What is Social about Sociolinguistics?

Upon reading the introduction in Wardhaugh (2006) I find myself aligned with the author, Gumperz (1971) Chambers, and Coulmas (1997, as cited in Wardhaugh, 2006). We ought to be looking at the outcomes of how the social environment interacts with linguistic structure. I think that Coulmas really hit on a point when he/she stated the division of macro and micro was somewhat contrived. I would like to add to that and say that I believe looking at language without context is like finding fools gold and believing it is valuable. Without having a base to judge from, one can be easily misled. The relationship between language and social aspects is one that needs attention as a whole... Language seems to affect (or not affect in some cases) the way we act (Whorf Hypothesis), and vice-versa... Studying both linguistics and sociology separately, then combining them may miss the plot (according to Hymes, 1974 as cited in Wardhaugh 2006). I understand how Chomsky would like to separate linguistic studies from any other social factor, because it just makes things simpler and easier to make hypotheses about. That is a very scientific thing to do. But language is a communication tool, used within social situations, it is impossible to separate it from other affecting variables. Understanding aspects in isolation may help in contributing to the knowledge base, but we must be careful not to let those understandings distort our understanding of what really exists. Just as in a magicians slight of hand, sometimes the parts do not always equal the whole.

Switching wihin a Code

This idea of switching (within a code) for different social situations is really interesting and connects with an idea within Wardhaugh (2006). The idea of there being a considerable amount of variation within one language, and it changing to fit in with surrounding social requirements. The way we relate to other individuals and groups somewhat depends on a whole host of factors (race, ethnicity, gender, religion, social class etc...Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 6), and these factors influence not only the way we act, but what and how we communicate. I also find myself changing the way I talk within different situations. When I am with Australian friends I tend to be more casual and easy going with language. Australians with other Australians tend to fill in the blanks more. I can be a little more abstract, and may not even need to finish sentences, as I can assume my Australian friends have the contextual cues to infer meaning. However, with my American friends, I sometimes have to spell things out more clearly, and change the way I present information so that they can understand.
Also, when speaking in meetings, I have to change to a more formalized form of language, and I concentrate harder on being very logical and to the point. This tends to make me feel and act differently, in order to fit in with my expectation of the identity I have for that particular purpose. My question is if this is only a perceived boundary, or is it actually real. One way to test it is to actually break the boundary, by speaking in a more casual manner...but what will the consequences be...
Actually, I participated in recent teacher interviews recently, and one of the applicants was very surprised at our interview techniques...we tried to make the process a little more casual, by joking a little and presenting a more friendly atmosphere...and it seemed to be a little off-putting for the applicant...until they themselves adapted to the new environment...this case alludes to the idea that we can readily change our social identities, to match the perceived environment...part of those social identities are variants in language and behavior...We ended up hiring the individual involved...ciao Steve

Which variety of English do you speak/teach?

I teach in Japan, where a standard American dialect (which one I don't really know) is strongly encouraged, unless you teach in places like the British council (which many of my friends have). I have been living in this pseudo English environment (American dialect, international friends and teacher talk) so long that it has started to affect my own use and pronunciation of English. Every time I go back to Australia, my friends and family always comment on the things I say and how I say them... I am often confused about which to use, so I try my hardest to expose Ss to both. Spelling is the one of the indicators for me about which dialect a book/website favors, along with many contextual cues such as references to places and cultural norms... Also my Ss seem to find British English difficult to listen to. I like the website ELLLO because it tries to expose Ss (listening) to many world Englishes...
So, when in doubt, I say try to do what you know...but endeavor to expose Ss to many varieties...ciao Steve

Exercise 3.10 Sites for Teacher Development

1. “Lantern fish”
formerly BogglesWorld is one of my favorite sites for Role play activities, and specific communicative/task based lessons. All lessons are created in Word format and are easy for teachers to change and adapt for their own purposes. There are number of different purposes for the site, enabling many different users to utilize the various aspects for a number of different purposes.
http://bogglesworldesl.com/
Pros:
i. Variety of lessons, that cater mostly for Communicative teaching.
ii. Adults/Children, Teachers and Ss.

Cons:
i. Search is a little long and laborious.

2. TEFL.net
http://www.tefl.net/esl-lesson-plans/esl-worksheets-tbw.htm
A good site to get lessons in the form of worksheets.
Pros:
i. Lessons are categorized under topics.
Cons:
i. Lessons are only available in .pdf format, which is difficult to change (but makes it easily accessible to a wide audience)

3. English to go.com
http://www.english-to-go.com/
Provides a variety of easy to implement lessons, for quick one point teaching.

4. ELLLO Listening activities
http://elllo.org/english/home.htm
This site provides a listening activity on almost every topic you can think of.
Pros:
i. Semi-natural interviews.
ii. Organized into themes.
Cons:
i. Speed and authenticity is compromised for clarity.
ii. Themes have yet to be properly sorted.

5. BBC Skillswise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/
Well organized into the four macro-skills and grammar, writing and Vocabulary.


6. Cloze Maker JavaScript Wizard
http://www.edict.com.hk/ClozeMaker/jswiz/clozemaker.htm
A great tool for creating cloze activities that can be saved in HTML format and put up onto a website. I use this regularly to provide extra reading practice online, and to support units of study.
Pros:
i. Activities can be saved to your computer/website.
ii. Easy to use as it’s a kind of authoring program.
iii. There are a variety of options that give teachers plenty of room to experiment.
iv. Ss can see their score, and redo activities as many times as they want.
Cons:
i. It is difficult (if not impossible) for average teachers to manipulate the fonts and format of the page, or add or subtract any features.

7. Discovery PuzzleMaker
http://puzzlemaker.discoveryeducation.com/
A great place to create your own puzzles for classes.
Pros:
i. Great for Vocabulary puzzles.
Cons:
i. The interface is a little difficult to use at times, and sometimes it takes several manipulations of the input to create puzzles.
ii. Good for printing, but difficult to copy and paste puzzles into a word document.

8. Bingo Card Maker
http://www.teach-nology.com/web_tools/materials/bingo/
Often a laborious task to make bingo cards, but this site enables you to make a number of cards, with different word combinations in a fraction of the time it would take you to make them by hand. Provides users with two options (3x3 and 5x5 grid).
Pros:
i. Easy to use and efficient
ii. Allows user to shuffle words with a click of a button
iii. Provides samples
Cons:
i. Not easy to manipulate for individual uses.

9. Interactive word search creator
http://www.teachers-direct.co.uk/resources/wordsearches/
A good site for teacher to create word searches that can be tailored to suit individual needs.
Pros:
1. Has a database of ready to go activities.
2. It’s free, and easy to use (5 step process) authoring program.

10. Youtube
I thought I'd put this in, cause in provides an incredible resource for teachers to include visuals to support material (something I try to do on my site).
Pros:
i. wealth of content
ii. videos can be linked to or embedded into web pages.
Cons:
i. Quality of video feed, and length of videos.
ii. copyright considerations.


There are many sites out there that focus on providing lessons and/or teacher tools to make lessons. One thing that I did notice was that they tend to be 'works in progress' (like my own site) and design of the site usually has come after the material have been collected... This is probably inevitable, but it does mean that organization seems to suffer...
The best sites seem to be simple to use and allow teachers to be flexibile to a certain degree. Also the sites that allow manipulation of material can open up to a greater variety of users.
ciao
Steven M

Future of Language Learning Labs - Sinicariello, S. G. (1997)

What impact might the virtual language laboratory have on language teaching?
And
Do you think that laboratories will be changed?

The WWW has made it possible to have greater connectivity and enhanced the accessibility of many resources. As Scinicariello (1997) points out, the future of the LL will go beyond just equipment provider, to the role of information resource and beyond. I believe that the new language laboratory will take on a number of different functions. Primarily digital interfaces will (and have been) start replacing other formats and act as a main resource for various language learning materials, in a more integrated way, bringing together video, audio and text. This, as Scinicariello (1997) suggests, supports pedagogical aspects with the possible integration of the four skills in language learning, especially with the ability to link materials, such as through hypertext. In addition to providing access, the language laboratory of the future (within the virtual realm), will also provide chances for Ss to interact with material, allowing them to personalize their own learning, or add to the ever-increasing wealth of resources. There will be opportunities for Ss to access material that is directly relevant to them, or even alter or add to material, according to their own background experiences. Places such as Wikipedia are already setting precedents that will provide models for future VLL, in that material can be in constant flux, and reactive to the communities they serve. This would obviously create doubts about the reliability of information, but can also serve as a great way to produce a huge amount of material, in a cost effective and speedy way. Teachers and Ss will be able to create for the VLL, and work can be judged and edited by peers…This would give a very personal touch to the VL environment, that could be highly motivating to all users.
I believe that the greatest obstacle for the VLL is that of Copyright infringement. With greater access to material within campuses offering Wifi, there will be a need for language laboratory directors to monitor and regulate the availability of information. Having the participants create much of the material can be one way to avoid this (Kangaku University in Japan has created much of it’s own material), but much of the resources will be commercially available material, at least in the early stages. I think that the VLL of the future will be an environment that will be entered into by using a password (such as this USQ board), which has varying levels of access. Publishers of material will need to alter their business models to take into consideration a number of different hubs of learning, and there will be a need for more collaboration with schools to work out how to make material available. Scinicariello (1997) suggests a collaborative of human beings working to help learners reach their goals, with the assistance of technology. The VLL will be the Hub, within the school, or community. Access will be given and monitored, and contributions will be sought after and encouraged. The VLL will be a work in progress, constantly changing and adapting, but always being responsive to the community it serves.
Scinicariello (1997) says that with the loss of the physical space will contribute to Ss feeling isolated because there is no focal point for language learning activities. On the contrary, I believe that with the WWW, there will be new environments that are created in the virtual world that bring groups together on a regular basis. Some schools will establish spaces in virtual environments, and even have specialized language-teaching functions, or be spaces where Ss can connect to others with similar needs (I’ve heard of a project by a university here that is trying to establish a virtual school in second life. The VLL can be connected to this learning hub). As long as there is access to the internet, Ss and teachers will always find little niches for support. That along with specifically created chat rooms and discussion forums that help focus language learning.
ciao
Steven

Reference

Sinicariello, S. G. (1997). Uniting teachers, learners, and machines: language laboratories and other choices. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Exercise 3.8 (Kelly, 2000)

After reading Kelly (2000), I was reminded of when I was answering the question on useful HTML sites. I included in my table a section on Website design tips, which seemed to cover much of the same issues as in the Kelly article.
It has made me a look at my own website to see if I have broken any taboos with web design, and which aspects I have actually adhered to. Also I started to look at my motivations for creating my website (how much is it for me, and how much is it for others). When creating a website it is very easy to get wrapped up in exciting new capabilities...Having flashing banners, and super animated gifs that on their own are very impressive, but when combined with other aspects tend to detract form the overall effectiveness of the website.
I was at one stage getting so involved in the creation process that I lost site of what Kelly (2000) calls the visitor’s point of view:
1. Is it usable?
2. Does it have something that the visitor wants?
3. Does it waste their time?
4. Is it irritating?

I started adding all these third party add ons, that tended to slow the website down. As a user myself, I realize how quickly I get annoyed at pages that take forever to load...and my connection speed is pretty high...imagine someone on slower ADSL or even dial up (like in some developing countries)...I found that my website had an annoying habit of being slow on some computers/computer networks...I had to speed it up...and this meant reduce the amount of things on one page, and maybe spread them out in a different layout. I had to balance the idea of getting to a destination within 3 clicks, and the amount and kind of information I could display in one place... i am still struggling with this idea.

Kelly(2000) says that websites should be easy to use...this is very difficult, especially with the variety of designs that are out there...I guess, in the end, simple is best...but then how do you make your page stand out from the thousands of other pages? This is one of my complaints with using blogger, and even to a lesser degree i-web (Mac web page design software). Pages start looking the same all over the net. Yet on the other hand, one good thing that these programs have brought about is a certain amount of standardization...which will reduce a lot of confusion out there in cyberspace.

My website is in the end about the user...just as a presentation must think of it's audience and a teacher their Ss. I think that showing excitement about the design of a page is essential, and will keep your page looking fresh. But, if the page is not being accessed, then no matter how great the information you have to share, there simply is no point....
Also, no matter how flashy you make your page, if the content is lacking...it simply won't be trusted...

I believe that websites have to be constantly evolving, but also responsive to the users, at least our linguistic resource sites. They should be authoritative, but not condescending to the user, or their needs. They should be fun, and easy to use, yet not redundant or waste someone's time. Most of all they should be accessible in all possible ways...to the greatest number of users...
ciao
Steve

Kelly, C. (2000). Guidelines for designing a good web site for ESL students, Japan: The internet TESL Journal, 6(3), Retrieved at http://iteslj.org/Articles/Kelly-Guidelines.html

Exercise 3.7 (Healey, 1999)

First of all, please download my list of tasks (click here)

Well, I took this activity, and I turned it into one which I could look at some of the things that I am already doing, and some of the things I would like to do, based partly on Healey's (1999) article.

I discovered that I had been doing a lot of the basic things that Healey had suggested, but that the activities on my website centered around 3 major areas:
1. Tutorial type activities that provide Ss with the material if they wish to pursue learning on their own.
2. Vocabulary, grammar, and comprehension type activities that are both interactive and tutorial.
3. Authentic listening tasks that both supported other types of learning, and gave extra practice to Ss.

Healey (1999) presents many types of activities that stimulate learning of specific language skills (vocabulary, and grammar), and skills that help in the learning process (reading: Skimming, and research of the WWW; Pronunciation: helps Ss to notice). Healey (1999)http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif also presents tasks that stimulate collaborative/cooperative work.

One thing that I have discovered about my own website is that there should not only be a variety of tasks that help language acquisition with specific language tasks, but also ones that encourage more holistic goals that incorporate socio-linguistic objectives, too. Motivation, group dynamics, and language context also influence a students behavior and willingness to take part in an activity.

Another thing that I discovered was that it is very important to have taskhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifs where a number of different skills support each other, often brought together by a theme. I found in my research, that there are many sites devoted to one specific area; be it grammar, vocabulary, listening or something else. What we need is collaboration between these sites, and better directories that bring them together better.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
There are, however, some tasks (such as speech recognition and simulations), that still may be a little beyond my technical expertise and budget. Things that I would like to use, but have a very steep learning curve, that may discourage teachers like me implementing them at this point in time (not for a want to use them). That is why collaboration is increasingly more important between specialty sites...
ciao
Steven

Healey, D. (1999). Classroom practice: Communicative skill-building tasks in CALL environments. In J. Egbert, & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 116-136). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.


Mikulecky, B. S., Jefferies, L. (1996). More reading power, U.S.A: Addison-Wesley publishing.

Exercise 3.5 List of Useful Web sites for Web design

Hello everyone...

Please first download my table (click here)

My approach to this activity was to make a usable table for beginners through to advanced users. As with any kind of learning, once we know the basics, our learning increases exponentially, and there's no limits to what can be done.

I tried to look at a number of different layouts, from linear to hyperlinked pages to partitioned pages. People have different learning styles as we talked about under MI theory...and the layout can influence learning.

I also looked at simplicity and ease of learning, with 3 main objectives:
1. does it provide a good and easy to understand desription,
2. does it provide an example,
3. Is it easy to navigate between pages (how many clicks, can I get back to the home page if I need to)

I also looked at what makes a web page a good one - What are the dos and don'ts of web page making. A little knowledge goes a long way...and saves time messing with things we don't need.

The last thing I looked at was open source free sites that provide ready made examples for advanced users to tweak... There's no point re-inventing the wheel, and these open source sites can save a lot of time and headaches...

All in all, the activity allowed me to find easy tutorial sites...but I didn't come across the more interactive style of site, that would possible take me through the site step by step...making my page as I go through... I guess they are reserved for paying customers... Some sites were called interactive, but would be what I consider tutorial, How to steps... (what they thought of as interactive were hyperlinks to other pages that had steps written down...
I guess there will be more interactive sites in the future...

I had thought of including a section on clip art (Gifs and Jpegs), but didn't because clip art sites are so ubiquitous and easily accessed, that it would become redundant...

Well that's my response for this activity, let me know what you think and if there is anything I can add...
ciao
steven

Exercise 3.4.2 Teachers as courseware designers

Who better to influence the design of courseware than those who on an everyday basis, help to facilitate learning and can directly observe and evaluate the processes involved? Courseware – that is the software that is used to support formal language learning is becoming so much a normal part Ss lives (inside and outside the classroom) in what Bax (2003) terms ‘normalization’ that teachers cannot help but become involved in some way, in the design, development and evaluation of tutorial software. Teachers are also being encouraged to support ongoing research into CALL related studies and also be critical of new claims by software designers with little teaching experience (Penderson, 1987). However, there is a great disparity between those with the technical expertise to directly influence change, and those who have pedagogical knowledge, yet little technological know-how/experience to make a difference. However, I believe that with the ever-increasing presence of technology in educational settings, more and more teachers will seek out options that suit their particular contexts. As Son (1998) suggests, it would be worthwhile for teachers to make materials that meet their own and student’s needs. Whether that is through the use of authoring programs, or preferably through collaboration between various groups (software designers, or other technologically proficient educators/Computer lab, technician), teachers as professionals will want and need to become familiar with technologies (hardware and software) and/or uses of technologies that provide the best possible learning environment and access for their own students. Of course, the rapid changes in technology make it difficult to stay abreast of new developments. That is why teachers need to work together with other specialists. Scinicaiello (1997) suggests a future where computer labs (real or virtual) are the meeting places for extensive collaboration. Imagine if you will people coming together for online meetings and sharing of information.
If teachers are to become more actively involved (in design teams) in developing courseware, with the help of software designers/technologically proficient people, there are a number of important considerations that need to be addressed in relation to pedagogical needs:
1. How does that software support Ss?
2. Who has a hand in developing it?
3. Is it being implemented effectively?
Hubbard (2008) sets up a framework that has been adapted from the Richards and Rodgers model (1982) that brings together the teacher/developer, the computer as an interface/the materials and the learner. In Hubbard’s model the first thing for future collaborative teams to think about is to understand what the specific software will attempt to do (“Operational description”), then design it so that it ‘fits the students’ and finally take on an approach that meets the expectations of the learning objectives set out by the curriculum (“fit the teachers”). Teachers already have the background to be able to participate in this kind of process. They plan and write syllabi, and constantly evaluate the progress of their classes in relation to specified learning objectives. The greatest difficulty will be for those without technological know-how (or access to tech savvy staff), trying to find/create software that meets these criteria, for their specific context. That is where the collaborative efforts of a team can help share the work. This vision of a future language lab team, headed by a lab director, can take the pressure off teachers having to keep up to date and by sharing of information and problems can ensure that courseware meets the particular needs of the specific contexts.


