Reading Reflection #2


To me the most powerful statement that Joy Peyton makes in Theory and Research: Interaction via Computers is that ‘Computers are not replacing teachers but rather are changing the nature of their work’ (p. 26). In her chapter she outlines the need for negotiation in light of this new challenge. However, at the same time, she draws attention to how rooted computer networking is in long-standing, interactionist and socio-cultural, Vygotskian principles.

She also notes how the concepts of ‘text and talk,’ whether in real or delayed time, are no longer as discrete and distinct as once perceived. To all these shifts that computer-mediated learning has brought, she argues that teachers need to be continually examining their interactive learning spaces toward understanding how they can shape them for best learning outcomes.

As I reflect on Peyton’s chapter in light of our own online class CALL 530, I am struck both by the variety of modes of interaction, and the quick and subtle shifts in the relationship between talk and text that I myself do. This claim warrants an explanation, so here goes:

I was unable to schedule my online tutorial for any of the group Messenger chat times that my instructor had set, so we scheduled a mutually agreed time for a one-on-one. On the appointed day, we knocked on the door of time at 8 p.m. and began our conversation.

We began in text, both of us in a writing conversation (real-time), but as the written chat (Note the oxymoron!) proceeded, my instructor remembered that I had posted on our class forum earlier (time-delayed), that I had a webcam. By mutual agreement we switched modes to voice and video conversation. Therefore, in this chat room tutorial, not only was my instructor who had known me for a week, seeing me for the first time, but we had switched modes of interaction.

These varied modes of interaction and my merged use of text and talk were not the only classroom interactions that I had done for the day. A couple hours earlier, I had had yet another kind of learning interaction – this time through peer-scaffolding. In that instance, I had a joint conversation with two members of the class whom I had seen online, and asked for help with an assignment that I did not understand.

Of course, Peyton’s chapter focuses on text and talk in quite a different way from my experiences above, in that she examines text and talk from the perspective of the nature of writing instruction in the language learning classroom. My CALL 530 is not a traditional language learning classroom. However, a fundamental analogy between her classroom and mine exists. As she puts it: ‘Computer-mediated interaction revolutionizes notions about writing, radically challenging traditional distinctions between speech and writing’ (p. 20).

Peyton also develops the challenges of computer-mediated interaction, citing its newness, its immediacy, its faceless and diffuseness, as features that often make it prone to (1) antisocial prankish responses, (2) less thoughtful effort from students, and (3) the teacher’s feelings of loss of control. In my opinion these challenges are most likely to found among adolescents. They require ‘negotiation,’ and certainly justify her call for teachers ‘to continually examine the types and quality of [their learning] interactions and find ways to shape them.’

Peyton cites Kremers (1990) on the kind of computer-mediated interaction that was once a dream, but has now become almost the norm in my view – the networked classroom, ‘in which authority is shared, decentralized, distributed, even communal; a class in which teachers sometimes participate directly in the discussion and t other times stay out of things, letting their students take control of their own dialogues; a class in which students compete among themselves for influence in the group through the force of their language and the clarity of their arguments’ (p. 25).

In my opinion, CALL 530 has achieved that platform.

Software/Website Evaluation # 1

Software: English Key Stage 3 - Full Marks; CD-ROM, © Plus Factor Limited. Published by idigicon Ltd.; Web Site: www.idigicon.com

Grade/Age Level: Key Stage 3 (British education system); 11 to 14 age group

Language: English

Content: Standard Assessment Tasks (informally called SATs) for British junior secondary students in the subject area, English.


1) What is the intended purpose of the software?
A tutorial providing revision and testing in ten areas of English: Spelling; Punctuation; Prefixes & Suffixes; Parts of Speech; Writing and Reading Skills; Letters; Advertisements; Narratives; Articles; and Terms used in English.

Mainly entertainment-oriented, ‘designed to make revising for SATs Key Stage 3 more fun than ever thought possible.’

2) What is the content of the software and how is it presented?

A suite of English MCQs in ten English areas. Study notes also part of the package. The MCQ feature is more prominent. It is animated, sound-tracked, and in game format. A choice of four survival games, Jetman, Alien Diner, Rescue, and Pursuit, can be applied to any of the 10 areas or levels.

However, the player must also have good English competence in the various levels, good discriminatory skills and quick recall of grammar rules and language elements to complement his gaming skills. It is a single player game and the player gets 3 lives. The player can print his score card at the end of the game.

