8. Did We Forget Someone? Students' Computer Access and Literacy for CALL
Paula Winke and Senta Goertler, Michigan State UniversityAbstract:
Students' computer access and literacy in the context of CALL has seen very little empirical investigation. This study surveyed 911 students in basic college foreign language programs to estimate their readiness for hybrid language instruction. The questions on the survey covered issues concerning students' ownership and accessibility of technology tools, their level of ability to perform computer-based tasks, their personal and academic/professional use of multimedia tools, and their interests in hybrid language instruction. We found that students tend not to have adequate access to or literacy in using specialized tools that are often necessary for CALL, tools that students normally do not use or need access to in their daily personal and/or academic computer use. Training is needed not because students do not have computer access or literacy or because they are unable to transfer their computer skills that they have acquired in their personal lives--as other CALL researchers have reported--but because of the specialized nature of CALL tasks. We conclude the article by discussing how administrators and teachers need to consider their own students' computer access and literacy before implementing fully online or hybrid language learning programs.
KEYWORDS
Computer Access, Computer Literacy, CALL, Student Perceptions of CALL, Basic Language Program
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 25 years, technology and language learning has become established in theory, practice, and research. Many language programs now use technology as an integral part of their language curricula (Bañados, 2006; Blake, 2005; Chenoweth, Ushida, & Murday, 2006; Sanders, 2005; Strambi & Bouvet, 2003). How the field developed to this point is well documented in over 25 years worth of CALICO and other computer-assisted language learning (CALL) journal articles. The field has matured to such a state because technology has become more reliable and robust (Kern, 2006; Warschauer, 2004), technology is viewed more positively by teachers (Amiri, 2000; Blake, 2001; Egbert, Paulus, & Nakamichi, 2002; Hanson-Smith, 2003; Jones, 2001; Meskill, Anthony, Hilliker-Vanstrander, Tseng, & You, 2006; Yule, 2006; Zena, 2006) and students (Barr, 2004; Biesenbach-Lucas, 2007; Blin, 2004; Daud & Husin, 2004; Lee, 2004; Nikolova, 2002; Shin, 2006), and because technology has become more ubiquitous in the language learning classroom (Bax, 2003; Chambers & Bax, 2006; Chun, 2007). CALL research today tends to focus on whether or not language-learning tasks or activities presented via the computer can support the same type of linguistic interactions and promote language learning as well as (or even better than) tasks or activities conducted in the regular language classroom (Blake, 2008). Other CALL research focuses on how learners create identity in online environments (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005; Kern, Ware, & 
482
Warschauer, 2004; Spiliotopoulos & Carey, 2005; White, 2007) and how computer-mediated-communication (CMC) can promote inter-cultural and/or pragmatic development (Abrams, 2002; Belz, 2005; Osuna, 2000; Zeiss & Isabelli-Garcia, 2005; Zena, 2006). Current research is also concerned with the behaviors of learners (Barile & Durso, 2002; Chun & Payne, 2004; Koch, Mueller, Kruse, & Zumbach, 2005; Smith, Alvarez-Torres, & Zhao, 2003; Tanskanen, 2001), the effectiveness of multimedia tools for language learning (Al-Hamly, 2003; Goertler & Winke, 2008; Grgurovic & Chapelle, 2007; Harker & Koutsantoni, 2005; Heift, 2003; Kern, 2006; Salaberry, 2001), and learners' attitudes toward CALL and technology in the language classroom in general (Al-Hamly, 2003; Ayres, 2002; Barr, 2004; Chen, Belkada, & Okamoto, 2004; Lee, 2004; Stracke, 2007).
Yet, one piece of the story on the development and use of CALL for language learning appears to be missing from the literature: information on students' computer access and literacy. One might assume that due to their age, students have computer access, are computer literate, and enjoy using computers. The next logical jump many of us take is that based on these assumptions, students will readily adapt to and accept language instruction that involves CALL (Barrette, 2001). However, with the exception of Barrette, who investigated her students' preparedness for using CALL tasks in the foreign language classroom, there is a clear dearth of empirical research in the CALL field that directly addresses these notions. Knowing about students' computer access and their computer literacy is extremely important, especially for language programs that are turning to CALL to implement hybrid (or blended)1 language learning curricula to address logistical language program administration problems, such as teacher shortages, increases in enrollments, and the desire to meet the language education needs of nontraditional students (Goertler & Winke, 2008). Before embarking on a language curriculum program overhaul, that is, creating hybrid or fully online courses either from scratch or to replace classes previously taught solely (or mostly) face to face in the language classroom, the targeted language learning population needs to be surveyed in terms of their computer access and literacy to understand the potential buy-in and feasibility of the project and to ascertain what types of supplemental access and training need to be provided.
Computer Access and Literacy
Computer access denotes access to both hardware and the internet. For example, the last US Census found that 51% of all households had access to computers and 42% had access to the internet (US Census Bureau, 2001). The 2001 report by the Bureau indicated that technological resources increased with income. Of the households with an income less than $25,000 only 28% had computer access and 19% internet access. Households with children more often had computers than households without children. Fifty-seven percent of children were reported as having access to a computer at home and at school, 23% only at school, 10% only at home, and 10% had no access, according to the census report. The US Department of Commerce (2004) reported similar statistics. It found that overall household internet access is at 54.6%, computer access is at 61.8%, and broadband internet accessibility is at 19.9%.
Computer literacy, on the other hand, is defined as "computer skills and the ability to use computers and other technology to improve learning, productivity, and performance" (US Department of Education, 1996, as cited by Barrette, 2001, p. 6). The term "other technology" includes the internet. Some studies have also differentiated personal computer literacy from educational or professional computer literacy. One study that viewed computer literacy in terms of internet savvy was reported in Foster (2006), who defined computer literacy as "the ability to analyze and communicate information available online" (p. 1). Foster reported
483
discussions from an information literacy conference. According to Foster, participants at the conference recommended including information literacy in the No Child Left Behind Act. This recommendation was based in part on results reported at the conference by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). By having 3,000 college students and 800 high-school students take ETS's Information and Communication Technology Literacy Assessment (now called the iSkills assessment),2 ETS, according to Foster, found that only 13% of the participants achieved a score that qualifies them as computer/information literate. Some of the skills tested were whether the students could limit a search to only include relevant materials, whether they were able to identify biased sources, and whether they were able to identify the authority of the source. Likewise, Messineo and DeOllos (2005) from the field of sociology administered a survey to 233 Midwestern college students to investigate the students' perceptions of their own computer skills. The purpose of the study was to assess students' readiness for technology-enhanced teaching and make departmental recommendations. Almost all students (99.6%), who ranged from freshmen to graduate students in college, claimed to be familiar with computers; 97% reported they knew how to use a computer by the time they started college. The majority of the students (74%) reported enjoying working with computers and reported using computers for classes, getting things done, and for social networking. Most students (69.5%) reported being introduced to computers in a school setting rather than at home. Ninety-eight percent of the students had access to a computer where they lived. In terms of their experience, more than 90% of the students both experienced and felt comfortable with private internet use, private email use, word processing and internet use for a course, email use for a course, and web-based grade books. Three quarters or more were both comfortable and had experienced web-based course support, online library resources, and presentation software. Seventy-six percent had had experience data processing, but only 51% felt comfortable with it. Fifty-nine percent reported that they felt comfortable with completing tests online, while only 50.2% had taken online tests. Additionally, 41.8% reported being comfortable submitting homework online, while only 27% had done so. Finally, 35.2% said they would feel comfortable with an online course, but only 22.3% had completed one. Comparing students, Messineo and DeOllos found that sophomores felt the most computer savvy and juniors the least, with freshmen, seniors, and graduate students falling in between. Minority students had less prior experience with technology and continued to use technology less often. However, minority students identified themselves as more skilled with computers than Caucasians. Female students in general reported less experience, less comfort, and less use of technology.
If students in classes with a CALL component are similar in composition to those described by the demographics above in terms of computer access, there is cause for concern. Such access is hardly sufficient for hybrid or online learning courses that include video streaming, especially if the intent of such courses is to reach more nontraditional students in remote locations (Blake, 2008) or to increase the access of undergraduate foreign language classes to more students in general (Goertler & Winke, 2008). However, there is reason to believe that traditional, undergraduate-level college students are not similar to the population at large in terms of computer access and literacy. First of all, many on-campus college students are required to own computers (see Gates, 1998). Yet, we still do not have a comprehensive picture of the computer access and literacy of our target demographic--those learning foreign languages on US campuses.
The only CALL article that specifically addressed students' computer access and literacy was a study of students' preparedness for CALL conducted by Barrette (2001). In her classroom-based study, Barrette found that out of 34 students, 31 were familiar and comfortable with word processing, 19 with CD-ROMs, 13 with email, 12 with printing from the web, 9 with searching the web, 5 with downloading from the web, and only 1 with developing a
484
home page. After providing the students with 90 minutes of training and practice in conducting several CALL activities, students exhibited an increase in computer literacy and comfort in using CALL techniques. However, Barrette also pointed out that students' comfort and familiarity with multimedia tools decreased if they did not use them. She suggested that in order to improve students' computer literacy, teachers need to offer training and continuously have students apply the learned skills.
The results from Barrette's (2001) study have been echoed in other research papers. Researchers in the CALL field have long recognized that CALL teachers must be computer literate (Daetsch, 1990; Kolaitis, 1990) and trained in using CALL materials (Burston, 1991; Hoch, 1985; Liontas, 2002). Others have advised that students must also be adequately trained on CALL materials (Hoven, 2006; Kabata & Wiebe, 2005). Student training may need to be mandatory, both because not all students will attend voluntary training sessions (Burston, 1991) and because students often do not use help functions built into CALL technology (Liou, 1997). Some studies have recommended that students receive basic computer training (Johnson & Brine, 2000; Kornum, 1993). Lee (2005), however, reported that even after training, some students in a CALL program struggled with the technology. Finally, access to tech support is also an important part of CALL (Chapelle, 2005; Kabata & Wiebe, 2005). Without tech support, students may rely too much on teachers to provide such support, which may overburden the already complex roles of the CALL teacher (Sánchez-Serrano, 2008). What is unique about Barrette's study is that she explained why the training and support is needed; the students from the onset were lacking in some of the fundamental computer skills that were necessary for the language course which was integrated with CALL materials. However, Barrette's study was small in that it was classroom based and included only 34 participants. Messineo and DeOllos (2005) study was larger, but was not specific to students learning a foreign language. Thus, the field is in need of a larger scale study that investigates foreign language learners' computer access and literacy.
THE STUDY
Context and Research Aims
In this article, which is a partial replication of Barrette (2001), we attempt to fill this gap by investigating CALL readiness at Michigan State University (MSU). We are also interested in conducting this type of research because we want to know the feasibility of implementing hybrid language learning classes on our campus. We investigated this possibility by adhering to Barone and Hagner's (2001) and Donaldson and Haggstrom's (2006) suggestions to survey targeted students before implementation to assess student preparedness, to estimate potential buy-in, and to guide the implementation plan. The results reported here are from 911 students in first- and second-year undergraduate French, German, and Spanish classes. We also qualitatively discuss the students' preparedness for CALL and their views on hybrid language-learning environments.