Bax, S. (2003). CALL - Past, present and future, U.K: Cacterbury Christ Church University College

Hubbard (2008). Linguistics and the teaching of English as a second language: CALL Mini-course, Retrieved September 2, at http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist289/CALL2.htm

Pederson, K. M. (1987). Research on CALL. In W. F. Smith (Ed.), Modern media in foreign language education: Theory and implementation (pp. 99-131), Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook.

Scinicaiello, S. G. (1997). Uniting teachers, learners and machines: Language laboratories and other choices.

Son,J. -B. (1998b). Reading & Dragging: The development and use of courseware. On-CALL, 12(3), 10-19. Available: http://www.usq.edu.au/users/sonjb/papers/oncall98.htm

Exercise 3.2 Categorization of CALL Activities

For the full answer to this question, please click on the following link:
CALL Activities
1. Passive/Traditional/Individual
– Activities focus on achieving mastery of a certain skill, by repetitive practice. These activities utilize a one-way transmission of information. They are categorized by tasks that require repetition, and achievement of a correct answer. They include such things as drill practice and translation types of activities.
* Drills
* Cloze activities
* Translation
* Matching
* Crosswords
* Word searches
* Powerpoint presentation
* Word processing, grammar and spell checking.

2. Interactive/Analytical/Inferential.
– These kinds of activities tend to present information that challenges students to use a number of cognitive processes in an interactive way. Activities include simulations that require manipulation of onscreen info, and information retrieval systems. They are more student-centered.

* Multimedia videodisc. programs (full motion video, sound, graphics and text – allowing learners to walk around and explore simulated environments.
* Simulations (SimCity)
* Reading for enjoyment/or find information.
*Speed Reading

3. Interactive/Cooperative/Collaborative/Creative
– These kinds of activities require a greater amount of autonomy in student-student interactions. Collaboration is a key element for successful participation in these tasks. The computer’s role is limited to that of a tool, to help in the completion of a task. The parameters of the activities are bound by the limits of the students imagination and the orchestration by the teacher facilitating learning.
* e-mail
* Chat
* Moos (discussion boards, learning centers)
* Online conferencing/video classrooms
* Blogs
* Hypermedia
* Search Engines
* WebQuests

References:
Chapelle, C.A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research, U.K: Cambridge.
Healey, D. (1999). Classroom practice: Communication skill-building tasks in CALL environments. In J. Egbert, & E. Hanson-Smith, CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 116-136),
Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Warschaer, M. & Kern, R. (2000). Network – based language teaching: Concepts and practice, U.K: Cambridge.

2.5 Research Question

Statement of research problem
Last year, I started a new subject which integrated two major technological tools: The DVD video and the computer/internet. The aims of the class were to increase the amount of comprehensible input through video (getting Ss involved and invested to a 12 week drama), and then slowly increase comprehensible output using a discussion board format (writing in /out of class –wherever they access to a computer). The use of the discussion board as a medium for increasing writing output is a new thing at my college, and I wish to know if the discussion room format is useful for increasing the amount and quality of writing responses, over a period of 12 weeks.
Research Question
What are the effects on writing fluency, quality and quantity of a discussion board format as the medium of writing output, over a 12-week period?
Objectives:
1. How much do students contribute (number and length of entries) to a discussion board, based on a video resource? Do students contribute more toward the end of the twelve weeks (Do all students increase comprehensible output)?
2. Are errors in grammar, and spelling frequent? Do errors increase/decrease over the research time?
3. Does typing influence the amount of writing that is produced? Does typing influence motivation?
4. How long does it take students to formulate a response?
5. Do students respond to other student’s discussion board entries?
6. What are student’s perceptions about writing on a discussion board?
Hypothesis:
1. Students will be motivated to write on a topic if they know that their fellow classmates are reading and responding in real time (synchronous way).
2. Students will produce more writing in their responses as the semester goes by.
3. Students will gain greater confidence in expressing themselves in writing when it’s for an audience.
4. Students will write more as their confidence grows in using the technology, and as they start to become invested in the drama.
Method:
Part I:
• There is one two-hour class per week. The students will be introduced to one season of a drama (usually 12-episodes). The students will have a small worksheet for each episode that initially works on schema building, language points, and comprehension. Part of the worksheet will be done before watching, and part of it will be done after.
Part II
• Students will enter the computer lab, where they will log onto the discussion board (Google) and be confronted with a list of 10 discussion questions about the episode that they just watched.
• The students have to make at least one discussion board entry to answer one of the questions, and are encouraged to write responses to other student’s entries. At the beginning of the course the Ss are told that their grade will depend on both answering the discussion questions and responding to other Ss responses.
Part III
Students are observed throughout class for:
• Amount of time to formulate responses
• Amount and kinds of questions asked (about the drama’s plot, language questions etc…)
• Use of other Internet tools like spell checkers, data bases, web pages, concordance type software …
• Use of computer internal tools (spell checkers, grammar checkers)
Part IV
Ss work is checked in regular intervals throughout the 12-week course (every 3 weeks) for:
• Accuracy (spelling, grammar)
• Length (number of words)
• Kinds of words (first 1000, 2000 word lists, and AWL – Academic word list)
Part V
Survey
Ss will be given a survey at the beginning of the course and again at the end of the course for:
• Attitude toward technology (DVD and CMC)
• Personal performance rating
• Attitude toward the learning task (Motivation –before and after)
• Attitude toward the difficulty of task
• Attitude toward the teacher’s expected performance / actual performance.

Ethical issues:
Ss electronic literacy will impact upon how well students perform in tasks and their attitudes toward the medium under investigation. Ss will all have different beginning points, and their learning will vary according to their comfortableness with this technology, and the skills they posses in manipulating it.

Stance:
This study would have to include qualitative (heavy description of the learning and learning environment) and quantitative (empirically observed data) methods in order to gain understandings about learner attitudes on the medium that is used, and to understand the effect on Ss performance over the research period.

Exercise 2.4.2 - Kern (2006)

Question: What do you think about the future directions of CALL research?

There has been a shift in focus in the role of technology in learning, from tutorial applications (instruction, feedback, testing…) to that of tool (access) and medium (providing places for interpersonal communication, multimedia publication, distance learning, community participation and identity formation). Current research has therefore been becoming more attentive to learner’s interactions with technology and what that technology can enable them to do. E-mail has made it possible for people to communicate with each other in writing, whereas Chat/Skype/Video Conferencing has facilitated synchronous communication activities… It is very clear that interaction and communication is happening, but not so clear how this communication is translating to beneficial and holistic learning outcomes for the L2 learner, or how the use of this technology is assisting/hampering effective communication and identity formation, and what positive or negative effects there are for specific contexts? This appears to be the new role of research in CALL for the future. To understand not only what interaction is happening, but also the impact of that communication on language, learning, and the individuals involved – A Sociolinguistic perspective, rather than just an Interactionist one. Kern (2006) summarizes the future of CALL Research into four main areas: Transversal relationships (how one proficiency can transfer to another), reading and writing electronically (emergence of new discourse patterns in CMC that affect reading and writing), curricular issues (implications of electronic literacies) and sociopolitical issues (access to technology).
The uses of technology are wide and varied, and are changing the way that people are communicating and learning, and affecting what people learn. Ss sending text messages often start looking for shortcuts, that tend to make communication faster, even though it may not be grammatically correct. How does this kind of communication affect writing and reading competence? People are gaining access to an ever-increasing resource (the web), and new technologies are opening new doors. There are whole communities that are interacting with each other from different parts of the world, and very specific niches being created all over the net. People have such varying levels of electronic literacy (computer, information, multimedia and CMC), that it is becoming more important to understand what electronic literacies our Ss have upon entering our classes/programs (as this contributes to learner differences), and how we can develop them or new literacies within our students (Warchauer 2003, as cited in Kern 2006). Each person has their own identity within their own social contexts before coming into contact with new technologies or our specific curriculum. Is that identity malleable enough to adapt to different kinds of interaction, and how does that identity react to the new contexts?
Another major consideration that was highlighted by Kern was the socio-cultural perspective, and developing an idea of how to better understand the social constraints and opportunities that affect intercultural communication. The research of the future will have to understand that having connectivity between people from different cultures, will mean that competency/performance is influenced by more than just the input and output, but also such things as differences in communicative genre’s, medium, task type, linguistic style, and cultural characteristics. A virtual classroom in “second life” for example, will bring together people from all kinds of backgrounds (culturally/technologically). People will have a place, and a target language, but the limits of each particular virtual classroom will be influenced by the individual identities of the participants and the way those identities interact in the context of a virtual world (just like in a normal ESL classroom, but incorporating their technological identities). Some cultures are context bound and others are not. Japanese for instance is heavily dependent on contextual cues that leave English-speaking learners lost. How will English learners enter a Japanese context and participate effectively? This is not only a research question for CMC, but a general question for sociolinguistics. It is just that these new virtual worlds are making it easier for people to connect.
The other social force that I see in new technologies is that of what I call the “Facebook phenomenon”. People are connecting in contexts such as these, but guidelines for social communication have not yet been established, and people are entering these virtual environments without clear ideas about what is permissible, what is abrasive, what is effective communication? More research needs to be done on not only the positive aspects of getting people together, but also what Ware (2003,2005 as cited in Kern 2006) considers the many forms of CMC that can facilitate missed communication.
The classroom of the future will undoubtedly extend beyond the four walls, and into virtual worlds that include people from all over the world. Harnessing new technologies, and making those technologies as effective as possible for all participants will be the new goal for teachers and researchers alike. Researchers will need to understand not only electronic literacies, but also cultural/technological identity within new and specific environments.



Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210

Exercis 2.1 Penderson's (1987) article

I'd like to begin my personal response by saying that according to Penderson's (1987) article, we can assume that we still don't have enough knowledge (obtained via research) to make any firm assertions toward the impact of CALL. However, Penderson does call for more research (Basic CALL and Evaluative research, rather than Comparative research) to answer the very general question of how CALL (in all its forms) can affect learning (cognitive/metacognitive, psycholinguistic)? The research data so far accumulated, seems to point to the idea that there are no real learning advantages associated with the specific medium. Rather, it is the way that the medium is delivered through the specific software that has the capability of affecting learning outcomes. Computers are just the machines that enable different software to run, and with the applications of more sophisticated software, we can start noticing differences in not only outcomes in learning performance, but attitudes toward the learning medium. As Penderson suggests, the design of software, not the medium, leads to adjustments in cognitive processing. One can design straightforward behavioral type programs that respond in a very linear way, or one can be more open ended and communicative, allowing Ss to search for multiple answers in a negotiated response. Of course the development of the medium, in this case the computer, will enable greater access (speed: CPU and Internet), but it is the design of the program that would ultimately determine the successful achievement of learning goals and positive attitudes toward the learning task. This by no means is only related to computer learning tasks. Even in class, paper worksheets (the medium) can be designed to facilitate learning. One can have a study guide (to a book) that elicits answers on comprehension alone, or have worksheets that have a number of different sections that guide the learner through the task (schema building, vocabulary, extension)...and promote interaction and negotiation.
So I believe that within any medium there is infinite choice in design. The medium provides the canvas, but the software is likened to the artists tools (brushes, paints) that allow the user to express themselves in limitless ways. Steven (sorry for the mixed metaphor)

Exercise 2.3.2

Do you think that CALL activities can be improved through classroom research?
by Steven Mondy - Tuesday, 19 August 2008, 06:07 PM
The question asks us to seek out a relationship between L2 classroom research and CALL activities, to possibly try and establish a beneficial effect of current research (which kind?) on the medium of instruction (in this case CALL activities). I believe that Chapelle (1997) is right to be cautious in establishing the relationship, before first understanding what is meant by ‘research methods’, and stating the general methodology that surrounds SLA researchers and designers of CALL activities (Interactionist/Discourse analysis), at least to date.
Chapelle states that there is a need for more descriptive research (as opposed to just empirical), which documents the nature of interactions in which learners engage in within various CALL contexts. This means that we need to get a more holistic idea of what is happening within various contexts, how it is affecting the learner and how the learner is reacting to the interaction. The descriptive research should in Chapelle’s view describe learner input, output, and the relationship between both the input and output. This last point I believe is significant, in that it acknowledges there is change with each interaction. The description taking into account five characteristics: pragmatic, linguistic, non-linguistic, quality of language, and the medium of language transmission.
I believe that this focus on interaction (learner within their context) will give greater understandings about how communication is affected by the learning task, and method of instruction (and vice versa). Focus on the learner and how they react to various methods of gaining comprehensible input and being able to give effective comprehensible output (Swain and Lapkin, 95 as cited in Chapelle, 1997) will speak volumes about how effective the actual task is capable of being. Research that is able to understand how a task is able to encourage effective communication will undoubtedly make it possible for designers to improve upon CALL tasks (by tweaking and changing various aspects), so they in turn can make an optimal situation for better communication.
Chapelle states two critical questions in search of new research paradigms:
1. What kind of language does the learner engage in?
2. How good is the language experience in CALL for L2 learning?
These two questions can be a general framework for successful teaching, for any L2 teacher, in any domain, and using any methodology. If any research can help to answer these questions, then teachers and designers will both have an opportunity to design better learning tasks, that will interest students, engage them, keep them motivated and enable effective communication. Thus, facilitating successful learning.
Ciao
Steven
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: Still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Teachnology, 1(1)

Future of CALL

I agree that our activities are already showing signs of openness and integration and I am a little frustrated at some of these articles, as they are inherently a little dated. Bax's article is dated 2003, and now it is 2008. There have been incredible steps - more leaps and bounds, in the past 5 years than ever before. Chat, video conferencing, and more integration of technology into everyday life (i-phone, etc). People are already doing things in an integrative way. The future appears to mix synchronous tasks more seamlessly into our everyday lives. The task for us teachers is to tap the resource, and make use of the potential. That means we have to be on top of what is happening out there. This is what I think Bax is asking us to do...more R & D, for future situations.

Ｂａｘ’ｓ （２００３） ａｒｔｉｃｌｅ

I kinda like Bax's criticism of Warschauer, if it isn't a little direct. I started off reading and kinda took offense (thinking I already had the idea after reading Warschauer) at the beginning, but I think he does have a point, with respect to the 3 point framework that was set up by Warschauer did have its limitations, especially with its confusion with terminology. I think that Bax's framework may have a few problems, too (especially with his idea of integrative CALL, not yet being realized). Yet, it does open up discussion on a future direction of CALL, and doesn't take CALL so seriously to make it a separate entity. It tries to call for the normalization of CALL into everyday life, and posits a time where the role of technology is significant in terms of what can be done, but not how it can be done.

Bax, S. (2003). CALL - past, present and future.

After reading Bax (2003), I am left pondering which stage of normalization do I find myself in (early adopter, ignorance/skepticism, try once, try again, fear/awe, normalizing and normalization), and how much does my school encourage the goal stated by Bax of heading toward a situation in which computers become as ubiquitous as the humble eraser or dictionary. I don't know how close to that goal we can eventually reach, but I feel that computers occupy a unique position that maybe DVD/CD players once had. But, look at what happened to many of the technologies that were created. MD's lived a short life (sometimes brilliant) in some countries then died out, and older technologies such as audio tape, are very reluctant to die out. Is this part of the fear and awe factor, or something else?
On a personal note, our school is exceptionally quick at buying new technology and experimenting with various software (but, unfortunately not giving enough training), yet most of the new developments tend to come from the teachers (who are interested)curiosity and willingness to adopt the new tools. Whist some teachers move head on into trying things like discussion boards and blogs, other teachers seem to be very hesitant, without being shown. Without training, as Bax points out, the full potential may not be realized.
I feel that normalization would make an excellent target, and it was even suggested by my boss in a directive toward staff members. He stated, "'IT' within the context of the classroom and related to EFL student endeavors, should consider computers as part of the necessary equipment which give Ss the opportunity for research and enable effective communication." His directive has at its heart the essence of 'Open CALL' (open to new approaches when needed) and the desire for seamless integration of technology within the school environment. However, are Ss and teachers really ready for such a generalized imperative? Maybe not now, but with the slow implementation over the coming years, Ss may get used to the idea (just as high school kids start getting used to typing out assignments instead of handwriting them).
My concern, is for the way that that directive is put into practice. As in the Bax article, implementing technology without concern for the other crucial factors for success such as training, administrative and pedagogical support, can lead to a state where technology can impact badly upon schools, teachers and learners. Teachers may be unwilling to try again after initial bad experiences with software. Ss may initially have access issues, which may impact negatively on motivation to participate in future attempts. For this reason, I believe that the implementation of technology should be well planned. Yet, with all the planning, there will always be hidden aspects, so with that specific plan, there needs to be an openness to the 'unexpected factor'. This is probably what Bax is calling for within his hope for more ethnographic research. Finding out what is happening, the attitudes toward the present situation, and the perceived direction that we and end users wish/need/have to take, in the process of learning.
Steven Mondy

Warschauer & Meskill (2000)

After reading Warschauer & Meskill (2000), I'm left wondering how the 'IT' revolution is going to effect the whole teaching industry. I believe that even though we over estimate the impact of technology (take a simple Back to the Future movie), there are incredible advances in both what can be done with technology and with teaching behavior. Warschauer & Meskill discuss three phases of CALL (Behavioristic, Communicative and Integrative) as closely following not only technological advances, but also pedagogical ones.Teachers with a behavioristic bend who want drill practice, and translation (using concordance programs) can do so with programs that allow repetitive practice. The teacher that has a communicative style, will thrive on software that allows communication within the realm of real world experiences, such as what e-mail, chat and online conferencing can do. Then there's the integrative focus, which I see as the phase that promises to appeal to a greater variety of people, and be open to a greater variety of tools.
Ss today are part of a multi-tasking community, that requires the ability to manipulate many kinds of tools, for many purposes. Our Ss, as part of their everyday lives are required to communicate in both a synchronous and asynchronous way already. The tools are there...mobile phones, computer networks, the internet... Which they manipulate with ease. Often these tools are used in tandem (or more)... Even at home, with simple online games, people are finding ways to connect, in ways that we could never have dreamed of before. (All the while, being able to handle various devices, at the same time).
Warschauer & Meskill discuss the quality of programs and how they may lack the pedagogical outcomes, because teachers lack the time and experience with these programs (leaving design of perfect systems up to commercial developers). Yet, I believe that potential lies within even the most basic program. All it takes is a little creativity to unleash the hidden capacity. A teacher with a desire to look outside the box, can create meaningful and authentic learning activities for Ss, with the tools that are already available. As for new technologies, they are being created in Beta form all the time.
I think that the Warschauer & Meskill article has become a little dated, in that it does not take into account the capacity of CMC in programs such as 'Second Life', where the computer technology has already enabled interactive communication within virtual worlds. I think the next phase will be 'Virtual'. People are already setting up schools (Gaijin.com) in Second Life, where avatars make their way to virtual schools, using virtual money, to learn new languages. It is starting to seem a little like connectivity is the key to the new phase of CALL. This again, may be over-estimating the value of the technological advances. However, in the 90's (when I first came to Japan) who would have considered the ability to conference call, for free, on Skype, with a number of people. Even with this limited technology, Ss are able to break free and enter new domains in their learning. Teachers are able to provide new opportunities within the confines of existing technology. And what has made this possible is access to an unlimited source - the internet. Anyone can learn anything, at anytime, from anyone.
Teachers can lead this new revolution in conjunction with software makers (both commercial and freeware), and work collaboratively in developing new ways to use existing technology, and provide avenues for new development. Teachers are at the grass roots level, and are the ones to respond to reactions of students, within ever increasing domains. They are also the ones who can tweak existing programs, to suit real-life demands...
As Garrett (1991) states, the computer (internet) does not constitute the method, but a medium in which a variety of methods and approaches may be implemented. Teachers are the ones that implement the methods with the help of tools that are readily accessible. And as those tools develop and change, it becomes possible for them to tweak their methods in a careful balancing act, that enables better access and more learning opportunities.
Steven Mondy
Do I make any sense...?

