Technology in english language learning foreign language instruction

Aims • Review major perspectives of CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning as a way to locate current computer mediated applications to language teaching and learning.. • Show examples

LRC 530

Technology in English Language

Learning/Foreign Language Instruction

José Álvarez Valencia, Travis Hawkley, Sonja Fordham,

and Merica McNeil

Aims

• Review major perspectives of CALL (Computer

Assisted Language Learning) as a way to locate current computer mediated applications to language teaching and learning

• Show examples of two online communities for learning

languages and their implications in terms of the language, learning, the roles of the computer, the teacher and the

students

Before starting

What differences do you notice in the following websites for

language learning?

http://www.pumarosa.com/

http://www.livemocha.com/sihp

http://www.busuu.com/enc/home

CALL: an overview

CALL: Computer-assisted language learning (1950-1960)

Deals with the study of computer applications or computer

technologies in second or foreign language teaching and learning (Chapelle, 2001; Fotos & Browne, 2004; Egbert, 2005; Levy & Stockwell, 2006)

Levy & Stockwell (2006): Technology Enhanced Language Learning (TELL), Network-Based Language Teaching (NBLT), Web-Enhanced Language Learning, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC),

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for language

learning, are listed under the banner of CALL

Three theoretical approaches to CALL

In terms of a theory of language

learning

The concept of community implies an construstivist view of learning (Vygostky, 1981)

The notion of mediation: all human activity is mediated by tools or signs to

facilitate action or structure mental functions (Egbert & Petrie, 2005)

The notion of social learning: Language is acquired through social

interaction (Zone of proximal development) but learners build and assess their own knowledge development

Some features in Livemocha and Busuu:

Forum,

Chat,

Peer review and feedback of writing compositions

Peer review and feedback of oral exercies

The metaphor of the "Language garden" to show progress

The offer of Gifts (Busuu) or Points (Livemocha) for extrinsic motivation (Busuu) The Catalog in Busuu or The Lessons in Livemocha

Learning path: all skills (productive and receptive)

Previous Perspectives on CALL

Early attempts built on the Structuralist

Perspective

- This meant lots of repetition

- Grammar and Vocabulary

- Viewing a picture, seeing the word, hearing the word, repeating the word that you heard

- Encino Man (Language Labs)

- Most teachers viewed this as a glorified tape recorder

Most older teachers are hesitant to use language labs, or to use new technology in classes

Current CALL uses a more Interactional Perspective based on the idea that language skills are gained through use of the

language with others that speak the language

This idea goes with the Socio-Cognitive approach that links

language skills and social interaction

-Vocabulary

-Reading Comprehension

-Writing Practice (to be corrected by Natives)

-Chat online

-Talk directly with Natives (given options of people already online)

-Take a test

-Find Friends

Lessons are based on grammar principles

-Learn (vocab and grammar)

-Review

-Write

-Speak (Record a phrase that they give you)

-Magnet (Give you phrase and possible words which you piece into the correct phrase)

-Given opportunity to get help from Native speakers through Chat

-Able to make 'Friends' for further communication

The Learner

In 1978, Evelyn Hatch published two papers on language

learning and interaction that made an "indelible mark" on the field of SLA Hatch called for researchers to change their focus from examining how the learning of L2 structure led to

communicative use of the L2 and instead to look at how the

learning of the L2 structure "evolved out of" communicative use (Pica, 1994, p 494)

SLA research has focused on a specific kind of interaction

known as negotiation

The interactionist perspective suggests that oral discussions

between native speakers and non-native speakers or between non-native speaker pairs will prime learners to focus on their

own linguistic deficiences, an inportant step in interlanguage

development (Blake & Zyzik, 2003)

The Learner

SLA is promoted when leaners resolve non-understandings

through negotiation of meaning, defined as "communication in which participants' attention is focused on resolving a

communication problem as opposed to communication in which there is a free-flowing exchange of information (Gass, 1997,

p 107)

The benefits of negotiation of meaning include increasing

comprehension of input, forcing learners to focus attention on certain features of their speech and providing feedback and

assistance in production of modified output (Smith, 2003)

The Learner

Synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) may provide the "ideal medium" for language learners to benefit

from negotiation of meaning as it "exhibits features of both oral and written language" (Smith, 2003, p 39)

The written nature of online discussions provides a greater

opportunity to focus on the form and content of the message as learners have more processing time to read and type

messages The lack of non-verbal cues may facilitate meaning negotiation, as communication has to rely merely on verbal

correspondence Additionally, because most SCMC programs provide logs of the chat sessions, learners can study the logs

to reflect on their interlanguage (Kitade, 2000)

The Learner

The real-time nature and informality of chatting resembles oral communication reputedly even presenting some advantages

over face-to-face interactions:

• Chatting results in lexically and syntactically more complex language

• Chatting allows for more equal participation among learners, liberating the shy person and making it difficult for those

who are talkative to dominate the conversation

• Chatting is less threatening than face-to-face interaction,

which often results in an increased willingness to take

language risks and to negotiate meaning

(Warschauer, 1996)

1 XXI century teachers need to use technology effectively to prepare students for the information and communication age, that includes for learning a language

2 New language learning environments have generated

different views of how language is learned, what language is, and what roles the teacher and the students should take

3 New websites for language learning allow studenst to have agency and learn through socialization. > motivation

• Blake, R & Zyzik, E (2003) Who's helping whom?:

Learner/heritage-speakers' networked discussions in

Spanish Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 519-544.

• Chapelle, C (2001) Computer applications in second langage

acquisition Cambridge : Cambridge Universty Press

• Egbert, J & Petrie, G (eds.) (2005) CALL Research

Perspectives Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Fotos, S & Browne, C (2004) The development of CALL and

current options In S Fotos & C Browne (Eds), New perspectives

on CALL for second language classrooms (pp 3-15) Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Earlboum Associates

• Gass, S (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language

learner Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers

• Kitade, K (2000) L2 learners' discourse and SLA theories in

CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-16.

o Levy, M & Stockwell, G (2006) CALL dimensions New

York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

o Pica, T (1994) Research on negotiation: What does it

reveal about second-language learning conditions,

processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3),

493-527

• Smith, B (2003) Computer-mediated negotiated interaction:

An expanded model The Modern Language Journal, 87(1),

38-57

• Warschauer, M (1996) Comparing face-to-face and

electronic discussion in the second language classroom

CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.