Summary of Notes on Better Lesson Planning (Kizlik)

The most effective teachers are good planners and thinkers.
The purpose of a lesson plan is to communicate.
If you write a lesson plan that can be interpreted or implemented in many different ways, it is probably not a very good plan.
Things to consider:
1. The objective - description of what a student does that forms a basis for making an inference about learning.
2. The lesson assessment - description of how the teacher will determine whether the objective has been accomplished.
3. The prerequisites - A statement about what the student needs to know or be able to do to succeed and accomplish the objective.
4. The materials - a list of materials in line with what you actually plan to do.
5. The instruction - description of efficient teaching behavior that gets more learning done with the same or less effort.
6. The student activities - a list of activities that directly relate to the lesson objective(s).

The Lesson Plan
1. Preliminary information

• Grade
• Level of students
• Specific subject matter
• Name of unit
• Name of the teacher

2. The Parts
Input

• Information about students: age, grade level, and what they already know about the lesson objectives.
• Time to complete lesson
• Description of the materials
• Information about how to acquire the materials
• Information about obtaining special permissions.

Process

• What are the inputs?
• What is the output?
• What instructional activities do I do?
• What do the students do?
• How will the learning be measured?
• What follow up activities do I have?
• How can I assess myself? (Difference btw what you wanted and what was attained)

Vocabulary for Writing Behavioral Objectives
Apply a Rule / Assess / Classify / Compose / Construct / Define /Demonstrate / Describe / Diagram / Distinguish / Estimate / Evaluate / Identify / Interpret / Label / Locate / Measure / Name / Order / Predict / Reproduce / Solve / State a Rule / Translate



Kizlik, B. (2009). Six Common Mistakes in Writing Lesson Plans
(and what to do about them), Retrieved March 11, 2011, from
http://www.adprima.com/Printer/printmistakes.htm

8.7 What is a teacher?

A teacher is a critically reflective individual who facilitates engaging activities that focus on learning more than content. Someone who tests and re-evaluates their own assumptions and is also a resource provider and pretty much jack of all trades... (Brookfield, 1995)

8.6 On Becoming a Reflective Practitioner - Reflection on my own experience

I have a high school class that I teach once every two weeks on a Saturday. It is my worst class in all my teaching environments... I was used to Communicative teaching at my regular school, so I thought that I could use that knid of teaching in this new environment.

However, the students sleep, or yell, or do their make up in the back, or even bring Mcdonalds into the class...The regular class teacher stays at the back doing nothing, or even contributes to the mayhem, and if that wasn't all, the school is in a lower socio-economic area of Osaka.

Unconsciously using the reflection process...

RIA - was my initial response...change whatever I could at the moment of teaching, and to respond to individual students...effective to an extent...but still I found it difficult.

Then ROA-

Thinking:

Broad -

* What is it about the class or my teaching that is causing this?

* What if I changed my material?

* Why are Ss not interested in the lesson?

* What if My methods didn't match the Ss?

* Is it because it's Saturday?

Later I started thinking about the detailed questions:

* What should I have done?

* What can I do next time?

The answers were not so clear...Should I wake Ss? Is ok to change from Ss centered to Teacher centered or do I persist with my method until they get used to it? Are there any other types of lessons I could implement?

* Why did I react in that way?

* What have I learned from this?

My initial reaction was of hopelessness. I started blaming the context: the school, the teachers, the fact that Ss had to come on Saturday, class size, student ability, the learning styles of the Ss not matching my own teaching style, and so on...

I learned that it was a combination of these things and more. Yes, my idea that Ss needed to be able to circulate, didn't quite match with the way they were being taught. In addition, I didn't have enough time with the Ss each time, and my activities got them doing things that they are not ready for yet.

I identified that modification to my objectives needed to be made, to include time for Ss to get used to a new teaching style.

I formulated a plan of action, that included both ROA and RIA (even though I didn't know that at the time) and also that included the Ss learning styles and the context that they were in.

In practical terms, I got them into countries (small groups to get them feeling more personalized learning and teaching). I developed their identities under these countries, and identified them as their countries.

I allowed for more written activities, and teacher centered discussions (at first), then as a bird started to wean them off teacher centered-ness, into more communicative learning...starting with pair-work, then to group work then finally circulation type activities.

It is still not perfect (far from it), but the students are starting to respond (it will be a long and slow process). I have a lot more thinking to do, and reflection about that thinking. Yet, the signs are positive...

Well that's a summary of where it stands today...the process of reflection continues.

8.5 Becoming a Reflective practitioner: The Cycle of reflection

I wonder if anyone has seen the You tube video on the process of reflection...
Video: Becoming a Reflective practitioner: The Cycle of reflection (click here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shacsdm_kvA
It is a comical look at the process, but provides a simple understanding of the reflective process.
I made some basic notes...

What is Reflection:
Cyclic process = Think-Question-Reflect-Act

Thinking: Meta-cognitive - thinking about thinking

• Monitor your thinking
• Probe/inspect/study/examine------confusing, conflicting, disturbing situations--------try to make comprehensible---------identify possible solutions.

Questions: Pertinent or irrelevant, Broad (What if...?/I wonder why?), Detailed (What should I have done? What can I do next time? Why did I react in that way? What have I learned from this?)

Reflection: Clarify what you are thinking about.
i. Reflection on action (ROA) - Thinking afterward
ii. Reflection in action (RIA) - Thinking during
This seems to be the kind of thinking on your feet type of action....

Reflection includes: Past / Present / Future

Through reflection:

• Look at Student learning
• Search meaning of class events
• Consider your strengths and weaknesses
• Identify ways to improve
• Formulate a plan of action

Take the time to reflect:

• on the course.
• your strengths and weaknesses.
• the viewpoints of others.