The study was conducted at MSU as part of a larger project to improve language instruction on campus. The university has no college-wide foreign language requirement, though some colleges within the university have a language requirement. Most undergraduate students at the institution are from within the state (in Fall 2007, 88% were from Michigan). The majority of the students are Caucasian (73.9%), female (54%), and under 24 (80.6%). Since Fall 2007, the university has required entering freshman to have a computer. In a study conducted earlier (Goertler & Winke, 2008), we found that the use of technology in the language classroom at MSU was lower than at other Midwestern universities, even though MSU's
485
Spanish program offers a hybrid course and the German program offers an experimental, third-year German hybrid class.3 Additionally, our prior research found that class sizes at MSU were larger than at other Big Ten universities, with most classes at MSU filled at or beyond capacity, which at MSU is normally capped at 30 students. A possible solution to the class size problem is the implementation of a hybrid curriculum in some of the larger language programs, which would increase enrollment potential while decreasing class size (Sanders, 2005). Thus, part of our study's aims was to assess students' readiness for hybrid courses.
Participants
The survey sample included 911 students from intact classes who were taking basic-level French (n = 200), German (n = 134) or Spanish (n = 577) at MSU. At MSU, the basic level is the first two years of study within a four-year language program. Courses in the French, German, and Spanish basic language programs at MSU focus on all four skills with an emphasis on culture and tend to be language focused rather than content based. The average age of the participants was 19.83; 95% (n = 862) were between the ages of 18 and 22. All but 10 were under the age of 304. Of those who identified their gender (25 did not), 319 were male, and 567 were female. Most of the participants identified themselves as native speakers of English (n = 845)5. Of the 911 participants, 442 were in their first year of language study, and 302 were in their second. Most of the students in the sample (59%) were underclassmen (freshmen = 261; sophomores = 276; juniors = 187; seniors = 162). Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide summaries of the participants by target language and (a) level of study, (b) gender, and (c) academic level, respectively.
486
Materials
The data for this study were collected via a paper-based survey complied at MSU by the researchers and a team of three second language studies Ph.D. students.6 The questions on computer literacy and preparedness for using technology in the foreign language classroom were based on a survey constructed by Davies (2007). We presented the survey on paper to avoid any biases an online survey may have generated; we feared an online survey would engender more responses from those familiar with technology or comfortable working online. Additionally, the paper-based survey allowed us to present the survey to intact classes, regardless of whether the class was in a computer lab or not. The questions that appeared on the survey and which were used for this paper are presented in the appendix.
Procedure
The survey was piloted in October 2007 on 28 third-year students in an intact German class at MSU. The students were asked after taking the survey to provide feedback to the researchers. The survey was amended according to the students' oral and written feedback. Questions the students felt were redundant were eliminated, some wording was changed, and the survey was shortened considerably. Two weeks after pilot testing, the survey was printed and sent via campus mail to all first- and second-year French, German, and Spanish instructors on the MSU campus.7 Each instructor received one packet of surveys for each class he or she was teaching. Each packet contained one survey for each student in the class, the number having been supplied by the MSU Registrar's Office. The instructors were emailed with information about the surveys and provided with a duplicate information sheet within each packet of surveys. The instructors were asked to give the surveys out to the students during class time, to collect the surveys during class, and return them to the researchers via campus mail within 2 to 3 weeks. The first page of each survey was an informed consent form. Students were instructed to read the informed consent. If they agreed to take the survey, they provided their consent by tearing off the consent form, filling out the survey anonymously, and returning only the survey to their instructor. Instructors gathered all the completed surveys and returned them via campus mail to the researchers. In total 1,886 surveys were sent to first- and second-year teachers of French, German, and Spanish. The return rate was therefore 48.30%. Data were
487
entered into an Excel spreadsheet by batch scanning the survey forms and using Office Remark to record the answers automatically. Data were then imported into SPSS for analyses.
RESULTS
Additional Demographic Information
The survey allowed us to find out a bit more about the 911 participants in our sample. Question 6 on the survey asked whether the participants were learning the language as a requirement or as an elective. The demographic information supplied by the participants revealed that 438 (48%) were taking the language as a requirement for their major. Ninety (10%) indicated they were majoring in the language, and 88 (10%) indicated they were taking the language as a minor. Three-hundred and fifty-three (39%) were taking the language as an elective. Seventy-two (8%) indicated that they were taking the language for "other" reasons, such as for fun or to read/understand music better.8
In response to question 7 (Why are you learning this language?), 629 (69%) stated that they were learning the language because they were interested in the culture and/or wanted to use the language for travel. Four-hundred and sixty-seven (51%) indicated they thought the language would be important for future employment. Sixty-three (7%) indicated that they want to teach the language. Three-hundred and fifty (38%) indicated that they wanted to use the language to communicate with native speakers.
Ownership and Accessibility of Technology Tools
Question 8 on the survey asked the participants about their ownership and/or access to the following technology tools: computers, laptops, computer speakers, headphones, microphones, printers, the internet, webcams, digital cameras, and video cameras--technology tools that may be used to access online or CALL materials.
The self-report data indicated that almost all students own a computer. Out of the 899 participants who answered this part of the survey, only 14 (2%) indicated that they did not own a computer. (Twelve participants did not report on their ownership of a computer.) Out of the 14 who reported that they did not own a computer, 11 marked that they can gain access to one for use easily (either by borrowing one or using one in a lab). Two of the 14 indicated that they could only find or borrow a computer with difficulty (participant 975,9 a 20-year old female, native English speaker learning Spanish and participant 59, a 21-year old female native English speaker learning French), and one stated that she could not gain access to a computer (participant 928, a 19-year old female native English speaker learning Spanish). Of the 885 who indicated that they owned a computer, 229 (25% of 899) owned two or more. The most common combination of more than one computer was a desktop and a laptop (n = 208; 171 owned a PC desktop/laptop combination, 16 owned a Mac desktop/laptop combination, 18 owned a PC desktop and a Mac laptop, 3 owned a Mac desktop and a PC laptop). Seventeen indicated that they owned two laptops (a PC and a Mac). Four indicated they owned two desktops (a PC and a Mac).
The data revealed that most students owned or could get access to computer speakers or headphones. On the other hand, ownership of a computer microphone was at 35%, and 12% reported they could not gain access to one. Everyone indicated that they could gain access to the internet, with 95% reporting that they had internet connection either at home or in their dorm. Webcam ownership was reported at 37%. Most (72%) indicated that they owned
488
digital cameras, while 21% stated that they owned video cameras. Twelve percent noted that they could not gain access to either a webcam or a video camera, and 3% stated they could not gain access to a digital camera. The data generated by the survey in relation to question 8 is summarized in Table 4.
Level of Ability to Perform Computer-based Tasks
Question 9 on the survey asked the participants to indicate their level of ability to complete a series of computer-based tasks, such as typing in non-English language characters (e.g., 'ë' or 'é'), inserting pictures and graphs in documents, and making sound recordings and saving them to a disc or hard drive. The self-report data revealed that more than 90% of the participants who answered these questions could very easily send and open email with attachments, navigate the internet, and post messages online. Over 80% stated that they very easily save and download files from the internet, create a new, free email account, play video and audio files, and start or install new programs. Between 71% and 75% of the students who answered these questions indicated that they could easily insert pictures and graphics in their documents, create audio CDs, copy files onto a CD or DVD, create tables, or copy a track from an audio CD onto a computer and store it as an MP3 file. Just over half (51%) indicated they could manage compressed files. More difficult tasks (which less than 40% indicated they could easily do) were the following: inserting audio or video into documents, typing in non-English characters, making sound recordings, uploading a video recording, and editing video. The most difficult task was developing and maintaining a website (17% said they could do it easily, and 25% indicated they could not do it at all). A summary of the data from question 9 is presented in Table 5.
489
490
Multimedia Tools for Personal and Class Use
Question 10 on our survey asked the participants to indicate whether or not they used certain multimedia tools in three environments: (a) their personal lives, (b) their nonlanguage classes, and (c) their language classes. We also asked the participants to indicate whether or not they believed the particular tools would be useful for language learning. Most of the participants (around 80% or above) indicated that they use public websites, social networking sites (like Facebook and MySpace), and communication devices (like email, text messaging, and instant messaging) in their personal lives. Few indicated that these tools are used for instruction in their nonlanguage or language classes. Few indicated that they believed these tools, except for public websites and email, would be useful for language learning. Ipods, chat rooms, and video games were recorded as used in the personal lives of many of the participants (73%, 63%, and 58%, respectively). Between 1% and 5% of the participants indicated that such tools were used in either their nonlanguage or language classes. Between 8% and 13% believed they would be useful for foreign language learning. Similar results were obtained concerning video (on or offline), blogs, podcasts, discussion boards, and videochatting; more participants indicated that they used them in their personal lives than those who indicated that they used them in their classes, be they nonlanguage or language classes. In each case, according to the participants, nonlanguage classes used these specific tools more than language classes, and few participants (less than 25% in each case) stated that they believed they would be useful for language learning. The data from question 10 are summarized in Table 6.
491
Interest in Hybrid Language Instruction
One of the last questions in the survey asked the participants if they would be interested in taking a hybrid language class. The results were mixed, with 22% stating yes, 35% stating maybe, and 39% stating no. Four percent did not answer the question (see Table 7).
We provided the participants space in the survey to respond qualitatively to anything which appeared on the survey. Several addressed the question above (question 14 in the survey) in particular. Below are comments from 9 of the participants who we believe wrote representative answers or comments about why MSU students would or would not be interested in taking a hybrid language class. The first three indicated that yes, they would be interested in taking a hybrid language class. The next three selected maybe, and the last three chose no.
Yes, I would be interested in taking a hybrid language class because...
Example 1: I think the most important use of technology is to hear native speakers because we tend to get used to the sound of our professor's voice/accent. (Participant 63, age 22, male, studying French)
Example 2: I think watching videos rather than reading about them would be very beneficial. (Participant 332, age 20, female, studying German)
Example 3: We do not utilize all the aspects that technology offers us today. With more options available I could see this working better. (Participant 846, age 23, female, studying Spanish)
492
Maybe, I would be interested in taking a hybrid language class...
Example 4: I've used technology in my Spanish class in high school and if used properly can really help but it must be used properly. (Participant 523, age 18, female, studying Spanish)
Example 5: Technology is a good complement to education but it cannot replace student-teacher interactions. Video games and online notecards make studying more fun and less time consuming. However, classrooms force students to participate in exercise while online classes let students be lazy. (Participant 378, age 18, female, studying German)
Example 6: I find certain aspects of technology useful but it in no way compares to human interaction speaking the language. (Participant 356, age 19, male, studying German)
No, I would not be interested in taking a hybrid language class because...
Example 7: Technology and independent study are no substitute for face to face speaking. This is why attendance is currently so important. Language teaching is simply not something that needs technology to be effective. (Participant 165, age 20, male, studying French)
Example 8: I don't think language classes should be technology based because then you don't have the face-to-face real person can ask questions component. I would feel lost. (Participant 66, age 18, female, studying French)
Example 9: I would strongly discourage changing language classes to online courses. I think it would be more difficult to learn and less interesting. I love coming to my language class and if it were to be changed to an online course I don't think I would take the language anymore. (Participant 450, age 19, female, studying German)
DISCUSSION
Access to Tools for CALL
Computer access for CALL must include more than just access to a computer connected to the internet. One of the major findings of this research project was that technology tools such as headphones, microphones, webcams and digital cameras lag far behind students' access to computers and the internet in general. Today's CALL classes, especially hybrid and distance learning classes, may rely heavily on oral computer-mediated-communication (CMC) and the recording of voice for the practice and testing of oral skills. Programs such as Audio Dropboxes11 and Audio Assignments,12 as well as Wimba-supported software tools, require students to use a microphone and/or webcam to participate in oral tasks, develop their oral skills, and/or assess their oral skills via the internet. Without access to the appropriate hardware, such tasks are impossible. Poor access and/or literacy in using such tools will make practice difficult or anxiety laden. Thus, students with poor access and/or literacy in using technology tools will be at a major disadvantage in hybrid or fully online CALL classes because we know that to learn a foreign language, practice (output) is crucial for development (Gass & Mackey, 2007; Swain, 2005). Colleges and universities that have CALL classes that take advantage of such technology tools for output practice will need to be sure that students are prepared to either
493
buy the hardware ahead of time or know where on campus the hardware can be found and borrowed (hopefully for an extended period of time--preferably for the whole semester).
