English Language Teaching: Will the Internet make a difference?

1. English Language Teaching:Will the Internet make a difference? Socio-Political Settings of English Language Teaching 14 November 2003 Sake Jager University of Groningen

2. Introduction • Effectiveness • Comparisons between teaching with and teaching without computers are impossible • Technology does not make a difference, but practices of use • Evaluation is not categorical, but situation-specific • Presentation • Potential of web-based learning • Two examples: Digitalenklas and GlobalEnglish • Effectiveness from an SLA perspective • Future directions • Accessibility

3. Potential of Internet for learning • Restructuring technology in society • Shapes society as well as education • Changing work patterns: workers learn • Changing learning patterns: students work • Facilitates flexible and individual learning

4. Potential for language learning • Expose students to new forms of communication: “A pedagogy of networked computers must therefore take a broad view, examining not only the role of information technology in language learning, but the role of language learning in an information technology society” (Kern and Warschauer, 2000:12-13). • Shift to interaction with other humans through computers • Sociocognitive framework: “To provide alternative contexts for social interaction; to facilitate access to existing discourse communities and the creation of new ones.”(ibid: 13). • Typical forms: • Email, online discussion, chat, web quests, web publishing

5. Tutor-tool distinction • Computer-as-tool paradigm • Interaction with humans through computers • General technologies for language learning • Computer-as-tutor paradigm: • Interaction with computer • Specific tutoring functions for language learning • Provide exercises, feedback, corrections and explanations • CALL applications typically use either or both of these paradigms

6. Case 1: Digitalenklas • Virtual Learning Environment: Blackboard • Generic tool for language learning • Email, chat, discussion, whiteboard • Online information, tests and surveys • Main uses: • Organization of course • Open-ended language learning task, e.g. Webquests

7. Language quest Dutch L2

8. Web quest Dutch L2 (cont’d) • Exploratory learning in authentic tasks • Group collaboration, discussion, self-assessment • Oral presentation at end

9. Ellips

10. Ellips (cont’d) • Computer-as-tutor model • Closed-typed exercises • Adjustment to student performance • Extensive feedback • Specific support for audio and video

11. General characteristics Digitalenklas • Combines computer-as-tool and computer-as-tutor paradigms • Authoring by teachers • Adaptation to teaching requirements • Time consuming • Often used together with classroom teaching

12. Case 2: Global English • Commercial web-based language learning system • Advisory board: Nunan, McCloskey • Pedagogic features: • Individual study plan • Different levels, different skills • Communication practice in simulations • Vocabulary consolidation • Online teacher • Community of learners

13. Global English: Study plan

14. NS Recast and Learner Clarification Request

15. Global English

16. Global English: General characteristics • One of most sophisticated web-based programs • Computer-as-tutor predominant • Communication: • Online teacher (24 hrs a day) • Online peers • Community building rather than communication-based tasks • No modification of content possible • “Schools and universities programme”

17. Principles for evaluation • Chapelle’s principles for evaluation: • Evaluation of CALL is a situation-specific argument. • CALL should be evaluated through two perspectives: judgemental analysis of software and planned tasks, and empirical analysis of learners’ performance. • Criteria for CALL task quality should come from theory and research on instructed SLA. • Criteria should be applied in view of the purpose of the task. • Language learning potential should be the central criterion in evaluation of CALL. (Chapelle 2001:52)

18. Criteria from SLA

19. Interactionist approaches to online communication • Interaction studies of online discourse: • Breakdown in communication • Attention to form • Explicit and implicit feedback • Modification of input and output • Outcomes: • Processes beneficial for language learning do occur • Higher participation of reticent learners • Less teacher control

20. Criticisms • Ellis (2003): • Limited use for teaching • Hardly evidence of grammatical development • Interactionally modified input not better than premodified input • Doughty and Long (2003): • Task authenticity, not text authenticity • Web searches ill-advised, teacher intervention needed • Online provision of feedback is too restricted • Multi-learner communication not good for language learning • Commercial vendors not interested in providing individualized task-based language learning materials

21. Discussion • Webquest: • Clearly stated purpose • Meaning focus • Authentic • No adjustment to individual learners • Beneficial focus to form in offline discussions • Ellips: • Exercises rather than tasks • Link with rest of syllabus important • May favour structural/functional approaches • Adaptive

22. Discussion (cont’d) • Global English: • Learner fit: specific skills, specific learner characteristics • Communication as add-on • Not one-size-fits-all solution • Not fully task-based either

23. Future directions • Spoken interaction: • Online communication is written; new technologies for spoken communication should be studied • Focus on purpose: • Use e.g. CEF to identify linguistic targets • Data collection: • Potential for large-scale data collection; new research possibilities • Research in learning conditions: • Live collection of data, longer-term studies

24. Access and control • Commercial vs academic control of online language learning • Access: • Digital Divide, computer literacy vs illiteracy • Internet access restricted in many areas that face teaching problems today • No mention of E-learning in recent Common Wealth of Learning Action Plan

25. Some references Chapelle, Carol A. Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition: Foundations for Teaching, Testing and Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Doughty, Catherine and Michael Long. "Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign learning." Language Learning and Technology 7.3 (2003): 50-80. Ellis, Rod. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Felix, Uschi ed. Language Learning Online: Towards Best Practice. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, 2003. González-Lloret, Marta. "Designing Task-Based CALL to Promote Interaction: En Busca de Esmeraldas." Language Learning and Technology 7.1 (2003): 86-104. Kitade, Keiko. "L2 Learners' Discourse and SLA Theories in CMC: Collaborative Interaction in Internet Chat." Computer Assisted Language Learning: An International Journal 13.2 (2000): 143-66. Nunan, David. "A Foot in the World of Ideas: Graduate Study through the Internet." Language Learning and Technology 3.1 (1999): 52-74.

26. References (cont’d) Pellettieri, L. "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 60.7 (2000): 2469. Pica, T. "Tradition and transition in English language teaching methodology." System 28 (2000): 1-18. Rosenberg, Marc J. E-Learning, Strategies for Delivering Knowledge in the Digital Age. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001. Salaberry, M. Rafael. "The Use of Technology for Second Language Learning and Teaching: A Retrospective." The Modern Language Journal 85.i (2001): 39-56. Tudini, Vincenza. "Using Native Speakers in Chat." Language Learning and Technology 7.3 (2003): 141-59. Warschauer, M and R. Kern. Network-Based Language Teaching. Ed. M Warschauer and R. Kern. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Weasenforth, Donald, Sigrun Biesenbach-Lucas, and Christine Meloni. "Realizing Constructivist Objectives Through Collaborative Technologies: Threaded Discussions." Language Learning and Technology 6.3 (2002): 58-86.