Week 3: Share Fair

Share Fair Activity Worksheet

§  Target language: English

§  Target student (age, level): University students; upper-intermediate to advanced level

§  Topic/Theme: Persuasive speech on a social issue

§  Skill focus: Speaking, listening, reading, writing, critical thinking

§  Objective: To prepare and deliver a formal speech; to improve public speaking skills; to research a social issue; to improve listening comprehension by listening to other speeches; to think critically about social issues and engage in discussion and debate with classmates

§  Time: About 2-3 hours of class time will be spent introducing and discussing the format of a persuasive speech following Monroe’s Motivated Sequence and looking at several examples. Most of the work will be completed as homework, so time will vary for each student. After the in-class lesson, they will have a week to complete the initial posting, and another week to comment on each other’s speeches.

§  Software/Web address: Assignments will be posted on the class page using www.edmodo.com. Students will use a free audio recording app of their choice.

§  Procedure for the activity: Students will deliver a formal persuasive speech following Monroe’s Motivated Sequence (Attention, Need, Satisfaction, Visualization, Action) on a social issue of their choice. They will record their speech and upload the audio file to the Edmodo website. Then they will listen to classmates’ speeches and write comments on them. They should read each other’s comments and respond accordingly.

§  Assessment (how will you know that students have learned?): I will grade students using the following rubric:

3- excellent; 2-good; 1-fair; 0-poor

Attention – The speaker uses an attention-grabber, introduces the topic, and briefly outlines the speech.	3	2	1	0
Need – The speaker explains the problem with well-researched background details, facts, and statistics.	3	2	1	0
Satisfaction – The speaker explains how this problem can be solved.	3	2	1	0
Visualization – The speaker explains how solving the problem in this way will benefit the audience, or how they will suffer if this solution is ignored.	3	2	1	0
Action – The speaker tells the audience what they can do to help solve the problem.	3	2	1	0
The pronunciation is clear and easy to understand. If there are a few minor mistakes, these do not interfere with overall comprehension.	3	2	1	0
The pacing is appropriate and consistent throughout the response and long pauses are avoided. The speaker sounds natural and fluent, not as if she is reading from a script. The speaker sounds interested in the topic and demonstrates some enthusiasm. She varies intonation and does not speak in a monotone voice.	3	2	1	0
The speaker uses strong vocabulary and grammar. If there are a few minor mistakes, these do not interfere with overall comprehension.	3	2	1	0
The assignment is complete, an appropriate length, and submitted on time.	3	2	1	0
The student has commented substantially on at least two of her classmates’ posts on the Edmodo discussion board. These comments show deep engagement with the topic and help to further the discussion.	3	2	1	0

                                                                                            

Total: _____/30

Comments:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Week 3: Audience, Authenticity, and Autonomy

Johnston (2007) discusses the important, but perhaps often overlooked, issue of audience in language learning. He notes, "the availability of an authentic audience affects the rate and extent of language learning" (p. 63). He discusses how traditional language classes tended see the teacher and classmates as the only audience; however, newer approaches have recognized the importance of incorporating issues of audience, including whole language, process writing, and English for specific purposes. Students’ use of the target language will certainly change depending on the audience, and it is helpful for them to consider the audience as they practice using the language.

Johnston continues his chapter by discussing authentic audiences. He explains, "An authentic audience is an audience that is concerned exclusively with the meaning of the speaker's message" (p. 67). This is an interesting definition because it emphasizes meaning over form, which enables learners to experiment more with the language. If the audience is generally interested in what the speaker or writer is saying instead of how they are saying it, the interaction is more authentic. Finally, he moves on to discuss the relationship between audience and computer-mediated communication (CMC) in ESL. He discusses how there is now "an increase in the range of potential interlocutors" (p. 67) and "audiences can be invisible but immediate" (p. 67). He discusses other changes, such as the shift away from learners as "eavesdroppers" and the increased use of emoticons and abbreviations, which are changing the ways people interact.