Chapelle (2005) warned that there is a large, unmet need for specialized software and technical support in CALL. She noted that if technology is to be used extensively and creatively in language teaching and research, teachers and researchers have the right to technical support. Likewise, students have the right to such support and to support in buying or gaining access to the specialized tools for CALL. This support may not need to be financial, but instead informational. For example, at MSU microphones, webams and video cameras are readily available for use in (or checked out from) the Language Learning Center on campus (which manages and maintains an extensive language learning and teaching lab); however, it appears, based on the results of our survey, that students in the foreign language classes do not know about the availability of such tools in the lab. Teachers may not be disseminating information about the hardware availability to the students, the teachers themselves may not know about these tools, or students may not know that these tools are available because the use of them is currently not required by their courses--teachers probably do not disseminate information about technology tools that are not necessary for the course. Of question at MSU is whether many teachers know about the computer lab's offerings. Nonetheless, if classes begin assigning tasks that require the use of microphones and/or cameras, information and training on access, availability, and use will be essential. Lafford and Lafford (2005) would agree; they identified several challenges to the implementation of CALL and CMC activities. Among them were costs, compatibility issues, and context and purpose-specific adaptations. Thus, teachers and language program directors may want to consider obtaining options for students to purchase discounted hardware when the students are enrolled in classes that are heavily based on oral CMC and audio assignments. The function of language labs may need to move into providing information to students on where to buy both economical and highly functional hardware for CALL (such as microphones and webcams), as well as offering training online or over the phone in how best to use them. This may be especially important for nontraditional language learners who may be accessing classes from a remote location. The implementation of hybrid or fully online classes should increase the population of this type of student (Blake, 2008). Language programs need to be prepared to offer these students the types of specialized technological support they will need.
Personal Versus Academic/Professional Computer Literacy
Our survey results indicate that there is a personal versus academic/professional computer literacy divide among our students, such as suggested by Foster (2006) and Messineo and DeOllos (2005). In Table 5 above, the participants' abilities to perform certain computer-based tasks are listed from high to low. As the participants reported, they can easily work with email, navigate the internet, post messages online, copy files from the internet, and create email accounts. They can play videos, audio, and upload new programs. However, they have a harder time working with multimedia graphics in word-processing programs, creating audio or video files, or working with advanced features in word-processing programs, things that may be necessary in a CALL course. Even less well known is how to work with compressed files, type diacritics, make sound recordings, or upload or edit video. These types of activities may be routine in a CALL class that asks students to (a) create video portfolios as part of formative or summative assessment, (b) perform tasks that involve writing with diacritics on the computer, (c) download and watch videos, or (d) make digital voice recordings to be critiqued by the teacher and/or other students. Least well known, as was also found by Barrette (2001), is how to create and maintain a website. However, we assume that this means students do not know HTML, which is easy to understand since students mostly use website
494
creation networks like Facebook and MySpace. Language classes, therefore, should not expect students to know HTML.
This study provides further evidence in support of Ushida's (2005) claim that in order for students to have a positive experience in a hybrid or fully online distance language-learning class, they must be trained before or at the very beginning of class on how to perform specific online language-learning tasks. Ushida noted that students' problems with anxiety at the beginning of distance learning courses was not a lack of computer familiarity, but rather a lack of computer skills transfer (from their personal use to their academic/professional use). However, our study seems to point out that it is a lack of computer familiarity in terms of access to extended computer tools (beyond the normal hardware that comes with initial computer purchase). Training is needed not because students do not have computer access or literacy or because they are unable to transfer their computer skills to the CALL domain, but because of the specialized nature of CALL and CALL tasks. Yet, we expect that as today's specialized CALL tools become integrated into computers (e.g., newer laptops and Macintosh computers have imbedded webcams in the frame of the computer monitors), access and ability to use such tools will increase. Skills that go beyond how computers are used in daily life and that involve more technology tools than are owned by the majority of students will continue to be an issue for CALL and must remain on the list for training, technical help, and continued practice throughout the semester.
The Untapped Potential of Multimedia for CALL
Our results indicated that some computer tools are underutilized in the foreign language classroom. Table 6 displays the participants' media use in various environments. The data are organized from most used to least used in the participants' personal life. We believe it is striking to note that although 87% of the participants use public websites, only 27% reported that they are used in their foreign language classes. Thus, there is a mismatch between how students use websites and how teachers use websites as part of their materials for foreign language instruction. If students are using them for day-to-day communication and information sharing, for coconstructing identities and creating discourse communities (through such websites as Facebook and MySpace), why aren't the classes? The students' ability to analyze and communicate certain information available online may be an untapped potential in our foreign language classrooms. Many researchers have discussed the importance of allowing learners to create and maintain identity in online environments (Huffaker & Calvert, 2005; Kern et al., 2004; Spiliotopoulos & Carey, 2005; White, 2007). Perhaps one way of doing this is to mirror in our language classes how the students are currently doing this in their personal online lives. Other multimedia tools commonly used by the students, yet very seldom used in language classes, include instant messaging, iPods, chat rooms, computer games, blogs, podcasts/videocasts, discussion boards, and videochat. In light of this finding, newer hybrid or distance learning classes may want to consider using such tools as part of the curriculum. To do so, teachers and curriculum developers need to find out and understand how students currently use these technologies and then use them in similar ways in the foreign language classroom. Part of this process also involves understanding the content and genre of the students' native language communication using such tools and creating authentic language-learning situations that tap into that type of language use.
Students' Buy-in in Terms of Hybrid Language Learning Classes
We asked the participants if they would be interested in taking hybrid language learning
495
classes on our campus. We had almost an even split between yeses, nos, and maybes, with slightly more indicating no than maybe, and slightly more indicating maybe than yes. The overarching fear seemed to be that a hybrid curriculum would take away face-to-face time with the teacher and other students. While almost half of our participants (48%) were learning their foreign language as a requirement for their major, many were studying the language as an elective (39%). Most (69%) indicated that they were learning the language because they were interested in the culture and/or wanted to use the language for travel. Most of our participants were freshman or sophomores, whose other classes on campus tend to be larger than the foreign language classes. This could be part of the reason why there is a slight lack of interest in online language learning. Learning in the foreign language classroom is a highly social endeavor (Byrnes & Maxim, 2004); not knowing how that socialization aspect can be or would be carried over into an online environment, or knowing that the socialization processes online are different, may cause students to pause before stating that they would take a hybrid language learning class. Part of the reported reason for taking the language as an elective was the experience of learning in a small, close knit community of students. One of the major reported drawbacks in online language learning is a lack of practice in face-to-face oral communication (Chenoweth et al., 2006; de la Fuente, 2003; Freiermuth & Jarrell, 2006; Gutierrez, 2006; Sanders, 2005). However, other researchers have found that forms of technology-mediated communication, especially synchronous chat and other forms of CMC, may supplement face-to-face communication with positive developmental results, including in the areas of vocabulary, morphology, and oral and pragmatic skills (Belz, 2001; Belz & Kinginger, 2002; Blake, 2005, 2008; Hampel, 2006; Kern, 2006; Payne & Ross, 2005; Salaberry, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Thorne, 2003; Warschauer, 2004). Thus, getting student buy-in may depend on word of mouth after an online or hybrid course is created. Other students may resist online or hybrid courses no matter what the reputation of the course because preference and language learning style are major factors in course selection, especially when more than one option for learning is available.
CONCLUSION
In this study we surveyed 911 students of basic (first two years) college-level French, German, and Spanish to create a picture of their computer access and computer literacy in preparation for discussions on implementing more technology-enhanced language-learning classes and to understand foreign language students' computer access and literacy in broader terms. Barrette (2001) noted the importance of preparing students for a hybrid curriculum through training and discussed students' preparedness for CALL tasks. Barone and Hagner (2001) and Donaldson and Haggstrom (2006) stressed that before implementing a hybrid or online curriculum, the program directors should conduct a needs analysis that includes assessment of students' computer access and literacy. This study aimed to do that and was a partial replication of Barrette; however, our study was completely survey based and included a much larger population.
We found that students in foreign language classes today are as computer literate and computer savvy as one would expect, especially in terms of their use of computers and the internet for personal communication. Students are fluent in using the computer for day-to-day tasks such as downloading and sharing music and files, communicating via email, text messaging, and socializing and creating identity and communities via online social-networking sites. They use the internet to navigate and search for information, both personal and educational. In terms of readiness for advanced CALL tasks (e.g., creating and editing audio files, uploading audio and video to the Web, and editing websites or video), students tended overall to report that they did not have adequate access to or literacy in the appropriate tools.
496
Microphone and webcam access was reportedly low. The creation, editing, and uploading of audio and video were reported as troublesome or impossible for many. In this sense, training is indeed very much needed, even though students themselves are highly computer literate. It is not that they are unable to transfer their computer knowledge set to the CALL classroom; rather, they are not equipped to do the specific CALL tasks that many hybrid and distance learning classes are implementing. The tasks tend to be novel to the students; they need not only preclass training, but also technical support throughout the semester. This is not new information, but what is new is detailed and robust evidence of why the training is necessary: computer literacy for CALL entails more than general computer literacy as defined by the US Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce. Computer literacy for CALL includes having access to, and being familiar and comfortable with, tools for foreign language CMC and written and oral skills development via the computer. When learning a language with a novel script, diacritics, or alphabet, computer literacy for CALL includes skills in word processing with those functions. Thinking of CALL computer literacy in these terms will aid program developers who are embarking on the creation of fully online or hybrid language learning classes.
To answer the question we posed in the title of this paper (Did we forget someone?), we think that yes, we have. In the last 25 years of CALL research, very little attention has been paid to the computer access and computer literacy of our students. With the exception of Barrette (2001), CALL researchers and pedagogues have not directly asked students about their preparedness for CALL before implementation, even though this is highly recommended (Barone & Hagner, 2001; Donaldson & Haggstrom, 2006; Levy, 2007). Many researchers have concluded that students are in need of training and tech support to successfully participate in CALL tasks (e.g., see Hoven, 2006; Kabata & Wiebe, 2005; Murray, 2005), but adequate, specific reasons as to why have not been illuminated. We need to know what equipment our students have and what they are literate in to assess what training they will need before implementing hybrid or distance-learning classes and beginning instruction in CALL classes because CALL is specialized. Regularly surveying the students will help teachers and administrators design appropriate tasks, harness new technologies students already use in their personal lives, and generate motivation for learning online. In conclusion, knowing what our students have and can do in terms of technology will help us design appropriate classes, training, and tech support.
In our survey, we found approximately one third of the students believed they would not be interested in taking a hybrid language class, yet close to 90% of them reported that they use the web for information, entertainment, and communication. Many use the internet for the coconstruction of community and for establishing identity thorough networks like Facebook. Seeing these statistics, it may be puzzling to understand why so many (almost two thirds) are hesitant or resistant to taking hybrid classes until one reads the qualitative comments. Language classes on a large Midwestern college campus like MSU are, to some students, sacred ground. Language classrooms are environments in which students can learn within a relatively small group of like-minded individuals, in which they can hold face-to-face interactions with their instructors and peers on a daily basis, and in which connections are strong and community is built. Communicative classrooms are engaging, challenging, and fun. The beneficial social and integrational aspects of communicative language learning may be missing from students' (especially elective students') other classes. As illustrated by the student comment in Example 9 above, some students enjoy their language classes immensely and would be disinclined to continue taking the language if the format were to change to a hybrid one. Language programs must come to terms with this and, as we would like to suggest, offer hybrid language classes as an option alongside traditional (purely face-to-face) language classes so that students have a choice and can tailor their learning experience to their learning style preferences and educational (and university experience) goals.
