LIN8006_Study_Book_S1_2015

LIN8006

Computer-Assisted Language Learning

Study book Semester 1 2015

Written by Jeong-Bae Son

Course overview

Module 1 Background 1

University of Southern Queensland

Module 1 Background

Introduction Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is a multidisciplinary area of inquiry which has generated enormous interest among researchers and practitioners. A variety of approaches to CALL development and use have been attempted by language teachers with the potential of computers in second/foreign language learning and teaching.

In this introductory module we explore the background of CALL, while looking at terms and basic concepts related to the use of computers in language education and discussing the development and history of CALL.

Learning objectives On successful completion of this module, you should be able to:

list and discuss terms associated with CALL discuss basic concepts of CALL discuss the past, present and future of CALL.

Learning resources

Selected readings 1.1: Davies, G., Otto, S. E. K., Ruschoff, B. (2012). Historical perspectives on CALL. In M.

Thomas, H. Reinders & M. Warschauer (Eds.), Contemporary computer-assisted language learning (pp. 1938). London: Bloomsbury Academic.

1.2: Stockwell, G., & Tanaka-Ellis, N. (2012). Diversity in environments. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning: Diversity in research & practice (pp. 7189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Additional readings

1.1a: Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: The effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 115.

1.2a: Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 1935.

2 LIN8006 Computer-assisted language learning


1.1 Points of departure Acronyms and terms reflecting the use of computers in education have grown with rapid developments in computer technology. They represent various roles of computers in learning and teaching. CAI (Computer-Assisted/Aided Instruction) and CAL (Computer- Assisted/Aided Learning) are the terms that are commonly used in educational technology. As the terms indicate, the first focuses on the teaching aspect of education while the second focuses on the learning aspect of education.

Similarly, CALI (Computer-Assisted Language Instruction), CELL (Computer-Enhanced Language Learning) and CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning) are the terms which refer to the use of computers in language education. Of these terms, CALL is currently recognised as the most common acronym in the area of applied linguistics. CALL focuses on the use of computers for language learning and includes all kinds of language learning activities that utilise computers for assisting the learning process.

Learning activity 1 Write brief notes about the ways in which you have used the computer and/or hope to be involved with computers in language learning and teaching. Post your response to the discussion board.

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Learning activity 2 Examine the opportunities available for you and your students (or potential students) to use computers. What types of access are available and what advantages and disadvantages do you see in your situation? Post your response to the discussion board.

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

Module 1 Background 3


Learning activity 3 There are a number of technical terms and acronyms in the field of CALL. Find out what each of the following acronyms means and how they might apply to your teaching contexts:

CMC WBLL NBLT IBLI MALL ICALL

Also, find out what the following terms mean and how they might be related to your teaching contexts:

courseware multimedia hypermedia hypertext website uniform resource locator e-mail emoticon digital versatile disc mobile app learning management system

1.2 Past, present and future of CALL Through the combination of educational needs and technological advancement, CALL has evolved over a period of time in the area of language learning and teaching.



Learning activity4 Read selected reading 1.1: Davies, Otto and Ruschoff (2012).

This reading presents a brief overview of the history of CALL from the 1960s to the 2000s. While the reading has limitations in its coverage, it gives us an opportunity to look at the historical development of CALL. Can you see where CALL is heading? What do you think about the future of CALL? Post your view to the discussion board.

For another perspective on the development of CALL, read the additional reading 1.1a: Bax (2011).

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

1.3 CALL environments

Learning activity 5 Read selected reading 1.2: Stockwell & Tanaka-Ellis (2012).

This reading explores four environments: face-to-face environments, blended environments, distance environments and virtual environments. Which kind of environment are you teaching in? If you have a choice, which environment, or combination of environments, would you choose for your teaching and why? Post your response to the discussion board.

For a more focused discussion on online language learning activities and environments, read the additional reading 1.2a: Blake (2011).

