Klaus Schweinhorst's keynote

I feel very fortunate to have attended Klaus Schwienhorst’s presentation, “Coming to terms: Learner autonomy, the learner, and (computer-assisted) language learning environments.” I am still struck by how Klaus turned a typical sterile lecture hall with tiers of bolted down seats into a comfortable open and rich learning environment. He set the tone of his presentation literally with the music of Miles Davis.

So at 9am there you are coffee and presentation print in hand, the most "presentation" you are hoping for is a pleasing PowerPoint background design choice, and instead you greeted in surround-sound by intricate delectable riffs of jazz. Wow. Welcome to the opportunity to reflect on how being autonomous in language learning is a lot like being a jazz musician; the greats know how to be interdependent, experiment, develop voice, be playful, subtle, reflective, and always interactive. I worked at this university for three years, and had never felt the atmosphere of this room, used for end of term exams, so changed.

Klaus asked several provocative questions in his presentation regarding CALL. For instance: Is the computer really a unique technology? If we say we need computer-assisted learning, what was the “unassisted language learning”? Many “assisted-learning” perspectives have existed in the past, what leads us to believe CALL won’t indeed be replaced soon by MALL (Mobile-Assisted Language Learning)? Does it matter?

Indeed the focus of Klaus’s questioning was on how CALL affordances could further, or work in tandem, but certainly not replace, the roles of the learner and teacher in learner autonomy. By going through how CALL projects can go wrong and right he showed how technology is used best when it is thoughtfully applied. CALL can afford a learning environment that has a variety of communication partners, authentic material, options for reflection, options for experimentation, and options for combining reflection, interaction, and experimentation. However, these affordances will be wasted if teachers do not carefully set up how technology will be used. From his ongoing work using in MOO Tandem projects (online language exchanges between L1 and L2 speakers) he described how he and a colleague reversed a situation where students were confused who their partners were or using mostly their L1 in language exchanges, to a robust learning environment where students started class knowing who their partners were and could use a tracker within the software to see how much of their L1 compared to their L2 they were using, and how complicated their sentences were. Klaus and his co-teacher at the time had not expected students to use the tracker software in the way that they had, explicating how CALL can be a tool that presents ways for both the teacher and learner to discover new ways to manage learning. An engagement with CALL though not always easy, can lead to unexpected innovation. Like Miles Davis, who regularly practiced with different and new musicians to keep his art fresh, learners and teachers can benefit greatly from integrating experimentation into their daily learning.

Indeed audience members corroborated Klaus’ research by telling of instances when CALL had disappointed them, but how they accepted the challenge to look more closely at how they were applying CALL to their pedagogy.

Klaus said in his presentation that learner autonomy may be most effective when combining reflection, interaction, and experimentation seamlessly. I do not know if other audience members had seen a presentation before like Klaus’, where the presenter so elegantly talked about lessons learned, asked questions, beyond being rhetorical, that were provocative, interacted well with the audience, and in the presentation materials themselves (music, PowerPoint, software screen shots, and a handout that was not a replica of the presentation) showed variety and innovation. I had not. Klaus’s presentation left me extremely hopeful for the future of CALL and teacher/learner autonomy. Certainly we are lucky to have him as our colleague.

Thank you to the conference conveners who wisely invited Klaus. I am looking forward to his upcoming book, Learner Autonomy and CALL Environments as well as reading more about the software he mentioned in his presentation and other projects. Thank you again!

-Christine Rosalia
New York University
Kanda University Peer Online Writing Centre

Virtual English Language Adviser (VELA) How it can be used

Sarah Toogood, HKUST Language Centre

I have often read about the VELA project, but it was really lovely to finally meet Sarah Toogood and hear about it firsthand. The purpose of Sarah’s presentation at this conference was to show the audience the current state of VELA.

VELA is a kind of database which helps students to build a learning plan by linking strategies with materials through “pathways”. It was originally developed as tool for advisers, but it was soon realized that it could also be used by the students. The students do not have to use VELA alone, they are encouraged to use it with their teachers, other learners and with advisers at the “Drop-in Centre” in the SAC. Students work through 6 steps:

Step 1: Identify a skill and interest area from the menu
Step 2: State the problem
Step 3: Clarify the cause of the problem
Step 4: VELA suggests ways to practise language and students discover what works for them. Users take a quiz at this point to make sure they understand about the three practice types (focused, transfer and general)
Step 5a: Strategies and materials – Focused practice (teach yourself something)
Step 5b: Strategies and materials – Transfer practice (make a conscious effort to use what you have learned)
Step 5c: Strategies and materials – General practice (expose yourself to the language)
Step 6: Personalise your plan. VELA gives users a copy of the choices in the form of a plan including materials choices, time allocation, progress checks and objectives. Learners review and modify the plan and show it to a friend, teacher or adviser.

Sarah uses metaphors to help students to understand the process, for example step 2 is likened to visiting the doctor – you have to share your symptoms or problems. The materials suggested in step 5 are like a recipe. Sarah used the example of making an omelet. Once you know how to make a basic omelet, you can adapt your recipe and become more creative.

Students and teachers at HKUST have been very positive about using VELA. One student commented “It [VELA] provides me with the chance to set a goal of learning and think about what I want to learn.” Another commented “I could choose any of the language focus in this project. It made the project more interesting to me… I tried some new methods to construct my learning plan.”

Sarah encouraged us to try VELA and to let her know how we get on.

Login from http://vela.ust.hk
Click on Guest
Change the skin colour
Check “What’s Available” to see which of the 1000+ paths are available (they are working on more)

NEW Download the latest version of adviser guidelines for creating a VELA plan here (PDF).

Freinet and the Internet: A new look at computer-mediated language leaning

Professor Kojiro Asao, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto

Professor Asao began his talk with a software demonstration. He told us that this particular package “Don’t ever study English” is typical of its type and is widely available in computer shops. The program enables users to listen to dialogues, record their voices, and practice doing dictations. The speech recognition technology should be sensitive enough to award points for the user’s spoken input, but as we found out, saying almost anything results in a good score. It is a self-contained package in which the user interacts with a computer. There is also a dictionary function, and users are provided with additional cultural information.

We leave the computer program and Professor Asao turns our attention to another historic innovation: the television. Interestingly, when we examine what the first programs screened were, we find that in Japan is was a traditional Kabuki play, and in the USA it was a live boxing match. Although the medium was innovative, the subjects are not new. The television repackaged traditional entertainment.

Another innovation we look at is the railroad and the impact this had on people in the UK. Tomas Cook began selling package tours by train, people began to commute to work, and cities grew rapidly now that they weren’t dependent on rivers and canals.

We fast forward to the present and look at new technology. Much of what we see is new technology copying and reproducing what traditional medium has always provided. We already have notebooks, dictionaries, books and tape recorders which do an adequate job – why do we need computer software to help us to learn languages? Professor Asao pointed out that many pieces of language learning software lack both a pedagogical philosophy and a language learning theory.

We compare the first day of TV and computer software for language learning and hear a quote from Marshall McLuhan (1964) “The medium is the message.” I confess, I am not familiar with the work of Marshall McLuhan, so this didn’t mean much to me at the time. I have since read more and I found this helpful extract from the same volume: “Many people would be disposed to say that it was not the machine, but what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message. In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves.”

Professor Asao's views on language learning software do not mean that he does not see value in technology for learning. Instead he sees it as being more meaningful if it connects people with people rather than simply one person with a machine. He described a project undertaken by Susan Gaer. Susan Gaer set up a “virtual school” visit project which enabled students to visit different schools via their webpages. Students designed the school tours and communicated with students in other schools via e-mail. This project reminded Professor Asao of the work of Célestin Freinet who became a teacher in France after he was wounded in WWI. He was dissatisfied with teaching out of context material in his classes and wanted to make learning more meaningful for his students. Freinet obtained a printing press and took it into his classroom. Students were fascinated. They each wrote an essay and read their essays to the class. Students gave feedback and comments on each other’s work and chose the best essay (by now a collaborative effort) to be printed. The next step was to produce a class journal. Soon it was a school newspaper and one that was sent to other schools. Frienet was doing what Gaer did years later with the Internet: using an innovative media to connect people with other people and form a learning community.

When I first read Professor Asao’s abstract, I admit I was unsure whether the work of an educator operating in the 1920s would have much relevance to the question of appropriate use of computers today. After listening to his talk, I see Professor Asao’s point. Much of what people associate with computer-assisted language learning is simply repackaging of traditional media. The focus of CALL needs to be on facilitating person to person communication.

During question time, I asked our invited speaker whether he saw any role at all for computer software (such as the program he had shown) us in language learning. He sad “no, none whatsoever”.

What do you think? Do you think language learning software has a role at all in the promotion of learner autonomy? If you’d like to leave a comment, I would be interested in continuing this discussion.

References

Gaer, S. (1998). Less teaching and more learning. Focus on Basics, 2(D). Available at http://www.ncsall.net/?id=385

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.

How Blogging can Promote Learner Autonomy

Dr. Jo Mynard – Koryo International College, Nagoya, Japan

Jo Mynard’s presentation was entitled “How Blogging can Promote Learner Autonomy". In her talk, she reported findings from an ongoing research project with different groups of Japanese female college students.

Jo began by reviewing the reported benefits of blogging for language learners. A blog shares features with handwritten diaries or journals but also has aspects that set it apart. Blogs provide learners with an authentic outlet for practising their language as well as giving them valuable experience of writing for an audience. Blogging is a collaborative pursuit in that a blog invites responses from readers.

Little research has been done into the question of whether blogs have the potential to develop learners’ autonomy; however, Jo suggested that if we consider some key facets of autonomous behaviour such as decision making, taking control or making connections, then it would seem that that potential might exist.

Jo’s primary focus in her research is the capacity for critical reflection. So, as well as seeing if blogging is a useful activity for language learning, her research aimed to examine student blogs for evidence of reflection.

Three groups of students have been involved in the research over the past three years. All students were first year college students. Two groups kept their blogs while on study abroad programmes (in the UK in 2005 and 2006). The third group kept blogs in Japan.

Jo stressed that that the aim of the research was not to compare groups but to gather initial impressions on the usefulness of blogs as tools for reflection and language learning. Data was collected by questionnaires, interviews, researcher observations and analysis of blog content and, sometimes, language.

The findings revealed that students (in all groups) were generally positive about blogging, feeling that it had helped them to develop their language skills. In particular, students were keen on the social nature of blogging. There was evidence of students personalizing language that they had previously studied in class.

There was also evidence of reflection. Citing Klaus Schweinhorst’s example of Glenn Gould recording and playing back his playing, Jo said that some students had re-read and edited their own blog postings. Furthermore, analysis of content revealed that a third of blog postings had a reflective element. Students reflected on their language ability, on activities they had done in class or on the differences between British and Japanese culture.

As the studies were preliminary, a lot of issues were raised. For example, for the group in Japan blogs were required and graded, while for the other groups blogs were optional. This issue led to an interesting discussion about whether it is fair to ask students to do reflective blogs and then grade them for it. Another issue raised was the question of how much guidance a teacher should give. While some students were able to choose topics to write about, others might have benefited from being give topics, especially those students who did not study abroad.

Jo also offered recommendations for those thinking of using blogs. Firstly, students should be encouraged to read and respond to each other’s blogs. Students reported that that they were motivated to write more because they knew people were reading their blogs. Secondly, allowing students to personalize their blogs allows them to feel that they have ownership of them. And finally, it would be useful to highlight for students some strategies for achieving more accurate writing. At times, students’ enthusiasm to post outstripped their desire to check their writing for accuracy.

Learner autonomy and CALL: An activity theoretical perspective

Presenter: Dr. Françoise Blin, Dublin City University, Ireland

Françoise was attracted to Activity Theory initially because she felt that the field of learner autonomy was becoming stagnant. Would we ever go beyond simply talking about “learners taking more responsibility”? Françoise was interested in learning how you could measure learner autonomy and how you could know whether learners are becoming more autonomous. In addition, she wasn’t satisfied with the current theories of computer-assisted language learning. What IS the role of the computer? Is it really just a tool?

Activity theory has its origins in sociocultural theory and it basically refers to looking at “actions towards an outcome mediated by tools”. Tools in this case can be technology tools or language. Françoise referred to both as cognitive tools. She draws on the work of Engeström (1987) to bring in community and the object of the activity which is useful for taking a snapshot of learning at a particular time.

Françoise talked a lot about tensions, contradictions and conflicts within activities. From a learner autonomy perspective, this is the relationship between independence and interdependence and between the individual and the social.

Françoise made the distinction between a technology tool and a virtual learning environment (VLE). She argued that a VLE is not a tool, but a context, and a useful context for capturing interaction and data across timescales. She described a project whereby a group of 38 Irish learners of French were required to participate in a project where they created a website in teams making use of a VLE. Artifacts, such as diaries, notes and reports were studied and applied to a grid in order to identify evidence of learner autonomy. Each artifact was coded according to one of 4 categories: action, content, manifestation and contradiction.

What Françoise found was that the more autonomous students used the object (the website they were creating and the VLE) as a tool to do something else and were more adventurous. The less autonomous individuals used mote traditional, familiar tools. There were some problems with this project in that the teacher and the students had different perceptions as to the aim of the exercise. This was taken into account in subsequent projects.

Comments

Activity theory is a difficult area to get your head around initially, and Françoise is the only person I know who is applying it in this unique way, but it does seem to be useful. The “snapshot” in time idea is a very clever one. It is also very insightful to study how students are using tools available to them in order to evaluate how autonomous they are. It doesn’t have to be a VLE. Studying how a student might be using a textbook, or materials in a self-access center would also give a good indication of how autonomous a student is.

Reference

Engestrom, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orieta-Konsultit.