497
While we were able to obtain good response rates to our survey and an adequate representative sample of the targeted population, there are limitations to this study. By not being present when the data was collected, we cannot rule out the idea that some students may not have taken the survey seriously or may have rushed through the survey. Furthermore, this study is based on self-reported data. The drawback here is that some participants may have reported what they thought we wanted to hear or what they thought the right answer should be, rather than the truth. Additionally, we have further questions that we have not yet answered with this data. For example, are there differences among the language groups in terms of their views on hybrid courses? Do men and women have similar computer access and computer literacy skills? Does computer access and literacy increase in relation to the number of years at the university? In the future, we hope to report on a larger study that includes language learners at all levels and in many more foreign languages, including less commonly taught languages. With a larger pool and a more varied foreign language landscape, we hope to answer some of these and other questions in a more rigorous fashion.
NOTES
1 Hybrid or blended language classes are those that meet face to face in the language classroom part time. The other part of the time the class meets virtually and/or performs activities online. For example, a hybrid class may meet Mondays and Wednesdays for an hour in class but do online tasks and activities for an hour each day on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The ratio of in-class to online learning varies. For more information on hybrid or blended learning, see Goertler and Winke (2008). In this article, we will use the term "hybrid" to describe these kinds of classes.
2 The iSkills test is a commercially-available test of academic/professional computer literacy offered by ETS. Egan and Katz (2007) reported on the development of the iSkills assessment. ETS was approached by college representatives who felt that students were only able to use technology for their personal (mostly entertainment) purposes, but not for academic purposes. The test they developed and used is based on simulations of tasks that students are likely to encounter during their college career (e.g., sending emails, conducting searches, navigating a database, etc.). More information about the test is available online at the ETS website (http://www.ets.org).
3 The third-year experimental German hybrid class is part of a CALL research project being conducted at MSU by Karin Wurst and Angelika Kraemer. The project is the focus of Kraemer's Ph.D. dissertation.
4 Two-hundred forty-three were 18; 256 were 19; 203 were 20; 119 were 21; 41 were 22; 18 were 23; 5 were 24; 16 were between 25 and 29; 6 were in their 30s; of the following ages there was one each: 43, 50, 60, 65.
5 Those who reported themselves as not within the category of being a native, monolingual English speaker (829 identified themselves as such) listed their native languages as follows: Arabic (2), Chinese (4), French (6), German (2), Hindi (1), Korean (7), Polish (12), Portuguese (1), Russian (4), Spanish (17), Tagalog (1), Other (17). Of the 17 in the "other" category, six wrote in their native language: Albanian (2), Bulgarian (1), Haitian Creole (1), and Kazakh (2). We do not know the native languages of the other 11 who identified their native language as "other." Seventeen listed themselves as multilingual: 15 as bilingual and 2 as trilingual. Of the bilinguals, 14 listed English as one of their native languages. Both of the trilinguals listed English as one of their native languages. The count of 845 native speakers of English thus includes the 829 who identified themselves as monolingual, native speakers of English and the 16 bi- and trilinguals who stated English was one of their native languages.
6 The graduate students who co-constructed the survey were Seongmee Ahn, Ching-Ni Hsieh, and Tetyana Sydorenko.
498
7 It should be recalled that this project is part of a larger study that is currently ongoing. The larger project will investigate the differences in technology preparedness among all foreign language students on the MSU campus. The survey used for this study was provided to instructors of all foreign languages on the MSU campus. Data from the larger sample are still being tabulated and will be analyzed at a later date.
8 These numbers do not add up to 911 because students were allowed to check more than one answer to this question (question 6) on the survey.
9 ID numbers were automatically generated by the data analysis program.
10 ANGEL is MSU's university-sponsored course management system (CMS). It is similar to Desire2Learn, Blackboard and WebCT.
11 Audio Dropboxes is a free web-based program created by the Center for Language Education and Research (CLEAR) at Michigan State. It is a virtual dropbox for audio recordings that teachers or students can add into any website. The dropboxes allow for the uploading of audio via the Web (for more information, see http://clear.msu.edu/teaching/online/ria).
12 Audio Assignments is web-based, educational CALL software teachers and students can use to upload and review audio files. It was developed by Dr. Dennie Hoopingarner at MSU's Language Learning Center. Teachers outside of MSU pay $50 per year for unlimited use (for more information, see http://www.audioassignments.com).
REFERENCES
Abrams, Z. I. (2002). Surfing to cross-cultural awareness: Using internet-mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign Language Annals, 35(2), 141-160.
Al-Hamly, M. A. (2003). A study of the effectiveness of Arabic CALL: The learner's views. Arab Journal for the Humanities, 21(2), 227-246.
Amiri, F. (2000). IT-literacy for language teachers: Should it include computer programming? System, 28(1), 77-84.
Ayres, R. (2002). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15 (3), 241-249.
Bañados, E. (2006). A blended-learning pedagogical model for teaching and learning EFL successfully through an online interactive multimedia environment. CALICO Journal, 23(3), 533-550. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Barile, A. L., & Durso, F. T. (2002). Computer-mediated communication in collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 173-190.
Barone, C. A., & Hagner, P. R. (Eds.). (2001). Technology enhanced teaching and learning: Leading and supporting the transformation on your campus. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Barr, D. (2004). Students and ICT: An analysis of student reaction to the use of computer technology in language learning. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 36(2), 19-38.
Barrette, C. M. (2001). Students' preparedness and training for CALL. CALICO Journal, 19(1), 5-36. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Bax, S. (2003). CALL--Past, present and future. System, 31(1), 13-28.
Belz, J. A. (2001). Institutional and individual dimensions of transatlantic group work in network-based language teaching. ReCALL, 13(2), 213-231.
Belz, J. A. (2005). Intercultural questioning, discovery and tension in internet-mediated language learning partnerships. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5(1), 3-39.
499
Belz, J. A., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 59(2), 189-214.
Biesenbach-Lucas, S. (2007). Students writing emails to faculty: An examination of e-politeness among native and non-native speakers of English. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 59-81. Retrieved March 18, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num2/biesenbachlucas
Blake, R. (2001). What language professionals need to know about technology. ADFL Bulletin, 32(3), 93-99.
Blake, R. (2005). Bimodal CMC: The glue of learning at a distance. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 497-511. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Blake, R. (2008). Distance learning for second and foreign language teaching. In N. Van Deusen-Scholl & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 4, pp. 365-376). New York: Springer.
Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2), 377-395.
Burston, J. L. (1991). Using Système-D in a classroom environment. CALICO Journal, 8(4), 51-57. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Byrnes, H., & Maxim, H. H. (Eds.). (2004). Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs. Boston: Heinle Thomson.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System, 34(4), 465-479.
Chapelle, C. A. (2005). CALICO at center stage: Our emerging rights and responsibilities. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 5-15. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Chen, J., Belkada, S., & Okamoto, T. (2004). How a web-based course facilitates acquisition of English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 8(2), 33-49. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num2/chen/default.html
Chenoweth, N. A., Ushida, E., & Murday, K. (2006). Student learning in hybrid French and Spanish courses: An overview of Language Online. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 115-146. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Chun, D. M. (2007). Come ride the wave: But where is it taking us? CALICO Journal, 24(2), 239-252. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 5-15. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Chun, D. M., & Payne, S. J. (2004). What makes students click: Working memory and look-up behavior. System, 32(4), 481-503.
Daetsch, W. T. (1990). Challenges and a few cautions. CALICO Journal, 7(4), 11-18. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Daud, N. M., & Husin, Z. (2004). Developing critical thinking skills in computer-aided extended reading classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 477-487.
Davies, G. (2007). ICT "can do" lists for teachers of foreign languages. In G. Davies (Ed.), Information and communications technology for language teachers (ICT4LT). Slough, UK: Thames Valley University. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from http://www.ict4lt.org/en/ICT_Can_Do_Lists.doc
de la Fuente, M. J. (2003). Is SLA interactionist theory relevant to CALL? A study on the effects of computer-mediated interaction in L2 vocabulary acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 47-81.
500
Donaldson, R. P., & Haggstrom, M. A. (Eds.). (2006). Changing language education through CALL. New York: Routledge.
Egan, T., & Katz, I. R. (2007). Thinking beyond technology. Knowledge Quest, 35(5), 36-42.
Egbert , J., Paulus, T. M., & Nakamichi, Y. (2002). The Impact of CALL instruction on classroom computer use: A foundation for rethinking technology in teacher education. Language Learning & Technology, 6(3), 108-126. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num3/egbert/default.html
Foster, A. L. (2006). Students fall short on 'information literacy,' educational testing service's study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(10), 1-2.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: Can online chat help? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 175-199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gates, K. F. (1998). Should colleges and universities require students to own their own computers? Cause/Effect, 21. Retrieved December 10, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem/cem98/cem9839.html
Goertler, S., & Winke, P. (2008). The effectiveness of technology-enhanced foreign language teaching. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (pp. 233-260). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).
Grgurovic, M., & Chapelle, C. A. (2007, May). Effectiveness of CALL: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO), San Marcos, TX.
Gutierrez, G. A. G. (2006). Sociocultural theory and its application to CALL: A study of the computer and its relevance as a mediational tool in the process of collaborative activity. ReCALL, 18(2), 230-251.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1), 105-121.
Hanson-Smith, E. (2003). A brief history of CALL theory. CATESOL Journal, 15(1), 21-30.
Harker, M., & Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Can it be as effective? Distance versus blended learning in a web-based EAP programme. ReCALL, 17(2), 197-216.
Heift, T. (2003). Drag or type, but don't click: A study on the effectiveness of different CALL exercise types. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 6(1), 69-85.
Hoch, F. S. (1985). Computer literacy and the foreign language teacher. CALICO Journal, 3(1), 17-32. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Hoven, D. (2006). Communicating and interacting: An exploration of the changing roles of media in CALL/CMC. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 233-256. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Huffaker, D., & Calvert, S. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2), n.p.
Johnson, E. M., & Brine, J. W. (2000). Design and development of CALL courses in Japan. CALICO Journal, 17(2), 251-268. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
501
Jones, J. F. (2001). CALL and the responsibilities of teachers and administrators, ELT Journal, 55(3), 360-367.
Kabata, K., & Wiebe, G. (2005). Challenge of developing and implementing multimedia courseware for a Japanese language program. CALICO Journal, 22(2), 237-250. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40 (1), 183-210.
Kern, R., Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2004). Crossing frontiers: New directions in online pedagogy and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 243-260.
Koch, S. C., Mueller, B., Kruse, L., & Zumbach, J. (2005). Constructing gender in chat groups. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 53(1-2), 29-41.
Kolaitis, M. M. (1990). Putting computers in their place. CALICO Journal, 7(4), 51-54. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Kornum, L. (1993). Foreign language teaching and learning in a multimedia environment. ReCALL, 10 (3), 65-76.
Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (2005). CMC technologies for teaching foreign languages: What's on the horizon? CALICO Journal, 22(3), 679-709. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Lee , L. (2004). Learners' perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8(1), 83-100. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/lee/default.html
Lee, L. (2005). Using web-based instruction to promote active learning: Learners' perspectives. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 139-156. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Levy, M. (2007). Effective use of CALL technologies: Finding the right balance. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp. 1-18). New York: Routledge.