8.4 'Problem- based learning (PBL)"

Reading my lecture notes, I came across 'Problem- based learning (PBL)" and was wondering if it connected to the types of information gap, and task based learning that I often get my students (Ss) to do. Often, language textbooks contain tasks, where the Ss, by sharing the information they have, can come to an understanding of the total picture of their conversation. Or, Ss by sharing information, have a chance to use the language they are learning. Therefore the activity is the tool as Brodie states, which is used as a way for Ss to use the target language that they have learned, and the use (which is the objective of the activity) becomes the goal of the lesson.
I understand that PBL in other content areas would be more practical/concrete problems, such as in medicine. However, can it also be applied to more abstract areas such as language teaching, psychology etc...?
Just a few thoughts...ciao Steve

(click here) for a detailed explanation.
Problem-Based Learning and Adult English Language Learners
Julie Mathews-Aydinli, Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, Center for Applied Linguistics

What is PBL? Watch the following video.

What is PBL? from Metafoor Media on Vimeo.

8.3 'Walk the walk' don't just 'Talk the Talk' - Completing a Professional Passion Chart

Activity 1.1 - Isolate areas that you would benefit from personal development...

Hello everyone,
At the moment I am trying to grapple with activity 1.1 and I am finding that it is quite easy to 'talk the talk', but another thing to 'walk the walk' in terms of critical reflection in practical terms. In some ways, there is a real barrier to focusing the magnifying glass on my own actions...But here goes...
In terms of my own teaching, I believe that I am fairly good at writing objectives for courses, but when it comes to specific lesson objectives, I find it hard to pinpoint and keep to targets.Writing the syllabus is easier, because it is more general. However the lesson plan objectives have much more at stake (in terms of some kind of 'standards based' criteria) and it is much easier to see if the objectives have been carried out. Especially when they haven't. I also find that I sometimes skip writing them down, because I am relying on the years of experience I have accumulated. I find I rely on the feeling I have and the knowledge I have of my subject, and then adapt to individual students. This isn't always bad, but there's no way to be accountable for what you are doing in classes...
The hardest thing for me is to consistently review after class, and write down helpful evaluations. I tend to just write down what has been done and what will come next. I want to be able to focus on what worked and what didn't, and be able to write advice to myself on different elements of the lesson.
So I guess they are two things I want to work on...I want to be able to create a system for myself, possibly even a set of categories that I can apply before and after a lesson, and some system of analyzing and evaluating the information that I receive. Doing this in the most time efficient way, after each lesson, and selected times throughout the course, will help me understand my own teaching a little better. However, it will take effort on my part. However, I don't want to just 'talk the talk'...I want to really get stuck in and do something. I think that the information I have read so far is helping me to sort out a system in my own mind.

8.2 "Beyond the looking glass"

A student in my class posed quite a poignant question the other day when she asked, "How can I get to the other side of the looking glass?" I agree with a point in Heimbecker; we have to start with the basic premise of making the things we do visible and problematic. Therefore we need to look at our teaching and highlight the 'good, the bad and the ugly' of our own practices. Not an easy thing to do, and when/if done, not always easy to accept the results.
Thus, the need for reflection, in the sense of Brookfield's (1995) idea of 'critical reflection'. What assumptions are we making about what we are doing in our classes, and how is this affecting the way students are engaging (or not) in our lessons.
I was a little amazed at some of the assumptions stated, because it was like Brookfield was plucking them out of my head. "Making a circle, not having too much time devoted to lecture time, and students liking discussion to name a few."
All the common sense ideas that we have and hear from other teachers all seem to have a flipside...
I guess what the article was hinting at was that the critical reflection helps us to be better able to understand that we are making these assumptions, and it better equips us in dealing with them in order to make better learning environments for students.
I believe that I have been making a few too many Casual assumptions about the learning taking place in my classes. Imposing my own beliefs about how the classes are to be run...believing that I have ventured over onto the other side of the looking glass, yet not really. Possibly another form of transmission, not of knowledge but of how we conduct ourselves in class...dare I say, 'Manner' continuing to be teacher-centered rather than learner centered... ciao Steve

References
Brookefield, S. (1995). The getting of wisdom: What critically reflective teaching is and why it's important, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass

Heimbecker, B. (2009). Changing ourselves - A gaze in the mirror, Educating and inquiry - A teacher action research site, retrieved November 23, at http://www.lupinworks.com/ar/changing/bh.html

8.1 social constructivism

I just read the paper on constructivism, and was trying to make links to my own context and teaching practice...

When I read the section on social constructivism, I was reminded of the shift in ESL/EFL toward "communicative language teaching (CLT)" (Nunan, 1991), and the need for authentic texts and contexts within teaching. Thus the implementation of activities such as role-play, survey, and task based teaching has become the new in vogue thing, with activities that increase motivation by providing so called 'real life' activities with a real purpose...Within my own teaching I have tried to take this on board, with both success and failure. Success, I mean in terms of student motivation, only when the activity provides enough of a challenge (not too difficult) and when the students themselves can see the real purpose of the activity. I am truly an advocate of CLT (when the activity is truly meaningful and challenging), however, I think we have to acknowledge that the classroom environment is still an artificial environment, with all the limitations that entails.

Having students from many different countries, I am also very aware of the cultural impact on learning. One of my favorite books on teaching is Culture learning, the 5th dimension in the language classroom by Louise Damen (1987), which discusses the impact of culture on language learning. How Students form Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China (I have a class with these cultures and more) relate to each other, or even a minority culture, next to a majority from other places, or just a mix of different ethnic groups (such as in the old and politically incorrect series Mind Your Language) can all contribute to difficulty in achieving your teaching objectives.

Dougiamas, M.(1998). A journey into constructivism, Retrieved November 16, 2010

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