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

Module 2 Research 1


Module 2 Research

Introduction A number of approaches to CALL research have been attempted to answer questions raised by CALL researchers and practitioners since the rise of CALL. In line with this, a large number of studies on CALL have been published while researchers and practitioners investigate specific ways that CALL provides better learning.

In this module we briefly survey research on CALL, addressing general trends and issues which have appeared in CALL research.

Learning objectives On successful completion of this module, you should be able to:

demonstrate a broad understanding of research in CALL discuss major research trends and issues in CALL identify current approaches to CALL research.

Learning resources

Selected readings 2.1: Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning trends and issues revisited:

Integrating innovation. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Winter), 719740.

2.2: Grgurovi, M., Chapelle, C. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(2), 165198.

2.3: Chun, D. M. (2012). Replication studies in CALL research. CALICO Journal, 29(4), 591600.

2.1 Trends and issues Early CALL researchers introduced practical ways in which computers could be used to improve language learning and teaching with CALL applications. As Pederson (1987), Chapelle and Jamieson (1989), and Dunkel (1991) pointed out, many researchers attempted



to demonstrate the effectiveness of CALL by comparing learning outcomes in computer-based instruction with those in traditional classrooms. In addition, as Chapelle (1996) noted, some researchers examined cognitive and affective aspects of individual learners in CALL settings during the 1980s (e.g., Chapelle & Jamieson, 1986). At the same time, early drill-and- practice CALL software began to be produced in various types such as tutorial, game and holistic practice (Wyatt, 1987).

In the discussion of CALL effectiveness, since the middle of the 1980s, a significant shift in research focus has occurred away from simple comparison between computer-assisted and non-computer-assisted language instruction, which predominated in the early stage of CALL history, to more concrete and specific research questions (Son, 1998).

Along with this kind of movement, Pederson (1987) urged that CALL is highly context- bound and must ... take such variables as learner differences, learning task, and the computers coding options into account (p. 100). She also argued that evaluative research using CALL software should be encouraged instead of comparative research on computer- assisted versus non-computer-assisted language instruction. Such argument, initiated by researchers in educational technology (e.g. Clark, 1983; Salomon, 1979), has largely expanded the views of CALL research.

Learning activity 1 Read selected reading 2.1: Garrett (2009).

This reading is an update to Garrett (1991). As a major part of the update, she looks at recent issues for CALL, including new demands in language education, the need to rethink grammar instruction, online learning, social computing, teacher training and professional development, and CALL research. What do the issues mean to you in your present or potential teaching context? How would you like to deal with them? Post your response to the discussion board.

_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

2.2 Agendas for CALL studies Research in CALL has strengthened the links between CALL and second language classroom research.

As technology advances to innovative systems and increases the adaptability and flexibility of computer materials in the classroom, CALL research will further need to assess the

Module 2 Research 3


educational nature of CALL and the ways in which it can be used to contribute to L2/FL learning and teaching in the classroom.

Learning activity 2 Read selected reading 2.2: Grgurovi, Chapelle and Shelley (2013). This reading has attempted to answer the question of whether or not technology-supported pedagogies enhance language learning through a meta-analysis of empirical studies reported in the literature from 1970 to 2006. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the meta-analysis? What implications do you draw from the results of the meta-analysis? Post your response to the discussion board.

_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

Learning activity 3 Read selected reading 2.3: Chun (2012).

This reading discusses replication studies in CALL. What values do you see from the discussion? In what ways are the suggested guidelines for how to selectstudies that could be replicated conceptually useful? Post your response to the discussion board.

_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________



Learning activity 4 Formulate one detailed CALL research question which is of interest to you and describe how you would like to investigate the question. Post your response to the discussion board

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

References Chapelle, C. A. (1996). CALL-English as a second language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 16, 139157.

Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor of success in acquiring English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 2746.

Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (1989). Research trends in computer-assisted language learning. In M. Pennington (Ed.), Teaching languages with computers: The state of the art (pp. 4759). La Jolla: Athelstan.

Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445459.

Dunkel, P. (1991). The effectiveness research on computer-assisted instruction and computer-assisted language learning. In P. Dunkel (Ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: Research issues and practice (pp. 536). New York: Newbury House.

Garrett, N. (1991). Technology in the service of language learning: Trends and issues. Modern Language Journal, 75, 74101.

Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99131). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Salomon, G. (1979). Media and symbol systems as related to cognition and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 131148.

Son, J. -B. (1998). Trends and issues in CALL research: A glance. English Linguistic Science, 1, 711.

Module 2 Research 5


Wyatt, D. H. (1987). Applying pedagogical principles to CALL courseware development. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 8598). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Module 3 Language teachers in CALL environments 1


Module 3 Language teachers in CALL environments

Introduction

As advances in computer technology affect various aspects of the language learning process, language teachers are now being required to be familiar with the new technology and teaching methodology using CALL applications, and also to be involved in the use of computer materials in their teaching contexts. A starting point for fulfilling this requirement could be to find appropriate roles and possible tasks for language teachers in CALL environments. This implies that language teachers in CALL need to identify their roles and respond to new issues and demands on teachers.

In this module we examine language teachers roles in CALL contexts by looking at actual tasks and methods of how to cope with CALL. General considerations for using CALL are given, and methodological approaches relating to practice are discussed by asking the following two basic questions: (1) What can language teachers do with CALL? and (2) What do language teachers need to know about CALL?. To help teachers in developing effective strategies for using CALL, meaningful tasks for teachers are presented, starting from observation to management.

Learning objectives

On successful completion of this module, you should be able to:

identify and discuss teachers roles in CALL environments

list and describe main components of CALL

classify and discuss a range of CALL activities

list and discuss courseware design and evaluation methods

develop management skills for using CALL resources.



Learning resources

Selected readings

3.1: Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language

learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163178.

3.2: Son, J.-B., Robb, T., & Charismiadji, I. (2011). Computer literacy and competency: A survey of Indonesian teachers of English as a foreign language. CALL-EJ, 12(1), 2642. Retrieved from http://callej.org/journal/12-1/Son_2011.pdf

3.3: Otto, S. E. K., & Pusack, J. P. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning authoring

issues. The Modern Language Journal, 93(Winter), 784801.

3.4: Hampel, R., & Pleines, C. (2013). Fostering student interaction and engagement in a virtual learning environment: An investigation into activity design and implementation. CALICO Journal, 30(3), 342370.

3.5: Son, J.-B. (2007). Learner experiences in web-based language learning. Computer

Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 2136.

3.6: Chapelle, C. A., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Tips for teaching with CALL: Practical approaches to computer-assisted language learning. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education. Chapter 7 Communication skills (pp. 171194).

3.7: Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating

technology in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1 Integrating technology (pp. 923).

3.8: Son, J.-B. (2005). Exploring and evaluating language learning web sites. In J.-B. Son, &

S. O'Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 215227). Retrieved from http://www.apacall.org/member/sonjb/papers/enhancing2005.htm

3.9: Son, J.-B., & Park, J.-Y. (2012). Intercultural usability of language learning websites.

International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 7(2), 135141.

3.10: MacDonald, L. (2011). The virtual language lab: Virtually painless simply real. The IALLT Journal for Language Learning Technologies, 41(1), 137160. Retrieved from http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/the_virtual_language_lab_virtually_painless_simply_re al

3.11: Son, J.-B. (2011). Online tools for language teaching. TESL-EJ, 15(1). Retrieved from

http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej57/ej57int/

Note: You are recommended to search for more recent readings and discuss them with other fellow students in the course discussion group.



3.1 Observation

As CALL observation is crucial for discovering the effects of CALL, teachers need to develop observation techniques to analyse the extent to which CALL achieves its aims. At this point, the question of what and how to observe CALL actions is an important issue in CALL experiments for those who want to track learners learning activities enhanced by computer technology.