Liontas, J. I. (2002). CALL media digital technology: Whither in the new millennium? CALICO Journal, 19(2), 315-330. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Liou, H.-C. (1997). Research of on-line help as learner strategies for multimedia CALL evaluation. CALICO Journal, 14(2-4), 81-96. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Meskill, C., Anthony, N., Hilliker-Vanstrander, S., Tseng, C.-H., & You, J. (2006). CALL: A survey of K-12 ESOL teacher uses and preferences. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 439-451.
Messineo, M., & DeOllos, I. Y. (2005). Are we assuming too much? Exploring students' perception of their computer competence. College Teaching, 53(2), 50-55.
Murray, D. E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 188-201.
Nikolova, O. R. (2002). Effects of students' participation in authoring of multimedia materials on student acquisition of vocabulary. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 100-122. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/nikolova/default.html
Osuna, M. (2000). Promoting foreign culture acquisition via the internet in a sociocultural context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(3), 323-345.
Payne, J. S., & Ross, B. M. (2005). Synchronous CMC, working memory, and L2 oral proficiency development. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 35-54. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num3/payne/default.html
502
Salaberry, M. R. (2000a). L2 morphosyntactic development in text-based computer-mediated communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27.
Salaberry, M. R. (2000b). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28-37.
Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The Modern Language Journal, 85(1), 39-56.
Sánchez-Serrano, L. (2008). Initiation by fire: Training teachers for distance learning. In S. Goertler & P. Winke (Eds.), Opening doors through distance language education: Principles, perspectives, and practices (pp. 153-174). San Marcos, TX: Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).
Sanders, R. F. (2005). Redesigning introductory Spanish: Increased enrollment, online management, cost reduction, and effects on student learning. Foreign Language Annals, 38(4), 523-532.
Shin, D.-S. (2006). ESL students' computer-mediated communication practices: Context configuration. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 65-84. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num3/shin/default.html
Smith, B., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Features of CMC technologies and their impact on language learners' online interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(6), 703-729.
Spiliotopoulos, V., & Carey, S. (2005). Investigating the role of identity in writing using electronic bulletin boards. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 62(1), 87-109.
Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57-78.
Strambi, A., & Bouvet, E. (2003). Flexibility and interaction at a distance: A mixed-mode environment for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 81-102. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/strambi/default.html
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-484). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tanskanen, S.-K. (2001). Avoiding conflict in computer-mediated discussions, or, fear of flaming. Anglicana Turkuensia, 23(2), 227-242.
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication Language. Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
US Census Bureau (2001). Home computers and internet use in the United States: August 2000. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf
US Department of Commerce (2004). A nation online: Entering the broadband age. Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.htm
Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students' attitude and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 49-78. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. M. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, C. (2007). Innovation and identity in distance language learning and teaching. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 97-110.
Yule, D. (2006). Quality technology in the language classroom: The views of graduating teachers. Babel, 41(1), 20-27, 38.
503
Zeiss, E., & Isabelli-Garcia, C. L. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 151-169.
Zena, M. (2006). Technology and teaching culture: What Spanish teachers do. Foreign Language Annals, 39(4), 579.
APPENDIX
504
505
506
507
508
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Karin Wurst, Janet Swenson, Russell Werner, Seongmee Ahn, Ching-Ni Hsieh, Sun Yi Hong, and Tetyana Sydorenko for their assistance with this study. We would also like to thank Chien-Hsiung Chui and Angelika Kraemer for reviewing earlier drafts. Most important, we are grateful to the instructors and students for participating in this project. All mistakes are our own.
AUTHORS' BIODATA
Paula Winke (Ph.D., Georgetown University, 2005) is an Assistant Professor of Second Language Studies in the Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages at Michigan State University, where she teaches language testing and language teaching methods. Paula earned an MA in linguistics from the University of Minnesota and was a Peace Corps volunteer in China, where she taught English as a foreign language at Leshan Teachers University. At Georgetown University, where she received her Ph.D. in applied linguistics, Paula was a coordinator of the Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Second Language Program. She received a National Science Foundation award for her dissertation work on individual differences in Chinese foreign language acquisition.
Senta Goertler (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 2006) is an Assistant Professor of Second Language Studies and German in the Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages at Michigan State University. She teaches language courses at all levels, as well as courses on second language acquisition, teaching methods, and CALL. She is the faculty supervisor for the German Outreach programs. At the University of Arizona she served one semester as Acting Co-Director of Basic Languages in the German Studies Department. At Portland State University she was the Administrative Manager of the Deutsche Sommerschule am Pazifik. Senta received the CALICO Outstanding Graduate Student Award for 2005-2006. Her dissertation focused on corrective feedback and teacher participation style during intermediate German CMC activities.
AUTHORS' ADDRESSES
Dr. Paula Winke
Michigan State University
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages
A-745 Wells Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1027
Phone: 517 353 9792
Fax: 517 432 1149
Email: winke@msu.edu
Dr. Senta Goertler
Michigan State University
Department of Linguistics and Germanic, Slavic, Asian, and African Languages
A-601 Wells Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1027
Phone: 517 355 5079
Fax: 517 432 2736
9. "Bridging Activities," New Media Literacies, and Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency
Steven L. Thorne, The Pennsylvania State UniversityJonathon Reinhardt, University of Arizona
Abstract:
In this article we propose the pedagogical model bridging activities to address advanced foreign language proficiency in the context of existing and emerging internet communication and information tools and communities. The article begins by establishing the need for language and genre-focused activities at the advanced level that attend to the shifting social practices and emerging literacies associated with digital media. Grounded in principles of language awareness and the concept of multiliteracies, the bridging activities model centers on guided exploration and analysis of student selected or created digital vernacular texts originating in Web 2.0 and other technologies/practices such as instant messaging and synchronous chat, blogs and wikis, remixing, and multiplayer online gaming. Application of the model includes an iterative implementation cycle of observation and collection, guided exploration and analysis, and creation and participation. In sum, the bridging activities approach is designed to enhance engagement and relevance through the incorporation of students' digital-vernacular expertise, experience, and curiosity, coupled with instructor guidance at the level of semiotic form to explore interactional features, discourse-level grammar, and genre. The ultimate goal is to foster critical awareness of the anatomy and functional organization of a wide range of communicative practices relating to both digital and analogue textual conventions.
KEYWORDS
Bridging Activities, Web 2.0, Internet-mediated Communication, Mutiplayer Online Games
THE CHALLENGES OF ADVANCED LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
In its 25 year history, the CALICO Journal and monograph series publications have provided venues for a wide variety of applied linguistics research in the area of second and foreign language learning aided by machine local software applications and an array of internet-enabled information, communication, and computational tools. As a selective but salient representative of this work, the seven recent articles to have won the "Outstanding CALICO Journal Article Award" include the themes of intelligent tutoring in the context of Japanese L2 reading (Kang & Maciejewski, 2000), a Vygotskian analysis of interactional features of Spanish language synchronous chat (Darhower, 2002), a psycholinguistic assessment of Spanish language synchronous chat focusing on the role of working memory (Payne & Whitney, 2002), the use of communication strategies in an asynchronous German-English intercultural exchange (Savignon & Roithmeier, 2004), a wide-ranging article describing emerging internet communication tools and contexts and intelligent computer-assisted language learning applications (Thorne & Payne, 2005), the discussion of a prototype tool (iWRITE) designed to provide intermediate learners of English with explicit composition related grammatical and
558
lexical assistance (Hegelheimer & Fisher, 2006), and, most recently, the application of second language acquisition and cognitive psychology research to inform design features relevant to computer-based lexical acquisition environments and activities (Lafford, Lafford, & Sykes, 2007). The breadth of topics, technologies, and languages represented in this sample of articles illustrate the vibrancy, as well as the diversity, of technology-assisted language education research and pedagogy.
The intent of this article is to contribute to an area that has received relatively little attention within technology-mediated language education research, namely, the conditions and opportunities associated with advanced foreign language proficiency in the context of existing and emerging internet communication and information tools and communities. In the face of a vast array of non-English culture and language media, increases in diaspora populations around the world, and the increasing penetration of world events into the lives of Americans (with its implications for national security), one would surmise that university level coursework focused on developing advanced foreign language expertise, technology related or otherwise, would not be the exception that it is in the United States. Lambert (2001), for example, describing the low percentage of US students who study a foreign language at the advanced level, estimates that only 3% of those studying commonly taught languages such as Spanish or French enroll in advanced level courses. Though support for less commonly taught languages such as Arabic has recently increased (student enrollments doubling between 1998 and 2002, see Modern Language Association, 2007), enrollments at advanced levels in less commonly taught languages are presumably even fewer in number.
An additional problem is that upper level foreign language courses tend to emphasize literature, a worthwhile pursuit to be sure, but one that is specific in its linguistic, stylistic, and pragmatic content and arguably of limited generalizability in application to professional and interpersonal contexts of communication. Related to the dominant concentration on literature at advanced levels of foreign language coursework, there are relatively few language-focused pedagogical texts or materials that focus on mastery of subtle features of interactive spoken and written discourse (though see discussion below; see also Strauss, Lee, & Ahn, 2006; Strauss, 2006). The relative paucity of language focused advanced level pedagogical materials is understandable given the current fiscal climate that increasingly makes the academy accountable to private sector logic; the small number of students in advanced language courses make the labor intensive construction of advanced level language materials a nonutilitarian choice. Additionally, the tendency for a sharp distinction between language- and literature-oriented foreign language courses, with low prestige associated with the former and high status with the latter, has engendered an enduring symbolic capital divide separating intellectual labor associated with each of these instructional practices, this despite the sophisticated movement associated with stylistics (Carter & Simpson, 1989; Widdowson, 1992) and linguistic criticism (Fowler, 1986).
As further evidence of the need for attention to specifically technology-mediated arenas of language use in relation to advanced foreign language proficiency, in the past 5 years, there has been a renaissance of interest in, and attention to, issues of advancedness. Two edited volumes have been published that focus on advanced foreign language acquisition, pedagogy, and programmatic/curricular planning (Byrnes & Hiram, 2004; Leaver & Shekhtman, 2002). Yet more recently, two additional edited books have emerged which examine advanced foreign language proficiency from a wide array of theoretical and methodological positions, including genre, systemic functional, Vygotskian sociocultural approaches (Byrnes, 2006), and cognitive and conceptual grammar perspectives (Byrnes, Weger-Guntharp, & Sprang, 2007; for a review, see Thorne, in press). Of the 47 chapters comprising these four volumes, only one directly addresses technology issues, and it covers only one project, the LangNet initiative, which involves a set of narrowly focused online materials designed to bring
559
foreign language learners' reading ability up to superior-distinguished levels (see Ingold, 2002). Byrnes (2007) has noted that despite the obvious need for advanced foreign language capacities and the clear limitations of current instructional practices, the advanced learner is often overlooked in second language acquisition theory and research and continues to receive insufficient pedagogical attention. As is obvious from the discussion above, another gap in advanced foreign language pedagogy and research is in the arena of technology-mediated communication, which arguably is now a high-frequency context for language use at any proficiency level.
CONTEXT: INTERNET MEDIATION AND CONTEMPORARY CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION
In everyday interaction, from professional workplaces and educational contexts to social and interpersonal communication, internet information and communication technologies have transformed conventional communicative practices in the areas of audience, impact, and speed and have enabled the emergence of new forms of communicative, cultural, expressive, and social activity. Emerging information and communication media now mediate globally disseminated processes of language development and literate engagement (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Thorne, 2008a).
