next Tue night we will have a visitor – Emily C. who is a graduate student in our program.

She is interested in exploring how innovative and emerging technologies (esp. Second Life) contribute to affect and motivational strategies that can facilitate and even enhance effective second language learning.

Now that you have all designed your Second Life Tasks (btw do email me an electronic copy if you haven’t yet), I am sure you will be happy to share your opinions and suggestions with Emily!

http://www.actfl.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4805

Enjoy,

Viktoria.

Finding Funding: A workshop for grant seekers (for faculty and graduate students)
The presenter: Grace Thornton, Grant Development Specialist
Dates: April 14th OR April 25th 2008
Time 2:30-4:30
Location: Aderhold 227/228
You have to contact Grace to reserve a seat: gthorn@uga.edu

Satomi will be posting her questions for us shortly. In the meanwhile, here is a question from me as well.

Some critics of learner corpus analysis maintain that it focuses too much on learner ERRORS, and, therefore, is in essence a disempowering approach.  Based on our readings for this week (+ Belz & Vyatkina, Belz & Kinginger & , as well as articles on the Grim and iWrite tools) , would you agree with this evaluation? What else is learner corpus analysis good for beyond error analysis?

• This question looks long, but it’s a friendly one, I think! On page 11 of Steven Thorne’s (2008) article, he opens section 2.2 with the following statement, “the use of Internet technologies to encourage dialogue between distributed individuals and partner classes proposes a compelling shift in L2 education, one that moves learners away from simulated classroom-based contexts and toward actual interaction with expert speakers of the language they are studying.”
  • After reading about the naturally occurring interactions that MMOGs, like World of Warcraft or Lineage, elicit from the players, such as scaffolding and apprenticeship between players that are literally from all over the world, how do you think that engaging your language learners in game play within virtual worlds like these would affect the student’s language learning experience? More specifically, do you think playing in a virtual gaming world can be an immersive experience in terms of foreign language use? How so? Do you think the process of enculturating the players into the game and negotiating meaning through language can inform the players about the real cultural background of their co-players in some way? Or is intercultural competence left out completely?

• On page 19, Thorne (2008) states that “MOO use in L2 education is still frequent (e.g., Schneider & von der Emde, 2000), especially by practitioners of a variety of intercultural L2 education called tandem learning . . . However, social and role-playing MOOs, especially in comparison to their considerable popularity in the 1990s, have been largely replaced by massively multiplayer online videgames.” Before taking this class, had you (as teachers) ever heard of a MOO or an MMOG? Is it really true that MOO use in L2 education is really popular?
  

• Ravi Purushotma (2005) shares an example about changing the coding in her internet browser, so that her German vocabulary words (and an associated picture) flash on the browser in place of the advertisements. She refers to this as a virtual “flashcard”. Would you consider this virtual language immersion? Do you think this is an appropriate or inappropriate level of rote memorization? How do you feel about memorizing vocabulary in general? Do you think it’s necessary in a language classroom?

During the last week I might have put a damper on our discussion of the value of computers as tools (as opposed to computers as tutors and mediums). Do you agree with my take on the usefulness of computers in this role for FL education? What computer tool that you are familiar with are you excited about? Or, better yet, think about a concept computer tool for teaching FL that has not been implemented yet but would have the potential for having a beneficial impact on the field.

Soar away!

http://www.fastcompany.com/multimedia/slideshows/content/entertainment-tech.html?page=1

as well as yet another social network service Twitter which helps you stay hyper-connected:

http://twitter.com

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?

Here is an issue worth blogging about (separate from the questions on readings that Jonathan is posting for us).
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/pdf/sb497.pdf

Several GA Senators are proposing that all high school FL teachers be moved to elementary schools and then all high school FL classes be taught online. That would land many students in my CALL class But, apart from my egoistic thoughts, I find this piece of legislature ahead of its time- April 1^st is not here yet… What do you think?