Setting up costs

I believe that costs are a huge barrier to anyone setting up a site. In the past, programs went for thousands of dollars, but had only a limited capacity. These days, you can get programs free of charge, at the expense of a little privacy, that have amazing capabilities. Programs such as the one we are on now have become accessible, to anyone with a little knowledge of how they run, and where to find them. This has made it possible for anyone to put anything out there. The more reputable educational programs may be getting more expensive, but there are many people putting a lot of freeware out there and then asking for donations...if customers are satisfied.
If anyone can get anything for free (and there is a lot of legal freeware out there), then this opens up opportunities for individuals and groups to develop cheap, useful and easily accessible programs at a fraction of the cost.
Steven

Authentic Interaction

A couple of points I would like to hit on.
1. authentic interaction and
2. computer interaction.
Authentic and meaningful interaction...What is it? I believe that it would have something to do with purposeful action or actions that result in something being achieved or communicated. How authentic is any classroom activity, apart from transferring and receiving information. The only real world, truly authentic language task is outside in the real world on some kind of excursion. So, in CALL terms, what is really authentic and meaningful. A computer game would be. Internet shopping would be, too. However, when it comes to many activities (my blog included), how many are really categorized as meaninful and authentic. I tried one activity in a class once which used a Dawson's creek video to provide the subject matter for an online discussion board. The students were using technology to communicate their feelings to each other. The Ss were incredibly motivated, and eager to use the technology, because they wanted to discuss ideas...and the computer allowed them to do so. It wasn't without problems, however. It was limited by the technology itself (which was the program).

2. Computer interaction and human interaction... Would Ss really care? If the program was say, as interactive as say these role playing games...would students not have more fun, than sitting in a dull and boring audio-lingual class, or trudging through mindless grammar translation method or going through one of those thick TOEIC/TOEFL/IELTS preparation books... Food for thought...
Thanks for beginning this discussion....
Steve

More about using video

I was also thinking about using some aussie dramas...but when I watched a few I found them full of australian slang (blue heelers, etc...)... Actually I couldn't believe how much... Now from a sociolinguistics perspective (dialects, accents and world Englishes), it could be an interesting slant... but I know that I wouldn't hear the end of it with my pro-American school staff... and pro-American English Japan (not that it's bad or anything).
I guess that will have to wait for an Australian studies class...
I usually find that video in class, sends students to sleep, anyway... and when I start tacking on comprehension questions, I totally lose them. No, what I think needs to be done is to have some schema building before the video, as you've suggested, then just let them watch the program with English subtitles (L1 for the first episode), no expectations. Then after, give them a list of discussion questions on a chat board, and let them go. Of course, you have to establish the chat room etiquette and expectations. Let the students come up to you and ask questions...encourage students to respond to other students... I found that after a few episodes, the students were really getting into it. I guess the content was pitched at the right level, as my students are 18~20 year olds, and the drama was about relationships. That's another thing. I've found that the kind of video really does matter.
As for the chat room, an expectation I had was that they had to at least post one entry, and one response to someone.
As for learning outcomes, the two main goals were to write more and write better, and we talked as a class about how to do that.
My friend's Battlestar Galactica class was a creative writing class, that focussed on similar aims.
I will be trying it again our next semester (starting October here...)
I am actually on the lookout for new dramas that fit the bill. I am also looking for easier ways to set up a private chat room, that are easier to use than the google one... Anyone have any ideas???
Ciao

Video in the classroom

I elected to do a drama like Dawson's Creek (however, the language in it probably goes beyond i + 1), because the episodes are around 30-40 minutes, but the story continues over a series, so students can develop connections to characters, and see the interrelationships between them. I used to watch Japanese dramas to study Japanese (Long Vacation was my favorite). Each episode was just long enough, or just short enough to keep me interested...
I have a friend using 'Battlestar Galactica' in the same way. I agree, with video, at least for teaching in the classroom, it should be kept short. However, when you do that, then you lose the integrity of the language in it's context, and therefore make it less authentic. And that's why I don't really like a lot of these language program skits...promoting video for language alone, and not including much of all the other stuff that comes with language in context.
As for video in the context of a web page, I believe that length doesn't really matter (within limits). Ss can elect whether to view a video, by watching the first few minutes, and if they don't like it, they will switch off. I think most video hosting sites in the beginning had time limits, but now they are allowing videos of greater length.
What do you think?

Different Online resources

ELLLO is a fantastic resource that I blatantly overuse (just look at my website). I try to put them under headings, like family, pets, places where we live... etc... (I have 10 themes, so far) in this way, the students can listen to a variety of people, discussing a variety of subjects.
I also make use of VOA, although I am sometimes skeptical about the value of the so called special English. However, I like to provide it, just in case it's useful. With VOA, I try to make lesson worksheets, that work on schema building, vocab, phrasal verbs, and comprehension activities. The thing that I try hard to also do with the VOA and some of the guided readers, is to make some online interactive cloze activities.
As you say, video is a great tool, and I haven't gotten too much into making lessons for video segments. I always find that students in Japan have a great need for the transcripts, and it is very hard to find video sites with full transcripts that are available, like the VOA site.
Unfortunately, one disadvantage with VOA is that it is American centric. It would be great to have a similar site for world Englishes.

Another great site for all those who are into Current Topics (which you probably all know already) is Breakingnewsesl.com. It provides lesson plans almost daily.
Ciao
Steven

Computer Technology over the years

Computer technology seems to improve in leaps and bounds, but more importantly the internet has made what we can do with computers almost infinite. In the early 80's the focus was most likely on the inherent capabilities of the the computer, where computer access was available - in the classroom or a computer lab.
The internet has somewhat changed the way we use computers, and has had a significant impact on accessibility. Students no longer have to be tied down to specific areas, but can access from homes, cafes and anywhere there is an internet porthole. Students who may have been denied access to educational resources by distance, can now easily study in a variety of ways. Even in my own case, for many years I put off doing my masters because I believed that I didn't have the resources open to me in my area (Osaka), in the early 90's. Internet access changed that, and now I am able to study, because there is a wealth of knowledge and a variety of resources to help me. I can connect with a greater number of people and share ideas on a regular basis.
I see the developments in computer software making the computer an even more formidable force in education. In the beginning, people used basic software that allowed for interaction on a basic level. Software these days tends to be more interactive and encourages people to network. Programs such as Facebook, Sype, Yutube and Blogger allow people to make connections on many levels, and share ideas in various ways. People are communicating in a vastly different way than what they used to before (with just e-mail).
Ahmad, et al (1985) discusses the reluctance of the older generation to adopt new technologies, and the younger generation pushing the limits of what can be done with new technologies. There is a gap similar to the old generation-gap, that can no longer be avoided. Teachers cannot keep away from these new technologies, but should try to embrace them. Competence in the target subject and pedagogical skill alone is insufficient. and teachers need to now embrace computer competency, in order to bridge the ever increasing technological gap between generations. This is easier said than done. I for one, began embracing computer literacy, by forcing my way through reams of HTML code, only to get frustrated and search out easier alternatives. For me, the easy solution was with so called authoring languages (like cloze maker and packages (like blogger and iweb), that made life much easier, because the layout was fixed. But as my competence in using the packages increased, I started to feel my creativity become limited, which is one of the disadvantages posed by Ahmed, et al (1985).
Technology cannot replace the me the teacher, but I am aware of an ever increasing need to keep abreast of changes in my field, brought on by new technologies. With any change there will always be advantages and disadvantages for both the teacher and the learner. The computer, or more specifically advances in internet technology and the software that is made available for and on it will undoubtedly bring more change in the future. How we adapt to that change and how we incorporate it into our lives as learners and teachers may not always be smooth. However, instead of resisting the change, why not think of it more positively as a challenge...
Steven Mondy

How I started becoming interested in computers?

CALL - Computer Assisted Language Learning
Hello everyone.
I started becoming interested in computers when I first bought my Mac 4 years ago. Access to this powerful tool enabled me to start experimenting both on and off line. However, when I first came across a little program called 'Blogger' I really started to gain momentum, and the things that I could produce for both teachers and students expanded exponentially.
I started with simple ideas, such as using the blog function to communicate ideas to students. Then I got students involved through a project in my writing class. They need to contribute 50 words per week to a class blog.
Students at my school were initially hesitant. I often got responses such as, 'I don't have a computer' and 'I don't have internet access'. I thought about this and tried to encourage my school to provide more access time in the computer lab. This was the key to making this kind of blog enjoyable and available to all students. Now the biggest issue is trying to get them to edit their work sufficiently, before publication.
Another way that I use the internet is as a central hub for ESL and EFL materials...where I provide information and lessons for both teachers to use and students to access as supplementary or class related assignment. Some students make use of this resource, and I would like to investigate ways in which I can make the material more accessible to a greater number of people. One thing that I have found, is that language can be quite a hurdle for many, and the idea of visiting a site only in the target language, can be quite daunting. For this reason, I am playing with the idea of a bilingual site, or something that can be accessed in a number of languages. This is quite a large endeavor that will take a little time.
Recently, I have added more things to my site, including videos from Yutube, a great resource and very easy to embed. I would like to also investigate new ways to use video, and even incorporating web discussions using programs such as Sype, to promote regular networking and study groups.
There is so much I still want to do, which I will do one step at a time. If you get the chance, please visit my website at: mondosworld.blogspot.com
Until next time...Ciao Steven smile

Mainstream Education (With foreign Language Teaching)

Today, I would like to discuss the idea of 'drip feeding' within mainstream education (Baker 2006), as it relates to what happens here (Japan) in Junior high schools and senior high. Unfortunately, here in Japan the focus is on English as a language, and not English as a byproduct of studying some kind of content.
Baker gives the example of 1/2 an hour language teaching per day for 5-12 year of education, not/rarely producing functionally bilingual children. I guess the situation in Japan with English language instruction is even worse, as mainstream schools only devote 1 hour per week to English instruction as a subject, which if you go with Baker's example, will mean even worse results.
Looking at it from a subjective standpoint, I can agree that many of the high school graduates leaving senior high are not competent in their communicative competence, but their academic literacy is quite high. The drip feeding in this kind of situation has given these students (over a 6 year period) a strong foundation in passive receptive forms, but has not enabled them to develop an ability to speak up.
Many Ss seem to come out of this kind of English language exposure, not confident speakers, and either having a desire to improve their ability (which explains the popularity in English language schools here) or negative about the whole experience because they have spent so long trying to learn, but are still are not competent.
There is a whole mentality here in Japan, that people can take one 60 min. lesson, once a week, without doing any homework, and still being able to improve one's language ability. I had thought that an answer would be to have shorter and more frequent lessons, which would help consolidate and keep the language fresh and alive in Ss heads, would be an answer...but it seems that it may be in vain (may not improve)...
I still believe that regular lessons in English for majority language Ss will improve competence in a foreign language, and may be the thing that Japanese schools need to improve their Ss English ability, especially with having stronger feelings of success in their learning.
Even at my school (a mixture of EFL language school and immersion type classes), we have tried to increase the number of English content based lessons (shorter time), and our focus has been on reading (input) and writing (output), and in the initial stages, we are having some success. Ss are tending to think in English more, I mean on a constant basis. English is more a part of their lives, and they are being required to use it on meaningful tasks, such as blogs to communicate ideas about content.
Does anyone out there have any positive or negative experiences with a drip feeding type of situation (language taught through minority language for a limited time, as a subject like Math or Science)?
Steven Mondy

Dual Immersion

Hi there everyone,
Today I did quite a bit of reading out of Baker (2006) on different types of bilingual programs. I have to say that the number of different programs really amazed me, but what was even more interesting was the aims or goals behind each of them.
I kinda think that if we hold on to the idea of static maintenance, we are doing the students a great dis-service. We need to actively promote the development of linguistic diversity and cultural pluralism, if we want our students to take full advantage of all that they can be, linguistically, and socially. That is why I tend to favor 'dual immersion', in that languages are allowed to flourish along side each other and with various enrichment programs that help to support the child's experiences in language.
I did a quick search on Youtube under 'immersion education' and discovered a promotional video for a dual immersion school.
You can find it in a search on Youtube under 'Flowery Dual Immersion (part 1 & 2) I think the link is as follows... http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=xgR8I0aeRms&feature=related
It's kinda a promotional video for the school, but it covers many of the ideas that I read in Baker(2006), to do with immersion programs. Actually, it was great to see how a program actually works, as I am not involved in Bilingual education as such, here in Japan (more EFL SL learning).
I was particularly interested in the breakdown of percentages over the years of primary education. They start with 90/10 (Spanish/English) in kindergarten, but end with 50/50 in year 6. They introduce English literacy in the third grade (as with many of the articles I've read), and support with enrichment programs.
I am guessing that Spanish and English are languages that support each other (ie; more similar), but I wonder how a Japanese-English program might work, where the languages are very different in form.
Not only that, but Japanese seems to come from a very high~context culture (people tend to pick up clues from their surroundings and less is explained through words) and English low-context (tend to speak more). Would this provide added challenges?
In addition, the learning of Kanji (Chinese characters) may make the above percentages change, as the Japanese writing system is quite time intensive compared to English, at least initially.
Please watch the Youtube video, and tell me what you think...
Steven Mondy

Baker(2006), Foundations in Bilingual education and Bilingualism
Wikipedia, High context Culture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_context_culture

Language Maintenance vs. Total Immersion

Hello everyone,
It's been a long time. Sorry for the long absence from the board. I hope everyone is well. I'll try and get back into writing mode by discussing the issue of teaching in the home-language vs. putting kids into classrooms that are run in their L2.
Most of the literature that I have come across seems to favor the initial teaching of children through their first language, then either through some transitional phase move to the second language or concentrate on L1 maintenance; either Static: prevent loss or Developmental: goal proficiency in home language (Otheguy & Otto 1980, The myth of static maintenance in bilingual education). The basic argument is that children who can develop cognitive competence through their first language can utilize their understandings in their learning of a second language. Learning through a first language helps build not only linguistic ability, but also helps to foster psychological factors such as motivation and openness toward learning (affective factors). Critics seem to suggest that concentrating on a first language (that is different to the main language of the surrounding environment) will take up time needed for learning of the main language, and that the home language will compete with the development of the main language.
That seems more like a fear of foreign languages than a logical argument against them. I believe that having more than one language can only increase learning opportunities that are non-existent in mono-cultural/monolingual environments.
In addition, part of learning language is about feeling a need to learn it, and developing that desire. When you drop a child ‘cold turkey’ into a foreign language environment, I think you create a substantial amount of stress for that child. Children will be forced to sit through classes that are completely incomprehensible, and somehow by some kind of Osmosis of language learning (Levenson, 1972, The language experience approach for teaching beginning reading in bilingual education programs), children will pick up a language. It doesn't work...!
According to Krashen (2006, Digest Vol.22 Issue 9)
“Research in first- and second-language acquisition has shown us that we acquire language when we understand what we hear and read, not when we don't…English learners will be forced to sit through several hours a day of incomprehensible instruction. This is a waste of time and money - and a cause of needless frustration for children eager to learn English.”
I would think that in doing so, children would start becoming more defensive. Also because their base language is being de-valorized so much, it may even cause confusion and resentment toward the new language and culture. Legislation, such as article 227 has the potential to alienate, rather than help Ss. I think that it is important to make individuals feel a sense of value for the stuff that they have already learned. We need to provide an environment that facilitates the gradual integration of the new language and that supports both by providing recognition and acceptance of all home languages. Providing such support need not be costly or time-consuming. It would however take individuals who are attuned to the value of a multi-lingual/cultural environment.
Sahha,
Steven Mondy

Bilingual and Monolinguals

You know, I think the biggest mistake any of us make is trying to compare apples and oranges. Many people try to compare their language abilities with monolingual standards. Yes, bilinguals may have less vocab (in each specific lang., but more in both) , different pronunciation (not that pronunciation means anything if communication is achieved), and interference (well, this goes to the degree of control). But, they also have a capacity deal with situations that exceed anything a monolingual can cope. Unfortunately, bilinguals are not accepted for what they can do, but are judged by what they can't. This is done by everyone, even bilinguals themselves. "I am not good enough." I always here my students say... Can you ever be? We often set unrealistic, or unachievable standards, and compare ourselves to what we believe is right. Can we communicate? Is our communicative ability making it difficult to get our message across? Even if we have those difficulties that you say, does it mean that you are any less capable than a monolingual?

