week 4: Google Docs and language teaching and learning

Both Google docs and forms were new for me. After class, I searched some practical implications of those great features into language teaching and learning. Among many articles, journals and private blog posts, I found an article which gives examples of the scope and limitations of the Google Docs on four levels; 1) the program level – management of teaching assignments and reporting of grades; 2) special program management – online book reports for extensive reading; 3) course management – homework production and submission, and self and peer assessment; and 4) project work – collaborative writing and student-generated questionnaires.

It seems clear that Google Docs offers more authentic materials for Net generation and teachers who teach them. Teachers can utilize Google Docs in more effective way for grading, reporting and assessment and they can create student-oriented lesson plan using Google Docs such as collaborative writing and peer review. Not only it provides useful tools for teachers but also it allows students more participate and engage into class.  Students not just sit and listen to what teachers talk but they actually engage into activities and this promote student participation and eventually makes learning more meaningful.

The link for the article:

http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/6_1_Firth.pdf

week 4: SVCMC and pronunciation (Alastuey,2010)

For this week, I read Alastuey’s article “synchronous-Voice Computer-Mediated communication; Effects on Pronunciation. This article investigated whether synchronous-voice computer-mediated communication (SVCMC) promotes more authentic interactions and affects improvement in pronunciation and phonetically modified output as a result of authentic interactions. The article concluded that SVCMC is beneficial for pronunciation and phonetic interlanguage. As Skype was used as a tool for research test, it is often used among language learners to increase their opportunities to communicate with native speakers and other language learners. It seems especially more beneficial for people who are not able to go abroad and have no chance for face-to-face communication with native speakers. Even though it is beneficial in different ways, there seems a limitation for beginners who are lack of language knowledge and background. For intermediate or advanced language learners, it is not difficult to hold conversation in face-to-face interaction as well as online chatting. However, beginner-level language learners are not only lack of skills to hold communication but also not familiar with how to negotiate meanings during conversation. If they are not aware of what is correct or incorrect pronunciation of certain L2 words, it is not possible to them to produce modified outcomes. As we talked in the first week, it is very important to have clear and specific goal and curriculum and to understand our students (who are they, what language problem they have, etc.) to maximize the effectiveness of using certain technology in language learning. Even though it is proved that using technology is effective to promote authentic interactions we have to put special attention for whether it is as well appropriate for students and curriculum that we are actually working with.

Week 3: language learning and technology

Part 1. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES LITERACIES AND TECHNOLOGIES REVISITED ( Godwin-Jones, 2010)

One thing came to mind while reading Godwin-Jones's article ' emerging technologies literacies and technologies revisited: accuracy vs. fluency.
Whenever I heard about 'electronic writing' in social network, I can not help to think about the long debate on accuracy and fluency in second language learning. It seems undoubtably true that social networking encourages fluency rather than accuracy. As Godwin- Jones stated, the kind of writing that people do for social networking is not discipline- based and instruction- available language practice environment. It is easy to witness that many people whose first language is not English write on Facebook or Twitter in English with lots of grammatical errors and using slang and abbreviation. However, it doesn't seem to be a matter to communicate with their friends and deliver what they want to say.
Many net generations or teens are very skilled to this kinds of interaction using social network and their language use is defined differently from academic writing. So, what is teachers or instructors role when they want to utilize social network? How can teachers balance with accuracy and fluency in language learning?
The term 'personalized writing' was very interesting to me since one of the most important aspect of language is its creativeness: language use can be varied depends on who uses it. I want to restate godwin- Jones's sentence that "language produced within social networking is very practical and directly personal way whether one can compose a sentence that a native speaker will understand. That receptivity leads to more focused and more efficient language learning." This sentence affected what I thought about language learning which was more focused on accuracy than fluency.



Part 2: Gaucho space- what can we do more with it?