In the CALL classroom, there are three main components: learner, teacher and computer. Figure 3.1 shows a simple model of these elements and their interactions in the CALL classroom where a target language is taught.

Figure 3.1: A model of the three main components in the CALL classroom (learner, teacher, computer) (Son, 2000)

The learner

Given the importance of the examination of learner characteristics and their relevance for the effectiveness of CALL, we begin with the learner who can best perceive how CALL affects his/her learning.

Learning activity 3.1

Read selected reading 3.1: Hubbard (2013).

This reading points out the importance of learner training in CALL. Do you support the case the author has made? Do you think that CALL has altered students learning process and teachers need to train students to learn differently in CALL environments? Why or why not? Post your response to the discussion board.



The teacher

The roles of the teacher commonly found in the language classroom are tutor, guide or facilitator. In addition to these roles, the teacher in CALL needs to act as a CALL observer, designer, implementer, evaluator, or manager. CALL observers look at recent CALL materials and build basic skills to deal with CALL. Teachers who are directly involved in the design, implementation or evaluation of CALL can be called CALL developers. CALL designers create their own computer applications by practising and utilising programming languages or authoring tools with instructional design approaches; CALL implementers use CALL software which matches with students or teachers needs in the classroom and develop teaching methods for CALL practice; and CALL evaluators make comments on CALL materials, approaches or courses with evaluation criteria. When teachers supervise the overall use of CALL, they become CALL managers who guide other teachers to the world of CALL, facilitate CALL in self-access or classroom settings, and manage CALL resources for learning and teaching purposes (Son, 1997, 2000).


Read selected reading 3.2: Son, Robb and Charismiadji (2011).

Using the questionnaire in Appendix 1 of this reading, perform a self-evaluation of your computer knowledge and skills. How did you respond to Q11, Q12 and Q13? Have you answered all questions in Section IV (Q18) correctly without asking others or referring to books or websites? What would you like to do to improve your competence in the use of CALL? Post your response to the discussion board.

The computer

The computer, as a tutor, tool, or tutee (Taylor, 1980), can play diverse roles in language instruction. Any computer equipment, including the keyboard, the screen, the printer, and the disc drive, is called hardware. The computer instructions, programs, and codes that enable the computer system to work are called software. Within the scope of computer programs, software with an instructional purpose is known as courseware (Lathrop & Goodson, 1983; Jonassen, 1988). In respect of CALL materials, Lian (1991) points out that the most obvious category of CALL software is courseware or computer-based lesson materials (p. 2).



3.2 Design

Design is an essential stage in the process of CALL software development. The concept of design assists developers to produce actual programs. The process of design can be divided into the following six steps (modified from Self, 1985):

1. analysing needs of students and/or teachers

2. outlining tasks and formats

3. selecting programming methods

4. creating the program

5. implementing the program

6. debugging the program.

These steps can be simplified or elaborated by considering how a piece of software is constructed.

In a way of identifying CALL software to be created, we can categorise it based on a classification or specification list presenting many different components and features of CALL software. Here is a CALL specification list which you might find useful.

Table 3.1: CALL software specification list (Son, 2000)

1. Objective:

a. The target language: e.g. English, German, Chinese, Korean, etc.

b. Language skills: focused on reading, writing, listening, speaking, grammar, or vocabulary

2. Program design: a. Programming: by high-level programming languages; by multimedia

authoring tools; or Web programming languages

b. Authoring: possibility of change or extension 3. Learning/teaching theory:

a. Applied methodology: task-based, content-based, or skill-based; grammar- translation method, communicative approach, etc.