The revision notes feature is a dense and compact series of notes in MS Word on the Start menu page. This feature is overshadowed by the red game button that invites the player with the words ‘Start Game.’

3) What external documents does the software include? Are they effective?

There are no external documents, and this is one of the limitations of effective use. Two key elements of Key Stage 3, speaking and listening, could be incorporated, especially since the real Key Stage 3 syllabus does not include MCQs.

4) In what ways is the software interesting to the target audience?

The software was most likely created to appeal to 11 to 14 year-old males of a decade ago. The adolescent of today might find the software archaic. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of an adolescent in any era choosing to play an English Comprehension, Spelling, and Punctuation MCQ game.

The arcade features of the software may cause it to have limited appeal among female adolescents.

The software really targets educators and parents. Teachers and parents are the ones most likely to buy a game such as this, thinking that it would appeal to adolescents.

5) For what language goal(s) is this software useful/effective?

This software is likely to be most useful for peer group English language revision, but since only one player can play at a time, interest is likely to wane, especially since the test questions within each level increase in difficulty.

The revision notes feature is not likely to appeal, because there is too much text to wade through.

6) Does this program offer practice? Assessment? Feedback? Of what kinds?

The program offers practice, because it can be repeated as often as desired. The player can ‘pause’ the game by striking the spacebar at any point. Pausing the game offers the choice to exit, but not to consult the revision notes. If the player exits, the game is over. Pausing the game should be modified to also incorporate a feedback feature.

The program offers gratuitous feedback in the form of a flashing CORRECT, and with a bonus of extra lives if the player achieves a high score at any level. Negative sound-effects feedback occurs if the player makes the wrong choice on a question. The player then gets 2 more tries. After 3 wrong tries, the game is over.

The player can choose the option to see his/her score throughout the game to the right of the screen. At the end of the session player can print a report.

7) Is this software easy to use? (i.e., navigation, layout, etc.)

The software is easy to use. The navigation requires just the normal 4-point directional dragging of the mouse, and a left-click for the right answer.

A talking robot initiates the software with a Game Screen Help menu with arrows pointing to and labeling the icons of the game. Just click 4 icons to begin the game.

8) What are the strengths of this software?

The software is a self-monitoring, language learning, and assessment tutorial. It uses an entertainment format to motivate students toward language learning.

However, the ‘About the Program’ interface contains the following caveat: ‘As we cannot monitor the use of the software we recommend that you discuss the results with your class teacher, rather than rely on our assessment alone.’

This caveat suggests that a student can cheat or manipulate assessment outcomes.

9) How can this software be improved?

Make the revision notes more attractive, so that they would become more central to the language learning.

Less skill and drill, and more emphasis on language in context, especially in the early levels of the game, especially since it is well known that students do not always transfer language elements that they get correct in isolated spelling and punctuation exercises into their connected writing.

The suggestion above should be seriously considered, since Key Stage 3 English assessment uses short and long answer formats, and not MCQs. Format of the game could be aligned more with Key Stage 3 English syllabus, e.g. listening and speaking, components of the Key Stage 3 syllabus, could be included.

Feedback and assessment features should minimize guessing. Players could be directed to the relevant revision note when their answer is wrong, instead of being encouraged to guess.

External documents, e.g. additional passages should be included in the package, to extend its life and interest, since after a few sessions, all the plays are known.

Reading Reflection # 1

Computer-Enhanced Language Learning Environments: An Overview sets out to outline (1) how to give learners an opportunity to get the best out of CALL, and (2) how to assess CALL environments.

However, Egbert et al make a big blunder in equating a theory of CALL with an integrated theory of language acquisition. They compound this error by making a flawed analogy between technology and a textbook. These gross oversimplifications cause them to focus their chapter too much on principles of language learning and approaches to basic research in the social sciences. In the second half of their paper, they make very good points on the social dynamics that are usually taken for granted when computer technology is introduced in language learning classrooms. However, on the whole, they fail to address adequately the computer-enhanced aspect of their chapter-title.

Their opening statement is strong. Egbert et al note that although the new technology is a specialized field, identified by its own jargon, in the context of enhancing language learning, identifiable jargon is not by itself a determinant of good pedagogy, the point being that for effective classroom and student outcomes, pedagogy and technology must be integrated. However, after making this insightful claim, their chapter becomes disappointingly halved, the first half outlining eight ‘conditions for optimal language learning environments,’ the second half outlining six basic stages of research, minus the crucial Data Analysis and Discussion sections.

I must applaud their synopsis of the conditions for optimal language learning, though, for its concise focus on learner interaction and constructivist principles, and for its highlighting of the importance of the learner’s authentic interaction with the target language. Also, they give Krashen a well-deserved plug for his language production or output SLA hypothesis. Further, they acknowledge the importance of the affective, the importance of feedback, time for processing language learning, the importance of motivation, the psychological state of the learner, and the need for the promotion of learner autonomy.

The summary of language learning principles above, outlined in the first half of the article is relevant. However, Egbert et al shortchange the real CALL aspects of their chapter in the second half of their paper with a research-outline treatment.

What are the points made, crucial to the issue of computer-enhanced language learning, which should have been given a higher profile in the chapter? For one, Egbert et al make the point that in introducing computers in language learning environments, a multiplicity of invisible and often-overlooked learning variables are introduced: ‘New skills are needed to perform the task; motivation to do the task may increase; and the task itself may be defined in new and different ways.’ They also note that these variables, difficult to pinpoint and monitor, are often not factored into comparative studies of CALL and non-CALL environments.

Another point they raise is that there is a tendency to equate the novelty associated with new technology with ‘better’ outcomes. They also warn of the difficulty of assessing home and school effects on language learning, because of possible differences in access to technology in these two closely-related learning sites. Additionally, Egbert et al cite the benefit of the computer itself as a tool that can enhance data collection, and they endorse the employment of qualitative alongside quantitative methods of analysis.

All the same, it is on this word analysis that these researchers fall short. Granted their sub-title promises only an ‘An Overview.’ However, it is they who call to attention that most existing computer research tends to be more descriptive than analytical. In light of this, I would have liked to see them put forward a proposal for an analytical pedagogy. After all, as they so rightly observe, what CALL lacks is a model of rigorous pedagogical research.

So what model of analytical pedagogy do I propose? My first comment is that it is difficult for a field with such a short history to have a sense of developmental theory to draw upon. Let me make an analogy with the field of literary studies to explain what I mean. During the 20th century alone, literary studies had theoretical and analytical perspectives such as New Criticism, Phenomenology, Marxism, Feminism, New Historicism, Cultural Criticism, and Postmodernism to draw upon. The point to note, however, is that the basis for these lit-crit positions derived from contemporary insights into literature's societal relevance; so that Feminist Criticism, for instance, flourished during the era of the Women's Movement of the 70s and 80s, and Marxist Criticism was a spin-off of marxist and socialist politics of the early to mid-20th century.

The point I am making is that CALL has to derive its analytical pedagogy within new-age pedagogical principles. The hallmark of these principles is their integration of learning spaces - the integration of community usage, entertainment, and the formal classroom as sites of learning. There are no sacred-cow, learning spaces anymore; and it is technology that has done the Emperor's suit trick and invisible-ized these barriers, presenting see-through, virtual, multi-refectional conduits instead of walls. CALL has already transformed the way that language learning is done. And this is why comparing the new technology with a text-book in terms of pedagogy, as Egbert et al do, is reprehensible!

To conclude, it would be a travesty for CALL to seek its analytical pedagogy in the box-cart age that they have so marvellously transformed. Note well that I have not proposed a lit-crit for CALL. I certainly don't know enough about the field to do so. However, I hope I have signalled a way forward, not backward.

I checked out Prensky's What Can you Learn from a Cell Phone? Almost Anything? first, because I have read other stuff by him, mainly on gaming. I knew the cell phone had a wide range of uses, but I didn't realise that it was so versatile. As an electronic device, how it blends miniaturization with multi-tasking is its biggest charm.

So while NYC schools are debating whether students should be allowed to bring them to school, and there is this publicity about students using them to cheat on exams, and there is this latest intrigue about whether as older people get further into senility, they can hear when students are receiving messages, Prensky is looking at the learning potential of the cell phone.

They are computers and language labs and cameras and diaries, and radios and entertainment centres and ... all rolled in one.

The article made an impact on me because I have one of those call-if-you're-in-trouble models. Have I been tempted to do an upgrade? I'll tell you this much. The article leaves me uncomfortable. Any serious language teacher should equip herself on par with her students. Especially since, according to Prensky's statistics, in the developing world many people have more than one cell.

I like the punch of his concluding statements about where we should be on the ethics of cheating with cell phones. He advises teachers that 'They might better serve their students by redefining open-book testing as open-phone testing' and 'encouraging, rather than quashing, student innovation' with regard to 'retrieving information on demand during exams'.



I