As an assignment for our CALL class, Haley Winters and I created a collage with Vuvox.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Evaluating CALL Resources
This past week we focused on evaluating CALL software. Three of the frameworks for evaluating CALL that were mentioned in class were Methodological Frameworks, Checklists, and SLA Approaches (Hubbard, 2006). In this blog post I comment on each one of these.
Methodological Frameworks based on Language Teaching
The methodological framework approach takes a more broad approach than checklists. Examples of checklists can be found on CALICO's software review guidelines.Teacher fit, learner fit, activities, and technology features are the four broad parts of the framework used by CALICO. What I like about the framework used here is that the technological evaluation is paired with a strong orientation towards defining how it will benefit the learner and how it can be used in teaching. Hubbard (2006) points out that until the 1980s evaluation of CALL was left to checklists adapted from general education, so the methodological framework approach takes a step in the right direction by better addressing language learning and teaching.
Checklists
Checklists have been criticized for overemphasizing technological aspects at the sake of not covering language pedagogy adequately. However, I think that if they are detailed enough they can be effective in giving language teachers an evaluative criteria that can quickly applied to a software. Both the SLA and Methodological approach are not as easy to apply to reviewing an application for making quick decisions on whether or not to use it in a language course. I think that the checklists handed out in class by Dr. Smart demonstrate the ease of use factor.
SLA-Based Approaches
One approach used to integrate SLA and CALL is that designed by Jamieson, Chapelle, and Preiss (2005):
1. Language learning potential: The degree of opportunity present for beneficial
focus on form;
2. Learner fit: The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under
appropriate conditions given learner characteristics;
3. Meaning focus: The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward
the meaning of the language;
4. Authenticity: The degree of correspondence between the learning activity
and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom;
5. Positive Impact: The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who
participate in it; and
6. Practicality: The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL
activity.
This approach has a considerable amount of overlap with evaluation criteria of assessments, which is understandable given the researchers interest in language assessment as well. To me, this approach is not really intuitive and has some of the same ambiguity that I felt is apparent in the evaluative criteria used for reviewing language tests. I feel one would have to be trained in using such an evaluative approach and see a number of examples of it being applied first for it to make sense.
I think of three types of approaches, I prefer the methodological framework. In looking at the description of the review criteria posted on the CALICO website, it seems to me it is the approach that make the most sense for me and is the most approachable. Finally, I think it is interesting to look at the reviews of different CALL tools that have been posted on the site to better understand how evaluative criteria can be put to use.
References
Hubbard, P. (2006). "Evaluating CALL Software," in Lara Ducate and Nike Arnold (eds.) Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C., & Preiss, S. (2005). CALL Evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students. CALICO Journal, 23 (1), 93-138.
Methodological Frameworks based on Language Teaching
The methodological framework approach takes a more broad approach than checklists. Examples of checklists can be found on CALICO's software review guidelines.Teacher fit, learner fit, activities, and technology features are the four broad parts of the framework used by CALICO. What I like about the framework used here is that the technological evaluation is paired with a strong orientation towards defining how it will benefit the learner and how it can be used in teaching. Hubbard (2006) points out that until the 1980s evaluation of CALL was left to checklists adapted from general education, so the methodological framework approach takes a step in the right direction by better addressing language learning and teaching.
Checklists
Checklists have been criticized for overemphasizing technological aspects at the sake of not covering language pedagogy adequately. However, I think that if they are detailed enough they can be effective in giving language teachers an evaluative criteria that can quickly applied to a software. Both the SLA and Methodological approach are not as easy to apply to reviewing an application for making quick decisions on whether or not to use it in a language course. I think that the checklists handed out in class by Dr. Smart demonstrate the ease of use factor.
SLA-Based Approaches
One approach used to integrate SLA and CALL is that designed by Jamieson, Chapelle, and Preiss (2005):
1. Language learning potential: The degree of opportunity present for beneficial
focus on form;
2. Learner fit: The amount of opportunity for engagement with language under
appropriate conditions given learner characteristics;
3. Meaning focus: The extent to which learners’ attention is directed toward
the meaning of the language;
4. Authenticity: The degree of correspondence between the learning activity
and target language activities of interest to learners out of the classroom;
5. Positive Impact: The positive effects of the CALL activity on those who
participate in it; and
6. Practicality: The adequacy of resources to support the use of the CALL
activity.
