I have several questions — I guess, technically, one per reading. Answer whichever ones inspire you the most.
Input and learner roles: Gonzalez-Lloret cites different principles (adapted from Doughty and Chapelle, pp. 90-91) governing how input was formulated for En Busca de Esmeraldas. How do these principles differ from the types of input associated with Lafford/Lafford/Sykes’ “design features” (DF) and from Hemard’s hypermedia activities? What affect do these differences have on learner roles?
The wheel and the driver: Salaberry differentiates between two lines of analysis (p. 20): “interaction around the machine” and “interaction around the computer.” How do the readings reflect these two different investigations into the potential of CALL?
Teacher design, teacher intervention, or none of the above: What do the different readings have to say about the teacher role in CALL task design and implementation?
Study abroad or CMC: Salaberry brings this up (p. 24), and the increasing absorption of kids today in CMC makes it even more relevant. Which provides a more authentic learner experience?
Muller v. Belz, et al (a retrospective): Muller seems to illustrate the “swamp fish” version of Belz, et al’s more evolved telecollaboration course design. How did this fish learn to walk on dry land? What changed?
Okay, I’ll take the first shot!
I will post my thoughts in response to the 3rd question: Study Abroad / CMC (note that I used “slash” instead of “or)
First of all, it is epistemologically inappropriate and impossible to compare “study abroad” and “CMC.” I think it is just a waste of the article’s space to argue which is better over the other. If “study abroad” provides a naturalistic language learning environment(s), then CALL does not no matter how advanced the technology becomes. It is difficult to define what study abroad really means in the first place because one could spend the entire semester hanging out with peers from the same country all day long. One can conclude that this student may not have learned the language but at least s/he lived in the country. Maybe s/he learned to act appropriately in the target culture, if not perfectly. So what’s the primary purpose of CMC? What are students expected to do in front of a computer? It is true that authentic learning materials can be presented on the screen, but it is a wrong assumption that CMC will replace study abroad and vice versa.
I have a problem understanding what the author meant by the part where he writes, “..there might be no qualitative differences between classroom-based courses and semester abroad programs” (p. 24). Well, he’s a cognitive linguist, so we are definitely looking at two different pictures.. The author seems to be missing the point that face to face interactions (not via computers), ,which inevitably involve different senses of time/space/self-other, are just inherently different.
I agree with you, Akira. The authenticity of the study abroad experience is juxtaposed in some ways by the artifical CMC environment. Also, not all study abroad experiences are as effective as others. It really depends on the student and their individual experience or intentions.
I don’t think there’s any harm, though, in viewing the study abroad as a benchmark for what CMC researchers would like to achieve. The idea of a virtual study abroad is definitely controversial because where the study abroad students are going to bed and waking up in a host family’s home, students involved in the virtual study abroad are probably more immersed in the native language environment, unless they live in a particular city in the US that has, for example, a large Japanese or Hispanic population. But when researchers are attempting to reshape the foreign language classroom, so that it mimics the immersion experience in a more realistic way, I don’t think it’s rational to completely discount CMC tools. I think that instead, it would be really interesting to see how CMC tools might create more cost effective opportunities for students to interact with other native speakers of the target language, for example. In this case, a major goal would be to motivate students to make the financial investment in a study abroad experience after they have made a personal investment by building friendships with speakers of the target language. The group to group videoconferencing that Belz facilitated isn’t the answer either. I think virtual worlds and other tools, like the one David is obsessed with right now
(I forget what it’s called, but it allows students to communicate with other students in whatever language they want to).. anyway, a blend of tools like these would not recreate the study abroad experience, but .. well, from what I can tell, at the source of the study abroad experience is the interaction and relationships that are built overseas in the target language. If CMC tools can give students the opportunity to interact and build genuine relationships from afar in the target language, then at least one aspect of the study abroad experience is mildly accounted for. It’s not entirely accounted for, but it’s certainly a start.
I would also like to leave a post about blogging in general that I think we didn’t talk enough about last time. I enjoy reading everyone’s questions/responses and responding to them. The one thing I’m struggling with, though, and need more practice with.. is reading the articles and digesting them quickly enough to respond to someone else’s comments with those readings in mind. What happens to me is I’ll read the articles and formulate my thoughts about them in my own world. I’ll think about the questions and how I would respond to them and I’m all set and ready to respond.. and then I see a comment that kind of throws me off a little. Do I respond to the questions or do I respond to the comment?
I don’t want to leave the other person, usually Akira
, hanging, and it doesn’t seem useful to get onto a soapbox and pronounce my ideas. So I think maybe the best thing to do is respond to the previous post(s) and hopefully, my ideas/opinions about the readings will come through.
We gave the blog a hard time last week in class. It’s really not that mean and scary at all, though. I think we should just look at it as a way to have an ongoing conversation, rather than something that we need to respond to with citations after each sentence. What do y’all think?
I’m interested to see which of the three posts you will respond to.
See you in class!!
Gabrielle,
I’ll answer the last. I think the strength of a blog is ongoing discussion. If we are just going to stand on our soapboxes and answer questions, we can do that in class. Maybe we should just start the blogs each week with 1 question and see where the discussion goes over the week. For me one of the biggest deterrents for using this blog effectively for me is time management. I usually don’t get all the readings done until Monday (or later like today). While this is well within the class time frame, by the time I synthesize some thoughts and write them out on the blog their usefulness is gone. So maybe we need to start early with one question…one that can be answered by the reading, but is not necessary. Then see where the discussion goes. That’s a much more interesting use of the medium in my opinion.
To Jonathan.
When we have created intelligent instruction systems or tutoring systems, what’s the purpose of the teacher? I think all the articles made sure that teachers’ roles still existed, though they were not the “sage on the stage” but rather the “guide on the side” I guess I equate it to the role of a good piano teacher or boxing coach, etc. They don’t spend all their time and resources lecturing and asking questions, and correcting answers. Their job is to know the student’s needs, to know the proper exercises, drills, and other practice the student needs to improve his/her weaknesses. They also know the repertoire, and can suggest activities that are at the student’s level. Most importantly, they provide moral support and motivation. Levy and Stockwell put it best: “Perhaps one of the greatest characteristics of effective teachers–enthusiasm for the subject and for teaching–is often difficult to convey successfully through technology.” (p 204).
Your comment about teachers is a perennial one for you, I can tell.
To David: I’m not even certified yet, and you’re already making me want to hand in my resignation!
It’s not my intention to scare you away. I just theorize… I’m more of an arm-chair teacher. Probably k-12 language teachers would be a better source of info before you sign the resignation letter.