CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning

1. CASLA through a social constructivist perspective: WebQuest in project-driven language learning Vassiliki Simina and Marie-Josée Hamel CCL, UMIST, UK vsimina@hotmail.com mjhamel@ccl.umist.ac.uk

2. Presentation plan • Background and aim • Overview on constructivism • General definition • Focus on social constructivism • Principles and implications CASLA • Conditions for successful: • Learning • SLA • Conditions juxtaposed • Characteristics of the ideal: • Socio-constructivist environment • CALL environment • Characteristics juxtaposed • WebQuest • As one example of good practice • Definition and characteristics • Examples • Conclusions

3. Background and aim • MSc in CALL dissertation • Mandate: investigate the contribution of constructivism in CALL • Aim of the research: • Suggest a model (expansion) which will allow for the description of the characteristics of an ideal social constructivist CALL environment promoting conditions for successful SLA • Find potential existing examples of good/best practice • Results of initial investigation are presented today • Further research remains to be done • Constructive feedback is welcome!

4. Overview on constructivism • Historical account • Socrates: • Maieutic • Vico/Kant: • Knowledge precedes reasoning • Piaget: • Cognitive stages of development • Vygotsky • Socio-cultural cognitive development • Bruner • Discovery learning • Dewey • Experiential learning

5. Overview on constructivism • General definition: • A theory of learning • Central tenet: • learners construct their knowledge on their own: • by associating new with prior information • through experience and reflection upon experience • A procedural/cognitive model • Theory concerned with how knowledge is constructed • Focus on the learner and his mental/cognitive operations while learning • Learner’s participation in the process/control over the process

6. Overview on constructivism • Focus on social constructivism (Vygotsky 1978) • Key concepts: • Social interaction • Thinking subject and realm of the social are interconnected • Socio-cultural cognition • Context as essential for construction of knowledge • Language as a common mean to mediate knowledge • Zone of Proximal Development • Scaffolding • Collaboration to achieve self-reliance

7. Principles and implications for CASLA • Knowledge is constructed by the individual based on his own experience • Learning is an active process where the learner’s mental constructs are enlarged/modified to fit his experiential world • The focus is on the learner’s interpretation of the real world • Implication  • Approaches like problem-solving and discovery allow the learner to explore the real world and make sense of it on his own

8. Principles and implications for CASLA • Social interaction supports the construction of knowledge • Scaffolding process is core • Language is fundamental in social interaction • Implication  • Approaches promoting collaboration and autonomy allow the learner to actively participate in socially situated contexts

9. Socio-constructivist conditions for successful learning • Vygotsky (1978) • Learners should be provided learning data within their zone of proximal development • hence directing them to become more self-reliant • Driscoll (1994) • Provide complex and relevant learning environments that incorporate authentic activity • Provide for social negotiation • Allow access to multiple perspectives and multiple modes of learning • Encourage student ownership in learning • Emphasize self-awareness of knowledge construction

10. Conditions for successful SLA • Chapelle (1998 and 2001): • Ideal (comprehensible) input/output • Interaction (Gass 1997) • Cognitive (Skehan 1998) • Provide a range of target structures, etc. • Socio-affective (MacIntyre et al. 1998) • WTC

11. Conditions juxtaposed • Common grounds • variety of materials/multiple representations • interaction in collaborative learning • self-monitoring • Expansion • allowance for learner’s constructions • consideration of individual differences in cognitive characteristics of learners • promotion of social interaction for negotiation/multiple representations of meaning • Provision of comprehensible input in authentic environment facilitating associations with prior knowledge • emphasis on scaffolding process and autonomy rather than directed focus on form and meaning

12. Characteristics of the ideal socio-constructivist environment • A socio-constructivist environment that facilitates knowledge construction (Jonassen 1994) by: • Providing multiple representation of reality • Representing the natural complexity of the real world • Focusing on knowledge construction, not reproduction • Presenting authentic tasks • Providing real-world, case-based learning environments, rather than pre-determined instructional sequences • Fostering reflective practice • Enabling context and content dependent knowledge construction • Supporting collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation

13. Characteristics of the ideal socio-constructivist environment • An environment that fosters: • Cognitive apprenticeships • Modelling, scaffolding, coaching, exploration, articulation and reflection (Conway 1997) • Situated learning or cognition • Task-based, project-based and content-based learning (Warschauer and Healey 1998) • Collaborative learning • Learners work together towards a common goal

14. Characteristics of the ideal CALL environment • A CALL environment that provides (Chapelle 1998): • Plenty of ideal input/output • Opportunity for focus on form and meaning • Opportunity for noticing errors • Modified interaction between learner and computer

15. Characteristics of an ideal socio-constructivist CALL environment • Learner-centred • learner free to make his/her own interpretations • teacher as a facilitator • Authentic • context-rich, experience-based activities • Social interaction • sharing of multiple representations, reflection and monitoring • opportunity for negotiation (social/meaning) • Scaffolding • manipulation of attention (focus on meaning/form) • collaboration to achieve aims

16. WebQuest • An example of good practice • An information gap resolution model (Felix 2002) • A model where social interaction is fostered by collaborating and co-operating in meaningful exchanges through authentic information gaps • A model that seeks to achieve maximum connectivity and student engagement • It involves contextualised language and research tasks • It stimulates creative simulations

17. WebQuest • Definition • “an inquiry-oriented activity in which some or all the information that learners interact with comes from the Internet” (Dodge 1995) • Description • six essential components: • introduction, task, process, resources, evaluation and conclusion

18. WebQuest • Characteristics • content in context • project-based • convergent (problem-solving) task • motivational elements • group/solo activities • single discipline or interdisciplinary • adaptable • multimodal • authentic assessment • integration of Internet in curriculum

19. WebQuest • Main sites: • http://www.webquest.org/ • http://www.webquestuk.org.uk/ • Some examples: • Discover London WebQuest • Guess Who’s Coming For Dinner • The Job Of Your Dreams WebQuest • This Mission Is Possible • A Visitor’s Guide To The Solar System • many more

20. Conclusions • Future work • need for a more solid and robust constructivist theory of language learning • Model in progress… • empirical research • Investigations/evaluations

21. References CHAPELLE, C. (1998). “Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA”. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1): 22-34. CONWAY, J. (1997). “Educational technology's effect on models of instruction”, electronic version available at <http://copland.udel.edu/~jconway/EDST666.htm>. DRISCOLL, M. P. (1994).Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. DODGE, B. (1995). “Some thoughts about WebQuests”, electronic version available at <http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec596/about_webquests.html>. GASS, S. (1997).Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

22. References FELIX, U. (2002) “The web for constructivism approaches in language learning”. ReCALL, 14 (1): 2-15. JONASSEN, D. H.(1994). “Thinking technology”. Educational Technology, 34 (4): 34-37. MACINTYRE, P. D. et al. (1998). “Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation”. The Modern Language Journal, 82: 545-62. SKEHAN, P. (1998).A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. VYGOTSKY, L. S. 1978.Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. WARSCHAUER, M. AND HEALEY, D. (1998). “Computers and language learning: An overview”. Language Teaching, 31: 57-71.