b. Degree of program control: computer, learner, or combined control

c. Intelligence: intelligent or non-intelligent program 4. Software format:

a. Task modes: tutorial, testing, drill-practice, problem-solving, simulation, or game program

b. System requirements: suitability of computer capacity, disk drives or

additional peripherals

CUONGNotefixing errors



Programming and authoring have fundamental importance to course designers or language teachers who want to be in control of CALL development in their teaching situations. The most useful programs in the market are authoring programs that enable teachers to enter their own texts, vocabulary lists or test items into program frameworks. That is, teachers can extend the program by adding more data of the same or different kind. Non-authoring programs, sometimes known as dedicated programs, also have a place in language learning and teaching. Dedicated programs have often been designed for purposes other than language teaching, and thus help to bring the other areas into the computer (Jones & Fortescue, 1987).

A number of researchers (e.g., Mayhew, 1992; Schneiderman, 1987) have discussed and suggested principles and guidelines in software interface design. The most popular and basic principle of the interface design is to create a system that is easy for the learner to use (Gordon, 1994, p. 10). That is, the interface needs to be user-friendly so that learners can understand easily how to use the program and explore it without difficulty.


Read selected reading 3.3: Otto and Pusack (2009).

This reading discusses issues in CALL authoring. What barriers to CALL design exist in your current or future teaching context? How would you overcome them? Post your response to the discussion board.


Read selected reading 3.4: Hampel and Pleines (2013).

This reading focuses on activity design in a Moodle-based virtual learning environment (VLE). How do you see the importance of research examining student engagement and interaction in the design of online activities? What recommendations would you make based on the study reported in the reading? Post your response to the discussion board.




Read selected reading 3.5: Son (2007).

1. The reading presents two types of web-based language learning (WBLL) activities. Which type do you think is appropriate for your current or future students and why? Post your response to the discussion board.

2. Find and explore two free access websites that can be used with your (current or future) students. What are they? Why do you choose them? What kinds of adaptations would you need to make to use in your teaching situations? Post your response to the discussion board.

3.3 Implementation

CALL implementers are those who try to reflect notions of CALL theory in the language classroom and to integrate CALL into the curriculum. As part of CALL implementation, they develop teaching strategies and techniques for CALL practice.

In this section we attempt to use CALL materials available for our teaching. In doing so, we are required to plan CALL lessons and exploit CALL applications effectively and creatively.



3.3.1 Planning CALL lessons

To make smooth progress in classroom situations, it is certainly helpful for teachers to have lesson plans indicating contents and procedures of CALL lessons. Table 3.2 shows an example planner.

Table 3.2: Example lesson planner (Son, 2000)

Lesson Overview (CALL)

Course:

Term: Week: Date: Number of Students: Level: Lesson No: Topic of lesson: Objective(s):

Preparation

Hardware:

Software:

Others:

Procedure:

Stages Time Teacher Students Pre-computer work

Computer work

Post-computer work



Follow-up activities:

Evaluation and comments:

In a simple way, the following description of a CALL activity might give you a guide to the practice of actual techniques in the CALL classroom.

AIM To practice letters of application LEVEL Intermediate TIME 75 minutes PREPARATION Hardware

One computer per group preferably, but not essentially, linked together in a Network

Software A word-processor

Knowledge Basic use of the word-processor

PROCEDURE Pre-computer work:

1. Either from a suitable textbook, or using an authentic text, present

students with a letter of application

2. Hand the students recent job advertisements, and ask them to choose the job they would most like to have.

Computer-work:

3. Students write their letters of application on a computer, as a

group-writing exercise.

4. When students have finished their letters, they save them. Then they load another groups text. They read the text carefully, and, depending on the quality of English, write a letter asking the person to come to an interview.

Post-computer work:

5. Students conduct a job interview role-plays, alternating between

applicant and interviewer.

(Hardisty & Windeatt, 1989, pp. 8788)



3.3.2 Using CALL materials and activities

Teachers, as CALL implementers, obviously need ability to use courseware which may be skill-based, process-based, strategy-based or combined type of CALL software. While providing students with multiple tasks for effective CALL activities, CALL teachers also mediate the students reactions to the tasks on the computer screen and monitor the students progress in completing the given tasks.