Which would I prefer? Of course, I would like to have complete control and a high degree of proficiency! However, recently I have come to notice...
1. Monolinguals don't always have complete control themselves (George Bush a case in point)
2. Bilinguals who are put into a situation of having to use their weaker language, often have to contend with everyone judging them (using unrealistic standards). Why does a bilingual have to be letter perfect, all the time?
3. My fellow Japanese/English speaking (Japanese dominant) coworkers seem to feel that they have to be perfect English speakers around other English speaking coworkers (including pronunciation). However, their level of English almost always surpasses my Japanese ability, yet they feel like they are deficient in some way. I am always in awe at the level of discussion (in English) they are able to participate in.
4. With my own limited bilingualism (closer to the incipient, than the balanced) I am constantly doubting myself and my ability. Yet, I can always go out into Japanese cities, and I can deal with a multitude of different experiences/domains. I know there will always be someone trying to knock down my ability, by saying my Japanese is not good enough (including myself). But, at my work (YMCA) we have a saying that I also like to live by, and that is, "Yes, I can."

It seems that the ideal is to speak both languages like you are a monolingual in both, but in reality I think that most bilinguals are more than the sum of two monolinguals (I think that was in Baker, 2000)...and are likely to be more effective than monolinguals in some domains, and less effective in others...
I certainly think of bilinguals differently now. I try to see what they can do, instead of what they can't.
What do you think?
Sahha...
Steve

Are Bilingual's More Intelligent?

A classmate's post got me thinking about the brain, and its capacity to deal with situations. Considering language and all its complexity, and the differences between languages, I would say that our brains have quite a job to sort it all out. I haven't read too much about the differences in the physiological make up of the brain, and the similarities or differences between the brain of the monolingual, and that of the bilingual individual, but I would imagine that bilinguals develop greater neural pathways (can anyone help me support that), in the brain. If this is the case, then more pathways means greater chance of mental flexibility and better conceptualizations. I have to try and read up on this and find support for this idea, however.
For the person learning a second language therefore, they go through the process of creating new or stronger pathways, that are able to link between ideas already established in their L1 and new concepts in the new language. Having these strong links, and ability to access paradigms outside just one language conceptualizations, makes it possible for the individual to think more 'outside the box.' Even if this doesn't make them more intelligent, it at least makes them more creative... What say you?
Steven Mondy

Acculturation

Acculturation, extends beyond just the learning of a language, but to the social variables that come along with being immersed within the target language and group. The amount that culture plays within the acculturation process is in my mind quite significant, but somewhat understated. My favorite book to date on culture learning, is Damen's 1987, Culture learning: the fifth dimension in the classroom. The whole process of moving from the transient sojourner (short term traveler) through to the permanent resident within a culture (due to immigration, or other circumstances) is clearly set out within that book. The most interesting aspect for me is the idea that it is a process, dealing with social distance: assimilation/adaptation/adjustment. There seems to be a careful balance between culture shock and integration/positive acceptance of cultural protocols. I believe that the process has no end point, and that the individual continues to go through stages of distancing themselves or being totally accepting of various social aspects, throughout their lives. Life is not static, but ever changing, and with those new situations and circumstances there are chances of new kinds of culture shock. I don't know if you can say that you are totally assimilated to a particular culture. However, people can come to a point in which they are comfortable with the roller coaster ride between minimum and maximum social distance. I guess it would depend on how different the new target culture is, and how passionately an individual feels about their own cultural identity. Acculturation therefore (as I see it) is in the realm of the person who moves to a new culture and must deal with the process of fitting into their surrounding environment. Personally, I believe that once an identity is established within one culture, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to totally assimilate. I think that the ideas of adaptation and adjustment allow the individual opportunities to integrate aspects of the new culture into their own identity, or have tolerance for new ways of doing things.
What is to be learned?
Well, if we want individuals to 'fit in' to a particular culture, we need to make it possible for them to reduce the social distance as much as possible, and create opportunities for them to develop tolerance and understanding of different ways of doing things. We should also create environments that encourage (not discourage) the first culture and language, and that try to reduce the stress of culture shock.
Ciao
Steven

Compound and Coordinate Bilingualism

My question today is how do we use the measures of compound and coordinate bilingualism?

I was struggling with the concept of Coordinate and Compound bilingualism. Basically, I have a good concept about how they differ: Compound being the individual that has one meaning,　with two representations for that meaning, and coordinate being the individual who develops two distinct meanings and respective symbols. Kind of like the following representation:

Compound ~ A = a or b

Coordinate ~ A = a and B=b

At first, I thought of it as the following example:

In English, water is the same whether hot or cold,

But in Japanese, Water is ‘Yu’ if it is hot and ‘Mizu’ if it is cold.

Is this an example to illustrate the difference? I am not quite sure?

Then I talked with some colleagues, and we got into a discussion about cultural protocols influencing the bilingual individual, and how the compound/coordinate difference could also be linked to flexibility between cultural systems (a bit of a tangent, I know). However, the coordinate person would be able to switch between two systems, whereas the Compound person may only be able to reference one cultural protocol, which is used in either language, and in turn culture. The person that can use both of the cultural systems, meanings and symbols will have an easier time in fitting in within either system. However, the person who has one meaning for different symbols will be more efficient, but tend to make inappropriate choices, because of subtle nuances in either language caused by differences in cultural behavior.

I am a little confused, and I may be going off base here, but I would like to know how this concept fits. Hamers and Blanc (2000) seem to only skim over this concept. Maybe it’s not that important?

Ciao

Steve

Hamers and Blanc (2000), Bilinguality and Bilingualism, Cambridge.

How does a child become bilingual?

This is basically a response reading 2.1, part 2.2 How does a child become bilingual?
The initial answer that was proposed in the reading was by growing up in a bilingual environment.
Being a parent and living abroad, I initially thought that creating a very supportive home environment in one language, can coexist with a different outside environment. When my daughter was born, I imagined creating such a supportive English language environment at home (yet outside the home everything is Japanese), follow the one-person one language maxim, and instill within my daughter a love for both languages, so much so that she would be proud to speak both languages in all situations. Alas, my hopes and expectations were somewhat too idealistic and definitely did not account for all possible affecting variables (psychological and social). Don't get me wrong, I tried my hardest to make those dreams a reality, but if I knew then, what I know now...alas regret, something I try to avoid...
According to the reading ~ exposure, consistency, perceived need, and social support all factor into the mix, however, I feel that the social aspect has a considerable impact.
1. Providing a chance for exposure to take place is sometimes difficult to create. When my daughter was young, it seemed easier, with videos and books, but as she grew older, and especially at the time she began school (regular school), it was harder and harder to create opportunities for her to use and be surrounded by English.
2. Consistency (in staying in English mode, or responding in the same way each time) is difficult to maintain, especially when I am also trying to learn the language of the society I am living in. I find it hard to only respond in English for at least two reasons. One is that I want to use the language I'm learning, and the other is that I want her to be able to really understand what I am talking about. Her Japanese seemed to suddenly take off at around age 5 or 6 and English kinda lagged behind... Sometimes it was easier and faster to speak in Japanese. I also often find myself talking in mixed English and Japanese, using the words that I feel more comfortable with, and that would get the job done.
3. When my daughter started school, her perceived need to speak English suddenly dropped, because she wasn't encountering English that often (I was the only person who spoke to her in English). It wasn't that she didn't understand English, it's just that she had few opportunities to speak it... and slowly but surely, she started reverting back to Japanese, even when speaking with me... My choice was either to encourage her to speak only English, or let her speak Japanese and speak to her in English. In the beginning, I chose the first one, but it didn't work...I eventually moved on to the second option...But now there is nothing motivating her to speak English...
4.It seems sometimes, that all her outside influences are just too strong... That and my wife only speaking Japanese to her...
I am happy with the English she does know. I feel that when she was young, I exposed her to enough English, for a fairly long time, in that so called critical period, that English will stay with her, in some way. She may always have that feeling for the language. My worry now is with her language attrition (loss of English), but I believe that I can support her now and in the future. The kind of support varies as time passes, and she goes through different stages. But I discovered, it's undesirable if you push too much and it's also undesirable if you don't expose your child at all. It's really a fine line...
Somewhat personal today
ciao
Steve

Measures of Bilinguality

I think that I agree with Hamers and Blanc's idea that we should try to maintain a multidimensional view of bilingualism and bilinguality, even when trying to establish criteria to determine competencies that lead to someone being considered bilingual or not. Too often linguistic competence alone is chosen (by the lay-person) as the only criteria. Psychological states and socio-linguistic aspects should also be considered to gain a more holistic perspective.
I know that my own language performance in my L2 is quite often affected by my mood, or the environment I find myself in, or the task I am to perform. I believe that each bilingual person has their own set of behaviors, specific to their situation, culture and languages. My question is that in a measure of bilinguality, how do you account for the 7 measures proposed by Hamers and Blanc in a balanced way, maintaining validity (are we testing what we really want to test), and consistency/reliability over populations of individuals who all have varying and unique needs? In simple terms, how do you make a test that fits each and every bilingual, when cultures and languages and individuals have so many differences?
What does everyone think?
ciao
steve

What is a bilingual 2?

Hi there everyone...
I was doing some research for my homepage, when I came across an interesting slideshow It is made as a listening lesson, but it brings up some interesting comparisons btw elective and circumstantial bilingualism, especially when she talks about her learning English in an English speaking country.
Check it out...
ciao
Steve

How you would choose to define your language abilities?

How you would choose to define your language abilities, Steve?

Well, it's hard to say... I consider myself bilingual in some domains, but hopelessly out of my league in other domains. Sometimes I feel that I can speak Japanese really well, especially at an Izakaya (kinda restaurant/pub in Japan) when the language is very casual, but in school meetings (when conducted in Japanese) I struggle for every word.
At the moment, I tend to disagree with the labeling that is done (refer to:Incipient/balanced etc), as it tends to pigeon hole people under headings that may not adequately describe them. But without the jargon, it is very difficult to discuss concepts, 'cause we would need to rely on a lot of pretty heavy description...something I noticed while doing the research subject last semester...
My friend and I (he is Japanese -but fluent in spoken English) were discussing my language ability the other day. He said to me that I don't really know Japanese, 'cause he rarely hears me speak it. I said to him that it is quite difficult to speak to him in Japanese, 'cause I know that he understands English really well. Then I told him to finish the conversation in Japanese...which he did and I could understand his every word, but I was still unable to respond to him in Japanese. I had some kind of invisible wall, that made me clam up in Japanese, and revert back to English replies.
There are many times that people praise me, and a lot of other times when they say my Japanese sucks. So it leads me to wonder how someone can really evaluate another person being bilingual.
I think anyone who has had a reasonable amount of exposure to an L2 (or L3, L4) and communicate or understand communication in that language (through at least one of the macro skills) is bilingual to some extent.

How you would choose to define your language abilities?
ciao
steve
ps. I don't know if I adequately responded to this question, because it seems like such a big one, at least for me, at this time...

Incipient Vs. Balanced Bilingual

I was just wondering, and it could be quite a stupid question, but is there anything in between Incipient and Balanced bilingual? I realize that these are just labels used by academics to define the boundaries of bilingualism, but I feel I can't say that I am at either the minimal end of incipient bilingualism or the maximum end of being a balanced bilingual.
On the questionnaire attached to the USQ DB, I voted that I was an Incipient bilingual, but I feel there should be further divisions that include people with strong abilities in say, just one receptive skill such as speaking or listening, but weaker with productive skills. I guess this is where the Holistic view of bilingualism plays a part?!
a bit confused...
Steve

How does context affect bilingualism?

Hamers and Blanc (2000) make the process of defining bilingualism a little more challenging within that first chapter, as now we should also be considering not only cognitive processes, but also social interactions, and socio-psychological aspects as well. That is not only the ability to understand and perform within a second language (L2), but how the context of our situation makes us feel toward a language, and how much we are encouraged to valorise (attach positive value toward) the language systems around us. In a monolingual environment, that may be nil. In a bilingual or multilingual environment it would depend on the prestige attached to the respective languages.
That brings me to question my environment here in Japan. It is essentially a monolingual environment (Japanese), but English seems to be promoted as 'the' language to learn to get ahead. Yet, it seems like it is more said than done, as English levels remain low (according to standardized tests such as TOEIC, etc), at least compared with other Asian countries. Does English have any prestige, or enough to make people value it and internalize it? Are the forces (pretty much everything is Japanese first) at play in this essentially monolingual environment too strong? I know that every time my students (college kids) leave their classes, the pressure to speak Japanese can be seen, because I see them quickly change to their first language (L1). The only exception I see, is with our International High school kids. They seem to continue speaking English in the halls, almost in a kind of defiance or to show themselves capable... Could age and development, as two of the dimensions of bilingualism be strong players in how confident students are in going against societal norms?
I don't know really, but I think that as students get older (here), they start adapting to behavior of the group, and often the nail that sticks up, is hammered down... Kind of a negative view, but Japan tends to favor group behavior rather than showing individualism. And speaking English (well) here is still considered kind of special.
Ciao
Steven thoughtful

What is a bilingual?

Hi there everyone,
I have been lazily getting into this stuff on bilingualism, but find it all very fascinating...
I was quite interested in the great variety of perspectives on what we refer to as a bilingual. I have to admit, that before starting my masters program, I used to think in the lines of the popular view as posited by people such as Bloomfied (1935, as cited in Hamers and Blanc 2000): a bilingual being someone who can speak both languages perfectly. Yet, now I am favoring Grosjean (1985, as cited in Hamers and Blanc 2000) or even Macnamara (1994); a bilingual is more than the sum of the two monolinguals and who posses a minimal competence in one of the skills. This seems to be a richer and deeper definition of the complexity of being bilingual. The Japanese expression for someone who is from two cultures is 'half'. I often joke with people here by saying ~not half...'Double'. 'cause I believe (now this may be controversial, and I hope that I don't offend) that true bilinguals are actually smarter...
I have always been struggling with my identity. Throughout my life I have had a deep feeling of being at least partly Maltese, even though I don't have any physical features that show that I am Maltese. Living in Melbourne, Australia during my formative years must have shaped part of that identity. Even though my language proficiency (...having some understanding of the macro skill of listening, but unfortunately not being able to speak so well) did not match my strong feeling of being Maltese, I was able to feel a strong connection to to culture, and to its language. Every time I heard Maltese, my ears would prick up and I would feel warmth toward it, and some disappointment in not being able to be proficient. My identity must have been heavily influenced by my significant other (mother) when I was a child, to develop a bi-cultural identity, but the context of my social networks and community must have been quite powerful, in that the result is a person who cannot effectively communicate in Maltese (at least in a way that I wish to). It's something that my daughter will have to deal with, too. However, I suspect that she will deal with it in different ways, because of her social context....
ciao
Steve

Research Proposal 3

I need to also decide on a paradigm (most likely qualitative or quasi-experimental)---so that means I need to start thinking of questions (rather than hypotheses), and different variables to compare or contrast... This is where attitudes (teacher and student), learning styles, teacher checks and balances, logistics and overall suitability of teaching methodology may come into play...

It'll be most likely action research (but could also make use of case study or grounding theory), so the understandings will come through the research, rather than test or validate hypotheses... I will probably need to propose small incremental changes, that can be implemented within the real system and evaluated on a regular basis...as consistent with action research (Kremmis & McTaggart 1988)

The methods and design I am still playing with. Definitely as an insider, I can offer a unique first hand perspective (but which can also cause bias, which I will need to account for in the design, methods and procedure section for sources of error), but there will be a need for interviews and/or surveys of teacher and student understandings of this kind of teaching and its perceived usefulness. Comparisons could be made within observations which could be undertaken of my own classes and other teachers classes (given that ethical considerations and rater bias are taken into account).
I think it will be difficult to delimit the actual question (but I will need to if I want to keep under the word limit), as there is a lot that can and should be investigated.

Oh well, that's where I am at...
ciao
Steven M

Research Proposal 2

I had a problem when trying to decide on a definition for this kind of teacher sharing of a class (which appears to be unique to this particular situation). I think that my lecturers comments in a discussion board post of giving our situation the labels of paired teaching and teaching pairs seem to encapsulate the idea more clearly...

I still want to go ahead with this topic, as
1. It is in operation, and has been for quite a while in my college,
2. It is a system that many of my Japanese administrators favor,
3. It is a system that has morphed from an original team teacher situation in the traditional sense (the reason it has changed I am still not sure of yet),
4. I want to know if there are any advantages of doing it this way, in comparison to the regular one teacher teaching both classes, and
5. I'd like to know how student's feel toward the paired teaching situation,
that's what I've come up with for starters...

I am not sure if the two systems are that different, in that they are offshoots of the same initial rationale, or are modified forms of the same thing. I think, however, that limiting myself to one would be advantageous to eventually getting clearer picture...

As for my proposal I haven't really thought too much into the future. I initially took this course just to get some grounding in research, in case in the future I may want to continue study at a higher level... At the moment I am just concentrating on finishing my masters and have at least two more subjects to do before even thinking about a true research project. At the moment I just want to know how to write a proposal...

This course has been the best so far (it is my 5th), and it has also been the hardest. I am really pushing myself, but getting a lot back...