This approach has a considerable amount of overlap with evaluation criteria of assessments, which is understandable given the researchers interest in language assessment as well. To me, this approach is not really intuitive and has some of the same ambiguity that I felt is apparent in the evaluative criteria used for reviewing language tests. I feel one would have to be trained in using such an evaluative approach and see a number of examples of it being applied first for it to make sense.
I think of three types of approaches, I prefer the methodological framework. In looking at the description of the review criteria posted on the CALICO website, it seems to me it is the approach that make the most sense for me and is the most approachable. Finally, I think it is interesting to look at the reviews of different CALL tools that have been posted on the site to better understand how evaluative criteria can be put to use.
References
Hubbard, P. (2006). "Evaluating CALL Software," in Lara Ducate and Nike Arnold (eds.) Calling on CALL: From Theory and Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Jamieson, J., Chapelle, C., & Preiss, S. (2005). CALL Evaluation by developers, a teacher, and students. CALICO Journal, 23 (1), 93-138.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Wordsift Review
As part of the requirement for the CALL: Eng 568 course at NAU, in this post I review the Web 2.0 program WordSift according to a set of evaluative criteria I have adapted from course handouts.
WordSift is slightly different than a number of Web 2.0 technologies on the web in that it is designed specifically with English language learners in mind. In the "about" section of the site, it states that WordSift was created with the hope that it is " helpful in supporting English Language Learners." So this is perhaps a rare case where a program has been created with Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) specifically in mind.
Description of Features
WordSift allows for a text to be pasted into a text box, which is then "sifted" through in order to highlight various features of words in a text. Once the text has been processed, a word cloud is created that helps identify important word. The word tag feature is similar to other programs on the web such as Wordle. The word cloud is the focal point of the site, from which a number of interactive features feed off of.
At the bottom of the site is a "sort" feature which allows you to sort words according to frequency, word lists, and specific subjects.
Another feature of word sift is how it is integrated with the Visual Thesaurus. This means when you click on certain words in the word cloud, they are instantly displayed in the visual thesaurus.
Evaluation
Accessibility/functionality
Wordsift ranks high on the level of accessibility that it has. As long as the text pasted into the text box is in read properly by the program, then only an internet connection is needed. I tried a number of different texts and had no problem with functionality of the text reader. But there is a question of how accessible the definitions in the Visual Thesaurus are for lower level learners. In experimenting with different words in the Tag Cloud I found that the Visual Thesaurus gives some rather complex definitions for different words.
Language Teaching Application
This software could be used by both teachers and students to preview vocabulary in a text and build background knowledge/schema. The fact that it integrates frequency information from word use in the text and the GSL and the AWL make it attractive to teachers using word lists to help determine the sequencing and coverage of vocabulary in their curriculum.
Comparability to Non-technological Means
Typical pre-reading activities in ELT classroom often involve discussing vocabulary words and showing pictures to ease the burden of difficult texts and activate background knowledge. However, teachers are hampered by time constraints and rarely cover these aspects adequately. If learners were sent the digital file of the text which is to be covered in class, they could, with some guided training, look up the words they don't know using the visual thesaurus and the key words in context.
Variation of Activities
While this site does not provide activities in the sense of pedagogical tasks, it does provide a number of different interactive features to help learners better understand words in a text. Nation (2001) has pointed out the importance of knowing a number of aspects of words to build depth of vocabulary knowledge. The different interactive features make a positive step in that direction.
Interactivity
The integration of the Tag Cloud with the other four features described above make this an interactive way of looking at vocabulary words in a text. A drawback on the interactivity is that the Visual Thesaurus does not provide definitions that are easily understood by all learners. If a learners dictionary was incorporated into the site, then it might improve the interaction learners have with definitions they can more easily comprehend.
Recommendation
I think this program could be applied to ELT classrooms where L2 reading is the focus. It could be integrated as part of the pre-reading. It might also be used to create multiple exposures to important vocabulary words or cross-reference words from a text with frequency lists. These aspects of using the software could be taught as part of course instruction.
