Language of Inquiry

I'm exploring the use of different online form creators to help students develop discourse for inquiry and observation.  Here are a couple of mock-ups created using Google Docs:


highly structured statements


less structured statements

Looking for "Sounds of English" Presentation?

Please scroll down to the next post.

"Teachers Should Become Designers"

As if teachers don't have enough to do already, Jozef Colpaert suggests that teachers should take a more active roll in the design of Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) software. But Colpaert's article makes a good case for (1.) putting pedagogy ahead of technology and (2.) teaching teachers to be designers.

Here are the main ideas I took away from his article...

Pedogogy-Driven Instructional Design

Colpaert begins his argument by asserting that technology has not really created any unique opportunities for learning, rather it has made existing opportunities faster and easier to access. For example, authentic images, audio, and video are more readily available as the result of available technologies.

Therefore, he suggests that pedagogy, as determined by instructors, should be the primary thrust of instructional design. Technology should be chosen and evaluated based on its ability to fulfill the requirements of the pedagogical approach.

Teachers Should Become Designers

Teachers are best positioned to determine the learning situation, the learner profile, and the appropriate pedagogy. When teachers become designers they don't necessarily author new software, instead they become skilled at specifying precisely what is needed in such a way that it can be designed and authored by someone else. Thus teacher/designers help bridge the gap between pedagogy and technology.

My Thoughts

1. Can teachers conceptualize technological functionality beyond their own experience?

If the first steps in a pedagogy-driven design model are to determine the pedagogy and then define the needed functionality, I wonder if most teachers are up to the task. That is to say, can teachers imagine, conceptualize, and articulate needed functionality if their own experience with technology is limited? Can they conceptualize that which they have never seen? Or is there imagination necessarily limited by what they know to be possible? What training would teachers need to be effective designers?

2. Is dedicated CALL software realistic and who is really driving its creation?

Part of Colpaert's message advocates dedicated CALL software designed specifically for the needs of language learning. I wonder, however, if this approach to software design is realistic or even desirable. For one thing, CALL software design, in my experience, has been drivin primarily by commercial software developers, not educators. Dedicated software design is an expensive process and rarely seems to stem from instructional problems posed by educators.

Furthermore, while dedicated software does allow for greater control over the content and pedagogy, it seems to me that it does not embrace the authenticity that can be gained by using existing technologies to support language learning. For example, the learner who uses Skype for language tutoring or correspondence with a native speaker not only has a chance to improve their language skills, they also practice communication in an authentic environment, they learn how to use an online service that may help them keep in touch with family in other countries, and they develop an awareness of Internet navigation and the most up-to-date technology for voice communication.

3. To what extent can the use of technologies not designed for CALL truly be pedagogy- driven?

The flip side of authenticity seems to be the potential for alignment with learning goals and pedagogy. Anyone who has ever searched for the perfect online tool for accomplishing a well-defined learning goal knows that there is always compromise involved. Rarely, if ever, are you able to find an existing tool that meets all of your specified functionality requirements precisely. So you end up designing to some extent around a technology that seems to do most of what you had hoped for. In this case, is the learning experience you've designed still "pedagogy-driven?" And how do you determine whether what you have sacrificed in the way of pedagogy is too great?

Sounds of English Presentation

This presentation is for volunteer teachers participating in the email mini-course on English Pronunciation.


The Sound System

Instructional Designer's Perspective

A couple of weeks ago, I reconnected with a former colleague. She is one of those lucky people who can officially call herself and "Instructional Designer." Very cool.

Nima Salehi, works at Metro State University where she trains faculty in online course design and pedagogy and assists with online course development. She just finished co-teaching an online graduate course for ESL educators at Hamline called "Technology Enhanced Language Learning." This fall she'll be co-teaching a Business English class at the U of M.

Our e-mail "interview" covered a range of topics but one point really stood out to me.

Authenticity

Reading through Nima's responses reminded me how committed she is to using meaningful and authentic materials with her students. She builds lessons around news websites and other lifeskills oriented materials that help students learn about bus routes, rental information, or local support services.

This is something that I need to keep coming back to as I expand my work with both pronunciation and technology integration. It is so easy, especially when focusing on a skill like pronunciation, to get caught up in the details of designing the perfect assignment or lesson that you lose sight of bigger picture of communication.

Nima says:

"Practically, many technologies provide language practice for activities language learners may need to do in real life. For example structured phone call practice can be done with real phones, or through the Internet using tools which mimic phone calls (Skype or Audacity) and can role play activities such as calling English speaking friends, or setting up medical appointments. Language lessons on writing email to professors, or clients (Business English) can be done using real email messages written in student pairs either through message boards or through email, with feedback provided by peers and the instructor on appropriate register, content and other language skills. In these circumstances, the language practice is embedded within technology skills practice for authentic purposes."

