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
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment