge. I personally have never conducted a WebQuest, therefore, I am looking forward to the assignment for this class. Several teachers I have talked with, frequently use WebQuests with units of study and have had nothing negative to say about the process, except the fact that sometimes there are technological difficulties that delay the project.
I agree with Egbert's philosophy that technology in the classroom needs to be used effectively and efficiently. It seems that, too often, technology is used as a time-filler for students to play games that, unfortunately, do not always have educational value besides the use of the technology. Games, such as Snood, Bejeweled, Tetris (and many, many more) reinforce sequencing concepts, but do not support language learning. I see the value in students learning how to use various types of technology, but I believe they can be achieved through purposeful activities.
Egbert concludes by reinforcing the importance of conditions, standards, and guidelines. He also states that these principles do not stand alone, but create the foundation for CALL activities. I look forward to exploring the principles of CALL so that I can ensure I create the essential conditions for language learning in my classroom in order to deepen my practice.
Egbert (2005)
I was surprised to find so many different definitions/names for CALL! To me, it seems like a very straight-forward concept, but now I understand how it could be construed in numerous directions. The three themes that Egbert explained emerged from the various definitions were (1) that CALL is focused not on technology but on language learning, (2) that CALL occurs in many contexts and with many diverse populations, and (3)that CALL pedagogy should be grounded in theory and practice (as should everything, right?!).
Egbert stated that classroom conditions, ESL standards, technology use guidelines, and NETS standards are the principles of CALL that are necessary to support language learning. The eight essential conditions for classroom language learning are interaction, authentic audience, authentic task, production and exposure, time and feedback, intentional cognition, atmosphere, and autonomy. The author's descriptions of each of these conditions would be a great topic for a professional development workshop.
The ESL standards outline ways to utilize technology to engage in activities in the students' target language, such as providing opportunities to interact with native English speakers, while the NETS standards focus solely on the use of technology.
Technology use guidelines suggest that technology supports pedagogical goals, is accessible to all learners, is used as a tool, effectively and efficiently. One example Egbert listed as a viable use of technology was a WebQuest because it is an inquiry based task that utilizes the internet, a word processor, and requires students to transform knowledge. I personally have never conducted a WebQuest, therefore, I am looking forward to the assignment for this class. Several teachers I have talked with, frequently use WebQuests with units of study and have had nothing negative to say about the process, except the fact that sometimes there are technological difficulties that delay the project.
I agree with Egbert's philosophy that technology in the classroom needs to be used effectively and efficiently. It seems that, too often, technology is used as a time-filler for students to play games that, unfortunately, do not always have educational value besides the use of the technology. Games, such as Snood, Bejeweled, Tetris (and many, many more) reinforce sequencing concepts, but do not support language learning. I see the value in students learning how to use various types of technology, but I believe they can be achieved through purposeful activities.
Egbert concludes by reinforcing the importance of conditions, standards, and guidelines. He also states that these principles do not stand alone, but create the foundation for CALL activities. I look forward to exploring the principles of CALL so that I can ensure I create the essential conditions for language learning in my classroom in order to deepen my practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)