Ciao
Steven M

Research Proposal 1

I have a million and one ideas for a research proposal, and I can't seem to decide on one...
Having said that, I am probably going to look into some action research that would be of direct benefit to the school program I am teaching in at the moment...
I have identified some discontent with the team teaching program that is running within the college I am working.
Team teaching is not unique in itself, as it can be found in many forms, and in Japan it has taken root within a number of niches (AET - assistant English teacher, in the JET program for instance).
However, I wish to look at the effectiveness of team teaching in an adult SLL environment, specifically focusing on the overall effectiveness of native-native English teacher, team teaching situation (which exists in my program) vs. native-Japanese English teacher, (which exists in a parallel program within the same organization). The teachers in both these programs have varying beliefs about the suitability of the native-native team teaching situation.
My limited review of the background thus far has been unsuccessful (can't seem to find anything on the native-native adv/disadv). The situation of two native English teachers (two Americans for instance), teaching on different days, but with the same textbook, doesn't seem to have any sound methodological purpose, yet the administration staff (mainly Japanese) seem to really favor it, as well as some ex-students, who say that it was pretty good.
My initial thoughts were that it was beneficial in terms of learning styles and exposure to varying cultural perspectives... This could be the angle that I could take.
However, for the team teachers it can be a logistic nightmare...which makes it difficult to plan lessons and evaluate student performance effectively...

I haven't quite sussed out the details, but this is the direction I am thinking about taking... I am part of the program, so I am an insider, which makes subjectivity a real problem, as with many kinds of action research, not to mention ethnography etc... Yet, I think that this subjectivity can be balanced with grounding of the findings in some way...

I hope that I am on the right track... Actually, my head is in quite a spin at the moment...

More about Fereyabend...

I don't really prescribe to Popper and his specific rejection of empiricism... I am leaning toward a hermeneutic approach of both holistic and integrative in nature. Rationalism has it's place, but we can certainly rationalize anything, with convincing deductive and inductive arguments. This is it's downfall...

I think that my brother's ice-cream example (great example by the way)
" epistemologies have different flavours and thus - in the same way as strawberry and chocolate are both nice flavours of coloured milk but both are still valid nice flavours of milk - equal right to be called truthful nice flavours of milk if they are based on some internally self consistent socially grounded method, including personal choice." (Mondy, P., 2007) 

fits in with what I was reading about objectivity in a critical community, which means that you can have two or more paradigms standing side by side, and both being equally objective and reasonable. This is where one should look for a touchstone...a commonality between a number of paradigms and triangulate certain premises that work in a number of different perspectives. This is where Fereyabend is genuinely great, in that he sees beyond just trying to maintain a single view... But don't you find that if you are too loose in your views, there would be a flip flop from belief in a theory, to rejection then back again...? This can be quite detrimental within the area of high-stakes research...with doctors they may prescribe...but later recant on their previous philosophies...This is socially irresponsible, too.
Hermeneutics has a pyramid structure of Theory (being as objective as one can be)----Philosophy (recognizing reader's perceptions, prejudices and foreknowledge)----and social dynamics (understanding of how context can distort ideas). For educational purposes, this seems pretty sound...

Feyerabend: The case for Methodological Pluralism

I have to say that Feyerabend has a point, when it comes to saying that science has inherent biases, and
that the only way to have an epistemological viewpoint that is free from prejudice, is by having a perspective that is flexible and changeable. But, Berstein (1983) quotes Gadamer by saying there is no knowledge without prejudice, anyway...

I think that Feyerabend's Dadaistic (anything goes approach), and anarchist view of scientific method is a little extreme, especially when it comes to replacing let's say astronomy (a hard science, backed by empirical experience) with astrology (a more touchy feely, yet rational paradigm). The article I was reading, proposed a kind of openness to accepting new ideas, that science should take advantage of other theories and paradigms; such as medicine accepting the help of herbalists and other alternative medicine.

Feyerabend just has far too liberal an interpretation of truth, that he accepts just about any idea (Magic and mysticism). Scientific method may be inconclusive, but it has given us various understandings that are open to verification and falsifiability, but even more importantly they can be practically applied, with reasonable success. Shouldn't we be looking for all those successful applications of theories, and reject those ideas that don't help better our understanding of society. We don't have to hold onto one paradigm, at the expense of beneficial aspects of another (Tibbetts, 1977)
I think that Feyerabend has made it possible to have a more critical view of the nature of scientific method, and probably enabled us to be more open to all potential sources of information...so that we can have a better quality of life, Holistically...
Steven Mondy

Tibbetts, P. (1977) Feyerabend's Against Method: The case for Methodological Pluralism, Sage publications, retrieved Nov, 27, 2007 at http://pos.sagepub.com

Week 2 of Research Methods in Education

Well, having come to the end of yet another week, I have found that things are starting to make sense... The first week was hard in that there was a lot of terminology... but this week has been hard for me, trying to come to terms with many of the concepts and issues in research...I came to a point in which I needed a time line of these 'thinkers' in the history and philosophy of science.... It is amazing how much of a visual person I am...so I looked up any sites that would give me a good look at all of them in relation to one another…
One site (very simple, I know): http://timelineindex.com/content/view/2031

1. Some of the people I have befriended this week...
Plato...Aristotle...Kant...Hume...Popper…. hahahaha
Actually, it was really good to get some perspective on these guys…

2. Also, I have started to get an idea about what goes into making up good research, but I am still at the very beginning... The readings in module 2 helped, but there were just so many questions (especially in the last reading: Gay, 1992)...and I will need some time to digest the information and sort out what I think...

3. One idea that came out while I was reading the module 2 readings was the idea of allowing time to synthesize and formulate other perspectives and reflect on data (Goetz & Lecompte, 1984). I've often thought to myself, that given enough time between tasks, I am bound to come up with major improvements to whatever I am working on. (That reading kinda consolidated it in my own mind ~ each subsequent revision can slowly give more and more clarity). I try to encourage my writing class students to do exactly that – leave time to reflect. They are often (like many of us) in too much of a hurry to finish things, that they rush through something and not give themselves much time to just sit back and mull things over...

4. I also like the idea that a researcher should say to themselves, “So what”? I think that whenever I start working on something in my teaching job (say some internet based activity), I often get so excited in the task at hand (more so than the students sometimes), that I end up forgetting to answer this fundamental question. What purpose is there in what I am doing, and when much of myself is invested in the project, how much do I wish to be critical (or skeptical) of what I am doing? Am I willing to ask myself, if there are any other ways or even more scope to the approach I am taking? As a researcher, can I afford to be so personally involved in the project? How hard is it to take a step back, and distance myself from the undertaking, so that I can be more responsive to data (or text)? Am I able to modify and possibly change my initial work, if the applications of my initial generalizations yield strange results? I hope that I can be flexible enough to do so…

I hope that we all can…
Steven Mondy

Goetz & Lecompte, (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in education research, Academic press, Orlando.

Falsifiability - Can we use this concept in qualitative research?

As for falsifiability, I think that the underlying assumption of this concept may be at odds with the underlying concepts within qualitative studies. I did a lot of reading on the distinction between quantitative and qualitative theory today and some postulating about the assumptions that both take. In the end, I see a clear distinction being drawn between both, in that quantitative studies relate to explaining or controlling variables; these variances can be double checked in future similar studies, by re-creating similar if not exact conditions within future experiments. Qualitative studies on the other hand try to look at things more holistically. I think that in qualitative studies, it is harder to say something is either right or wrong, as the phenomena under investigation is viewed more loosely and with greater flexibility. In addition, the kinds of things that qualitative studies focus on are reliant on context. That is they are specific to the particular classroom, or based on a specific problem of a smaller group. The theories that may come out (within say, a Funnel approach) are related to smaller and more specific groups, within a certain time frame. That said, it is difficult to come up with conditions that reject the findings of this kind of qualitative study, as it would be more difficult to correlate the findings (not having numerical data) with other similar groups in the future, without validity issues.
From what I gather, falsifiability is about understanding that there may be a case that your theory may be disproved, and in such a case you need to modify your thinking or may even have to reject it. Unless we take a time machine (or utilize historical organization in a qualitative study), we are unable to create the exact conditions necessary to disprove the findings. So, what can we do?
We can look into the validity of the qualitative research by checking the organization of the arguments presented and the usefulness of the descriptive analysis. If the study is logical and presents exceptional descriptions, then how can it be falsified?
One may say that the theory produced for that particular group may not suit present groups, ‘cause the conditions or context is different. Is it now falsified?????
What is the purpose to a qualitative study? How much can we depend on the universals that come out of such studies to make inferences about other groups? Do we use them as only a guide????
Maybe I am way off track, but I thought that the falsifiability idea better suits hard numerical data, which can more easily be disproved…Plus I think more important issues with qualitative studies are with how well the generalizations fit with the context of the study, and what happens soon after with that particular group…I don’t know, I think I m starting to confuse myself….
Steven M.
Wiersma & Jurs (2005) Research Methods in Education, Pearson, USA

Research Philosophical Essay: Where am I?

Hello everyone,
Week 1 coming to an end... where am I? Well, you could use a metaphor and say I was a sponge trying to soak up a pretty big spill, but unfortunately the spill is quite large (content area reading) and my sponge is a little ineffective (or my brain is OS9, trying to deal with i-life applications... bit of a MAC reference there...)...
What am I trying to come to terms with at the moment...and struggling...
The awards go to...
1. In the category of Jargon
~ and the biggest winners so far are Epistemology, Ontology, and Axiology and whateverelse-ology... Actually it is good to be able to put words to the things that I am thinking…but maybe don’t have a word for… I was reading an article dealing with subjectivity (Luhrmann T.M. 2006) that discussed emotions and how different cultures have different ways of expressing various feelings. Some cultures didn’t have a word for ‘sad’, but they expressed the feeling in another way.. It got me thinking about knowing the concepts behind words, but not having the jargon to talk about them in sufficient detail. Now, we have all this new jargon that expresses our ideas even more succinctly;-)

2. In the category of Concepts: The winner is ‘Falsifiability’.
I was particularly struggling with the concept of falsifiability… It is a concept that has come up a number of times in my study, but it is quite a difficult thing for me to grasp. The idea of having to have the logical possibility that something can be shown to be false is quite difficult for me to grasp. And it almost seems defeatist…in that we can only ever accept something until it is proven otherwise, and we can never feel absolute confidence in any decision or outcome… But then again, it allows for improvement, modification, or even change on a large scale…which can make one feel quite satisfied in that we don’t have to stick to traditions that start seeming to be inappropriate within changing societies. Tradition handed down from one generation to the next, is often accepted at face value, due to its long history…even though it could be wrong…case in point: “the world is flat…”

3. In the category of methods and approaches: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods win hands down... I see a lot of theory trying to say that these concepts have been thought of as mutually exclusive for a long time, but are now being thought of as complementary. I’m kind of moving toward this later idea. I believe that quantitative data and descriptive analysis can sit side by side…I just need some more information to prove it…When I did ‘Testing’ I noticed you could use both numerical data and qualitative descriptions in analytical scoring. It was quite satisfying, being able to give a number and description of the test takers ability on an item. Yet, when it comes to the student, what will they look at? The number or the description?

4. In the category of self awareness: What kind of researcher am I? Well,
A) Having grown up in Australia with an immigrant mother an Australia born father
B) Culture and language
C) Living in Japan as an Australian
D) Having taught in a variety of contexts.
These among other things are shaping the researcher I am. I am starting to think that the research we do is inextricably linked to our self identity, and what we bring to the research can determine how we conduct the body of our research. Although the paradigm of the research may be determined by the need established by the end users, and/or the needs set out by the inquiry, the approach and methods we use are accented by the person we are. What do I mean by this? Well, even though the goal in scientific method is to be as objective as possible, and try to limit all influences from the researcher, I think that it is extremely difficult to eliminate all subjectivity, even in the data analysis of quantitative studies. The questions we choose and the procedure we follow will have slight variations due to individual researcher bias. Just as no two cooks can make exactly the same meal, no two researchers will have exactly the same influence (or lack there of) on a research study.

This is where I am at the moment… It is not much, and definitely not very logical, but it is an attempt to think aloud and share some thoughts…
Steven Mondy

Luhrmann T.M. (2006) Subjectivity, SAGE publications, University of Chicago, USA

Contextualizing of Research

Westerners come here in droves, staying a short time, but trying to impart western philosophical norms on a society that either resists or is blatantly opposed (yet not openly) to the ideologies that they try to impart. Many times I hear teacher's complaining about the 'sounds of silence' within the classroom, when not realizing the difference in learning styles that our Japanese learners have.
Communicative teaching and learning is something that we learned about in Methodology...but when it comes to my classroom, in Asia, students find it quite a struggle to change to a learning style that is not introduced to them in elementary and junior/senior high school.
Japanese learners are very good at adapting to new ways of learning, but still have trouble with so called western ways of doing things. True, they are learning English, and with that comes not only language but cultural aspects, too. Yet, one must consider the influence of many years of socialization and learning of cultural norms, within the way one views these learners when it comes to educational research.
Yes, contextualizing of research seems to be quite relevant, especially for more localized studies...

Quantitative, Qualitative and mixed methods...

Numbers tend to give a feeling of exactness and rightness (if I can say that), but as I think Hawkins states, you can just choose one model and work out all the predictions according to that particular model (as opposed to other equally valid models)... However, I feel that there will always be a point in which we reach that stops us, 'cause we do not have the capacity to continue...case in point computer technology. In an empirical only framework, our theories and ideas are only based on the next evolution of ideas and the technology that enables us to work out those ideas... How do we make advances in new ways of thinking? One way is being creative and being able to think outside of the box... I think subjectivity can give us a way to do that, but it has to go along with empirical positivism...in tandem...
Also, what is objectivity? How do you reduce emotional states and affective factors for instance to specific data? And once you do reduce it to facts and figures, how do you stop from turning that data into something that disadvantages the individual? I know that within positivism, there is the debate between individual vs. society, but looking at the outcome and usability of data, aren't there many cases where descriptive analysis and holistic expressions may be more useful than just data alone? I guess it depends on what the end user is needing the research to do. Action research on a very specific level may cry out for specific descriptions of the situation at hand, whereas, bigger studies on a national or even world level may need general trends, as the problem as stated in the research affects more people in greater variety. This is possibly where number crunching can be very effective.

At the moment, I see quantitative data sitting along side qualitative observation...And the benefit that comes from both is reflected in the end user...

Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy 2

Arthur Dent's voyage into the unknown somewhat harnesses the tie-in between subjective experience and empirical truths, according to Comte's (see Wikipedia ~ Positivism for very general description) view of Positivism and it's cyclic nature. One man traveling the universe in his pajamas and dressing gown, trying to make sense of things based on the limited experience he has had on an earth that is now non-existent. Arthur struggles to break things down into their simplest, understandable pieces, somewhat in the frame of reductionists trying to reduce everything into an ultimately measurable form.
The series also touches on the idea that we may have trouble understanding the world around us, 'cause we are part of the actual workings of the universe. Arthur, was the last remaining part of the super computer known as earth. If you are part of the search for the solution, you may never fully understand the actual problem. Possibly... Thus, as researchers, how do we view ourselves, within the whole structure of the inquiry? Do our actions actually change the results? Or even our non-participatory role, may influence unforeseen elements???
Accounting for variables is inherent in scientific method, but can those variables truly be eliminated? Viewing methods have their limitations, and often when we try to account for those variables, we rely on hypothesis and theory to create models of behavior that would occur according to rational thought. Back to Comte again and his cyclic view of things.
However, if theorists such as Emile Hennequin (Wikipedia - Positivism) who included subjectivity into the equation, were to look beyond just the empirical data, they mind find answers that are more creative, but still understand that they are still based on certain assumptions...
Do I make any sense?

Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy?

Does anyone remember a little British show called the Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy? In that program, a group of people created a machine to calculate the answer to the ultimate question, of life, the universe and everything. The final answer was 42. Everyone was happy to know the answer, but didn't really know what it meant. So they invented an even bigger computer to work out what the actual question was...
I guess this is my slightly warped, but interesting view of the whole idea of what research is. We may find answers to wonderful questions, but do we actually understand the questions themselves. Or even the methods of obtaining answers to questions? How can we be certain that the processes that we are using are either accurate or valid. When I studied the testing unit here at USQ, I came across the ideas of validity and reliability, and developing consistent and proven methods of evaluating students. Time seemed to factor into the equation, as well as healthy skepticism of ones own creations.
I guess that one thing that the hitch-hikers guide taught me, was that we may develop understandings, but those understandings must remain open, as there may be other interpretations to our theories. And the ideas we have or the questions we ask, may not provide us with satisfactory answers that we can be happy with.
This is not to say that we stop asking, but keep searching for better understanding...
What do you say?
Ciao
Steve M.

Technology in Education...

How I would love to take a trip into the future and see what is happening with technology in the classroom, and beyond.
I too, am very interested in technology, but more out of an interest, rather than a particular research focus. I haven't actually done any of the CAL, or technology in Ed. subjects, but I have taken it upon myself to introduce my students (in Japan), to the empowering aspects of utilizing technology in their studies. However, one thing that I have noticed, and in Japan mind you, is the lack of internet access among the student body. In Japan (especially among my students), mobile phone use far surpasses internet use (very subjective, I know...). So, one of the issues that I face is with computer/internet access. Students send e-mail from phones, and portable devices, that although convenient, can limit what they can do. I guess when i-phones come to Japan, at a reasonable price, we will start seeing a change in behavior patterns and greater freedom to do a wider variety of things.
Having said that, I am also a little cautious about going full steam into a situation of complete reliance on technology. A friend of mine has a son who has taken the computer based TOEFL test, and has commented on how different the testing style was. She talked about her son not being able to concentrate as effectively on that test, compared to the paper test, therefore affecting his score. I guess there is still a lot of ironing out of little problems to do, but computer based activities can offer a new scope for teachers and open up new avenues for students in their own learning.
I look on it as giving the best possible access to a great variety of material, to the greatest number of students. In the end, students have to choose to embrace new technologies, and we have to give them the chance to do so.
Ciao
Steven Mondy

CLT

CLT is an interesting idea, but there are certainly drawbacks, as well as positives. The ideals of developing communicative competence in a socially integrated way are quite appealing, but very difficult for the average teacher to implement.
I also find it difficult to balance the potential benefits of CLT activities (such as role-play, find someone, and info-gap) with the needs of individuals in a non-English speaking, essentially homogeneous environment.