It's great to connect with someone who's not only putting the principles of instructional design into practice...but also making a living at it!

Pronunciation Practice: Kennedy's Famous Quote

This sample pronunciation lesson is still a little rough, however, I think it illustrates what I'd like to do with this software. Here are the assumptions behind this approach:

1. Students appreciate the opportunity for independent structured practice in which they can listen repeatedly to sample audio. This came out of my discussions with students after my first pronunciation lesson involving instructional technology (see earlier post).

2. In the adult ESL context, pronunciation instruction and practice should be organized around meaningful and engaging content. In this case, the lesson is designed to tie into the current content-based unit on U.S. history.

3. Students need explicit, individualized feedback about their pronunciation. Imitating native speakers through "listen & repeat" exercises is not sufficient for forming correct pronunciation habits in the target language.

Here are some of the affordances that I think Voicethread offers:

1. Learners can listen and record repeatedly. It is easy to add new comments and erase old comments.

2. The video comment feature not only makes the interaction more personal, it also allows the instructor to give specific visual feedback about placement of the jaw, tongue, and teeth.

3. The technology promotes authentic interaction! Students can respond to the teacher and to other students.

4. The drawing feature makes it possible for the student or teacher to draw attention to a particular word in a script that they're having difficulty with.

The sample lesson above is fairly teacher driven and limited in scope. But once students are familiar with the format, I think there are nearly endless possibilities for interaction among students and instructor.

Voicethread

I'm working on another lesson plan for students in the Advanced ESL class. Over the next few weeks they're going to be studying U.S. history from 1960-1975. So I'm working with what appears to be a very slick little program, called voicethread. If all goes well, students will be able to hear a very short audio clip from me and then practice and post their own version.

Here it is.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

Teaching Syllable Stress with Praat Language Lab

As other teachers can attest, a really complete lesson plan is a beautiful thing. By virtue of being a graduate student in Education, I recently had an excuse to spend hours researching the perfect tools for my lesson and writing a plan complete with objectives, time limits, and materials.

The result was better than a I could have hoped for. Students in our "Advanced ESL" class studied word-level stress in English Pronunciation using Praat Language Lab and WordCentral.com.

Praat Language Lab is discussed in an earlier post. WordCentral.com is an online dictionary with audio files of each word. The audio at WordCentral.com is particularly well suited to studying syllable stress as the stress is clearly pronounced.

Here's a link to the text of the lesson plan and my reflections on it.

If you do take the time to look it over, please leave a comment. I'd love to hear your feedback and learn about other tools and strategies that you've used to teach this skill.

E-mail Gateway to Online Learning

I've been learning a lot about the fundamentals of teaching English pronunciation. As a result, I'm thinking more about how to share some of this knowledge with volunteer English teachers.

Professional development for volunteer teachers presents some challenges similar to PD for professional teachers, as well as some unique ones:

• Some teachers have little to no ESL coursework or experience
• Volunteers are only required to complete 2 hrs of professional development per year
• Teachers may not be motivated to complete PD for a volunteer commitment
• Workshops offered by 3rd party trainers may not be viewed as relevant to the volunteer's particular teaching assignment
• Scheduling group trainings has been difficult due to scheduling conflicts
• Volunteers posess a wide range of technology skills and some may not be comfortable with the format of online trainings

Recently I've been considering the possibilities of e-mail as a tool for online training for those who may not be comfortable or motivated to use an online message board or online course managment system. E-mail offers some useful affordances. For example, e-mail is a familiar medium that already carries a social expectation of responding to others in a timely manner. Furthermore, many webmail providers, such as gmail, now make it easier to keep track of discussion threads in e-mail by lumping replies together.

Imagine that you receive an e-mail invitation to participate in a small group (3-5) training that will take place through e-mail over the next 3-4 weeks. Twice a week, you receive a short message from the moderator including a reading, research, or reflection assignment that is designed to take 20-30 minutes. Each assignment has a deadline within the next 2-4 days. You complete the assignment by responding to the e-mail using reply-all so that your cohort can see and reply to your responses.

In many ways, this training would be very similar to other forms of online training. The advantage of using e-mail would be to introduce participants to a form of distance learning without requiring them to sign up for a new account or learn a new interface. Initial enrollment is one of the main hurdles to getting volunteer teachers to participate in either F2F or online trainings. By using a familiar format, such as e-mail, volunteers may be less intimidated by the technology and feel that this is a training opportunity that already fits in their routine.