It was very interesting to see different features and functions that Gauchospace has such as displaying video and web searching page on the same page. Different types of quiz was fascinating since it clearly demonstrated various ways that language learning can take place using technology. Comparing with the early application of technology in language learning which mainly focused on grammar and reading, the advance of technology allows us to deal with all language features- listening, reading, writing and speaking. One thing that I concern about this type of language learning is that how we can encourage our students' engagement and motivation. Even though gauchospace has different resources related to language, quiz still has the similar form of paper- based quiz expect its recording feature and still it is one way interaction. Are there any creative ways that we can use this advanced technology in testing field? I think there must be more effective and creative way that encourage students' engagement and collaborative works using technology.

Week 2 - Part 2: Reflection on ‘Classroom use of PowerPoint’

PowerPoint is definitely a useful tool for teachers since it allow them to use it for their own instructional tool and provide them convenience and efficiency. The article ‘Why should I use PowerPoint in my classroom’ reminded me of my ESL class in Korea where I used PowerPoint for delivering class contents instead of hand writing on board. Even though it took me more time to prepare slides for every class, it was definitely better than my hand writing in terms of its clarity, diversity, and effectiveness. Class organization was changed depends on the use of PowerPoint, and the dynamics between me and my students were different than when I only use worksheets and textbooks. Classes were more exciting and students loved to see some visual images or videos in slides along with texts. However, PowerPoint alone cannot facilitate or enhance students’ learning. Without clear and coherent objective and purpose for using PowerPoint, there is no difference between the written text on white board and the words in PowerPoint slides. The way teacher delivers the content need to correspond with the objective and students also need to recognize the purpose of using PowerPoint for their learning. Power Point with some visualized contents definitely makes class more enjoyable and alive. However the agent who internalize given information is students and to make this process effective is the teachers who made that PowerPoint. 

Week 2 - Part 1: Contribution and challenges that technology brings into SLA research (Chapelle, 2004)

Chapelle’s article briefly introduced the beneficial aspects of introducing technology into SLA research area in terms of learners’ language, learning style, interaction and individual differences in language learning. Using computer-mediated communication known as CMC allows SLA researchers to conduct more in-depth and elaborated analysis and to adopt qualitative and longitudinal approach and practice into their researches.

Among many advantages and empirical challenges introduced in Chapelle’s article, the most interesting and thought-provoking aspect was ‘interaction.’ Because of the use of computer in language learning process, learner’s interaction with computer can be explained differently from the interaction that takes place in face-to-face communication and this affects the way that researchers interpret the data and what they values as important factors in learning process. Interaction within CMC or technology-based language learning context can be expanded to what programs learners’ use and the way learners use computer or program. Interaction between L2 learners and other L2 learners who share same cyber space and interaction between learners and the language learning programs need to be defined differently and the language use depends on the form of interaction also need to be explicitly distinguished each other. 

Week 1: Fears about the impact of the Internet (1b)

What do you think of the fears that some have about the impact of the internet, e.g., enables digital natives to avoid uncomfortable face-to-face encounters; volume of information on the Internet Is distracting and limits our ability to concentrate; readily accessible information decreases our ability to think deeply and build our own unique connections?

Internet brought us not only a lot of convenience and advantages but also the fears to lose our creativity and autonomy. There is so much information available online and people get confused what information is reliable and valid. People can freely express themselves and some of them enjoy anonymity. Parents have to control their kids’ use of computer and supervise their access to open information. Even though with some dark side of the impact of the internet, it seems premature to generalize that internet only bring us hazardous impact.

Even though digital natives were introduced to the Internet since they were very young, they consistently have to interact with other people and it is inevitable to face to the face-to-face encounters with teachers, parents and friends. In addition, people are not so dumb to only rely on readily accessible information and allow it to extinct our creativity and ability to think deeply. New information and technology make people to curious about them and want to explore more. People developed critical eyes to distinguish what is useful and what is not. People make their own connection with already existing information on their own ways and it eventually allow them to be more creative and unique. Since the internet was something that never existed before, those fears seems so natural and some already exist nowadays. However, new problems raised with the emergence of the Internet is something we need to work and think more, so these efforts will never let those fears to exist permanently.