Try to explore many different kinds of computer applications available to you and make yourself confident in using them as much as you can!


Read selected reading 3.6: Chapelle and Jamieson (2008).

Explore tips for teaching communication with CALL listed in this reading. Which example activity do you think is the most practical to implement in your teaching context? Why? Post your response to the discussion board.


Read selected reading 3.7: Stanley (2013).

Explore activities presented in this reading. Which activity do you think is the most relevant to (or useful for) your teaching? Why? Post your response to the discussion board.



3.4 Evaluation

CALL evaluators should know evaluation methods for assessing CALL software which substantially influences the effectiveness of CALL. With a brief discussion on evaluation components and instruments, this section addresses the question of how to evaluate CALL software and language learning websites.

3.4.1 Evaluation components

In CALL software evaluation, two main factors embedded in courseware can be carefully investigated: pedagogical aspects and technical aspects (see Figure 3.2). In terms of evaluation components, pedagogical aspects include program objectives, accuracy, the learners level and control, instructions, authenticity, feedback, help and intelligence, while technical aspects include program operation, learner input methods, screen layout, the use of colour, graphics and sound, and multimedia technology. The examination of these factors allows evaluators to find out the strengths and weaknesses of specific CALL software.

Figure 3.2: Evaluation components of CALL software (Son, 1995a)





The checklist offered in this reading has fifteen general evaluation criteria for evaluating language learning websites. Which criterion do you think is the most important one? Why? Can you think of other criteria that may affect your judgement of the quality of a certain website? Post your response to the discussion board.

3.4.2 Evaluation instruments

With regard to evaluation instruments, CALL evaluators often use checklists, questionnaires, interviews, or observation techniques to evaluate the value of courseware. Among these instruments, interestingly, a number of evaluation checklists, containing questions of the quality of program elements and a set of criteria, have been proposed by many CALL researchers (e.g., Curtin & Shinall, 1987; Decoo, 1984; Hubbard, 1987; Jones & Fortescue, 1987; Knowles, 1992; Odell, 1986; Strei, 1983).

Table 3.3 shows a sample checklist which demonstrates what questions can be asked in the evaluation of general types of CALL software. The items of the checklist can be modified to allow for variations of complexity of the target program. In order to tailor it to special needs, also, additional items can be added to the list or an entirely new form can be devised.

Table 3.3: CALL software evaluation checklist (Son, 1995b, p. 578)

1. Are aims and objectives clearly stated?

2. Does the content provide accurate and useful information?

3. Is the level of difficulty suitable for the target learner?

4. Is there an adequate level of student control?

5. Are on-screen instructions comprehensive and easy to follow?

6. Is the material culturally authentic?

7. Is feedback on student responses appropriate and encouraging?

8. Is help available at appropriate points and easy to access?

9. Is error handling helpful and useful?



10. Is the program free of bugs and breaks?

11. Are students able to run and exit the program easily?

12. Are methods for student input effectively employed?

13. Are screen displays effective?

14. Does the program make effective use of graphics, sound and colour?

15. Is the level of audio quality, the scale of graphics or video display appropriate for language learning?

A modified checklist presented in Table 3.4 has a rating scale which can be used numerically and logically. The first part of the checklist is a quantitative measure, scaled from 1 to 5, and represents the degree to which a certain criterion is met, with 1 meaning very unsatisfactory and 5 meaning very satisfactory. The second part represents a judgement on the part of the evaluator on how well the criteria are met. The third part is meant to be a qualitative measure and provides a short space for comments. With the clear instructions given, this type of checklist would be easy to use for teachers.