I'm also curious to see if the medium of e-mail encourages greater participation and persistence. I think it is possible that the routine of regularly checking e-mail and the arrival of "reply-all" responses directly into one's inbox may keep participants more engaged.

Skeptical about Tech. for Language Learning

Throughout my studies in learning technologies I have been plagued by a fundamental question: do I really believe in all this technology? Am I an enthusiastic early adopter or a skeptical laggard? Hopefully I have a healthy balance of both.

I've been asking myself these questions again as I read research on the use of speech technologies for teaching and learning second language pronunciation. Many of these articles point in the direction of computerized language tutors and independent language study (most also admit that the technology has a long way to go). Imagining a pronunciation tutoring program that could provide the user with feedback on the "nativeness" of his or her pronunciation left me wondering...If this is the direction that computer assisted language learning (CALL) is headed, do I even want to get on board?

So I was somewhat relieved to be introduced to a new acronym in the context of language learning. CMC (computer-mediated communication) seems to represent the new interactive, multi-media component of CALL. In other words, CMC is to CALL what Web 2.0 is to Web 1.0 (I guess all that studying of SAT analogies finally paid off!) I had seen CMC used in other contexts but when it was juxtaposed with CALL something clicked.

In the age of CMC, learners and teachers can take advantage of computer networks, online collaborations tools, and interact with information in a variety of modes (audio, photos, video, interactive text). To me, the affordances of these technologies are in line with what it means to learn a language. Language, after all, is about communication. Computer-based language tutors, on the other hand, fail to recognize the inherently social nature of language learning. Effective language learning results from the negotiation of meaning with others and includes subtle elements of culture, tone, and body language.

Speech technologies, such as voice-recognition software, may play a role in providing a particular type of feedback to learners who want to improve their pronunciation. Tools such as audio/video conferencing online, text chat, and other online collaboration tools, however, offer greater affordances for language learning that will result in authentic communication. Furthermore, using these technologies in an educational context will help students develop literacy skills that may prove useful in other social and workplace contexts.

Can Computers Provide Meaningful Language Learning?

I just started reading about computer assisted language learning (CALL) and speech technologies. The book is The Path of Speech Technologies in CALL, edited by Holland and Fisher. It is a 2008 compilation of chapters written by a range of researchers (and in some cases, designers) in the CALL field.

Not unlike Andy Zucker’s book, Transforming Schools with Technology, which I read this spring, Holland and Fisher chose an opening chapter that points to all the reasons why technology is falling short when it comes to CALL. Although it hasn’t really raised my interest in speech technologies as a teaching tool, the first chapter provides a very nice framework for identifying meaningful language learning and thus analyzing the effectiveness of CALL.

Clifford and Granoien, authors of chapter 1, think that the allure of technology, not pedagogical research, often leads the development of many CALL applications. Furthermore, where research is present in CALL development, it is at least two decades old and does not reflect the current consensus that language learning is fundamentally based on social interaction.

Here is where it has been interesting for me to see how theories of second language acquisition cross with more general learning theories. For example, many of the CALL researchers refer to interactivist theory. As I understand it, this theory draws upon the work of Vygotsky’s social constructivism. It sees the interaction between native and non-native speakers as a type of learning apprenticeship. Interactivism also incorporates Selinker’s 1970s concept of interlanguage. He proposed that second language learners develop their own linguistic codes that can follow rules independent of either their first or second language. Through social interaction, correction, and additional practice, this interlanguage eventually becomes more and more like the target language.

So how do Clifford and Granoien think that CALL is falling short? Well, if we assume, as they do, that social interaction is a necessary component of meaningful language learning, then it follows logically that automated CALL programs are not up to the job of effectively facilitating learners’ perception of language features, comprehension of linguistic input, and most importantly analysis and feedback of learners’ output. Therefore the following chapters promise to provide more limited proposals for the use of CALL, specifically speech technologies, to enhance individual aspects of the language learning process, especially pronunciation.

The limitations of CALL certainly did not come as a surprise for me but the framework presented for analyzing the usefulness and effectiveness of such programs helped to clarify my thinking about what is effective language learning. It builds upon many of the ideas discussed this spring in our course on Internet and schools, such as the importance of pushing technology beyond just lower order thinking tasks like memorization. Analyzing the components of language learning from an interactivist perspective also gave me the language needed to defend my suspicions about programs like Learner Web, which is about to be implemented in our consortium. Among many concerns, I worry that this program sets up the expectation for learners to engage in self directed learning that provides few, if any, opportunities for interaction in the target language. Thus students only engage in the most basic of comprehension activities and do not move toward effective production of the language.