Johnston's chapter gave me a lot to think about regarding audience and how to provide my students with an authentic audience. Although using online or mobile chat programs would be an easy way for my students to communicate with native English speakers, it is not easy to find people willing or able to participate. They can interact with each other easily, though. I think that by posting on an online discussion forum, similar to what we are doing here, would be useful for my students. I already do some of this using Edmodo. Even though their audience is not made up of native English speakers, they are concerned with the meaning of each other’s messages instead of form. Posting assignments online is another way to use CMC to help create a more authentic audience for my students. If they know that not only the teacher, but classmates and perhaps others might read their work, they may approach the assignment differently. Unfortunately, this might provide extra stress for some students, especially those with lower levels of proficiency. Additionally, this can create unnecessary competitiveness if students are constantly comparing their own work to the work of others.

Prior to reading the chapter by Chapelle and Liu (2007), I mainly thought of authenticity in terms of using authentic sources designed for native English speakers. For example, reading an article from the BBC instead of Breaking News English. I also thought of authenticity as related to real-world and practical language that learners can use naturally in their everyday lives. This chapter brought up the issue of learner perspectives of authenticity, which is really important but not something I had given much thought to. I found the examples of tasks and the tables in this chapter to be particularly helpful. The sample dialogues ad the results of the questionnaire were also really interesting and helpful in understanding the issues here.

While examining CALL materials, it is important to remember that different learners will view the materials differently, as “authenticity has more than one meaning” (p. 126). Therefore, providing some different options might be useful so that learners can choose to use the materials that they deem most authentic. Secondly, it is important to realize that unless there are real people on the other side of the computer, such as through live chats or discussion boards, it is unlikely that the material will provide a perfectly authentic experience. The materials can still be useful for practicing some aspects of language, though, and should not be immediately dismissed because of a few shortcomings.

Healy (2007) discusses the issue of autonomy in language learning. This is important for students to feel like they are in control of their own learning and have options. Some CALL materials have tracking systems built in that can allow students to see their progress, which might motivate them to continue learning. They can also decide what they might need to review more, other areas to focus on, or changes they need to make based on these tracking systems. Using CALL can enable students to make different choices based on their own needs and interests, and many programs have built in options they can modify to fit their own style. As Healy notes, though, “current CALL rarely gives more than a limited snapshot of learner performance on a given task” (p. 383).

Healy also encourages the use of learning communities, and she notes, “Although most CALL developers create materials for learners to use individually, better results are often achieved with learners working in pairs” (p. 383). This related to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and ways partners can assist each other. I also found the section on critical pedagogy to be quite important because of it emphasis on encouraging learners to be more self-aware and considering how their studies are related to power structures in broader social and political contexts. I think that this critical awareness can have a strong impact on learner motivation.

These three readings brought up important issues related to audience, authenticity, and autonomy, which I had not thought much about before. I think these are all important issues to consider as a language teacher, and I think that CALL materials can provide a means of considering these issues effectively, but there are also concerns we should be cognizant of.

References

Chapelle, C. & Liu, H (2007). Theory and research: Investigating authenticity. In Call Environments Research, Practice, and Critical Issues (J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith Eds. 2 ed.): Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Johnston, B. (2007). Theory and research: Audience, language use, and language learning. In Call Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues (J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith Eds. 2 ed.): Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Healey, D. (2007). Theory and Research: Autonomy and language learning. In Call Environments: Research, Practice, and Critical Issues (J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith Eds. 2 ed.): Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Week 2: Evaluating CALL

The process of evaluating CALL software described by Hubbard (2006) seems to be more comprehensive than I would typically use, but he did introduce many details that I hadn't really thought about. Although he notes that CALL resources "can be difficult to 'skim' for both content and program operation" (p. 1),  I would probably begin my own evaluation by just skimming over multiple resources. Once I had identified a few options, I might follow a more methodological approach like the one Hubbard focuses his chapter on, but I still might not feel the need to be as comprehensive if I was only using the materials in my own classes. However, I can definitely see the benefits of following and documenting each of these steps if the CALL materials were to be used in broader contexts because other teachers would benefit from the detailed evaluation. I also think a combination of a checklist, methodological, and SLA-based approach might be ideal.

The two steps in Hubbard's evaluation framework that I think are most important while evaluating a CALL resource are learner-fit and teacher-fit, and I would probably put most of my focus on these areas. He even notes that "if either teacher or learner fit is noted early on to be poor, there is no need to continue" (p. 16). Although it is important to consider any technological limitations, in my current teaching context this is not really an issue. As long as the resources were not too fancy and could be used on a regular computer or hand-held device, we would be able to use it. Plus my students are all pretty tech savvy, so they would be able to learn to use the materials pretty easily after some instruction. I think teacher fit is really important because if the resource is at odds with a teacher's assumptions of language learning, the lessons will not go smoothly. Learner fit is also really important because we need to be sure to recognize learning styles, provide comprehensible input, and make sure that the content is appropriate and interesting so they can activate prior knowledge. Hubbard also provided some good suggestions about evaluating student outcomes once a CALL resource has been used. I agree that observation is probably the most direct way, but his other suggestions (p. 18) were also helpful to think about.