However, it should be noted that the total score of the checklist can not be a definite measure of evaluation because each item has relative importance and is difficult to measure equally in most cases. This implies that the result from an evaluation checklist should not be used as an absolute guideline for judging the overall effectiveness of the program. Instead, it would provide a quick summary of user reaction, and can help the evaluator come to a final decision. CALL software, dealing with diverse aspects in the language classroom, can not be evaluated according to a simple evaluation checklist or a single methodological technique (Legenhausen & Wolff, 1992; Pusack, 1987).

Table 3.4: Modified courseware checklist (Son, 2000)

Courseware Checklist

Program Title :

Topics/Objectives :

Necessary Hardware :

Evaluator : Date :

Please read each of the statements below and circle the number which corresponds most closely to your experiences with the courseware.

Very Unsatisfactory (VU) Very Satisfactory (VS) 1 2 3 4 5

PROGRAM CONTENT & OPERATION

VU VS

1. The purpose of the program is clear. 1 2 3 4 5 2. The content fits with curricular goals. 1 2 3 4 5 3. The content provides accurate information. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The presentation of the content is clear and logical. 1 2 3 4 5



5. There are no bugs and breaks in the program. 1 2 3 4 5 6. On-screen instructions are comprehensive and easy to follow. 1 2 3 4 5 7. The operation is easy for students to run and use the program. 1 2 3 4 5 8. The program has useful tasks focused on the target language skill. 1 2 3 4 5 9. The level of difficulty is suitable for the target learner. 1 2 3 4 5 10. The material is culturally authentic. 1 2 3 4 5

INTERACTIONS & INTERFACES 11. Students enjoy using the program. 1

2

3

4

5

12. Students can control the pace and sequence of the program. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Students can exit the program easily. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Feedback on student responses is appropriate and encouraging. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Error handling is meaningful and useful. 1 2 3 4 5 16. On-line help is available and easy to access. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Pointing input is used whenever possible. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Screen displays are effective. 1 2 3 4 5 19. The program makes good use of graphics, sound and colour. 1 2 3 4 5 20. The multimedia techniques support the learning process. 1 2 3 4 5

TOTAL SCORE :

OVERALL EVALUATION

Very Poor Do not recommend. (20 49)Poor Not appropriate. (50 59)Adequate Acceptable with reservation. (60 74)Good Appropriate for use. (75 89)Excellent Highly recommended. (90 100)

Further Comments:

It is obvious that an effective way to evaluate the value of a piece of courseware is to test it with students under real learning situations, and to find out the positive or negative features of the courseware. In this respect, a questionnaire, like Table 3.5, can be also used to collect the students opinions of the target courseware.

Table 3.5: Sample questionnaire on students views (Son, 2000)

You are invited to provide your own comments on the program you used and your suggestions for improving it. It would be very much appreciated if you would take the time to provide your comments and suggestions.

Program Title: Date:

1. Do you think the content of the program was clear and useful?



4 3 2 1 0 (4: Excellent, 3: Good, 2: Adequate, 1: Weak, 0: Totally Lacking)

2. Was the program what you expected?

Yes

No Why not?

3. Which sections of the program were very difficult to learn?

4. Which sections of the program were very easy to learn?

5. Which part/s needed more time to study?

6. What do you think are the strengths of the program?

7. What do you think are the weaknesses of the program?

8. What suggestions do you have for improving the program?

9. Do you have any other comments?


Read selected reading 3.9: Son and Park (2012).

Locate and evaluate a WBLL activity that aims to foster cultural understanding of the target language. Using the checklist in Table 2 of this reading, see whether you can tell students how the activity supports intercultural language learning. Post your response to the discussion board.




Visit the CALICO Software Reviews site at . Select a review that is relevant to your current or future teaching and read it critically. What information do you think is useful? What information do you think is not provided in the review? How do you think the review can be improved? Post your response to the discussion board.

3.5 Management

The management of CALL involves various jobs such as guiding CALL novices, making a scheme of work for CALL use and setting up computer labs or CALL courses. CALL managers facilitate CALL in self-access or classroom settings, and manage CALL resources. They also supervise the overall process of CALL development. In doing these tasks, they need an extensive knowledge of CALL selection, development and use.

