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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment