Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Changing Perspectives, Changing Uses LANSPAN Presentation 22 February 2005 Sake Jager University of Groningen

Overview  Introduction  Research domain  Model for technology implementation  Hologram  Current perspective  CALL implementations and projects

Introduction  Faculty co-ordinator ICT and (Language) Learning  Research into implementation of CALL  CALL not yet integrated into the mainstream of language teaching and learning  Develop a framework for implementation  Presentation of some essential components of the framework

Research domain  University setting for language learning  Computer-assisted language learning alongside face-to-face opportunities for language learning; ‘blended’ environment  CALL increases the number of options for language learning  CALL must provide ‘added value’ in e.g. Effectiveness: The use of CALL increases the extent to which specific outcomes are achieved. Efficiency: The use of CALL decreases the amount of resources used to achieve specific outcomes. Appreciation: The use of CALL is rated positively by those using it.  Interest in which options are chosen and why

Key components technology-enhanced learning Institution Implementation Pedagogy Technology Based on Collis & Moonen (2001)

Hologram  Started 1993, still used today  Designed for grammar teaching German, English, French, Spanish  Addressed following problems: students did not get enough practice very few exercises could be dealt with in class students were poorly motivated, came to class unprepared lacked knowledge of grammatical structure, concepts, terminology

Hologram: Exercise

Ellips

Hologram implementation  Technology Clear pay off: Immediate feedback, adaptation to student weaknesses and endless practice Primarily tutorial use: replaces teacher in a number of respects  Pedagogy Compliance with language teachers’ beliefs No changes to grammar teaching Not a replacement of class-based instruction, textbook, exams No claims about grammar in relation to language learning  Implementation Teacher produced their own materials Saved teaching time, required development time Exchange of materials between institutions Bottom-up approach  Institution Payment for use of program (up to this very date!) Permanent support

Acceptance of technology  Predictors for acceptance: 4 E’s (Collis & Moonen 2001): Environment (institutional context) Educational effectiveness (perceived or expected) Ease of use Engagement (personal response to technology and change)

4-E Model Educational Effectiveness Ease of useEngagement3-E Vector sum Environmental vector 1 Threshold (success)

Current perspective  Technology: Rise of the Internet / WWW Emphasis on Communication: ICT Increased performance, access Standardization: shake-out of technology; course management systems (Blackboard, etc)  Pedagogy: Shift from interaction with computers to interaction through computers SLA-basis (e.g. Chapelle, 2001; Doughty & Long, 2003; Ellis, 2003; Felix, 1998). Task-based learning Meaning focus Focus on form Comprehensible input and pushed output Co-operative and collaborative learning Authenticity Learner fit

Current CALL implementations  Many CMC-based applications: Direct support for SLA-based principles Ideal for SLA-research  Reported effects Processes similar to oral communication Meaningful communication, incidental focus on form Implicit feedback, self-correction, correction of others Less teacher control, more student participation More time to think (communication in ‘slow motion’): greater accuracy, syntactic variety  Pedagogically effective  Different spectrum of technology options than tutorial programs such as Hologram  Findings based on experimental settings

Current projects  Points of interest from latest projects VLE’s (Blackboard) well-suited for CMC-supported task-based learning; CMC-based CALL not frequently used Exception: Webquests (University of Tilburg) E.g. Interesting new possibilities Horizon Wimba (spoken communication in Blackboard) Continued demand for tutorial-like applications Ellips consortium

Current perspective cont’d  Implementation Shift to the university level; top down orientation Technology instruments at central level Teaching and learning support units at central level. ICT-services at central level  Institutional framework Strategy focus on differentiation (excellence), internationalization Emphasis on learning outcomes, competences Use of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Testing and training of staff and students in English Proficiency

Challenges for implementation  Pedagogically motivated CALL, taking into account implementation strategies and institutional frameworks  Implementing for change, building on existing good practices  Setting up projects which relate directly to institutional environment: Language innovation programme Faculty of Arts Flexible learning for staff and students participating in English language learning programs

References (1)  Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: a window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4,  Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Chen, T. (2003). Reticence in class and on-line: two ESL students' experiences with communicative language teaching. System, 31,  Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible Learning in a Digital World. Abingdon, Oxon: RoutledgeFalmer.  Corda, A. & Jager, S. (2004). ELLIPS: providing web-based language learning for Higher Education in the Netherlands. ReCALL, 16,  Doughty, C. & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7,  Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Felix, U. (1998). Virtual Language Learning: Finding the Gems among the Pebbles. Melbourne: Language Australia.  Jager, S. (1996). HOLOGRAM: A Fully Interactive Environment for Grammar Teaching and Learning. In A.Gimeno (Ed.), Proceedings EUROCALL '95 (pp ). Valencia, Spain: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia.  Jager, S. (1998). HOLOGRAM - Computer-Assisted Academic Grammar Learning. In S.Jager, J. Nerbonne, & A. Van Essen (Eds.), Language Teaching & Language Technology (pp ). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

References (2)  Jager, S. (2001). From Gap-Filling to Filling the Gap: A Re-Asssessment of Language Engineering in CALL. In A.Chambers & G. D. Davies (Eds.), Information and Communications Technology in language learning: a European perspective (pp ). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.  Jager, S. (2004). Learning management systems for language learning. In A.Chambers, J. E. Conacher, & J. Littlemore (Eds.), ICT and Language Learning: Integrating Pedagogy and Practice (pp ). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.  Jager, S. & Wekker, H. (1997). Aarts and Wekker hologrammed: contrastive grammar in the computer age. In J.Aarts, I. De Mönnink, & H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English Language and Teaching - In honour of Flor Aarts (pp ). Amsterdam: Rodopi.  Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring Classroom Interaction with Networked Computers - Effects on Quantity and Characteristics of Language Production. The Modern Language Journal, 79,  Kern, R. & Warschauer, M. (2000). Theory and practice of network-based language teaching. In M.Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Kitade, K. (2000). L2 Learners' Discourse and SLA Theories in CMC: Collaborative Interaction in Internet Chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13,  Leahy, C. (2004). Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behaviour. ReCALL, 16, 124.  Lee, L. (2002). Enhancing learners' communication skills through synchronous electronic interaction and task-based instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 35,  Payne, J. S. & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 Oral Proficiency through Synchronous CMC: Output, Working Memory, and Interlanguage Development. CALICO JOURNAL, 20, 7-32.

References (3)  Pellettieri, J. L. (2000a). Why-Talk? Investigating the Role of Task-Based Interaction through Synchronous Network-Based Communication among Classroom Learners of Spanish. DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS INTERNATIONAL SECTION A HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, 60,  Pellettieri, J. (2000b). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M.Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-base Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Pennington, M. C. (1996). The Power of the Computer in Language Education. In M.C.Pennington (Ed.), The Power of CALL (pp. 1-14). Houston, TX: Athelstan.  Salaberry, M. R. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: learning objectives and technological capabilities. Modern Language Journal, 84,  Sotillo, S. M. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4,  Toyoda, E. & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6,  Tudini, V. (2003). Using Native Speakers in Chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7,  Warschauer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Network-based language teaching: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Websites  Common European Framework of Reference: operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/Common_Framework_of_Ref erence operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/Common_Framework_of_Ref erence  Digitalenklas: (to be replaced by  Ellips: (user: owletteren1 [2-3]; pwd: ellips)  Hologram (description):  Webquest University of Tilburg: e.g.