WordSift is slightly different than a number of Web 2.0 technologies on the web in that it is designed specifically with English language learners in mind. In the "about" section of the site, it states that WordSift was created with the hope that it is " helpful in supporting English Language Learners." So this is perhaps a rare case where a program has been created with Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) specifically in mind.
Description of Features
WordSift allows for a text to be pasted into a text box, which is then "sifted" through in order to highlight various features of words in a text. Once the text has been processed, a word cloud is created that helps identify important word. The word tag feature is similar to other programs on the web such as Wordle. The word cloud is the focal point of the site, from which a number of interactive features feed off of.
At the bottom of the site is a "sort" feature which allows you to sort words according to frequency, word lists, and specific subjects.
Another feature of word sift is how it is integrated with the Visual Thesaurus. This means when you click on certain words in the word cloud, they are instantly displayed in the visual thesaurus.
A third aspect of the site is the key words in context display. This feature displays every example sentence in the text that contains the selected word. In the example below, sentences in Martin Luther King's speech containing the word "justice" are shown.
The final feature of the WordSift is how pictures from the web are displayed based upon the word selected from the Tag Cloud.
Evaluation
Accessibility/functionality
Wordsift ranks high on the level of accessibility that it has. As long as the text pasted into the text box is in read properly by the program, then only an internet connection is needed. I tried a number of different texts and had no problem with functionality of the text reader. But there is a question of how accessible the definitions in the Visual Thesaurus are for lower level learners. In experimenting with different words in the Tag Cloud I found that the Visual Thesaurus gives some rather complex definitions for different words.
Language Teaching Application
This software could be used by both teachers and students to preview vocabulary in a text and build background knowledge/schema. The fact that it integrates frequency information from word use in the text and the GSL and the AWL make it attractive to teachers using word lists to help determine the sequencing and coverage of vocabulary in their curriculum.
Comparability to Non-technological Means
Typical pre-reading activities in ELT classroom often involve discussing vocabulary words and showing pictures to ease the burden of difficult texts and activate background knowledge. However, teachers are hampered by time constraints and rarely cover these aspects adequately. If learners were sent the digital file of the text which is to be covered in class, they could, with some guided training, look up the words they don't know using the visual thesaurus and the key words in context.
Variation of Activities
While this site does not provide activities in the sense of pedagogical tasks, it does provide a number of different interactive features to help learners better understand words in a text. Nation (2001) has pointed out the importance of knowing a number of aspects of words to build depth of vocabulary knowledge. The different interactive features make a positive step in that direction.
Interactivity
The integration of the Tag Cloud with the other four features described above make this an interactive way of looking at vocabulary words in a text. A drawback on the interactivity is that the Visual Thesaurus does not provide definitions that are easily understood by all learners. If a learners dictionary was incorporated into the site, then it might improve the interaction learners have with definitions they can more easily comprehend.
Recommendation
I think this program could be applied to ELT classrooms where L2 reading is the focus. It could be integrated as part of the pre-reading. It might also be used to create multiple exposures to important vocabulary words or cross-reference words from a text with frequency lists. These aspects of using the software could be taught as part of course instruction.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Introduction
This is my 2nd year in the MATESL program at Northern Arizona University (NAU). In the past I have taught a number of different skill classes at the Program of Intensive English at NAU. I have also taught ESL in China and at Humboldt State University. Outside of teaching and studying, I'm interested in cycling and hiking.
I have experimented with a number of CALL applications as I have taught different classes. My current technology interest is in digital curation and CALL vocabulary applications. I am very excited to learn about different CALL technologies and the ideas other people in the class bring to the table for using them. As someone going on the job market for TESOL jobs, I have found that many employers are looking for teachers with experience with CALL, so I feel that this class will be very beneficial to my job application process as well.
My main expectation for this class is that it will help make me better prepared to evaluate the use of different applications for use in the language classroom. I think that there are a lot of teachers out there who simply use technology for the "it's cool" factor. Last year I attended a couple of presentations at TESOL where it seemed the presenters were simply introducing technologies to attendees because of the cool factor and not necessarily because they were beneficial for language learning and teaching. These were the presentations I ended up walking out on. So I hope that I can come away from this class with the knowledge of how to determine whether a specific application is appropriate or not for teaching various language skills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)