2. What makes language learning special?
Time required on the
Type of effort:
learning effort: far beyond
memorization, repetition,
the time of contact hours Different skills involved
consolidation, continuous
possible in a standard
practice etc.
language course;
Continuous learning in
small doses rather than all Context Authentic materials
in one go
Social interaction Continuous evaluation More?
3. What are the main difficulties?
L1 Language
interference barrier
Memorizing Consciousness
Foreign
Can you think
Language
of others?
Anxiety
4. Main Applications of CALL
Word Processing: spelling checkers Practice
Gaming
Literature: linking literature to Simulations
multimedia
Corpus Linguistics: concordancer Communication
Computer Mediated Communication
Web resources Flexibility
Adaptation of other materials for
CALL Other?
Mobile Technology
(Beatty 2010)
5. CALL
First CALL (1970s to 1980s) based on text because no sound and
image on computers. Mainly drill-and-practice, delivery of
instructions.
Second CALL (1990s to present day) based on multimedia, more
interesting, richer environment. Still drill-and-practice but more
emphasis on communication.
Third CALL: (1993 to present day) = Web CALL, opens up the field
to a whole new world of resources. However, it remained drill-and-
practice (on the Web) for a long time. A proliferation of authoring
tools, (eg Hotpotatoes, integrated to VLEs) to create an abundance
of Quizzes such as Multiple Choices, Fill in the Gaps, etc., many
freely accessible online.
Adapted from: http://www.ict4lt.org/en/index.htm
6. Third CALL
Web 2.00: “a move away from static
websites” (Beatty 2010).
Fosters communication, sharing,
knowledge building, creation of
communities/affinity groups, ownership
of learning, initiative, motivation,
engagement.
7. Web 2.00
Blogs, discussion boards, wikis, social
networks, virtual worlds, etc. – all
supported by the increasing number of
more and more sophisticated desktop and
mobile applications.
8. Web 2.0 contd
Web 2.00 is significant for language learning
in providing the context for continuous
practice especially outside the classroom, in
developing learner autonomy, and especially
in offering the contextual authenticity that
traditional classrooms do not provide.
These features are further enhanced by the
fact that the online environment lowers
inhibition.
9. Online Disinhibition
Online disinhibition (Joinson 1998, 2001)
is mainly due to the illusion of anonymity
and invisibility given by the possibility to
hide behind the monitor and newly
created online identities.
This may lead people to behave in ways
that differ from their normal behaviour in
face-to-face (F2F) situations (Suler 2004).
10. Pedagogy 2.0
"a learner-based, communal, media-rich
and flexible approach [which] uses social
software tools to enable the development
of dynamic communities through
connectivity, communication, and
participation"
(McLoughlin and Lee 2008:3)
11. Creating/Editing/Sharing
Text
Pedagogy 2.0 applications
Word clouds
Images
Digital story telling
Podcasts
Videos
13. Blogs
• Support reflections, self-regulation,
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
self/peer/tutor feedback;
• Correction of language mistakes;
• Support practice of writing, speaking (if
voiced)
14. Discussion boards
• Foster participation, reduction of foreign
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
language anxiety self/peer/tutor feedback
• Correction of language mistakes
• Support practice of writing and speaking
(if voiced) skills.
15. Wikis
• Foster collaboration, sharing;
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
• New knowledge is created through the
incongruity between people's
knowledge and the information in the
wiki (Moskaliuk et al. 2009).
16. Social Networks
• Support extension of the “community of inquiry”
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
(Garrison and Anderson 2003; Burgess et al. 2010)
beyond the classroom. Thus foster knowledge
sharing;
• Social presence (Yamada 2009)
Livemocha, Buusu, Facebook (special interest groups),
etc.
Umbrella term for several types of applications: text
based, video based, sound based, images, etc.
17. Virtual Worlds
• Provide contextualized learning, exposure to
authentic speech, rich and stimulating
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
environment, communities;
• Playfulness (e.g. quests);
• Social presence (Yamada 2009) enhanced by
the graphic self representation (Kostantinidis et
al. 2010, Peterson 2006);
• Foster identity exploration: individualization
(Turkle 1995) and socialization (Taylor 2002)
18. Avatars
Avatars lower inhibitions (Meadow 2008)
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
and
“facilitate and motivate the interaction
among users as well as the user’s
engagement with the virtual world”
(Talamo and Ligorio 2001:111).