For teens and university age students, emerging literacies associated with digital media are highly relevant to their current and future lives as language users. Especially for younger individuals growing up with (and through) the use of internet information and communication tools, it is apparent that social as well as academic communication is mediated by participation in Web 2.0 and other digital environments such as social networking sites (e.g., http://www.facebook.com, http://www.myspace.com, http://twitter.com), blog networks, websites, instant messaging, gaming, and voice and text messaging over cell phones (see Thorne & Black, 2008; Thorne, 2008b). The massive increase in participation in mediated communication environments suggests that for many individuals, performing linguistically structured identities in second and foreign languages now involves digital mediation as often as, or more often than, nondigital forms of communication. Hence, for many late modern communicators, advanced language proficiency will include the use of many more communicative modalities--and their attendant contexts and appropriate genres of communication--than would have been the case even a decade ago.
It is also clear that the internet used to be, and in many educational contexts continues to be, a place simply to practice the L2. However, demographic data strongly suggest that the internet is now one of the most important arenas for all manner of communicative activity (see Castells, 2004), a fact which suggests that foreign language educators should be targeting awareness of internet-specific genres as an explicit goal of formal instruction. In essence, the aesthetic and stylistic shifts in communicative contexts, purposes, and genres of language use associated with new media necessitate a responsive and proactive vision of foreign and second language instruction.
A REPORT FROM THE FIELD: TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED LANGUAGE LEARNING
The Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER) is one of 15 title-VI-funded national foreign language resource centers. While all CALPER projects address advanced foreign language learning, the remainder of this article will provide a brief overview of the CALPER Technology Project, which focuses on advanced foreign language learning through the use of internet information and communication tools. Our efforts are currently
560
oriented toward critically examining and leveraging technology-mediated everyday communicative functioning in the areas of emerging literacies, information gathering and sharing, knowledge building, problem solving, and social and professional activity and to use these authentic contexts as resources for promoting language awareness and language learning. In particular, the Project focuses on pedagogical innovation within two computer-mediated configurations: (a) instructed and institutional intraclass activity (described briefly in the appendix to this article) and (b) interaction in ongoing internet-mediated environments that include blogs, wikis, websites, fanfiction communities, and online virtual environments and games. It is this second category of new media literacies that we explore in the remainder of this article.
ADVANCED LANGUAGE USE IN DIGITAL COMMUNICATION
The CALPER Technology Project seeks to identify broad genres of everyday digital communication, to provide guidance in utilizing internet communication tools in instructed foreign language contexts, and to describe approaches for heightening foreign language instructors' and students' awareness of new media literacies. The Project also emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationship and community building within computer-mediated interaction as potential catalysts for the development of advanced foreign language proficiency, either as a design element of foreign language instruction or as a more organic function of participation in online interaction.
While many forms of communication are flexible and variable across contexts and communities, most genres of formal writing tend to have long histories and well established, explicit, and constraining conventions dictating appropriate usage. Of course, the digital age incorporates virtually all genre conventions associated with traditional forms of written language that range from expository and technical texts to works of creative fiction. However internet mediation has also spawned a wide array of new epistolary conventions. What is sometimes called the multiliteracies approach (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996; see also Kress, 2003; Roth, 2006) has been richly instrumental in exploring and assessing globally distributed internet-mediated activity involving multiple languages and other forms of semiotic mediation. Many of these new literacy practices--such as multimodal compositions, combined uses of voice and text, both localized and globally distributed conventions for text messaging, email, synchronous chat, and instant messaging, and communication via avatar in online gaming environments--extend beyond traditional print-based text. In essence, the use of the internet, both in and out of educational settings, often involves participation in communicative genres that diverge from analogue-normative textual conventions (e.g., see Black & Steinkuehler, in press; Crystal, 2001; Herring, 1996; Thorne & Black, 2007, 2008).
A PEDAGOGICAL PROPOSAL: "BRIDGING ACTIVITIES," NEW MEDIA LITERACIES, AND ADVANCED FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
To address the important area of everyday uses of the internet, in other words new media vernaculars that are coming to influence recreational, social, and increasingly professional contexts of communication, the Project has published working papers reviewing various research on new media literacies (Thorne & Black, 2007) and is working to develop a language-awareness-based pedagogical framework complete with supporting materials. In comparison to their conventional genre counterparts, new media literacies as they exist in naturally occurring contexts are somewhat elusive and challenging to definitively identify and teach. Additionally, community-specific genres of communication are perennially expanding across global networks as new tools, communities, and purposes emerge. The question arises, how might
561
one select, and then teach, genres of mediated language use that are themselves rapidly transforming, or which may be transient or soon to pass out of vogue, within instructed foreign language settings? For example, what do we make of the talk-in-interaction occurring within hugely popular massively multiplayer online gaming environments (e.g., Thorne, 2008c)? Or what about many other high-frequency online communities and tools that increasingly occupy our communicative and informational lives such as blogging, collaborative writing in wikis or googledocument environments (e.g., Sykes, Oskoz, & Thorne, 2008), computer-based instant messaging and text messaging on cell phones, robust online communities supporting in-country and diaspora populations (e.g., Cyworld, see Lee, 2006), and fanfiction sites (e.g., Black, 2006, 2007)? The list is very long. Just beyond the tech-sex appeal and monitor halos, however, rest the same issues and questions that have confronted teachers and researchers for decades (and millennia): What will (or should) students learn? How are the task and situation to be structured? How are students to demonstrate new media competencies, and how will these be measured and evaluated? At the same time, a reproduction of analog epistemology and classroom hierarchy flourishes in this new era of digital education (e.g., witness many of the educational settings within Second Life). In other quarters, implicit understandings of the representation, expression, and organization of knowledge and discourse become problematic as internet-mediated realities challenge the adequacy of conventional classroom practices, in part because formal educational contexts and objectives may have limited relevance to the immediate--and mediated--social, communicative, and informational needs of students. What follows is an outline of a nascent initiative which we are terming bridging activities, named for its focus on developing learner awareness of vernacular digital language conventions and analyzing these conventions to bridge in-class activity with the wider world of mediated language use.
Our pedagogical proposal is that advanced foreign language learning can be served by combining the best of the analytic traditions of schooling with the life experiences and future needs of today's foreign language students. Specifically, we advocate the use of a teacher-mediated language awareness framework, contributions from participating students who search for and bring in texts that are relevant to their immediate or projected future communicative interests, and the use of contrastive analysis, data-driven learning (i.e., corpus-informed analyses), and qualitative discourse analysis methodologies. The ultimate goal extends beyond high-level foreign language proficiency to include intercultural and symbolic competence as part of an increasingly plurilingual, multiliterate global citizenry (e.g., Kramsch, 2006; Thorne, 2006). As proposed by the New London Group (1996), the concept of multiliteracies describes two essential arguments. The first is that schooling needs to take account of the multiple channels of communication and media now in popular use. The second is the need to acknowledge the increasing salience of multiple cultures and linguistic diversity and, concomitantly, the strategic displacement of conventional notions of 'language' by contingently and thoughtfully assembled semiotic fragments and repertoires in everyday contexts of communicative activity (see also Thorne & Lantolf, 2007).
The bridging activities model involves incorporating and seriously analyzing student-selected texts within the advanced foreign language curriculum. This represents a move that, under ideal conditions, provides vivid, context-situated, and temporally immediate interaction with "living" language use. Bridging activities are not intended to be a replacement for standard texts or reference grammars. Rather, they are meant to provide a realia counterweight to the prescriptivist versions of grammar, style, and vocabulary in foreign language texts that typically are not based upon actual language use (for exceptions, see Carter, Hughes, & McCarthy, 2000; Thorne, Reinhardt, & Golombek, 2008).
Language awareness is premised on the principles of noticing and eventually understanding and predicting the variable rules, probabilities, and linguistic choices associated with
562
particular modalities, contexts and communities, and interpersonal relationships (e.g., Carter, 1998), a skill that, if well developed, would serve an individual across a lifetime of changing linguistic, social, and professional activity. Translated into a pedagogical approach, the thrust behind bridging activities is to raise learner awareness of the grammatical and lexical choices that comprise a text and to have the learner critically consider how these linguistic choices combine to realize different textual, interpersonal, and ideational meanings in situational and cultural contexts (e.g., Halliday & Matthiesen, 2004). Within this language awareness framework, learners examine extended excerpts of actual language use and are guided in their exploration of the relationships between features of the texts, the social contexts in which they function (genre), and the social realities specific language choices will tend to instantiate. McCarthy and Carter (1994) offer several principles that aim to develop awareness of language as discourse. These include the contrastive principle, which focuses on differences within comparable text types and/or language used to achieve particular social actions; the continuum principle, involving exposure to a variety of texts in the same genre but produced by different authors; and the inferencing principle which teaches strategies for cultural and literary understanding, or interpretative skills. In essence, our use of language awareness focuses on bringing explicit attention to recurrent discursive and linguistic features of texts and then discussing these aspects of linguistically structured communication openly and directly with learners with the goal of fostering metalinguistic knowledge.
With bridging activities, a core pedagogical principle is to raise the agentive possibilities for foreign language students. This is accomplished by having students themselves select and bring in "them-relevant" internet-mediated texts that they find to be exemplars of a genre and, with appropriate teacher mediation, to stylistically analyze the texts, asking "why do certain texts and textual or discourse conventions work well (with a given audience, context, and purpose) and others not?" Following this, a comparison can be made between the internet texts and genre-approximate analog text types produced for school or mainstream media distribution, asking "what are the differences between the internet-mediated and more traditional texts? How are these differences linguistically and stylistically realized? What are the interpersonal, sociocultural, informational, and ideological purposes of these texts?" In practice, both teachers and students would engage with these questions and attempt to develop bridging activities that minimally serve two functions: (a) to highlight attention to linguistic and rhetorical forms as they relate to the production of meaning and/or social actions and (b) to increase the practical relevance and contemporary currency of an institution's foreign language courses. Examples of new media literacies that we are examining and for which we are creating materials are described below.
Instant Messaging and Synchronous Chat
For regular users of synchronous text communication tools, the hallowed sentence has given way to the clause, fragment, alphanumeric convention, and acronym. Yet to communicate otherwise with full participants in chat culture, for example using complete sentences and formal punctuation, would mark such an interlocutor as unsophisticated. Additionally, chat conventions vary widely across languages and user communities, requiring frequent adaptation, often extemporaneously, to maintain meaningful and engaging communication. Contrastive questions that can guide exploration include the following:
1. How does instant messaging differ from spoken conversation? (Note: Students can be encouraged to transcribe a few minutes of interactive social talk for comparison)
2. What graphical elements are common to chat but not found in formal written prose, and vice versa? What function do these graphical elements serve?
563
3. What linguistic elements of chat are shared with other forms of written language, and which, if any, are unique (e.g., contractions, utterance length of individual posts, sentence initial elements, acronyms, emoticons, etc.)?
4. Are there grammatical constructions or formulaic sequences that are recurring in chat? If so, what are they? What communicative, interactive, and/or phatic function(s) do they serve (e.g., as discourse makers, interactional resources for holding or allocating the floor, units of talk that enhance intersubjectivity or mark epistemic stance, self- and other-correction strategies, comprehension checks, clarification of misunderstandings, etc.)?
Blogs and Wikis
Blogs and wikis are second generation web applications and represent relatively modest technological advancements over their static webpage predecessors. Of the two, blogs are more commonly used by individuals, the media, and organizations and have recently come to play a significant role in public discourse, while wiki technologies create the possibility for collaboratively authored and elaborated textual production that has resulted in extraordinary resources such as Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org). Each of these technologies enables traditional forms of expository and narrative prose while also supporting the emergence of novel composition processes and contexts of reception. Contrastive questions that can guide exploration include the following:
1. How do news blog entries differ from conventional newspaper articles?
2. How are social-personal blog entries distinct from other comparable texts such as personal essays or journal writing?
3. Find a blog you enjoy reading regularly. What makes it readable and popular? What stylistic elements can you pinpoint that contribute to its success (e.g., pronoun and lexical choice, affective stance markers, presence or absence of logical connectors, or other discrete elements of style)?
