Online quiz used to be a difficult task for teachers as it requires certain skills in website design. Simply “copy and paste” the question paper is not difficult but it is rather demanding in IT knowledge if we are setting interactive online quizzes.
Teachers can now easily set up quizzes or words or sentences re-arranging exercises with this programme. All functions are simple and easily be understood, which leads to a short time for getting used to the programme. The knowledge of the script would now be a plus for enhancing the appearance, but not a must. With the masher tool, web pages could thus be compiled as a website and teachers could manage the web pages easily. The greatest advantage of the programme is that it saves a lot of time in figuring out errors in the scripts and time spent for learning a programme for web-designing. The different types of exercises could also stimulate students’ interest when they learn the language through IT.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Reflection on Week 11 Reading - Learner Autonomy and Tandem learning
Schwienhorst (2003) mentioned the 3 approaches to learner autonomy. He first clarifies some common misunderstanding towards learner autonomy, and defines it as the capacity, which refers to students’ ability to evaluate and determine themselves. He then explains how helpful the 3 perspectives of learner autonomy are.
The first approach is individual cognitive perspective. Schwienhorst (2003) states that learners can make improvements on their language construct system by constantly evaluating how well their existing construct system is.
The second one is social-interactive perspective. According to Schwienhorst (2003), social interaction is considered as a tool to stimulate consciousness awareness towards language. Intrapersonal thinking would be induced through social interaction with another speaker who can or write fluently in the target language.
The final type is experimental-participatory perspective. This approach emphasizes that learners should take control and responsibility of their own language learning process. Learners are encouraged to use tools, such as keeping a record of learning for future judgment and as an experimental tool so that learners are able to monitor their own learning progress.
In order to implement the learner autonomy principles, theorists come up with the idea of tandem learning, which is defined as the language learning based on mutual language exchange between tandem partners, who are able to speak and write the target language natively that the other would like to learn. Learners could thus take turns to be an L2 learner and an L1 expert in their language exchange program through various methods such as emails, face-to-face interaction or chat systems etc. As there is no actual curriculum or syllabus, learners are totally taking control and responsibility for their learning process.
However, when learners place more emphasis own their own learning rather than the other party, problems would occur as they might not be willing to provide an equal amount of language support. Distant relationship is another problem as partners could easily separate links due to their differences of learning environment and contexts.
Schwienhorst then points out the ways to improve one of the asynchronous communications in tandem learning, email. ETR (Electric Tandem Resources) was then established by Appel and Mullen (2000). The system clearly structured the emails that learners have written, also showing the data of language exchange for both parties. These tools make ETR a more effective tool than other email programs. An example implementation of using MOO, a mean of synchronous communication for tandem learning, is also demonstrated by the writer. Technical diffculties, off-task behavior and incomplete tasks are the problems mentioned by the writer.
In concluding the ideas, Schwienhorst points out 3 areas that in which a combination of technology and pedagogy would affect reflective process, which are pressures to support reflection, affordance and potential.
After reading this article, I found that tandem learning could be a good way to raise learner’s autonomy towards language learning with the help of technology. However, it would be better if it is embedded in some coursework or the curriculum but not as a stand-alone work as I think learners need similar learning goals and assessments so as to guide their learning. Without goals, students might not be motivated in doing so. Also, I agree that teachers must provide enough support and tools for learners to monitor and evaluate their learning progress. Otherwise, learners would not do it seriously.
The first approach is individual cognitive perspective. Schwienhorst (2003) states that learners can make improvements on their language construct system by constantly evaluating how well their existing construct system is.
The second one is social-interactive perspective. According to Schwienhorst (2003), social interaction is considered as a tool to stimulate consciousness awareness towards language. Intrapersonal thinking would be induced through social interaction with another speaker who can or write fluently in the target language.
The final type is experimental-participatory perspective. This approach emphasizes that learners should take control and responsibility of their own language learning process. Learners are encouraged to use tools, such as keeping a record of learning for future judgment and as an experimental tool so that learners are able to monitor their own learning progress.