19. Pedagogy 2.0 spaces Avatars
Attractive avatars tend to be more willing
to self disclosure, taller avatars are more
confident and assertive (Yee et al. 2009).
20. Avatars
People with avatars more attractive than
their real selves tend to be more
Web 2.0 spaces
extroverted and more confident in virtual
worlds than they are in real life
(Messinger et al. 2008).
22. Games
Games: playfulness, motivation, engagement,
Pedagogy 2.0 spaces
affinity group (Boellstorf 2008, Whitton (2010),
language socialization (Thorne S. et al. 2009 and
references therein)
Use of the language becomes an added activity to
gaming (Bryant 2006)
Commercial games, commercial game-like
packages for language learning, adaptions (WoW)
23. Pedagogy 2.0 spaces WoW in Education
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ3Zn_VEV20&feature=play
er_embedded#!
24. OERs
• Recent development of online
education is the spread of OERs
(Open Education Resources):
• Repositories of study materials,
teaching materials, more autoring
tools
• Toolkits – UoN – an example
• Fully fledged courses
29. References
Beatty, K. (2012) (2nd ed) Teaching and Researching Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Longman
Blake, N. (2002) Hubert Dreyfus on Distance Education: relays of educational embodiment. Educational Philosophy and Theory 34, 4, pp. 379-385.
Boellstorff, T. (2008) Coming of Age in Second Life. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bryant, T. (2006) Using World of Warcraft and Other MMORPGs to Foster a Targeted, Social, and Cooperative Approach Toward Language Learning.
Burgess et al., (2010) Teaching and Learning in Second Life: Using the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model to support online instruction with graduate in
instructional technology. Internet and Higher Education 13, pp. 84-88.
Cormier, D. and Siemens, G. The Open Course Thorugh the Open Door: Open Courses as Reaserch, Learning and Engagement. EDUCAUSE review,
July/August 2010, pp. 31-39.
Dreyfus, H. L. (2009) On the internet (2nd ed) London: Routledge
Garrison D.R. and Anderson T. (2003) E-Learning in the 21st Century: A framework for Research and Practice. London, Routledge.
Joinson, A. N. (1998) Causes and implications of disinhibition on the Internet. In The Psychology of the Internet, Gackenbach, J. (ed.). Academic Press:
New York; 43-60.
Joinson, A.N. (2001) Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of
Social Psychology 31, pp. 177-192.
Kostantinidis, A. et al. (2010) Fostering collaborative learning in Second Life: Metaphors and affordances, Computers & Education 55, pp. 603-615
McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. (2008) Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software. innovate. 4 (5) June/July 2008.
Meadow, M.S. (2008) I, Avatar. The Culture and Consequences of having a Second Life. Berkeley: New Riders.
Messinger, P. et al. (2008) On the Relationship between My Avatar and Myself. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research 1, 2, pp. 1-17.
Moskaliuk et al. (2009) Wiki-supported learning and knowledge building: effects of ncopngruity between knowledge and information. Journal of
Computer Assited Language Learning, 25 pp 549- 561.
Peterson, M. (2006) Learner interaction management in an avatar and chat-based virtual world. Computer Assisted Language Learning 19, 1, pp. 79-
103.
Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, NCB University Press, 9, 5, pp. 1-6.
Stodel, E. et al. (2006). Learners' Perspectives on What is Missing from Online Learning: Interpretations through the Community of Inquiry
Framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 7, No 3.
Suler, J. (2004) The Online Disinhibition Effect. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 7, 3, pp. 321-326.
Talamo, A. and Ligorio, B. (2001) Strategic Identities in Cyberspace. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour 4, 1, pp. 109-122.
Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars, pp. 40-62. London: Springer.
Thorne, S. et al. (2009) Second Language Use, Socialization, and Learning in Internet Interest Communities and Online Gaming. The Modern Language
Journal, 93, Focus Issue, pp. 802-821.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Whitton, N. (2010) Learning with Digital Games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London: Routledge.
Yamada, M. (2009) The role of social presence in learner-centered ommunicative language learning using synchronous computer-mediated
communication: Experimental study. Computers & Education, 52, pp. 820-833.
Yee N., et al.. (2009) The Proteus Effect Implications of Transformed Digital Self-Representation on Online and Offline Behaviour. Communication
Research. 36, 2, pp. 285-312.
