Saturday, June 17, 2006

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.

1 Comments:

At 11:54 AM, Blogger Dan said...

Well Cynthia, there's way more here than I can comment on alone. I hope some of the other members of the class join in.

Good job on this. Your critical lit skills are showing through :)

I'll address a couple points, not necessarily in order of their appearance.

1) At the end, you talk about critical theory in CALL research. Much of CALL research is descriptive (I'll talk about this more later) and it often draws on sociolinguistic frameworks of analysis. These frameworks have the same (or similar) critical theories that literature does. One of the darlings of CALL is Freire (did I spell his name right?). Mark Warschauer's later work (mostly on the digital divide) reflects these theories.

2) I wasn't as taken aback by the textbook analogy as you were. I see this as apt. The printing press (if not the textbook) was possibly the greatest technological acheivement (in social terms) ever. For the first time people had access to affordable books. This populist movement then resulted in books printed in the native tongue (rather than Latin). More people then had access to information. Education went from the sole domain of the elites to the right of the common man (later woman). In this respect, the book changed the world more than the computer has (so far).

3) I agree that CALL has too much descriptive research. Maybe I should say too much unstructured, disconnected, descriptive research. However, I also agree that more "analytical" research isn't necessarily what's needed. Let me explain. When you read your 30th article on how someone carried out an e-pals project, you'll probably agree that it is too much. Just about everything that needed to be said was said in the first few articles. Unfortunately, this is the state of CALL research OUTSIDE of popular CALL journals (LL&T, CALL, CALICO, i-TESLJ, etc.). I think that these resources to an overall better job of choosing research to publish. These journals present more research that is firmly grounded on theory and that adds unique perspectives to the larger body of knowledge. I'm all for "descriptive" research that does this. What they are referring to as "analytical" research is over-rated. I can forgive the authors somewhat, because this is a 1999 publication (likely written in 1998) and these views were prevalent then. Comparative studies (CALL vs. Face-to-face) are largely out of vogue (someone can dispute this if they want).

I'm really loving this blog approach so far. I hope you like it as well.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home