On a final note about the Hubbard chapter, I found the results of the survey he cited, which was conducted by Robb and Susser (2000), to be quite interesting. They found that 78% of respondents relied on recommendations from colleagues for information about the software that they continue to use regularly. As Hubbard notes, "colleagues are a particularly good source of relatively reliable information" (p. 9). I couldn't agree more with this statement, and I have been introduced to so many great resources by colleagues over the years.

I found the article by Levy (2009) to be the more interesting of these two readings. Although I tend to prefer a more holistic approach in teaching, I liked how used a modular approach and divided this chapter according to language areas and skills. In the section on grammar, Levy describes a learner corpus where students can get additional feedback, which has been categorized and enables them to see similar errors in different contexts (p. 770). I think this would be so helpful, but possibly overwhelming.

In the section on writing, he discusses some of the complications with word processors for L2 learners, noting that they "have been designed for native, not nonnative, speakers (NNSs) and so often do not correctly identify and respond to L2 learner errors" (p. 773). This was something I had not really thought about before. I have often wondered why I get so many spelling mistakes on simple words, for example, which would be so easy to correct by just noticing the red underline. I can imagine it might be quite frustrating for L2 writers to see red and green underline marks all over the page. Some might ignore or turn off the features that are meant to help with grammar and spelling. This got me wondering if there is a word processor, or some sort of add-on or extensions, that is specifically designed for L2 writers. If not, there should be!

The discussion of "chatterbots" in the section on speaking reminded me of a story from Korea a couple of years ago. Some schools were starting to use robots to help students study English. I have not heard much more about it, so it seems like the program has fizzled out. I remember having a lot of discussions about it at the time though, and some of my colleagues and I even joked about the robots coming to take our jobs. Here (Links to an external site.) is a link to an article about it, if you are interested. This type of interaction and having non-human conversations will probably never be really effective, but it could be helpful in small doses.

These readings gave me a lot to think about, and I look forward to discussing them more with you all!

References

Hubbard, P. (2006). Evaluating CALL software. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.). Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching. San Marcos, CA: CALICO.

Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 769-782.

Week 1: Warschauer (2004) and changes in technology

It is amazing to think about how quickly technology is changing. The ten developments in information and communications technology described by Warschauer (2004) might have seemed pretty groundbreaking at the time this article was written, but today this is all so common and we probably take it for granted. It is hard to imagine where we will be ten years from now! Warschauer mentioned that around 10% of the world's population was online in 2004 (p. 4), so I did a quick Google search to see where we are today - around 40% (Internet Live Stats). I'm not sure how accurate that website is, but it is pretty interesting to look at.

Warschauer also discussed critical literacy and noted that, "in the online future, virtually all literacy will necessitate critical judgment" (p. 7). I thought this was a really important point and his description of how much thought should go into evaluating each website, whether or not to keep scrolling, which links to click, etc. is a skill that needs to be taught. In a class I was teaching this past semester, for example, students were working on short research papers and we had to spend time going over which types of websites would be deemed acceptable to use in an academic paper. While they had some prior knowledge about different types of websites, it was not always easy for them to decide which sources were more credible. There is certainly a lot more to consider when evaluating online sources compared to print.

The section on agency got me thinking about some different assignments that I can try in the future. I think it would be great to get my students to create their own websites. As Warschauer explains, "By assisting their students to carry out such authoring--fulfilling a meaningful purpose for a real audience--teachers are helping them exercise their agency" (p. 12). I still need to think more about what exactly the assignment would involve, but I think getting them to present their work online as an alternative to using PowerPoint would be a great experience.

Overall, I thought this was an interesting article that got me thinking about how far we have come in such a short time, and it got me excited thinking about what could be next. I do not think it would be fair to our students to exclude CALL from our classes.

Reference

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C Brown (Eds.), New perspectives for second and foreign language classrooms (pp. 15-25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.