Remixing
There are a range of new language and literacy practices associated with the "practice of taking cultural artifacts and combining and manipulating them into a new kind of creative blend" (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006, p. 106). Lankshear and Knobel, in a later publication, make the following observations:
Even the concept of "text" as understood in conventional print terms becomes a hazy concept when considering the enormous array of expressive media now available to everyday folk. Diverse practices of "remixing"--where a range of original materials are copied, cut, spliced, edited, reworked, and mixed into a new creation--have become highly popular in part because of the quality of product it is possible for "ordinary people" to achieve. (2007, p. 8)
These comments address a core challenge in the development of advanced level foreign language proficiency and, more broadly, gaining high level proficiency in any area. Passive or receptive comprehension is not enough. Mastery requires production (e.g., Swain, 1985, 2000). So why not, in good Vygotskian fashion, encourage learners to "cheat?" (This is a veiled reference to the zone of proximal development, e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; within applied linguistics, see Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Thorne, 2003.) In other words, a student might be
564
able to assemble an otherwise impossibly sophisticated and creative text if encouraged to appropriate, and to imitate, existing texts, literary aesthetics, and models. To take a specific example of language-based remixing, Black (2006, 2007) describes fanfiction as a practice by which enthusiasts of various media such as books, movies, television, comics, and video games borrow elements of these popular cultural texts, such as characters, settings, literary tropes, and plotlines, to construct their own narrative fictions. Fans often remix these various media, combining multiple genres, languages, and cultural elements; for example, Black describes English as a second language learners inserting Japanese terms and Asian cultural references into Japanese animation or anime-based fanfiction that is written in English and set within a North American story context. Remixing practices can also illustrate a plurality of registers, for instance alterations between formal narrative prose and online social registers (Black, 2005, 2007; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Thorne & Black, 2008). By encouraging learners to borrow from and build upon existing characters and story lines, and to creatively adapt and extend language and cultural contexts, the product of their labors may significantly exceed what might be possible in conventional essay or creative fiction tasks. In terms of helping learners analyze fanfiction and other remixing texts and media, questions might include the following:
1. For a remixing text, can you identity the multiple genres present?
2. What linguistic and rhetorical features standout as clearly borrowed from other genres and literary and cultural contexts?
3. Which text features have been recombined or rearticulated in a new or creative way?
4. How do specific elements of language used in the local text being analyzed (e.g., lexical choice, phrases, and quoted or reported speech) indexically tie it to other source-media or cultural contexts?
Multiplayer Online Gaming
Online multiplayer games are massively popular with some games involving millions of players worldwide (e.g., Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft, http://www.blizzard.com/us). Gaming environments provide opportunities for immersion in distinctive linguistic, cultural, and task-based settings (see Gee, 2003; Squire, 2003; Steinkuehler, 2006; Thorne, 2008c). An array of specific literacy practices are associated with such games that utilize language and other in-game semiotic means to develop strong "projective" identities, defined as long-term and usually consistent identity performances that players project onto their in-game characters (Gee, 2004). Questions might include:
1. How is communication used as a resource in the immediacy of in-game problem solving and play?
2. What sorts of speech functions are common? For example, do you see instances involving the soliciting of help, providing directions, reprimanding and apologizing, sharing of information and strategy, introductions/greeting and leave-taking rituals, or other kinds of language use that might be common to other contexts?
3. What kind of talk goes on in gaming environments that does not relate directly to game play? Examples might be off-topic (nongame) banter, overtures of friendship, and complaints or accolades regarding general qualities of the game.
4. How do more experienced and less experienced online game players differ in their in-game chat?
565
5. Are there lexical and/or text-convention differences between in-game chat and other common internet communication tools, such as instant messenger?
PEDAGOGICAL INTEGRATION AND APPLICATION OF BRIDGING ACTIVITIES
Incorporating bridging activities into the advanced foreign language syllabus involves the integration of learning objectives that promote the development of language awareness across these various media and modalities. Key to a pedagogical application of the model is student selection of internet/new media literacy texts, which ensures a high probability that the texts will be relevant to the kinds of communicative practices in which students either already are or want to become engaged for interpersonal, recreational, and professional purposes. The more general advanced language proficiency goals of the model include:
1. to improve understanding of both conventional and internet-mediated text genres, emphasizing the concept that specific linguistic choices are associated with desired social-communicative actions;
2. to raise awareness of genre specificity (why certain text types work well for specific purposes) and context-appropriate language use;
3. to build metalinguistic, metacommunicative, and analytic skills that enable lifelong learning in the support of participation in existing and future genres of plurilingual and transcultural language use;
4. to bridge toward relevance to students' communicative lives outside of the classroom; and
5. to increase student agency in relation to the choice, content and stylistic specifics of the texts contributing to the language learning process.
Similar to the New London Group's (1996) cycle of situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice, a pedagogical application of the bridging activities model would include a 3-phase cycle of activities centered on observation and collection, guided exploration and analysis, and creation and participation. Observation activities ask students to develop awareness of their own internet use habits and to collect texts of interest. Guided exploration and analysis activities lead students to notice and critically examine the linguistic and social features of the observed and collected texts. In creation and participation activities, students join internet communities and participate in text creation, which leads to new observations and analyses.
An integrated project that incorporates this 3-phase cycle might have students build a portfolio of texts they have collected, analyzed, and created, perhaps in a blog or wiki format with weekly or monthly entries which they annotate with reflective commentary. The guided analysis activities could take the form of reviews and reports of the various websites, gaming environments, remixing texts, blogs, videos, and podcasts students have chosen and collected. Analysis could also include concordancing and keyword activities based on data-driven learning principles (Cobb, 1997; see also O'Keefe, McCarthy, & Carter, 2007). Another analysis activity might have students compare and contrast texts within one linguistic community (e.g., two different blogs in Spanish), across linguistic communities (e.g., a threaded discussion in Chinese with one in English), or within one social community (e.g., a selection of different text types associated with a particular fan group, movie, or video game). A participation/creation activity might have students reformulate the genre of a particular text (Kern, 2001), for example, change a chat or discussion board thread to a face-to-face conversation or, more authentically, create video mashups or remixed texts and post them to YouTube, or
566
a fanfiction site or join a chat or game in the target language. This participation then leads to observation and analysis of subsequent texts and practices.
CONCLUSION
The above description of new media, multiliteracies framework, and mediated language awareness pedagogy attempts to balance the resources and performance potentials of internet generation youth with the knowledge bases, analytic traditions, and conceptual-theoretical frameworks that the institution of foreign language education can provide. To be clear, the bridging activities approach is designed to enhance engagement and relevance through the incorporation of students' digital-vernacular expertise, experience, and curiosity, coupled with instructor guidance at the level of semiotic form to explore interactional features, discourse-level grammar, and genre. The ultimate goal is to foster critical awareness of the anatomy and functional organization of a wide range of communicative practices relating to both digital and analogue textual conventions.
The brief examples of new media literacies and bridging activities presented above also precipitate a number of challenges to the conventional goals and processes of advanced foreign language education, such as the rigidity of the gate-keeping mechanisms of high-stakes testing that recognize only analogue genres, the disconnect between the prescriptivist epistemology of schooling and the language use that is appropriate and even necessary for full participation in other contexts (internet-mediated and otherwise), and what should or could be done to incorporate, and perhaps formally value, a plurality of ubiquitous digital communication practices that are generally considered stigmatized or, at best, vernacular linguistic varieties. In an age marked by transcultural and hybrid genres of communication and in a global arena where, in some quarters, "plurilingualism" is already fronted as the goal of foreign language education (witness the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/CADRE_EN.asp), these issues will increase in intensity and complexity and must necessarily inform the foreign language educational frameworks of the future.
REFERENCES
Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices of English-language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118-128.
Black, R. W. (2006). Language, culture, and identity in online fanfiction. E-learning, 2(2), 170-184.
Black, R. W. (2007). Digital design: English language learners and reader feedback in online fanfiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 115-136). Bern: Peter Lang.
Black, R. W., & Steinkuehler, C. (in press). Literacy in virtual worlds. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinski (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent Literacy Research. New York: Guilford Press.
Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.
567
Byrnes, H. (2007). Locating the advanced learner in theory, research, and educational practice: An introduction. In H. Byrnes, H. Weger-Guntharp, & K. Sprang (Eds.), Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment (pp. 1-14). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Byrnes, H., & Hiram, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advanced foreign language learning: A challenge to college programs. Boston: Heinle.
Byrnes, H., Weger-Guntharp, H., & Sprang, K. (Eds.). (2007). Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Carter, R. (1998). Orders of reality: CANCODE, communication, and culture. ELT Journal, 52(1), 43- 56.
Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2000). Exploring grammar in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R., & Simpson, P. (Eds.). (1989). Language, discourse, and literature: An introductory reader in discourse stylistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Castells, M. (Ed.). (2004). The network society: A cross-cultural perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Edgar.
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing. System, 25(3), 301- 315.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York: Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Darhower, M. (2002). Instructional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19(2), 249-277. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiesen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.
Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, writing, and technology: A sample technology-supported approach to teaching grammar and improving writing for ESL learners. CALICO Journal, 23(2), 257-279. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Herring, S. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ingold, C. (2002). The reading four project: Applied technology at the higher levels of foreign language acquisition. In B. L. Leaver & B. Shekhtman (Eds.), Developing professional-level language proficiency (pp. 141-155). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kang, S., & Maciejewski, A. A. (2000). A student model of technical Japanese reading proficiency for an intelligent tutoring system. CALICO Journal, 18(1), 9-40. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kern, R. (2001). Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
568
Kramsch, C. (2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 249-252.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York: Routledge.
Lafford, B., Lafford, P., & Sykes, J. (2007). Entre dicho y hecho ...: An assessment of the application of research from second language acquisition and related fields to the creation of Spanish CALL materials for lexical acquisition. CALICO Journal, 24(3), 497-529. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Lambert, R. (2001). Updating the foreign language agenda. Modern Language Journal, 85(3), 347-362.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling "the new" in new literacies. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leaver, B. L., & Shekhtman, B. (Eds.). (2002). Developing professional-level language proficiency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. S. (2006). Exploring the relationship between electronic literacy and heritage language maintenance. Language Learning & Technology, 10(2), 93-113. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol10num2/lee/default.html
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: Perspectives for language teaching. London: Longman.
Modern Language Association. (2007). Foreign languages and higher education: New structures for a changed world. New York: Author. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.mla.org/flreport
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.
O'Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through synchronous CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20(1), 7-32. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Reinhardt, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Technology for advanced foreign language proficiency: A manual for professional teacher development, Vol. 1: SCMC, blogs, & wikis. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
Roth, W. M. (2006). Literacies, from a dialectical perspective. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(4), 279- 282.
Savignon, S. J., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and contexts. CALICO Journal, 21(2), 265-289. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Squire, K. (2003). Video games in education. International Journal of Intelligent Simulations and Gaming, 2(1), 49-62.
Steinkuehler, C. A. (2006). Massively multiplayer online videogaming as participation in a discourse. Mind, Culture, & Activity, 13(1), 38-52.
