- Digital gaming is apparently an area of particular interest to some and the terms "playing to learn" vs. "learning to play" (Amseth, 2006) were bandied about. I will be investigating a few publications on this. Who knows, maybe there will be a unit on gaming in next year's CALL course.
- I met Yoo Ree Chang, the Ph.D. student at Iowa State whose homepage several of you expressed appreciation for. She says 'hi'.
- This is a new piece of freeware that was discussed in a session on L2 phonology. It looks like a wonderful tool for analyzing phonology and linguistic variation.
- Here's a blog for a CALL class currently being offered at the University of Arizona. There's a fair bit of discussion on gaming, mashups and twitter for those who are interested. It appears to be open access, so feel free to comment.
* Twitter appears to be the new hot thing this year. I'll see if I can go to a presentation on it, as this is one piece of Web 2.0 technology about which I'm more than a little skeptical.
* Not much is going on regarding second life Second Life. Is it already on the way out?
* This year's conference is definitely smaller than in previous years - an casualty of the current economic climate.
Levy and Stockwell talks about the importance of being aware of the availability of technological options and their appropriate application in different areas of language learning. Some technologies are better suited for a certain learning objective than others. For example, according to Levy and Stockwell, chat would not be an ideal choice in development of grammatical ability because of the limited time constraint. However, in my own opinion, chat can be used as a tool in improving grammatical skills if specific exercises are structured into the chat. What are some of your ideas in incorporating computer technologies in different areas of language learning? Which particular technology would you employ in what specific tasks?
Chapter 4 in Levy & Stockwell discusses "Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC)", and its use in the classroom. Examples of CMC are e-mail, chat, and MOO's. This is my second semester in the MA-TESL program, and I've found CMC to be very useful in the classroom. Last semester in Linguistics class I participated in the cyber language exchange program where our assignment was to have chat sessions with a Swedish high school class. I found the program to be interactive and beneficial to both our class and the Swedish class. Having chat sessions like this would definitely be something I would like to incorporate into my classroom in the future. The possibilities are endless with CMC. Students are able to chat with other students from all over the world. As an instructor you could set up the timing for your students to chat with other students who are learning English around the world (Europe, Africa, Asia, South/Central America, etc.), or you could have your students chat with native English speakers from the US, Canada, the UK, or Australia. Students could really benefit from practicing their English globally through the use of computers. As an instructor how would you use aspects of CMC in your classroom? If you don't plan to be an instructor, how do you see the use of CMC in the future of your chosen profession?
What do you think it's required for successful application of CALL to a learning environment from the perspective of having clear objectives, knowing the technological options and their pedagogical implications, and knowing the students abilities, goals and perceptions related to different types of CALL?
This is No. 5 Discussion from Carmen Lezcano
Kim Minjeong conducted a web-survey study about the Creative Commons (CC) and Copyright protection in the internet.
A professor at
Miss Minjeong’s web-based survey followed the following: 1. CC licensor’s occupation. 1. Who owns a CC licensed work? 2. Is it important for CC licensors to gain money from their copyright work? 3. What is the CC licensor’s occupation? 4. Demographic characteristics of the CC. licensors. 5. Whether CC licensors register their “work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Kim was also interested in finding out if a conflict would exist among “Creative Common” Copyright license users and copyright law and found out that CC. had actually two visions competing among each other –fundamentals of the copyright law; “Private property vision” and “public policy vision.”
“Private property vision” supporters believe that copyright law is a natural law that gives the authors’ the right over their works as well as the right to be paid each time someone would use their “copyrighted works” (Digital era or technology included).
“Public policy vision” advocates, at the contrary, believe that copyright “has historically developed as society’s grant of a limited monopoly,” and that the author’s rights need to be somehow weighted against freedom of every other person who desires to use a copyrighted work. This vision underscores a role of “copyright as a matter of public policy” aiming to-achieve a balance between a public and private interest as Lessig’s idea was to invite people to create original works or have access to cultural –resources- or be able to criticize someone else’s works using the new technology and adds that nowadays “those freedoms” are restricted.
Minjeong, Kim’s web-based survey study reported a total of 280 licensors (CC) only 18% had their copyrighted works for monetary gains as a corporation or as individuals. Miss Minjeong’s expectations were that most CC licensors would be from the educational field or “nonprofit organizations.”
My question is:
Would you prefer to share your copyrighted works for personal satisfaction or for financial gains?
Excerpt from a person’s diary:
“It’s valentine’s day today, all cupl are d8ing and g gets @}--\-,-- no 1 is d8ing with (-_-) , so I still have my own way to celebrate. I am@hm & I got a |P| and some **** and I DL some movies to enjoy my single life, and says HAND to myself. “
It’s valentine’s day today, all couples are dating and girl gets rose. No one is dating with me, so I still have my own way to celebrate. I stay at home and I got a can of Pepsi and some popcorn and I download some movies to enjoy my single life and says have a nice day to myself. )
Source: the meaning of textspeak is from David Crystal: A glossary of netspeak and textspeak.
Are you able to understand the paragraph when you read in the first time? What do you think these types of text-based literacy practice? Craig (2003) states that people have a negative comment on the state of literacy today, and many of them pin the blame on new technology (p. 117). Due to prevalence of language and literacy practice on the Internet, people notice that there is a growth of informality in language use, and they concern whether these language use will cause a general deterioration in the quality of language.
As a language or a literacy educator,
1. Have you seen advantages and disadvantages of these types of literacy practice on the internet in the youth generation?
2. To what extent you have seen negative impact on language/literacy learning. What an educator can help and instruct if youth generation continues to use these type new varieties at academic literacy/language learning?
3. If you have not seen negative impact on language/literacy learning, what other problems would you think cause youth generation’s literacy decline?
Both of this week’s articles had to do applying interactionist SLA theory to CALL activities. Grgurović & Hegelheimer (2007) was about help options students can use during a multimedia presentation (subtitles, transcripts, and online dictionaries) which make the input more comprehensible. Heift (2004) talked about which kind of feedback (clarification, metalinguistic, or metalinguistic + highlighting) prompted more uptake on the part of students; i.e. did they correct their mistakes more if the computer said “try again!”(clarification), gave a grammar-type hint about the error, or gave the hint + highlighted the wrong portion of the answer. My question is this: what kinds of help options or feedback to answers have you seen on CALL programs/sites or used in your computer labs? Which seem to help students negotiate meaning the most?
In Levy and Stockwell chap. 8 cellular telephones were mentioned as possible instruments for language learning. I agree to an extent, but how well will the learner be able to retain the information being learned? Where will they complete the work? In an airport, crowded mall, in the bar, will they even be able to focus on the assignment? They may complete it but how much will they have learned by doing that assignment? What do you think of cell phones for learning? Because of all these intangibles and the outside cost of owning a phone, I do not support the use of cell phones in language learning.
Another concern I would like to raise is the question of special needs language learners, such as the blind, deaf or those with minimal coordination of their hands and fingers. Technology is great, but only for those who have the ability to use and benefit from it. People who are blind or deaf, etc. have the same right to an education as anyone else and their needs must be addressed or alternative exercises need to be administered. But if one or two people are doing different sets of exercises, then the teacher would be running the risk of alienating the special needs students from the rest of the class. How would you deal with it?
An additional set of people who may not be able to effectively use technology for language learning are those without a background in the technology being used. Introductory courses to classroom technology need to be made available before the technology is presented for language learning purposes. Teachers and future teachers need to be given a technological foundation from which to work so they can realize the scale and possibilities that technology can provide in the classroom. Comments?