In order to implement the learner autonomy principles, theorists come up with the idea of tandem learning, which is defined as the language learning based on mutual language exchange between tandem partners, who are able to speak and write the target language natively that the other would like to learn. Learners could thus take turns to be an L2 learner and an L1 expert in their language exchange program through various methods such as emails, face-to-face interaction or chat systems etc. As there is no actual curriculum or syllabus, learners are totally taking control and responsibility for their learning process.
However, when learners place more emphasis own their own learning rather than the other party, problems would occur as they might not be willing to provide an equal amount of language support. Distant relationship is another problem as partners could easily separate links due to their differences of learning environment and contexts.
Schwienhorst then points out the ways to improve one of the asynchronous communications in tandem learning, email. ETR (Electric Tandem Resources) was then established by Appel and Mullen (2000). The system clearly structured the emails that learners have written, also showing the data of language exchange for both parties. These tools make ETR a more effective tool than other email programs. An example implementation of using MOO, a mean of synchronous communication for tandem learning, is also demonstrated by the writer. Technical diffculties, off-task behavior and incomplete tasks are the problems mentioned by the writer.
In concluding the ideas, Schwienhorst points out 3 areas that in which a combination of technology and pedagogy would affect reflective process, which are pressures to support reflection, affordance and potential.
After reading this article, I found that tandem learning could be a good way to raise learner’s autonomy towards language learning with the help of technology. However, it would be better if it is embedded in some coursework or the curriculum but not as a stand-alone work as I think learners need similar learning goals and assessments so as to guide their learning. Without goals, students might not be motivated in doing so. Also, I agree that teachers must provide enough support and tools for learners to monitor and evaluate their learning progress. Otherwise, learners would not do it seriously.
Reflection on Alderson, J. C. (2000). Technology in testing: the present and the future. System, 28(4), 593-603.
In this article, the author first reviews the advantages and disadvantages of implementing computer-based testing. Although a number of disadvantages exists in computer-based tests such as incapability in testing productive skills and computer illiteracy, the author is predicting a massive development in CBTs in a few years and some might even tackle these problems.
Advantages of CBTs include reducing group administrators of assessments, no time constraint for tests, immediate results after testing, high testing security etc. One of the great advantages of CBTs is the computer adaptive testing. The system can choose questions of appropriate levels according to the answers students picked. The more questions students get correctly, the more difficult questions would be provided. Immediate feedbacks provided by computer-based tests is also another pedagogic advantage of CBTs mentioned by the writer. While students might need to wait for months for the feedback after a traditional paper-pencil test, it is more meaningful for them to know how well they have performed after each question, or after they have finished the whole test, as they still remember what they have done. One more advantage that CBTs brings is its tailor-made user friendliness.
Even with different innovative features of CBTs, the author found that most CBTs now are actually similar to the paper-and-pencil-based testing. Although some innovations are noteworthy such as adjusting pace of tests and choosing more than 1 choice in Multiple Choice questions used in CBT TOFEL, not many variations could be seen nowadays.
I agree with the author that apart from making the test more user-friendly by CBTs, more features should be developed in order to raise its compatibility with language pedagogy. Even the author suggested program like E-rater, which is designed to give scores to productive output, writing, I would not trust the score given as it follows samples extracted from the previously scored open-ended essays. As long as the test takers know about the rating principle, the system can be fooled by giving some specific structures or vocabulary item which are not totally fit in the context. I seriously have doubt in measuring productive outcomes by CBT. Hopefully, the future development could give some insights about this area.
Advantages of CBTs include reducing group administrators of assessments, no time constraint for tests, immediate results after testing, high testing security etc. One of the great advantages of CBTs is the computer adaptive testing. The system can choose questions of appropriate levels according to the answers students picked. The more questions students get correctly, the more difficult questions would be provided. Immediate feedbacks provided by computer-based tests is also another pedagogic advantage of CBTs mentioned by the writer. While students might need to wait for months for the feedback after a traditional paper-pencil test, it is more meaningful for them to know how well they have performed after each question, or after they have finished the whole test, as they still remember what they have done. One more advantage that CBTs brings is its tailor-made user friendliness.