Qualified teacher vs. Inexperienced teacher

1 August 2007 7:56 PM
Having thought about things, I now believe that CLT offers a lot with respect to taking many classroom activities and even textbooks and adapting them to help Ss develop their Communicative language competence... I think it has the flexibility and enough variety to allow for what I was hinting at with different style.
I am not sure whether style can equate with approach, but is closely related. Style might be an accent to approach, and be what each and every teacher brings to the whole process.
I don't know whether having an inexperienced teacher teaching me would be all that bad (as long as they have had enough life experience to offer anecdotal references), as they may bring with that inexperience a fresh, dare I say approach (or should I say style in this case). I understand that the inexperience can be quite inefficient, but the new and inexperienced teacher will be trying their hardest to make it and prove something....at least if there was variety, then it would be interesting...

Having different programs side by side

1 August 2007 4:31 PM
Surely it is possible to have content-based classes side by side (but not necessarily following on from) with other kinds of classes, lets say grammar translation, a small free talking tutorial, or an extensive reading type program. All require different approaches, but could fit within a school program. The students themselves may be able to transfer aspects of one system over to another. Just because English is the commonality btw both, it doesn't mean that the kind of class/approach to the class is/should be the same. It's the transfer of the ball in the football game (as Savignon puts it in "Teaching English as a second or foreign language"), not the actual ball itself, in this case English. We are talking about competence in using English overall. Students just adapt to a new system, transferring knowledge and skills from one activity to another. Variety! Doesn't that more closely resemble real life? Though students may like one style better than another. They may be a little confused in the beginning, but for the sake of individual differences, shouldn't we expose Ss to a variety of learning and teaching styles. If handled right, the program may in fact stimulate students...
Imagine studying 10 subjects with exactly the same teacher in exactly the same style. Wouldn't you get bored?
Do I make any sense? Probably not...

Comprehensible Output ~ Swain

Comprehensible Output ~ Swain 20 July 2007 11:20 PM
I’m am just in the middle of the first reading, and I want to say a big “Hooray” to Swain 1985, as cited in Hadley 2001), for proposing the comprehensible output hypothesis. All through the last subject (principles in language learning), I was reading and wondering about Krashen and his focus on comprehensible input, to the exclusion of a focus on production. Now I have to be careful, as I didn’t choose Krashen to investigate last subject, but to a novice like myself, I feel the need to encourage more outward production of language. Especially being here in Japan, where output is at a premium, and no matter what I do, it is difficult to encourage students to practice with others, and make use of the range of functions needed in whatever we are studying (Hypothesis 2).
One of my colleagues likened Krashen’s input hypothesis to a glass being filled (I’m sure he read it somewhere?!). Only when the glass is filled, will it start overflowing. I understand the logic behind this, but many of our students in the college where I work, tend to stay quiet for pretty much the whole time they are with us (maybe a little bit of an overgeneralization ;-). Why can’t they be encouraged to produce language, at least at levels relative to the student’s abilities? This is rather a big question that would incorporate not only affective variables, but social ones, too. I believe, that essentially students want to start producing in the TL as soon as possible as they wish to communicate, it’s just that they are unable to because they don’t have the communicative competence.
Having said that, I have had times when I gave students the opportunity to contribute, but they have not been ready to respond (think of the glass half full). And it ends up that they give up, or other students decide to respond, cause it takes and aggravatingly long time for the student to answer (I do try to discourage this king of situation, though). This has the potential of raising anxiety, and lifting that affective filter we learned about last semester. But, it’s up to the classroom teacher to read the class and give out opportunities to students to respond at various times in their particular development. Students need opportunities to test the structures they have learned, and the hypotheses they are making about language and the target culture.
So, Output, I say yes…we need to encourage a certain amount of risk taking and foster within students the courage to take chances in the TL.
Steven Mondy

Hadley, A.O. (2001), Teaching language in context 3rd Ed., Heinle and Heinle.

Approach - How do you incorporate that into a curriculum or Syllabus?

31 July 2007 9:46 AM
How do you incorporate that into a curriculum or Syllabus?
Which approach will give enough freedom of movement?
Do we just allow all teachers the complete freedom to chop and change like the weather, or do we do like ECC (English teaching school in Japan) and prescribe the step-by-step procedures, give all the materials, and expect teachers to adhere to the program?????
Well, the answer to both is yes and no. Complete freedom in teaching technique will be excellent, in that it allows teacher autonomy and creativity, but it doesn't really support the teacher in terms of a suggested course. A dictated curriculum is great for the new or lazy teacher, in that everything is prepared (almost like factory work - does that remind us of any job we've had?), but limits the possible potential of a completely unplanned learning experience.
What I was trying to get at was that teachers need a framework to work by, but be open to the odd side track that will open up those golden opportunities...
For a curriculum planner or coordinator, it would be a headache trying to balance the two. As I was saying in my previous entry, too much freedom makes it difficult to maintain consistency...
Thank you Edith, I too try to never miss an opportunity...
Steven Mondy

Approach 1

21 July 2007 12:01 AM
I see the approach, design and procedure model in the realm of the syllabus designer, who needs to contemplate how the principles of learning and teaching relate to actual practical application and implementation, however that may be stating the obvious??? Each approach requires specific thought to how it is to be presented.
Richards and Rodgers (2006) use the approach, design and procedure model and apply it to the oral, audio-lingual, TPR, silent way, community language learning, Suggestopedia, whole language, MI theory, NLP, lexical, CLBT approach and so on...
It seems that in any situation, thought must be given to the theoretical principles that underlie it, what objectives of each method, the types of learning tasks and the roles of learner and teacher. Once thought has been given to these aspects, then we need to understand which tasks will foster the learning principles and then achieve the particular objectives that are set.
Most of the time, busy or inexperienced teachers will rely heavily on the textbook to decide on these things. Yet, as we become more familiar with teaching approaches, we can sculpt our lessons (design), using activities (procedure) that encourage greater student participation and interaction.

Approach 2

30 July 2007 7:40 PM
I think that the approach we take will have a profound impact on the way we go about choosing objectives and in determining activities that will help in achieving them. If one were to have an approach based on behaviorist principles, then the objectives will probably be ones that encourage responses to a stimulus, thus requiring a selection of various drills, for instance. A large language school in Japan (NOVA), works on similar principles, with their use of American Streamline, a text (and some may say an approach) so outdated, it seems laughable that it is still being marketed today. If one were to follow in the steps of the audio-lingual approach, then the objectives will allow for the soaking up time that is required, and be less intrusive, and more teacher centered teaching may take place, until the students are at the point of producing language. Then there is the opposite end of the continuum, with the silent way approach, which has at its heart the idea that a student needs to start producing from the very beginning. So, as you can see, changing the approach will undoubtedly change the way the lesson is taught. In fact, it will shape the way that learners deal with their own learning, while at our institutions. The activities that they will be undertaking have vastly different outcomes, and require different things from students.
My question is:
“If an approach is decided upon within a school, do all teachers, in all classes need to take on that approach?”
I know of a situation in which a coordinator is forcing all teachers to take on communicative language teaching principles within a program, regardless of teacher gripes, or student difficulties with that particular approach. An approach may not necessarily work for all people, all of the time. After all, we need to also take in cultural aspects, or individual differences, for instance that may make one approach ineffective, in some cases, some of the time.
Then there’s what is happening in our college, a kind of free for all with, as many approaches as there are teachers. This too, is not an ideal situation, as there is no consistency (something in fact, that I need in my own learning).

In the end, we have to balance the needs and abilities of the students we teach. We also have to keep in mind that only one approach to teaching may severely disadvantage our students, if it so happens that other approaches are found to be more beneficial. I guess it’s an argument over consistency vs. flexibility. There are merits and demerits in both. I tend to be on the flexibility side, as long as it is based in firm and logical principles. There has to be a reason to change. I remember a lecturer introducing us to the, ‘if a bird were to fly into the room theory…what would you do?’ Carry on with your lesson plan or start talking about the bird (I think he was talking about Herbert Kohl, but I could be wrong…). That idea, although a little outdated (alternative education movement), has had a deep impact on me personally.
We need to establish curriculum's and syllabi that are based on consistent principles, yet they must also have within them some flexibility to allow for the ‘bird flying in the room’ factor.
What do you say?????
Steven Mondy

What is the linguistic wealth that we bring to this course?

Topic: What is the linguistic wealth that we bring to this course? Date: 14 November 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Theory into practise... Author: Mondy, Steven

Where do we kick this discussion off? Well, at the moment, our college is in the middle of our mid-term examinations. And I am in the process of thinking about how to test, not only a variety of skill areas, but varying levels and students with different purposes. I have many concerns regarding the appropriateness or validity of all that I do in testing situations. Reading Hughes, I see that testing where possible is to be seen as a group task, and that we should be assessing our own tests and their purposes. I think that essentially this is needed and in theory a given, but I sometimes find that the situations that we find ourselves in make it hard to do. Making our mid-term examinations, while juggling class teaching requirements and college commitments can be quite a handful. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is not always possible to take time with the test making process, and we may not be able to always give very much attention to evaluation until much later. How do we as teachers start to implement some of the necessary theory into our real life working situations? This is where balance and fortitude is needed in making small changes to the things that we are already doing. We are already using various strategies and techniques, such as suggested in the readings under the different approaches (integrative, communicative etc…). There is definitely a need to understand the effect that our choices of items and complete examinations have on the overall motivation of students within our classes, and to their whole attitude toward language. What do you think?
Steven Mondy

Validity and reliability - issues and discussion

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 22 November 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Usefulness??? Author: Mondy, Steven View PeopleLink Options for this User
It should be understood that validity and reliability are but two categories within the general notion of understanding a test’s usefulness. According to Bachman & Palmer, we need to understand a test’s usefulness ~ encompassing reliability, construct validity, authenticity, interactiveness, impact, and practicality (Bachman & Palmer, 1996, Language Testing in Practice, Oxford University Press, p. 18).
They go on to talk about how reliability is a necessary aspect of validity, but it does not necessarily meet the needs of validity, in all cases. What does this mean? Well, it may have something to do with a test being able to fulfill the requirements of getting consistent results over time, however, using the same test in varying situations (such as a proven grammar test, being used to test someone’s speaking ability) may be inappropriate as it does not address all the other aspects to a students speaking ability. It is, as a solitary test for speaking ability, invalid. What is to be learned from this? One thing is that we have to understand the aspects of the skill area that we are testing, to design not only a reliable test, but also a test that retrieves the results that we should be looking for.
We need to also understand that we should to be careful about using tests or test items that we know have worked in the past, with our existing students. There could be many things that invalidate the test. If we aren’t careful of what it is we need to test (our objectives), what we have actually taught in our classes, and our student’s needs, we may end up with results that are actually more harmful, because of bad backwash. Do I make any sense?
Steven Mondy

Validity and reliability - issues and discussion 2

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 4 December 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Re:Very testy indeed Author: Mondy, Steven

I kind of resist using anything more than once as I feel, now this is only on a personal level, that it isn't fair to the student who pays X amount of $ to get up to date, well thought out, original, and unique material. Of course, re-inventing the wheel is a laborious and somewhat futile endeavor, yet shouldn't we try to personalize our teaching as much as possible. If students know that a test is being used in basically the same format for years on end, then doesn't that automatically invalidate the test.
I understand that the issue of creating and maintaining reliability is paramount, yet I think that is also essential that we remain vibrant and abreast to the changes in our teaching environment. That may mean whole changes to not only the test, but to the content of the course and the objectives.
Each student is an individual, learning within a certain context. Our programs need to have flexibility in order to respond to that. It’s too easy to expect students to fit our models. Yet, maintaining our formats, will also maintain our teaching objectives, and keep up standards, not to mention strengthen the basis on which we can make judgments about overall ability.
What are we to do?
Steven Mondy

Reliability in once-off tests

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 26 November 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Reliability in once-off tests Author: Mondy, Steven


How do we ensure reliability in a test we make and use only once? Often I find myself in a situation in which I’m unable to use a test again in the same kind of context, or with students with similar abilities. I often find that I may need to wait 2-3 years before actually being able to teach the same content. By that time, the tests lose validity? Reliability is closely related to having items that are consistent over time. Hughes and Bachman talk about creating item banks, which store items that we know are reliable, in order to reduce the effort that’s needed to make tests. I guess this is one way to be more certain that whether a test is a one-time thing, or to be used again, the content of the test will be reliable. Also, we shouldn’t understand a test only in terms of a complete, unchangeable entity, but a series of well-formulated items that put together correctly, can be reliable and valid for each and every time we use them. So, what I’m trying to say here is, whenever we make a test, we should try to create a test that may have items that are often used again and again, but not necessarily tests as a whole that are used again and again. Is it really possible to use an intact, unchangeable test in exactly the same way with new students anyway?

I’ve also been thinking of how one can develop tests that are specifically used more as a teaching tool, rather than a measurement or evaluation instrument. If students are prevented from seeing a test and analyzing the mistakes that are made in order to solely ensure reliability, then the student is missing a valuable learning experience. I think that tests can be used as a way to have students experience giving an answer, and then checking their answers with a model, or having an instructed lesson following the tests administration (looking over the actual test) in order to clarify the main points of the test within a student’s mind. Of course, we may need to forgo the ability to use the test in the future, but what can be gained may outweigh the possible disadvantages. This may be where the idea of item banks may help?! What do you think?
Steven Mondy

Reliability in once-off tests 2

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 30 November 2006 10:07 PM
Subject: Reliability in once-off tests Author: Mondy, Steven

I like to think of a test as something that not only gauge someone's ability, but as a tool that helps a student see where they need to improve. I was doing some speed reading work in a class today that had simple multiple choice recognition items that helped students see a general overall comprehension score in relation to the time it took them to read a passage. By the time we got through 4 passages, students were able to see a pattern being established, which helped them make their own judgements on their reading ability.
In other classes, I tend to buck our school policy a little and let students mark their own tests, or their partners. One disadvantage would be that it could discourage students who are doing badly. On the other hand, it promotes a common mateship within a class, and a little bit of a competative spirit. Handled well, it can be quite a motivating tool, and reduce the negative image toward taking tests. I understand the need to withold tests on large scale apptitude type tests, but for classroom evaluation and learning, there are times when students need to see the test.
Does anyone else agree with this?
Steven

Reliability in once-off tests 3

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 4 December 2006 9:08 PM
Subject:Reliability in once-off tests Author: Mondy, Steven

Unfortunately, the speed reading is only a unit within a more general course on reading skills, the purpose of which is to increase students ability in gaining information more efficiently. The book I've enlisted is "More Reading Power", which has a series of reading passages in it (all roughly the same length and complexity). Each of the readings can/should be done within a five minute time span. It has lists of reading time to words/minute and a graph for students to plot their own reading time. The onus is on the student themselves to do the comprehension without cheating, mark their own papers, and record all information.
The activity has worked, but I recommend strongly that it be used with high intermediate~advanced students anyway (who are more likely to be motivated to doing the activity).
As for assessment, I'm still struggling on that one. As it is a skill that I want them to improve, I consider their achievements in increasing their comprehension to reading speed a key factor. This is where some kind of criterion referenced list (as a rubric) may come into play to see if each student has 1. been able to improve and 2. If students have achieved a certain level of proficiency.
I'm still juggling what to do, but luckily I still have time (with the approach of our winter vacation).
Hope that I have shed some light on how I approach or plan to approach speed reading.
As for more standardized tests that you are referring to, I can just say that lots of practice may be the key. In those practice tests, you can show students visually on their graphs, and this may give them the motivation to soldier on. You may need to think very carefully about the material you're teaching in close relationship to the students actual abilities, and think about how to test to increase positive results in the students minds. We can't just rely on intrinsic motivation (within the students), but look at giving them an outside reason to be motivated. This may have to be a step by step process, somewhat like a reward system, however, the rewards may need to be made explicit, in terms of concrete visual pictures (graphs and so forth). Do I make any sense? I think I may have just babbled and not really synthesized what I actually mean...!
Steven Mondy

correlation coefficients and true score?