In this section, we look at issues of organising CALL laboratories and managing CALL resources.

3.5.1 Organising a CALL lab

To carry out CALL activities, we need to organise the equipment in the language classroom, computer lab, or learning centre. In some cases, we might be asked to set up a CALL lab or examine the usefulness of the CALL lab in terms of cost, relevance, and longevity. This situation raises a need for practical ideas of organising the CALL lab in institutional contexts.




Read selected reading 3.10: MacDonald (2011).

This reading discusses language labs in the digital environment. What do you think about a virtual language lab? What impact might the virtual language lab have on language learning and teaching? Post your response to the discussion board.

3.5.2 Managing CALL resources

As the amount of information on CALL is increasing enormously with rapid technological changes, it is difficult for teachers to manage all resources related to CALL. For this reason, teachers need to develop their own skills or strategies in the management of CALL resources, while being aware of current technological developments and familiarising themselves with various CALL materials.





Given the resources of your instructional context, which online tools would you incorporate into your teaching? What are your three best online tools? How would you use and manage them? Post your response to the discussion board.


Explore various CALL resources for teachers and make an annotated list of your own selected resources for language teacher professional development. Post your response to the discussion board.



References

Curtin, C. O., & Shinall, S. L. (1987). Teacher training for CALL and its implications. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 255285). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Decoo, W. (1984). An application of didactic criteria to courseware evaluation. CALICO Journal, 2 (2), 4246.

Gordon, S. (1994). Computer interface design guidelines. Paper presented at the annual meeting of CALICO, University of Idaho, Arizona.

Hardisty, D., & Windeatt, S. (1989). CALL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hubbard, P. L. (1987). Language teaching approaches, the evaluation of CALL software, and design implications. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 227254). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.

Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (1988). Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, C., & Fortescue, S. (1987). Using computers in the language classroom. London: Longman.

Knowles, S. (1992). Evaluation of CALL software: A checklist of criteria for evaluation. ON-CALL, 6 (2), 920.

Lathrop, A., & Goodson, B. (1983). Courseware in the classroom: Selecting, organizing, and using educational software. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Legenhausen, L., & Wolff, D. (1992). STORYBOARD and communicative language learning: Results of the Dsseldorf CALL project. In M. Swartz & M. Yazdani (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems for foreign language teaching: The bridge to international communication (pp. 923). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lian, A. (1991). What is CALL software? ON-CALL, 5 (4), 28.

Mayhew, D. (1992). Principles and guidelines in software user interface design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Odell, A. (1986). Evaluating CALL software. In G. Leech & C. N. Candlin (Eds.), Computers in English language teaching and research (pp. 6177). London: Longman.

Pusack, J. P. (1987). Problems and prospects in foreign language computing. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language eduction: Theory and implementation (pp. 1339). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Schneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Self, J. (1985). Microcomputer in education: A critical evaluation of educational software. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press.



Son, J.-B. (1995a). An approach to CALL software evaluation and its implications for developing CALL software with special reference to a Korean reading comprehension program. Unpublished masters thesis. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Son, J.-B. (1995b). An approach to CALL software for Korean as a foreign language. Korea Observer, 26, 555578.

Son, J.-B. (1997, January). Looking at teachers roles in CALL. Paper presented at the 1st Pan Asian Conference and 17th Annual Thai TESOL International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.

Son, J.-B. (2000). Computer-assisted language learning: Study book. Toowoomba, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.

Strei, G. (1983). Format for the evaluation of courseware used in computer-assisted language instruction (CALI). CALICO Journal, 1 (2), 4346.

Taylor, R. P. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York: Teachers College Press.

Study_coverCourse overviewmodule01module02module03

Date post:	08-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cuong-nguyen-chi
View:	11 times
Download:	2 times

LIN8006_Study_Book_S1_2015

Documents