Even with different innovative features of CBTs, the author found that most CBTs now are actually similar to the paper-and-pencil-based testing. Although some innovations are noteworthy such as adjusting pace of tests and choosing more than 1 choice in Multiple Choice questions used in CBT TOFEL, not many variations could be seen nowadays.
I agree with the author that apart from making the test more user-friendly by CBTs, more features should be developed in order to raise its compatibility with language pedagogy. Even the author suggested program like E-rater, which is designed to give scores to productive output, writing, I would not trust the score given as it follows samples extracted from the previously scored open-ended essays. As long as the test takers know about the rating principle, the system can be fooled by giving some specific structures or vocabulary item which are not totally fit in the context. I seriously have doubt in measuring productive outcomes by CBT. Hopefully, the future development could give some insights about this area.
Reflection on Week 7 Reading - Practical Considerations For Multimedia Courseware Development: An EFL IVD Experience
Liou (1994) discusses the practical implementation of an EFL interactive videodisc (IVD) courseware. In this learning package, students are able to find various resources such as text and videos about different issues. Moreover, different types of exercises are available for students to work on simply using the disc. Convenience and the all-in-one feature are greatest advantages brought by this type of material.
However, this kind of CD or DVD is not rare nowadays. E-books are provided by textbook publishers with similar purpose and functions. Moreover, using a disc might not be as convenient as uploading materials on the Internet. Online access is more convenient in these few years as online data storage has been increasing rapidly. Furthermore, with the help of Web2.0, videos can now be easily shared within web pages, without burning them on a disc if quality is not the main concern.
Concerning about the activities of such package, more language outputs could be added to such packages. As students are more proficient in terms of computer literacy nowadays, audio or video productions are options for students to produce, if resources are more than sufficient. Discussions or presentation of videos could also be added as another interactive language product that students have to do.
However, this kind of CD or DVD is not rare nowadays. E-books are provided by textbook publishers with similar purpose and functions. Moreover, using a disc might not be as convenient as uploading materials on the Internet. Online access is more convenient in these few years as online data storage has been increasing rapidly. Furthermore, with the help of Web2.0, videos can now be easily shared within web pages, without burning them on a disc if quality is not the main concern.
Concerning about the activities of such package, more language outputs could be added to such packages. As students are more proficient in terms of computer literacy nowadays, audio or video productions are options for students to produce, if resources are more than sufficient. Discussions or presentation of videos could also be added as another interactive language product that students have to do.
Reflection on Week 5 Reading – Theory Driven CALL and development process
In Levy’s (1997) article, he presented some theories of psychology, language learning and instruction. Among the projects he had come across, he found that some CALL projects were not driven by the theories. Thus, he carried out research in this area and come up with 2 types of practitioners of CALLS: proceduralists and formalists.
The proceduralists are practitioners who focus more on the technology that helps learning. They mainly solve problems by writing programs and testing them with learners. Through this way, they believe our understanding of CALL would be advanced. On the other hand, the formalists tend to solve problems by formulating theories and the application of the theories in the CALL context. They are very concerned about if the theories applied really encompass the CALL context.
Either way is better than the other one as they both bring advantages and bare risks. Programs written by proceduralists can surely accommodate in the CALL context, but if too much focus on the programs themselves, they might get to the point that their work would no longer be supported with any theoretical basis. Meanwhile, the formalists can always make sure the theories are applicable, but sometimes resources and learning opportunities brought by technology might have been overlooked in such cases.
I basically think that it is right that we should strike a balance between the theoretical framework and the capabilities brought by technology. In order to do so, teachers should always be well aware of the dynamic development process of CALL. We shouldn’t neither use the most advanced technology as teaching nor focus too much on theories without considering other options of using CALL.