Strauss, S. (2005-07). Korean grammar in discourse and interaction. Unit 1-6. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
569
Strauss, S., Lee, J., & Ahn, K. (2006). Applying conceptual grammar to advanced-level language teaching: The case of two completive constructions in Korean. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2), 185-209.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97-114). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sykes, J., Oskoz, A., & Thorne, S. L. (2008). Web 2.0, synthetic immersive environments, and the future of language education. CALICO Journal, 25(3), 528-546. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Thorne, S. L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures of use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2), 38-67. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/thorne/default.html
Thorne, S. L. (2006). Pedagogical and praxiological lessons from internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education research. In J. Belz & S. Thorne (Eds.), Internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education (pp. 2-30). Boston: Thomson Heinle.
Thorne, S. L. (2008a). Computer-mediated communication. In N. Hornberger & N. Van Duesen-Scholl (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.): Vol. 4. Second and foreign language education (pp. 325-336). New York: Springer.
Thorne, S. L. (2008b). Mediating technologies and second language learning. In D. Leu, J. Coiro, C. Lankshear, & M. Knobel (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 417-449). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thorne, S. L. (2008c). Transcultural communication in open internet environments and massively multiplayer online games. In S. Magnan (Ed.), Mediating discourse online (pp. 305-327). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thorne, S. L. (in press). [Review of the book Educating for advanced foreign language capacities: Constructs, curriculum, instruction, assessment]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Thorne, S. L., & Black. R. W. (2007). New media literacies, online gaming, and language education. (CALPER Working Paper Series, No. 8). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research.
Thorne, S. L., & Black, R. (2008). Language and literacy development in computer-mediated contexts and communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 133-160.
Thorne, S. L., & Lantolf, J. (2007). The linguistics of communicative activity. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 170-195). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Thorne, S. L., & Payne, J. S. (2005). Evolutionary trajectories, internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 371-397. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from https://calico.org/p-5-Calico Journal.html
Thorne, S. L., Reinhardt, J., & Golombek, P. (2008). Mediation as objectification in the development of professional discourse: A corpus-informed curricular innovation. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 256-284). London: Equinox.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1992). Practical stylistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
570
APPENDIX
Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (CALPER)
Technologies for Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency Project
Intra-Class Uses of Technology
To assist instructors with classroom and formally class linked uses of technology, the CALPER Technology project has developed two resources, the Computer-Meditated Activity Library and a teacher professional development manual. The Computer-Meditated Activity Library contains explicit instructions for the FL classroom implementation of synchronous chat, blog, and wiki technologies. Activities represent diverse topic areas and activity types that emphasize spontaneous language production as well as extended narrative and collaborative compositions. Included are instructor and student directions for each activity, ACTFL standards relevant to the activity, a glossary of technology terms, and a bibliography containing additional resources. Find the Computer-Mediated Activity Library at http://calper.la.psu.edu/cmc/index.php. Note: We wish to acknowledge that the Computer-Mediated Activity Library was initially conceptualized by Scott Payne and has been subsequently developed by Steven Thorne and Jonathon Reinhardt (current co-directors of CALPER's Technology Project), with contributions from Luke Eilderts, Lisa Hundley, Duff Johnston, Ty Hollett, Sungwoo Kim, Jane Klaus, Emily Rine, Jake VanderKolk, and Dana Webber. Arlo Bensinger serves as the Technical Advisor.
As a companion to the Activity Library, The CALPER professional development document, Technology for Advanced Foreign Language Proficiency: A Manual for Professional Teacher Development, Vol. 1: SCMC, Blogs, & Wikis (Reinhardt & Thorne, 2007), provides in-depth technical explanations of each technology, descriptions of their broader (non-educational) uses, pedagogical activities for each tool, and discussion of possible student learning outcomes associated with different communication tools and activities. Find this document at http://calper.la.psu.edu/technology.php. Future manuals for other technologies are in preparation.
Together, the Activity Library and accompanying manual provide detailed guidance for the use of technology as an integrated component of advanced foreign language curricula. Additionally, CALPER working papers provide comprehensive overviews of early and contemporary uses of synchronous chat, blog, and wiki related foreign language acquisition research and pedagogy (e.g., Thorne, 2006).
AUTHORS' BIODATA
Steven L. Thorne is Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics and Associate Director of the Center for Language Acquisition at the Pennsylvania State University. He also serves as the Advisor for Mediated Learning at the Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research (http://calper.la.psu.edu). His interests include new media literacies, CALL, intercultural communication, and projects that engage cultural-historical activity theory, contextual traditions of language analysis, and usage-based approaches to language development. His book length works include a co-edited volume, Internet-mediated Intercultural Foreign Language Education (Thomson/Heinle, 2006) and the co-authored monograph Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development (Oxford University Press, 2006).
571
Jonathon Reinhardt is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the University of Arizona and Co-Director of the Technologies Project at the Center for Advanced Language Proficiency Education and Research at the Pennsylvania State University. His research focuses on L2 pedagogy and teacher development, technology and language learning, and learner corpus analysis. His work has appeared in International Journal of Applied Linguistics and most recently in Mediated Discourse Online (Benjamins, 2008).
AUTHORS' ADDRESSES
Steven L. Thorne
Department of Applied Linguistics
The Pennsylvania State University
305 Sparks Building
University Park, PA 16802-5203
Phone: 814 865 7036
Fax: 814 865 7944
Email: sthorne@psu.edu
Jonathon Reinhardt
Department of English
University of Arizona
P.O. Box 210067
Tucson, AZ 85721
Email: jonreinhardt@yahoo.com
10. A Software Evaluation Guide For The Language Arts
Robert M. Hertz Developing a form that is a useful guide to courseware evaluation specifically for the language arts is admittedly a problem. If one strives for completeness, then the form is too long to provide a capsule summary of the usefulness of particular courseware. If it is a more comfortable length, then it suffers from omission of certain items that some people consider crucial to proper courseware evaluation. In the following evaluation form, I have chosen to be as complete as possible so that all factors will be presented to the user, at least those factors that I could think of or could find in presently existing evaluation forms that I could locate. Rather than try to legislate for the readers what they should consider relevant in courseware evaluation, I suggest that the readers select from the following form those factors that they consider relevant or important and edit them into an evaluation form of more usable length to suit themselves. The following evaluation guide borrows from and is an amalgamation of ideas taken from various sources.
LANGUAGE COURSEWARE EVALUATION FORM
Program title:
Vendor:
Name
Address
Phone( )
Author/developer:
Name
Address
Phone( )
Reviewed by:
Name
Address
Phone( )
Grade level:
Primary, K-3
Intermediate, 4-6
Junior HS, 7-8
Senior HS I, 9-10
Senior HS II, 11-12
College
Adult
Continuity:
Isolated lesson
Number of lessons in courseware package
Partial series of lessons
Complete series of lessons
Courseware type:
Drill and practice
Tutorial
Simulation
Game
Authoring software
Utility software
Computer-assisted testing
21
Application:
English to native speakers
ESL
Bilingual educ.
(specify language)
Foreign language
(specify language)
If ESL:
TESOL level
Language of instruction
English
Other (specify)
If foreign language:
Level by semesters of FL study
Language of instruction
English
In FL
Other (specify)
Language arts area:
1. Argumentation
2. Aural comprehension
3. Capitalization
4. Diction
5. Dictionary use
6. Grammar, language structure
7. Grammar, skills
8. Letter writing
9. Library use
10. Paragraphing
11. Pronunciation/phonics
12. Punctuation
13. Reading Comprehension
14. Research paper
15. Sentence logic, unity and effectiveness
16. Speaking
17. Speed reading
18. Spelling
19. Vocabulary building
20. Word processing, text editing
21. Writing, grammar
22. Writing, mechanics
23. Writing, organization
Suitability of content:
Is the material linguistically sound? Y N
Is the material pedagogically effective? Y N
Is the material outdated? Y N
Can the courseware be used both to introduce and reinforce the
material? Y N
Can the courseware be used only to reinforce the material but not
to introduce it? Y N
What are the stated behavioral objectives?
Will the courseware achieve these behavioral objectives?
Y N
Is the courseware task-oriented? Y N
Is the content appropriate to the grade level for which it was intended? Y N
Is the reading level appropriate for the grade level of the content? Y N
Is the material suitable for students with a wide range of ability levels? Y N
Does the courseware teach language use as a skill? Y N
Or does it teach about the rules of language?
Y N
Does the level of difficulty vary according the demonstrated ability level of the student?
Y N
Is the courseware content substantively correct?
Y N
Are explanations complete and adequate in number? Y N
Are there adequate examples? Y N
Are concepts presented well? Y N
Are there adequate reinforcement activities?
Y N
Are there adequate evaluation activities?
Y N
Compatibility with regular textbooks:
Is the material compatible with the regular textbook? Y N
If the courseware is keyed to a certain text, indicate the name of the text.
Author Edition
Title
Can the courseware be used with other textbooks?
Y N
If yes, which ones?
Author Edition
Title
Author Edition
Title
Teaching capabilities:
Does the courseware provide any of the following aids to the student?
A "help" option Y N
Hints when he makes errors
Y N
Built-in dictionary Y N
Review of lesson Y N
Remedial presentations when the student makes an error Y N
If yes, is the remediation
a. specific to the question that he/she has missed? Y N
b. the same for all errors of the same type?
Y N
Is the student politely told when he/she is right or wrong? Y N
Is the pacing of the lesson
a. controlled by the student?
Y N
b. determined by the courseware?
Y N
Does the courseware provide second chances to answer the question correctly? Y N
22
Microcomputer equipment:
Microcomputer D=disk Memory Price
and T=tape required,
model C=cartridge kilobytes
1. D T C K $
2. D T C K $
3. D T C K $
Peripherals and accessories needed:
Printer
Voice synthesizer
Supertalker
Cassette control device
Interactive videodisc player and videodisc
Joystick(s)
Cassette player
Documentation:
Does the courseware package include printed
pretests? Y N
posttests? Y N
worksheets? Y N
Is the teacher's information provided by tutorial courseware?
Y N
provided by printed materials? Y N
not provided? Y N
clearly presented? Y N
complete and easy to reference? Y N
Is the student's information provided by tutorial courseware?
Y N
provided by print materials? Y N
not provided? Y N
clear to students at grade level for which material is intended? Y N
complete and easy for student to reference?
Y N
Vendor support:
Does vendor answer telephone questions?
Y N
Does vendor provide toll free number? Y N
800 line: 800-
Accepts collect calls? Y N
Is a back-up copy provided? Y N
What is the policy for replacing damaged/worn disks?
Does the vendor allow previewing? Y N
Use of interactive capabilities of the computer:
Does the program require frequent student responses?
Y N
Is the program merely presenting the material and not making significant use of the interactive capabilities of the computer? Y N
Aesthetics and accuracy:
Is the screen display easy to read? Y N
Does the screen display suffer from clutter?
Y N
Does the program rely on a theme of gratuitous violence? Y N
Is the textual material free from spelling errors, grammatical errors, awkward or clumsy phrasing or explanations? Y N
Are the screen displays easy to read? Y N
Are graphics used effectively and appropriately?
Y N
Do the graphics overwhelm the lesson content?
Y N
Courseware operation:
Does the courseware operate without jamming?
Y N
Does the system leave the program if the student makes certain kinds of responses? Y N
Does the courseware accept various kinds of student responses, e.g. either upper or lower case is acceptable if response is by letter? Y N
Will the program accept the answer typed out rather than indicated by letter or number?
Y N
Can the courseware be modified by the teacher, e.g. can the words in a spelling lessons be changed?
Y N
Does the courseware require that the student type in the answer in a rigid format, or does it accept extra spaces, minor spelling and capitalization errors?
Y N
Does the courseware allow the student to exit the lesson when he/she has demonstrated a certain level of proficiency? Y N
Classroom management:
Does the courseware keep a record of the student's level of achievement? Y N
Is a running score presented as the lesson progresses? Y N
Is the final score stored on disk for permanent records? Y N
User comments:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar