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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Kristie,
ReplyDeleteI agree that often teachers use technology as a filler or as a reward for students. Often times technology is not used to support the learning objectives in the course. I think there are many reasons this happens. One might be that teachers do not understand the technology well enough to teach students how to use it. Another might be that teachers are not educated on the pedagogies of using teachnology in the classroom. Sometimes students don't understand how the technology enhances their learning and, therefore, don't take it seriously.
At our language school, we have a lot of great CALL resources available for the students. Students even spend an hour a day in the language lab. But often, the students do not use the technology to the fullest. I think the reasons listed above are some of the reasons why this happens.
Like you, Kristie, I look forward to learning more about effective uses of CALL as well as the principles of CALL so that the language lab is better utilized.
Best,
Tara
Kristie,
ReplyDeleteI didn't notice the NETS standards focus solely on technology--good eyes ^^; But if you consider "electronic literacy" is a part of "literacy" and one of their standards, "design, develop, and publish products" could refer to interaction with other language users, then there might be some overarching points with the ESL standards. Or maybe we can think the ESL standards as contents and the NETS standards as forms or tools???
For some reasons, we tend to consider games are time fillers and do not much for children's language learning. Games Paul Gee, who has devoted his career to literacy education, especially discourse analysis recently published a book called "What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy".
I didn't have chance to read the book, but based on his previous works and the table of contents, this might change our thoughts on relationship between game and (language) education.
Here's the amazon.com link:
http://www.amazon.com/Video-Games-Learning-Literacy-Second/dp/1403984530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252763580&sr=8-1
ReplyDeletePlayculum provides complete curriculum for schools, home schools, and AfterSchool clubs, children activites that multiplies fun learning through deeply engaging fun experiences: DIY projects and many more.
We help organize after-school camp for kids of all ages in your community to learn, create and have fun together children activites. Reserve Today! Learn new skills.
Search for open clubs in your community to apply. It is as easy to form a new club and invite your neighbors with children.
Be amazed to see children activites planning their time, alternating fun projects, learning activities, learning activities and exciting games.