Social computing and CALL

1. Social computing and CALL gary.motteram@manchester.ac.uk

2. What is social computing? Social computing refers to the use of social software, a growing trend in ICT usage of tools that support social interaction and communication. Social computing is based on creating or recreating social conventions and social contexts online through the use of software and technology. Examples of social computing include the use of e-mail for maintaining social relationships, instant messaging for daily microcoordination at one's workplace, or weblogs as a community building tool. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_computing Accessed: 20 May, 2006

3. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.htmlhttp://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

4. Why are these issues important for the CALL? • It’s has always difficult to build the expected applications that were part of Web1 (or earlier flavours of computing), although it has been/ is being tried • We have had cloze exercises in various flavours: BASIC, Authorware, Flash, JavaScript – Hot Potatoes is probably now the most widely known version; arguably a Web2 service • The internet does provide a useful resource of all kinds of authentic material, most of it free at the point of delivery • There is a range of tools that enable us to be social in all sorts of ways: Textually (e.g. Blogs and Wikis, but also collaborative writing software – Writely, Chat, e.g. MSN, or VLEs like Moodle) • Orally: P2P, e.g. MSN or Multipoint, e.g. Skype, Horizon Wimba which works within VLEs like WebCT • Visually: P2P: MSN or Skype or Multipoint: Breeze, WebTrain • Aurally: Podcasting

5. The learner of the future • Four articles in the Weekly Guardian (2006) considered this issue of what impact technology would have on the learner of the future: • Warschauer looks at three divides that are being broken down: • between EFL and ESL; • digital haves and have nots; • between language and technology in the classroom • I consider 21st Century tools, i.e. Social computing, making the link between the classroom and the real world. The distribution of learning • Graddol talks about the failure of Web1 although he does consider Bax’s “Restricted CALL” • Bax himself points out that education does not utilise “normalised” technologies

6. The influence of sociocultural theory Lying behind these four articles is the social cultural theory that has increasingly been highlighted in language teaching in for example Lantolf (e.g 1994) and Williams and Burden (1997). This has at its root the ideas of activity theory via Vygotsky, or Dewey’s interests in “interaction, reflection and experience” (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-dewey.htm) These are theories of general learning rather than specific theories of language learning and with a few exceptions have been less influential in CALL circles and this has been highlighted by Salaberry (1999) and Levy and Hubbard (2005) Warschauer and Kern (2000) suggest that there had been a development from behavioural through cognitive to sociocultural theory and NBLT put the communication back into CALL and, in a sense, opened the gate for other kinds of Social Computing Warschauer explores Vygotskian theory in more detail in a recent article (2005)

7. Sociocultural perspectives on CALL (Warschauer, 2005) Gregory Bateson – the blind man and his walking stick Vygotsky and sociocultural theory: Mediation – “…All human activity is mediated by tools and signs”. What we are interested in is “…how [tools] fundamentally transform human action.” How can “…new technologies help to transform prior forms of human activity?”

8. Sociocultural perspectives on CALL (Warschauer, 2005) Vygotsky and sociocultural theory (cont): Social learning: Vygotsky was concerned principally with child development. He believed that children start off experiencing on the social level and then the experience is internalised. He also thought that learning was mainly related to apprenticeship (ZPD). This idea of social learning has so far mainly been explored in CMC. Genetic analysis: In order to understand what we are experiencing at any moment, we need to know how we have got here. We may be concerned with the “unfolding of particular events” (micrognesis); “the development of the individual” (ontogenesis), or “even the development of the species” (phylogenesis). We can only understand CALL if we see it in its broader context, e.g. ideas like net natives (young undergraduates), or net migrants (many teachers) as applied to learners in different parts of higher education.

9. What has been the impact of technology on language learning?

10. Salaberry, M. R. (2001) “The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective.” MLJ, 85/1. Audiovisual media – audio: radio – 1934 for distance learning & 1972 for bringing in language from “all over the world” Telephone – 1988“telephone assisted language programme” phonograph – 1918 & 1921 for pronunciation and intonation

11. Salaberry, M. R. (2001) “The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective.” MLJ, 85/1. Audiovisual media – audiovisual:

13. What about computers?

14. Examples from our current students MA Educational Technology and TESOL at University of Manchester New course unit: Courseware development for distributed learning In this course unit we are trying to explore some of the newer technologies, sociocultural theory and social computing We explore this both in the input and the practice Students have made use of Blogs and Wikis, have been introduced to podcasting and the production of simple digital video Let’s have a look at two initial project presentations. This is the first stage of a two stage process

15. Bibliography Bax, S. (2006) “A first step to second nature.” Guardian Weekly, April 7th. Graddol, D. (2006) “Still waiting for the bright new age.” Guardian Weekly, March 10th. Kern, R. and Warshcauer, M. (2000) “Theory and practice in network-based language teaching” in Warschauer, M. and R. Kern (Eds.) (2000) Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lantolf, J.P. (1994) “Sociocultural theory and second language learning: Introduction to the special issue.” Modern Language Journal, 78/4, pp 418-420. Levy, M and Hubbard, P. (2005) “Why call CALL ‘CALL’?” CALL, 18/3, pp 143-149. Motteram, G. (2006). “How learning has escaped from the box.” Guardian Weekly, February, 17th. Salaberry, R. (1999) “CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda.” Language Learning and Technology, 3/1, pp 104-107. Warschauer, M. (2005) “Sociocultural perspectives on CALL.” In Egbert, J. and G.M. Petrie (Eds.) (2005) CALL research perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Warschauer, M. (2006) “Wiring English into the technological world.” Guardian Weekly, January 20th.