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 27 November 2006 11:36 AM
Subject: correlation coefficients and true score? Author: Mondy, Steven
Last night, I was reading about how knowing the correlation coefficient (positive, negative, and no relationship) is quite a useful way to determine the reliability of a test. The study book was talking about how highly correlated scores can mean high reliability. It got me thinking about specific ways of gauging the reliability of our tests and test items. It was suggested that we could do things like give the same test twice (as long as not too much time has elapsed between the administration of the tests), or have such things as split tests, where we compare the two parts of one test. Up until this point, I didn’t really see the value of giving a test more than once in relatively the same, if not exactly the same format. I thought that it might be a waste of time, as I have been always encouraged to believe a test must be held back in extreme secrecy to not influence cheating and studying for specific items. According to the study materials, we see that there may be a change in the scores in that they may be slightly higher, but we can account for this in working out the students overall performance, and correlate the scores to see how that student performed in relation to other students doing the same test (norm referencing?). Then we can see if it has been error from the test format or from other things such as communicative ability, personal attributes, or other random factors (study materials: module 4).
Another interesting thing that I came across was the comparison of the two students with different scores, and being able to say that a student with a slightly higher score in a test may not be better than the student with the lower score, if we take into account their true score (true score=observed score +-measurement error). This was quite striking as I had assumed that ranking students in order of best to worst according to their raw scores was sufficient to get an idea of general performance. This idea of true score has made me rethink how I look at data, especially in terms of what judgments I make when I see the scores of two or more students are very close. What makes the difference between an A and an A- for example, if the range overlaps so significantly?
What do you think about correlation coefficients and true score?
Steven Mondy

Validity and Reliability Brainstorm

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 30 November 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Validity and Reliability Brainstorm Author: Mondy, Steven

I've read the Hughes book as well as a lot of both Bachman books and what seems to be the case is that they present a very good definition of both construct validity and reliability and some of the problems associated with them, and give some comparison in the summaries at the end of the respective chapters. Though, I think it may be up to us to come up with a good idea of how they inter-relate, based on what we have learned about the essence of each.
Personally, I've found the Bachman books (Fundamental considerations in testing and Language testing in practice) more helpful for understanding the concepts, as they go into greater detail (a great part of those books is in the material that we were supplied with).
Maybe if we can start a brainstorm on this discussion board of the major issues involved in looking at how they inter-relate, or affect each other. Let me start listing a few ideas that I have come across in the readings…(please correct me if I’m way off base)

1. Reliability and construct validity are concerned with (a) minimizing measurement error (b) maximizing the effects of the language abilities that we are trying to measure. (Bachman, Fundamental considerations in testing, p.161)
2. Reliability is a necessary condition of construct validity, and hence for usefulness. (Bachman, Palmer, Language testing in practice, p.23). Bachman states in the summary on page 289 (Bachman, Fundamental considerations in testing, p.171) that validity is one of the most important qualities to consider in how we use tests, but reliability is necessary to determine potential sources of measurement error and for being able to predict the effects on test scores.
3. Reliability can be defined in terms of CTS theory (classical true score measurement theory) in terms of the correlation of true scores on tests (Bachman, Fundamental considerations in testing, p.171). As long as there is consistency between the scores of various candidates, we can be more certain of item reliability, and therefore of reduced error in testing technique.
4. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but validity seems to be concerned with having a test that closely matches the circumstances of the candidates taking the test, and creating a testing environment that allows for the best possible results to be obtained.
5………
6………
Can anyone add to the list…
Steven Mondy

Two kinds of tests

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 4 December 2006 1:45 PM
Subject: Two kinds of tests Author: Mondy, Steven View

Trying to clarify some ideas, I wish to talk about the following case study, that I witnessed.
Case Study:
A teacher for some reason gives students a surprise test (with no previous warning) and then chooses to give them the same test again, but this time with warning.
The student’s are let in on the process of choosing an alternative testing date.
Alternative number 1: One week later (teacher’ choice)
Alternative number 2: Two weeks later (student’s choice)

Surprise tests are not really fair, in that they take students off guard, putting them into a situation in which they are highly resistant to the process at hand and encourage negative attitudes to the test, subject and teacher, which promotes terrible backwash. However, in such a case as above, where the teacher is trying to gauge student’s ability in a spontaneous situation and correlate it with the students prepared-for responses, then I imagine that alternative number 1 would be the better choice to maintain reliability, but would it be invalid, as the students may feel that they need more time to prepare for the test? However, is it really possible to correlate the two tests anyway? Can the formula for working out the correlation between tests be adapted to this scenario (Taking a student’s impromptu ability and comparing it to their prepared answer, I mean)? I think that it would be quite a stretch, without some sort of criterion referencing, and matching to the course objectives.
If alternative 2 is chosen, then there is too much time between the administration of one test and that of the other ~ and the test would become unreliable due to things such as ‘Test Wiseness, ‘ among other factors. (Study book ~ module 4: 4.8)…
The teacher in the above example seems to be in a no-win situation all round. The whole situation seems to be flawed anyway. The teacher will need to consider the reason for giving this test and what information is actually retrieved, and how beneficial it is to the whole learning environment. At the very least, if the tests were to be undertaken, the teacher will need to warn students of the likelihood that this kind of testing will be given.
I wonder, in what situations these kinds of surprise tests could be used in the classroom? There could be a situation, in some speaking classes, where there is a need to know how the student reacts to a new situation, based on their working knowledge of the language. Unfortunately, when in the real world, we cannot prepare for all situations. So, why not have tests that mimic this communicative task?
Steven Mondy

Doing Letter Grades on Excel

Topic: Open for Discussion Date: 5 December 2006 1:27 AM
Subject: Doing Letter Grades on Excel Author: Mondy, Steven

If anyone is interested...
There's an easy way of doing your grades on excel.
You can assign letter grades to the results you get for students...
Check out the following website. I managed to finally do it on my computer. It works...
http://www.uwec.edu/help/Excel03/gr-5finalgrad.htm


careful with the formula...
Make the list of grades you want to give then use the formula,
=VLOOKUP(C21,grades,2,TRUE) for example,
~ the c21: is the actual student grade
~ grades: is the list
~ 2: is the column that has A, B, C in the list,
~True: rounds off the grade to the closest figure...
Try it out, it may help you (or may confuse you...)!
Steven Mondy

Pre-packaged test

Topic: Purposes and Types of Language Test Date: 7 December 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Pre-packaged test Author: Mondy, Steven

Recently, I was interested to know the effect of a pre-made packaged test on students within our college. I have a class of Chinese students studying within a basic reading course. I’m using the Oxford Dominoes starter series, and they have downloadable book tests (Multiple-choice items) for each of the books. I initially imagined that the tests put out by the publisher had been analyzed and tested (although, here in Japan it’s somewhat a dangerous assumption to make with publishers, as there seems to be frequent mistakes within textbooks). Anyway, after correcting the tests, there seemed to be a definite pattern emerging with relation to the student’s overall results. I saw that what appeared to be a well-formed test that was directly related to the material that we were studying, produced shockingly low results from students. I tried to think about why this was so?
Looking at the test, I couldn’t see any particularly strange or misleading items. The test was divided into sections, “Setting, Characters, Dialog within the book, Vocabulary, and Plot”. All multiple-choice items had four alternatives as suggested in many of our textbooks, which had fairly straightforward distracters. I was fairly confident that it was a reliable test.
However, after getting the results back, I did start to wonder about its validity within the context of this class, and the test’s suitability for our student’s purposes for studying English. The reliability of this test might have been quite high, yet for some reason my students did not do well…

It may have something to do with why the students are actually studying this course in the first place. Chinese students come to Japan, hoping to skip from our course to some university place in Japan. While they are here, they are required to study in (1) Programs that encourage general English learning and (2) Activities that prepare them for university examinations, and other standardized tests.
The reading course above comes under the first heading, and is a required course for them.
Whether right or wrong, I made the following observations:
~ The test may have lacked Validity: in that the objectives of the school, the teacher (me) and the test may not exactly match the goals of the students. These students may not be able to see the purpose of this kind of course, and may be highly resistant to the class and the test itself, therefore invalidating any test, even before it is given.
~ Reliable and well thought-out tests may not produce the same results for different groups of students.
~ Motivation: I observed that many of the students just gave up, and finished the test early because they were either not ready for it, or didn’t have the ability to do it. Either way, they did not feel compelled to continue with the test.
~ Test format: The test that was prepared for these lower level students was solely comprised of written multiple-choice items. There were no pictures or varying techniques such as cloze or matching that would make it possible for students of differing capabilities to have more chances. Also, it was quite clear that although the length of the test did not disadvantage the students (50 items in 50 minutes, which complies with the 1 minute/1question rule), having 50 questions of the same kind did.

Having undertaken this test, and collating the results, I can see that there are some fundamental problems with validity. In the future, I will be wearier of doing tests that aren’t more closely related to the specific needs of my students. That also means I need to be careful of pre-packaged tests that on the surface look fine, but can end up costing in terms of the harmful effects. I will also be careful to provide more of a variety of techniques within a test for differing learning styles.
Steven Mondy

Instructions

Topic: Validity and reliability - issues and discussion Date: 30 December 2006 11:43 PM
Subject: Instructions Author: Mondy, Steven

When we give a test, don't we do so after a long process of introducing the test procedures throughout our teaching? Before attempting the test, the students in many of my classes are often given a pre-test, or warm up test, so that they can become familiar with the kinds of questions and to the types of instructions that they will face.
Also, in the test, each new kind of test item is introduced with an example with answer, or at least the first question is done for them, so that they can work out what to do, if they actually know the content.
I've played with the idea of using the native language of the test takers, but have opted not to, as I feel that a properly presented test (pre-test, test, and post-test activities) can make it possible for any level student to undertake a test solely in the target language.
However, the kinds of instructions are significantly different depending on the level of the student. I find it quite difficult to write clear instructions for lower level students in particular. To resist the urge to use complicated or confusing jargon.

Another thing that I've been pondering is the use of 'please' in instructions. When writing instructions, do we say...Please circle the correct answer, or do we say circle the correct answer? Many would say that we should make our instructions as clear as possible, with little room for misinterpretation. Does that mean we should take the second option?
Steven

oral testing in pairs

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 3 January 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: oral testing in pairs Author: Mondy, Steven

The point about the stronger student being able to perform in any situation is quite solid. I think that we as teachers can see their ability to handle a situation where the other speaker cannot answer fully (though are we now testing something different). This reflects an aspect of authenticity, in that it more closely resembles real life situations. However, as the proctor of the test, how do we alter our own perceptions to the changes and grading? This is obviously very subjective, as it is quite spontaneous, and we are unable to prepare fully for such a case. We can however, make provisions in our planning for this kind of test, by stating the course of action to take in such a case. This of course is an ideal situation, in which teachers have the time to do so. Still, there will be problems with reliability, especially proctor to proctor consistency, that will certainly need attention.
As for weaker students being paired, well from my experience, it has been rather detrimental as you have pointed out. Students tend to wind down into a state of nervousness about not being able to answer anything. Then there starts to be a problem with reliability (Bachman 1990), in that random factors, such as emotional state and changes to the test environment interfere with the successful completion of the test. Has anyone else had similiar problems?
Steven Mondy

oral testing in pairs1

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 4 January 2007 4:20 PM
Subject:oral testing in pairs Author: Mondy, Steven

I guess I'm talking about practicality here. Pairing up students and using criterion referenced type tests (both discreet and integrated) in the form of mini role-plays and distinct short conversations (both authentic and non). As for the level, I think that anything but true beginner can handle this kind of testing. As for the true beginner, then I would consider straight out student to teacher interviews (even though there may be a problem with performance anxiety in front of a native speaker in the TLU). Oral interviews for speaking type classes are essential to maintain face validity as Hughes points out on page 33. However, the true beginner may not have enough yet to work with to be able to handle true mini-conversation scenarios. Therefore, one may need to balance in favor of less authentic material to make sure validity is maintained…
Does this at all answer your question?
Steven Mondy

oral testing in pairs2

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 7 January 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: oral testing in pairs Author: Mondy, Steven

It is not always possible to test a wide range of skills within the objectives of your course, but only a selection. Discreet point testing will make it more likely that the skills you are looking for will more clearly be evaluated, whereas integrated tests might make it very difficult to make judgments about students fairly, as students may answer in a variety of ways.
Steven Mondy

iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity...

Topic: Purposes and Types of Language Test Date: 13 January 2007 5:19 PM
Subject: iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity... Author: Mondy, Steven

I was reading about an interesting development in the iBT (internet based TOEFL test) in the Daily Yomuiri, a Japan-based English language newspaper
(Lawrence J. Zwier, TOEFL Booster / Readings get longer, and tougher, Yomiurihttp://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/language/20070112TDY15001.htm).
The article talks about a change in the test that is an attempt to make the reading section more authentic, has made it more difficult for some test-takers. The most significant change is the move from what the article calls enumeration type readings (where a point is given, then supporting evidence) to a more complex form where several ideas are interlaced ~ a task requiring more understanding of various reading skills and the purpose for obtaining information. The article implies that the change in the test is to encompass, 1. Reading to find information (such things as speed reading, using thinking skills while reading), 2. Reading for comprehension (the more traditional focus), and 3. Reading to learn (being able to summarize, and then use the information).
This was very interesting to me as one of the main focuses in my college has been point number two, comprehension, then followed by point number one, the development of reading skills. Unfortunately, point number 3 has been missed in our curriculum design phase, which will make it quite difficult for our students in this new version of the iBT.
This semester, I have also discovered that this focus has been detrimental to our students, especially within short answer type questions. They are too used to multiple choice type questions, and are not sure what information to include in a written response. I have tried to change this by not only testing, but also teaching various techniques to get away from just reading for comprehension, such things as, discussion, inference making, and summarization. I believe that we need to essentially test how we teach, which means that we at the college need to adopt new curriculum ideas, to reflect changes to ideas out in the real world ~ which I suspect the new version of the iBT is attempting to do?!
Steven Mondy

iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity...2

Topic: Purposes and Types of Language Test Date: 15 January 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re:iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity... Author: Mondy, Steven

It's good to here that others are having similar issues with the TOEFL/TOEIC...My biggest question is whether these new changes are reflective of what is needed by these students. Are we being led down the road in a chicken and egg race, that will end up in our students getting more confused? I think that all the skills that I mentioned before are purposeful and relevant to teaching practice and learning, yet I don't want a situation where it's the test that dictates what we need to focus on in our classes, unless it is truly what our particular students need to know. Isn't a test an evaluation instrument, and not a prescriptive force?
Steven Mondy

iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity...3

Topic: Purposes and Types of Language Test Date: 20 January 2007 11:54 AM
Subject: iBT TOEFL ~ reflecting authenticity... Author: Mondy, Steven

I can see the value of providing a goal to work towards and providing tasks that will not only develop their abilities to take the test, but through some kind of ‘osmosis’ process in learning, pick up some of the TL (target language). However, this defeats one of the main purposes of an evaluation tool, and it then becomes something else ~ as I said before, a tool to prescribe what some group in society thinks is needed. Isn't it dangerous, and at cross- purposes with ‘authenticity’ to do so? "They need to be able to fulfill certain requirements to succeed in a course," you may ask. Yes they do, and is that the purpose of this kind of test? What is the TOEFL and TOEIC trying to be?
1. A proficiency test (ability in language regardless of ability),
2. or achievement test (how much individuals have been achieving goals of program)
3. or diagnostic test (identify learners' strengths and weaknesses)
4. or placement test (getting info to help position an individuals in a certain place)?
(Hughes, 2005)
Which is the TOEFL or TOEIC, really? In Japan, the TOEIC seems to operate as a placement test for climbing the rungs of the corporate ladder. High score and you get the promotion! TOEFL is closer to the ideals of the proficiency test. And with the new changes is heading towards a closer connection to the real world, and authenticity.
You ask who really cares whether or not they are good speakers? Well, maybe no one does, except the individual who is trying out for the test. Many of my students are still under the illusion that a good score on either of these tests correlates with a good ability in the TL. Probably with the revised TOEFL, they may be right!??? So, do we head down the path of teaching to the test or do we maintain our determination to help these individuals with learning the target language? I think I’ll let you decided on that one for yourself. As for me, I’m still sitting on the fence…
Steven

Niggily bits

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 19 January 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: Niggily bits Author: Mondy, Steven

I am really getting into the test creation process and reshaping and reformatting of the test. I'm never satisfied...
I wonder if anyone else is really frustrated with Microsoft word, especially with making multiple choice items ~ it insists on capital letters after the a. b. c. and d.
I was also dealing with a minor issue of using 'not' in a multiple choice item, but decided to redo it on advice from the Hughes book. I was ale to rephrase it so that it wouldn't have the potential of disadvantaging my students.
Actually, it has been quite interesting formulating questions. It's so easy to introduce little things that quickly invalidate an item. In one task, I was going to label an item "Vocabulary:Synonyms" and then ask the students to look for the word that is not a Synonym. I quickly realized that by labeling it "Synonyms" I introduce into the students conscious (or unconscious minds) the expectation to look for synonyms. This in turn may cause a student to make a mistake with what is expected of them, and make the item invalid. I decided to cut the heading, and now it states Section A: Vocabulary.
It's all so easy to introduce unforeseen elements into the test.
Steven Mondy

Maybe a stupid question...?

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 19 January 2007 6:32 PM
Subject: Scoring - Maybe a stupid question...? Author: Mondy, Steven

What is the advantage of scoring a test out of 100, as opposed to dividing by the total and working out a percentage?
I was wondering about this, and can see one advantage of scoring out of 100. That is, it is clearer for the test taker to see the division of scores between the sections, and between various parts. For instance, you may divide up your test into various sections based on a certain taxonomy - such as knowledge vs. application. Also for the untrained eye, it's easier to see the weighting given to various parts, and decide how much effort will be required for each section.
Then there's the marker, who may not be the person who designed the test. They can see the breakdown very clearly after the administration of the test, how much emphasis is placed on various sections...
In spite of this, I'd like to ask everyone if it is necessary to have the total = 100?
Steve

Testing grammar

Sunday, October 21, 2007
Testing grammar

Topic: Assignment 2 discussion and queries Date: 30 January 2007 1:22 AM
Subject:Testing grammar Author: Mondy, Steven

I think that all speaking tests are quite difficult to administer. There are just so many factors to take into consideration. Our classmate has pointed out a very good point with the testing, or at the very least the acknowledgment of the test-taker’s ability to self-correct. We are often too much caught up in the timing and correctness of procedure to allow students enough time to self-correct (a skill that may become more apparent ‘quite a ways down the track’ in their lang. learning).
From my experience (in Japan), learners tend to do better on written tasks, and have great difficulty producing oral language. There have been those students who the reverse is true, but generally written tests seem to be less invasive, especially if enough time is given. As for the question about giving a written test on paper, well, I think that I read somewhere, maybe in Hughes, maybe Bachman, that we need to maintain face validity ~ testing speaking with a written test somewhat invalidates the procedure.
I would go more for some kind of rubric, that incorporates grammar into one of the sections, along with categories including the one Nico suggested, in that the ability to self-correct is a factor in the level of proficiency that the learner has achieved. Your test seems to be more discreet point testing, and for such a case, then yes, you would have to mark them down on knowing that particular grammar, as long as you have given them enough time to answer the question, and as long as that is your focus within your objectives. A more integrative test, based on a role-play would probably pose more difficulties with rater inconsistencies, but may make grammar less of a focus, and make communication the focal point.
Also remember that, the student’s score is dependent on many factors, and the interpretation of them is relative to the other people taking the same test. Cut off scores don’t remain fixed to a magical 50%.
Steven Mondy

Why does English have a need for pronouns?