The proceduralists are practitioners who focus more on the technology that helps learning. They mainly solve problems by writing programs and testing them with learners. Through this way, they believe our understanding of CALL would be advanced. On the other hand, the formalists tend to solve problems by formulating theories and the application of the theories in the CALL context. They are very concerned about if the theories applied really encompass the CALL context.
Either way is better than the other one as they both bring advantages and bare risks. Programs written by proceduralists can surely accommodate in the CALL context, but if too much focus on the programs themselves, they might get to the point that their work would no longer be supported with any theoretical basis. Meanwhile, the formalists can always make sure the theories are applicable, but sometimes resources and learning opportunities brought by technology might have been overlooked in such cases.
I basically think that it is right that we should strike a balance between the theoretical framework and the capabilities brought by technology. In order to do so, teachers should always be well aware of the dynamic development process of CALL. We shouldn’t neither use the most advanced technology as teaching nor focus too much on theories without considering other options of using CALL.
Reflection on Week 4 Reading – Language Learner Behaviour in Virtual Environment
Roed (2003) first pointed out that people usually behave differently when they have online communications compared to face-to-face interactions. In this paper, students’ communication through text in a virtual environment was recorded and being analyzed.
From the research, the writer found that learners generally feel more comfortable to express themselves in a virtual world, rather than in real communications. Some learners consider themselves not attractive enough, which makes them not confident enough to talk to others. Therefore, students’ participation is thus higher when using text communication platforms as learners think that others would not have judgment over their appearance. Also, anxiety is the main factor when an L2 learner needs to communicate with others in a language that they do not speak fluently. Although the writer points out that learners might have a high private self-awareness as they are proud of how proficient they are in the target language, learners generally cares about how people access them, which is the main reason of causing anxiety. Being able to be an anonymous when communicating with others is one of the ways to help reduce learners’ language anxiety.
However, there are also some negative consequences when using such kind of virtual communication. Suggested by Roed, students in the project found it boring when the lag time is too long for them. All they could do was simply waiting as there were too many students typing at the same time. Annoyance was thus the result of a number of students as they thought people were not responding at a normal pace or they thought that the system didn’t work. This kind of communication might also lead to misunderstanding due to a lack of body language and facial expressions. Learners have to interpret and show the tone and attitude simply by texts, which could cause misinterpretation by others.
In conclusion, a virtual learning environment can help students learning progress in some areas. However, with its difference from face-to-face interaction, it cannot totally replace all kinds of communications as these are not the sole communications in their lives. Oral interaction is also an important area in language learning, which cannot be replaced by the communications in a virtual environment.
From the research, the writer found that learners generally feel more comfortable to express themselves in a virtual world, rather than in real communications. Some learners consider themselves not attractive enough, which makes them not confident enough to talk to others. Therefore, students’ participation is thus higher when using text communication platforms as learners think that others would not have judgment over their appearance. Also, anxiety is the main factor when an L2 learner needs to communicate with others in a language that they do not speak fluently. Although the writer points out that learners might have a high private self-awareness as they are proud of how proficient they are in the target language, learners generally cares about how people access them, which is the main reason of causing anxiety. Being able to be an anonymous when communicating with others is one of the ways to help reduce learners’ language anxiety.
However, there are also some negative consequences when using such kind of virtual communication. Suggested by Roed, students in the project found it boring when the lag time is too long for them. All they could do was simply waiting as there were too many students typing at the same time. Annoyance was thus the result of a number of students as they thought people were not responding at a normal pace or they thought that the system didn’t work. This kind of communication might also lead to misunderstanding due to a lack of body language and facial expressions. Learners have to interpret and show the tone and attitude simply by texts, which could cause misinterpretation by others.
In conclusion, a virtual learning environment can help students learning progress in some areas. However, with its difference from face-to-face interaction, it cannot totally replace all kinds of communications as these are not the sole communications in their lives. Oral interaction is also an important area in language learning, which cannot be replaced by the communications in a virtual environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)