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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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)