13th August, 2006
Recently, I was talking with my wife about the differences between her language (Japanese) and mine (English), and she asked me, “Why does English have the need to keep on restating pronouns?” In Japanese, once the referent is established, there is not much need to keep on using the pronouns, ‘watashi’= I, ‘anata’=you, ‘kare’ =he, ‘kanajo’=she and so on... As an English speaker in my L1 and Japanese in L2, I often find that I lose track of who or what the conversation is about when having a conversation in Japanese, because of the lack of pronouns. My wife often says that the English use of pronouns is redundant, as we have already established what is being discussed (or with a little imagination you’d be able to work it out). I was reading that Japanese is a ‘pro-drop’ language (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language), in that it tends to omit words to make an utterance shorter, if the context is known. I think, that English also drops pronouns sometimes, however, not as much as Japanese. So, why in English do we tend to overuse pronouns?
Japanese is said to be a high context culture and English a Low context culture. That is...
High context culture: many things don’t need to be made explicit because of a close connection and understanding.
Low context: societies that need to explicitly spell out things because connections are not as close. (Culture at work: Communicating across cultures, http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html)
Could this explain the need for us to continually check that the listener understands who the referent is? ...And why is necessary for English to paraphrase so often? My wife made a joke and asked, “Don’t people listen the first time?”
Another question that came up was why do some languages (like Romance languages, and even English in some cases) tend to use gender more than others? Why in English, we sometimes refer to a ship as a ‘She’? Why in Italian, Bianca (female) and Bianco (male)? How does culture influence language, and how does language influence culture?
Steven Mondy

Sapir-whorf

10th August, 2006
What are we to understand from the Sapir-Whorf debate on how a language affects culture, and in turn the individual? I find it quite an interesting discussion, as both sides to the debate give intriguing alternatives...
According to end of the lecture on ‘primitive languages’ (from linguistic voices on campus podcast) the linguist makes a point at the end that a weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis makes some sense in terms of sexist language (the so called generic ‘he’) as somewhat a warning to be careful of the language we use, as it may influence the way we think. Using ‘he’ or not using ‘he’ can determine how we think about something. When we choose to teach (or not) something in a particular way are we influencing the way our students think, by the language we use? Is Political Correctness a form of ‘linguistic determinism’? How about the movement against euphemisms, that some consider ‘bad language’? How about the elimination of racist terminology in songs (Eminem)? Can we shape society by shaping the language it uses? This taken to the extreme is the use of the so-called ‘Newspeak’ in George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, to shape society (Wikipedia -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis).
Also the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis assumes that people are limited by the language they speak and they cannot think outside ‘the proverbial box’. In that case, how can anyone be creative?
Does language have an impact on the way we think?

In what language do deaf people think?

10th August, 2006
In what language do deaf people think? 26 Dec-2003
(http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html)
I have been thinking about this topic recently, as an extension to the ‘wild child’ idea. If a child is brought up in a situation devoid of language what do they think? The article puts forward the argument that deaf people think in signs, if they were lucky enough to learn sign language at an early age. However, what if they didn’t? Do these children develop their own way to interpret and react to the world? For this would support the innatist view? Or do these children not develop any form of device to react to the world? Possibly, their brains just don’t develop the necessary neurons, and they are forced to live in some kind of vegetative state. Having these two options, I would like to think that the human brain is predisposed to make sense of the world, in whatever way.... Steven Mondy

Secret of the wild child

Secret of the wild child 10th August, 2006
I did some background reading on Genie, at "Secret of the Wild Child"
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2112gchild.html)
And I have to say (as a parent of a five year old now) that I am quite appalled at what happened to the poor little girl, not only at her parents, but also by the people who were supposedly helping her. It is quite tragic. I wonder where the line can be drawn between science and humanity...
An interesting thing that occurred to me as I was reading the interview was, why they decided to teach her sign language? Was it that they thought that sign language would give her more opportunities to communicate, a different way to produce language? I am not really sure.
I also started thinking about the difference between input and output. Possibly, many of these scientists were judging her knowledge of language by how much she was ‘producing’...If so, I think that they are only getting half the picture. I often notice the difference between how much I can understand, as opposed to how much I can say in my L2. Poor little Genie may have only got to the stage of being able to produce one, two or three word sentences, but how much was she able to understand? ...And how can we measure the amount of progress in her listening capabilities? I guess, by sticking brain wave probes onto the poor little girl’s head. Science or Humanity? Seriously, I wonder in what ways can we as teachers judge our student’s receptive capabilities, without just making qualitative judgments?
Steven Mondy

The Critical Period

The critical period 2 6th August, 2006
I understand that the 'critical Period' hypothesis can be a little easy to hold as an all-encompassing reason for the difficulties that we face in the classroom. Yet, I still feel that we need to have it as a consideration. Especially after discovering an updated version of the ‘critical period hypothesis’
“DeKeyser argues that although it is true that there is a critical period, this does not mean that adults cannot learn a second language perfectly, at least on the syntactic level." (wikipedia,takenAug,6,3:30p.m,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Acquisition_Device).
Also John. B. Carroll talks of ‘Language learning aptitude’, or the “prediction of how well, relative to other individuals, an individual can learn a foreign language in a given amount of time and under given conditions.” (Wikipedia, Language aptitude, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitude)
I think that with enough practice, the right motivation, and the right personality, it is quite possible to achieve a high level of competency. Yet, how many of our students can be said to fulfill all these qualifications? As you have said, most of us out there have various responsibilities that take away our time to study, or restrict us in some way.
I just wanted to point to the Critical Hypothesis as a thing to consider in making judgments about our future plans and actions. If it is possible, as Carrol, B., and Pimsleur, P., suggest, we need to gauge in some way, our student’s capacity to learn. Leading us back to the thing I was talking about earlier – Tests. Arghhh! However, there does need to be some thought given to how much are my students ready for what I’m about to present. Depending on the learner’s capacity to learn, we can therefore make judgments on how to proceed.

individual words/signs are quite arbitrary

I found something quite interesting talking about ASL (American Sign Lang.) that would contribute quite well to an argument about how the individual words/signs are quite arbitrary. It talked of how individual ASL signs have meaning within a system of signs, not to individual pictures. So, I guess the sign for Tokyo doesn't relate directly to a picture of Tokyo.
This may be quite obvious, but how many of us realize that the lexical items we are using, be they spoken or signed, are only understood within the context of the system we are using them, understanding of language, through language. If we have more knowledge of the system, we are better able to understand the parts within a system. I guess it's a 'chicken and the egg' kind of realization I'm making here. However, suddenly it has dawned on me that the way I look at words sometimes, is like I expect that the words immediately create certain connections to pictures within student's minds. Yet as in the Fromkin book, students need to start making connection to other words they have already acquired. Beginners often need more input and understanding of the system that they are learning (time to make those connections). After immersion into the language, and getting comfortable (by making those lexical connections between words) they may be ready to understand. I’m probably going off on another tangent here. But, the arbitrariness of the sign language example set me off thinking about how words, along with grammar (signs and facial expressions) are a tools within a system, called language.

“Beam me up Scotty.” The role of context

“Beam me up Scotty.”
According to the textbook(Fromkin et al), an inherent part of an expression's meaning, together with the context can determine its referent.
Without knowing the context of the Star Trek world, we cannot know for certain the true meaning of this phrase. Which of the following three points from the textbook does it fit into~
1. Some expressions have sense, but no reference
2. Others have reference, but no sense
3. Deitic terms have sense, but need context to determine reference.
It has reference. Does it make Sense? Well according to the above definition, no, as it doesn’t have the context. We don’t know what it means to ‘Beam someone up (unless you’re a trekkie!).

Given the 3 points above, we can probably say that a phrase can make complete sense, even though the referent is not known, or may be fiction. The truth of a sentence is determined only if the circumstances are known, not just if a sentence has sense.

What does this mean in real terms? Well, it may mean that I can come up with a logical, well formed argument that makes perfect sense, but could be totally false in the real world. Thus, we need to support our arguments with accurate real life (context dependant) information.

Also, a fanatical religious person can make sense in his/her preaching to us in terms of the paradigm they are working within, but when they go beyond that line of thinking, into someone else’s context, they may run into some difficulty.

Therefore, what makes sense to one person may be totally confusing, or completely wrong, to another.
What do you think?
Steve

Paul Grice and his Maxims

Thank you very much for your help. It does give me a direction to head towards.
Doing a search on the net, I have found many interesting pages that not only define both Pragmatics and Semantics, but also talk about the distinctions between them.
Many of the papers tend to point at 'Paul Grice' contributing very much toward Pragmatics, in particular. I haven't explored the material too well yet, but it seems that according to Grice, there is a social element within pragmatics. Along with this are his so called 'maxims'. (Check out Wikipedia for a definition)
With my Semantics research, there seems to be a lot on various relationships between words, such as synonyms, antonyms, and all the rest that are mentioned within our text.
On the net, and in many of the articles I've accumulated, the writers tend to deal with either Pragmatics/Semantics separately or as I said previously, how they differ.
I’m trying to see the relationship between them both and how they influence each other, but I’ve yet to come to any striking conclusions that add to what I have already said. I guess I need some time to let it all soak in a little.
Yet having said this, I do realize that there is quite a striking difference in perspective, when it comes to dealing with this topic. Firstly, that of how individual phrases and words are interpreted individually, and that of how our social situation affects those words or phrases. Also, I never realized how much context and meaning are so interrelated, yet so defined as particular fields (albeit fairly new according to some writers). I’m sorry if I sound a little confused today. I’m in the process of sorting out what I know from what I read.

Critical Period

I understand that the 'critical Period' hypothesis can be a little easy to hold as an all encompassing reason for the difficulties that we face in the classroom. Yet, I still feel that we need to have it as a consideration. Especially after discovering an updated version of the ‘critical period hypothesis’
“DeKeyser argues that although it is true that there is a critical period, this does not mean that adults cannot learn a second language perfectly, at least on the syntactic level." (wikipedia,takenAug,6,3:30p.m,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Acquisition_Device).
Also John. B. Carroll talks of ‘Language learning aptitude’, or the “prediction of how well, relative to other individuals, an individual can learn a foreign language in a given amount of time and under given conditions.” (Wikipedia, Language aptitude, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_aptitude
I think that with enough practice, the right motivation, and the right personality, it is quite possible to achieve a high level of competency. Yet, how many of our students can be said to fulfill all these qualifications? As you have said, most of us out there have various responsibilities that take away our time to study, or restrict us in some way.
I just wanted to point to the Critical Hypothesis as a thing to consider in making judgments about our future plans and actions. If it is possible, as Carrol, B., and Pimsleur, P., suggest, we need to gauge in some way, our student’s capacity to learn. Leading us back to the thing I was talking about earlier – Tests. Arghhh! However, there does need to be some thought given to how much are my students ready for what I’m about to present. Depending on the learner’s capacity to learn, we can therefore make judgments on how to proceed. Steven Mondy

Pragmatics and Semantics

I guess it would be useful at this stage to start thinking about the difference and interdependence between ‘Pragmatics and Semantics’. It appears to be quite an involved undertaking, as there are many facets to either. According to the text, we see that Semantics is concerned with the linguistic meaning of: 1.Lexical items – morphemes (and in turn words) and 2. Phrasal Elements – the meaning of phrases.
Pragmatics on the other hand is concerned with how the context affects meaning.
I understand from the readings that even though a sentence can be grammatically correct, well formed syntactically and have a perfectly understandable structure; it may not be true in certain contexts.
I could say, for instance that, “Yesterday was my wife’s birthday.” Semantically you would understand that yesterday there was a birthday, and it was my wife who was celebrating it. This is perfectly fine, but her actual birthday is in June, and not yesterday. In this context, the statement’s ‘Truth Conditions’ are false. However, if I were in a classroom demonstrating the simple past tense and using this declarative statement as an example of a set phrase, even though the truth conditions are still not true, it is still quite a valid statement to make, as the context has now changed. In this instance, we can see the relationship between ‘Pragmatics and Semantics’, if only in a basic way. Semantics needs context to establish the acceptability of a sentence within a certain environment. Grasping this relationship, it is quite possible to apply our understandings to a language learning environment. We can help students, by setting up meaningful contexts for the phrases they learning.
Context plays an extremely important role in avoiding ambiguity. Take for example the newspaper headline, “Teacher strikes idle kids” (Sanderson, P., (1999), Using Newspapers in the Classroom, Cambridge University Press). Anyone reading this headline (without being given the story that goes along with it) may be a little confused, as it can be perceived in two ways. Ambiguity is a great source of confusion, at least with many of my students. This can in turn lead to negative feelings toward the task at hand.
I believe that context also helps a student make use of existing deep lexical networks. Knowing the context of a unit that we are studying can help us anticipate what lexical items will unveil themselves. Just as in the textbook, knowing the word cat, we start thinking of mouse. Well if we know that today’s lesson is about food, we can use our existing knowledge and experiences to visualize food items and create a receptive framework for new words and phrases related to food. A textbook that does this well is the Tactics for Listening series, by Jack C. Richards. It sets up the context in the beginning of a unit, then slowly and progressively introduces phrases and vocabulary.
Pragmatics helps develop a framework for understanding and along with Semantics allows us to make sense of new and unfamiliar words and phrases. What do you think?
Steven Mondy

The capacity and perserverance to learn

I really do believe that we have the capacity to learn any form of communication, as long as it’s within the limits of our physical and mental capabilities. This may include such things as age, motivation and genetic programming. We still don’t have the ability to use mental telepathy (well some of us, anyway?!), but maybe with the evolution of the species, we may develop that capacity. One of my fellow students at USQ makes quite a persuasive point, in that we may not have even developed our existing abilities (to react to pheromones) yet. Who knows…we have yet to discover many things.
The interesting thing for us teachers is that if we have this capacity (at least at some time), how long will it remain with us? As we have come to understand, there is somewhat a time limit to effectively and comprehensively pick up a language (at least for L1). “The critical period.” This is quite a concern for teachers, as it will undoubtedly make it really difficult for adult learners to acquire a second language. I think that these learners are faced with a hidden barrier to language acquisition, which may discourage them from persisting with the process of learning a second language. As another fellow student stated, many learners don't feel it necessary to attend classes more than only a few times a week. Could part of the problem be that the capacity for learning a second language has diminished in our adult learners (depending upon how much they have gone past the ‘critical period’). A language may seem quite exciting in the beginning, but then the novelty starts fading as reality starts kicking in. Maybe that is one of the reasons that pattern recognition systems are so successful with adult learners. They give people a way to balance the scales back in their favor. What do you think? Steven Mondy

a late news flash on Fossilization...'Stabilization'

I have to agree with Brown (2007, p.261) that 'Fossilization' is a normal natural stage, and should not be viewed as a terminal illness. He suggests another term of 'stabilization', which is a much more positive term, as it allows room for balance and adjustment.
I believe, that L2 learners enter and exit many different kinds of situations throughout their interlanguage phase, and each new situation makes it possible for the learner to re-adjust. Of course the learner can choose not to change, or feel they can't change, but I essentially believe that it is possible. So the term I will glom onto is 'stabilization'. Steven Mondy

Learning from others...

One of my classmates said: "This eloquent man, has learnt to speak Thai from the innapropriate gender and class for the world he circulates in and is quite aware that he speaks like a bar- girl.The Thais being terribly polite excuse him and even think it is quite cute/funny and because of the warmth he gets he has never learned to correct his speech, or seen the need to, his fossilization is actually now a part of his character and if he came out with polite Thai he may find people didn't find him as funny or cute."

The same can be said for all those learning Osaka-ben in Japan. Or a husband (in Jpn) learning his wife's language patterns, and then using them in another social setting, only to find out that he is speaking in a female tone. A foreigner speaking in Osaka-ben will almost always get laughs, which encourage more use of Osaka-ben. And Japanese would be too polite to say to anyone, that your speech sounds 'girlish'.

Even knowing the problem, it is quite difficult to change. Once you have developed a feeling for something, un-learning becomes difficult, if not impossible in some cases. There really has to be some extremely persuasive external motivating forces to make someone even contemplate change. Steven Mondy

...when you are isolated from a community...

My mum has lived in Australia for just under 60 years (left Malta when she was 14) and she speaks the Maltese of when she was in Malta. She has always spoken to all her brothers in Maltese in Australia, and until recently has had no real contact with the country she was born in. So when she now watches the Maltese news on SBS, she scratches her head wondering what some of the words mean... I guess it is evidence for how language evolves... and when you are isolated from the community, you go on speaking in the same way, while the community that you came from starts changing the way it uses language. Is this a behaviorist-type observation?????

Moving off on a tangent, however, the most amazing thing with her English is that she speaks with native-like fluency (little if no accent), and it's difficult to distinguish the mistakes she makes, from those expected of native-E speaker mistakes. Yet, when she has to write something, that's when you can see all the non-native errors. I quite enjoy seeing my mother's letters (though quite rare, as she readily avoids writing). They remind me of her cultural background. Steven Mondy (By the way, my mothers maiden name - "Muscat", a very Maltese name)

Accent

Accent is something that seems to worry many of our Japanese students, and frankly I have to ask why? Accents are beautiful, and reflective of deep cultural roots. Why on earth would you want everyone in the world speaking with the same accent? Where's the diversity, and the creativity that comes with that amount of variety in the world. Accents are beautiful, and it's a shame when they are lost...
Actually, does anyone know where I left mine?
Having been in Japan for a fairly long time, I have unwittingly adopted some strange kind of accent... I want my Australian accent back! Does anyone know where I left my accent?Steven Mondy
(sorry for the tongue in cheek tone...)
Ciao
Steven

fossilization 1

I always felt that fossilization was only a literacy thing, however, as a long term resident in a foreign country I can see it in my own second language performance in speaking (and even listening, if that’s at all possible?!). I tend to rely a lot on standard set phrases or words that can be used in a multitude of situations. The more I rely on them, the harder it is to be creative in my language use.
We have a student here at the college whose fossilization is so strong, that he has begun making excuses for his inability. “English is so difficult.” “I didn’t learn it when I was young.” “I’m too old, too busy” etc… I guess that denial is part of what ingrains particular routines.
A person may even be totally aware that they are making the mistakes, but when it comes down to the crunch, they make the mistakes anyway, ‘cause it feels more comfortable…or they make the mistake and regret it afterwards, but when the time comes to use that language again, will make the same mistake over and over. I see myself doing this…
Yes, it is useful, to have set phrases to take out when the situation arises. That’s what a lot of audio lingual approaches focus upon. However, we do become over-reliant on these phrases, almost to the point where we ignore the situational context. Or we expect others to interpret or make sense of our babble, which often happens in a sympathetic environment, such as a SL situation. However, how many of you long term residents of a foreign country have discovered that the sympathy turns to impatience, when you continue to rely on the set number of formulaic expressions. And when the personal realization takes place, it becomes difficult to change, ‘cause the expressions have become fossilized.
Cheers,
Steven Mondy